'Smoking gun' report to say global warming here
POSTED: 10:27 a.m. EST, January 23, 2007
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Human-caused global warming is here -- visible in the air, water and melting ice -- and is destined to get much worse in the future, an authoritative global scientific report will warn next week.
"The smoking gun is definitely lying on the table as we speak," said top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who reviewed all 1,600 pages of the first segment of a giant four-part report. "The evidence ... is compelling."
Andrew Weaver, a Canadian climate scientist and study co-author, went even further: "This isn't a smoking gun; climate is a batallion of intergalactic smoking missiles."
The first phase of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is being released in Paris next week.
This segment, written by more than 600 scientists and reviewed by another 600 experts and edited by bureaucrats from 154 countries, includes "a significantly expanded discussion of observation on the climate," said co-chair Susan Solomon a senior scientist for the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
She and other scientists held a telephone briefing on the report Monday.
That report will feature an "explosion of new data" on observations of current global warming, Solomon said.
Solomon and others wouldn't go into specifics about what the report says.
They said that the 12-page summary for policymakers will be edited in secret word-by-word by governments officials for several days next week and released to the public on February 2. The rest of that first report from scientists will come out months later.
The full report will be issued in four phases over the year, as was the case with the last IPCC report, issued in 2001.
Global warming is "happening now, it's very obvious," said Mahlman, a former director of NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab. "When you look at the temperature of the Earth, it's pretty much a no-brainer."
Look for an "iconic statement" -- a simple but strong and unequivocal summary -- on how global warming is now occurring, said one of the authors, Kevin Trenberth, director of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, also in Boulder.
The February report will have "much stronger evidence now of human actions on the change in climate that's taken place," Rajendra K. Pachauri told the AP in November. Pachauri, an Indian climatologist, is the head of the international climate change panel.
An early version of the ever-changing draft report said "observations of coherent warming in the global atmosphere, in the ocean, and in snow and ice now provide stronger joint evidence of warming."
And the early draft adds: "An increasing body of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on other aspects of climate including sea ice, heat waves and other extremes, circulation, storm tracks and precipitation."
The world's global average temperature has risen about 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit from 1901 to 2005. The two warmest years on record for the world were 2005 and 1998. Last year was the hottest year on record for the United States.
The report will draw on already published peer-review science. Some recent scientific studies show that temperatures are the hottest in thousands of years, especially during the last 30 years; ice sheets in Greenland in the past couple years have shown a dramatic melting; and sea levels are rising and doing so at a faster rate in the past decade.
Also, the second part of the international climate panel's report -- to be released in April -- will for the first time feature a blockbuster chapter on how global warming is already changing health, species, engineering and food production, said NASA scientist Cynthia Rosenzweig, author of that chapter.
As confident as scientists are about the global warming effects that they've already documented, they are as gloomy about the future and even hotter weather and higher sea level rises.
Predictions for the future of global warming in the report are based on 19 computer models, about twice as many as in the past, Solomon said.
In 2001, the panel said the world's average temperature would increase somewhere between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit and the sea level would rise between 4 inches and 35 inches by the year 2100. The 2007 report will likely have a smaller range of numbers for both predictions, Pachauri and other scientists said.
The future is bleak, scientists said.
"We have barely started down this path," said chapter co-author Richard Alley of Penn State University.
Whew! Well, it's a relief that it's only taken ten years to decide whether there is a problem or not to begin with. That's surely indication that action to solve the problem will come that much more quickly. Hell, even Dubya's pleading with Americans to curb their petroleum consumption by 20% by 2017. Didn't Harpoon and Rona Ambrose want to start making an effort to curtail GHG emissions by 2030 or something? Isn't that doing enough? Oh my cheeses, haven't we sacrificed enough already?
23 January 2007
22 January 2007
Happy Answer Your Cat's Question Day!
January 22nd is Answer Your Cat's Question Day!
Have you ever noticed your cat looking at you quizzically?
Have you ever considered the possibility that they have a question?
Take a moment today to figure out what they are asking you
and do your best to answer their question!
Consequences, always consequences
Even cleanest biofuel includes a dirty underbelly
Biofuels have the potential to lessen the impact of human civilization on the environment, but even the greenest of renewable-fuels production is not without its dirty underbelly, experts say. Although global warming is a growing concern among policy-makers, the current trend to substitute fossil fuels with renewables is in part motivated by countries' efforts to reduce their dependence on oil from politically volatile regions. Brazil's cane ethanol distillers, with three decades of experience in nationwide production and distribution, have compiled data demonstrating the fuel's advantage over fossil counterparts in the reduction of greenhouse gases. Ethanol accounts for 40% of total fuels used by non-diesel powered vehicles in Brazil and represents a 30% reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions from the transport sector, the Cane Industry Association (Unica) said. But not even the global stars of renewable fuels are free of critics who fear that increased ethanol use worldwide will hasten deforestation in the Amazon and other tropical rain forests in order to produce sugar cane. "In 20 years, I doubt there will be a gasoline car on the Brazilian market. They will all be powered by ethanol," Unica president Eduardo Pereira Carvalho said during the Reuters Global Biofuel Summit last week.
During its growth to maturity, the cane stalk absorbs the same amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as is eventually emitted during combustion of the ethanol distilled from its juices. But this is not so for ethanol made from corn in the US or wheat in Europe. These primary materials must first be turned into sugars before fermentation, which requires the use of extra fossil fuels and adds to carbon gasses emitted in the production process. Brazilian cane mills are also powered by leftover cane stalks that heat caldrons to generate steam and electric energy, an extra advantage that corn and wheat don't have. Unica estimates that Brazilian cane ethanol on average yields more than eight times more energy than is used in the production process, compared with US corn ethanol production that yields between 1.1 and 1.7 times as much energy. The European Union, which just proposed the use of 10% biofuels for transport by 2020, signalled it will demand proof from suppliers that the product was made in a sustainable manner, a requirement that may rule out US ethanol. Environmentalists have already begun to warn that the expansion of biofuel use currently underway will represent increased use of land for planting, which could stimulate deforestation or the use of more reserve lands.
(National Post 070122)
I find it interesting that Brazil might come out in the best shape because they have been working on this phase-out of fossil fuels with sugar cane for several decades now. I'm surprised that sugar cane has such a better EROEI than corn. The big concern from an environmental perspective is if razing the rainforest in order for Brazil to run 100 million cars or so is an acceptable decision and whether the consequences of that decision are manageable.
Nuclear-powered oilsands would take at least a decade
The Conservative government's plan to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from oilsands production through nuclear power would take at least a decade to deliver, according to the head of an Alberta company with exclusive rights on selling nuclear reactors in the province. Federal Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn has said there is "great promise" for introducing nuclear power for a fivefold expansion in the Alberta oilpatch to reach four or five million barrels a day. The National Energy Board has also estimated an increase of up to three million barrels a day by 2015, but Wayne Henuset, president of Energy Alberta, says his company would not likely be able to deliver a nuclear reactor for the oilsands industry before 2017. "That is the biggest issue," Henuset said in a phone interview. "It's how long it takes to facilitate one of these reactors." Environmentalists said the timeline guarantees the government is giving up on its commitments to reduce greenhouse gas pollution linked to global warming over the next five years as required by international law, in order to feed America's growing appetite for Canadian oil. Emilie Moorhouse, a spokeswoman for the Sierra Club of Canada, added there are additional risks of nuclear waste leaking into ground or water. For example, she said, the Chalk River site in Ontario is still leaking about 800 litres of contaminated water per day into the Ottawa River. "If they really want to make the oilsands a complete and utter environmental disaster, then adding nuclear to the mix would do so," said Moorhouse. "At the same, nuclear in Ontario has proven to be a complete economic disaster and it's proven to unreliable." But Henuset said there is no comparison between new technology that could be used in the oilsands, at a cost of about $4.5 billion, and the Chalk River site. "That was their experimental site and that goes back 50 years or 60 years, when people didn't understand the radioactive problems," he said. "Today, we don't have any radioactive waste going anywhere and they haven't for 30 years. So things have definitely evolved, and all for the better."
(Calgary Herald 070120)
Hmmm....this is certainly going to become a contentious provincial and regional issue in the near future. Even if things were committed to today, a nuclear reactor in Alberta is still a decade away, and I'm sure the commitment won't be coming in the near future. There will be too many hurdles to jump through, although I'm sure the oilsands players will be throwing enough money at the situation to by-pass a few of the checks and balances, including public consultation.
19 January 2007
Delusions of grandeur?
US dreams of five-fold jump in oilsands output
Talks between the US and Canadian governments to quintuple oilsands production came as no surprise to corporate Calgary. The big question is how a lofty goal of five million barrels per day could be accomplished given Alberta's already overheated market, industry observers said Thursday. The CBC on Wednesday reported details of meetings between Canadian and American industry representatives and their government counterparts that took place in Houston shortly after Stephen Harper's Conservatives came to power last January. According to the network, the Americans were keen to increase the pace of oilsands development to more than five million barrels per day. Days after the meeting, on Jan. 31, US President George Bush gave his state of the union address where he said: "America is addicted to oil." But Greg Stringham, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers' vp of markets and fiscal policy, said CAPP representatives who were at the meeting described it as a "blue-sky" session of regular consultations between Canadian, Mexican and American officials, adding that the five million bpd number actually came from the Alberta government's technology roadmap target for 2030. By contrast, CAPP's "base-case" scenario sees a range of 3.3 million to four million bpd by 2020, a mark Stringham conceded could be out of reach given the cost pressures and shortages of labour and materials in Alberta. Bush will be giving this year's state of the union address next Wednesday and Stringham doesn't expect energy issues will get the same play as last year. "With oil prices coming down, it doesn't have as much ring with the public."
Nonetheless, Bob Ebel, who heads up the energy chair of Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said energy security remains "a huge issue" south of the border. Craig Stevens, a spokesman with the US Department of Energy, noted that Samuel
Bodman was the first American energy secretary to visit the oilsands when he came through Calgary last summer, underscoring the importance of the energy relationship between the two countries. "Energy security is one of the issues that affects every American," he said. "We import more oil from Canada than anyone else, we're the logical market given our proximity." Environmentalists were outraged. "This move severely impacts Canada's boreal forests and water supplies and further damages Canada's already soiled international reputation on climate change," said Dan Woynillowicz, a senior policy analyst with the Pembina Institute. Meanwhile, Premier Ed Stelmach told a Calgary Chamber of Commerce gathering he's confident Alberta will be able to maintain environmental and public safety standards in the face of rapid oilsands expansion.
(Calgary Herald 070119)
Better get those nuclear power plants fired up along the shores of Lake Athabasca, since there's no way we'll be able to handle the processing of five million bpd on current natural gas and water feedstocks. Unless the idea is that the entire western half of North America goes cold and thirsty as a sacrifice for our free-wheeling, free-spending lifestyles. It wouldn't be a surprise that the powers that be would rather let people freeze than consider restricting the number of cars on the road, for starters.
18 January 2007
If we must keep the personal vehicle, here is some positive news...
The Secret Tesla Motors Master Plan (just between you and me)
by Elon Musk
Chairman of the Board
published Wednesday, August 2nd, 2006
Backgrounder: My day job is running a space transportation company called SpaceX, but on the side I am the chairman of Tesla Motors and help formulate the business and product strategy with Martin and the rest of the team. I have also been Tesla Motor’s primary funding source from when the company was just three people and a business plan.
As you know, the initial product of Tesla Motors is a high performance electric sports car called the Tesla Roadster. However, some readers may not be aware of the fact that our long term plan is to build a wide range of models, including affordably priced family cars. This is because the overarching purpose of Tesla Motors (and the reason I am funding the company) is to help expedite the move from a mine-and-burn hydrocarbon economy towards a solar electric economy, which I believe to be the primary, but not exclusive, sustainable solution.
Critical to making that happen is an electric car without compromises, which is why the Tesla Roadster is designed to beat a gasoline sports car like a Porsche or Ferrari in a head to head showdown. Then, over and above that fact, it has twice the energy efficiency of a Prius. Even so, some may question whether this actually does any good for the world. Are we really in need of another high performance sports car? Will it actually make a difference to global carbon emissions?
Well, the answers are no and not much. However, that misses the point, unless you understand the secret master plan alluded to above. Almost any new technology initially has high unit cost before it can be optimized and this is no less true for electric cars. The strategy of Tesla is to enter at the high end of the market, where customers are prepared to pay a premium, and then drive down market as fast as possible to higher unit volume and lower prices with each successive model.
Without giving away too much, I can say that the second model will be a sporty four door family car at roughly half the $89k price point of the Tesla Roadster and the third model will be even more affordable. In keeping with a fast growing technology company, all free cash flow is plowed back into R&D to drive down the costs and bring the follow on products to market as fast as possible. When someone buys the Tesla Roadster sports car, they are actually helping pay for development of the low cost family car.
Now I’d like to address two repeated arguments against electric vehicles — battery disposal and power plant emissions. The answer to the first is short and simple, the second requires a bit of math:
Batteries that are not toxic to the environment!
I wouldn’t recommend them as a dessert topping, but the Tesla Motors Lithium-Ion cells are not classified as hazardous and are landfill safe. However, dumping them in the trash would be throwing money away, since the battery pack can be sold to recycling companies (unsubsidized) at the end of its greater than 100,000-mile design life. Moreover, the battery isn’t dead at that point, it just has less range.
Power Plant Emissions aka “The Long Tailpipe”
(For a more detailed version of this argument, please see the white paper written by Martin and Marc.)
A common rebuttal to electric vehicles as a solution to carbon emissions is that they simply transfer the CO2 emissions to the power plant. The obvious counter is that one can develop grid electric power from a variety of means, many of which, like hydro, wind, geothermal, nuclear, solar, etc. involve no CO2 emissions. However, let’s assume for the moment that the electricity is generated from a hydrocarbon source like natural gas, the most popular fuel for new US power plants in recent years.
The H-System Combined Cycle Generator from General Electric is 60% efficient in turning natural gas into electricity. “Combined Cycle” is where the natural gas is burned to generate electricity and then the waste heat is used to create steam that powers a second generator. Natural gas recovery is 97.5% efficient, processing is also 97.5% efficient and then transmission efficiency over the electric grid is 92% on average. This gives us a well-to-electric-outlet efficiency of 97.5% x 97.5% x 60% x 92% = 52.5%.
Despite a body shape, tires and gearing aimed at high performance rather than peak efficiency, the Tesla Roadster requires 0.4 MJ per kilometer or, stated another way, will travel 2.53 km per mega-joule of electricity. The full cycle charge and discharge efficiency of the Tesla Roadster is 86%, which means that for every 100 MJ of electricity used to charge the battery, about 86 MJ reaches the motor.
Bringing the math together, we get the final figure of merit of 2.53 km/MJ x 86% x 52.5% = 1.14 km/MJ. Let’s compare that to the Prius and a few other options normally considered energy efficient.
The fully considered well-to-wheel efficiency of a gasoline powered car is equal to the energy content of gasoline (34.3 MJ/liter) minus the refinement & transportation losses (18.3%), multiplied by the miles per gallon or km per liter. The Prius at an EPA rated 55 mpg therefore has an energy efficiency of 0.56 km/MJ. This is actually an excellent number compared with a “normal” car like the Toyota Camry at 0.28 km/MJ.
Note the term hybrid as applied to cars currently on the road is a misnomer. They are really just gasoline powered cars with a little battery assistance and, unless you are one of the handful who have an aftermarket hack, the little battery has to be charged from the gasoline engine. Therefore, they can be considered simply as slightly more efficient gasoline powered cars. If the EPA certified mileage is 55 mpg, then it is indistinguishable from a non-hybrid that achieves 55 mpg. As a friend of mine says, a world 100% full of Prius drivers is still 100% addicted to oil.
The CO2 content of any given source fuel is well understood. Natural gas is 14.4 grams of carbon per mega-joule and oil is 19.9 grams of carbon per mega-joule. Applying those carbon content levels to the vehicle efficiencies, including as a reference the Honda combusted natural gas and Honda fuel cell natural gas vehicles, the hands down winner is pure electric:
Car Energy Source CO2 Content Efficiency CO2 Emissions
Honda CNG Natural Gas 14.4 g/MJ 0.32 km/MJ 45.0 g/km
Honda FCX Nat Gas-Fuel Cell 14.4 g/MJ 0.35 km/MJ 41.1 g/km
Toyota Prius Oil 19.9 g/MJ 0.56 km/MJ 35.8 g/km
Tesla Roadster Nat Gas-Electric 14.4 g/MJ 1.14 km/MJ 12.6 g/km
The Tesla Roadster still wins by a hefty margin if you assume the average CO2 per joule of US power production. The higher CO2 content of coal compared to natural gas is offset by the negligible CO2 content of hydro, nuclear, geothermal, wind, solar, etc. The exact power production mixture varies from one part of the country to another and is changing over time, so natural gas is used here as a fixed yardstick.
Becoming Energy Positive
I should mention that Tesla Motors will be co-marketing sustainable energy products from other companies along with the car. For example, among other choices, we will be offering a modestly sized and priced solar panel from SolarCity, a photovoltaics company (where I am also the principal financier). This system can be installed on your roof in an out of the way location, because of its small size, or set up as a carport and will generate about 50 miles per day of electricity.
If you travel less than 350 miles per week, you will therefore be “energy positive” with respect to your personal transportation. This is a step beyond conserving or even nullifying your use of energy for transport – you will actually be putting more energy back into the system than you consume in transportation!
So, in short, the master plan is:
Build sports car
Use that money to build an affordable car
Use that money to build an even more affordable car
While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options
Don’t tell anyone.
Mileage from Megawatts: Enough Grid Capacity to Charge Plug-In Vehicles
Source: GreenBiz.com
RICHLAND, Wash., Dec. 12, 2006 - If all the cars and light trucks in the nation switched from oil to electrons, idle capacity in the existing electric power system could generate most of the electricity consumed by plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
A new study for the Department of Energy finds that "off-peak" electricity production and transmission capacity could fuel 84 percent of the country's 220 million vehicles if they were plug-in hybrid electrics.
Researchers at DOE's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory also evaluated the impact of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, or PHEVs, on foreign oil imports, the environment, electric utilities and the consumer.
"This is the first review of what the impacts would be of very high market penetrations of PHEVs, said Eric Lightner, of DOE's Office of Electric Delivery and Energy Reliability. "It’s important to have this baseline knowledge as consumers are looking for more efficient vehicles, automakers are evaluating the market for PHEVs and battery manufacturers are working to improve battery life and performance."
Current batteries for these cars can easily store the energy for driving the national average commute - about 33 miles round trip a day, so the study presumes that drivers would charge up overnight when demand for electricity is much lower.
Researchers found, in the Midwest and East, there is sufficient off-peak generation, transmission and distribution capacity to provide for all of today’s vehicles if they ran on batteries. However, in the West, and specifically the Pacific Northwest, there is limited extra electricity because of the large amount of hydroelectric generation that is already heavily utilized. Since more rain and snow can’t be ordered, it’s difficult to increase electricity production from the hydroelectric plants.
“We were very conservative in looking at the idle capacity of power generation assets," said PNNL scientist Michael Kintner-Meyer. “The estimates didn’t include hydro, renewables or nuclear plants. It also didn’t include plants designed to meet peak demand because they don’t operate continuously. We still found that across the country 84 percent of the additional electricity demand created by PHEVs could be met by idle generation capacity."
“Since gasoline consumption accounts for 73 percent of imported oil, it is intriguing to think of the trade and national security benefits if our vehicles switched from oil to electrons,” added PNNL energy researcher Rob Pratt. “Plus, since the utilities would be selling more electricity without having to build more plants or power lines, electricity prices could go down for everyone.”
Lightner noted that “the study suggests the idle capacity of the electric power grid is an underutilized national asset that could be tapped to vastly reduce our dependence on foreign oil.”
The study also looked at the impact on the environment of an all-out move to PHEVs. The added electricity would come from a combination of coal-fired and natural gas-fired plants. Even with today’s power plants emitting greenhouse gases, the overall levels would be reduced because the entire process of moving a car one mile is more efficient using electricity than producing gasoline and burning it in a car’s engine.
Total sulfur dioxide emissions would increase in the near term due to sulfur content in coal. However, urban air quality would actually improve since the pollutants are emitted from power plants that are generally located outside cities. In the long run, according to the report, the steady demand for electricity is likely to result in investments in much cleaner power plants, even if coal remains the dominant fuel for our electricity production.
“With cars charging overnight, the utilities would get a new market for their product. PHEVs would increase residential consumption of electricity by about 30 - 40 percent. The increased generation could lead to replacing aging coal-fired plants sooner with newer, more environmentally friendly versions,” said Kintner-Meyer.
“The potential for lowering greenhouse gases further is quite substantial because it is far less expensive to capture emissions at the smokestack than the tailpipe. Vehicles are one of the most intractable problems facing policymakers seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” said Pratt.
Finally, the study looked at the economic impact on consumers. Since, PHEVs are expected to cost about $6,000 to $10,000 more than existing vehicles - mostly due to the cost of batteries -- researchers evaluated how long it might take owners to break even on fuel costs. Depending on the price of gas and the cost of electricity, estimates range from five to eight years - about the current lifespan of a battery. Pratt notes that utilities could offer a lower price per kilowatt hour on off-peak power, making PHEVs even more attractive to consumers.
Adding “smart grid” communications technology to ensure the vehicles only charge during off-peak periods and to provide immediate, remote disconnect of chargers in event of problems in the power grid would make them attractive to utilities.
Let's say that you do indeed drive 50 miles every day on a solar electric car. How much would it cost vs. a conventional gasoline car?
Assume a $10,000 upfront capital cost for the PV panel with a life of 25 years, plus a 2% annual cost for its maintenance. This means that you produce 50 miles of daily travel for roughly $1.65 in current dollars. That is before you take opportunity cost of funds into account, currently at another $1.40 per day (at 5% interest). Total cost so far, $3.05 per 50 miles. If you have to finance the PV panel with a loan at 10%, the cost jumps to $4.45 per day.
But we are not finished yet. Batteries become exhausted after repeated charge-discharge cycles. Let's say that you need to buy a new battery every 7 years, at $3.000 per set. That adds another $1.17 per day, always in current dollars.
Total goes to $4.22 or $5.62 per day, depending on how you financed your panel purchase. I must immediately tell you that the vast majority of americans cannot pay cash for such a purchase, so the realistic number is indeed the high one - let's say $5.50/day.
Ah, but we are still not finished. The per mile cost increases sharply if there are days you do not drive the full 50 miles per day. In econo-speak, all of that $5.50 cost is sunk-in and fixed. (You have to pay it regardless of use, unlike a tank of gas which you use when you need it.) Let's alter our assumptions a bit and say you use your electro-car at 90% of capacity, or an average of 45 miles per day. The cost now goes to $6.05 per average 45 mile day.
Still not finished...
All of this will buy you just 50 miles per day maximum - no more. What of those days when you want to take a longer trip to the shore, or to visit your mother in law (shudder)? You can't use the electro-car so you take the bus/train/hydrogen rikshaw at $50 roundtrip for the entire family. Assume you do that just 10 times a year. That adds another $1.37 per day. How about that drive-to the Piney Pines Lodge vacation once a year? Bus again, another $200 for the family, or $0.55 per day.
Total $7.42 - let's call it $7.50 bucks even per day. That is just for "fuel" mind you, not including the car purchase, which I assume to cost the same as a regular fossil fuel car.
A new gas car will get 25 mpg. A run of the mill diesel will get to 40-50 mpg, easy. You see the problem? Solar "fuel" costs as much as $7.50/gallon when it replaces an efficient diesel, or a minimum $3/gallon when it replaces a run of the mill gasoline car.
If we want such a system to even START becoming attractive, we need to tax gasoline/diesel prices at least that much more and provide a compensating direct tax credit towards the purchase of the PV system.
Given that people will naturally jump to diesels before going to PV's, a $3/gal price will not do the trick.
A combination $5.25/gal price for gas/diesel (i.e. a $3.25 tax/gal) PLUS all of those proceeds going towards the subsidy of PV installations is the absolute minimum for the process to start, as things stand right now.
How likely is that?...and I haven't even thrown in the higher copper prices ;)...
Posted by: Dumas | January 17, 2007 at 06:03 AM
On top of that Dumas, who's to say that the economy will be strong enough that regular folks will be able to afford any of this?
Still, as PV is still a future promise when it comes to powering the grid, our fleet will still be fossil fuel powered. It will be powered primarily by natural gas and coal.
And soon, mostly coal.
I see it as a solution we'll chase after as we power down. As we run low on oil, our economy will shed jobs as there will be no energy to power their work. The people laid off won't buy electric cars at any price. They'll be more worried about finding shelter from the storm.
As time goes on, it will be ever more likely that those people will be us.
Posted by: Weaseldog | January 17, 2007 at 08:14 AM
by Elon Musk
Chairman of the Board
published Wednesday, August 2nd, 2006
Backgrounder: My day job is running a space transportation company called SpaceX, but on the side I am the chairman of Tesla Motors and help formulate the business and product strategy with Martin and the rest of the team. I have also been Tesla Motor’s primary funding source from when the company was just three people and a business plan.
As you know, the initial product of Tesla Motors is a high performance electric sports car called the Tesla Roadster. However, some readers may not be aware of the fact that our long term plan is to build a wide range of models, including affordably priced family cars. This is because the overarching purpose of Tesla Motors (and the reason I am funding the company) is to help expedite the move from a mine-and-burn hydrocarbon economy towards a solar electric economy, which I believe to be the primary, but not exclusive, sustainable solution.
Critical to making that happen is an electric car without compromises, which is why the Tesla Roadster is designed to beat a gasoline sports car like a Porsche or Ferrari in a head to head showdown. Then, over and above that fact, it has twice the energy efficiency of a Prius. Even so, some may question whether this actually does any good for the world. Are we really in need of another high performance sports car? Will it actually make a difference to global carbon emissions?
Well, the answers are no and not much. However, that misses the point, unless you understand the secret master plan alluded to above. Almost any new technology initially has high unit cost before it can be optimized and this is no less true for electric cars. The strategy of Tesla is to enter at the high end of the market, where customers are prepared to pay a premium, and then drive down market as fast as possible to higher unit volume and lower prices with each successive model.
Without giving away too much, I can say that the second model will be a sporty four door family car at roughly half the $89k price point of the Tesla Roadster and the third model will be even more affordable. In keeping with a fast growing technology company, all free cash flow is plowed back into R&D to drive down the costs and bring the follow on products to market as fast as possible. When someone buys the Tesla Roadster sports car, they are actually helping pay for development of the low cost family car.
Now I’d like to address two repeated arguments against electric vehicles — battery disposal and power plant emissions. The answer to the first is short and simple, the second requires a bit of math:
Batteries that are not toxic to the environment!
I wouldn’t recommend them as a dessert topping, but the Tesla Motors Lithium-Ion cells are not classified as hazardous and are landfill safe. However, dumping them in the trash would be throwing money away, since the battery pack can be sold to recycling companies (unsubsidized) at the end of its greater than 100,000-mile design life. Moreover, the battery isn’t dead at that point, it just has less range.
Power Plant Emissions aka “The Long Tailpipe”
(For a more detailed version of this argument, please see the white paper written by Martin and Marc.)
A common rebuttal to electric vehicles as a solution to carbon emissions is that they simply transfer the CO2 emissions to the power plant. The obvious counter is that one can develop grid electric power from a variety of means, many of which, like hydro, wind, geothermal, nuclear, solar, etc. involve no CO2 emissions. However, let’s assume for the moment that the electricity is generated from a hydrocarbon source like natural gas, the most popular fuel for new US power plants in recent years.
The H-System Combined Cycle Generator from General Electric is 60% efficient in turning natural gas into electricity. “Combined Cycle” is where the natural gas is burned to generate electricity and then the waste heat is used to create steam that powers a second generator. Natural gas recovery is 97.5% efficient, processing is also 97.5% efficient and then transmission efficiency over the electric grid is 92% on average. This gives us a well-to-electric-outlet efficiency of 97.5% x 97.5% x 60% x 92% = 52.5%.
Despite a body shape, tires and gearing aimed at high performance rather than peak efficiency, the Tesla Roadster requires 0.4 MJ per kilometer or, stated another way, will travel 2.53 km per mega-joule of electricity. The full cycle charge and discharge efficiency of the Tesla Roadster is 86%, which means that for every 100 MJ of electricity used to charge the battery, about 86 MJ reaches the motor.
Bringing the math together, we get the final figure of merit of 2.53 km/MJ x 86% x 52.5% = 1.14 km/MJ. Let’s compare that to the Prius and a few other options normally considered energy efficient.
The fully considered well-to-wheel efficiency of a gasoline powered car is equal to the energy content of gasoline (34.3 MJ/liter) minus the refinement & transportation losses (18.3%), multiplied by the miles per gallon or km per liter. The Prius at an EPA rated 55 mpg therefore has an energy efficiency of 0.56 km/MJ. This is actually an excellent number compared with a “normal” car like the Toyota Camry at 0.28 km/MJ.
Note the term hybrid as applied to cars currently on the road is a misnomer. They are really just gasoline powered cars with a little battery assistance and, unless you are one of the handful who have an aftermarket hack, the little battery has to be charged from the gasoline engine. Therefore, they can be considered simply as slightly more efficient gasoline powered cars. If the EPA certified mileage is 55 mpg, then it is indistinguishable from a non-hybrid that achieves 55 mpg. As a friend of mine says, a world 100% full of Prius drivers is still 100% addicted to oil.
The CO2 content of any given source fuel is well understood. Natural gas is 14.4 grams of carbon per mega-joule and oil is 19.9 grams of carbon per mega-joule. Applying those carbon content levels to the vehicle efficiencies, including as a reference the Honda combusted natural gas and Honda fuel cell natural gas vehicles, the hands down winner is pure electric:
Car Energy Source CO2 Content Efficiency CO2 Emissions
Honda CNG Natural Gas 14.4 g/MJ 0.32 km/MJ 45.0 g/km
Honda FCX Nat Gas-Fuel Cell 14.4 g/MJ 0.35 km/MJ 41.1 g/km
Toyota Prius Oil 19.9 g/MJ 0.56 km/MJ 35.8 g/km
Tesla Roadster Nat Gas-Electric 14.4 g/MJ 1.14 km/MJ 12.6 g/km
The Tesla Roadster still wins by a hefty margin if you assume the average CO2 per joule of US power production. The higher CO2 content of coal compared to natural gas is offset by the negligible CO2 content of hydro, nuclear, geothermal, wind, solar, etc. The exact power production mixture varies from one part of the country to another and is changing over time, so natural gas is used here as a fixed yardstick.
Becoming Energy Positive
I should mention that Tesla Motors will be co-marketing sustainable energy products from other companies along with the car. For example, among other choices, we will be offering a modestly sized and priced solar panel from SolarCity, a photovoltaics company (where I am also the principal financier). This system can be installed on your roof in an out of the way location, because of its small size, or set up as a carport and will generate about 50 miles per day of electricity.
If you travel less than 350 miles per week, you will therefore be “energy positive” with respect to your personal transportation. This is a step beyond conserving or even nullifying your use of energy for transport – you will actually be putting more energy back into the system than you consume in transportation!
So, in short, the master plan is:
Build sports car
Use that money to build an affordable car
Use that money to build an even more affordable car
While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options
Don’t tell anyone.
Mileage from Megawatts: Enough Grid Capacity to Charge Plug-In Vehicles
Source: GreenBiz.com
RICHLAND, Wash., Dec. 12, 2006 - If all the cars and light trucks in the nation switched from oil to electrons, idle capacity in the existing electric power system could generate most of the electricity consumed by plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
A new study for the Department of Energy finds that "off-peak" electricity production and transmission capacity could fuel 84 percent of the country's 220 million vehicles if they were plug-in hybrid electrics.
Researchers at DOE's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory also evaluated the impact of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, or PHEVs, on foreign oil imports, the environment, electric utilities and the consumer.
"This is the first review of what the impacts would be of very high market penetrations of PHEVs, said Eric Lightner, of DOE's Office of Electric Delivery and Energy Reliability. "It’s important to have this baseline knowledge as consumers are looking for more efficient vehicles, automakers are evaluating the market for PHEVs and battery manufacturers are working to improve battery life and performance."
Current batteries for these cars can easily store the energy for driving the national average commute - about 33 miles round trip a day, so the study presumes that drivers would charge up overnight when demand for electricity is much lower.
Researchers found, in the Midwest and East, there is sufficient off-peak generation, transmission and distribution capacity to provide for all of today’s vehicles if they ran on batteries. However, in the West, and specifically the Pacific Northwest, there is limited extra electricity because of the large amount of hydroelectric generation that is already heavily utilized. Since more rain and snow can’t be ordered, it’s difficult to increase electricity production from the hydroelectric plants.
“We were very conservative in looking at the idle capacity of power generation assets," said PNNL scientist Michael Kintner-Meyer. “The estimates didn’t include hydro, renewables or nuclear plants. It also didn’t include plants designed to meet peak demand because they don’t operate continuously. We still found that across the country 84 percent of the additional electricity demand created by PHEVs could be met by idle generation capacity."
“Since gasoline consumption accounts for 73 percent of imported oil, it is intriguing to think of the trade and national security benefits if our vehicles switched from oil to electrons,” added PNNL energy researcher Rob Pratt. “Plus, since the utilities would be selling more electricity without having to build more plants or power lines, electricity prices could go down for everyone.”
Lightner noted that “the study suggests the idle capacity of the electric power grid is an underutilized national asset that could be tapped to vastly reduce our dependence on foreign oil.”
The study also looked at the impact on the environment of an all-out move to PHEVs. The added electricity would come from a combination of coal-fired and natural gas-fired plants. Even with today’s power plants emitting greenhouse gases, the overall levels would be reduced because the entire process of moving a car one mile is more efficient using electricity than producing gasoline and burning it in a car’s engine.
Total sulfur dioxide emissions would increase in the near term due to sulfur content in coal. However, urban air quality would actually improve since the pollutants are emitted from power plants that are generally located outside cities. In the long run, according to the report, the steady demand for electricity is likely to result in investments in much cleaner power plants, even if coal remains the dominant fuel for our electricity production.
“With cars charging overnight, the utilities would get a new market for their product. PHEVs would increase residential consumption of electricity by about 30 - 40 percent. The increased generation could lead to replacing aging coal-fired plants sooner with newer, more environmentally friendly versions,” said Kintner-Meyer.
“The potential for lowering greenhouse gases further is quite substantial because it is far less expensive to capture emissions at the smokestack than the tailpipe. Vehicles are one of the most intractable problems facing policymakers seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” said Pratt.
Finally, the study looked at the economic impact on consumers. Since, PHEVs are expected to cost about $6,000 to $10,000 more than existing vehicles - mostly due to the cost of batteries -- researchers evaluated how long it might take owners to break even on fuel costs. Depending on the price of gas and the cost of electricity, estimates range from five to eight years - about the current lifespan of a battery. Pratt notes that utilities could offer a lower price per kilowatt hour on off-peak power, making PHEVs even more attractive to consumers.
Adding “smart grid” communications technology to ensure the vehicles only charge during off-peak periods and to provide immediate, remote disconnect of chargers in event of problems in the power grid would make them attractive to utilities.
Let's say that you do indeed drive 50 miles every day on a solar electric car. How much would it cost vs. a conventional gasoline car?
Assume a $10,000 upfront capital cost for the PV panel with a life of 25 years, plus a 2% annual cost for its maintenance. This means that you produce 50 miles of daily travel for roughly $1.65 in current dollars. That is before you take opportunity cost of funds into account, currently at another $1.40 per day (at 5% interest). Total cost so far, $3.05 per 50 miles. If you have to finance the PV panel with a loan at 10%, the cost jumps to $4.45 per day.
But we are not finished yet. Batteries become exhausted after repeated charge-discharge cycles. Let's say that you need to buy a new battery every 7 years, at $3.000 per set. That adds another $1.17 per day, always in current dollars.
Total goes to $4.22 or $5.62 per day, depending on how you financed your panel purchase. I must immediately tell you that the vast majority of americans cannot pay cash for such a purchase, so the realistic number is indeed the high one - let's say $5.50/day.
Ah, but we are still not finished. The per mile cost increases sharply if there are days you do not drive the full 50 miles per day. In econo-speak, all of that $5.50 cost is sunk-in and fixed. (You have to pay it regardless of use, unlike a tank of gas which you use when you need it.) Let's alter our assumptions a bit and say you use your electro-car at 90% of capacity, or an average of 45 miles per day. The cost now goes to $6.05 per average 45 mile day.
Still not finished...
All of this will buy you just 50 miles per day maximum - no more. What of those days when you want to take a longer trip to the shore, or to visit your mother in law (shudder)? You can't use the electro-car so you take the bus/train/hydrogen rikshaw at $50 roundtrip for the entire family. Assume you do that just 10 times a year. That adds another $1.37 per day. How about that drive-to the Piney Pines Lodge vacation once a year? Bus again, another $200 for the family, or $0.55 per day.
Total $7.42 - let's call it $7.50 bucks even per day. That is just for "fuel" mind you, not including the car purchase, which I assume to cost the same as a regular fossil fuel car.
A new gas car will get 25 mpg. A run of the mill diesel will get to 40-50 mpg, easy. You see the problem? Solar "fuel" costs as much as $7.50/gallon when it replaces an efficient diesel, or a minimum $3/gallon when it replaces a run of the mill gasoline car.
If we want such a system to even START becoming attractive, we need to tax gasoline/diesel prices at least that much more and provide a compensating direct tax credit towards the purchase of the PV system.
Given that people will naturally jump to diesels before going to PV's, a $3/gal price will not do the trick.
A combination $5.25/gal price for gas/diesel (i.e. a $3.25 tax/gal) PLUS all of those proceeds going towards the subsidy of PV installations is the absolute minimum for the process to start, as things stand right now.
How likely is that?...and I haven't even thrown in the higher copper prices ;)...
Posted by: Dumas | January 17, 2007 at 06:03 AM
On top of that Dumas, who's to say that the economy will be strong enough that regular folks will be able to afford any of this?
Still, as PV is still a future promise when it comes to powering the grid, our fleet will still be fossil fuel powered. It will be powered primarily by natural gas and coal.
And soon, mostly coal.
I see it as a solution we'll chase after as we power down. As we run low on oil, our economy will shed jobs as there will be no energy to power their work. The people laid off won't buy electric cars at any price. They'll be more worried about finding shelter from the storm.
As time goes on, it will be ever more likely that those people will be us.
Posted by: Weaseldog | January 17, 2007 at 08:14 AM
The End of Suburbia
JHK's documentary "The End of Suburbia" (short version) is now available on YouTube.
17 January 2007
Nice to see things are getting better...
Doomsday Clock winds closer to Armageddon
Last Updated: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 | 11:20 AM ET
CBC News
The face of the Doomsday Clock shifted two minutes closer to midnight Wednesday, symbolizing the impending destruction of humanity in a "Second Nuclear Age."
Chicago's Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the group that has maintained the timepiece since 1947, wound the minute hand closer to the grim hour for the first time since 2002, when it was frozen at seven minutes to midnight.
The Doomsday Clock had been frozen at seven minutes to midnight since 2002. (courtesy The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists)
Now modern dangers such as global warming and the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea have inched the clock two minutes forward — to five minutes to midnight.
Created in 1947
"The major new step reflects growing concerns about a 'Second Nuclear Age' marked by grave threats," including nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran, as well as continuing "launch-ready status" of some 2,000 to 25,000 warheads held by the U.S. and Russia, the scientists said in a statement Tuesday.
The world has used the Doomsday Clock as a measurable way to reflect the perils facing humanity since it was created in 1947. In its first year, the minute hand perched at seven minutes to midnight, and it has edged closer with each worsening nuclear and climate threat, or backwards to indicate more secure times.
Notably, Doomsday was two minutes to midnight — its closest ever to doom — during the Cold War in 1953, when the U.S. and Soviet Union began testing H bombs.
Renowned physicist Stephen Hawking joined the Chicago-based scientists Wednesday to announce the clock-face change and speak on the nuclear and climate risks facing the world.
Awe-inspiring
The Shuttle Launch, as seen from the International Space Station (ISS).
The Space Station happened to be passing by Cape Canaveral when the Shuttle launched. Two amazing photos.
16 January 2007
15 January 2007
Children of Men
Joe and I just got back from seeing "Children Of Men". Wow - what a movie. The cinematography was incredible in expressing the despair of the time and events taking place. The story itself was a dark and compelling thriller and centred around the ideas of what would happen in a world without hope. It had your typically British "glimmer of hope" ending (versus a bubblegum, trumpet-fanfare, wave-the-flag Hollywood ending).
I was completely drawn into this film. Its always interesting to see how different directors view the future. Alfonso Cuarón's view is fascinating.
The year is 2027, eighteen years after the last baby was born. Women have mysteriously become sterile and the entire world has fallen into chaos and war due to the despair of a dying species. Britain attempts to maintain a semblance of orderly society with the introduction of martial law in the form of a police state, with a forceful anti-foreigner and anti-immigrant policy. These people are routinely rounded up and either shipped out or sent to interment or refugee camps.
The world's youngest citizen has just been stabbed, he was only 18 years old. The movie focuses on Theo (Clive Owen), and Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey), a woman who is miraculously 8 months pregnant. It inadvertently becomes Theo's duty to get her to saftey. Children of Men offers a diverse cast including of course Clive Owen as the hero, Michael Caine as a kinda hippy philosopher confidant of Theo's, Julianne Moore as Theos ex-wife activist turned terrorist, Chiwetel Ejiofor as the rebel leader hunting down Theo and Kee, and of course newcomer Claire-Hope Ashitey as Kee.
The movie was mainly filmed with a hand held camera which only adds to the experience. You may have also heard of some specifics relating to the camera work. Such examples are one of the car chase scenes, and the battlefield at the end. The car chase works so well because it feels like the cameraman is a ghost, and not actually there because the camera gets such wonderful shots. The scene near the end was absolutely amazing in the sense that there was action action action, yet the camera was continually rolling and wasn't edited. To add to the realism, blood spatters on the lens, but it is kept there for sometime afterwards. Children of Men will most certainly not get a Best Editing nomination come Oscar time.
Children of Men is visually and technically perfect. Each scene was brilliantly detailed and thought out, leaving us with plenty to admire. I am still in awe that they were able to pull off the final battle scene in one long unedited take until the jaw-dropping final scene occurs. Fantastic. And yes, the ending is pretty much sad with a glimmer of hope. I won't give away the ending though....
It was a great pick for a movie for us since we haven't been out to the theater in ages due to the quality, screenplay, and cinematography, but the hopelessness and despair throughout most of the movie was quite sobering. Dystopic future worlds seen through the eyes of these directors always fascinate me, but in today's negative collective mood, the ideas seem more foreboding.
The Cheap Oil Mirage
James Howard Kunstler, Clusterfuck Nation
January 15, 2007
The American public is understandably happy to see the bottom fall out of the oil futures market. But temporary circumstances are only sending them another false signal that everything is perfectly okay on the oil scene. And it only reinforces the foolish belief that when prices go up it is solely because corporate finaglers tweak them up on purpose. In fact, these days it's the other way around: often prices go down because corporate finaglers are tweaking the markets, dumping positions, playing shorts rather than acting like real oil users bidding on real contracts for delivery for real purposes like making gasoline. When oil goes up, as it certainly will again, it is primarily because of geology -- what's left in the ground -- and secondarily because of geopolitics -- where it's left in the ground (and what's happening there).
The supernaturally warm winter temperatures have also played a part, keeping inventories high while the home furnaces idle. (Last week it was 70 degrees in Albany, NY.) There is surely some demand destruction in the background. Third World nations are increasingly dropping out of the bidding (meaning their generators quit making electricity and their trucks stop running). And a contracting US economy may also play a part. But even these circumstances may not overcome the supply problems in the real oil world. Here's what's going on:
As a baseline, it helps to understand that the four largest super-giant oil fields of the world are now in decline. They have been responsible for producing 14 percent of the world's oil supply. They are now old and tired (thirty years is old in the oil world) and they are in depletion. These are The Cantarell field of Mexico, the Burgan field of Kuwait, the Daqing field of China, and the granddaddy of them all, the Ghawar field of Saudi Arabia.
The Cantarell field is a horror story. Pemex, the Mexican national oil company, tried to conceal the dire developments, because Cantarell alone is practically the whole Mexican oil industry. But it is now self-evident that Cantarell is crashing, with a 40 percent (accurately, it's actually around 14% - ed.) annual decline rate projected ahead, meaning a couple of years and it's out. Mexico is America's second largest source of oil imports (after No. 1 Canada and before No. 3 Saudi Arabia). When Cantarell crashes, the Mexican oil industry will crash and the US will be out a major source of imported oil. The US will also be out of imports that were so conveniently close they could be shipped by pipeline rather than tanker ships. For its part, Mexico will be out of a major source of export hard currency revenue and as its economy crashes will probably become even more politically unstable -- meaning more Mexican citizens desperately seeking to get out. Guess where?
Burgan is is in decline. The Kuwaitis announced it themselves last year. Daqing has been the major source of China's domestic oil, which is otherwise paltry, meaning Daqing's decline will only make China more desperate for imports. Ghawar remains shrouded in mystery, since Saudi Aramco does not welcome outside audits. But at 50 years old it is well past the mean age of peak production for oil fields and that alone probably tells the story. Beyond that, we know that Ghawar is producing with a (best case) 35 percent "water cut" (and perhaps much higher). They have to pump seawater into the field (a standard practice) to keep the oil coming out under pressure. The trouble is that they are getting this substantial water cut after redeploying their equipment for horizontal drilling -- an ominous sign. Saudi Arabia declared last year that it would increase production to 12 million barrels a day by 2009. By close of 2006, it appeared to have trouble producing 9 million, with prospects for a 4 percent annual decline rate in the years just ahead.
Elsewhere, Iran is not only past peak, but its domestic demand is so high that it cannot maintain its export levels. The North Sea, which saved the West's ass through the 1990s, is now crapping out at a steep decline rate. Iraq is on track to Palookaville, despite substantial reserves, and even if, by some miracle, its tired old oil infrastructure survives the war, the US may lose access to future production for geopolitical reasons that should be obvious.
Venezuela is past peak for conventional liquid crude and hurting badly for technical expertise to work its oil fields since Hugo Chavez purged the state oil company's management. Last year, Venezuela had to import Russian oil to avoid defaulting on contracts. Whatever the true condition of Venezuela's industry, Chavez is not disposed favorably toward the US -- he hosted Iran's president Ahmadinejad last week to signal that both of them were on the same page where the US was concerned.
The situation in US production is grim. We peaked in 1970. East Texas is near total depletion, with a 99 percent water cut (it produces "oil-stained water). Prudhoe Bay in Alaska now has a 75 percent water cut. We're on track to produce under 5 million barrels a day in 2007 (down from a 1970 high of about 10 million), and heading relentlessly further down year-on-year. We burn through more than 20 million barrels a day. Do the math and see above (re: potential imports) for our prospects.
So, for now the US public (here in the East, anyway) is enjoying both a winter-of-no-winter and a season of comfortably lower oil prices. The financial markets are doing a triumphal dance in expectation of soaring equity values. And the news media is lumbering along with its head up its ass.
Last week, however, the US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in an extraordinary session, heard testimony that the nation is in grave danger of a permanent oil crisis. Some of these senators affected to be shocked and surprised. What planet have they been living on? What is the nation getting for the hundreds of million of dollars paid to their staffers? Outgoing Republican chair, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), said to the witnesses that “what you told us today is absolutely startling with reference to the future.” Is it too early for a dumbfuck of the year award?
Perhaps the most valuable message the committee got came from Dr. Flynt Leverett from the New America Foundation, who said: “…there is no economically plausible scenario for a strategically meaningful reduction in the dependence of the United States and its allies on imported hydrocarbons during the next quarter century.” That's the straight dope and we'd better stop pretending otherwise.
We'd also better stop pretending that alt.fuels such as ethanol, bio-diesel, coal liquids, or hydrogen will allow us to keep up the happy motoring. We have to make other arrangements for daily life. We don't have a moment to lose. Our "to do" list is very long. If we waste our time in recrimination or hand wringing we are going to lose the things we value most, including an orderly society. So, don't be fooled by the temporary fall in oil prices. We're in the zone of the long emergency.
What is defined as 'alarmist' by the pundits are those independent researchers that have been saying, at least since the beginning of the Bush Administration, that global Peak Oil would occur sometime between late 2005 and 2009. All the 'experts' have considered these predictions as laughable, while taking the predictions of the EIA and CERA as law, which push their Peak Oil predictions out to 2030 and beyond (keep in mind that these groups are funded wholly by the oil industry and/or the government). None of these groups have full access to the production and reserve records of those countries with nationalized oil companies, in particular Saudi Arabia. So essentially, does anyone really know the truth? With a truth that is so important to our security, economy, and society, why do you think that the powers that be aren't demanding more transparency in the numbers provided by OPEC and nationalized oil companies? They'd better start getting this madness sorted out because the world's economic system depends on what the reality really is.
January 15, 2007
The American public is understandably happy to see the bottom fall out of the oil futures market. But temporary circumstances are only sending them another false signal that everything is perfectly okay on the oil scene. And it only reinforces the foolish belief that when prices go up it is solely because corporate finaglers tweak them up on purpose. In fact, these days it's the other way around: often prices go down because corporate finaglers are tweaking the markets, dumping positions, playing shorts rather than acting like real oil users bidding on real contracts for delivery for real purposes like making gasoline. When oil goes up, as it certainly will again, it is primarily because of geology -- what's left in the ground -- and secondarily because of geopolitics -- where it's left in the ground (and what's happening there).The supernaturally warm winter temperatures have also played a part, keeping inventories high while the home furnaces idle. (Last week it was 70 degrees in Albany, NY.) There is surely some demand destruction in the background. Third World nations are increasingly dropping out of the bidding (meaning their generators quit making electricity and their trucks stop running). And a contracting US economy may also play a part. But even these circumstances may not overcome the supply problems in the real oil world. Here's what's going on:
As a baseline, it helps to understand that the four largest super-giant oil fields of the world are now in decline. They have been responsible for producing 14 percent of the world's oil supply. They are now old and tired (thirty years is old in the oil world) and they are in depletion. These are The Cantarell field of Mexico, the Burgan field of Kuwait, the Daqing field of China, and the granddaddy of them all, the Ghawar field of Saudi Arabia.
The Cantarell field is a horror story. Pemex, the Mexican national oil company, tried to conceal the dire developments, because Cantarell alone is practically the whole Mexican oil industry. But it is now self-evident that Cantarell is crashing, with a 40 percent (accurately, it's actually around 14% - ed.) annual decline rate projected ahead, meaning a couple of years and it's out. Mexico is America's second largest source of oil imports (after No. 1 Canada and before No. 3 Saudi Arabia). When Cantarell crashes, the Mexican oil industry will crash and the US will be out a major source of imported oil. The US will also be out of imports that were so conveniently close they could be shipped by pipeline rather than tanker ships. For its part, Mexico will be out of a major source of export hard currency revenue and as its economy crashes will probably become even more politically unstable -- meaning more Mexican citizens desperately seeking to get out. Guess where?
Burgan is is in decline. The Kuwaitis announced it themselves last year. Daqing has been the major source of China's domestic oil, which is otherwise paltry, meaning Daqing's decline will only make China more desperate for imports. Ghawar remains shrouded in mystery, since Saudi Aramco does not welcome outside audits. But at 50 years old it is well past the mean age of peak production for oil fields and that alone probably tells the story. Beyond that, we know that Ghawar is producing with a (best case) 35 percent "water cut" (and perhaps much higher). They have to pump seawater into the field (a standard practice) to keep the oil coming out under pressure. The trouble is that they are getting this substantial water cut after redeploying their equipment for horizontal drilling -- an ominous sign. Saudi Arabia declared last year that it would increase production to 12 million barrels a day by 2009. By close of 2006, it appeared to have trouble producing 9 million, with prospects for a 4 percent annual decline rate in the years just ahead.
Elsewhere, Iran is not only past peak, but its domestic demand is so high that it cannot maintain its export levels. The North Sea, which saved the West's ass through the 1990s, is now crapping out at a steep decline rate. Iraq is on track to Palookaville, despite substantial reserves, and even if, by some miracle, its tired old oil infrastructure survives the war, the US may lose access to future production for geopolitical reasons that should be obvious.
Venezuela is past peak for conventional liquid crude and hurting badly for technical expertise to work its oil fields since Hugo Chavez purged the state oil company's management. Last year, Venezuela had to import Russian oil to avoid defaulting on contracts. Whatever the true condition of Venezuela's industry, Chavez is not disposed favorably toward the US -- he hosted Iran's president Ahmadinejad last week to signal that both of them were on the same page where the US was concerned.
The situation in US production is grim. We peaked in 1970. East Texas is near total depletion, with a 99 percent water cut (it produces "oil-stained water). Prudhoe Bay in Alaska now has a 75 percent water cut. We're on track to produce under 5 million barrels a day in 2007 (down from a 1970 high of about 10 million), and heading relentlessly further down year-on-year. We burn through more than 20 million barrels a day. Do the math and see above (re: potential imports) for our prospects.
So, for now the US public (here in the East, anyway) is enjoying both a winter-of-no-winter and a season of comfortably lower oil prices. The financial markets are doing a triumphal dance in expectation of soaring equity values. And the news media is lumbering along with its head up its ass.
Last week, however, the US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in an extraordinary session, heard testimony that the nation is in grave danger of a permanent oil crisis. Some of these senators affected to be shocked and surprised. What planet have they been living on? What is the nation getting for the hundreds of million of dollars paid to their staffers? Outgoing Republican chair, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), said to the witnesses that “what you told us today is absolutely startling with reference to the future.” Is it too early for a dumbfuck of the year award?
Perhaps the most valuable message the committee got came from Dr. Flynt Leverett from the New America Foundation, who said: “…there is no economically plausible scenario for a strategically meaningful reduction in the dependence of the United States and its allies on imported hydrocarbons during the next quarter century.” That's the straight dope and we'd better stop pretending otherwise.
We'd also better stop pretending that alt.fuels such as ethanol, bio-diesel, coal liquids, or hydrogen will allow us to keep up the happy motoring. We have to make other arrangements for daily life. We don't have a moment to lose. Our "to do" list is very long. If we waste our time in recrimination or hand wringing we are going to lose the things we value most, including an orderly society. So, don't be fooled by the temporary fall in oil prices. We're in the zone of the long emergency.
What is defined as 'alarmist' by the pundits are those independent researchers that have been saying, at least since the beginning of the Bush Administration, that global Peak Oil would occur sometime between late 2005 and 2009. All the 'experts' have considered these predictions as laughable, while taking the predictions of the EIA and CERA as law, which push their Peak Oil predictions out to 2030 and beyond (keep in mind that these groups are funded wholly by the oil industry and/or the government). None of these groups have full access to the production and reserve records of those countries with nationalized oil companies, in particular Saudi Arabia. So essentially, does anyone really know the truth? With a truth that is so important to our security, economy, and society, why do you think that the powers that be aren't demanding more transparency in the numbers provided by OPEC and nationalized oil companies? They'd better start getting this madness sorted out because the world's economic system depends on what the reality really is.
14 January 2007
12 January 2007
Does anyone think this is a good idea?
...Other than the fat cats that control the world economy?
World has new No. 2 auto sales market
China has surged past Japan to become the world's Number 2 vehicle market last year, as car purchases by newly affluent drivers jumped 37%. The US is still tops for auto sales. Yesterday's announcement from the Chinese auto industry highlights China's lightning evolution from a bicycle kingdom into a red-hot market in which foreign producers are racing to open factories and target a growing urban middle class. Struggling US auto makers General Motors and Ford have received a boost from double-digit sales growth in China, and fledgling Chinese manufacturers are starting to export their own cars, trucks and SUVs. "There's money here and people spend that money on cars," said Michael Dunne, vp for Asia-Pacific for auto research firm J.D. Power and Associates. "The Chinese government has made no secret of its intention to develop a car culture and a car industry. All of the forces are working together." China's vehicle sales, including trucks and buses, rose 25.1% to 7.2 million units last year, the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers said. Japan's total vehicle sales last year came to 5.7 million units, the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association said, while US car and truck sales totalled 16.5 million units last year, says Autodata Inc.
(Toronto Star 070112)
Anyone that thinks 2.5 billion people in China and India will be able to emulate North American standards of living and all the issues that come with it -- energy consumption, runaway consumerism, waste production -- 2 cars in every Chinese suburban family gargage -- will occur without horrific consequences to the environment and painful shifts in the world economy are, simply put, completely delusional.
I had hoped that China's civic planners would see how corrupt, irrational and ponzi-schemed the American model is and that they would attempt some more sustainable approach to their national growth, but now I see that they are just as myopic, pandering and greedy as any other Western interest. Everything is wrong, indeed.
World has new No. 2 auto sales market
China has surged past Japan to become the world's Number 2 vehicle market last year, as car purchases by newly affluent drivers jumped 37%. The US is still tops for auto sales. Yesterday's announcement from the Chinese auto industry highlights China's lightning evolution from a bicycle kingdom into a red-hot market in which foreign producers are racing to open factories and target a growing urban middle class. Struggling US auto makers General Motors and Ford have received a boost from double-digit sales growth in China, and fledgling Chinese manufacturers are starting to export their own cars, trucks and SUVs. "There's money here and people spend that money on cars," said Michael Dunne, vp for Asia-Pacific for auto research firm J.D. Power and Associates. "The Chinese government has made no secret of its intention to develop a car culture and a car industry. All of the forces are working together." China's vehicle sales, including trucks and buses, rose 25.1% to 7.2 million units last year, the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers said. Japan's total vehicle sales last year came to 5.7 million units, the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association said, while US car and truck sales totalled 16.5 million units last year, says Autodata Inc.
(Toronto Star 070112)
Anyone that thinks 2.5 billion people in China and India will be able to emulate North American standards of living and all the issues that come with it -- energy consumption, runaway consumerism, waste production -- 2 cars in every Chinese suburban family gargage -- will occur without horrific consequences to the environment and painful shifts in the world economy are, simply put, completely delusional.
I had hoped that China's civic planners would see how corrupt, irrational and ponzi-schemed the American model is and that they would attempt some more sustainable approach to their national growth, but now I see that they are just as myopic, pandering and greedy as any other Western interest. Everything is wrong, indeed.
11 January 2007
Futurama Returns
Eek! My favorite show is coming back with 13 new episodes in 2008! This time on Comedy Central, not Fox.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)