tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4934359627241711962024-02-07T10:10:11.152-08:00Rational Energy Policy by Dr. KingThis blog exists to discuss rational energy policy options that make use of existing resources (e.g. fossil fuels, natural resources, and renewable resources) with the goal of knowing how to properly transition from a fossil fuel and energy intensive society when necessary.
So when is necessary? This blog helps to discuss the arguments for determining just that.Carey Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13596147153251776263noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-493435962724171196.post-57589788054126063242009-02-22T08:33:00.001-08:002009-02-22T08:46:35.132-08:00On the Decrease in Texas' CO2 emissions from 2000 to 2005<span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:180%;" >Introduction<br /></span><br />On January 29, the Environmental Defense Fund, together with the UK Consulate, hosted a climate conference at the capitol: “Texas’ Changing Economic Climate.” At the beginning of the conference, we heard a personal message from Prince Charles of Wales to the State of Texas imploring Texans to lead the US, and hence the world in climate mitigation. At the end of the conference, one of our elected officials suggested Texas may in fact already be a leader in carbon emissions mitigation while at the same time increasing the gross state product. And if Texas has been taking this leadership role by promoting things like a business-friendly environment and a deregulated electricity market, then perhaps other states, and countries, should look to Texas for how to mitigate carbon emissions.<br /><br />Are those claims true? Is Texas a leader in reducing carbon emissions while increasing economic productivity?<br /><br />On the surface, it seems plausible. From 2000 to 2005, total CO2 emissions in the state decreased 4.4 percent while economic output increased 16.5 percent. But dig deeper, and claims of real leadership on climate mitigation evaporate. It turns out that global energy prices were the main drivers of those changes, not the state’s regulatory environment or business initiatives. Much of the CO2 reduction came from decreased natural gas use by the chemical industry as a result of the rising cost of natural gas. Electricity deregulation in Texas fostered the increased use of natural gas combined cycle technology for electricity generation – helping to maintain relatively steady electric sector CO2 emissions since 2000. Much of the rise in the state’s economic output is attributable to the oil and gas industry, buoyed by the same rise in global energy prices.<br /><br />It is a mistake to think that significant steady and long term CO2 emissions reductions, together with increased gross state product, can be achieved by simply continuing actions of the past five to ten years.<br /><br />This report examines the data behind claims that Texas has been a leader in reducing carbon emissions while increasing economic productivity. The data shows that the external economic factor of higher energy prices was the main driver in decreasing emissions in Texas from 2000 to 2005, not our pro-business or deregulatory policies. Furthermore, Texas must prepare for the future. Federal climate legislation is on the horizon. This legislation is likely to impose constraints on the Texas economy that will demand even greater reductions in emissions. Texas and the rest of the US states should work to understand how specific industries and consumers will be affected by a federal CO2 constraint. By promoting those businesses that are well-positioned and facilitating restructuring for those ill-positioned, Texas can successfully transition to and maintain leadership within the new carbon-constrained energy economy.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Texas CO2 emissions data</span></span><br /><br />In looking at aggregated data from the Energy Information Administration of the Department of Energy, from 2000 to 2005, the CO2 emissions of Texas went from 654 million metric tons (MtCO2) to 625 MtCO2 – a decrease of 4.4%F F. By looking at the data in Figure 1, one can see that the peak year for Texas CO2 emissions was 2002 at 672 MtCO2. Emissions in both 1999 and 2001 were less than in 2000 with the decrease from 1999 to 2005 being only 0.2%, as Texas’ CO2 emissions in 1999 are listed at 626 MtCO2. Thus, in thinking about a specific baseline year for CO2 emissions, the choice can have a large impact. This fact provides reasoning for using a running average that can level out short-term fluctuations in the economy and energy prices.<br /><br />The evidence for the emissions decrease is revealed by looking one level deep into the data – emissions from the industrial sector (see Figure 2). In 2005, the Texas industrial sector was responsible for 179 MtCO2 compared to 218 in 2000 – a 17.6% decrease. As a comparison, the drop in the overall US industrial sector emissions was only 6.4%. No other major sector, transportation or electric power, decreased in emissions in Texas during the 2000-2005 span. Furthermore, the Texas industrial sector is dominated by the consumption of natural gas as they are correlated very closely: Texas total consumption of natural gas dropped 21% from 2000 to 2005.<br /><br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0OlkB6kJxhkeImq4qc-gGmOzxxidQlqz7GAC7odcw2RMWRwJ8VRvtJ8QR3RmfKPZzie22EVm4Swn0e6n0dwhbdikA96hG7-NgVdKZZkPg1nV3e-hj-B-DRAI0T7dgy7cJCnDlGUThPAN-/s1600-h/Figure1.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0OlkB6kJxhkeImq4qc-gGmOzxxidQlqz7GAC7odcw2RMWRwJ8VRvtJ8QR3RmfKPZzie22EVm4Swn0e6n0dwhbdikA96hG7-NgVdKZZkPg1nV3e-hj-B-DRAI0T7dgy7cJCnDlGUThPAN-/s320/Figure1.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5305662855652418962" border="0" /></a>Figure 1. Texas’ CO2 emissions by fuel.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8opfr3H_CxUFv8o8k7ObRbmDu9IrIZAmPMEOcCi8L5OBHAqzW9il23D-zQQQUoTtNPMe87mgqeRMBkD6vQu6kIDsRpFAOqomkJhV2gbK1zedGqUhlUBdjbv2g2-jINkE3yZLCgr9pVf2R/s1600-h/Figure2.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8opfr3H_CxUFv8o8k7ObRbmDu9IrIZAmPMEOcCi8L5OBHAqzW9il23D-zQQQUoTtNPMe87mgqeRMBkD6vQu6kIDsRpFAOqomkJhV2gbK1zedGqUhlUBdjbv2g2-jINkE3yZLCgr9pVf2R/s320/Figure2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5305662710977969794" border="0" /></a><br />Figure 2. Texas’ CO2 emissions by sector.<br /><br />Table 1. Comparison of US and Texas CO2 emissions from 2000 to 2005. Emissions in Texas and the US (MtCO2)<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkpBCFtPlv48UUfELEQ1_hxWSlT6pJ8fVnPG13OPXCjQJapp7gTLzqRzppuxdIRM3rmMFFmgtn031wD8vwulPcIviYcsUydESpRpnz57oJ96mXdXJyRqzXFE3i3NzTWJ7yhXjD4lxZMq9j/s1600-h/Table1.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkpBCFtPlv48UUfELEQ1_hxWSlT6pJ8fVnPG13OPXCjQJapp7gTLzqRzppuxdIRM3rmMFFmgtn031wD8vwulPcIviYcsUydESpRpnz57oJ96mXdXJyRqzXFE3i3NzTWJ7yhXjD4lxZMq9j/s320/Table1.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5305663841138732146" border="0" /></a><br /><br />Table 1 presents a comparison of Texas and total US CO2 emissions. From the 2000 to 2005 time span, US emissions increased 2.4% and Texas emissions decreased 4.4% such that in 2005, Texas accounted for 10.3% of US CO2 emissions. With an estimated population of just over 24 million, Texas residents are approximately 8% of total US population. As is often noted by Texans, their disproportionately high emissions per capita has much to do with a large industrial base that exports products and fuels to the rest of the US and the world.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:180%;" >Interpreting Texas CO2 emissions data</span><br /><br />There is an important question to ask in terms of interpreting the data showing a drop in industrial natural gas usage and subsequent emissions: Did the industries in Texas quit making as many goods or find a way to make the same amount, or even more, goods while consuming less natural gas?<br /><br />From 2000 to 2005, the Texas Comptroller of Public AccountsF F shows that the gross state product increased from $850 billion to $989 billion in constant 2005 dollars. This is a 16.5% increase in economic output. During that same 2000-2005 span, Texas’ total industrial output dropped a few percent before coming back to 2000 levels (see Figure 3). The only industries with substantial economic growth were oil and gas extraction, refining, and primary metals (not shown). The real price of oil and natural gas rose 40% from 2000 to 2005 – and roughly doubled from 1999 to 2005, providing substantial income and revenue to the Texas oil and gas sector, as well as the state budget. However, the chemical sector, which uses substantial quantities of natural gas as a feedstock was down 11%, perhaps tied to the increase in cost of natural gas. Additionally, a 13% drop in employment in the chemical industry from 2000 to 2005 provides some evidence to a drop in the number of chemical goods produced.<br /><br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjvMgh0ii_bgftrLbtIbFK5Zu816d6dHaeAV6-Ytfq7apUQxbYC6sz8MFPtKOH1Lym76x7oRxh3ji1mCqnkN_nF3WD_1bBtc850addRlOApQsq80fN-bJledOdc-39ou8s3r-enr2Tlm4A/s1600-h/Figure3.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjvMgh0ii_bgftrLbtIbFK5Zu816d6dHaeAV6-Ytfq7apUQxbYC6sz8MFPtKOH1Lym76x7oRxh3ji1mCqnkN_nF3WD_1bBtc850addRlOApQsq80fN-bJledOdc-39ou8s3r-enr2Tlm4A/s320/Figure3.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5305661802523262002" border="0" /></a><br /><br />Figure 3. Industrial productions indices for Texas.<br /><br />One can still ask what industrial energy efficiency improvements occurred early this decade in Texas. At the beginning of 2000, approximately 10.3 MW of cogeneration was installed in Texas. By the end of 2005, this was 17.5 MW – a 71% increase in capacity in six yearsF F. This is important because cogeneration, also commonly known as combined heat and power facilities, get more useful energy out of the same amount of fuel. Generating electricity and heat from more efficient systems decreases fuel consumption and emissions when it displaces less efficient systems.<br />However, electricity generation within the industrial sector was relatively constant from 2000 to 2005. Electricity generation from combined heat and power (CHP) facilities increased from 70 to 97 million MWh from 2000 to 2002, and then decreased to 85 million MWh by 2005. Overall, CHP generation increased 21% from 2000 to 2005, practically all outside of the industrial sector. Thus, many CHP facilities were installed, but the demand for their services did not seem to hold up.<br /><br />The signing of SB 7 in 1999 began the deregulated electricity market in Texas. This change in policy ended up launching a tremendous increase in the installation and use of natural gas combined cycle units (NGCC) for electricity generation (see Figure 4). However, the move to NGCC generation technology had already begun in the early 1980’s. The NGCC units use the excess heat from a combustion turbine to generate steam for a steam turbine. This combination makes NGCC power generation much more efficient than generating electricity from either the steam or combustion turbine alone. Amazingly, Figure 4 shows the clear impact that deregulation policy had on the strategy in the electric power sector. From 2000 to 2005 the installations of NGCC units increased by 400%.<br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgalDN3wXg3Ip9a3XLpbivk1n0wslURSsc_GVvuJIbFLoeAmTlJJM9xNlMsW1Q70l0QSu0FY3NZJmsthvfdAdVDcATrpjVvW5-HuIMabIT_7OyKqpB5m3VAIkLItzmy1tOHuqaDnSo_irwd/s1600-h/Figure4.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgalDN3wXg3Ip9a3XLpbivk1n0wslURSsc_GVvuJIbFLoeAmTlJJM9xNlMsW1Q70l0QSu0FY3NZJmsthvfdAdVDcATrpjVvW5-HuIMabIT_7OyKqpB5m3VAIkLItzmy1tOHuqaDnSo_irwd/s320/Figure4.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5305661385064680562" border="0" /></a><br />Figure 4. The cumulative installed capacity of natural gas plants in Texas shows that installation of combined cycle plants increased significantly starting in 2000F F. ST = steam turbine operating stand-alone, CT = combustion turbine of an NGCC plant, CA = steam turbine of a NGCC plant, GT = gas combustion turbine operating stand-alone, and CS = an NGCC plant where the combustion turbine and steam turbine are connected mechanically.<br /><br />The employment situation in the industrial manufacturing sector shows a marked contraction (see Figure 5). Employment in the chemical and plastics industry was representative of the overall Texas manufacturing employment trend from 2000 to 2005. Employment in the oil and gas extraction industry was slightly up from 2000 to 2005, and followed the continually climbing energy prices through 2007. Interestingly, even in some industries that saw economic growth during the time span of interest due to an increase in prices for the manufactured good, employment went down (e.g. primary metals). Also, industries that experienced decreasing employment are many of those that are energy and natural gas intensive.<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2XCDXAQIKCxWbFf_JXxkqMMVT_3AKS1KmggNlLO5IO_xzQn-2JsnEu6BhVkj50RF0F4HzoC041O1wuKxcE2SBry9Wh37iU87-Y6nKx40DoXiu46yHyBn9g1_str32b9e24h3hH8c65_Kl/s1600-h/Figure5.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2XCDXAQIKCxWbFf_JXxkqMMVT_3AKS1KmggNlLO5IO_xzQn-2JsnEu6BhVkj50RF0F4HzoC041O1wuKxcE2SBry9Wh37iU87-Y6nKx40DoXiu46yHyBn9g1_str32b9e24h3hH8c65_Kl/s320/Figure5.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5305661057037983858" border="0" /></a><br /><br />Figure 5. Employment indices for the overall Texas manufacturing sector as well as selected industries.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Conclusions</span><br /><br />What this analysis shows are a few major points regarding Texas gross state product and CO2 emissions from 2000 to 2005: (1) the major growth of the Texas gross state product increased during the first half of this decade due to a rise in global energy prices and increased value of chemical products, (2) the boom in natural gas cogeneration installations does not nearly account for the 32% drop in natural gas consumption in the industrial sector as the generation from these facilities only slightly increased from 2000 to 2005, and (3) a drop in cogeneration systems from 2002-2005 together with a drop in output from the chemical industry accounts for a large portion of the decrease in natural gas consumption, and subsequently Texas’ CO2 emissions. Texas’ emissions may have even slightly decreased since 2005 with continued increases in natural gas and oil prices.<br />It is a mistake to think that significant steady and long term CO2 emissions reductions, together with increased gross state product, can be achieved by simply continuing actions of the past five to ten years. High energy prices benefit some Texas industries while hurting others, and there is evidence to suggest that higher energy prices have been influential in decreasing emissions from 2000 to 2005. Impending federal climate legislation will impose constraints on the economy that go beyond the reductions in emissions that have occurred in Texas as a consequence of external factors rather than by directed policy. Texas and the rest of the US states should work to understand how specific industries and consumers will be affected by a CO2 constraint. By promoting those businesses that are well-positioned and facilitating restructuring for those ill-positioned, Texas can successfully transition to and maintain leadership within the new carbon-constrained energy economy.Carey Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13596147153251776263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-493435962724171196.post-53486893033112319662009-01-14T16:05:00.000-08:002009-01-14T16:12:49.480-08:00Texas Renewable Energy Assessment is outThe new State Energy Conservation Office report regarding the Renewable Energy Potential of Texas is now available online at:<br /><br /><span style=";font-family:Tahoma;color:navy;" ></span><a href="http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/publications/renewenergy/">http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/publications/renewenergy/</a><br /><br />This report is an update from the original 1995 report. As another major reference<br /><br />Myself and <a href="http://www.webberenergygroup.com/">Dr. Michael Webbe</a>r are co-authors on the chapter regarding energy from water resources in Texas. This water chapter is not that exciting for Texas, but we do describe some of the latest concepts in the chapter. You can also see how much (really how little) electric generation comes from hydropower while you recall the large impact that the Colorado River hydropower facilities on the quality of life for those in the Hill Country. Thank LBJ for lobbying ... or whatever he did to "get things done" ... for those back in his early days.<br /><br />For further general reference, also see the <a href="http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/">State Comptroller's Texas Energy Report</a> on overall energy resources and usage in Texas.Carey Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13596147153251776263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-493435962724171196.post-50113695286942987332009-01-12T20:23:00.001-08:002009-01-12T21:00:35.314-08:00Oil Import Interactive Map and Energy Consumption over Long Time ScalesThe <a href="http://www.rmi.org/">Rocky Mountain Institute</a> has created an interesting way to view <a href="http://move.rmi.org/features/oilmap.html">how oil imports into the U.S. have changed over time</a>. You are able to see the magnitude of oil flowing from each exporting country for each month since 1973. Notice how imports from Iran go away after the second oil crisis.<br /><br />Personally, I like to view view fossil fuel usage from a more historical perspective. The image below is a different "hockey stick" graph than the one most commonly referred to that shows CO2 or temperature increases in the last 30-40 years.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcWyONM8Vp3PkUk5RAhqDtFNiQuntQbR81NwpeBrb6rd7g0X1vzE-5ucRz0Bo9RPci30yb3e35vXA-76WoHJ7kJrgRhorMo-dfIwoSyT3d1T-uSPoFl-50fYW0qVDlxwOZz33l1OxJeIvc/s1600-h/NrgGDP_vs_IndustrialTime.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcWyONM8Vp3PkUk5RAhqDtFNiQuntQbR81NwpeBrb6rd7g0X1vzE-5ucRz0Bo9RPci30yb3e35vXA-76WoHJ7kJrgRhorMo-dfIwoSyT3d1T-uSPoFl-50fYW0qVDlxwOZz33l1OxJeIvc/s320/NrgGDP_vs_IndustrialTime.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5290632540753040850" border="0" /></a>Figure 1. The world primary energy consumption and GDP over the last 300 years.<br /><br /><br />The image of Figure 1 shows the primary energy consumption and Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The basic point here is that the large increase in energy consumption has only been enabled by fossil fuels. Notice the first steam engine was built in 1712 by Newcomen. What does this graph look like when we look over the time scale of human civilization? I would not call it a hockey stick shape any more, but perhaps a wall of energy consumption (see Figure 2). Think about energy independence and sustainability when you contemplate Figure 2.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgV_WwFnmrAPT1fSNWz-qWNId3PxHeJB2NHjVQdCIZEicRMCYDwHrkFJUosR8jWvtDc6yrJu8sT93JX5POKk4rOV7z9c3UVf-w6d8oTyX6n0tjvgfcs9_32Wg63yLgtftHJ4lkfPkKQNS3h/s1600-h/NrgGDP_vs_CivilizationTime.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgV_WwFnmrAPT1fSNWz-qWNId3PxHeJB2NHjVQdCIZEicRMCYDwHrkFJUosR8jWvtDc6yrJu8sT93JX5POKk4rOV7z9c3UVf-w6d8oTyX6n0tjvgfcs9_32Wg63yLgtftHJ4lkfPkKQNS3h/s320/NrgGDP_vs_CivilizationTime.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5290637953570824274" border="0" /></a><br />Figure 2. The world primary energy consumption and GDP over the last 6000 years.Carey Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13596147153251776263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-493435962724171196.post-38103095754112576752008-12-09T20:44:00.000-08:002008-12-09T20:55:30.552-08:00Water and Transportation FuelsView my white paper on Sigma Xi regarding the water consumption required for various types of alternative fuels. See: <a href="http://www.sigmaxi.org//programs/issues/King.pdf">http://www.sigmaxi.org//programs/issues/King.pdf</a>. (also see below for full text of article if link).<br /><br />In this white paper I refer to an article I wrote in <a href="http://pubs.acs.org/journal/esthag">Environmental Science and Technology </a>on this same subject of the <a href="http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es800367m?prevSearch=king+water+fuels&searchHistoryKey=">Water Intensity of Transportation</a>. In this paper I calculate the "gallons of water per mile" that are embodied via consumption (meaning mostly evaporated) and withdrawal (taken from a water source and returned to the source) during farming, mining, processing, and refining of feedstocks into fuels.<br /><br />Feedstocks studied are petroleum, coal, natural gas, sun, wind, biomass (corn and soy).<br />Fuels studied are ethanol, gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, electricity, hydrogen, and natural gas.<br /><br /><br />FULL SIGMA XI ARTICLE:<br />On the Water Consumption for Transportation Fuels<br />Carey W. King, Ph.D.<br />University of Texas at Austin<br />Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy<br /><br />Driving light duty vehicles (LDV) on most alternative fuels and energy sources will<br />consume more water per mile driven than by driving on gasoline and diesel1. The<br />exceptions are using compressed natural gas with natural gas powered pumps, electricity<br />derived from non-thermal renewable electricity (e.g. solar PV and wind), and hydrogen<br />derived from either electrolysis of water using non-thermal renewable electricity or steam<br />methane reforming. To effectively plan for the environmental consequences of moving<br />from high energy density petroleum to lower quality fossil fuels and biomass, we must<br />not unduly distribute fuels with low energy return on investment. Water consumption is<br />just one environmental attribute for focus, but an important one from a quantity and<br />quality perspective.<br /><br />In 2003 the average fuel efficiency of the U.S. LDV fleet was 20.5 mpg of gasoline.<br />These gasoline vehicles consume, via embodied water in mining and refining, 0.1-0.2<br />gallons of water per mile (gal H2O/mile). Using tar sands, coal, and oil shale converted to<br />liquids consumes 0.3-0.5 gal H2O/mile. If using electricity from the average U.S.<br />generation mix, driving a car using an electric motor from a battery consumes 0.2-0.3 gal<br />H2O/mile. If the grid electricity is used for electrolysis of water to create hydrogen, using<br />that hydrogen in a fuel cell vehicle results in consumption of 0.4-0.5 gal H2O/mile. Using<br />non-thermal renewable electricity for electric and fuel cell vehicles consumes less than<br />0.05 gal H2O/mile, and obtaining the hydrogen from steam methane reforming of natural<br />gas consumes just under 0.1 gal H2O/mile.<br /><br />The other major category of potential LDV fuels is biofuels. If the biomass feedstock is<br />irrigated, using so-called “blue water” from aquifers and reservoirs, the water<br />consumption for corn-based ethanol (E85) and soy-based biodiesel is orders of magnitude<br />higher than other fuels with U.S. averages of 28 and 8 gal H2O/mile, respectively. Note<br />that only 10% of soy and 15-20% of corn bushels are irrigated in the U.S. However, some<br />highly irritating regions of the U.S. could embody over 100 gal H2O/mile by growing<br />irrigated corn converted to E85. Cellulosic-based irrigated grasses could result in 1-9 gal<br />H2O/mile of consumption. Without irrigation, fueling today’s fleet of LDVs using E85<br />ethanol and soy biodiesel would consume 0.1-0.4 gal H2O/mile, comparable to<br />unconventional fossil conversions.<br /><br />For almost any product or application, but certainly for agriculture, the embodied water is<br />essentially transferred to drier regions. For instance, in providing food aid to developing<br />nations, the U.S. essentially becomes a net exporter of water – that is water embodied in<br />the exported food. If a given region does not have the climate, or irrigation water source,<br />1 King, C. W. and Webber M. E. Water Intensity of Transportation. Env. Sci. & Tech. Online<br />9/24/08 at: http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/esthag/asap/abs/es800367m.html.<br />for growing a certain crop, importing that crop may be a good option. However, should<br />the irrigation water be drawn from a fossil aquifer, the same crop grown under a different<br />circumstance will not be sustainable in the long term and should be considered a fossil<br />fuel itself simply based upon its supply chain, or life cycle. The irrigation of biomass<br />represents the growing of that biomass in areas with insufficient rainfall. This<br />relationship itself does not necessarily imply a lack of sustainability. For instance,<br />diverting nearby river water into a reservoir can create a stable supply source that can<br />withstand the normal climactic variations in rainfall.<br /><br />The embodied water concept for agriculture can also be applied to biofuels but with<br />additional focus upon thermodynamics and energy return on investment (EROI). Many<br />regions may import some sugar cane-based ethanol from Brazil, yet don’t have the<br />climate to grow the sugar cane. Because of the relatively high EROI of cane ethanol over<br />corn ethanol, international shipping can make sense. Thus, the history, or supply chain, of<br />the biofuel is important, not just its final properties. The supply chain of fossil fuels will<br />also become more important over time as lesser quality resources are extracted. There<br />was no need to pay attention to EROI from the early coal beds and oil wells because they<br />so clearly allowed increased lifestyle and leisure relative to the world before the<br />industrial revolution.<br /><br />In the concept of moving to non-petroleum fuel sources, the Renewables Fuels Standard<br />(RFS) of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 has been both good<br />and bad from a policy perspective:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Bad</span> in the sense that the RFS initially pushes a feedstock-fuel combination, corn<br />ethanol, that has detrimental environmental consequence in terms of nutrient runoff<br />and low EROI. But, the consequences of runoff can be minimized by not overfertilizing,<br />more widespread use of better tilling practices, and buffer strips next to<br />major rivers.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Good</span> in the sense that the RFS has pushed forward the scrutiny of how we use energy<br />resources, biomass included, and focused much attention on how we can create better<br />biomass to fuel conversions. It has also raised worldwide awareness on the ethics of<br />how agricultural land should be used: food, fuel, or both?<br /><br />Today, the struggle for new fuel supplies is clouded because it is not obvious what<br />options best provide for increased or even continued levels of lifestyle and leisure. What<br />is more obvious is that there are geographic regions that can sustainably grow certain<br />kinds of biomass that other regions simply cannot. Unconventional fossil resources such<br />as tar sands and oil shale have lower EROI and higher water consumption needs than<br />conventional petroleum. The need for more water in industrial fuel systems is an<br />indicator of moving to lower energy efficient sources.<br /><br />Lawmakers creating future policy regarding agriculture and energy need to be cognizant<br />that the tie between energy and water will only increase into the future. Generally, energy<br />sources with lower energy density tend to require more water for mining, farming,<br />refining, and processing. Certainly an increase in vehicle fuel efficiency decreases the<br />“gallons of water per mile” traveled, but in then end, fresh water sustainability is<br />measured on only one “per” basis: “gallons of water per Earth”.Carey Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13596147153251776263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-493435962724171196.post-65100286111840121582008-08-16T12:51:00.000-07:002008-08-16T13:26:45.869-07:00Pop Culture now involved in Energy is Good!Many people have seen the <a href="http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d">Paris Hilton advertisement regarding "her" energy plan</a> that is a compromise between the mainstream competing plans by the presidential candidates McCain and Obama. She was responding to the <a href="http://www.johnmccain.com/videolanding/celeb_ad.htm?sid=google&t=celeb&r=sta">John McCain advertisement that compares Obama to celebrities such as Hilton and Britney Spears</a>.<br /><br />In reality, both candidates have fairly comprehensive energy plans because it doesn't make any sense not to. Drilling offshore is already done in the western Gulf of Mexico and everyone knows we need to bring on alternatives and some conservation through concepts such the as CAFE standards that are already going to increase.<br /><br />So we can thank John McCain for luring in the popular culture of the US into the political and energy discussion. Now more people are involved. Great job Senator! He reached out of the aisle this time.Carey Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13596147153251776263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-493435962724171196.post-58235485419479189142008-07-24T20:11:00.000-07:002008-07-24T20:22:02.494-07:00Ethics: Allocation factors for renewable energy systemsI recently wrote for <a href="http://www.worldchanging.com/">Worldchanging</a> about how allocation factors can possibly be representative of our ethics. Allocation factors are the fraction of the energy input into a renewable system, usually for analyzing biofuels, that is associated (or allocated) to each of the products.<br /><br />For example, the main product from corn ethanol is the ethanol, and coproducts are distillers grains for cattle feed. Because these allocation factors can be based upon the energy, mass, or economic content of the coproducts, different analyses of the same process results in different outcomes in terms of the sustainability or renewability of the process. One of the major issues is that what is economically most attractive is often not the most energetically efficient. A possible policy goal could be to guide these two concepts together.<br /><br />Click <a href="http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/008201.html">allocations factors and ethics</a> to go to Worldchanging website for the article, or read text below:<br /><br />**********************<br /><p>Moving toward a sustainable, or renewable energy-based economy, stresses the views of how people value their time and exertion. Our system of economics puts value on products and services that allow people to spend less time and/or exertion while performing a task. This value system is exactly why fossil fuels have been the driving factor for increases in accumulation of material goods and leisure time over the course of the industrial revolution. </p> <p>Historically, fossil fuels have had such high energy density (and energy return on that invested to mine them) that we haven't worried too much about how to allocate the energy invested. When a barrel of oil is refined or a cubic foot of natural gas is burned, it has been obvious that we can produce more products and spend more time in leisure or progressive work. It is because of the concerns of fossil resource scarcity together with environmental effects (air pollution, greenhouse gases and climate change, etc.) that alternatives to fossil resources are sought.</p> <p>By contrast, when it comes to renewable energy products, particularly biofuels, we've applied intense scrutiny to figuring out the energy return on total energy (or fossil energy) invested because the returns are not as easily determined as being sufficiently greater than one. Part of this scrutiny is because of the inherently lower energy density of carbohydrates (i.e. biomass) versus hydrocarbons (i.e. fossil fuels). Another part of the scrutiny derives from the knowledge that fossil fuels currently permeate the vast majority of the manufacturing and agricultural practices of the industrialized world, and understanding the optimal manner in which to deal with their reduced presence, and possible absence, is not obvious.</p> <p>Allocation factors are an example of the struggle of society to understand the value of output of renewable energy systems and processes. The allocation factor is a term used to describe how much of the total energy input to a renewable energy system should be “allocated” to, or associated with, both the primary product output (e.g. ethanol, biodiesel, biocrude, etc.) as well as any process coproducts. These allocation factors are also used to assign greenhouse gas quantities to compare competing energy systems. Renewable energy systems that output electricity, such as photovoltaic solar panels and wind turbines, are fairly straightforward in giving an allocation factor of one. That is to say, all of the energy and material inputs that go into manufacturing, operation, and maintenance of the system are used to produce the only output: energy in the form of electricity. There is no product other than the electricity. </p> <p>Assigning an allocation factor for biofuel production is more difficult. Biofuels originate from some form of biomass (e.g. corn, soybeans, cellulose, etc.) that can be used for multiple purposes (e.g. food and fuel) and the extracting them creates output products besides the fuel itself, termed coproducts. For example, in the typical processing of biodiesel from soybeans, the major outputs are the primary product of biodiesel plus the coproducts of soy meal and glycerin [1]. Fossil fuels have similar product/coproduct distinctions (e.g. natural gas for fertilizers and petroleum for plastics), but because we know there is no long term sustainable use of them, there has been no need to scrutinize how we derive their various products.</p> <p>So a question arises: for every unit of energy input from field to fuel, how much of that input should be responsible for each product? To answer this question, there are multiple proposed allocation concepts. The different allocation methods for coproducts are three non-energy methods and three energy-based methods [2] that are designated by whether the energy consumption of the processes is allocated according to:</p> <p><b>Non-Energy Methods</b><br />• the 100% principle such that all energy consumed is allocated to the primary product (e.g. biofuel).<br />• the mass fraction of each of the products,<br />• the economic market value of each of the products,</p> <p><b>Energy-based Methods</b><br />• the energy content (calorific value) of each of the products,<br />• the energy displaced by each of the products with respect to an existing or customary way of producing the product, or</p> <p><br /><b>100% Principle</b><br />Allocating 100% of energy inputs to renewable energy systems is the most simplistic and uninformative. There are no decisions to be made, and it removes the capacity for society to learn how to use all available resources and technologies while reusing and recycling as much as possible. On the other hand, its simplicity easily allows policymakers and consumers to understand the impacts and benefits of renewable systems. Essentially, the 100% principle is the extreme case that assumes no useful coproducts are possible, or that coproducts are free in terms of monetary or energy input.</p> <p><b>Mass Fraction</b><br />Allocating by mass fraction is very straightforward and easy to understand. Techniques that minimize coproducts should be viewed as positive since otherwise, they would not be coproducts but instead the primary product. We can likely assume the primary product is the most market viable, at least at the time the renewable energy project is begun.</p> <p><b>Market Value</b><br />Using market value to allocate coproducts is the method most akin to the free market principles. Brazil’s past and continued focus upon sugar cane as a cash crop theoretically enables their companies to decide how much sugar versus ethanol to produce from the same crop. If one price is up, they can focus on that product versus the other. Currently, the ethanol price is up as <a target="new" href="http://ethanol-business.com/2008/06/26/brazil-signs-deal-to-export-sustainable-ethanol/">a group of Brazilian companies</a> has arranged the first “practical application of verified sustainable ethanol” trade with Sweden [3]. Thus, a market value of coproducts potentially allows a producer to tune his process according to the rather short time scales of commodity fluctuations. The main drawback of this method is that market prices change, and what could be a good energy balance one day could be a poor one a week later [1].</p> <p><b>Energy Content (calorific value) of Products</b><br />Focusing upon the energy content of the products seems like a fundamental method because the purpose of renewable energy systems is to produce a product with high energy content. The primary product should in fact contain more energy than the coproducts, otherwise the system may have to be reanalyzed in terms of thermodynamic efficiency. This suboptimal energy content ratio could possibly occur if there is pressure to tailor a biofuel to existing infrastructure (which would be a pressure from the market). The difficulty with this method is that it does not indicate the effort required to achieve the energy intensive fuel or product. For instance, lasers contain high power concentrated in a tight beam, but much power is required to get the energy in that form. </p> <p><b>Process Energy Input</b><br />Allocation due to the energy input into the renewable system seems like a logical choice because we are, after all, trying to figure out how to allocate the energy consumed in the renewable energy process. However, this allocation method can be somewhat confusing when the primary product and one or more coproducts results from the same subprocess. For example, if there is an unavoidable coproduct that results from the feedstock processing steps, how much input energy went into that unavoidable byproduct? What if the coproduct has no use, meaning it is actually a waste? Nonetheless, this method can often be more straightforward as in the case with wet-milling corn ethanol since during pre-treatment the starch (used for ethanol) is separated from the grain (used for coproducts), and thus subsequent energy used for processing the grain can easily allocated to the coproducts.</p> <p><b>Energy Displaced (energy for replacement coproduct)</b><br />Allocation due to the energy displaced is an inherently comparative methodology. It requires diligent astute knowledge of the field of the product in order to know the energy input into replacement products. Also, an equivalent replacement product must exist. Here, the energy required for producing the primary product is reduced by the amount of energy required for the replacement product. For instance, Shapouri assumes that animal feed products (e.g. DDG) produced from corn ethanol processing can directly replace soybean meal. A difficulty arises if soy meal, itself a possible coproduct from biodiesel production, might use corn-based animal feeds as a replacement product as well. They can’t both replace each other. So there can be multiple choices of replacement products that can provide a range of answers for the primary product. </p> <p>Can these allocation factors reveal something about culture, society, and how we value our energy and time? Is there a correct or more ethical method?</p> <p><a target="new" href="http://asae.frymulti.com/abstract.asp?aid=24203&t=1">Pradhan et al.</a> suggest that the correct method depends upon the question being asked. If renewability is the question, they say the mass fraction should be used, but if economic sustainability is to be determined, then the market value allocation approach should be used [1]. For philosophers who like to find the ultimate truth, this solution is rather non-satisfactory, and it avoids the question of whether the market should recognize that energy return on energy invested (EROI) is the major driver for economic growth or if economic growth potential is the driver for the choice of energy resources. The tail can’t wag the dog, but hopefully with enough flow of accurate information the EROI and economic return will continuously feedback to each other and arrive at the same solution.</p> <p>[1] Pradhan, A.; Shrestha, D. S.; Van Gerpen, J.; and Duffield, J. 2008. The Energy Balance of Soybean Oil Biodiesel Production: A Review of Past Studies. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. 51 (1): 185-194.</p> <p>[2] Larson, E. A review of life-cycle analysis studies on liquid biofuel systems for the transport sector. Energy for Sustainable Development. June 2006, Vol. X, No. 2: 109-126</p> <p>[3] Guardian, UK. June 25, 2008. Brazil signs deal to export sustainable ethanol. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7609299.</p>Carey Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13596147153251776263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-493435962724171196.post-625644020286401442008-05-27T15:39:00.000-07:002008-05-27T15:59:52.219-07:00Water and Energy Nexus: Nature Geoscience May editionI have recently written a commentary for <a href="http://www.nature.com/ngeo/index.html">Nature Geoscience</a> in which I and my co-authors discuss the tie between energy and water usage. For those who have a subscription to Nature, you can link to the article <a href="http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n5/full/ngeo195.html">here</a>. Alternatively, you can <a href="http://www.nature.com/register/ngeo">sign up</a> for free and read the article OR just read my pasted text below:<br /><br />************************************<br />TEXT OF ARTICLE<br />************************************<br /><br /> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">Water and solar energy enable trees and plants to grow today, just as hundreds of millions of years ago. Creation of the deposits of biomass that became fossil fuels depended on these two resources. The technological advances that have changed human life profoundly over the past decades and centuries have altered, but not resolved, this close coupling between water and energy. Current technologies for power generation, with some exceptions such as wind turbines and photovoltaic solar cells, rely heavily on the availability of large amounts of water. Primarily this water is needed for cooling thermoelectric plants and supplying fluid pressure and flow for hydroelectric power generation. But in a changing climate, it is not clear whether sufficient volumes of water will continue to be available where needed. And if, in an attempt to combat climate change, petrol is replaced by biofuels at a significant scale, more water will be needed for irrigation. Furthermore, clean fresh water is a basic necessity for human health and development. Large quantities of water can be provided — as long as sufficient energy supplies are available to reach deep aquifers, treat dirty water or desalinate the oceans. But a scarcity of energy implies a scarcity of water, just as constraints on water availability threaten the supply of energy, at least with the current infrastructure. Because of this interconnection (Fig. 1), water and energy cannot be treated in a disaggregated fashion, as is common today with both<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">markets and policy makers. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: HelveticaNeue-Condensed;">THE NEED FOR WATER IN POWER GENERATION<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">Large power plants present a strain on water resources. In the <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">US</st1:country-region></st1:place> in 2007, thermoelectric power generation, primarily comprising coal, natural gas and nuclear fuels, generated 91% (3,500 million MW h) of total electricity. These thermoelectric power plants require cooling by water, air or a combination of the two (Table 1), amounting to 40% of US freshwater withdrawals. Open-loop (or once-through) cooling withdraws large volumes of surface water, fresh and saline, for one-time use and returns nearly all the water to the source with little of the overall water being consumed by evaporation. While open-loop cooling is energy efficient and low in infrastructure and operational costs, the discharged water is warmer than ambient water, causing thermal pollution, which can kill fish and harm aquatic ecosystems. Thus, environmental agencies regulate discharge temperatures, taking into account a water body’s heat dissipation capacity. Closed-loop cooling requires less water withdrawal because the water is recirculated through use of cooling towers or evaporation ponds. However, because the cooling is essentially achieved through evaporation, closed-loop cooling results in higher water consumption (Table 1). The alternative, air-cooling, does not require water, but instead cools by using fans to blow air over a radiator similar to that in automobiles. The power efficiency of this is lower, up-front capital costs are higher and real-estate requirements are larger, making it a less attractive option economically.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">Water is obviously central to power generation in hydroelectric dams. In the <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">US</st1:country-region></st1:place> in 2006, hydroelectric power plants generated approximately 7% (268 million MW h) of total electricity. Fifty-eight percent of <st1:country-region st="on">US</st1:country-region> hydroelectricity is generated in <st1:state st="on">California</st1:State>, <st1:state st="on">Oregon</st1:State> and <st1:state st="on"><st1:place st="on">Washington</st1:place></st1:State> alone, making the power supply vulnerable to regional changes in water availability. Though hydroelectric power is attractive for many reasons, it is least reliable during droughts when the need for water may take precedence over hydroelectricity.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: HelveticaNeue-Condensed;">THE NEED FOR ENERGY IN WATER PRODUCTION<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">The relationship goes the other way too, in that energy is necessary for producing and delivering fresh and potable water, just as water is necessary for generating energy. For example, energy is needed to convey, heat and treat fresh water and waste water. Heating water in homes and businesses for cooking, cleaning and other municipal and commercial uses consumes 3.6 quads, or 3.6%, of total <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> energy consumption. Thus, the need for hot water represents an important enduse for energy. Combined heat and power systems are efficient because they use otherwise wasted heat to do useful tasks.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">Supply and conveyance of water is one of the most energy-intensive water processes, estimated to consume over 3% of total <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> electricity</span><span style="font-size: 5.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">1,6</span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">. However, the energy use for supply and conveyance of water varies widely depending on the local infrastructure. Many gravity-fed systems require little energy, whereas long-haul systems, such as that in <st1:place st="on"><st1:state st="on">California</st1:State></st1:place>, require vast energy investments to move water across the state and over mountain ranges. The average surface water treatment plant consumes over 370 kW h Ml</span><span style="font-size: 5.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">–1</span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">. Tapping into groundwater sources also requires energy for pumping, which is dependent on aquifer depth: at a depth of 120 m, 530 kW h Ml</span><span style="font-size: 5.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">–1 </span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">is required</span><span style="font-size: 5.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">1,6</span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">Recent news articles illustrate these competition between water resources and power generation: the debate of whether to use water from a reservoir to serve municipal needs for drinking water versus generating hydroelectric power arose with Uruguay’s Salto Grande dam and the US Colorado River lakes; a natural gas power plant and private landowners argued over groundwater rights in Texas; and hydroelectric dams were taken offline in response to drought in Georgia, among others</span><span style="font-size: 5.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">2–5</span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">As freshwater supplies become strained, many have turned to water sources once considered unusable, including brackish ground water and sea water. Although use of these water sources mitigates constraints on drinking-water supplies, treatment of brackish ground water and sea water requires as much as 10–12 times the energy use of standard drinking-water treatment. However, usually, untreated saline water can be used to cool the thermoelectric power plant that may be required for desalination</span><i><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-It;">.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">Partly because of the high energy requirements, proposed desalination water treatment plants in <st1:city st="on">Carlsbad</st1:City>, <st1:state st="on">California</st1:State>, and Chennai, Tamil Nadu <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">India</st1:country-region></st1:place> have been opposed</span><span style="font-size: 5.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">7,8</span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">Wastewater treatment also requires large amounts of energy, which will increase as discharge regulations in the <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> become stricter, requiring increasingly energy-intensive treatment technologies.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">Estimates range from 250 kW h Ml</span><span style="font-size: 5.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">–1 </span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">for trickling filter treatment, which uses a biologically active substrate for aerobic treatment, to 350 kW h Ml</span><span style="font-size: 5.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">–1 </span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">for diff used aeration as part of activated sludge processing, and 400–500 kW h Ml</span><span style="font-size: 5.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">–1 </span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">for advanced wastewater treatment that uses filtration and the option of nitrification</span><span style="font-size: 5.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">6</span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">. Sludge treatment and processing alone can consume energy in the range of 30–80% of the total energy used in a wastewater plant; other physical and chemical treatment processes use much of the remaining percentage.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: HelveticaNeue-Condensed;">A THIRST FOR TRANSPORTATION FUELS<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">Two of the earliest fuels were wood and dung. They are still the major primary energy fuels for many regions of the world, providing 8.5% of the primary energy globally</span><span style="font-size: 5.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">10</span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">. Trees require water for growth, as do the animals that supply dung. But modern liquid fuels such as gasoline, ethanol and diesel also require water for their extraction, farming, processing and refining. This ‘embodied water’ is not directly used in a vehicle, but rather indirectly required to make the fuel.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">Water use for transportation can be considered in a similar fashion as for power generation in the form of withdrawal — that is, the amount of water that is necessary, but may eventually be returned to the system — and consumption, for example, through evaporation. However, in the context of transportation, consumption can additionally be associated with irrigated farming and as a feedstock. Generally, while driving light duty vehicles using current petroleum-based gasoline (assuming an average fuel economy of 20.5 miles per gallon (mpg) = 8.7 km l</span><span style="font-size: 5.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">–1</span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">) and diesel (28.2 mpg = 12.0 km l</span><span style="font-size: 5.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">–1</span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">), embodied water is withdrawn and consumed from nature at rates of up to 1.5 l km</span><span style="font-size: 5.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">–1 </span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">and 0.3 l km</span><span style="font-size: 5.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">–1</span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">, respectively.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">Using liquids converted from other fossil fuels (coal, oil shale and tar sands) means that the rates of water consumption and withdrawal are 2–4 times and 1–2 times higher, respectively, and they are much more concentrated in regions where the fossil fuel resources exist.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">Propelling vehicles using hydrogen and electricity also has substantial water impacts when drawing from the average <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> electric grid (owing to water used for power plant cooling as discussed earlier). Under these assumptions, driving ‘electric’ miles using a fuel-cell vehicle with hydrogen via electrolysis and a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) or electric vehicle (EV) consumes water at 0.9 and 0.5 l km</span><span style="font-size: 5.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">–1 </span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">while withdrawing 27 and 17 l km</span><span style="font-size: 5.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">–1</span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">, respectively</span><span style="font-size: 5.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">11,12</span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">. Using wind and photovoltaic solar power to supply required electricity for transportation makes water intensity negligible. However, even if every <st1:country-region st="on">US</st1:country-region> light duty vehicle mile were driven via US electric power with current technologies, <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> water demand would only increase by 0.9% (3.4 billion litres per day). Most of the fuels under consideration to replace petroleum are more water intensive, with biofuels residing at the top of the list. Only for fuel crops that are not irrigated is the water intensity comparable to petroleum fuels. But many fuel crops are irrigated, and accounting for irrigation can cause water consumption rates to be 2–3 orders of magnitude higher than without irrigation. Although only 15–20% of <st1:country-region st="on">US</st1:country-region> corn and 5–10% of US soybean bushels are irrigated to any degree, there was still a substantial water contribution to biofuel crop farming at nearly 5,700 gigalitres (3.5% of <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> water consumption) in 2005 for the production of ethanol alone. Given that agricultural irrigation is the most water-consumptive sector of the <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> economy, high water usage is not surprising. But by switching to biofuels, this water consumption is likely to grow.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">Additionally, competing water demands oft en make the siting of ethanol plants difficult because they require large amounts of water. Ethanol processing plants consume water for cooling processes, including the exothermic fermentation reaction, requiring 1–3 million litres per day to produce 250,000–750,000 litres per day of ethanol</span><span style="font-size: 5.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">13,14</span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: HelveticaNeue-Condensed;">LOOKING TO THE FUTURE<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">We see trends towards more water- intensive liquid fuels, more energy-intensive water sources and a growing population that will require more of both. These challenges will be exacerbated by climate change, which may cause geographic and temporal changes in the amount, annual distribution and form of precipitation (for example, as rain or snow). Because cities and their infrastructure are built on the basis of past precipitation patterns, such climatic changes may require substantial adjustments. In regions where water becomes scarcer, people must weigh the pros and cons between moving the people to the water and moving the water to the people (the latter of which requires continuous additional energy).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">Regional climate projections will be needed to inform planning and policy. When siting new power plants, governments and power generators need to consider water availability over the plants’ lifetimes, normally on the order of several decades. Policy for energy and water resources should be integrated to consider less-water-intensive options in agriculture, such as forestry, and in electricity generation, such as wind, photovoltaic solar and air-cooling technologies. In the fuel sector, water consumption and withdrawal need to be included in environmental impact analyses such as those dictated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which requires life-cycle analysis for understanding the greenhouse-gas impacts of renewable fuels. Like diversified long-term financial investment strategies, future water and energy infrastructure should also be diverse and multiscaled in order to create resilience in an uncertain climate and energy future. For example, <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Ghana</st1:place></st1:country-region> has had highly fluctuating reliability of electricity supply owing to heavy dependence upon hydropower or other single energy sources, without extensive electric grids to help transport electricity in tough times.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">Distributed energy systems provide smaller-scale systems and add resilience to electric grids dominated by large centralized power plants, but they are usually considered more expensive owing to conventional financial and appraisal systems that account for capital but not operating expenses. For new power plants at <st1:city st="on">greenfield</st1:City> sites in the <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region>, open-loop cooling has been outlawed for all practical purposes by the environmental constraints on water intake velocity. The trend since the 1980s has been towards closed-loop cooling. However, closed-loop cooling makes the use of sea water more difficult, because evaporating water with high proportions of dissolved solids can create foul-up problems. Nevertheless using sea water, waste water and other low quality water for cooling should be encouraged where possible. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">We also need policy that allows the operating costs and energy consumption of buildings and homes to be integrated into the construction, sales and finance phases of development. More energy efficient buildings within larger cities require less bulk city services. We must ask ourselves why we require no energy return on investment for crown moulding yet claim photovoltaics do not pay back fast enough. Fortunately sustainable concepts such as LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) and projects such as the China EcoBlock</span><span style="font-size: 5.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">18 </span><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">guide and demonstrate integrated water and energy infrastructure via whole system design.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 9.5pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;">Water and energy cannot be separated.<span style=""> </span>With an unlimited supply of available energy, we would be able to supply as much clean water as the world needs. In the real world of resource constraints, we need to simultaneously conserve water and energy. Thankfully, water conservation and energy conservation are synonymous with each other, so we have the opportunity for swift progress.</span><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: MinionPro-Regular;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>Carey Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13596147153251776263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-493435962724171196.post-22317147920821486052008-04-16T20:02:00.000-07:002008-12-09T21:01:01.462-08:00Leaving fossil fuels in the ground vs. using them all up nowI wrote a think piece for <a href="http://www.worldchanging.com/">Worldchanging</a> playing off one of the basic arguments against climate mitigation (we'll be richer in the future and more capable of dealing with any effects) with the idea of leaving fossil fuels in the ground (will we also be more capable of using fossil fuels in the future, and should we strive to leave some?).<br /><br />One thing that did not get into the article in time (but came the day after I submitted it!) was the fact that the <a href="http://www.business24-7.ae/cs/article_show_mainh1_story.aspx?HeadlineID=5523">Saudi King himself made reference toward specifically leaving some of their new found reserves for future generations</a>! How is that for some new thinking!<br /><br />Visit the site to read the commentary (<a href="http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007962.html">http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007962.html</a>), or see below.<br /><br />NOTE: As one of the early bloggers notes, nuclear energy has a wide range of possibilities (over carbon-based fossil fuels), and those were too much to go into for one article, aside from the fact that I am definitely not an expert on nuclear materials, for fission or fusion (always 50 years away!).<br /><br />******************************************************************************<br /><h2>Success is Winding Up with Oil in the Ground</h2>Will we always be more capable in the future? <p>One basic economic argument against substantial climate change mitigation investments often centers on the concept that, because of monetary discount rates and historically-proven continuous economic and technological growth, society will be both ‘richer’ and more capable of dealing with possible negative effects in the future. Proponents of this argument often use it to reason that mitigation is simply too economically costly to pursue. </p> <p>Can the same argument hold for production of fossil fuels? That is to say, if we are going to be richer and more capable in the future, won’t we have a better use for all energy sources, including fossil fuels? And will part of our ability to deal with societal issues, such as those caused by climate change, be predicated upon having available energy? If the answer to these questions is “yes”, then we should keep our fossil fuels in the ground. </p> <p>The reason that the idea of preserving fossil fuels and ecosystems for future generations is not widely held is that the pattern since the industrial revolution of the 1800s shows us that energy consumption is highly correlated to economic growth, and thus the ability to become ‘richer’ (Figure 1). But recently Ecuadorian officials have proposed that the international community pay approximately half of the assumed value an oil deposit that lies beneath the Yasuni Amazon ecological reserve in order not to extract the oil [1]. Is this a beginning to question the present value of fossil fuels?</p> <p>In the United States before the industrial revolution, the labor of 95 out of 100 people were required to feed the population of 5 million. Today, the less than 3 out of 100 are required to feed the US population of over 300 million - with food to spare for export. How is this possible? <a target="new" href="http://www.worldchanging.com/archives//004316.html">Fossil fuels provide high energy density storage sources that literally take the place of labor</a>, and since their large scale use, we have used them to accumulate knowledge in how to further reduce physical labor. The huge reduction in farming labor over the last 200 years has resulted in “extra” hours for people to get paid to do things like drive around taking photos of celebrities for gossip magazines. </p> <p>Because fossil fuels are limited and have provided us with the luxury of excess time, a major goal of society should be to break the causation between increasing fossil fuel consumption and increasing human development. I say human development and not economic growth, because the social aspect of economics is only a part of human development [2]. Extracting more fossil resources by consuming more fossil energy only buys more time to learn how to design and implement sustainable energy systems. </p> <p>The laws of diminishing returns for fossil fuels cannot be avoided on the time scale of human civilization. Human civilization operated on a 100% sustainable energy a few hundred years ago, and after fossil fuels become completely uneconomical in hundreds of years more, we’ll again operate on a 100% sustainable energy system. The question is: what is that next 100% sustainable system going to look like?</p> <p>Will it not be a success if human society finds an acceptable sustainable arrangement where we have excess fossil fuel reserves still lying in the ground? That is to say, we could define success as solving the energy and development problem before running out of economical fossil energy resources. Why consume the last of fossil energy reserves? Since reserves are partially defined by the economics of extraction, they are also partially a measure of our culture in how we value things, including energy resources, food, and social goods. If we want future human civilization to live in a manner better than the time before fossil fuels, that demands using our fossil fuels today such that we learn not to need them in the future. </p> <p>Today we can’t make a photovoltaic solar panel without fossil-powered electricity manufacturing plant. We couldn’t build a hydroelectric dam without fossil-powered vehicles and cement plants. We can’t make and install a wind turbine without fossil-powered steel factories and transport systems. We need to track the progress, or lack thereof, of the ability of renewable energy systems to make themselves.</p> <p>We didn’t need Nobel Prize Chemist Richard Smalley to tell us that the sun is the only source of energy for a sustainable human society. What we do need is everyone focused on the issue of both cultural and technological adjustments to make the most of solar direct (sunlight) and indirect (wind, waves, crops) energy. </p> <p><i>Carey King, PhD, works at the University of Texas at Austin's Bureau of Economic Geology. This is his first contribution to Worldchanging.</i></p> <p>notes:</p> <p>[1] Pearson, Natalie O. Ecuador Plans to Nix Exploitation of 1B Bbl Oil Deposit. Dow Jones Newswires. March 03, 2008. Available at: http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=57679.<br />[2] Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom. First Anchor Books, 1999.<br /></p> <a name="more"></a><script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript" src="http://worldchanging.com/ads/adx.js"></script> <script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript"> <!-- if (!document.phpAds_used) document.phpAds_used = ','; phpAds_random = new String (Math.random()); phpAds_random = phpAds_random.substring(2,11); document.write ("<" + "script language='JavaScript' type='text/javascript' src='"); document.write ("http://worldchanging.com/ads/adjs.php?n=" + phpAds_random); document.write ("&clientid=4"); document.write ("&exclude=" + document.phpAds_used); if (document.referrer) document.write ("&referer=" + escape(document.referrer)); document.write ("'><" + "/script>"); //--> </script><script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript" src="http://worldchanging.com/ads/adjs.php?n=102697236&clientid=4&exclude=,&referer=http%3A//www.worldchanging.com/"></script><a href="http://www.worldchanging.com/ads/www/delivery/ck.php?oaparams=2__bannerid=3__zoneid=0__cb=cf0b35abda__maxdest=http://www.worldchanging.com/" target="_self"><img src="http://www.worldchanging.com/ads/www/delivery/ai.php?filename=pixel_2.gif&contenttype=gif" alt="" title="" width="1" border="0" height="1" /></a>Carey Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13596147153251776263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-493435962724171196.post-61550565384596796042008-03-10T19:21:00.000-07:002008-03-12T06:59:48.897-07:00PHEV/EVs and water - Finally a good articleIt seems that the first paper (<a href="http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2008/feb/tech/ee_waterplugin.html">regarding water for electric vs. gasoline miles</a>) on our work on the "water intensity of transportation" has gotten quite a bit of attention in the media. I've reported on this already, but included here is finally a good and responsible article that properly demonstrates the scope of the issue.<br /><br />For an <span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">example of an article that does a good job</span>, see the following:<br /><br /><br /><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"><a href="http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/310/2">ScienceNOW published this article</a> - online today (3/10/08)<br /></div><br /><br />Bottom line (I repeat), electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles will use more water because people will charge their cars from the general electric grid. This grid is dominated by thermoelectric power plants (coal, natural gas, and nuclear), and these plants consume and withdraw water as part of cooling. To lessen the water impact, we can focus on (1) generating electricity in thermoelectric plants using technology that consumes and withdraws less water and (2) using electricity from sources that don't consume and withdraw water (wind, PV solar).<br /><br /><br />For <span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">examples of articles that do a poor job</span>, see any of the following:<br /><br /><br /><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"><a href="http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4253590.html">Popular Mechanics</a><br /></div>- The quote below is very misleading and incorrect. The water intensity, or gallons/mile, for withdrawal is 17 times greater. This is not a 17-fold increase in water demand, even if all light duty vehicles (cars, trucks, SUVs) ran on full electric power, because water is withdrawn for many other purposes AND if all miles (2.7 trillion) in 2005 were driven on electricity, that would amount to about 900 billion kWh, when the entire nation generated 3,883 billion kWh <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">without any measurable amount of PHEV/EVs</span>. Thus, all light duty vehicle travel by electric miles would be only 23% more electricity (and associated consumption and withdrawal), NOT 17 times more. See misleading quote from article:<br /><br />"<span id="intelliTXT" name="intelliTxt">Though most of this water is returned to the source (albeit at a higher temperature), a 17-fold increase in demand would pose <a href="http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4249330.html?series=15">a real problem for water-stressed regions</a>, making power plants more vulnerable to shut down during times of drought. "</span><br /><br /><br /><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"><a href="http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn13418-thirsty-electric-cars-threaten-water-resources.html">New Scientist</a><br /></div><br /><br /><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"><a href="http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2008/March/07030801.asp">Chemistry World</a><br /></div>- The following quote is completely incorrect. <span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-STYLE: italic">The nation's water consumption</span> (which includes that for irrigation, municipal use, mining, and thermoelectric generation) <span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-STYLE: italic">will NOT triple </span>if we switch to PHEV/EVs. See above comment on the Popular Mechanics article, same argument goes for not tripling nation's water consumption with <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">all electric light duty vehicle travel</span>. See misleading quote from article:<br /><br />"Michael Webber and Carey King, from the University of Texas at Austin, suggest that powering America's cars with electricity, rather than gasoline (petrol), could triple the nation's water consumption."<br /><br /><br />Have a good day.Carey Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13596147153251776263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-493435962724171196.post-82573118285572600802008-03-07T19:10:00.000-08:002008-03-07T19:51:31.490-08:00Another article about my PHEV/EV and water usage - unneccesarily alarmistAnother <a href="http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn13418-thirsty-electric-cars-threaten-water-resources.html">article</a>, this time in <a href="http://environment.newscientist.com/">New Scientist</a>, has been written about my paper on "water of the plugged-in automotive economy". See a <a href="http://rationalenergy.blogspot.com/2008/02/water-for-transportation-publication-on.html">recent post on water used while driving on electric miles</a> for my basic take on how to interpret the analysis.<br /><br />Phil McKenna, the journalist and writer of the article, chose the title " 'Thirsty' electric cars threaten water resources". This is an unfortunately alarmist title. The article prompted some to blog on the New Scientist page that I was against plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) or electric vehicles (EV). This is certainly not true. Some suggested I <span style="font-style: italic;">must </span>be paid or work for some petroleum or natural gas company. This is also certainly not true.<br /><br />I gave Phil information to present the scope and scale of electric driving upon the electricity grid and water resources, but he didn't mention this.<br /><br />For example:<br />1 million PHEV40s (PHEVs that have a 40 mile range) would drive about 7.3 billion miles per year. This is about 0.3% of miles driven by light duty vehicles.<br /><br />The resulting water consumption is 1.7 billion gallons, or ONLY 0.13% of water consumption already associated with power generation.<br /><br />The resulting water withdrawal is 76 billion gallons, or ONLY 0.11% of water withdrawal already associated with power generation.<br /><br /><br />I, and my coauthor, chose to independently look at link between energy and water. This work is a first foray into this area, and we have also analyzed other fuels (biofuels, hydrogen, coal to liquids, etc.) that is in the review process for publishing.<br /><br /><br />So ... NO ALARM. We have time to plan for 10s of millions of PHEVs, let's get them on the road!Carey Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13596147153251776263noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-493435962724171196.post-60326160738863166372008-02-20T17:12:00.000-08:002008-02-27T10:31:29.359-08:00Hold back the flow ... of false claims on water for transportationThis past week my colleague Michael Webber presented some preliminary results (currently under review for publication at <a href="http://pubs.acs.org/journals/esthag/">Environmental Science and Technology</a>) at the 2008 annual meeting of the <a href="http://www.aaas.org/">American Association for the Advancement of Science</a>. A journalist from the Toronto Star <a href="http://www.thestar.com/article/304355">reported about the results of our work</a>. And Gordon Quaiattini, the president of the <a href="http://www.greenfuels.org/">Canadian Renewable Fuels Association</a> (CRFA), put in his 2 Canadian cents worth of <a href="http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/305023">comment to the Star editor</a>.<br /><br />First, our work on this is under review so I won't comment too much on the methodology until it is accepted and published, but I can clarify some aspects of the table in the Toronto Star article as well as the comment by Mr. Quaiattini.<br /><br />As far as Mr. Quaiattini is concerned, let me assure him that neither me nor Michael are against biofuels. What we are for is understanding the impacts of all fuels. That is why we presented information that compares a variety of fuels, and future work can focus on additional biofuels and alternative fuels.<br /><br />Mr. Quaiattini claims that 85% of U.S. corn is non-irrigated. This is fairly consistent value as in 1998 we show approximately 1.9 billion bushels irrigated (see <a href="http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/fris/fris.htm">http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/fris/fris.htm</a> Table 22) out of about 9.8 billion bushels of US corn grain (see <a href="http://www.nass.usda.gov/">http://www.nass.usda.gov/</a> and select 'US corn grain' stats for 1998 in the pull down menu) - this gives 15.6% irrigated. He also states the numbers of 3 gallons of water to process the corn into a gallon of ethanol, and this is at the lower end of the range of values we used.<br /><br />The data presented in the aside in the Star article lists ethanol water 'use' (note in this case consumption and withdrawal are roughly equivalent) as 40-130 gallons per mile driven on E85. This is close, but not quite accurate as noted. We calculate 12-136 gallons per mile driven on <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">E85 derived from irrigated corn in the U.S.</span> The range exists because not all regions that grow corn need the same amount of irrigation. Obviously some regions get more rain than others. We have made no claim (yet!) on the total water consumed and withdrawn for travel in light duty vehicles in the US.<br /><br />NOTE: when considering ethanol derived from <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">non-irrigated corn</span>, the values for consumption and withdrawal are less than 0.5 gallons/mile. This shows you that the vast majority of the water of concern is for irrigation.<br /><br />IMPORTANT:<br />Does this mean we should not use biofuels? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!<br /><br />What it does mean is that we need to understand the limits of our water resources while considering the tradeoffs that that the "biofuels vs. fossil fuels" debate entails. Fossil fuels are essentially really old biomass as nature has done a lot of work for us in growing the plants and storing them in the ground (over 100s of millions of years) for us to now use. Biofuels are essentially really young fossil fuels.<br /><br />When planning for growing crops either for food or fuel, we need to use both the land and water resources responsibly. I applaud the efforts of the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association and other similar organizations that are helping promote alternatives to fossil fuels for transportation or stationary applications. I believe we can avoid a water conundrum, and our work is providing information to help society do just that.Carey Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13596147153251776263noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-493435962724171196.post-57947106601145740112008-02-20T16:41:00.000-08:002008-10-19T20:38:50.439-07:00Water for Transportation - publication on "electric miles"A paper of mine has been published online today in the journal <a href="http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2008/feb/tech/ee_waterplugin.html">Environmental Science and Technology</a>. The <a href="http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2008/feb/tech/ee_waterplugin.html">paper</a> describes how much water is used, that means consumed and withdrawn (which are two different concepts) for driving a vehicle on electricity as "fuel". This pertains to electric vehicles (EV) or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) while they travel on battery power alone.<br /><br />First, two basic definitions:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">water withdrawal</span> is that water which is taken from a source, run through a process, and returned to the source or some other source.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">water consumption</span> is water that is withdrawn but not returned to the source due to evaporation (for example - in cooling processes for steam power plants) or evapotranspiration (evaporation from through plants).<br /><br />Due to water consumed and withdrawn for cooling steam electric power plants (coal, nuclear, geothermal, solar concentrated power, and most natural gas), we can associate that water usage with the electricity generated from the plant. Assuming that an EV or PHEV is charged with electricity from the generic U.S. grid, each mile driven by a average light duty vehicle (a car, pickup truck, or SUV) will consume 0.2-0.3 gallons of water and withdraw 8 gallons of water. This is approximately 2-3X more water consumption and 12X more water withdrawal than when driving a light duty vehicle on petroleum gasoline.<br /><br />Does this mean we should not pursue EV and PHEV technology? ABSOLUTELY NOT.<br /><br />There are many benefits to the integration of EV/PHEV vehicles which include the ability to use a diversity of fuels sources - anything that can end up generating electricity (burning stuff to produce steam, nuclear power, wind power, photovoltaic solar, etc.). The ability to use a variety of transportation fuels by way of the electric grid is very powerful and important.<br /><br />While the water consumption and withdrawal is higher than using petroleum gasoline, we can easily plan and accommodate for the increase in water usage per mile. The use of EV/PHEVs will occur gradually, and water resources will not be the limiting factor for their adoption. Full speed ahead for electric cars.Carey Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13596147153251776263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-493435962724171196.post-35396793471106336432008-02-01T11:15:00.000-08:002008-02-01T11:27:49.780-08:00Offshoring Energy and Emissions - Coming back from Developing to Developed CountriesA recent <a href="http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2008/jan/science/rc_co2trade.html">study</a> in the journal in <a href="http://pubs.acs.org/journals/esthag/">Environmental Science and Technology</a> discusses the 'embodied carbon' in global trade. The concept of embodied effects in global trade has been noted by scientists and engineers by estimating such aspects as the energy embodied in a product when it is made in one place and shipped to another.<br /><br />Somewhat by definition, making a product in China (say a Barbie doll) and shipping it to the United States takes more energy than making it in the United States and keeping it here. Just think of the energy used to create the infrastructure (tankers) and fuel the cargo ships (low grade petroleum used in ships). You don't need these if you don't travel the globe, but both systems require intra-continental infrastructure.<br /><br />As peak oil and gas come on, businesses will be forced (albeit in some views 'rightly so') to better account for the energy used to make a particular product or provide a particular service. Products from China don't cost less in the U.S. because it actually costs less to make from an engineering sense; it just costs less based upon how much you value a person's time and labor. Essentially the time of farmer converted to factory worker in China has less value than the average Joe/Jane in the U.S. The 100s of millions of workers in China available to work cheap is the main reason why products have gotten cheaper in the U.S.<br /><br />Essentially, the CO2 being shipped from abroad to the U.S. (and generally from developing to developed countries) is a proxy measure for energy. As suggested in the synopsis (linked above), the solution is likely to factor the cost into the consumer of the product and not necessarily its producer.<br /><br />And we should quit shipping electronic 'waste' to China, as someday we'll likely wish we kept it to make use of it via recycling, but that's another story ...Carey Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13596147153251776263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-493435962724171196.post-60564945993219427642008-01-28T20:02:00.000-08:002008-01-30T08:43:45.503-08:00Shell CEO Talks of peak "easily accessible supplies of oil and gas" by 2015As posted on other blogs (<a href="http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3548">The Oil Drum</a> and <a href="http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2008/01/shell-ceo-prese.html#more">The Energy Blog</a>) Jeroen van der Veer, the Chief Executive of Royal Dutch Shell, has suggested that the "easy oil" will not keep up with demand by 2015, and that a "blueprint" future energy scenario is preferable to a haphazard strategy. Now one of the world's largest companies says peak oil is within 7 years. Anyone want to work on battery and capacitor technology!?!<br /><br />Use the title link to go to the Shell website for the statement, or just read below:<br /><br /><h1>Two Energy Futures<!--/title--></h1><h2 class="subh2blue">* By Jeroen van der Veer</h2><p id="first">By 2100, the world’s energy system will be radically different from today’s. Renewable energy like solar, wind, hydroelectricity, and biofuels will make up a large share of the energy mix, and nuclear energy, too, will have a place. Humans will have found ways of dealing with air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. New technologies will have reduced the amount of energy needed to power buildings and vehicles.</p><p>Indeed, the distant future looks bright, but much depends on how we get there. There are two possible routes. Let’s call the first scenario Scramble. Like an off-road rally through a mountainous desert, it promises excitement and fierce competition. However, the unintended consequence of “more haste” will often be “less speed,” and many will crash along the way.</p><p>The alternative scenario can be called Blueprints, which resembles a cautious ride, with some false starts, on a road that is still under construction. Whether we arrive safely at our destination depends on the discipline of the drivers and the ingenuity of all those involved in the construction effort. Technological innovation provides the excitement.</p><p>Regardless of which route we choose, the world’s current predicament limits our room to maneuver. We are experiencing a step-change in the growth rate of energy demand due to rising population and economic development. After 2015, easily accessible supplies of oil and gas probably will no longer keep up with demand.</p><p>As a result, we will have no choice but to add other sources of energy – renewables, yes, but also more nuclear power and unconventional fossil fuels such as oil sands. Using more energy inevitably means emitting more CO2 at a time when climate change has become a critical global issue.</p><p>In the Scramble scenario, nations rush to secure energy resources for themselves, fearing that energy security is a zero-sum game, with clear winners and losers. The use of local coal and homegrown biofuels increases fast. Taking the path of least resistance, policymakers pay little attention to curbing energy consumption – until supplies run short. Likewise, despite much rhetoric, greenhouse gas emissions are not seriously addressed until major shocks trigger political reactions. Since these responses are overdue, they are severe and lead to energy price spikes and volatility.</p><p>The Blueprints scenario is less painful, even if the start is more disorderly. Numerous coalitions emerge to take on the challenges of economic development, energy security, and environmental pollution through cross-border cooperation. Much innovation occurs at the local level, as major cities develop links with industry to reduce local emissions. National governments introduce efficiency standards, taxes, and other policy instruments to improve the environmental performance of buildings, vehicles, and transport fuels.</p><p>Moreover, as calls for harmonization increase, policies converge across the globe. Cap-and-trade mechanisms that put a price on industrial CO2 emissions gain international acceptance. Rising CO2 prices in turn accelerate innovation, spawning breakthroughs. A growing number of cars are powered by electricity and hydrogen, while industrial facilities are fitted with technology to capture CO2 and store it underground.</p><p>Against the backdrop of these two equally plausible scenarios, we will know only in a few years whether December’s Bali declaration on climate change was just rhetoric or the start of a global effort to counter it. Much will depend on how attitudes evolve in China, the European Union, India, and the United States.</p><p>Shell traditionally uses its scenarios to prepare for the future without expressing a preference for one over another. But, faced with the need to manage climate risk for our investors and our descendants, we believe the Blueprints outcomes provide the best balance between economy, energy, and environment. For a second opinion, we appealed to climate change calculations made at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. These calculations indicate that a Blueprints world with CO2 capture and storage results in the least amount of climate change, provided emissions of other major manmade greenhouse gases are similarly reduced.</p><p>But the Blueprints scenario will be realized only if policymakers agree on a global approach to emissions trading and actively promote energy efficiency and new technology in four sectors: heat and power generation, industry, transport, and buildings.</p><p>This will require hard work, and time is short. For example, Blueprints assumes CO2 is captured at 90% of all coal- and gas-fired power plants in developed countries by 2050, plus at least 50% of those in non-OECD countries. Today, none capture CO2. Because CO2 capture and storage adds costs and yields no revenues, government support is needed to make it happen quickly on a scale large enough to affect global emissions. At the least, companies should earn carbon credits for the CO2 they capture and store.</p><p>Blueprints will not be easy. But it offers the world the best chance of reaching a sustainable energy future unscathed, so we should explore this route with the same ingenuity and persistence that put humans on the moon and created the digital age.</p><p>The world faces a long voyage before it reaches a low-carbon energy system. Companies can suggest possible routes to get there, but governments are in the driver’s seat. And governments will determine whether we should prepare for bitter competition or a true team effort.</p><em>Jeroen van der Veer, Chief Executive of Royal Dutch Shell plc, is Energy Community leader of the World Economic Forum energy industry partnership in 2007-2008 and chaired this year’s Energy Summit in Davos. He also chairs the Energy and Climate Change working group of the European Round Table of Industrialists.</em>Carey Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13596147153251776263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-493435962724171196.post-81976560331098070952007-12-28T07:15:00.000-08:002007-12-28T07:41:48.931-08:00Peak Energy, Coal Reserves, and Climate ChangeThe blog <a href="http://www.theoildrum.com/">The Oil Drum</a> has posted a writing by Dave Rutledge, the Chair for the Division of Engineering and Applied Science at Caltech. In this <a href="http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2697">post</a> and in a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTUcxYdMmj4">YouTube video</a> Rutledge makes a few basic claims or revelations, that if correct, should profoundly affect how we (the United States and the World) treat the issues of energy supply and climate change. Also see a <a href="http://rutledge.caltech.edu/">webpage posted by Dave Rutledge</a> where you can download his power point presentation and Excel files.<br /><br />The three basic points he makes are:<br /><br />1. Coal reserve estimates are inaccurate, outdated (derived and unchanged significantly since 1974), and in need of revision quite a bit downward. He references a <a href="http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11977">National Academies report</a> that discusses the need for new and accurate accounts of coal reserves and resources.<br /><br />2. Hydrocarbon (oil and natural gas) and coal resources are well below those that are use by the IPCC climate models to estimate future global warming. The end result is that there is not enough mineable fossil fuels to cause the warming and sea level rises that are being predicted. For example, in some IPCC models, oil production is assumed larger in 2100 than today. Is this possible? Does this mean the use of tar sands and oil shale, or is using those resources even not enough? Rutledge's discussion of this concept makes it seem unlikely that new sources will take up the slack.<br /><br />3. For climate change reasons, or fossil fuel depletion reasons, work on implementation and research and development into renewable energy systems is an imperative. I'll add not energy efficiency per se, but energy reductions that still enable us, as humans, to continue to be healthy and interact culturally as needed to have good lifestyles.<br /><br />I will not further discuss this topic as one should refer to the links within this post for further information from the Dave Rutledge himself.Carey Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13596147153251776263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-493435962724171196.post-73133205222851628472007-12-20T16:12:00.000-08:002007-12-21T06:27:33.493-08:00New Energy BillThe US Congress passed an energy bill yesterday and Bush signed it into law. It is both a step backward and forward for energy policy. See this <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1220/p02s01-usgn.html">CS Monitor</a> article for a synopsis.<br /><br />Creating a higher CAFE standard to get to 35 mpg by 2020 is certainly a good step forward, and it has been a long time coming. The biofuels mandate is a marginally good idea. The emphasis on corn ethanol is not the greatest due to the environmentally unfriendly aspects of using a tremendous amount of irrigated water (200-2,500 gallons of water for every gallon of ethanol) consumed and fertilizer runoff into the Gulf of Mexico. To most engineers who study the problem, I would say they believe biofuels must be non-irrigated and farmed in a way that sustains the nitrogen cycle, and not only the carbon cycle we hear so much about.<br /><br />The removal of the renewable energy production tax credits for wind, solar, etc. is disappointing, but it has lapsed and been restarted three times already in its brief history. What we really need is a PTC scheme that sets it at a medium to high level (note: it was 1.9 cents/kWh) and has it steadily decrease in a set manner which cannot be changed. This gives businesses the ability to know the future of this kind of incentive such that they can invest in infrastructure that must be amortized over several decades.<br /><br />The CS monitor article mentioned above does point out one thing that I think is good: energy policy might now be, as it should, a perennial subject. That doesn't mean that energy policies should change every year, it just means they should be evaluated every year.Carey Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13596147153251776263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-493435962724171196.post-18719624881559825282007-12-04T19:50:00.000-08:002007-12-04T20:34:52.085-08:00Deregulated vs. Regulated Energy PricesIn Texas in 1999, Senate Bill 7 created a deregulated electricity market within the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (<a href="http://www.ercot.com"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">ERCOT</span></a>). Some areas opted not to join into the fun of a deregulated market, where consumers could choose their retail electricity provider of choice. Examples of these ares are the city of Austin (<a href="http://www.austinerengy.com">Austin Energy</a>) and the city of San Antonio (<a href="http://www.cpsenergy.com/">CPS</a>).<br /><br />So since 1999, I wondered: if the economic 'free' market is supposed to be optimal and drive prices lower for the consumer, why aren't prices in the deregulated market lower than those at Austin Energy and CPS Energy?<br /><br />Today, the winter charge for electricity within the Austin Energy domain is near 8.5 cents/kWh if using 1000 kWh per month. The summer rate this year was near 9.4 cents/kWh. If I look on the Texas Public Utility Commission's website for finding a retail electric provider (<a href="http://www.powertochoose.com">Power To Choose</a>) in Round Rock, Texas (just north of Austin) in the Oncor region, I notice for the fixed rates (I will not consider variable rate electricity) the price varies between 10.2 - 14.1 cents/kWh. This is approximately 1.5 cents/kWh more than Austin Energy averaged over the year. Note that the price a consumer pays is due to costs for (1) electricity generation, (2) transmission, and (3) retail electric providers (REP) who administer the service. The ERCOT deregulated market makes it such that no one company can perform more than one of those functions.<br /><br />One major reason for this discrepancy is how electricity is priced in the deregulated market.<br /><br />Assume the following:<br />1. Company A is in the deregulated market in ERCOT, and Company B is a city municipality within ERCOT but not engaged in the deregulated market (like Austin Energy).<br /><br />2. Both Company A and B have identical power generation capacity and mix at: 33% natural gas combined cycle, 33% pulverized coal, and 33% nuclear.<br /><br />The deregulated market prices electricity at the 'marginal price' (i.e. the cost to generate the last bit of electricity). Also, all coal and nuclear power runs almost continuously with the natural gas units cranking up and down to follow the rise and fall of electric demand. Assume the case now with high natural gas prices, it is the most expensive. <br /><br />Say nuclear power costs 1.7 cents/kWh, coal costs 3.5 cents/kWh, and natural gas generation costs 5.0 cents/kWh.<br /><br />For 1000 kWh of generation the <span style="font-weight: bold;">deregulated cost of energy </span>is:<br /><br />= (nuclear electricity)*price + (coal electricity)*price + (natural gas electricity)*price<br />= 333 kWh*5.0 cents/kWh +333 kWh*5.0 cents/kWh + 333 kWh*5.0 cents/kWh<br />= $50.00<br /><br />For 1000 kWh of generation the <span style="font-weight: bold;">municipality cost of energy </span>is:<br /><br />= (nuclear electricity)*price + (coal electricity)*price + (natural gas electricity)*price<br />= 333 kWh*1.7 cents/kWh +333 kWh*3.5 cents/kWh + 333 kWh*5.0 cents/kWh<br />= $34.00<br /><br />So using THE EXACT SAME GENERATION units, the municipality is inherently cheaper. Of course, municipalities can be less efficient running their organization than competitive companies and end up charging more. But, competitive REPs also need to pay for marketing their product, which incurs costs. Thus, municipalities can afford to be less efficient in their general operation and organization up to the point that they make up for marginal price differences and marketing costs from REPs. There are also other factors, but the basic price structure for charging for generated electricity is perhaps the most influential.<br /><br />Of course, since the deregulated market was created after lots of infrastructure existed already, it is not truly a 'free' market system since some companies started with a tremendous amount of assets. But that is a discussion for another day ...Carey Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13596147153251776263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-493435962724171196.post-36235779772065124762007-12-02T16:45:00.001-08:002007-12-02T16:47:18.855-08:00An oil scare story from the past ...<p class="MsoNormal">“It is the Summer [two years from now]. Violent uprisings have shaken <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Saudi Arabia</st1:place></st1:country-region>, and the House of Saud has fallen. <span style=""> </span>For months, the nation has been kept in turmoil by dissidents with strong religious and anti-Western feelings: ultraconservative Muslims of the Wahhabi sect, angered by corruption among some of the ruling princes and embittered by the erosion of family and tribal values; and disaffected foreign workers, many of them Palestinians, stirred up by radical forces in other lands. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Oil no longer flows from rich Saudi fields. Critical elements of the oil distribution system, systematically wrecked, lie in ruins. <span style=""> </span>The giant terminal at Ras Tanura, which once sent half a dozen tankers a day down the <st1:place st="on">Persian Gulf</st1:place> and out to the global oil routes, rusts silently under a scorching sun.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The free world has lost a fifth of its oil supply – some ten million barrels a day.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>For a brief time, the <st1:country-region st="on">United States</st1:country-region> seemed not to feel the loss; its daily share from <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Saudi Arabia</st1:place></st1:country-region> was less than a million and a half barrels, and there were stockpiles and a small strategic reserve to draw on.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Does this projection sound believable? It did in 1981, because that is when it was written in National Geographic magazine along with comments about projections that oil could be at $80 per barrel in 1985. <span style=""> </span>It turned out that the cost of a barrel of oil in 1985 was about $27, and only $14 in 1986 (which is roughly $52 and $27 in early 2007 dollars). How wrong was that oil price projection?</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">See <a href="http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm">http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm</a> and <a href="http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Chart.asp">http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Chart.asp</a> for discussion and charts of oil prices.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">What this look into the recent past indicates, is that projecting energy prices and uses into the future is pretty much as good as looking into a crystal ball. <span style=""> </span>The reason that oil prices dropped is due to efficiency improvements and adjustments in the world economy that reduced demand.<span style=""> </span>These adjustments were caused by people, just as the price increase and embargo was also caused by people. <span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">And a large part of the reason it has taken approximately 25 years for us to have the same conversation again about the future of oil supplies and Wahabbi sects in the <st1:place st="on">Middle East</st1:place>, is because people had the ability to act and change the future. <span style=""> </span>Thus, in the 1970s and 1980s, people were the major influence in energy consumption and energy prices. <span style=""> </span>Today, people are still the major influence as we still have room to become more energy efficient to choose the goal for oil consumption for the next few decades. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The question is: how long can people’s choices and adjustments remain the most influential factor in energy consumption and prices?<span style=""> </span>Because, if people are not the most influential factor, then that means nature’s limitations in resources is the most influential factor.<span style=""> </span>At no point yet in history has per capita energy consumption declined. <span style=""> </span>Human choices can possible maintain high standards of living even if and when energy per capita begins to decline, sometime in the future. <span style=""> </span>Our goal should be to maintain the world and society such that humans always have the most control over energy consumption, because otherwise, it means, by definition, we are not in control. </p>Carey Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13596147153251776263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-493435962724171196.post-88839724857949925972007-11-28T19:36:00.000-08:002007-11-28T20:05:27.510-08:00Google's Energy Ventures - Can Computer/Programming Companies Tackle the Commanding Heights?The "Commanding Heights" of the economy were what Vladimir Lenin referred to as the segments and industries in an economy that effectively control and support the others: energy, banking, and transportation/shipping. Google and other so-called 'tech' companies (note: it is a misnomer to call technology only concepts that involved computers and programming) are aiming at solving both their own and others' energy cost problems.<br /><br />In all likelihood, companies venturing in this space see their future growth limited if energy does not stay cheap and abundant. Venture capitalists see the large amount of dollars possible for finding the next major contributor to the energy mix. But tackling the Commanding Heights takes a lot of physical capital - the steel, silicon, wires, etc. that actually exist on the ground somewhere - and the paybacks times are historically slower than what Google and others are used to.<br /><br />In the case of Google, their servers have grown at such a rate that they likely see limitations in their ability to continually increase their offers for free hosting services. Since providing the energy to power servers is critical to many of Google's business aspects, they Google executives have decided it is worth their while to try to solve the problem for themselves. They likely can do that, but making a new renewable energy technology (besides wind power) go mainstream will be tough, but I'm glad they are taking this challenge.<br /><br />The fact is, that for almost any building in the United States, putting photovoltaic panels (for example) at the facility to offset electricity purchases will provide a payback on the investment within the lifetime of the building, and likely in less than 15 years, and possibly in less than 10 years depending upon location and incentives. The reason why this is typically not done (except on government buildings) is that there are other investments to be made with the same money that have higher paybacks in shorter time frames: this is the crux of the issue.<br /><br />As long as the paybacks in energy investments take longer than other investments, companies will fulfill their fiduciary duty to make the non-energy investments. Energy simply does not cost enough to change the economics. Making renewable energy generation cost less than coal can be done by two ways: (1) cheaper renewable energy and/or (2) more expensive coal energy. The latter is not likely to happen anytime soon, even with a possible future carbon, or carbon dioxide, price. One way for the former to occur is to allocate semiconductor factories toward building solar cells instead of microchips. But then this means more expensive servers (because of less supply of chips and processors) for Google ... a catch 22.Carey Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13596147153251776263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-493435962724171196.post-46474741512498512642007-11-26T11:03:00.000-08:002007-11-26T15:55:41.866-08:00Pros and Cons of Wind EnergyHere is a link to another article in an ever increasing list of discussions about wind power and its pros and cons. More and more negative or problematic points about wind energy are surfacing, and it is mostly because wind energy is starting to have a measurable impact instead of just being 'in the noise' of the electricity generation mix.<br /><br />Essentially, because utility and grid operators don't know exactly when wind power will be getting generated due to the unpredictability in wind speed, there are additional actions that need to be taken in operating a reliable electric grid. As the amount of installed wind capacity (the MegaWatts installed if all wind generators were operating at maximum power) gets to over 10% of the entire grid capacity (wind, nuclear, coal, natural gas, hydroelectric, etc.), the other electrical generators are required to operate to account for the increased wind capacity. This assumes, of course, that you are going to allow the full available wind power onto the grid at any given time.<br /><br />A study by GE (see http://www.ercot.com/meetings/ros/keydocs/2007/1022/Variablity_and_Predictability_draft_dlvd_2a.zip, or link on page http://www.ercot.com/calendar/2007/10/20071022-ROSWIND.html), done for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT)<br />shows that the dispatchable generators (those that can be turned on at any time) have to be able to ramp up and down faster the more that wind is integrated into the grid. Interestingly, <span style="font-weight: bold;">the predictability of the total load that needs to be served by the dispatchable generators stayed about the same as without wind</span>. This is because there is already enough uncertainty in the electricity demand throughout the day such that the added uncertainty of wind generation was not incredibly influential.<br /><br />Basically, with more wind, we are deciding how many other additional aspects (higher generation ramp rates, more transmission lines, etc.) we are willing to deal with to have a clean source of electricity. The fact that wind energy is getting questioned for its newly-perceived (though not new at all) drawbacks is a testament to the wind industry already solving many problems to become a mainstream source of electricity.Carey Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13596147153251776263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-493435962724171196.post-51574417343247110602007-11-23T09:34:00.000-08:002007-11-26T15:53:41.241-08:00Top 10 Arguments against Global Warming RebuttedThis story by the BBC discusses some point-counterpoint discussions of the "Top 10" counterarguments for global warming. It is a pretty good short mention of some of the main points.<br /><br />Click the title to go to the BBC site.Carey Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13596147153251776263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-493435962724171196.post-62018038327370549812007-11-22T18:35:00.000-08:002007-11-26T15:52:55.053-08:00Time Scales and Quality of Life: How they define our Future<p class="MsoNormal">Since<span style=""> </span>before Roe vs. Wade (1973) …</p> <p class="MsoNormal">the <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">United States</st1:country-region></st1:place> populace has been divided on how to treat the current/potential “quality of life” of the unborn who are not capable of expressing will of their own.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">For the past 20 years …</p> <p class="MsoNormal">the world has been hotly debating on the short and long term consequences of trying to preempt and mitigate effects of global warming.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Quite recently …</p> <p class="MsoNormal">an electric utility executive told me the way he attempts to express the tradeoffs of his job to environmental advocates is to define “quality of life” as a tradeoff among three areas: health (environment), affordability (cost), and availability (abundance of supply and grid integrity).<span style=""> </span></p><br /><p class="MsoNormal">And still more recently …</p> <p class="MsoNormal">a diabetes research [Huang et al., 2007, <i style="">Diabetes Care</i>] study indicated that, for some, the cumulative burden of diabetes treatments (pills, insulin shots, etc.) is so great, that they claimed they were willing to forgo some years of living <i style="">with treatment</i> for a better “quality of life” during less years <i style="">without treatment</i>.<span style=""> </span><i style="">Essentially, they said they were willing to risk having longer term ailments, including blindness and amputation, resulting from stopping medications in lieu of continuing traditional medical treatment and its associated side effects in the shorter term.<o:p></o:p></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal">What do all of these instances have in common?<span style=""> </span>They are all defining, or struggling to define, what and when they mean by the term “quality of life”.<span style=""> </span>In fact, this discontinuity in timescales underscores much of the political and social debate on these topics, and almost everything else.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Albert Einstein told us that space and time were one in the same.<span style=""> </span>In a similar vein, when we neglect timescales in political and social discussions, we miss part of the argument and prevent people from coming together on compromise. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style="">Short time scale (0-1 year)<o:p></o:p></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Pro-life advocates want to speak for those that cannot speak for themselves and are not yet born.<span style=""> </span>The time frame of debate focuses from the time period from conception to birth.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style="">Short-Medium time scale (1-10 years)<o:p></o:p></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Some patients with chronic illnesses wish to make the remaining years of their life as enjoyable as possible rather than as long as possible.<span style=""> </span>The time frame of debate focuses upon the last decade or so of expected life for the individual.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style="">Medium-Long time scale (5-50 years)<o:p></o:p></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Energy and electric utility companies and municipalities need to plan for infrastructure investments that economically depreciate over several decades.<span style=""> </span>The time frame for the internal economic debate usually focuses upon the lifetime of the assets.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style="">Long time scale (> 50 years)<o:p></o:p></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Environmental sustainability advocates concerned about climate changes want to speak for those that cannot speak for themselves and are not yet born.<span style=""> </span>Because of concerns about the emissions and wastes (e.g. CO<sub>2</sub> and radioactive materials) of fossil fuel energy sources, the time frame for debate focuses on time spans greater than 100s of years.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">As a society we are struggling to define the quality of life for different people and timescales. <span style=""> </span>Until we settle on how we view these different timescales, our social policies will fluctuate with no apparent purpose or guidance.</p>Carey Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13596147153251776263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-493435962724171196.post-32617215037332175512007-11-22T18:25:00.000-08:002007-11-26T15:54:04.572-08:00Some elements of a proper energy policy<p class="MsoNormal">A proper Energy Policy in the <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">United States</st1:country-region></st1:place> would promote (1) clarity of purpose, (2) diversification of use of energy resources, and (3) more transparent and accurate pricing of energy such that the market (consumers and energy companies) can properly make both short and long term decisions.</p><br /><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">How to promote each item above: </p> <p class="MsoNormal">(1) CLARITY – State, through actions and rules in the Energy Bill, that the U.S., being the largest energy consumer in the world, and the largest energy user per capita, must always consider the tradeoffs of such a large amount of energy. These tradeoffs are environmental stewardship, security/accessibility of energy resources, and costs that don’t cause disruptive economic conditions (but that if changing slowly over time in the right direction can work to our benefit). For example: The fact that private banks will not underwrite new nuclear facilities is testament to how high they perceive the risk. Does this mean that the <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> should have no new nuclear facilities? Not necessarily, BUT if the taxpayers underwrite (through government loan guarantees) the high infrastructure costs (for nuclear plants and disposal), then the taxpayers should also reap the economic benefits of this underwriting. I don’t want a “national energy company” (i.e. U.S. government running a nuclear facility), but I might rather have that than the U.S. citizens taking the risk of a nuclear facility without directly benefiting from the cheaper operational costs of generating electricity from nuclear facilities.<br /><!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /><!--[endif]--></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">(2) DIVERSIFICATION – The oil shocks of the 1970’s took petroleum out of the mix (almost, but not entirely) of electricity generation. We are benefiting from this decoupling today with higher oil prices. Consumers will generally benefit when there are multiple competing sources of fuels/energy for various applications ranging from heating/cooling homes to fueling cars. The market is NOT SET UP to take into account these concerns, so it is the responsibility of the government to set up the rules such that various companies end up filling the need for a diverse energy supply that includes ALL fuels renewable, fossil fuels, and nuclear. THE MOST IMPORTANT thing to do regarding this concept, and energy policy in general, is to promote higher CAFE fuel standards for cars AND LIGHT TRUCKS AND SUVS. We, the <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>, can do this, and should. More fuel efficient cars are being made, and can be made. Also, the more fuel efficient a car is, the further it can go ON ANY FUEL (electricity, hydrogen, gasoline, diesel, etc.). AND, higher fuel standards do not mean people will buy less cars, so I’ve never been sure why automakers are so concerned about this issue as long as the time for transition is appropriate.<br /><!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /><!--[endif]--></p> <p class="MsoNormal">(3) TRANSPARENT PRICING – Every energy usage today is subsidized in some way by the government at both the state and federal levels. This is not inherently bad as the governments have concerns and perspectives that the players in the economic market do not have. The U.S. has established over long time scales that it is willing to promote and fund expansion of fuels that are BOTH NEW (wind, solar) AND WELL-ESTABLISHED (coal, petroleum exploration). Arguments abound such as (1) fossil exploration is “new” and R&D is needed, or (2) wind energy is starting at a disadvantage and needs R&D to compete as well as new transmission lines and rules, (3) etc. on other energy resources. All of this is generally true, and people are just bickering over who is not getting their fair share. Everyone has an argument because the coupling between energy subsidies and subsidies in other areas of the economy are sufficiently blurry. There are some areas where <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> investment can have a more direct effect upon pricing than others. For example, the <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> is only one player in indirectly dictating (by consumption, production, and intervention in oil-rich areas) the price of oil. But investing in resources that exist within the <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> (renewables, coal) a more direct effect will be had upon how much citizens spend on energy. We can make a start to people understanding this by making some basic information available in a simple and straightforward manner: 1. Government dollars given to promote each fuel (wind, oil, coal, etc.) 2. Amount of energy consumed from each fuel (absolute values and percentages) 3. Dollars per energy consumed 4. List of externalities that are and are not accounted for in prices of energy. Examples include SO2 is not sufficiently internalized for coal plants (due to technology for scrubbing) and nuclear waste disposal is not sufficiently internalized for nuclear power.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p>Carey Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13596147153251776263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-493435962724171196.post-16489485698292981762007-11-22T17:58:00.000-08:002007-11-26T15:54:22.158-08:00Politics and Science: A Different set of Units, not Values<p class="MsoNormal">With the awarding of the 2007 Nobel Peace prize to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore, don’t get confused on the distinction between science and politics.<span style=""> </span>Be sure not to read more into this award than is actually there.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Bjorn Lomborg, an ardent critic of climate change mitigation, was quoted as saying “Awarding it to Al Gore cannot be seen as anything other than a political statement. Awarding it to the IPCC is well-founded”.<span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">To quote Alfred Nobel’s will regarding the awarding of the Peace prize bearing his name: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt;"><span style="color:black;">“… </span>and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Why are Lomborg and others irked that Gore shares the award with the IPCC?<span style=""> </span>How can Peace be seen as anything other than political?<span style=""> </span>The Norwegian Nobel Committee in fact acknowledges Gore as “one of the world’s leading environmental politicians” and says his commitment is “reflected in political activity.”<span style=""> </span>So of course the award was political.<span style=""> </span>If Gore were awarded the Nobel Prize for physics or chemistry, then I would join the side denouncing that act.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">The fundamental issue is that as time goes on it is becoming more and more difficult to draw the line between science and politics, but there is an easy test.<span style=""> </span>If a person discusses what is happening or how things are happening by the use of units (e.g. ‘meters’ for distance, ‘centigrade’ for temperature, ‘parts per million’ for concentration, etc.) then that person is reporting science.<span style=""> </span>If a person discusses what is happening and what should next happen without the use of units, but by only using words (e.g. great, accelerating, harm, chaos, etc.), then that person is acting political.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">So, can a person act both scientifically and politically?<span style=""> </span>Of course. <span style=""> </span>Forcing a scientist to subside political thoughts is a reduction in his or her civil rights.<span style=""> </span>And neglecting a politician’s input into the ramifications of scientific revelations is a reduction of duty.<span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">The fact is that given a single number or trend, even with 100% certainty in its validity, people will disagree about its ramifications and importance in directing action.<span style=""> </span>The measurements and numbers have to exist before we can even debate them.<span style=""> </span>Considering topics such as climate change there are many numbers and measurements to sift through.<span style=""> </span>Thus, there are many opinions and interpretations to sift through.<span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;">Gore may or may not be stretching the validity of some of the results of IPCC and other climate change researchers, but his intentions are inline with the purpose of the Nobel Peace Prize.<span style=""> </span>Whether you agree with Gore or not, he is causing people, on both sides of the issue about whether to plan ahead for global warming effects, to speak their minds and contribute to the political discussion.<span style=""> </span>And politics is a substitute for violence.<span style=""> </span>Hence, the definition of peace.<o:p></o:p></span></p>Carey Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13596147153251776263noreply@blogger.com0