Notice the many different European EV products on the roads. The Peugeot iOn, e.g., is essentially a Mitsubishi i-MiEV, a terrific little commuter car, perfect for urban environments. It’s coming to the US soon (they claim), but there’s no time like the present.
This short piece will certainly not help the reader gain any greater understanding of the United Nations: its strengths, weaknesses, successes and failings. I’d love to get my wits wrapped around the UN, largely regarded, I believe, as insufficiently aggressive in taking action into pressing world affairs, even where it’s clearly and urgently needed. But regardless of one’s opinion of the organization and its shortcomings, I’d have to think that the article it released today should have some level of impact on our thinking.
For instance, is it true, as the report posits, that humanity is near to breaching the sustainability of Earth, and needs a technological revolution greater and faster than the industrial revolution to avoid “a major planetary catastrophe?” That’s pretty strong stuff.
“It is rapidly expanding energy use, mainly driven by fossil fuels, that explains why humanity is on the verge of breaching planetary sustainability boundaries through global warming, biodiversity loss, and disturbance of the nitrogen-cycle balance and other measures of the sustainability of the Earth’s ecosystem.”
and
“A comprehensive global energy transition is urgently needed in order to avert a major planetary catastrophe.”
I would think that this would get people’s attention. But, of course, I’m known to have been wrong before….
My wife points out that perhaps I need to write a few more happy pieces, to counterbalance the tone I often set with my cynical remarks about hypocrisy, corruption and impending disaster.
OK, check this out: Next week, it looks like I’m headed down to San Diego for Storage Week 2011, legitimately my favorite energy storage show. They advertise:
STORAGE IS REVOLUTIONIZING THE GRID!
Market Rules are Changing…
Global Markets are Heating Up…
Storage Costs are Dropping…
& Everyone Wants In.
Hot doggie! Now there’s the enthusiasm we’re looking for!
And there really is a great deal of truth here – especially in the long-term, when the grid mix contains a higher penetration of renewables and the intermittency of solar and wind becomes an issue.
If you’re going to be in San Diego and want to join me for a morning cup of Joe — or an evening martini — please let me know.
Here’s the webinar I conducted on June 29th, 2011, in which I reviewed the results of a survey aimed at renewable energy. We had recently asked more than 500 people to tell us why they thought clean energy was so slow in replacing fossil fuels. The results have surprise you.
I hope you’ll take a few minutes and go through this quarter’s report, linked above. If I could sum it up in a sentence, I would say: the party’s over.
The pure, unavoidable mathematics of the world demonstrates clearly that we cannot continue to ignore our consumption of resources and think that our civilization will continue without consequence. There are policy elements – especially vis-à-vis energy – that we need to have in place. But this is news that we don’t want to hear, and thus our leaders feel they need to avoid. Yet the result of inaction will be dire.
The most interesting thing about this, to me, is that we’re talking about the viewpoints of an unapologetic capitalist. If you were reading this from a left-leaning tree-hugger, you may write it off as liberal blathering. But here’s a guy who manages $107 billion on a minute-to-minute basis. I have to think that counts for something.
In response to a previous piece, AltEnergyStocks analyst Tom Konrad writes:
I’m afraid you’re pretty far off on the likely rise in the price of oil. You may be confusing the direct subsidies (relatively small) with the externalities (much larger) Most of the subsidies are for domestic oil production, but gas prices are mostly the result of the global price of oil. The difference would be measured in pennies, if that…..
Tom then continues with his characteristically solid mathematical analysis, to which I respond:
Thanks, Tom. I was quoting a professor of economics at the Monterey Institute whom I interviewed recently in what I wrote above (not that university professors are necessarily dialed into the truth). I suspect the real issue — in fact, the one that makes this such a difficult subject in the first place — is the manner in which we identify and quantify subsidies. Take this list, for instance:
Construction bonds at low interest rates or tax-free
Research-and-development programs at low or no cost
Assuming the legal risks of exploration and development in a company’s stead
Below-cost loans with lenient repayment conditions
Income tax breaks, especially featuring obscure provisions in tax laws designed to receive little congressional oversight when they expire
Sales tax breaks – taxes on petroleum products are lower than average sales tax rates for other goods
Giving money to international financial institutions (the U.S. has given tens of billions of dollars to the World Bank and U.S. Export-Import Bank to encourage oil production internationally, according to Friends of the Earth)
The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Construction and protection of the nation’s highway system
Relaxing the amount of royalties to be paid – apparently, we get about 40% of revenues from oil on public land vs. 60% – 65% in most other countries
And then, as you suggest, how do you deal with our unwillingness to force the industry to deal with the “externalities” – healthcare costs, long-term environmental damage, etc. — costs that are becoming increasingly clear and subject to quantification?
On top of that, you have the controversy about the military, the costs (measured in trillions of dollars) of waging wars in places that have no strategic interest EXCEPT for oil.
So, what do you count? What do you ignore? Unfortunately, it’s almost always a function of what you’re trying to prove, and on whose behalf.
As we celebrate Independence Day here in the US, it seems a fitting time to honor the work of American poet Walt Whitman, as it applies to the type of spirit that defines humanity at its greatest. The lessons he taught us about man’s indominable toughness apply to all of us who fight uphill battles — whether they’re about sustainability or anything else.
Here’s a familiar section from the preface Whitman wrote in 1855 to his collected works: Leaves of Grass.
“This is what you shall do; Love the earth and sun and the animals, despise riches, give alms to every one that asks, stand up for the stupid and crazy, devote your income and labor to others, hate tyrants, argue not concerning God, have patience and indulgence toward the people, take off your hat to nothing known or unknown or to any man or number of men, go freely with powerful uneducated persons and with the young and with the mothers of families, read these leaves in the open air every season of every year of your life, re-examine all you have been told at school or church or in any book, dismiss whatever insults your own soul, and your very flesh shall be a great poem and have the richest fluency not only in its words but in the silent lines of its lips and face and between the lashes of your eyes and in every motion and joint of your body.”
To what extent do you think retail gasoline price levels depend on these government subsidies to oil companies? Do you think gasoline prices would rise significantly if and when subsidies are cut back? Isn’t this the real reason that no politician will champion the trimming of these subsidies? Recent history shows there is significant public backlash when gasoline prices spike. Do you think the lagging development of electric autos and alternate transportation methods is throttled by the petroleum companies? If so, in what ways?
Hi, Phil. Yes, I am told that if we yank the subsidies, gasoline prices will rise somewhat; perhaps $1 – $2 from their current levels. This would cause a significant back off in consumption, and create a real demand for electric transportation, which in my estimation is a good thing.
Regarding your question about the oil companies, I haven’t studied this thoroughly. But look at the dynamics behind what we in California went through behind our Proposition 23 last year. Oil giants Valero and Tesoro were the visible supporters of a bill that, if passed, would have crippled our movement for clean energy/transportation with a maelstrom of lies; they spent tens of millions of dollars in a (nearly successful) attempt to convince voters that clean energy would cause the death of our economy.
A friend told me that ExxonMobil also funded the bill, but worked hard to remain anonymous, and make sure their name would not be associated with it. And of course a few years earlier, Exxon admitted to (and agreed to stop) funding sham research companies whose only purpose was to discredit the theory of global warming.
‘ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer,” said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Director of Strategy & Policy. “A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years.’
If you Google the subject, you’ll find tons of material on it.
Working with the oil companies is often referred to as “going to the dark side.” Looks like there’s a good reason for that….
Craig, did you see that the Air Force has begun using a synthetic oil that is algal based from Solazyme in a military helicopter? Could this be the beginning of the synthetic oil era?
Personally, I’m unconvinced that biofuels can scale to make a meaningful replacement for oil. What works very well in the laboratory or at a small scale in extremely well controlled conditions falls apart quickly in large, real world applications.
Having said that, I do believe that synthetic fuels generally have a future. 2GreenEnergy client Windfuels, for example, which aspires to produce gas/diesel from off-peak wind energy, water, and carbon dioxide, implements a five-step process whose thermodynamics look quite solid and hold great promise.
All this, of course, competes with electric transportation. The need for liquid fuels disappears to the degree we can improve battery technology and lower its cost. It will be interesting to see where this all will go over the coming decades; it will most certainly be a long time before we have electric replacements for the drive train in large trucks, aircraft, etc.
Here’s a terrific article by social satirist Scott Adams, who suggests buying stock in companies you hate the most. I’ve been a huge Adams fan for decades, I have to admit that the logic is sound: these companies are run by ruthless people doing immoral, but generally fantastically profitable things.
Having said that, I’m betting on clean energy. For once, the bad guys are going to lose, as we find better and cheaper ways to harvesting the sun’s energy. It’s just a matter of time until the world of dirty energy controlled by a few tyrants is gone — and I believe it’s coming quite soon.
