Lessening our dependence on fossil fuels with...more fossil fuels?

American industry and politicians continue to pursue a twisted idea that we can reduce our dependence on fossil energy with, well, more fossil energy!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/11/AR2008061103948.html

Everyone wants a quick fix to the "problem" of high fuel prices, and the current administration along with many of the "conservatives" believe that more oil is the way to solve the dependence on oil.

It's like trying to break a heroin addiction with more heroin.

Lower Prices = Increased Consumption = More automobile dependence + Growing Economy + More Consumerism = Greater cliff to fall off when our "new" oil reserves start running dry

Our fuel price "problem" is creating a lot of solutions. I am seeing more and more motorcycles and scooters in parking lots, more carpooling, and many more smaller vehicles on the roads. People are finally getting the hint, thinking about their consumption, and changing the way they do things. That's what we need - not more fossil energy! Everyone talks about getting off of foreign oil, but no one does anything - they just drive off in their SUVs and believe that they can't do anything about it. Everyone wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but again, they just crank up the air conditioning to 68° and believe there's nothing we can do as individuals... High prices are actually causing the opposite, and they are causing people to do things that they would never even think about doing before.

It seems that our leaders and citizens who are pushing for more oil supply seem to have forgotten the following:

• That it takes years for new oil production to come online.
• That nine billion barrels of oil is enough to fuel our wonderful transportation system for about six months, and that we cannot extract all nine billion barrels at any rate we please.
• That going to remote corners of the world to extract fossil fuels is a waste of time and money when we have truly efficient and renewable options right here at home.
• Is there even any good light sweet crude left?
• That they bash the EROEI of ethanol (which really is not good, I will agree there), then promote such low-EROEI and even more environmentally-destructive options as oil sands, oil shale, heavy oil - essentially trying to make gasoline from tar. It takes energy to break molecular bonds - cracking those big tar molecules into lovely little gasoline molecules comes at a price.
• I guess they could gasify the tar, into syngas, then convert it to diesel via Fischer-Tropsch. It costs billions and billions of dollars to build such a facility! Billions of dollars better spent elsewhere on truly renewable options - not trying to sustain filthy internal combustion with unsustainable resources.
• That barges full of "sour crude" sitting in Iran's harbors do not represent a "supply glut." They call it "sour" for a reason.

It is a shame that the $17-billion or so in tax breaks over 10 years which are received by the petroleum industry will continue, as the energy bill which would have repealed them was not passed. On TV we had the big-shots saying "I studied business, and I know how businesses treat taxes - as a cost which gets passed on to the consumer (customer)."

I do know that what he describes is exactly true - repealing those tax breaks and diverting them towards renewable energy would DOUBLE the amount of subsidies going to renewable energy (See the DOE 2008 Budget Request to Congress ) and at the same time might increase the cost of a gallon of gas by a few tenths of a cent, seeing that when we divide the 1.7 billion dollars per year in would-have-been lost tax breaks by the nearly 145 billion gallons of gasoline consumed in this country per year, we see that it is equivalent to about a penny per gallon. On top of that, gasoline only accounts for half of all oil products, so the real number would be much less than that - less than half a cent. Big Whoop - people throw that kind of change into the fountains at their local monuments to consumerism (the mall).

Weblog Software

I recently installed WordPress on my local machine to test it out, as a possibility to replacing the seemingly dead boastmachine that I am using right now.

As I began writing the template to bring the Wordpress installation into working with my own graphical web design, I noticed all kinds of funky HTML. I've always thought that nesting a lone table cell ( <td> ) inside of another was illegal - as the real way to nest tables would be to go through the complete process of writing the table statement, table rows, then cells. But - in the Wordpress calendar, table cells were nested within one another! I also found the separation between programming and design to be somewhat absent, although I do realize that it is difficult to accomplish this fully and especially when other people who did not write the software must understand the basic idea of the code. Also, who uses <h2> in a side bar? That seems to be a central theme of Wordpress templates. Not me...but easy to fix. Some h2's seemed to be coming from some mysterious source outside of the sidebar file. There were also plenty of odd tags such as <small> - which would be something I would normally relegate to using CSS and defining the font size as a percentage of the parent element's size.

boastMachine, on the other hand, outputs very clean and efficient HTML, and although I have tuned it up quite a bit, it was good from the very beginning. The file organization in boastMachine also seems to be somewhat better (there are less files for the templates, and also the programming - it isn't nearly as complex.

If I did migrate to WordPress, I would have to write a script to move the boastMachine posts over to the WP database. I would also likely have to do some manual work to change the categories. I would also have to change the URIs to all of my posts (which I may do anyways with boastMachine - though implementing a redirect system to do it gracefully).

• WYSIWYG editor that outputs HTML nearly as clean and efficient as what I can type by hand. Boastmachine's built-in editor is not too bad, I just never use it, for some reason.
• Good file upload system. I may be able to modify the existing one.
• Ability to dynamically place flash video in a post.
• "Tag Cloud" system

boastMachine is growing old, and does not have all of the bells and whistles that one can get with WordPress. I am, however, going to stick with it and update the system in order to add in some more "modern" blog features, rather than move into uncharted territory with Wordpress, with its twenty different files for templating, new URIs, new database, and nested td tags.

$45 Trillion

$45 Trillion - the number of U.S. Dollars recommended by the International Energy Agency that will be required to decarbonize the world's energy systems over the next fifty years.

It seems like yet another number to scare the world away from actually doing anything worthwhile and to keep corporations and governments bickering over who should be responsible for CO₂ emissions. (The U.S.! No, China! NO, EVERYONE! )

While the IEA has good intentions in trying to put this very large undertaking into perspective, it probably does more to scare people than actually get them to realize that the time to start is now, and with the cost of petroleum at record highs there is the continuous impulsiveness in the U.S. that we can still "drill our problems away" and pursue backwards "solutions" such as coal liquefaction to keep the 20% efficient, dirty internal combustion engines rolling. On the other hand, I have seen much hope and intelligent thinking in the past few weeks - more carpooling, people trading in SUVs for compact and subcompact cars, cutting back on unnecessary trips, and even more hybrid vehicles on the road. These high prices are just the slap in the face that Americans have needed for years - we are finally beginning to think about our consumption and the fact that one-twentieth of the world's population guzzles one-quarter of the world's oil.

According to this article on IHT, they [the IEA] also seem to believe that the only way we can do this is with the same technologies that we rely on today - big nuclear power stations and coal units (with carbon sequestration). I strongly disagree, and feel that the decarbonization and sustainability of our society will be based upon smaller-scale, distributed systems rather than massive "Big Energy"-operated grids continuing the be fueled by non-renewable resources. One fairly sad fact about those "big" traditional options is that they waste two-thirds of the energy that is put into them. What is the point of a big, expensive carbon sequestration project when you are throwing away most of the energy generated to begin with?

How much money did it take to build the energy infrastructure that we already have in place today? I'm sure no one has counted that...

Nor does anyone sit around and try to figure their return on investment before going out and buying an iPod. We are more than willing to spend our money on "consumer goods", but when it comes time to create a better energy system to ensure a world which is cleaner, more livable, and that adequate energy supplies are available to meet our basic needs - the bickering begins! Everyone wants it/knows that we need it, no one wants to pay for it. With the price of fossil fuels, however, renewables are becoming a better deal every single day!

Reaching the Threshold

It seems that we have reached the threshold in America where the price of gasoline has risen to the point where the general populace is beginning to become angry.

I know this when a woman on the nightly news is practically bawling about how she has had to start buying "off-brand" groceries because of the cost of fuel! I know the world of consumerism is beginning to collapse when that happens. Not a fast collapse, but small bits are beginning to crumble.

The thing that frightens me, however, is that most average citizens (or "consumers" as we are called, because it is our economic duty to consume) haven't a damn clue about the energy industry itself, the basic principles behind energy and thermodynamics, the "peak oil" phenomenon, ecology and biogeochemistry, and the limits of natural resource extraction. All of these play a major role in how we can operate our consumerism-driven society.

But how can I blame anyone, as we've been continuously told to "Shop Till Ya' Drop!" and consume like there's no tomorrow! It would seem that the Earth is an endless cornucopia of natural resources just waiting for us to extract, convert into most often useless "consumer goods", then deposit into the nearest solid waste landfill after six months of use.

The high oil and commodity prices we are seeing today are frustrating for many people, but at the same time they are exciting. We are finally arriving at the point where economics are beginning to run the energy and consumption issues through our minds.

The same wave of thought swept through the world in the 1970s, but this time, the human race is beginning to butt against physical limits, rather than the purely geopolitical ones which were at work in the '70s.

We should have been implementing energy-efficient practices and sustainable, locally-produced energy and lifestyles since 1973, but we has this rosy idea that economics and big industry would solve all of those problems without a hitch, and that as long as oil was cheap we wouldn't give a rat's ass about any of it. Well, here we are, fossil fuels are expensive (monetarily, socially, and environmentally) and only getting more expensive, and we have done little to reduce our gluttonous waste and consumption of energy and dependence upon fossil fuels. Now it's time to get to work, with no excuses!

I don't see a dark age ahead, I see a world which downsizes its economic engines, where goods and services are produced and provided on a close-to-home basis, people live together in actual communities rather than dead expanses of look-a-like houses, and energy is available for use from all types of renewable resources.

Transportation will likely be one of the first aspects of our lives to see change, due to its direct reliance on petroleum. I do see the automobile greatly losing significance, as internal combustion cars are incredibly inefficient machines. Electric cars will certainly be available, but their range is limited (charge is not "instant" ) and therefore their use will be relegated to commuter, short trip, and errand-running vehicles. If you want to visit your family members two states away, get a train ticket, go to your local rail terminal, and hop aboard a high-speed train pulled by an electric locomotive, with electricity supplied by renewable sources and stationary cogeneration plants. Airplanes may be available as well, but due to their requirement for liquid hydrocarbon fuels, they will likely be an expensive luxury rather than a practical everyday mode of transportation. Car rental services will likely be very prosperous, and they will have combustion vehicles available in the event that someone needs one.

I firmly feel that rail is the future of transportation. Water transport is likely to see a boost as well, as it is even more efficient than rail. I would not be surprised to see the development of vessels for carrying small (truck-sized) loads on rivers which we consider to be non-navigable today.

Change is coming. NO, not lower oil prices or reversion to SUV and shopaholic heaven, but to a more sustainable and enjoyable lifestyle which is not based upon the accumulation (and subsequent disposal) of material goods/wealth.

Some good articles I have read in the past few days...

• Stranded in Suburbia - NYT
• The Suburban Question - Open the Future
• Water: world crisis - Energy Bulletin
• To teens in the first decade of the 21^st century - Energy Bulletin

$100/bbl oil, climate change...and we're still debating renewables? WHAT?

An article in a Tampa, FL area newspaper decries that state's plan to require 20% renewable electricity production in an unspecified number of years. Rates May Soar If Green Electric Bills Are Passed

Here is yet another example of obstruction of renewable energy development by scaring people on account that their electrical expenses might go through the roof. Adjectives like "soar", "through the roof", and "skyrocket" are used to describe 10-20% increases in electric bills. $5 per year flat tariffs are being described as a hardship. The time frame for the mandate has not even been developed yet and people are already blowing up about it.

It is FLORIDA, you don't need to heat your home, and I am sure you can cut back on the air conditioning a few degrees. Open up a window, get some fresh air. Hang your clothes out to dry in the beautiful weather! Put some clothes on in winter, and take some off in summer. Dim down the artificial suns in stores, offices, and along the street. Cut back on the outdoor illumination. Get rid of some of those ridiculous 500 watt wallpack lights that are on every single building (and some homes! ) nowadays. I know that at some convenience stores it is indistinguishable between night and day. Businesses ought to think about adjusting their dress code so that their offices don't have to be refrigerated during the summer.

So much for the angry part...

The claim that slightly increased electricity costs will hurt businesses and cause job losses seems to be a moot point when you see that California is the spot when it comes to good-paying jobs and high-tech industry, all with highest-in-the-nation renewable mandates and 50% gas-fired power, the most costly form of conventional generation. The same goes for New York City and New England, which have much more expensive electricity than the Midwest and South which have already been gutted of their industrial base and mainly deported to Asia where human resources and allowance to pollute (among other things) are very cheap or free. The extractive coal industry in Appalachia does not appear to be providing very much to the people in those states, according to the statistics.

Electrical energy accounts for a very small portion of a business's total expenses. Electric-arc steelmakers, which use electricity as the source of energy for melting steel, usually see something like 10% of their expenses going to electricity. Aluminum producers and electric-arc steel are probably the most electricity-intensive industries, and the intelligent thing to do would be to site these near hydroelectric power stations or build dedicated cogeneration plants for them, not to rely on the electricity "market" where utility companies seem to be more profitable than ever despite higher costs for gas, coal, and uranium. Run the steelmaking furnaces at night, take advantage of all of that idle generation that is sitting around!

In the case of small businesses, the electrical costs often don't even come close to the wage for a single employee. A single full-time employee making a $5.25 minimum wage will cost $11,000 per year. This is equivalent to 110 MWh of electricity per year at 10 cents per kWh, or a sustained load of 12.5 kilowatts, 17 continuous horsepower, or 1,000 40-watt fluorescent tubes illuminated for 8 hours per day. You've got to be doing some serious stuff (e.g. light industrial) to be drawing that kind of juice. My Point: Electricity is Cheap, DIRT CHEAP.

http://www.steelonthenet.com/steel_cost_eaf.html.

This electric arc steel cost analysis sample is for electricity priced at $70/MWh. That's equivalent to about 7 cents per kWh, and in the South there are the nation's dirtiest coal plants that are producing electricity for as low as $8/MWh (and turning around and selling it for $30). In the coal-fired and hydro regions, 7 cents is a high residential rate, let alone compared with the bargain-basement prices that industrial consumers get. Notice that out of the $400 or so for the whole process, only about $30 goes to electricity.

I did some rough calculations of my own to verify this information:

Electrical Energy to melt one tonne of steel:
(assuming 100% efficiency of the melting furnace)

Ambient temperature of scrap: 20 C (293 K)
Specific heat of iron: 0.45 J/gK
Latent heat of fusion: 13.81 kJ/mol
melting point of iron: 1181 K

Temperature Raising: 0.450 J/gK (specific heat of iron) * (1181 - 293) * 1e6 g = 399.6 MJ

Melting: 13.81 kJ/mol * (1e6 g / 55.85 g/mol) = 247.0 MJ

Total electrical energy (MJ) = 647
Total electrical energy (kWh) = 179.6
Total cost in dollars at 10 cents/kWh: $18
This is about equivalent to the amount of electrical energy used by the average American home in one week.

Why is it that the electricity industry says that new coal-fired units will bring rates down and renewables will make them "skyrocket"? This case was illustrated in Kansas last year when the permit to build two coal units was revoked. New coal is more expensive than the current cost of electricity in most every part of the country, especially in the areas where it is being proposed. Renewables apparently are a few cents per kWh more, but they will produce a stable-priced output once built since almost all of the expense is in the capital cost of building the plant rather than buying coal and other fuels over the entire life of the plant.

The electric industry also must understand that renewables don't exactly work the same way that big coal and nuclear does; it needs to be distributed over a wide area with a fine network of transmission lines in between (a "mesh topology" ), opposed to a massive (and inefficient) power plant in the middle with heavy transmission wires going outward to users (a "star topology", although a "tree topology" might better describe it for the trunk is the long distance between the generation and the consumption).

A similar measure in Pennsylvania to add a $5/year tariff to residential electricity consumers' bills to fund renewable energy was also met with outrage, and PA even has the lovely distinction of considering energy from "waste coal" (anthracite culm and bituminous gob) as part of the acceptable "renewable" energies (though not as preferred as true renewables such as wind). As I have said before, for many people this means buying one less pack of cigarettes or one less Quarter Pounder with cheese from McDonalds each year. In this world of consumerism and multi-billion dollar profits from it, a $5/year tariff for renewable energy is a small price to pay. It seems to be fine for companies to run all kinds of enticing advertising to get people to buy useless junk and prescription drugs that they probably don't need, but paying a little bit for clean energy that we will all benefit from is somehow wrong. I can't connect with that logic...

From the Tampa article:

According to industry estimates, the cost of generating electricity from a coal plant is about 4 cents a kilowatt-hour, 7 cents from a natural gas plant and 0.4 cents from a nuclear plant. The cost of generating electricity from a solar plant is about 10 cents a kilowatt-hour and 8 cents from a biomass plant that burns wood or plants. Wind power, though, is competitive with coal- and- gas-fired power, costing 4 cents to 6 cents a kilowatt-hour.

Damn, I'd like to know where that 0.4 cent/kWh nuclear plant is at! Even hydro, the cheapest electricity source available, costs more than that. I think someone was off by a factor of ten or so. Maybe in 1960 a nuclear plant could produce for that much. I believe that the decommissioning fund alone for nuclear energy is 0.1 cents/kWh.

The solar number is also for thermal solar using a power tower or mirror trough system, not with photovoltaic panels which are more expensive.

Maybe it is time that we stand up and say NO MORE to the fossil fuel industry and their control of our government and our world. The environmental and renewable energy movement is about freedom - freedom to use and capture the natural forces which fall from the sky every day, freedom from greed, pollution, and centralized control of our lives. If that means paying a little more for electricity each month to fund the development of this NEW energy infrastructure and way of thinking, then that is what is needed. When you buy a new car, you have to pay for it. When you buy a new house, you have to pay for it! The same goes for energy infrastructure. Replacing all of the 1960s-era coal plants with something new will cost something! Even with $100/bbl oil, 60% imports, climate change, and unsustainable consumption we are debating whether or not we should be using renewable energy? Something is dead wrong with that picture.

We could just take 1% of the annual national military budget and devote it to renewable energy development. We could also take the $13-billion or so in subsidies away from the oil and gas industry. and provide them to renewables. In this case, no one has to pay a single dime more. If that's not enough, then we can bite more into that military budget. I honesty don't think they will miss a few billion dollars, not when a single F-22 aircraft costs something like $130 million, let alone the $62 billion spent to develop the thing. Develop renewable energy, and no wars have to be fought to secure unsustainable and polluting fossil energy supplies. I think it is money well spent.