The Energy Challenge - Priorities

[HenryTo]

This article is by Murray Duffin and originally appeared on energypulse.net on December 30, 2004. You can read more about this author at the following link: http://www.energypulse.net/centers/author.cfm?at_id=575

1) INTRODUCTION

Both the NEPDG report, and Senator Domenici's latest energy bill read like they had been developed in a vacuum. The strategic framework/analysis just isn't visible. In the corporate world, one common shorthand for development of such a framework is "SWOT analysis", i.e. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats. The process is to analyze the pertinent aspects of your environment, define your future goal(s), describe the path from where you are to where you want to go, and then prioritize the first few steps on that path, with a clear understanding that, as you progress and conditions evolve, you have to continuously review and adjust. SWOT provides a convenient armature for that kind of plan development. There will usually be contending choices for means and priorities, so it is also necessary to define criteria that help to filter and rank the choices. A similar process can be useful to develop the framework for a National Energy Policy. Let’s begin with a (not necessarily exhaustive) stab at SWOT, at least covering the obvious elements, and then consider useful criteria.

2) SWOT
Strengths
We have 5 primary strengths relative to the energy challenge(s) we face, the first of which seems superficially rather contradictory. These are:

Our present economy is hugely energy inefficient, giving us plenty of room for rapid adjustment
All of the technologies needed in the short term, both to become efficient and to develop economic alternatives to oil and natural gas, already exist and are ready for large-scale deployment.
R&D on the longer-term needs is advancing rapidly, worldwide.
We have the “Saudi Arabia’s” of wind and solar in our Midwest and Southwest states.
Our best responses to the energy challenge are also synergistically suitable to the other 2 challenges we face, global warming and terrorism.
Weaknesses
Our weaknesses are mainly aspects of our culture. Some will change quickly in response to changing conditions. The most critical probably won’t change until forced to by crisis. These are:

Ignorance or denial, on the parts of legislators and industry leaders, both of the imminent challenges we face and of the solutions available.
Entrenched special interests that put their narrow concerns ahead of the common good.
The SUV culture that has been so assiduously created by auto company advertising and promotion, and the auto industry’s stake in that culture.
The Congressional/Industrial/Military complex and its sheer bloody-minded resistance to change.
Existing mind-sets (conventional wisdom) about energy and efficiency, with corresponding inappropriate and hard to change regulatory barriers and perverse incentives. We face a new energy paradigm that requires new thinking.
A less obvious weakness, but one that needs to be addressed, is the misconception evident in electricity deregulation. Deregulation is based on the idea of a free and competitive market for electricity, with production separated from distribution. In fact, the market is for efficient energy (heat, light and work), and distribution and production must be integrated to fully exploit renewables, especially wind.

Opportunities
The indirect opportunities are characterized primarily by synergy and altruism.

Increasing efficiency, reducing and recycling waste, and developing renewables all have the potential to be environmentally beneficial.
Mass produced, economic renewables can bring energy sustainably to the impoverished third world, increase our trade and give us a chance to do well by doing good.
Converting to an efficient, renewables based energy economy will create millions of jobs that can’t be offshored.
The direct opportunities are simply a list of the responses we have available –efficiency, conservation, waste reduction, wind, solar, biomass, clean coal, nuclear, etc.

The greatest opportunity is energy self-sufficiency, with corresponding strength and independence.

Threats
The primary threats are the declining availability of natural gas now and petroleum soon.
Related obvious threats are:

Exposure of our energy supply to terrorist attack, and
Our dependence on unstable, potentially hostile suppliers. A less obvious threat derives from the growing current account imbalance, putting ever more of our debt into the hands of foreign central banks and leaving us increasingly vulnerable to creditor manipulation. Perhaps the worst threat is of our own making: the apparent belief that the only answer to declining petroleum availability is to control the distant sources, with the resulting and totally unnecessary risk of resource wars.
3) Criteria
The above SWOT considerations already suggest several elements of a sound National Energy Policy, but before defining our policy, we need to test at least the major alternatives against some useful criteria. Key criteria, other than the obvious ones of direct cost and concentration of resource, could be Security, Sustainability, Environment, Economics, Ethics, Morals and Patriotism. (Note: The NEPDG did not even mention high-level criteria).

Security
Consider that optimistically the USA has only 50 Gb of its original estimated, ultimately recoverable oil of 240 Gb (21%) left. Pessimists (realists?) estimate less than 30 Gb of an original 220. We can rush into a major and costly domestic supply side “drain America first” campaign, and deplete that remaining resource more quickly, or we can address the demand side and keep that resource well into the future as a reserve against unforeseeable contingencies. A US Army tank gets 0.2 mpg. What if we have to fight a war some time in the next three decades, and find import routes imperiled? Maybe we should maintain a serious domestic strategic reserve.

Also relative to ANWR, what can be less secure than our present Alaska pipeline, which the US military has described as indefensible, and which is already old enough and worn enough to pose significant maintenance issues?

Nuclear poses security risks mainly from the point of view of potential terrorist targets, and therefore considerations of site hardening have to figure prominently in nuclear planning and costing.

On the other hand, both energy efficiency and renewable energy resources are diffused throughout the nation, have no attackable choke points, are 100% domestic, and will not run out.

Sustainability
Any supply side source, other than renewables, is useable only once and ultimately runs out. Energy savings, once implemented, are exploitable forever after. Wind and solar are available as long as the wind shall blow and the sun shall shine. How can it makes sense to use energy and capital to build rigs and drill holes (many of them dry) when the same money could build wind turbines that never result in dry holes and provide energy year after year?

There is also the question of climate change. Even if there is still uncertainty, why take the risk of catastrophic consequences when we have excellent alternative choices? All fossil fuels add CO2 and other emissions to our atmosphere. Coal is worst, and coal to replace scarce oil is three times worse than the oil it would replace. Energy efficiency can eliminate the need to replace oil without any emissions. Renewables can ultimately replace coal without any emissions.

If we continue to waste our fossil fuel resources, burning them to fuel inefficient ends, we deprive future generations of potentially much more valuable chemicals and fertilizers that could sustain many aspects of their lives, including food production. If we deplete the fuels before we build the wind turbines and photovoltaic arrays, we may not have the energy with which to build them. We must not choose an unsustainable path, especially when a sustainable one is both more readily available and more economically attractive.

Environment
Apart from the debatable environmental questions of global warming and climate change, there are other serious environmental issues associated with fossil fuels and nukes. The primary ones are air quality and associated health issues. Others range from the local environmental devastation of strip mining (coal and tar sands) through pollution of aquifers to storage of nuclear waste and spent fuel. Many of the problems are extremely long lasting. Efficiency and renewables present no such issues.

Economics
To note just a few highlights:

Efficiency opportunities typically cost from 0.6¢ to 2¢ per KWh. Natural gas and coal impose costs greater than 4¢/KWh and nuclear, fully costed, will probably be above 5¢/KWh.
Wind is already as cheap as natural gas and coal, and costs are still dropping for wind, but will only rise for natural gas and coal. Solar energy presents no fuel price uncertainties.
Importing fuel presents a major balance of payments burden, and diverts resources to military protection of supply lanes that could be better employed domestically.
Drilling the ANWR does not make economic sense, even at today’s oil cost. No oil company is ready to jump in without subsidies and market guarantees. Every excess dollar spent on costly ANWR oil is a dollar not available for efficiency and renewables, resulting in more imports that could have been avoided, and worsening the balance of payments issue.
Importing nuclear fuel is also questionable.
Fossil fuels appear relatively more economic than they are because of unrecognized externalities that do not apply with renewables.
Ethics
The USA fought a Revolutionary War over taxation without representation. If we continue to imperil the energetic fate of future generations, without developing viable alternatives, we in effect impose a major tax, and future generations are clearly not represented in the decisions. We have an ethical imperative to safeguard their rights. Wantonly depleting the last of a valuable resource is totally contrary to that imperative.

Morals
As the acknowledged world leader both economically and militarily, (and most of us would like to think socially and politically), we have a moral duty to aid the development of our less fortunate brethren worldwide—not to increase their difficulties. Consuming fuels that they will need in the future as feedstock for chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and agriculture is contrary to this duty. Developing the technologies of efficiency and renewables, creating the market volume to lower costs, and easing their access to such technologies so they do not have to repeat our wasteful history fulfills our duty.

Patriotism
A policy of “drain America first” is bad strategically. Increasing dependence on unstable and possibly hostile foreign sources of vital resources is bad strategically. Increasing the current account imbalance unnecessarily is bad economically. Depleting scarce domestic resources that will be needed by future generations is bad morally. Policies and actions that are bad for the country strategically, economically and morally are, by definition, unpatriotic. Pending legislation in the House and Senate is unpatriotic. Promoting SUVs is unpatriotic. Ignorance may be a mitigating factor, but is not a defense.

4) Summary observations
The above presentation provides only a very limited and qualitative introduction to policy development. Brief reflection on anyone’s part can more fully flesh out the arguments. However, even from this truncated exposition it is clear that the hydrocarbon supply side approach fails all reasonable criteria, while the energy efficiency/renewables approach passes the test of every criterion. An extensive and quantified evaluation would make the case compellingly and irrefutably.

The problems we now face are unprecedented and the responses must be more creative and holistic than has been required in the past. Historically the energy industry has had the luxury of working with unlimited low cost resources so neither efficiency (especially on the part of the consumer) nor cleverness have been required, and narrow viewpoints were not a problem. In fact efficiency has often been opposed by an industry that historically puts short to medium term profit ahead of long-term considerations. That luxury is now disappearing. Creativity, conservation, efficiency, innovation, whole system thinking, ingenuity, open mindedness etc., will now be critical to success.

It is interesting to note that the large majority of energy advisors to the NEPDG represent the constituencies that stand to benefit the most from the emphases apparent in the NEPDG report, i.e. oil and gas industry, nuclear, coal-fired electric utilities, and the coal industry. There were no renewable industry representatives, and no experts on the practical opportunities for energy efficiency. A good national energy policy requires inputs from a much broader group of experts, including national security analysts, ethicists, environmentalists, neutral economists, and, most importantly, renewables and efficiency experts.

5) Recap
With the SWOT analysis and the above criteria in mind, let us summarize key points from the previous “Energy Challenge 2004” papers, and then try to identify policy priorities.

Premises

Natural gas is already in decline in North America and will fall far short of the EIA 2020 demand projection.
Natural gas cannot be imported from distant points economically or in enough volume to offset national shortages.
Oil will be in decline worldwide by 2010, and out of the energy picture before 2050.
America’s oil will decline faster than world average due to loss of market share.
Because of the above, the energy policy time horizon must be 30 to 50 years.
Nuclear is not popular, not cheap and not necessary, but will be part of the solution.
Coal is abundant and cheap, but dirty and producing CO2. Clean technology needs R&D.
Reducing energy intensity, (conservation and efficiency), is the quick, low cost way to reduce foreign dependence.
Reducing energy intensity creates jobs, saves money and helps payments balance, benefiting the economy.
Promises

Wind is abundant, clean and already cheap, but calls for infrastructure development.
Solar is more abundant and will become cheap with development and economies of scale, but requires major development of manufacturing capacity.
Ocean energy seems abundant, but is not yet practical. Much R&D is needed.
There is vast room to practice energy economies.
63 quads of present oil and natural gas can be replaced by 21 quads of renewably generated primary electricity over time, due to relative economic productivities.
Hydrogen is the likely replacement for fossil liquid transportation fuel.
Problems

Hydrogen generating costs still have to come down, and storage needs development.
Natural gas pipelines need upgrading for hydrogen transport.
Evolution from a hydrocarbon to a hydrogen economy, including wind/solar ramp-up, needs decades, so must to start now.
Transition from fossil/wasteful to renewable/hydrogen/efficient will be resisted by the “froms” at every step.
Needs

Public knowledge of the threats and opportunities and means of effecting energy efficiencies and savings, i.e. a publicity and education program.
Regulatory reform to promote “negawatts “ instead of megawatts.
A new system of incentives, - standards, “feebates”, tax the “bads” reward the “goods”
A reallocation of subsidies from oil, gas and coal to efficiency, renewables and clean coal.
6) Priorities
From the above, based on the timing, seriousness and nature of the threats and opportunities, we can identify a few key priorities and appropriate actions, in rough order of urgency and importance.

First is the shortage of natural gas, with new demand primarily for electricity generation. The available natural gas must be used as efficiently as possible:
Encourage utilities to address distributed combined heat and power (CHP) plants, target 70%+ efficiencies.
Refuse licenses for plants less than 50% efficient, and require replacement of inefficient SCGTs, with new CCGTs.
Deregulate utilities to favor promotion of efficiency over expansion.
Require rapid implementation of load management to reduce demand peaks.

Oil will be the next problem, and is used nearly 70% for transportation. There is no supply side solution. Therefore the first priority is transportation efficiency. The first 5 actions:
Close the light truck CAFÉ loophole for all but the 5% that are legitimate light trucks
Raise CAFÉ standards by 5%/yr for the foreseeable future
Enable and require surcharges for inefficiency, at the gas pump as well as licensing
Support development of clean, efficient trucks and busses
Encourage and promote development of urban rapid transit.

Third, promote both efficiency and renewables:
Provide promotion, education and incentives in support of efficiency
Strengthen office and residential building standards enforced by a “feebate” system
Set efficiency standards for utilities to reduce primary fossil energy per kWh delivered, and gradually raise the bar
Incentivize wind farm growth to >30,000 MWp per year by 2010, and support the necessary distribution system developments
Incentivize development of at least 5 large solar PV plants and sufficient polysilicon support capacity by 2010.
Negotiate voluntary efficiency improvement agreements with industry sectors
Raise taxes on inefficiencies – motors, appliances, HVAC, lighting etc.
Provide support to the “Western Governors” to double their goal of building 30 GW of renewable (mainly solar thermal) capacity by 2015.

Protect, not accelerate depletion of, our remaining domestic oil and natural gas resources, both as a hedge against future emergencies, and as chemical and agricultural feedstock.

Accelerate development of the AFR to maximize use of uranium, and provide for permanent elimination of plutonium.

After all the above the last major problem is coal:
Support rapid development of clean coal technology
Create a carbon emissions trading scheme analogous to the Clean Air Act SO2 scheme
Set progressively tighter CO2/kWh goals for utilities.
Require rapid replacement of old dirty inefficient coal fired plants with fluidized bed IGCC plants.
Provide “third party covenant” financing or equivalent to financially enable the above replacement.
7) Conclusion
In business, when faced with a choice between two apparently equal but largely opposite choices, or when conflicting beliefs lead to conflicting choice, the rule is to make the most easily reversible choice. This guideline, for obvious reasons, is often referred to as the least regrets or no regrets rule, or the principle of prudent choice. If we launch a policy based on the expectation of plenty, and scarcity happens, we will have crisis, economic disruption and forced reaction. In the worst case, if we are too slow to respond, we can trigger major supply instability and a hard to reverse downward spiral. If we base our policy on the expectation of declining resources, and are surprised by plenty, we will have a more efficient economy, more energetic choices available, more jobs, and we will be able to relax a little and accept slower progress with no harm done. Clearly the prudent decision is to assume coming scarcity and react accordingly.

Fortunately, the best choice for America is also the choice that will avoid having America labeled as immoral by the rest of the world, and by history. The “no regrets” choice is also the one that will ensure that our children and grandchildren will have no regrets about the choice we made.

It is not necessary to address all issues before rolling out a good first-cut National Energy Policy, but the above elements should be recognized, and the priorities acted on quickly. The most important and potentially productive ones should be addressed first. The policy can then evolve over time as events unroll and experience is gained.

Perhaps the most critical needs are to ensure that policy is not dictated or excessively influenced by the coal, oil, gas, nuclear and automotive industries, and to be sure we have “seen most of the elephant”, not just the above interested parties’ views. This issue is above partisan politics and narrow commercial interests. It calls for deliberation and wisdom, not political one-upmanship. Our elected leaders are going to have to do an awful lot better as we progress down this road, or they will end up doing a great disservice to America.

[rffrydr]

The fuel-cell was invented in 1839. The Model T got 25mpg. "Progress" is relative term.
_________________
Today is the Tomorrow you worried about Yesterday!

[HenryTo]

Good to see that we're at least having a discussion on this:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utilities say grid can handle rechargeable cars
Wednesday July 23, 1:50 am ET
By Tom Krisher, AP Auto Writer
Utility officials at conference say electric grid can handle demand from more electric cars

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) -- Which draws more juice from the electric grid, a big-screen plasma television or recharging a plug-in hybrid car?
The answer is the car. But the electricity drawn by plasma televisions is easing the minds of utility company executives across the nation as they plan for what is likely to be a conversion of much of the country's vehicle fleet from gasoline to electricity in the coming years.

Rechargeable cars, industry officials say, consume about four times the electricity as plasma TVs. But the industry already has dealt with increased electric demand from the millions of plasma TVs sold in recent years. Officials say that experience will help them deal with the vehicle fleet changeover.

So as long as the changeover from internal combustion engines to electric vehicles is somewhat gradual, they should be able to handle it in the same way, Mark Duvall, program manager for electric transportation, power delivery and distribution for the Electric Power Research Institute, said Tuesday.

"We've already added to the grid the equivalent of several years' production of plug-in hybrids," Duvall said at a conference on electric vehicles in San Jose. "The utilities, they stuck with it. They said, 'All right, that's what's happening. This is where the loads are going, and we're going to do this.'"

Automakers, such as General Motors Corp. and Toyota Motor Corp., are planning to bring rechargeable vehicles to the market as early as 2010. But speakers at the Plug-In 2008 conference say it will take much longer for them to arrive in mass numbers, due in part to a current lack of large-battery manufacturing capacity. Auto and battery companies still are working on the lithium-ion battery technology needed for the cars, and on how to link the battery packs to the vehicles.

"We see the vehicle penetration levels coming at a rate that's manageable," said Efrain Ornelas, environmental technical supervisor with Pacific Gas and Electric Co. in San Francisco. "It's not like tomorrow the flood gates are going to open and 100,000 vehicles are going to come into San Francisco or something like that."

Instead, the vehicles will show up by the thousands throughout Northern California, he predicted. PG&E will be able to track their charging patterns and plan accordingly for the future, he said.

Utility officials say they already are coping with increased demand, especially during peak-use periods in the afternoon and early evening. But the rest of the day, most utilities have excess generating capacity that could be used to recharge cars.

But the preparation doesn't mean electric vehicles will be accommodated without problems and good planning, the officials say.

Since most electric cars will likely be charged during off-peak electric use times, utilities should have no problem generating enough electricity. But since people with the means to buy electric cars likely will live in the same areas, utilities worry about stress on their distribution systems, Ornelas said.

That means consumers will face a lot of choices about when and where they charge up their cars and how much they want to pay for the electricity.

The choice for consumers will come because utilities likely will raise rates to charge cars during peak use times, generally from around noon to 8 p.m., and lower them for charging during low-use hours, industry officials say.

In California, utilities already are installing meters that track use by time of day. PG&E charges 30 cents per kilowatt hour to charge an electric vehicle during peak hours, he said, but charges only 5 cents from midnight to 7 p.m.

Duvall said utilities still have to be wary that high gasoline prices could push sales of rechargeable electric vehicles well into the millions by 2020, because that could stress the system. Other possible problems include electric vehicles getting larger and requiring far more electricity for recharging, and demands from people that their vehicles be recharged quickly, drawing more electricity during peak times.

Also, companies such as the Campbell-based Coulomb Technologies, are starting to develop recharging stations for sale to parking lot operators, office buildings and cities, which will draw more electricity.

There's also talk of the cars storing electricity and sending it back to the power companies during peak times, but officials say that's a long way off.

Industry officials say they can manage the fleet changeover as the cars and the utilities each have computers in place to manage when the cars are recharged.

"From our perspective I think it's something that's really manageable," said Ornelas.

[Odysseus]

Personal recent experience.

We just returned from a week in Colorado. Flew into Denver and rented a car. The attendent wanted to upgrade us at no charge to an 8 cyl. Dodge Charger. I had reserved a Hyudai Sonata because I had never driven one and I'm looking to trade in the wife's 2001 Honda. The attendent told me that they needed to get some milage on the gas guzzlers before they could sell them. An honest girl and quite pleasant.

We took the Hyundai and it was an interesting trip. The V6 Sonata got 33.5 MPG from Denver to Aspen. After a week, we filled up in Carbondale (30 miles down the slope) and returned to Denver. Obviously we didn't have the air on and I purposely drove for mileage. That leg yielded 37.8 MPG.

Just a personal observation, but during a crisis, Americans and American businesses are the most adaptable in the world. It is amazing to see people in late model cars and SUV's driving the Dallas freeways in July with their windows down.

Hyundai might be an interesting investment idea. They have some clean diesel technology as well. Toyota and Honda seem to have lost their way in many respects.

Thanks for the link.
_________________
Psychic with Alzheimers. I can predict what I will forget.

[rffrydr]

Upgrade you way to the poor house. Rental Car priorities turned upside down in sign of new economy:


http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rentalcar14-2008jul14,0,6597295.story
_________________
Today is the Tomorrow you worried about Yesterday!

[HenryTo]

Not to mention the bragging rights here in California of course - where getting a Prius is more about making a statement than anything else.

We have now been trumped by the "Pickens Plan":

http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/

[rffrydr]

Master H., if you had one of these there'd be no island that could hold you:


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4cdeda46-4de1-11dd-820e-000077b07658.html

The whole thing is ridiculous of course; yet it shows the psychology cuts across all classes--including our higher-end consumers...60% of our 70% GDP.
_________________
Today is the Tomorrow you worried about Yesterday!

[rffrydr]

Utilities getting into the game--finally. Once the grid gets "smart" it should be able to be opened up to localized imputs.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid=%7B3BB486EE%2D6B51%2D4B5D%2D9E91%2D0099ED4ED291%7D&siteid=rss
_________________
Today is the Tomorrow you worried about Yesterday!

[rffrydr]

Very good update on current fuel substitutions--met the now de riguer pessimism of man's place on earth. I recommend today's podcast "biofuels smackdown."

http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200804112
_________________
Today is the Tomorrow you worried about Yesterday!

[rffrydr]

Again, its the water:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23519658-643,00.html
_________________
Today is the Tomorrow you worried about Yesterday!

[rffrydr]

Barcelona to ship in its water at a cost of 37million/month.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b2ff35f8-068a-11dd-802c-0000779fd2ac,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Fb2ff35f8-068a-11dd-802c-0000779fd2ac.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.ft.com%2Fsearch%3FqueryText%3Dwater%2Bbarcelona%26aje%3Dfalse%26dse%3D%26dsz%3D%26x%3D0%26y%3D0

Funny how the weather conspires with the ideology of Global Warming. Not good for the inflationists but maybe something will come of it for GE--and the planet.
_________________
Today is the Tomorrow you worried about Yesterday!

[rffrydr]

The best laid...intentions:

http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10961890

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-garage5apr05,0,626587.story
_________________
Today is the Tomorrow you worried about Yesterday!

[rffrydr]

Airlines going after every ounce:

http://www.sacbee.com/855/story/820583.html
_________________
Today is the Tomorrow you worried about Yesterday!

[rffrydr]

Yes, they're planning more reactors (40+) in ten years than they put up during all of communism.
_________________
Today is the Tomorrow you worried about Yesterday!

[emergingwave]

re: energy infrastructure

Russia's Federal Grid Company said on Friday it is holding a road show for its Interregional Grid Companies, known as MRSKs, and plans to list their shares in the second or third quarter of this year. Global depositary receipts for the shares are to be issued in the third quarter, the grid company said in a statement. The funds raised from the offerings will go towards the companies' investment programme, which is valued at
$55 billion to 2015 as Russia moves to renew ageing electricity networks. The Federal Grid Company, which owns Russia's main trunk power grids, is managing the shares of the region-specific MRSKs on behalf of their parent company, former electricity monopoly Unified Energy System (UES) (EESR.MM).

[rffrydr]

Yes the austrians are "in." Like I said, from the "other side." --but to the same end. Beware "good intentions."
_________________
Today is the Tomorrow you worried about Yesterday!