Tag Archives: energy

October 2014 in Review

At the end of September, my Hope for the Future Index stood at +1.  As I did last month, I’ll sort selected posts that talk about positive trends and ideas vs. negative trends, predictions, and risks. Just for fun, I’ll keep a score card and pretend my posts are some kind of indicator of whether things are getting better or worse. I’ll give posts a score from -3 to +3 based on how negative or positive they are.

Negative trends and predictions (-11):

  • The Wall Street Journal prints an op-ed by a climate change skeptic. Wait, I thought there was a pure consensus among serious scientists about climate change. Or is it just serious climatologists, with a few lone dissenting physicists like this guy? Either way, there is an overwhelming near-consensus and by printing this the WSJ gives the idea that there is still a significant debate, thereby reducing the chances of action being taken. Meanwhile, the New York Times tells us where in the U.S. to move as the heat creeps up on us – Alaska, Seattle, and Detroit. Tidal flooding may also become a bigger problem in coastal cities. (-1)
  • Economists and economic journalists are buzzing about a worldwide slowdown and an even more severe financial crisis that may be on the horizon. Europe, and France in particular, seem to be getting into dangerous territory right now. (-2)
  • The new Living Planet Report says our ecological footprint has not ticked up from 1.5 planets since the last Living Planet Report. That is, no change given the rounding error of 0.1 planets. Before we get too happy, remember that a number over 1 is meant to measure the rate of decline. So these would be mean not that our situation has stabilized, but that the rate of decline has not accelerated. (-1)
  • Slavery is a good example of how amoral profit-seeking private enterprise can lead to evil consequences. (-3)
  • The drought in California and the U.S. desert southwest continues to get worse. Ours is not the first civilization to be impacted by drought in the U.S. desert southwest, and hopefully we will deal with it better than last time. (-1)
  • The U.S. medical system may not be prepared for Ebola, and if not it would be even less well prepared for something even more serious. (-1)
  • The American entrepreneurial spirit may have slowed down over the last generation. If this is true, it would be yet one more drag on the innovation pickup the world needs. (-1)
  • Energy prices are down. I’m not smart enough to tell you definitively if this is good or bad. If it reflected a breakthrough in renewable energy technology and cost-effectiveness, or low energy, sustainable food production, it would be great news. I hope renewable energy is starting to have an effect. But the bulk of the effect, most likely, reflects upward pressure on supply from hydraulic fracturing, and downward pressure on demand from economic slowing in Asia and Europe. High energy and food prices over the past decade quite likely have a hand in the economic slowing. Economic slowing can lower the world’s ecological footprint a bit, but it can also slow down innovation and, of course, lead to unemployment, hunger, unrest and conflict. (-0)
  • Echoes of the Cold War are rearing their ugly head, with Sweden out searching for Russian submarines in its territorial waters. (-1)

Positive trends and predictions (+8):

  • Maybe green consumer behavior can be scaled up through clever advertising. (+1)
  • Mosquitoes are being purposely infected with a naturally occurring bacteria, then released to control Dengue fever. (+1)
  • Automation (i.e. increasing computer control of nearly everything) is really taking hold of our economy and society, with potentially positive consequences for overall productivity and wealth, but potentially negative consequences for employment and distribution of wealth, depending on how it is handled. (+0)
  • There really are a lot of good examples and a lot of knowledge out there on how to have a lot of healthy trees in cities. This is known technology. Now cities in North America and the developing world just need to catch up and adopt the technology. (+1)
  • The old economy, for example dirty old fossil fueled electric utilities and sleazy taxi companies, are fighting the new, such as solar road materials and ride sharing. As they realize the technological and economic tide is turning against them, they are fighting in legislatures and courts for special laws that are unfair in their favor. They might win some battles and retard progress for a while, but I don’t see how they can win the long-term war. (+1)
  • LED light bulbs are now the overwhelming best household lighting choice, even in terms of purchase price. (+1)
  • Developing countries today are achieving much better health outcomes than developing countries of the past did at similar income levels. (+1)
  • People are waking up to fact that computer-controlled cars may free up large amounts of space in cities for new uses. (+2)
  • New technology for freezing human eggs may give women more flexibility on how and when to start a family, but muddle the historical meaning of biological relationships and generations. (+0)

Hope for the Future Index (September 2014): +1

October 2014 change: -11 + 8 = -3

Hope for the Future Index (October 2014): +1 – 3 = -2

shale bust?

This article casts doubt on the U.S. government’s predictions of domestic oil and gas production. Granted, it is from something called the Post Carbon Institute which may have a point of view.

This report finds that tight oil production from major plays will peak before 2020. Barring major new discoveries on the scale of the Bakken or Eagle Ford, production will be far below the EIA’s forecast by 2040. Tight oil production from the two top plays, the Bakken and Eagle Ford, will underperform the EIA’s reference case oil recovery by 28% from 2013 to 2040, and more of this production will be front-loaded than the EIA estimates. By 2040, production rates from the Bakken and Eagle Ford will be less than a tenth of that projected by the EIA. Tight oil production forecast by the EIA from plays other than the Bakken and Eagle Ford is in most cases highly optimistic and unlikely to be realized at the medium- and long-term rates projected.

Shale gas production from the top seven plays will also likely peak before 2020. Barring major new discoveries on the scale of the Marcellus, production will be far below the EIA’s forecast by 2040. Shale gas production from the top seven plays will underperform the EIA’s reference case forecast by 39% from 2014 to 2040, and more of this production will be front-loaded than the EIA estimates. By 2040, production rates from these plays will be about one-third that of the EIA forecast. Production from shale gas plays other than the top seven will need to be four times that estimated by the EIA in order to meet its reference case forecast.

air pollution and cardiovascular disease

This just in from the American Heart Association (actually the article is from 2010 but I don’t think the news has gotten any better) – particulate air pollution, which comes from internal combustion engines and fossil-fueled power plants, is pretty bad for us:

There are several ways by which PM2.5 could affect the cardiovascular system; however, one leading explanation suggests that several components of PM2.5, once inhaled, can cause inflammation and irritate nerves in the lungs. These responses can start a cascade of changes that adversely affect the rest of the body, Brook said.

“It’s possible that certain very small particles, or chemicals that travel with them, may reach the circulation and cause direct harm,” Brook said. “The lung nerve-fiber irritation can also disrupt the balance of the nervous system throughout the body. These responses can increase blood clotting and thrombosis, impair vascular function and blood flow, elevate blood pressure, and disrupt proper cardiac electrical activity which may ultimately provoke heart attacks, strokes, or even death.

“These studies also indicate that there is no ‘safe’ level of PM2.5 exposure,”

Also, and this really is breaking news, in the Nurses’ Health Study:

  • In 523 cases of sudden cardiac death, living within 50 meters (164 feet) of a major road increased the risk of sudden cardiac death by 38 percent, compared to living at least 500 meters (.3 miles) away.
  • Each 100 meters (328 feet) closer to roadways was associated with a 6 percent increased risk for sudden cardiac death.
  • In the 1,159 cases of fatal coronary heart disease, risk increased 24 percent.

The public’s exposure to major roadways is comparable to major sudden cardiac death risk factors, researchers said.

still more on oil prices and fracking

This article from Planetizen puts the break-even price for hydraulic fracturing at something like $80-85 a barrel, higher than I had previously reported. The point is that they are getting down to the point where it would no longer be as profitable as it has been, and at some point it wouldn’t be profitable at all. It’s fun to try to piece together the reasons for this shift – slowing economies in Europe, Asia, and Africa, and as a result a rising U.S. dollar which means oil that might be holding steady in currencies around the world is still getting cheaper in U.S. dollars at the moment. I still think this is a short-term fluctuation masking a decades-long trend toward higher energy and food prices.

LED lightbulbs

There is officially no reason not to be buying LED lightbulbs now. The purchase price is no longer higher than other types of bulbs, and the operating cost is much lower. NPR has nice charts that make all this pretty clear.

Now, normally I don’t link to products other than books on this site, but I’ve been buying these and replacing older bulbs as they burn out, and so far I am happy with them:

solar roads

I clicked on this article from Woodhouse about new paving technologies expecting to hear about porous pavement. But it turned out to be all about paving with solar panels:

The company’s aim is to reduce carbon emissions by paving currently tarmacked surfaces with solar panels, turning a previously unproductive landmass into a renewable energy powerhouse.

The solar energy collected by the smart surface could be used to feed the grid during the day time, or even power things such as heating elements under the surface to clear ice and snow from the roads in the winter. Eventually, it might be possible to power electric cars as they drive along.

Pavement covers enormous areas in our cities, so this could be huge. On the other hand, the lack of any mention of stormwater worries me slightly. There is a lot more time and effort going into developing better materials to capture energy than to manage water, when both are important. In fact, when it gets to the point (now in some places, very soon in others) where people can make serious money installing solar panels on their rooftops and paved surfaces, that could even come into conflict with stormwater management opportunities (green roofs and porous pavement being two examples). On the other hand, my water bill has been creeping up to the point where it is not that much less than my electric and natural gas bills. So where the economic drivers have been overwhelmingly on the side of energy until recently, water may be catching up. Of course, we want to find materials and approaches that do both, so let’s get to work on that.

new vs. old economy in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania – we’re not always known as the most progressive of states, at the forefront of the major trends – but even here, the old business as usual economy is fighting against the new, more sustainable one. At the moment, traditional electric utilities seem to be winning their battle to limit the amount of solar energy homeowners can sell back to the grid. But at the same time, Uber and Lyft seem to be making progress in their battle against the filthy sleazy old taxi companies. One thing Uber has now that taxis never have even considered – car seats! I would support it for that reason alone.

Steven Koonin – climate science not settled

Steven Koonin has written an article in the Wall Street Journal called Climate Science Is Not Settled. According to his bio at the end,

Dr. Koonin was undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama’s first term and is currently director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. His previous positions include professor of theoretical physics and provost at Caltech, as well as chief scientist of BP, where his work focused on renewable and low-carbon energy technologies.

If I can paraphrase and oversimplify, he thinks that climate science is still too uncertain to make any decisions other than investments in “low-emissions technologies and in cost-effective energy-efficiency measures.” And lots more research, of course. Here is a short passage:

Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere’s natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.

A second challenge to “knowing” future climate is today’s poor understanding of the oceans. The oceans, which change over decades and centuries, hold most of the climate’s heat and strongly influence the atmosphere. Unfortunately, precise, comprehensive observations of the oceans are available only for the past few decades; the reliable record is still far too short to adequately understand how the oceans will change and how that will affect climate.

A third fundamental challenge arises from feedbacks that can dramatically amplify or mute the climate’s response to human and natural influences. One important feedback, which is thought to approximately double the direct heating effect of carbon dioxide, involves water vapor, clouds and temperature.

But feedbacks are uncertain. They depend on the details of processes such as evaporation and the flow of radiation through clouds. They cannot be determined confidently from the basic laws of physics and chemistry, so they must be verified by precise, detailed observations that are, in many cases, not yet available.

You don’t want legitimate scientists with alternative viewpoints to be censored or silenced, so it’s good to read through something like this and draw your own conclusions, while keeping in mind an overwhelming majority of scientists have come to the conclusion that the science is certain enough, and the potential consequences serious enough, to justify action now. His last argument makes no sense to the engineer in me at all, that we shouldn’t try to make projections now using our best understanding of the physical relationships in the system, that we just have to wait until there are changes large enough that we can measure them. If we always did that the entire fields of science, engineering and technology would pretty much grind to a halt, and the rest of our civilization with them.

oil prices

It’s interesting that oil prices have slipped back below $100 a barrel ($92.92 for West Texas Intermediate, $96.65 for Brent Crude as I write this on September 15). An NPR article blames this mostly on weak demand, but also maybe on unexpectedly higher supply from North America. Some people are predicting this trend will actually continue:

The International Energy Agency made that point last week, when it said a weaker economic outlook in China and Europe is causing a remarkable slowdown in global demand growth. And demand is declining, West says, as global supplies surge due to the energy boom in North America — including shale oil production from North Dakota and Texas.

“There’s another 3 billion barrels a day that’s coming into the market and staying in the market,” he says. “This has really changed the global supply-demand balance very substantially” — and helped bring more stability to the market…

Fadel Gheit, managing partner and head of oil and gas research at Oppenheimer & Co., says oil prices will still spike higher when severe disruptions occur. But he thinks global supply will continue to grow and keep prices in check.

He predicts that will happen as fracking technology improves, reducing the costs of production.

“The break-even point continues to decline. Yes, we needed $80 [per barrel] oil for the North Dakota Bakken oil development to continue,” he says. “Now, it’s about $65. Five years from now, it could be $50, or even $40.”

In the quote above, I skipped over plenty of dissenting voices in this fair and balanced coverage. Nobody really knows why markets do what they do in the short term, and anything can be rationalized. Then when you go back and look at the data later, often the longer-term trend is staring you in the face. Over the past 10 years or so, the longer-term trend is oil hanging out around $100 or so, whereas it used to be $20-40 for decades and decades before that (this is all adjusted for inflation.) So we’ll see, but I’m not ready to pronounce $100+ oil dead yet just because we’ve been at $96 for a few weeks.

grid parity

If a good indicator of grid parity is articles about grid parity, then grid parity seems to be here. This article from Renewable Energy World has a good roundup of recent articles on grid parity and the possibly dire consequences for traditional utilities.

And yet the thesis of the Renewable Energy World article seems to be that all this is overblown. Their main argument is just that people won’t switch because they are stubborn. I don’t buy that. I agree that people are not just economic robots who will do cost-benefit analysis and switch instantly, but if the economics is pushing them off the grid then resistance will gradually fade, until one day it will be a landslide. The one thing I think could slow it down would be reliability. It might be annoying and even dangerous if your entire house is giving you a “low battery” signal. Sure, you could keep a diesel generator around. But that involves storing diesel fuel. It would make more sense to just keep a backup battery. But every once in a while, that backup battery might not be enough, so you might need a second backup battery, and so on. Neighbors or whole towns could share a backup system, but then you would be starting to build a grid again. You could have a natural gas generator, but then you need to be on a natural gas grid, and if I had to choose between the electric grid and the latter I would rather go electric.

We can take it as a good sign or a bad sign that traditional utilities are starting to fight back through lobbying and through the courts. They are trying to get states (examples: Florida, Virginia, South Carolina, even Pennsylvania, ) to outlaw or limit selling energy back to the grid, on the grounds that the customers who don’t do it will then have to pay more. This is true as far as it goes – if all but a few people go off the grid, the ones who are left will be stuck paying for the entire traditional system, which doesn’t work. So as a society we can probably afford to support some early adopters, but once it really starts to catch on it’s all or nothing. Lobbying and buying off politicians might slow the tide for awhile but not forever if the forces pushing us in this direction are strong enough. The traditional utilities can either find a way to get in on the game or die.