Energy Numbers, Fascinating

What I am talking about is about taking the strategic steps necessary to making the United States the energy dominant force on the planet within five to 10 years by using our super-abundance of fossil fuel resources.  Thanks to the amazing made-in-America technological breakthroughs of the last decade -- including horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing to get at shale oil and gas reserves -- the U.S. now has at least 150 years of oil and natural gas resources on top of 500 years of coal.

Consider what has happened in less than a decade with oil production.  ‎In 2008 the U.S. produced about 5 million barrels a day. We hit 8.7 million ‎in 2014 and could double that by 2025.

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/happy-american-energy-independence-day/

Save the World with Fossil Fuels

"Wind power, for all the public money spent on its expansion, has inched up to—wait for it—1% of world energy consumption in 2013. Solar, for all the hype, has not even managed that: If we round to the nearest whole number, it accounts for 0% of world energy consumption.

"Both wind and solar are entirely reliant on subsidies for such economic viability as they have. World-wide, the subsidies given to renewable energy currently amount to roughly $10 per gigajoule: These sums are paid by consumers to producers, so they tend to go from the poor to the rich, often to landowners (I am a landowner and can testify that I receive and refuse many offers of risk-free wind and solar subsidies)."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/fossil-fuels-will-save-the-world-really-1426282420

Only nations and people who are wealthy will be able to buy the best technologies, when they evolve, and will thus be able to afford to replace hydrocarbons.  Get rich and stay rich if you want to "save the planet".

BBC News - Thorium backed as a 'future fuel'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24638816

Much to like about this idea - the US Govt will probably become interested in another 100 years. 

Thanks to Natural Gas and Climate Change, U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Continue Downward Trend | Cato @ Liberty

The big player in 2012 was the continued switch from coal to natural gas for electrical generation. It is generally accepted that gas-fired generation results in about half as much carbon dioxide emissions per kilowatt-hour as coal-fired.

While some would glibly say this is a result of increased regulation of greenhouse gases, it's much more just good-old economics and the profit motive that are responsible. Hydraulic fracturing, horizontal drilling, and inherently less expensive physical plants mean it is cheaper to produce electrical power from gas than from coal.  In fact, as the figure below shows, there's been pretty much a one-for-one switch between the two sources, with coal-fired down by 215 billion kilowatt-hours (kwh) and gas up by 212.

Despite the fact that "renewable" electricity generation declined in 2012, carbon dioxide emissions per kwh still went down, by 3.5 percent, thanks to the overwhelming effect of natural gas substitution.  http://www.cato.org/blog/thanks-natural-gas-climate-change-us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-continue-downward-trend

The Percentages

If the EPA were to establish a uniform 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour standard, that would eliminate nearly all coal-fired plants in the United States, which generated about 37 percent of the country's electricity last year. In comparison, natural gas plants generated 30 percent, nuclear 19 percent, hydropower 7 percent, wind 3.5 percent, biomass 1.4 percent, petroleum 1 percent, geothermal 0.4 percent, and solar 0.1 percent.

The president's national climate plan also sets "a goal to double renewable electricity generation once again by 2020." That would mean that wind power would produce 7 percent and solar power 0.2 percent of America's energy by then. For what it's worth, the Energy Information Administrtion estimates the levelized costs in 2018 for conventional coal would be $100 per megawatt-hour; conventional natural gas $67; nuclear $108; wind $87; and solar photovoltaic $144.

http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/28/obamas-climate-five-year-plan

Well, it's a good thing we have a plan, they work so well for the government.

That would mean double the capacity produced by wind/solar/biomass, or double the percent of production?  You could meet the later by keeping the economy tanked, or by spiking nuclear/coal, in which case the only possible growth would be "renewables."  Whether or not flat growth and spiked nuclear/coal would be good, as we grind into poverty, depends upon how desperately you believe that climate change is driven by human activity, and that the outcomes will be a net negative.

My prediction - easiest prediction ever - the government will follow its track record of doing everything wrong as regards energy policy.

Millions for A Pittance

"Among power sources, the worst source of CO2 emissions by far is coal. Natural gas generates half the CO2 per kilowatt-hour, and in the past few years natural gas has displaced coal to a remarkable degree. This year gas-fired electricity generation equaled coal-fired generation for the first time. According to the Energy Information Administration, that trend will continue as shale gas production rises from 5 trillion cubic feet in 2010 to more than 13 trillion cubic feet in 2035. Fracking made this possible-by opening up the Marcellus shale deposit in Pennsylvania and many others. Twelve years ago, shale gas made up 2 percent of the U.S. supply. It now makes up 37 percent.  "All of that was achieved without government direction-and in the face of considerable environmental resistance. Now the world's worst CO2 emitter, China-which gets 80 percent of its electricity from coal-has taken up fracking too. China's natural-gas reserves are 50 percent bigger than America's. If climate change is the worst danger facing the planet, as some environmentalists contend, then Chinese fracking should be good news.  "But most environmentalists hate fracking. Instead, they have placed their bets on other horses-many of which have come up lame (see: Solyndra, Evergreen Solar, A123 Systems, et al.). And even green-energy pursuits insulated from market forces pack a remarkably weak punch. The Navy has just built a 10-acre solar-panel field at its Norfolk Naval Station, at a cost of $21 million in Obama stimulus money. It can power all of 200 homes-a mere 2 percent of the naval station's power needs. An audit says the money saved on utility bills will recoup the project's costs in roughly 447 years (not a typo)." http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/10/fracking-can-help-fix-the-co2-problem

Yes, I can see exactly why so many are betting on "renewables".  The cost benefit curve is so compelling.

Going Green or Going Down?

"Within a few hours after the nuclear reactor disaster in Fukushima in March 2011, she had transformed herself from a proponent into an opponent of nuclear energy. At the time, most Germans supported the chancellor. But now, more than a year later, they are losing confidence in her ability to get it right. German politician and EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger says that he doubts "whether German consumers will accept rising electricity prices resulting from the energy turnaround in the long term."

The rising cost of electricity is also a burden on businesses. According to Oettinger, energy costs now represent the biggest liability for Germany as a place to do business, especially in light of the marked increase in the number of blackouts and voltage fluctuations in the grid."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/energy-turnaround-in-germany-plagued-by-worrying-lack-of-progress-a-860481.html

Hydrogen Cells

Unlike fossil fuels such as petrol or diesel, hydrogen is not a source of energy in its own right. It is merely a means for storing electricity generated in a power station and delivering it to the motor driving the wheels of an electric vehicle-in much the same way as a battery works.
And as free hydrogen does not occur in useful quantities in nature, it has to be made by using electricity to crack water into its constituent elements.

In California, despite the many solar installations and wind farms, the electricity coming out of the plug is neither green nor clean, being derived predominantly (ie, 62%) from fossil fuel. During cheap-rate periods at night-when electric vehicles tend to be recharged andelectrolysis plants are running flat out-most of California's electricity is imported from coal-fired power stations out of state.
Thus, like electric vehicles, hydrogen cars contribute their share of greenhouse gases as well.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/10/nitrogen-cycle

Micro nuclear powered hydrolysis stations, anyone?

Fascinating! Nitrogen Engines

Unlike fossil fuels such as petrol or diesel, hydrogen is not a source of energy in its own right. It is merely a means for storing electricity generated in a power station and delivering it to the motor driving the wheels of an electric vehicle-in much the same way as a battery works. And as free hydrogen does not occur in useful quantities in nature, it has to be made by using electricity to crack water into its constituent elements.

In California, despite the many solar installations and wind farms, the electricity coming out of the plug is neither green nor clean, being derived predominantly (ie, 62%) from fossil fuel. During cheap-rate periods at night-when electric vehicles tend to be recharged and electrolysis plants are running flat out-most of California's electricity is imported from coal-fired power stations out of state. Thus, like electric vehicles, hydrogen cars contribute their share of greenhouse gases as well.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/10/nitrogen-cycle

Micro nuclear powered hydrolysis stations, anyone?

A growing body of opinion seems to think liquid air is the answer (or, more specifically, the nitrogen component that makes up 78% of air). It is not exactly a new idea. Air was first liquefied in 1883, using essentially the same process as today-ie, compressing it to 200 atmospheres, cooling it to -190ºC, and then letting it suddenly expand and condense. The process turns 1,000 litres of transparent gas into 1.4 litres of light blue liquid.

As long as its storage container is well insulated, liquid air can be kept at atmospheric pressure for long periods. But on exposure to room temperature, it will instantly boil and revert back to its gaseous state. In the process, it expands 700-fold-providing the wherewithal to operate a piston engine or a turbine.

Liquid nitrogen does an even better job. Being considerably denser than liquid air, it can store more energy per unit volume, allowing cars to travel further on a tankful of the stuff. Weight for weight, liquid nitrogen packs much the same energy as the lithium-ion batteries used in laptops, mobile phones and electric cars. In terms of performance and range, then, a nitrogen vehicle is similar to an electric vehicle rather than a conventional one.

Electric Reality

The Nissan Leaf is the first mass-produced “battery electric vehicle” (BEV). It uses state-of-the-art lithium batteries. Despite this, the Leaf makes no sense at all. It costs more than twice as much ($35,430 vs. $17,250) as a comparable Nissan Versa, but it is much less capable. The Leaf accelerates more slowly than a Versa and has only about 25% of the range.


At $0.11/KWH for electricity and $4.00/gallon for gasoline, you would have to drive the Leaf 164,000 miles to recover its additional purchase cost. Counting interest, the miles to payback is 197,000 miles. Because it is almost impossible to drive a Leaf more than 60 miles a day, the payback with interest would take more than nine years.

However, cost is not the biggest problem with BEVs.

On Wednesday, Jan. 26 a major snowstorm hit Washington D.C. Ten-mile homeward commutes took four hours. If there had been a million electric cars on American roads at the time, every single one of them in the DC area would have ended up stranded on the side of the road, dead. And, before they ran out of power, their drivers would have been forced to turn off the heat and the headlights in a desperate effort to eek out a few more miles of range.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2011/09/14/electric-cars-are-an-extraordinarily-bad-idea/

A bad idea indeed.  How did the idea of an electric car become so widely embraced?  Anyone know?  Who made it seem seductive?

That Oil Rich Nation, The USA

Thus, while the U.S. might indeed have greater oil resources than Saudi Arabia, U.S. oil reserves (per the BP Statistical Review of World Energy) are only about 1/10th those of Saudi Arabia. The distinction is important.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9085

The High Cost of Green

"When is a job not a job? Answer: when it is a green job. Jobs in an industry that raises the price of energy effectively destroy jobs elsewhere; jobs in an industry that cuts the cost of energy create extra jobs elsewhere.

The entire argument for green jobs is a version of Frederic Bastiat’s broken-window fallacy. The great nineteenth century French economist pointed out that breaking a window may provide work for the glazier, but takes work from the tailor, because the window owner has to postpone ordering a new suit because he has to pay for the window.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/02/matt-ridley-on-how-high-cost-green.html

Oh come on now, can't we get at least on ray of sunshine out of a cucumber?

Electric Cars, So Virtuous, So Pure

Or not ...

Electricity Powers Buffoonery, Costly Buffoonery

Nothing illustrates the superficiality of our times better than the enthusiasm for electric cars, because they are supposed to greatly reduce air pollution. But the electricity that ultimately powers these cars has to be generated somewhere -- and nearly half the electricity generated in this country is generated by burning coal.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/12/27/random_thoughts_112538.html

The electric car thing - if they would just let it happen in its own time, after we rebuild the grid with a France-like reactor system, it would work.  But the idealogues stuck on E are not patient enough to wait for electric cars to make sense.  Of course, since our government runs it, we'll never have a smart system for generating electricity, either.

More from Dr. Sowell:

The wisest and most knowledgeable human being on the planet is utterly incompetent to make even 10 percent of the consequential decisions that have to be made in a modern nation. Yet all sorts of people want to decide how much money other people can make or keep, and to micro-manage how other people live their lives.

Energy Security R US

 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a307107c-1364-11e1-9562-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1eMMqZ0V3

All of which provides a new optimism on US energy security – all the more for being totally unexpected. The consequences are only just coming into view. According to Daniel Yergin, author of The Quest, a masterful history of the modern search for energy, America’s tight oil supply is now almost equivalent to Libya’s oil output. Within eight years, it will amount to 3m barrels a day in an ever-bigger domestic spigot that will cut America’s oil imports by more than a third.
Already, imports have fallen to 46 per cent of America’s consumption – down from 60 per cent in George W. Bush’s second term. That number is likely to keep falling. Less than a fifth of the US’s oil now comes from outside the western hemisphere. That could dwindle to negligible levels in the near future. “The Middle East will figure less in America’s energy supply and become increasingly critical to China and India,” says Mr Yergin. “This is likely to have big geopolitical repercussions.”
Go read the whole article, it's worth the time.

The short version - there is an ass load of oil to be had in our hemisphere, rumors of peak oil were somewhat hastily circulated.

Energy from coal costs around $100 per megawatt-hour to produce. The price for solar power and offshore wind generation starts at twice that much and climbs fast. Some committed environmentalists might not mind seeing their electric bills nearly double. Most other folks would—even if they say otherwise.
http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/13/the-renewable-energy-boondoggl

This isn't good news, or anything to crow about - but pretending it is not true, pretending that we can afford to pay twice as much, is dangerous.
More:
Then there is the Cuisinart conundrum: Wind farms already kill half a million birds a year while generating just 2 percent of U.S. electricity. How many birds would they kill generating the 20 percent that renewable advocates want to shoot for?
Wind's biggest problem, however, is that it is intermittent. Since utility-scale electricity can't be efficiently and effectively stored, utilities must back up wind farms with other generation. And while utilities can fire up another gas turbine or two when demand is high, they cannot make the wind blow. Ironically, demand often peaks during hot summer days when the winds flatline.

Shale Gas Estimates

Less than we thought, but still a lot.
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/38463/?p1=MstRcnt

Electric Land

I could never understand how electric cars were supposed to get something for nothing.  Sure, they could almost do it if we had a rational power production system, with much smarter nuclear power and less government monopoly control.  But with the system we have now?  Never made any sense.

Of course, electric cars aren’t in mass production yet. And the technology is bound to get better and cheaper. Right?
Not so fast, says the University of Manitoba’s Vaclav Smil, who’s among the world’s foremost scholars of energy economics. Electric cars, he says, aren’t microchips, and Moore’s law doesn’t apply. “The myth that the future belongs to electric vehicles is one of the original misconceptions,” he writes in his book Energy Myths and Realities. In an interview, he notes that recent history is filled with energy breakthroughs that turned out be duds. Electric car crazes have come and gone before. Perhaps some people may remember a Canadian company called Ballard, which claimed to have developed a breakthrough fuel-cell technology. Many brainy people swore that Ballard was the future. It wasn’t.

Here’s another catch: Electric cars aren’t necessarily green at all. Electric vehicles require large amounts of electricity – so much that Toronto Hydro chief Anthony Haines says he doesn’t know how he’d get it. “If you connect about 10 per cent of the homes on any given street with an electric car, the electricity system fails,” he said recently.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/the-shocking-truth-about-electric-cars/article2149465/

A jolt of lightning set's me back a pace
Feel like a visitor from outer space
Please excuse me if I don't quite understand
I'm just a stranger in Electric Land
Bad Company, "Electric Land"

Power Corrupts, Episode One Million

During the Clinton administration, when the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House became a favorite place for campaign contributors to rest their weary wallets, the infamous Johnny Chung made the observation that the White House was like a subway turnstile. You put your token in and you got inside.
Getting inside the White House was easy for billionaire investor George Kaiser, who made multiple visits to the White House and appeared at White House events next to administration officials. One of the prime investors in the green energy company Solyndra, Kaiser put quite a few tokens in the White House turnstile.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/583962/201109061842/SolarGate.htm

Cliff? What Cliff?

Imagine that -- an economist who doesn't assume that you can get something for nothing.
Since then, Calzada has been proven right in nearly every metric. Spain has a serious sovereign debt crisis -- not helped much by its commitment of 11 percent of Spain's gross domestic product to subsidize renewable energy. The renewables program will cost the Spanish crown four times what it had originally budgeted.
The government is trying to wiggle out of its already-promised subsidies, which could generate legal problems or else a banking collapse. Unemployment in Spain exceeds 20 percent. Spanish industry is paying inflated prices for energy -- causing greater inefficiency and more job losses.
Speaking with me this week, Calzada expressed amazement that in the wake of his own nation's failure in this area, a few progressive members of Congress still want to drive the United States off the same cliff.
"How is it possible, having the example of Spain. ... Why would you like to repeat the same story?"


Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/08/green-jobs-promise-something-nothing#ixzz1WhucMjs7