Out of the three refineries located in Billings, one has a very unique story and position in the world of refining. The ConocoPhillips refinery is the first Energy Star certified refinery in the world (two years in a row). Not bad for an industry that is not highly regarded in public opinion given the current prices we are paying at the pump, but sustainability and environmental factors actually rank very high on the list of priorities for this tightly run operation.

Not only is ConocoPhillips the most energy efficient and least polluting out of the three, it was also the first to form a Citizen’s Advisory Council comprised of community members unafraid to speak up about their concerns with having a refinery located in town - the most prevalent, of course, being air quality control.

Stepping off of the plane (from LA granted), the air in Montana is crisp and clear, which is amazing given the fact that there are three refineries that are emitting sulfur and CO2 among other elements into the air. However, even walking around the Conoco plant, it was hard to smell any evidence of “refining” going on. The community members that I got to speak with (including Stella of local Stella’s Kitchen and Bakery fame) excessively praised the efforts of the Conoco team for this reason and for the EPA air quality reports (which I’ll post on later) showing ConocoPhillips leading the pack in terms of lowest amounts of Sulfur Dioxide and other irritants.

This plant, the smallest of the ConocoPhillips refineries, sits on 200 acres in very close proximity to the town - in fact, when it was built in 1949 it sat right in one of the neighborhoods until it began acquiring the surrounding property to build out a larger campus. What this refinery has been able to do that the others have not, is reach out to the citizens and develop an “open door” relationship with them that has lasted nearly 20 years. The steps that they have taken and the positive economic impact are clearly well received within the tiny community.

However, where the refinery team seems to reach an impasse is where to go from here - how do we get beyond petroleum. You can’t run biofuels through existing pipelines (unless maybe it’s LS9), and replacing the pipelines would be a nightmare. They are a heavy crude production facility though, and they do have the ability to process heavy crude as well as the oil from tar sands in Canada, where all of their crude currently comes in from. Of course, the energy used to produce oil from tar sands is astounding, but it’s certainly open for discussion.

At the end of the day, we are still a petroleum-dependent society, and while we are seeking for alternatives to fuel our energy needs, it’s nice to see examples of big oil companies with good town/gown relationships making strides to reduce their environmental impact. It would be nice if this weren’t the only shining example of that.

I’ll have more information from the tour in the coming weeks!

Public lands within the Utah region and elsewhere have been a longtime target for oil drilling and government granted leases but always with the understand that wilderness and public lands in close proximity to national parks were typically off limits. That is, until the Bush administration decided to green light drilling near national parks in Moab, Utah in 2002. Although park scientists protested that the national parks could take decades to recover from the shock waves caused by local oil derricks, the administration claimed that parks would “barely notice changes,” according to a New York Times article published on February 8, 2002.

In February of this year, proposed oil drilling in the Great Salt Lake region was met with great resistance from residents and local and national environmental groups, such as The Friends of the Great Salt Lake and the Wilderness Conservancy who at the time I wrote this had received nearly 10,000 signatures in protest of the drilling from around the world.

By allowing drilling in this area, we threaten to harm and destroy wetlands that house over 6 million birds during migration season and more than 250 bird species that call the Great Salt Lake region home according to the Nature Conservancy. The wetlands are important to national scientists and the local economy, serving as one of the top places in the nation for bird watching and eco-tourism. Drilling would also potentially damage the “Spiral Jetty,” one of the most famous examples of the Land Art movement developed by Robert Smithson in the 70’s. A recent New York Times article discusses how the Dia Art Foundation is involved in talks to protect Smithson’s masterpiece and stall drilling in such close proximity.

Given the current oil crisis, US residents may wonder why we aren’t becoming more independent and drilling at home. In reality, oil prices are not entirely being driven up by supply/demand issues. I would highly recommend that those people spend more time educating themselves about the economic and market factors involved by visiting our sister site, Gas 2.0 for more information on the politics behind the high prices at the pump as well as read up on the dangerous environmental repercussions from drilling in our backyards.

Americans have a habit of framing our scientific history as a series of Great Inventors, from Eli Whitney to Thomas Edison to Afrika Bambaataa. The history books say each was prodded by Adam Smith’s invisible hand to come up with the great technological advances that have made our country a home of innovation.

There’s a problem with this mythology: sometimes there’s no invisible hand. Sometimes short-sighted government regulations give preference to bad technologies over good ones — stifling innovation and blinding us to our own ability to make progress.

Nowhere is this mythology more evident than in our energy system, the most heavily regulated and subsidized industry in the country. A host of bad regulations have made this system grossly inefficient, contributing both to global warming and to high power costs.

The US today converts fossil fuel into electricity at 33% efficiency, throwing away two-thirds of every unit of fuel we burn in cooling towers and smoke stacks. That’s the same conversion efficiency we had last year. That’s the same efficiency we had in 1980. In fact, you have to go all the way back to 1957 to find a year when the electric sector wasted more energy than they do today.

During the same period, we’ve seen automobile fuel economy skyrocket (especially on a horsepower-adjusted basis). We’ve seen massive increases in the efficiency of our electric appliances. We’ve even seen boring old steam boiler efficiency increases with modern controls, recuperators and preheaters. And yet the efficiency of electricity generation is stagnant.

It’s not stagnant because we’ve hit any fundamental limit. Indeed, studies by the US Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency have identified a whopping 200,000 MW of potential (that’s 20% of the peak power demand of the US) for proven technologies that either recover waste energy from industrials and/or cogenerate heat and electricity from a single fuel source.

The worst of these technologies is twice as fuel efficient as the current electric grid. Fully deploying that potential would not only cut CO₂ emissions by 20% — about the same as if we took every passenger car off the road — but would also cut our energy costs, simply by burning less fuel. And those are just the technologies we’ve taken the time to quantify.

So what’s holding these technologies back? Nothing more than our regulatory paradigm.

A couple of examples:

1. Our century-old electric regulatory model pays utilities a return on their capital investment, but compels them to pass along all operating costs to consumers at zero mark-up. This creates a great incentive to build capital-intensive boondoggles. It completely isolates electric utilities from the economic principles that drive “normal” businesses, wherein capital and operating cost reductions are a route to greater profits. This has conspired to make our electric sector openly hostile to efficient power generation. It explains why their efficiency hasn’t moved since 1957, and why that sector now accounts for 42% of US CO₂ emissions.
2. The Clean Air Act mandates end-of-pipe pollution control technologies that universally impose additional parasitic loads on industrials and power plants to run baghouses, catalyst beds, electro-static precipitators and any number of other technologies. All these parasitic mandates have the perverse consequence that our environmental policy mandates reduction in criteria pollution and mandates increases in CO₂ emissions. Worse, a facility that has the temerity to improve the energy efficiency of their process will almost certainly trigger New Source Review, under which they will have to come into compliance with new, more stringent permits than the one they currently operate under. These two features of the Clean Air Act conspire to make many industrials openly fearful many otherwise sensible steps to lower their greenhouse-gas signature (and lower their operating expense.)

None of this is to suggest that we should not continue to pursue technological revolutions, of course. But if those technologies bring about cheaper, cleaner, more efficient energy, they will find themselves blocked by precisely the same regulations that are keeping existing technologies out of the market. Technology is important — but regulatory reform to remove our barriers to energy efficiency is the critical path.

Related Posts on Energy Efficiency

• 7 Ways to Save Energy by Saving Water
• Toyota’s New Hybrid Travels Twice as Far
• Trucks Reduce Emissions by 83%

Solar energy currently generates .1% of the electricity used in the U.S. According to a study released today, this will change rapidly as the cost of electricity increases and the cost of solar energy drops.

The Utility Solar Assessment Study produced by Clean Edge and Co-op America finds that solar energy is already reaching cost parity with conventional sources in some areas of the U.S. where electric rates are highest. By 2015, this will be achieved in many more areas, including Boston, San Diego, and New York. By 2025, cost parity will be achieved throughout the U.S.

The implications of this are huge. The U.S. solar photovoltaic market now relies heavily on state incentives to lower the cost of solar energy. Many people utilize solar energy because it is “the right thing to do” or businesses like the positive publicity solar brings.

Unique Advantages of Solar Electricity

Solar energy does not have fuel costs, like power generated from coal, natural gas, oil, or nuclear energy. The maintenance costs of solar are relatively low , it can generate electricity at the point of use, and emits no carbon. Solar is ideally suited to produce peak electricity, when demand is highest on the power grid and utility companies pay the highest rates. This is also where there is the greatest growth in electricity demand.

“The daily and seasonal variation in grid load in the United States matches solar availability,” said John O’Donnell, executive vice president of Ausra. Solar effectively generates electricity when the rates and demand are the highest.

Action is Needed to Advance Widespread Use of Solar Energy

Solar Companies

Large-scale use of solar energy depends on prices dropping to $3 per peak watt of electricity by 2018, according to the study. This involves quickly implementing advanced technologies in a cost-effective manner. Solar technology needs to be easier to install, thus reducing installation costs and other installations barriers.

Utility Companies

Utilities have become more and more interested in solar energy. California is a great example, where many utilities have signed purchase agreements for solar plant output. The U.S. will also need trained workers, which is another opportunity for utilities to take the lead.

A large investment in solar energy is needed for 10% of U.S. electricity to be generated by solar energy by 2025. Utilities will need to invest between $26 and $33 billion per year, a pretty hefty sum. To put this number in perspective, utilities invested $70 billion in 2007 on new power plants and transmission and distribution centers.

Solar Regulation and Policy

There is currently a 30% commercial tax credit for solar energy, but it is set to expire at the end of the year. There are purchase agreements for 3.2 gigawatts of concentrated solar power during 2007, but these solar power plants cannot be constructed before the tax credit expires. A long-term extension of the renewable energy tax credit is needed for large-scale use of solar energy. Many states also have renewable portfolio standards, but a national renewable portfolio standard would also help strengthen the industry.

Related Posts on Solar Energy

Solar Thermal Electricity: Can it Replace Coal, Gas, and Oil?
Senate Coalition Introduces Clean Energy Tax Package
Solar Panels and the Quest for $1/Watt
Clean Energy Intro: Solar Businesses
4 Things to Consider Before Going Solar

Photo Credit: Solar Service Inc of Illinois

In May, 1918, Captain Moses Roberts, Steven Vail and some unnamed investors formed a company called the Savannah Steam Ship Company and began the work necessary to build a ship that could cross the oceans using coal and wood heat to create steam power to assist the sails. S. S. Savannah made a successful two way crossing but was a financial failure. Sailing ships continued to dominate the seas, but engineers kept improving coal and wood heated steam engines for railroads and inland river travel.

Within twenty-five years after Savannah’s initial voyage steam ships began crossing the Atlantic regularly and within seventy years steam essentially replaced sails in commerce. I can testify that sails have never disappeared - I live in one of the world’s most sail addicted towns - but anyone who has ever operated both sail and power vessels understands that as a business vessel, a sailboat is a great hobby.

Not surprisingly, when fuel prices increase rapidly, people focus their attention on ways to save money on fuel purchases. They seek to reduce their specific fuel consumption and to find cheaper sources of fuel. Both can require trade offs.

One of the easiest ways to reduce consumption is to slow down, but slowing down reduces productivity. I know that some environmentally minded people might scoff and say, “so what”, but if all of the ships on the ocean slowed down by 10%, we would need 10% more ships to carry the same quantity of goods. Each of those ships would require materials and energy to build, they would be a bit less profitable and some of the owners might be tempted to find other ways to save money, like buying cheaper fuel.

With the large engines used on ships, there are often a variety of available fuel options at different price points, but the lower priced fuel often comes with some real environmental baggage. There has been a lot of attention paid - finally - to the fact that ocean going ships are prodigious sources of sulfur emissions and other noxious pollutants since they often burn the dregs left over from refining - a fuel known as residual fuel. Based on studies that made a big splash at the end of 2007, ship emissions are now considered to the source of about 60,000 early deaths every year.

A friend of mine pointed me to a post on Treehugger.com titled Slower Shipping Could Reduce GHG Impact that discussed additional options for reducing fuel cost and environmental impact. In addition to slower speeds, the post and associated comments mention schemes that add sails to assist in propulsion. When fuel prices are high enough, such schemes can provide a positive return on investment by cutting several percentage points of off some large fuel bills. (An ocean going ship with a 70 MW power plant would burn about 90,000 gallons of fuel every day. When marine diesel fuel costs $5 per gallon, a 5% fuel savings is worth $22,500 per day.)

My recommendation is different. Let’s get rid of all of the emissions, switch to a fuel that costs about 2% of the cost per unit heat (50 cents per million BTU versus $25 per million BTU) as marine diesel fuel, and increase shipping speed so that ocean going ships can more readily compete with aircraft for time sensitive shipments. It is possible to achieve that amazing feat using technology that has been in use for more than 50 years, all we have to do is to follow the example of another pioneering financial failure named Savannah.

Nuclear powered ships are well proven, there are tens of thousands of people around the world who know how to operate, build and maintain them, and they offer capabilities that the world needs today. Because nuclear ship propulsion plants would be much smaller than the commercial nuclear power plants that are currently either under construction or being planned, they would not necessarily have to wait in the same supply chain lines for large components.

There was a time (1962-1972) when the United States produced about 100 ocean going nuclear plants in just a decade; such an industrial effort today would yield great benefits. Just think about all of the emissions that would not be released and all of the oil that would no longer be burned at sea. The effect on the market price for the rest of us would be the same as finding a new deposit capable of expanding production to about 5-8 million barrels of oil per day. That is at least 2-3 times as large as ANWAR.

Update posted June 20, 2008: A couple of days after posting this, Joe Stroud contacted me to share an updated photo of the N.S. Savannah that was taken in Baltimore, Maryland on May 23, 2008. The date was 50 years to the day after her keel was laid in 1958. Until last year, Savannah had been slowly deteriorating in the James River Fleet, but the Maritime Administration has invested some money to stabilize and repaint her. Though her reactor has not operated for more than 30 years, she is still a pretty ship.

Photo credits: Schooner under full sail and Annapolis Sailboat Show from Rod Adams under Creative Commons.
N. S. Savannah under power from US Government archives.
Savannah moored in Baltimore, MD on May 23, 2008 with permission from Joe Stroud.

This most recent spate of reviling the human race was sparked by an opinion piece by Elizabeth R. Sawin from the Sustainability Institute. Her title was enough to make me smile: “$4.00 per Gallon Gasoline and Climate Change Both Call for the Same Solution: Collective Investment in Clean Energy.” I smiled again when she opened with a question she was recently asked: “What do you have to say about global warming to the whole segment of Americans who are just waking up to energy issues with $4.00 per gallon gasoline?”

Needless to say, my revulsion of the human species, or at least a vast majority of them (I have a variety of revulsions, this one is environmentally based), seem to have only just realized that maybe, just maybe, it might be a good idea to have a look for something other than fossil fuels to power our transportation.

And the terms “climate change” or “global warming” do not even register.

I must admit to a certain measure of childish glee, when I see petrol prices rising as they are. You see, I do not drive a car, and at 24, I have no real desire to drive one either. No doubt by the end of 2008 my peer group will have bullied me in to getting my license, but apart from the sporadic 3am drive to the supermarket for a chicken, my feet and my bike are all I need (and maybe the occasional bus/train ticket).

So at a time when petrol prices are skyrocketing and the US Senate defeating the Climate Security Act, people are suitably concerned. But as I mentioned, it isn’t because of any fear of melting ice-caps or drowning polar bears – although I like to think that many at least feel they should care about such things, even if they don’t actively do so.

Now Sawin quickly antagonizes a great magnitude of people out there by using the term “scientific consensus” to describe what is happening to our environment; it’s never a good move. But I don’t even want to discuss that. The point I want to make is this: how come with fuel prices getting higher than Willie Nelson, people don’t want a cheaper alternative?

It would seem to me that, even though you may be 100% against the idea that man has decided to pollute Earth in to oblivion (guess where I stand), surely you would like to be paying a little less to get to work in the morning? (Another gleeful admission: I work from home!) Wouldn’t you like to pay a little less to keep warm in the winter and cool in the summer? (I got nothing for those two! I’m sufferin’ like the rest of you!)

So if there ever comes a time where there is a vote to be cast, calls to be made and politicians to be swayed, make sure you do your part: vote to bring in alternative energies, call your local whatever and let him know! Because even if you don’t feel the environment needs the helping hand, I can sure bet that your hip-pocket wouldn’t mind one.

The General Accountability Office released a report on June 5, 2008 that computed that the US Treasury may have to forgo oil royalty payments in excess of $53 Billion over the next 25 years because of an error made by the Interior Department. This forgone money is not uncollected taxes, it is the government’s (taxpayers’s) share of the revenue produced by selling oil that originated from reservoirs under publicly owned sea beds.

Here is what happened. Congress, recognizing that drilling in deep water is difficult and costly, passed a law in 1995 giving the Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service authority to provide “royalty relief” for off shore leases. For those who do not keep long term oil prices readily at hand, the price of a barrel of oil in 1995 was between $12 and $18. For the leases issued under this authority in 1996, 1997, and 2000, the MMS included a trigger price where royalty payments would begin if market prices reached certain levels.

For some reason that is not well explained, the MMS failed to include any trigger price limit for the leases issued in 1998 and 1999. The production from areas leased during those two years may be royalty free for the entire length of the lease, no matter how high oil prices get. (In 1998, oil prices dipped below $10 per barrel in the late fall.)

The GAO report provides a number of scenarios that show how the lost revenues to the government will vary depending on actual production and prices and there is quite a range in the estimates from a low of a few billion to a high (assuming oil prices of $100 per barrel) of about $53 Billion. Of course, we all know that $100 per barrel might be a low ball estimate for future prices since we have already seen prices in excess of $130 per barrel.

Of course the oil companies are fighting any ex post facto imposition of royalty payments for 1998 and 1999 probably with good justification. However, what really gets me fired up is that Kerr-McGee has challenged the Interior Department’s authority to impose the trigger price for any of the years in question. I also felt like yelling at the radio when I heard that an oil industry spokesman defended the royalty free production as important for encouraging companies to drill domestic wells for improved energy security.

According to ExxonMobil’s summary annual report for 2007 (available in the investor information section of the company’s web site) it has spent $118 Billion during the years 2003-2007 simply purchasing its own stock. Its capital investment program for new drilling, tankers, pipelines, etc. was less than $90 billion during the same period. The company leadership has a right and a responsibility for making prudent capital allocation decisions, but please do not try to tell me that even a majority of the money saved by not paying royalties is plowed back into providing more energy resources for consumers.

ExxonMobil is not alone in its use of capital for stock buybacks instead of new drilling programs - see, for example Chevron Announces Stock Buyback Program

Though I am generally not a huge fan of government investment programs, it seems to me that even the Department of Energy could figure out ways to invest several billion dollars in new energy supply technology instead of using it to buy financial instruments like company stock.

Oops - I just realized that I might be confusing some people by advocating that the government could do a better job when I started the article with a description of a “mistake” (or was it - see Interior Staff Had Inappropriate Relationships with Oil Industry) by government employees that led to the loss of revenue in the first place. I guess I a just a hopeless romantic that believes that there could be such a thing as “good government” if we return to the concept of “public servants” who really do focus on developing career expertise and a service mindset. For you young people - such a thing used to be possible!

Photo credit - Rigjobs.co.uk

Related posts:
3 Hidden Costs of High Oil Prices
Texas Company Will Recycle Offshore Oil Platforms for Wind Turbines

Oil is destined to be a heated issue in this upcoming presidential election and Barack Obama’s opposition to the gas tax “holiday” has already been a hot topic. Obama has made it clear that national energy policy needs to be taken in a new direction.

“We send a billion dollars to foreign nations every single day and we are melting the polar ice caps in the bargain,” said Obama. “That has to change.”

Here are some of the key elements of Obama’s energy plan:

Fuel Economy Standards

Doubling fuel economy standards within the next 18 years is a priority to Obama. Research in engines and advanced lightweight materials will help meet this goal. He also wants to assist auto makers in increasing fuel economy standards through loan guarantees and tax credits for domestic auto manufacturers.

“We are going to raise fuel efficiency standards on cars because that is the only way that we can actually lower gas prices over the long-term and I know you need that,” said Obama.

Next Generation Biofuels

Obama’s goal is to have two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol in use by 2013. He plans to use tax incentives, government contracts and cash prizes to help this industry mature and specifically wants to encourage farmer-owned refineries. He would like renewable fuel standards to increase, such that 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels are in the fuel supply by 2030.

A National Low Carbon Fuel Standard is a mechanism that Obama plans to use that requires fuel suppliers to decrease carbon emissions from fuels by 10% by 2020 and he specifically wants to encourage non-petroleum fuels to reach this target.

“The only way we are going to seriously reduce the price of gas is if we actually start investing in alternative fuels and we raise fuel standards on cars,” said Obama.

Renewable Energy

By 2025, Obama would like 25% of U.S. electricity to be generated from clean, renewable sources including wind, solar and geothermal with a Renewable Portfolio Standard. Obama calls for $150 billion to be invested over 10 years in clean energy and infrastructure to support it. Investment in a national digital electric grid would allow greater amounts of renewable energy to be utilized and make plug-in hybrids more environmentally sound.

“For the sake of our security, our economy, our jobs and our planet, the age of oil must end in our time,” said Obama.

Related Posts on Renewable Energy:

Germans Debate Renewable Energy Supports
Solar Thermal Electricity: Can it Replace Coal, Gas, and Oil
Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008 Lacks Support
Congressional Bills that Address Climate Change

Image credit: Radiospike Photography at Flickr under a Creative Commons license

Lower Image Credit: Compliments of Solar Service Inc.

1-Difficult to Extract Oil & High Environmental Impact

High oil prices are making it economically viable to utilize oil that is difficult to extract. One example of this is just north of the border.

In the U.S., our single biggest source of foreign oil is from Canada. Although this may be reassuring from a foreign policy standpoint, much of this oil comes with a steep environmental price tag. Known as tar sands oil, 2 tons of sand are needed to produce one barrel of oil in a very resource and energy intensive process.

One technique that is used is to mine the sand leaves huge holes in the earth and devastates the ecosystem. Another technique involves injecting steam underground, requiring large amounts of energy. Tar sands oil generates 2-3 times the greenhouse gas when compared to conventional oil.

“It is quit alarming from an ecological standpoint,” said David Fields of Greenpeace Canada. “Developing the tar sand will make it impossible for us to effectively tackle climate change.

2-Difficult to Extract Oil is an Unreliable Supply

There are reasons why many sources of oil were overlooked in the past. Some are in areas that are populated, making it difficult to obtain permits. Other oil reserves rely on large amounts of energy, making the operation vulnerable to fluctuating energy costs.

Going back to the Canadian tar sands example, large quantities of natural gas are needed to extract this oil. In the cool Canadian climate, large amounts of natural gas are also used to heat homes. If natural gas prices spike or Canadians prioritize conservation of natural gas reserves over short-term profits, this source of oil could dry up.

3-Oil Companies are More Powerful as Profits Increase

In 2007, Exxon made nearly $1300 a second in profits. With record high corporate profits, Exxon reported annual earning of $40.61 billion. While Americans are spending at the pump, the power of this company is increasing. Unfortunately, some of the companies that are rolling in dough are not necessarily ideal corporate citizens.

Exxon has refused to pay court ordered fines for the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 to help compensate the fishermen for loss of their livelihood. The company has also supported groups that question global warming, a practice that has even been criticized by other oil companies.

The political power of oil companies is staggering and is a special interest that is often not in line with what is best for society. The oil industry has donated $180 million to political candidates since 1989. 89% of political donations made by Exxon went to republican candidates.

As with all complex situations, there are numerous positive and negative aspects. What other hidden factors do you find noteworthy?

Related Articles on Transportation Fuels:

U.S. Oil Subsidies Need to Go
22 Biodiesel Myths Dispelled
Fuel from Trash Will Power California Garbage Trucks

Them: I am deeply concerned about global climate change and the effects of mankind’s continued use of dirty fossil fuels on our planet’s health.
Me: I used to operate power plants that produced zero emissions. What do you think about taking a new look at using nuclear power to replace fossil fuel consumption? Them: I do not like nuclear power. We can get all the power that we need by conservation, wind, solar and biomass.
Me: How do you expect for windmills and solar panels to produce power when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining? Can you really shut down fossil plants if you build wind turbines and put solar panels on buildings?
Them: No, but the grid can provide all the back-up we need. We already have paid for building the existing plants and should not spend any money on building new ones while we transition to a new economy where we can live within our natural energy income.
Me: But that means that we have to continue extracting and burning fossil fuels when we could be building plants that make them unnecessary.
Them: I do not like nuclear power and do not want to replace one poison with another.

These conversations often go on far longer until either I or my opponent gives up from frustration or exhaustion.

As a technically trained power plant operator, I have apparently not learned the right words to use to convince people that comparing wind and solar power to a reliable electricity supply is a bit like comparing a bicycle to a city bus or a metro rail.

Sure, the sun and wind are forces that man can harness to do work or make electricity, just like a bicycle is a pretty good form of transportation in certain circumstances. However, I would look pretty silly trying to carry dozens of people on my bicycle. In fact, it gets pretty challenging just to carry enough stuff with me to provide a change of clothing and a raincoat in case of inclement weather. My legs are in pretty good shape, but I need a rest after about 25 miles.

When it comes to reliable power that is available on demand, it is hard to beat a fossil fuel powered generator, unless, of course you have a generator that runs off of the heat produced by an atomic fission reactor. As a guy who used to operate an electric power grid that ran almost exclusively on fission power - granted, it was a small, self-contained grid on a ship - I can personally testify that the system works fine and lasts a long (long, long) time. I have been an ocean sailor and spent enough days becalmed to also be able to testify that the sun sets every single day, making solar cells worthless as a power source until well after sunrise the next day, and the wind changes direction or disappears without any warning more often than many people care to admit.

Reducing fossil fuels for power production so that humans cause less damage to the planet is a big, difficult endeavor. It seems silly to undertake that challenge without using the best available tools. The photo accompanying this post is from just one of hundreds, perhaps thousands of the world’s operating coal mines that currently supply about 6 Billion tons of coal each year. That is my target competition when I think about the benefits of investing the time, effort and treasure required to build new nuclear power plants.

Help me, folks. Why is it so difficult to agree that uranium fission competes with fossil fuel combustion and that conservation, wind, sun and biomass “alternatives” are simply not in the same power generation league?

Related links:
First High Resolution Wind Map
Cost of Wind vs Cost of Nuclear to Replace Coal
Nuclear vs. Wind Farms Debate - rather misses the point.

Update (posted May 20, 2008 at 1800 EDT) There is a great article on the front page of Wired dated May 19, 2008 titled Inconvenient Truths: Cutting Carbon Is the Only Thing That Matters. One of the 10 inconvenient truths listed is that environmentalists should EMBRACE NUCLEAR POWER: Face It. Nukes Are the Most Climate-Friendly Industrial-Scale Form of Energy

After hearing President Bush blame Congress for our country’s high gas, food, and energy prices yesterday, I still wasn’t convinced that drilling in ANWR would solve all of our problems (note: sarcasm).

It turns out that voters, at least according to a poll of 1,200 Americans conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates Inc., feel the same way.

Not only did fifty-seven percent of voters rate energy issues as “very serious” concern, but they also thought investment in renewable energy was the best solution:

What is the best way to solve America’s energy problems? According to 51 percent of voters, the answer is to invest in renewable energy sources; 28 percent call for energy efficiency and conservation policies; and only 17 percent favor more drilling and mining for domestic fossil fuels.

This wouldn’t be a bad thing for potential presidential candidates to take into account, even focus on, if they can afford to be so bold. I can guarantee it will be at the top of my list of voting criteria.

For more, see yesterday’s post, Bush Blames Congress for High Electricity, Food, And Gas Prices.

While the national average price of gasoline is now $3.60, some residents of Utah are happily filling up on compressed natural gas (CNG) at $0.63 per gallon. That’s the country’s lowest price for CNG, which has understandably caused a surge in demand for vehicles running on a fuel that one man described as “practically free.”

So far, CNG vehicles haven’t made a blip on my radar screen, even though the group Natural Gas Vehicles for America (NGVA) estimates there are 150,000 NGVs on U.S. roads today and over 5 million worldwide. It took a phone call from sunny Southern Utah to clue me in to recent developments, which include a local refueling station overflowing with CNG-hungry vehicles.

There are about 1500 CNG refueling stations in the US, which is about the same number of commercial stations offering E85 ethanol blends. Utah has a total of 91 CNG filling stations, most of which are reserved for commercial fleet use, but there are 20 open to the public. According to an article by the Associated Press, you could drive Utah from top to bottom and hit 22 different stations offering compressed natural gas.

The NGVA also says there are 50 different manufacturers producing 150 models of light, medium and heavy-duty vehicles and engines that run on compressed natural gas. Unfortunately, there’s only one for sale to individuals, Honda’s Civic GX, and it’s only offered in California and New York (although Utah could be next on the list). California ranks highest in number of CNG refueling stations, but fuel prices are also higher—more like $2.50 per gallon.

There’s so much demand now in Utah for CNG-ready vehicles that Honda can’t make them fast enough. Savvy customers are buying the vehicles from other states and shipping them back for sale. But waiting for a new Honda Civic GX to role off the assembly line isn’t the only option. It’s also possible to convert a used vehicle to run on natural gas, like Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who converted his state-owned Chevy Suburban. And for either used or new vehicles, the tax incentives are substantial. Combining state and federal tax credits in Utah can almost completely offset the approximately $7,000 difference in price between regular and CNG-ready vehicles.

One of the major benefits of using compressed natural gas is a significant reduction in emissions when compared to gasoline. Compressed natural gas is touted as the “cleanest burning” alternative fuel available, since the simplicity of the methane molecule reduces tailpipe emissions of different pollutants by 35-97%. Not quite as dramatic is the reduction in net greenhouse-gas emissions, which is about the same as corn-grain ethanol at about a 20% reduction over gasoline.

The big question in Utah is whether or not the infrastructure can keep up with the amount of new CNG cars on the road. Utah already has 5,000 CNG vehicles, up from none a few years ago, essentially overwhelming the refueling network.

Then, of course, there’s the question of natural gas supply. According to the NGVA, worldwide supply of natural gas is almost infinite, assuming we can tap into methane hydrate ice formations at the bottom of the arctic oceans. If we can’t figure that out, we can just drill more (please note the sarcastic tone):

…there are huge natural gas resources on public lands in the U.S. that currently are off-limits to drilling. These include areas a hundred miles or more off the coast of Florida and America’s east and west coast as well as the Rocky Mountain area. The current run-up in natural gas prices is increasing political pressure to allow gas exploration and production in these areas.

More promising is the potential of bio-methane, or the production of methane from the natural breakdown of plant material, something already captured by landfills in the US. The NGVA says that waste biomass could supply enough natural gas for about 11 million natural gas vehicles, which is approximately 5% of the nation’s automotive fleet.

This is certainly something to watch out for, and maybe even participate in if you live in Utah. Now that it’s got my attention, I’ll be taking a closer look at the Honda Civic GX this week, a car that has been called the cleanest burning vehicle on the planet.

More on Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles:

The Cleanest Cars on Earth: Honda Civic GX and Other Natural Gas Vehicles (NGVs)

For more on this story, see Natural-gas vehicles hot in Utah, where the fuel is cheap. Also see How Natural Gas Vehicles Work for more background.

Photo Credit

This morning on NPR, President Bush tried to blame congress for the nation’s high gas, food, and electricity prices. Apparently, Congress has been thwarting the President’s attempts to fix the economy:

“I’ve repeatedly submitted proposals to help address these problems,” the president said. “Yet time after time, Congress chose to block them.”

The President proposed dealing with high gas prices by “environmentally safe” drilling the the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, better known as ANWR.

“It’s been more than 30 years since America built its last new refinery, yet in this area, too, Congress has repeatedly blocked efforts to expand capacity and build more refineries,” Bush said.

Drilling in ANWR makes perfect sense, since it would supply 876,000 barrels of oil per day to a country that consumes 20,687,000 barrels of oil per day. To put that in perspective, 876,000 barrels is about 1 hour worth of oil, or over the course of a year amounts to about 15 days of US oil consumption.

Of course, we wouldn’t reach 876,000 barrels of oil per day until production peaked in 2025, assuming the oil started flowing by 2013. According to an analysis by the Energy Information Administration back in 2004 (that’s where these numbers come from), peak oil production in ANWR “might reduce world oil prices by as much as 30 to 50 cents per barrel, relative to a projected 2025 world oil price of $27 per barrel.”

Even if the analysis was spot-on about the price of oil (only $100 dollars off), would 30 to 50 cents make a difference? The analysis went on to say that OPEC (being OPEC) would probably “countermand” any change in price by reducing an equivalent amount of oil exports.

So how is it going to help the average American to drill in ANWR? It probably wouldn’t. With oil at $120 a barrel and rising steadily, the only thing that’s clear is how lucrative the proposal would be for oil companies.

Bush also mentioned lifting federal gas and diesel taxes (18.4 cents and 24.4 cents per gallon, respectively) over the summer, another move that would make a huge difference in long term energy security. I think Barack Obama is right about this one: it’s a “gimmick that won’t provide any significant relief to motorists.”

At a meeting with voters in North Carolina on Monday, Mr. Obama said lifting the gas tax for three months would save the average consumer no more than $30, a figure confirmed by Congressional analysts. Mr. Obama has previously dismissed Mr. McCain’s proposal as a “scheme.”

“Half a tank of gas,” Mr. Obama told his audience. “That’s his big solution.”

How about raising petroleum taxes and investing in renewable energy infrastructure? How about setting up a tax on carbon emissions like British Columbia just did? Anything but continuing to invest so heavily in a resource that’s on its way out.

It’s time to start looking for real solutions, and gracefully acquiescing that it’s the end of an era.

To hear Bush’s speech, listen to the NPR show from this morning. Have a comment on this topic? Share it below.