Another Viewpoint on the Keystone Pipeline
Here’s another thought on the Keystone pipeline (and similar projects in the past and future), though I’m sure I’m not the first to express it. Let’s try to project what an advanced extra-terrestrial would think of the job that humankind has done here on Earth, if, when he gets here, he observes that either:
A) The planet is a crisscross of pipelines and other devices designed to suck that pesky hard-to-get last drop of petroleum out of the ground and send it to a refinery—all the while the most developed species’ scientific community was begging them to stop, on the basis that they were ruining the quality of the environment in a dozen different ways.
OR
B) The planet shows that its inhabitants figured out that its local star bestows on them 6000 times more power than they require, and successfully harnessed that tiny fraction of the whole, primarily with the technologies that had proven to scale rapidly (solar PV and wind), but assisted by other ways of reaping that energy from the sun that proved fruitful as well: solar thermal (concentrated solar power / CSP), biomass, hydrokinetics, ocean wave, ocean current, and ocean thermal energy conversation (OTEC). On top of that, they found “bonus” technologies that had nothing to do with solar, e.g., geothermal, tidal, etc.
Personally, if I were making the introduction to this hypothetical being from space, I’d feel a great deal prouder making my presentation based on the latter of the two.
Craig: We need you to continue your quest. I can see that in your heart you have a need to change our world, word by word, article by article, day by day, and on and on… We need more people with a burning desire to do the right thing! We need to convey this message by all means, through every channel we can, we need to make a difference in our own square foot, in our families, and our friend and their families. We need to keep on, because there is no other way. (The people of the world, the ones that don’t care, they keep on and on, and they don’t care about the future, their only concern is gain for themselves)
Our future is shrinking, our picture is darkening, our health is worsening, and we are the only thing that stands between our future and their present. Let’s become a landmark for everybody else to see, to follow, and when they realize the truth (which we hope is still in time), …
This sounds like a dream, but it all starts with a dream, a change of heart, a fist step.
The important thing here is that we convey the right message, so we can make the right choices, and help everybody make the right choices.
We can’t just erase everything and start over, but I think that’s whats coming.
Good Heavens Steven ! What a pessimistic world you inhabit !
The fact that you are posting on the internet is proof of the positive benefits from improving technology. Far from becoming more unhealthy, improving longevity is becoming a problem for the human species !
Being humans, we will always quarrel with one another, but those quarrels, although vicious, now involve far less disruption and loss of life than experienced in the twentieth century.
Those hoping for an exciting ‘Götterdämmerung” or “apocalypse”, will be disappointed !
Take heart from the enormous strides in social awareness, and advances in technology.
Glad that I caught this story and could absorb the Positive Spirit in the words shared by both Craig and Steve A. Well said Gentlemen and the sense of urgency does appear more Starkly when recognizes that it takes a consortium of very deep pocketed energy players . they have combined to pursue a system to bring more product to a market dispatch point at great expense financially . Their goal is that they can control the flow to many Global destinations and create a market that can command a much higher price.
That higher price is needed to compensate for the very Poor Energy Return on energy Investment that is what the Tar Sands are in reality. They have a very low energy return on the energy cost and material inputs.
Furthermore the low energy return masks the very high environmental and social costs that is inherent in this carbon for carbon sake Folly. That is what the pipeline really is , a relief valve for economic and environmental damages far greater than has been considered.
Lets see how it plays out as other market forces may implode on the entire Folly before it is completed.
LOL!
Craig,
Again, we’re on the same page when it comes to promoting the switch from digging up fossil fuels to using renewable resources. But we’re not talking about impacting the demand for fossil fuels – ergo we aren’t talking about impacting the sale of fossil fuels.
When ET phones home, he’d describe to his buddies how we are foolish enough to cart liquid fuels around in train cars rather than just building a pipeline… but we won’t have one drop less being sold in the global market because the Keystone was rejected… we’ll just have a lot more oil in the groundwater from spills along the train tracks rather than a more efficient and safer pipeline.
If it were me, I’d pressure the republicans to pass a measure stipulating that 1/2 of the projected tax revenue from the pipeline be directed to go to renewable energy. That would have been funny because they’d either have to come clean and acknowledge that it would have only resulted in a few billion per year, or they would have had to pass a measure actually putting another ~30 billion per year towards renewable infrastructure just to keep up the lie that the Keystone was a major economic engine.
But no-one on the left thought of that. They pushed for rejection – which just means we’ll get more waste and more emissions… and a pointless sacrifice of political capital. So we can say we took a stand?
I guess I’m too cynical to understand.
*shrug*
I don’t disagree with this in the slightest. Great point.
Totally agree.
On a side note, while we are of necessity going to be using fossil fuels for quite awhile, even if we ramp up alternative green energy and storage, we should be prioritizing the sourcing and distribution of the fuels we need now and for the medium term.
Natural gas, even from fracking is far superior to coal. Petroleum sourced from where it naturally oozes out of the ground is superior to oil that is geologically sequestered.
Oil transported by pipeline is safer than rail or truck transport. All of the above does not need to be an option.
But, this is not a business where we can just say no.
Craig,
HUGE news from the IEA. Global emissions remained constant last year!
That’s simply incredible!
Yes, that’s remarkable. When you “unpack” this data, what do you find? Economic stagnation? Efficiency? Renewables?
No… Economic growth actually accelerated from 2013 to 2014. This is almost certainly the first time in the history of the human species that the world experienced economic growth while not experiencing a simultaneous increase in GHG emissions.
(this is not hyperbole, it really is THAT big in terms of news).
A large portion of the shift had to do with a warmer winter in the Northern Hemisphere, requiring less heating energy, and dispatch switching from coal to natural gas in some of the more developed nations (including the U.S.), but some of it had to do with moves towards greater efficiency and increased build-out of renewable energy.
It is FANTASTIC news!
Indeed it is, and thanks for providing it.
Craig yes this is good news but it happened a couple of years ago. I have a chart that shows GDP going up and GHG co2 going down. 2010 or 2011 . I will share it with you.
There has been a separation and break in the historically linked correlation between increased aggregate energy usage and rise in economic activity. Less can be More !!!
Back in the early days of our industrial economy responding to the first oil price shocks of the 1970’s , there was a decrease in industrial energy usage as many companies implemented facility improvements and efficiency measures in mid 1970;s In 1980 or 81 during my Utility career we saw reports of the separation of the linkage between usage and economic growth.
Usage went down in the industrial sector but economic through put went up ! The drops did not move the GHG needle downwards largely due to the heavy reliance on coal plants and oils for making electricity.
The market working dynamics have been changing rapidly since:
The transition has progressed now throughout all of the sectors of energy usage so in the aggregate it now is having a positive downward push on GHG emissions finally !!! Higher fuel standards, large scale market adoption of cleaner and more efficient end use equipment, LED’s, and Insulation and a growing solar DER market. In addition the world now has over 350 GW of wind and somewhere around 200 GW of solar utility scale deployed . The project pipelines globally are in the 2,000 GW ( 2,000,000 megawatts) more solar by 2030. Wind has a strong forecast also. So the cumulative effect is reducing the GHG from dirty carbon sources.
More good news is the continued closings of coal plants in the US , its over 20,000 megawatts now and the forecast is for another 40,000 megawatts to be phased out by 2020 if current air emission regulations hold up and they are not building but maybe 5 or so . So structural changes are taking place. Progress for sure. But much more is needed and we need to Ramp it up.
Keep in mind that the GDP is a lump sum of all transactions, whereas the old GNP was the lump sum of the value of goods produced. It’s easier to get a rise in transactions with flat emissions than to get a rise in goods produced.
Incidentally, in light of recent history, I don’t think it’s a reasonable strategy to expect the GOP to tax pipeline flow and subsidize renewables with the proceeds.
I think the tactic of fighting the pipelines – with XL as the poster child – is to make it harder and less profitable to use the tar sands oil. The core goal of environmentalists is to keep the stuff in the ground.
Sure, the oil firms will transport it by rail, but that’s going to look ugly quickly (already is) and that’s the point.
The least likely outcome of the Keystone protests will be for the tarsand oil to remain in the ground. At present it looks like some of the oil will flow to the East coast of Canada via a cobbled together bunch of existing pipelines. Another route for a portion of the oil is through Minnesota and Wisconsin through Enbridge pipelines which can be expanded along existing R.O.W.
You’ll note that I have not predicted the tar sands oil will likely stay in the ground (though I also firmly believe it should).
With the massive cash flow, profits and influence the fossil industry possesses and wields, I personally think it quite unlikely that our “leadership” will adopt a course shift compatible with responsible stewardship of the bounty of natural capital that has thus far sustained us.
Greed has rarely demonstrated a capacity for enlightenment or even the long view. That fact doesn’t keep me from rooting for wisdom.
I am encouraged, however, that an oil industry executive recently complained that they will never again build an oil pipeline in peace. I’m also encouraged that the tar sands firms were prevented from exporting west – apparently their preferred Plan B
I imagine many environmentalists feel the same way about the fossil fuel industry as Chris Hedges feels about fascism, “I don’t fight fascists because I think I will win. I fight fascists because they are fascists.”
In short, knowing the increasingly obvious fate of the biosphere with the continued dominant position of fossil fuel combustion, people who care about the web of life that we’re all part of have seen few options that are both realistic and moral.
A few millennia ago it may have been “fashionable” ask what the “gods” would think of our actions. It was perhaps actually an attempt to look at what we were doing from our most enlightened perspective. Now we refer to aliens from space as a similar substitute. Logically and with a bit of irony the “gods” or aliens could just as easily represent our own worst nature and might suggest a dystopia of far more efficient ways to change and pollute our environment in homage to an insatiable greed. But perhaps that role is currently filled by some immortal “beings.”
I find it curious that there are several “facts” that are not generally discussed with respect to the pipeline: Originally the pipeline was to go West through Canada. But indigenous people there objected. http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=11166 These people have far more rights and power in Canada than in the US. It became clear that they would not permit the pipeline. And so it was decided to dump the pipeline on the US population. I guess we were considered easier to push aside with less power and fewer rights than indigenous Canadians.
The pipeline was never about supplying more fuel to the US. It was always about finding a port so that the oil could be sold on the world market. http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aswift/keystone_xl_is_a_tar_sands_pip.html The US would have to pay the risk and rights of way to transport this Canadian oil for the benefit of Canada. The issue should be a non-starter without even entering into the fuss about CO2 levels.
As a demonstration of how greed can thwart the best of intentions. Canada signed various agreements and treaties agreeing to limit CO2. They were on schedule to achieve those goals. When the price of oil became high enough that Tar Sands became profitable (about $90/barrel) Canada pulled out of its agreements and its CO2 emissions are rising. http://failingcivilization.com/786/environment/eager-for-tar-sands-oil-canada-withdrawal-from-kyoto-protocol/
Thanks for the info, breathonthewind – it appears the western route was Plan A and we were Plan B.
Craig,
You have posed your hypothesis in such a way as to achieve the outcome you want !
In reality, not the fictional scenario you propose, any advanced alien would be aware that the only practical sources of energy sufficient to cater to the needs of an advanced industrialized human society, in the 19th and twentieth century, (and so far in the 21 century), is fossil fuels.
The most efficient, and least environmentally harmful method of transporting, oil, gas, etc, is by pipeline.
The construction of pipelines is infinitely preferable than the dangerous, inefficient, and exceedingly environmentally wasteful methods of transporting hydrocarbons.
The idea that the world should suddenly cease to use oil/gas and even coal, in favour of alternate technologies, which are totally incapable of meeting the needs of advanced industrial societies, simply to conform to some ideological fantasy, beggars belief !
The US has been blessed in its hour of dire economic need, by a tremendous economic boon, in domestic energy production. Not only has the advances in exploration, extraction, well management and refining technologies, made dramatic improvements in world production, but has proved especially beneficial to North America.
Far from harming the environment, this energy boom is saving a great deal of wasted energy in transportation and processing. The new technologies have reduced inefficiencies by over 60%.
The energy boom has also helped created the sort of surplus wealth needed to provide investment in alternate energy technologies. The US can’t simply keep creating debt to find a solution to future problems.
Idealistic environmentalists, always commit a basic intellectual error. In their enthusiasm and passion, they pose a proposition then then support the proposition with selected fact.
After a great many (thousands) of studies, reports, articles, etc have been published, (each supporting the other) no one can remember that the pillars of the original theory may not have been accurate, or has become outdated.
Unfortunately, like a lot of popular belief, the question of energy, and the environment, has become mired in political and philosophical belief. Like the causes of many wars, the original science, has long since been forgotten as ardent advocates exploit the cause to pursue their own ideological agendas.
If an alien were reviewing the situation, they would start with some simple objective questions:
1) How much energy will global human society expect to obtain per year, to meet the needs of their ever expanding societies ? (no society will constrict economic growth).
2) The actual proven practical, (not theoretical, or potential) ability of technologies to provide that energy consumption.
3) The most efficient method of providing that energy to produce sufficient economic growth to fund new technologies.
No advanced society is going to surrender the massive gains in human prosperity created by the ” Age of Oil “.
When your Mom, Dad, sibling, or child is injured, even the most ardent environmentalist, wants the best equipped paramedic, Ambulance, fully equipped hospital, helicopter, and all the medial benefits of an advanced civilization !
That’s just a small example, but is intended to show the gap between, the idealistic and reality. Most of the world power is produced from fossil fuels, or nuclear, only a very small portion from mainstream renewables, such as Geo-thermal or hydro-electric.
Solar, wind etc, might be ideologically pure, and very popular, but the technologies are largely uneconomic and even counter-productive in an industrialized context, due to the inability to store and moderate power input to a system designed to create base load power, at need. Both of these technologies may have great potential, but right now, they are largely political/ philosophic/ideological gimmickry.
The same people who loathe the fossil fuel industry, recoil in horror a the concept of building a truly practical alternative, such as nuclear power using Thorium technology.
The ardent protestors against pipelines, and gas extraction technologies, remain silent concerning the largest single sources of harmful man made emissions, produced by the use of marine grade no.6 fuel (bunker oil).
An alien, noting environmental concerns, would be concerned to deal with priorities. An alien, not burdened by ideology, or political considerations, would objectively deal with realistic solutions.
But then, an alien would have to worry about the sensationalist media, human egos, passions, and desire to pursue political/ philosophic agendas.
MP – you wrote, “Solar, wind etc, might be ideologically pure, and very popular, but the technologies are largely uneconomic and even counter-productive in an industrialized context, due to the inability to store and moderate power input to a system designed to create base load power, at need. Both of these technologies may have great potential, but right now, they are largely political/ philosophic/ideological gimmickry.”
I suggest that you may want to take a second – more diversified and open-minded – look at solar and wind, and the storage tech that makes them viable.
Wow, that was polite!
@ Cameron Atwood
Cameron, sadly I’m not simply expressing an uninformed opinion. Like you. I would be delighted if wind and solar technology was really economically viable,but it’s just not the case.
Much of the output from these technologies, is simply dumped by the grid and is unusable. Industrial societies need a constant supply of ‘ surge free’ power generation ‘on demand’. The vast investment required to provide any meaningful solar/wind generation without massive government subsidy is just not feasible.
That’s not to say the technologies don’t have potential, (especially solar) nor am I saying that research and development should cease, or even that some solar applications are very useful. Some advances in solar collection technology ( such a films that can be applied to existing widows), are very exciting.
Rather, that if you removed all the government subsidies, the solar/wind industries wouldn’t be viable.
As an environmentalist, I try to be practical. I try to eschew romantic idealism, in favour of what will provide the greatest beneficial impact, for the least economic disruption. I don’t believe in “revolutions” that require the entire global population to adopt a new social philosophy. (we’ve tried that, and it’s always ended in tears! ).
I try to look for priorities. Things that can be accomplished, through advances in technology, while leaving the basic economic structure generating sufficient wealth to maintain an economically prosperous society.
My attitude may seem dull, and even conservative, but it’s the result of many years of observing the waste, and toll of human misery caused by rampant idealism, especially with public money.
To use Craig’s analogy, if an objective, impartial, unemotional alien observer, was asked to analyze the most practical methods of reducing the planets harmful solutions, by utilizing existing technology, the first recommendation would include;
1) Replacing the use of marine grade no.6 fuel in shipping. (The technology already exists, it only requires the political will of nine martime nations to enforce).
2) Build Thorium Power Generation Reactors, especially in developing nations. Thorium is a completely misunderstood technology. Unfortunately, the development of nuclear power using Uranium, including building weapons, has so emotionally affected the industry that it’s impossible to conduct a rational debate on the value of thorium, without getting swamped with ill-informed, but highly emotive opposition.
A small thorium reactor, can safely, and economically replace. not only a huge coal-fired generating complex, but all the solar/wind power generated in an industrialized nation like the UK. Not only are Thorium reactors incapable of producing weapons grade nuclear material, but can assist in reusing and disposing of existing nuclear waste, from older technologies.
The Peoples Republic of China is the only nation currently developing Thorium technology. Sadly, the PRC is also committed to building nearly a thousand gigantic, coal fired power stations over the next seven years.
So, having explained my reasoning, i would ask you the same question you asked me.ie:
Have you analyzed the real, unsubsidized cost of usable solar/wind generation in an industrial context ? Have you compared that to the economic and environmental benefits of Thorium generation objectively ?
Have you researched, or analyzed, the environmental benefits of the abolition of marine grade No. 6 fuel ?
I’m always amazed when I read things like: “I would be delighted if wind and solar technology was really economically viable, but it’s just not the case….Much of the output from these technologies, is simply dumped by the grid and is unusable. Industrial societies need a constant supply of ‘surge free’ power generation ‘on demand’. The vast investment required to provide any meaningful solar/wind generation without massive government subsidy is just not feasible.”
Wind was just shy of 5% of the U.S. total electricity generation last year (approx. 200 million kilowatt-hours out of a total of 4 billion kWhs), and it’s growing every day. In certain parts of this country, power purchase agreements for wind energy are being signed at under $0.03/kWh, and the developers are still making money, even at that paltry price. People who study this subject predict that wind will represent more than 20% of the U.S. grid-mix by 2030.
That wind is a variable resource is true; that this renders wind energy not viable is categorically false.
Since Craig spoke concerning the growing market for RE along the lines as I did in response to Marco Polo ‘s broad generalizations I will limit my rebuttal as I think something more ideological is at play here as. the market facts presented for the Global market are real facts not opinions. they run the gamut of all forms of governments as well.
The day will come sooner in N Africa where large CPS w Molten salt plants will be built in Morocco or Tunisia if it is stable. These plants can become the new baseload plants with no fuel needed. Run 18 to 24 hrs 365 days a year . No inflation as the sun does not need a raise .
Private sector firms already laying under sea cables to bring the power to the European mainland. The area exports most of its nat gas now so the availability of the gas is committed so it is a good location for the technology. I am talking about parabolic CPS not power towers with their environmental downsides. .
These plants will be built in the US when Nat gas gets over $ 6 to $ 7 dollars a mcf, which could happen as the industry needs to try to export more to keep going.
So price increases needed or a Carbon Tax placed on all Fossil fuels , in my opinion that would be the Final Tipping Point in the whole debate. Rebate the tax back to the residential but the price signal for carbon energy would drive more Innovation in Industrial / commercial.
In the US each year over $ 40 Billion in electric costs to commercial sector is wasted as there is technology ready to reduce that amount by $ 40 billion NOW! But market failures and tax policies create the waste.
None of this Utopian it is realization that the Global world is a Community and there is strong consensus that this type of market signal would clear the air ! in more ways than one !
Marco , I am glad you invested some cash into a self generating system. Good on your efforts. Perhaps the ROI is not as good as you may like in the near term. . You are competing with an established grid whose capital costs has been depreciated to a degree so the average embedded costs take time to overcome. But you have a hedge against inflation for sure depending on the fuel .
The Thorium reactors you mention are worthy of serious investigation so go to India where they are looking at them in lieu of traditional nukes. Yes they can be used to destroy existing nuclear waste.
Right now in the US the Five conventional nukes are all over cost and behind schedule ( nothing new ) to the tune of $4 Billion dollars and all five have a US Governmental subsidy that is significant six figures. The 2 SMR’s modular proto types are getting around $ 228 or more million each. So the nuclear sector is ripe for new technology.
The biggest challenge in the US is that the Military Industrial complex wants nukes so they have access to bomb material and Thorium does not do that , Another Inconvenient Truth about the US over all nuclear program. If they were serious about nuclear power they would have mass produced knockoffs of the reactors used in submarines which work well many Moons ago is the conclusion my colleagues in the industry have come to believe. l.
The whole subject of subsidies is a topic worthy of serious discussions. The Legacy fuels have been propped up for as I said a Century. US tax payers pay for $ % billion a year to regulate and clean up the coal ash residual ponds and sludge landfills. That is just for Starters.
Are you capturing waste heat from your generator for hot water and heat ?
Chances are just as prevalent that if earth is visited in the next million years, sometime near later than sooner, that what is found may be remnants of an egotistical, barbaric civilization that expanded beyond the planets support ability. If expansion is seen as the great purpose in civilization, all may be lost. We seem to be yet occupied with what is outer than the great within. Their is much to be explored there, as evidenced by civilizations several thousand years ago among eastern scholars that knew as much and more about the workings of the mind, and was lost in translations. Recent translations, not widely known, of the meanings leave our most dearly held literature embarrassed…………
P Manke I like your description of what the visitors would probably see the vast wasted carnage and many missed opportunities to properly tame and channel technology to do more good. But we as you say are caught up in the Bigger is always Better and we take systems beyond their steady state size or past the optimum point. The end result is we have to always build bigger , dis locate more people or natural environmental structures. Our collective arrogance in respect to the Laws of diminishing Returns – which is where much of the carbon industry finds itself mired in. Prior to the recent drop in oil prices , most of the shale players in gas are marginally making it on below $ 3.50 per mcf prices , sometimes it is less than that. They need the export market to make it as the average price in other nations is around $12 starting for a mcf of gas. To thrive they need a export market just as our oil players need .one and that is all Keystone is and maybe 35 full time jobs .
Same economics holds true for that Keystone Tar sand material it costs close to $ 95 a barrel now and the input cost are going up , up and the EROEI is calculated around 5 . This is pitiful. In contrast Legacy oil was 80 back in the day of conventional drilling. to give one a reference point. Wind and Solar are in the 26 to 1 for wind and 18 to 1 for solar . Right above so called clean coal which is not efficient in thermal burn etc.
The current price drop may stall or kill off Keystone as three of the players have pulled out of future tar sand operations. That was announced in Oct or so 2014. At today’s prices it is not economically viable.
So I think the visitors and I find parallel positions with you and Cameron.
Sir Marco Polo you make some points on the energy mix and some have merit in respect to base load outputs and the need for an industrial high tech system of systems society to have that firm power. Yes. We do need fuel for transportation and feed stock for plastic, chemicals etc. I think that the visitors would see that certain countries started to make a shift in the balance of the fuel mix. The US reduced its daily total oil per day consumption in the mid 2005 or so level which was 22 million barrels a day. In 2015 we are at less than 16 million barrels a day now. And the stock market is ROARING for the 1 % We are down to 8 million for gasoline now, so we are making progress. Some approached it faster and others dragged their feet as they were enslaved into the old paradigm ” bigger is always better” and their political will had been compromised by dirty money lots of it. So Policy was at the mercy of the rigged market. So they did more damage to the earth for longer periods of time by clinging to fossil fuels that have been subsidized . for over a 100 years in the US and still counting. The most profitable sector in our economic system still thrives on those same ol subsidies . To compare the 5 to 1 dollar ratio of subsidy level where fossil gets the 5 and Renewable s gets the 1 is a more accurate assessment of the current system. Reference International Energy Admin stats.. Per memory the figure is around $ 485 Billion yr globally for Fossils and around $ 88 Billion Yr. for Renewable s in 2013
.
here are some more Inconvenient facts concerning renewable s
1. If solar and wind are the toy power sources you label them as, then why was $ 150 Billion in solar and $100 Billion for wind globally Invested in 2014 by profit seeking companies and investors .GTM Media Feb 2015.
Are all these heavy hitters really acting stupid or on a misguided emotional whim or a political whim? Solar And Wind have been the largest volume of generation investment for the last two years running globally. Many NY based econometric firms have a 2,000 GW global Forecast for Wind by 2030. So there is more than Hope in that.
2. Yes China has too much coal and is still building some, but they are reducing their reliance on it going forward. They have announced a Policy shift two times over the last 15 months and that point seems to get lost on certain boosters of the status quo .
For clarification go visit Australia a prime supplier of good coal to China – they are already closing marginal mines there as the volume of exports to China is going down.
3. China has a large number of GW of solar now and plan on 17 more GW in 2015. (17,000 megs) Going for 200 GW of wind. They would not be making these investments if there was no payoff, performance or environmental reason like cleaning their air so their people don’t die like they are right now.
4. Wind was close to $ 60 cents a kwhr in the mid 1970’s , it is now down to $ .025 cents at the bus bar and capacity factors are in the upper 45 % plus range in the US.
5. Solar was $3 per kwhr in 1980 and is now comingin at utility scale less than 50 MW at $ .0478 cents.per kwhr. So governmental programs and the DOE did their job as well as Intennational investors and manufactures. Thank you Germany for Paying forward for all of us. You have redeemed your self greatly. They started the march to economies of scale and critical mass and now many other regions are scaling.
In the US, Solar is doing so well Utilities now want to own it . Rate Base it.
6. In Texas the city of Georgetown announced a 150 meg solar plant that comes in a penny or so below Tex gas plants that they currently use. They will use the gas plant to back up the solar and then it will last many more years . And they are saving 2 gallons of water per solar kwhr.
That modular system of systems does more work for you and preserves water.
The future is in modular energy systems tied to together with IT EMS and they will be a mix of gas, solar, wind and battery and CHP, EV’s and smart distribution . We can phase out coal and the lights will not go out. There is some merit in looking at the Thorium reactors that China and mainly India ( they have lots of it) are looking into. Most of the Uranium mines in Wyoming and NM have Thorium laying around as left overs . But conventional nuclear suffers from extremely high costs and the banks are afraid of it as are the utilities. Talk about subsidy A DOE staffer told me they quit counting after the Trillion Dollar mark and that was in the !990’s.
Maybe we will get Blessed and take the right turns and get a balanced energy mix that does not destroy the living conditions on earth or use up all the water underground either. We have the brain power to design the system of systems in a more modern dynamic manner.
If those visitors came now to Texas they would see fallow farm and ranch land where there is no water and the water table has dropped 385 feet in just 6 years. due to extractions for gas that costs more to produce than the price they can sell it at .
Instead of defending a system that is flawed and broken; we should be collaborating on making it more efficient no matter whose Ox gets Gored ! Hopefully enough Nations made the transition and the visitors are impressed and said well they tried to be better us earthlings. later on
@ silentrunning in a different direction,
Thank you for your interesting reply.
Where we differ is you have formed philosophic viewpoint, and interpret information through the prism of that philosophy. (albeit in a moderate, considered manner).
You seek a utopian ‘revolution’, where ‘morality’ is the basis for economics, and practicality is disregarded. Reality, is suspended. In such a world, all things are possible.
Back in the real world, things are a bit different (even in the USA) !
There are no real US government subsidies for the oil industries ! It’s largely a myth. Even if the over-inflated claim by Pres.Obama that the oil industry receives up to $ 2.6 billion in subsidies, is infinitesimal to an industry that is not only the largest US taxpayer, but is 26-8% of the US economy.
For 40 years the US government has propped up, (for largely political reasons) the environmentally disastrous corn-based Ethanol industry. The staggering amount of taxpayer funded subsidies, used to produce a fuel more environmentally harmful than is replaced, is staggering. Finally, the government resorted to an uneconomic mandate, to force the use of the product.
Ethanol, like many ideas, once seemed so promising ! Hey, let’s turn all that surplus corn into renewable fuel ! Keep the farm belt happy, encourage a ‘green’ technology, and Big Ag, can make a fortune.
Unfortunately, it’s turn into an environmental, and economic nightmare. But the problem is how to dismantle the monster, without the political repercussions from all those with a vested interest in the ethanol industry ?
Okay, you might say that’s just one example, so to be fair, let’s look at your praise for the German experiment with “green ” non-nuclear power generation. Instead of looking at rosy, optimistic forecasts, and generation figures of unusable power, look instead at the power shortage in Germany that met by buying power from the Czech Republic and France who wisely retained their nuclear capacity. Germany has even reopened old coal fired plants last winter, due to shortages.
A lot of private investment capital, has been invested in failed alternate energy projects, even more is invested as a result of the promise government incentives, and requirements. this doesn’t mean that the technology is economic, just that the government(s) have created artificially favorable investment conditions
My contention is an objective, unemotional, alien analyst, unaffected by ideology or philosophy, would prioritize the planets ability to redress environmental harm, by utilizing the best existing technologies. Those with the least amount greatest benefit, and least disruption, would be obvious selections.
interestingly, I notice that you show no interest in the abolition of Bunker oil ? Despite this highly toxic fuel killing over 200,000 humans, and 3-4million suffering it’s carcinogenic effect per year. The effect on the bio-sphere is catastrophic. Bunker oil is the largest single source of climate change emissions. ( Just 4 large container vessels emit more than all the vehicles in the US and Canada combined!) .
The damage to the oceans ability to absorb carbon because of the use of this fuel, is only just being understood.
So yes, I believe an alien analyst may find it strange that so many, well meaning people, are per-occupied with technologies that achieve little, while ignoring the real Elephants in the room !
Marco Polo , you say many things that are generalizations and have become talking points for certain vested interests in the status quo. I will openly admit that I don’t accept or subscribe to the old narrative. I refuse to accept the narcissistic , nihilistic of the go along to get along Old False Narrative that limits our Human progress.
The oil and nuke subsidies are what they are and it does not matter that they are a big part of the economy. Once their were trains running on fire wood. Once there were ships sailing by the wind. Innovation came and change came and old industries faded away.
There is one constant and that is change and change can be a good thing and create wealth and progress in a different manner. But clinging to vested interests is no excuse , the visitors would agree with that.
As for the ethanol subsidy , totally agree, but go talk to that party of no government, those so called conservative fellas and their moronic voters in those corn states they love their Ethanol subsidy and are addicted to it. I agree totally that it is not a positive EROEI , I think they got to a plus 1 pt in 2009 or 10. But it is damaging to the farming supply chain, uses more fossil fuels , nitrogen fertilizer , drives up food prices, etc., locks farmers into a false planting scale that will hurt them one day. and caused the auto industry to reconfigure fueling systems and other components on cars to adapt to the corrosive ethanol fuel.
So I am no defender of ethanol, it is Big Business once again getting a free ride. and the pigs flock to the pig trough.
There are serious algae and non food , low water plants that could show promise for bio fuels but at the present time transportation fuels is not our big issue in my opinion.
We need to transform our electric supply and we are on the way to doing it. It is the point source for the larger volume of pollution etc. GHG problem. As I said the level of investment over 250 Billion dollars globally speaks for itself , just one years investment. Saudi Arabia has more oil to sell and flood the market because they have embarked on a 54 GW solar plan. They are using solar to make steam for EOR oil recovery, electricity to pump oil and de sal water . They are covering their bets with 12 or so new nukes ( good luck on cost) But the point Marco , is they are using solar to extend their oil export volume so how about that. And their Arab neighbors in the Gulf are all doing the same.
So I guess they are all just emotionally afflicted or something the answer is blowing in the wind.
Marco you are right on the ships and the dirty bunker fuel oil they burn. From personal experience as I ran oil recovery operations for a National Haz waste co in NM and So Col for almost 5 years and we were shipping 3 to 4 rail cars every 3 months for a couple of years. We all thought that our company and customers were all doing something good. On the surface we were as some went to some refineries in the Mid west and was re refined into usable oil for re sale. But most of it went to the bunker ship market because the powers that be in the OIL industry had closed most of the refineries that could re refine oil. They don’t want recycling. re using.
I tested this oil and the heavy metals levels and mercury levels etc were usually high but we kept it from being burned in do it your self heaters that polluted people and in the shops in the area. I am well aware of the damage being done by the ships.
so most of the recycled oil in US goes to bunker fuel market. A bad trade off for sure.
One can go to the Eastern Plains of Wyoming out on the ranch land well used to be ranches there not very many now, and going East into Western Neb. Participated in soil sampling projects there and we found high levels of various constituents in the soil and there is no industry let alone very many people out there. So yes the ocean pollution rises up into the storms and when it rains , it is more than purple Rain. USGS did a interesting tracer project and we picked up coal particulates with di-ethyl mercury from the paint that falls off the ships into the ocean. Also coal tracers and Chinese coal was picked up. It is a small world which is why many of us are choosing to reduce our footprint as it impacts others.
Knowledge of these things are what affects my perspective , tales from the front lines of the clash between an industrial society and the environment and the needs of humans.
Perhaps there is some positive in this , as the first Nat gas ship was launched recently. This could be a good end use for excess gas that we have .
As for Germany , yes there are growing pains. It is ironic that in the NEAR term they have had to close newer and cleaner gas plants and burn from older coal plants. That is more a market failure, and not a failure of solar to deliver. The utility involved is E. ON one of the big players in Europe, E ON has decided to embrace Renewable s now after they almost went bankrupt denying it. Their Executives went public and said exactly what I just shared. how they were cavalier and arrogant against the RE lil solar toys. It was not going to work etc etc. E. ON has said they were guilty of Corporate Arrogance and now they are splitting the co into two parts. One will be all Renewable so things are working them selves out. They are going to adjust by using more modular CHP gas units and some storage. The whole sale price of power is going Down in Germany so the market is moving to the next phase.
Same in Illinois where the utilities are using all the politicians to give them a $ 6 dollar per Mw hr subsidy for their old nuclear units as all the new gas and wind generation has driven the cost of night time electricity in the Illinois market down to the 4 cents wholesale rate. The old nukes need 7.5 cents per kwhr to make any money as their O & M costs have gone up as they age..
So once again the big business fellas and their political pawns are doing some deal making that violates all the free market proclamations and real economics speeches they are famous for giving. Just a few more Inconvenient Truths and Facts .
I would want the visitors to see tangible evidence of humans making progress against the challenges and striving to do better , not just accept the worn out Old Narrative. later on
@ silentrunning in a different direction
Once again, thank you for your reply. I appreciate your interest in the environment, and your obvious passion to improve human progress.
But without intending any disrespect, simply expressing dismay and dislike of “Big business ” and government, is really practical. As any society grows and expands, all its intuitions and activities will expand and grow into large organizations. That’s the nature of human civilization.
Say ” the economy doesn’t matter ” is impractical. This is the sort of excuse all utopians, trundle out to explain why their impractical projects fail. It all the fault of “big” something, greed, government corruption etc.
What utopian idealists can never accept, is that most of these technologies can’t be unscaled beyond niche applications. Both solar and wind, can have very useful specific applications, and in those contexts, prove to be useful, even valuable technologies. However, that’s a far cry from claiming they can replace baseline power generation for industrialized societies with cold climates and large populations.
On our estate in the UK, I have installed an advanced bio-mass power generator. This generation system not only supplies sufficient power for our own needs, but much of the nearby village. Is it economic? Not really, it’s an interesting experiment, and very satisfying, but certainly not a realistic alternative to the national grid.
In Australia, we have several solar applications (thanks to massive government subsidies) , these are useful in rural condition, and in the city they can power my EV (s) to a certain extent, but of course they can’t replace the baseline grid.
The electricity generation in the US is as follows :
Coal 39%
Natural Gas 27%
Nuclear 19%
Hydropower 7%
Biomass 1.48%
Geothermal 0.41%
Solar 0.23%
Wind 4.13%
Petroleum 1%
Other Gases < 1%
However, in the case of wind power, the APUA estimates that the 'useable' power derived from wind, maybe as low as 1.9% .
The US investment in Wind Power has reached nearly $ 380 billion, mostly from taxpayer guaranteed sources. The IEA, states that the only method to make wind power economic, is to place a higher price on '' carbon emissions " from other power sources, including a "renewable cast' to disadvantage coal, natural gas and nuclear.
In other words, if the technology isn't working justify the investment by changing the rules !
Now compare the same result if the US had invested in Thorium power generation. For 10% of that investment, the US could have funded 10 times the carbon emission free, clean, safe, power generation, (all usable power 0 That amount would include the establishment of a domestic thorium mining industry. Another benefit is that thorium reactor can dispose of the nuclear waste from conventional Nuclear facilities. (including aging nukes).
I would submit, that an impartial, unbiased alien analyst, would be scratching his head wondering why any one would invest 10 times as much money building a vast collection of landscape eyesores, with so little actual production value, instead of investing 10% on a superior technology, with the potential to provide 10 times the amount of clean energy ?
You make a lot of sense Marco. A technology that is only viable with subsidies should be left to sink or swim when the hope of sustainability fades. Wind turbines have been so widely deployed that the case for cutting them loose from the subsidies should be obvious.
Thorium power needs some subsidy to get to the pilot plant stage. At that point the economics of the technology should be evident one way or the other.
Nuclear fusion has received government funding for at least 2 generations and an economic technology for energy production is just as elusive as it was decades ago.
@ Craig and “silentrunning’,
I’m sorry my replies seem to be out of sync. 🙂
Craig, as I said in my reply to ” silent running” , producing power, and producing usable power, are too different things altogether.
Wind power and solar, produce variable amounts of power, depending upon an unpredictable energy source. Electricity grids and their customers, are not designed to cope with this sort of dynamic. In fact, quite the opposite, all grids are designed to provide baseline power, provided by stable easily controlled generation energy, and the only problem is predicting and coping with demand variables.
Since Wind and Solar supply often competes with essential baseline power, the grid simply dumps the surplus.
Because the taxpayer is covering the cost, it can be conveniently forgotten, in a bid to make wind power appear more viable. That’s not too say the technology has no value, but if the US ethanol industry has taught nothing else, it’s taught the harsh lesson that falling in love with a technology for ideological reasons, and then stubbornly covering up its deficiencies with tax payer/consumer funds, whether by subsidies, or ideologically based imposts on rival technologies, ( carbon taxes etc) , will never produce an honest result.
The result will always be an industry viable in only ideological terms, and a counter-productive outcome for the whole economy.
The equation is quite simple, $300 + billion to establish an industry that produces an arguable 2% of expensive power, or other technologies that could produce 100 times more power, for a fraction of the cost. (and no cost to the taxpayer/consumer).
“silentrunning” confidently predicts wonderful new technologies, “about to happen”, the fact that these miracles have not yet occurred, he attributes not to shortcomings in the miracle technology, but to Machiavellian conspiracy theories, and sabotage by sinister “Big Business”.
Please see: http://2greenenergy.com/2015/03/22/baseload-power-myths/.
@ Craig,
Amory Lovins is indeed an interesting and brilliant contributor to the field of alternate energy research.
However, like that equally influential advocate of “peak oil”, M. King Hubbert, Lovins makes some fundamental errors that distort his conclusions. (followers of Lovins, seem to conveniently forget his earlier ardent advocacy for the theory of permanent, and imminent oil shortages)
Lovins, (like many other advocates) treats theoretical and unproven technology, as if already exists and is commercially/economically viable, he then compares it with the oldest and least efficient versions of existing technology.
His impressive sounding graph is full of optimistic assumptions and inaccuracies. Germany “green power revolution” , is not the success he claims ! Germany, now buys power (nuclear) from Czech and French suppliers, and has even been forced to re-commission old coal fired power stations.
Lovins, and his fellow advocates, often cite data gathered from area’s (Spain, South Australia) with factors like de-industrialization or economic recession, lessening industrial demand. This helps to distort the figure in favour of Wind/Solar.
He also cites the periods where conventional power plants go offline, for such things as maintenance etc. However, what he doesn’t explain is that the other power plants in the grid have adequate reserve capacity that can be easily harnessed to allow for scheduled, or even emergency offline events. This means that his basic assumption, the start of his comparison, begins with a flawed claim ie: That conventional power is “variable”.
His next assumption is that demand can be “accurately” predicted. Such a claim can only be valid in a controlled, stagnant society, where ” demand “can be tailored to fit “supply “.
Amory also makes predictions about demand, based on nothing more than idealized assumptions. Intellectuals like Lovins, are often inclined to support their thinking with valid (if bleeding obvious) vague generalities. An example of this is his “hypercar” . His advocacy for using ” lighter””, “new materials” and improved technologies, , is hardly original ! The concept of a “lighter car” made from ” lighter ” materials, is not due to the influence of the “Rocky Mountain Institute”, but the constant demand by industry for commercial advantage.
This type of thinking, typified the thinking during the “green investment boom’ between 2006 to 2012. (and still does in many quarters). The result has been the waste of vast amounts of expenditure, both private and public, for very little practical result.
It’s not that Wind, (and to a greater extent Solar) , hasn’t an important and positive role to play in power generation. (especially for certain applications ). Advances in computerized flexible grid design, particularly the use of new materials in transmission technology, means the energy contribution of these technologies is becomes more economically viable.
Rather the danger comes from overly-optimistic, support for the technologies, based solely on an emotional belief that wind/solar technology fulfills ideological requirements.
Not only is such thinking, very bad investment strategy, but it can lead to government policies that support, inefficient, uneconomic technologies, by altering the “rules” and providing artificial dynamics that prevent the adoption of less ideological, but more economically practical technologies.
Craig, I’m not opposed to alternate energy generation, (especially solar), but spending hundreds of billions of dollars to achieve less “clean energy”, less reliably, than the expenditure of hundreds of millions to achieve a greater result, seems foolish !
(even more so, if the only justification, is to be ideologically correct).
marcopolo, I find a few things interesting about your comments. Let me illustrate by posting a few quotes from them:
“Good Heavens Steven ! What a pessimistic world you inhabit !”
[argumentum ad hominem]
“Idealistic environmentalists, always commit a basic intellectual error.”
[argumentum ad hominem; faulty generalization]
“When your Mom, Dad, sibling, or child is injured, even the most ardent environmentalist, wants the best equipped paramedic, Ambulance, fully equipped hospital, helicopter, and all the medial benefits of an advanced civilization !”
[argumentum ad hominem; false equivalence]
“You seek a utopian ‘revolution’, where ‘morality’ is the basis for economics, and practicality is disregarded. Reality, is suspended. In such a world, all things are possible.”
[argumentum ad hominem]
“For 40 years the US government has propped up, (for largely political reasons) the environmentally disastrous corn-based Ethanol industry.”
[straw man defense]
“Instead of looking at rosy, optimistic forecasts, and generation figures of unusable power, look instead at the power shortage in Germany that met by buying power from the Czech Republic and France who wisely retained their nuclear capacity.”
[straw man defense]
“So yes, I believe an alien analyst may find it strange that so many, well meaning people, are per-occupied with technologies that achieve little, while ignoring the real Elephants in the room !”
[argumentum ad hominem; faulty generalization]
“What utopian idealists can never accept, is that most of these technologies can’t be unscaled beyond niche applications.”
[argumentum ad hominem; faulty generalization; unsupported assertion]
“(followers of Lovins, seem to conveniently forget his earlier ardent advocacy for the theory of permanent, and imminent oil shortages)”
[argumentum ad hominem; false equivalence]
“Lovins, (like many other advocates)…”
[faulty generalization]
“Lovins, and his fellow advocates…”
[faulty generalization]
I submit to you that readers will find your content both more palatable and more credible, were you to restrain your aggressive and rhetorical impulses, and instead focus your efforts to logically and factually address the data being discussed.
RE the possible visitors fro another land in the millennia…and they will find signs of some very reasonable men who were more careful with their words and politely inquired about supportive facts to allegations that had been made.
They were more interested in learning what, how and why and what can we do to make things better for the present and also for the generations which will follow. The extraterrestrial visitors will see evidence that these types of people did exist and stove for better quality of life for all
They will also see evidence of division and disagreement amongst the Thought Leaders.. Much evidence will be strewn about like some sort of Drift wood on the Shores…
You made your Points quite politely Cameron, thanks.
You have given me some motivation to once again present some market and technical developments that address and speak to the many concerns and extreme claims of Marco Polo. Your tone is also mitigating some of the feelings of insults in previous posts when solid information was presented in a polite and reasonable manner. We shall see working up a solution that is being deployed now in the country of Jordan that speaks to some of Marco;s many concerns.
Best Wishes Cameron
@ silentrunning in a different direction
I sorry if you feel I’ve been unduly critical, or extreme. It’s not my intention to quash the enthusiasm of sincere environmentalists.
So perhaps I should explain why I grow impatient with those propounding optimistic futuristic “solutions”.
Over the last twenty years, I have observed vast amounts of public and private money, wasted on projects with no real hope of success. All of these projects, seemed so promising, and many worked on a small scale.
The failures, all had three things in common.
1) The supporters, lacked any real business knowledge and relied upon enthusiastic fervour, and government incentives/support.
2) Most of the supporters, were idealistic, seeking solutions based on ideology, than practical need. They wanted a “better world” , or at least what they thought would be a better world.
3) They all mistrusted “big business” etc.
That’s not to say everyone involved in new and better environmental technology, fell into the above category, but it was typical of the failures.
In the meantime, priorities were ignored. The boring things, such as reducing the methane pollution from livestock, and abolition of bunker oil, became completely overlooked. Despite the fact that the reduction of just the two factors would have achieved the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change pollution reduction targets many times over.
I experienced how ideology can completely derail even the most worthwhile projects. I For example, I’m not a scientist, but I helped finance advanced research into reducing methane production of ruminants.
Perhaps I was naive, but I couldn’t imagine anyone who would object to such a valuable objective. Boy, was I wrong !
The announcement of our research was greeted by a cacophony of opposition from strident groups as diverse as vegans, green politicians, animal liberationists, MacDonald and Burger King haters, and those who thought it was all a plot by ”Big Business ” !
So after seeing so many similar projects, maybe you’ll forgive me, for becoming a little cynical.
@ Cameron Atwood
You seem to be an excellent example of what you claim to dislike !
Just saying “straw man defense” , without any justification, is pretty meaningless ! It’s the same for all your other slogan-style admonitions.
Craig, cited an “expert” whose articles claimed to refute my comments. The track record of that and associations of that ” expert ‘ is very relevant when determining creditability of his opinions. (that’s not “ad hominem” , nor irrelevant ) .
Cameron, by just ignoring “inconvenient” facts, or pretending the don’t matter, is not analysis. Craig cites Lovins as his “expert”. Lovins argues that Germany is an example of an industrial economy that has successfully replaced a large percentage of nuclear/coal/gas power generation with Wind/Solar, without any discernible loss of generating capacity from the closure of its nuclear plants. .
I refuted this claim, on the basis that Germany is now forced to purchase power generated by Czech and French nuclear reactors, and reopen, old mothballed domestic coal-fired generating plants.
In what way, is this a “straw man” defense ?
When discussing international, planet-wide effects, and mass social movements, generalizations are inevitable. It may well be that there are other members of the Rocky Mountain Institute, whose opinions differ from Amory Lovins to some degree. However, since they all publish under the same masthead, and claim to be in accord (or consensus) the description of them as “many other advocates ” , would appear to be accurate ! (while making a generous allowance for the possibility of a dissenter !
How is that a ” faulty generalization ” ?
i don’t think I’m being to harsh to suggest that you should perhaps look to the mote in your own eye,…..:)
^ Begun with argumentum ad hominem.
@Cameron Atwood,
( Sigh) mutato nomine de te fabula narratur ! Condemnant quod non intellegunt, contra principia negantem non est disputandum ! Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare.mutato nomine de te fabula narratur.
(Translation of marcopolo’s recent latin) “a change in the name of the story is about you ! Condemn what they do not understand , there is no discussion with those who deny them contrary to the principles ! Every man is liable to err , only a fool in the error perseveres. a change in the name of the story is about you.
My response:
Accusator autem non nominat se . Propositionem suam , instat. Infirmatio est sub ponte . Mea vis sed adgrediar eum operam dare cibum .
Translation of my response:
The prosecutor did not name himself . His proposition is canceled. The prosecutor is under a bridge . I will not waste my effort to give him food.
(By the way, readers, I do not pretend Latin scholarship, but I found that an amusing exercise, as far as it went.)
” Under the bridge, eh ‘ now who’s ” ad hominem ? “
Goose for Gander – enjoy.