TSAugust publishes commentaries only when there is an unusual event or issue.
Third in a series of articles on Energy Renewables and Votes
Second in a series of articles on Energy
Energy is a Confusing Word
First in a series of articles on Energy Oil and Electricity Confused
Energy and Oil
2009 Could be Decisive Year
EU: The Canary in the Energy Coal Mine. May 27, 2007
An Inconvenient Truth, Movie by Al Gore. May 28, 2006
Politicians like to invoke the word “renewable” as
though it was an incantation to heaven. Though there is no incense or
chanting, the politician is hoping the faithful will see the incantation
as testimonial to his environmental credentials. It matters naught that renewables have little effect
on our use of oil or electricity. The objective is to get elected and
not to resolve any specific energy issue. This attitude comes from lack
of knowledge as much as it does from personal ambition.
Clarity is once again needed when discussing renewable energy. Is the renewable to
replace oil; or is it to be used to generate electricity?
More than half the oil used in the United States is
for gasoline and diesel fuel to drive vehicles. Roughly 11.5 million
barrels of oil are used daily to power vehicles.
Politicians like to avoid the issue of drilling and
exploring for oil on the outer continental shelf or in ANWR by touting
ethanol.
So how do politicians speak about ethanol? They talk
about the number of gallons used. For example, “last year we produced
nearly seven billion gallons of ethanol,” which sounds very impressive.
But this is numbers inflation.
The actual production in barrels per day was 0.45
million barrels per day, or about 4% of our daily usage of oil for
vehicles.
The fact is, we can only offset about 10% of our oil
usage with ethanol from corn when we limit our use of corn for ethanol
production to 1/3 of our crop. Corn is a food that affects cereal and
meat production, so even only using 1/3 of our crop for ethanol has an
impact on food prices. This year, a poor corn crop could cause a
reduction in ethanol production or even higher food prices.
Cellulosic ethanol is still not available and may
never become commercially viable. Even if it does, it could only offset
another 10% of our use of oil assuming we use all 30 million acres of
unused farm land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve to grow
switchgrass and other cellulosic materials.
Importing ethanol (made from sugar cane) from Brazil
or the Philippines could also help reduce our use of oil. (See 1.) It is
difficult to estimate how much ethanol we might be able to import
because sugar cane ethanol will become a world commodity that China,
India and Europe will also covet. It’s also difficult because there is
no way to predict how much Brazil will increase its ethanol production.
Assuming the United States eliminated its tariff on
ethanol imports, and that Brazil undertook a massive increase in ethanol
production, Brazil might be able to increase its ethanol production by
13 times its current production (2 and 3), and if it exported all the
increased production, and the U.S. imported half of the total exports,
we could cut our use of oil by a total of around 30% (4 & 5)
While ethanol may be helpful, it does not and
cannot solve our oil crisis.
Another popular refrain is to use leftover grease to
make bio-diesel. America produces about 2 billion gallons of waste
cooking oil per year. Note again, this is only about 0.13 million
barrels per day even if it could all be converted to diesel oil.
Bio-diesel can also be made from other oils such as
palm oil, soy beans and peanuts. Soy beans are a food and peanut oil is
valuable on the world market. Using palm oil has increased deforestation
in Asia, as the Europeans have found out.
To the extent that bio-diesel from cooking fat makes
economic sense it’s worth doing, but we can’t eat our way to oil
independence.
Renewables may be a popular refrain for
politicians, but renewables can have only a small impact on the amount
of oil we use. And if food prices
increase because of ethanol production, ethanol may become a political
liability.
(Next week we address “Renewables for Electricity”.)
-
U.S. imported 0.04 million barrels per day in 2006. Importing more requires eliminating our tariff on ethanol imports.
-
Assumes increasing current acres used for growing sugar for ethanol from 15 to 200 million acres in Brazil.
-
Biofuels, Food, or Wildlife? The Massive Land Costs of U.S. Ethanol, by Avery 2006, provides a comprehensive evaluation of ethanol.
-
Includes U.S. produced corn ethanol.
-
Using this much ethanol would require that around 20% of our vehicles were capable of using E85.
TSAugust
June 29, 2008
Second in a series of articles on Energy
Energy is a Confusing
Instead, we should insist they identify which aspect
of “energy” they are going to discuss.
They should be forced to talk about oil, natural gas,
and coal; or
energy carriers, such as electricity and hydrogen etc., or in the case
of renewables, about wind, solar, geothermal etc., and not
about “energy”.
Now, we hear the term “energy independence”, when in
fact we should be hearing about oil independence, or natural gas
independence, or electricity independence. (See April 13, 2008
Commentary.)
We are currently independent for electricity, so
long as we aren’t prohibited from using coal. If Greenpeace and other
environmental organizations are successful in prohibiting the use of
coal, we will no longer enjoy electricity independence.
We have been independent with respect to natural
gas, though that independence may be coming to an end. Natural gas is
different from oil in that it is difficult to transport across oceans.
It must, for the most part, be used where it is found, with pipelines
being able to carry it across land areas, such as from Alaska to the
lower 48 states.
The two largest reserves of natural gas in the world
are in Russia and Qatar. Qatar’s natural gas is stranded unless it can
be liquefied and transported by Liquid Natural Gas tankers or converted
to diesel fuel using Gas to Liquid technologies.
Unless we find more natural gas, America risks
having a shortage of natural gas; especially if more natural gas power
plants need to be built because we aren’t allowed to use coal for
generating electricity.
This will further increase the price of natural gas
which will increase the price of electricity; and, since many homes use
natural gas for heating, will take another slice out of American pocket
books.
We already import two thirds of our oil, so we are
very dependent on foreign oil. This situation can only get worse unless
we drill and find more oil domestically. The U.S. Mineral Management
Service has estimated there are huge reserves of oil and natural gas in
our outer continental shelf, as well as in Alaska at ANWR.
Each of these issues, oil, natural gas and
electricity, only becomes clear when they are discussed separately, and
not lumped together using the word “energy.”
Further muddying the waters is the way in which
politicians and others refer to renewables as a solution for nearly
every problem. In fact, most renewables have no effect on oil
independence. A few may be able to generate electricity, but will have
little, if any, effect on electricity independence. None can affect
natural gas independence.
Again, each renewable energy source must be
discussed separately for the discussion to have any meaning.
Energy is a complicated subject, not because it is
difficult, but because there are many pieces to the puzzle. A picture
puzzle is confusing when the box is first opened, but becomes clear as
each piece is inspected and placed in its proper position.
Politicians and commentators, such as Bill O’Reilly,
should take the pledge not to use the word “energy”.
We will forever be doomed to bad decisions if we
continue to muddy the waters by using the word “energy”.
Note:
Energy forms are interchangeable. Gertrude Stein
might have written; A BTU, is a BTU, is a BTU.
But reality intrudes on this truism.
Infrastructure, supply and economics create a
paradigm. Today's oil driven transportation system is a paradigm. The
paradigm may shift over time to create a new reality, perhaps a
transportation system based on electricity, and society must then deal
with the new paradigm.
Energy and energy carriers are often used
interchangeably which adds to the confusion. Oil is energy. Hydrogen is
an energy carrier.
June 22, 2008
TSAugust
First in a series of articles on Energy
Oil and Electricity Confused
Everyone talks about energy
as though each component of energy was interchangeable with the other.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the generation
of electricity.
While both oil and coal can be used to generate
electricity, the fact is that very little oil is used to generate
electricity.
Oil and electricity should be thought about as two
separate issues, perhaps best viewed as two overlapping circles with
very little overlap. Less than 2% of America’s electricity is generated by using oil, with a large
amount of this in Hawaii where oil is easily imported.
Classifying oil as a separate issue from electricity
is important because many people and the media talk about wind power and
nuclear energy etc. as ways to reduce our use of oil. These energy
sources generate electricity and do not produce oil.
Eliminating oil entirely from the generation of
electricity would have virtually
no effect on our usage of oil.
Half, or more, of the oil used in the United States
is used to power automobiles and light trucks (SUV’s).
Reducing our use of foreign oil can only be achieved
by reducing the number of vehicles using gasoline and by developing
sources of domestic oil (more drilling, developing shale oil, etc.)
Developing wind power, nuclear energy, solar etc.
cannot reduce America's usage of oil.
This will remain true until automobiles are
primarily powered by electricity. The Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle
(PHEV) could change the existing paradigm.
When this happens, possibly over the next half
century, electricity could displace oil for powering our automobiles.
Until this happens, clarity of thought demands that
we do not talk about energy, but rather, that we discuss oil and its
usage separate from the generation of electricity.
Lumping energy sources together distorts the truth
and leads to a flawed strategy.
Any politician who says America can solve the
problem of high gasoline prices by developing renewable energy is either
ignorant or deliberately distorting the truth for political gain. (This
is especially true if he/she mentions wind, solar etc.)
Biofuels are mentioned as a way to replace gasoline.
Only 4% of our gasoline is being replaced with corn ethanol. It has been established that no more than 25% of our current gasoline
usage can be replaced with biofuels. Others have voiced their concern
that biofuels, if used in large quantities, will cause food shortages
and higher prices for grains and meat.
TSAugust
June 15, 2008
Energy and Oil
Many experts say energy independence is a pipe dream.
Sadly, even the experts muddy the waters by lumping
all energy sources together.
Any discussion on energy should begin by separating
the generation of electricity from the use of oil.
When only the generation of electricity is examined, it is clear the United States is already “energy” independent. This is because of our huge reserves of coal.
Global warming activist could cause the United
States to lose its independence by outlawing the use of coal and forcing
increased use of natural gas, where the U.S. is not independent from
foreign sources. And where there will be a growing reliance on foreign
sources for natural gas.
Oil is a different story. The United States is
dependent on foreign sources for two thirds of its oil.
Only a tiny fraction of oil is used for the
generation of electricity. Less than 2% of all the electricity generated
in the U.S. is generated using oil. Most of the oil based generation is
in Hawaii and Florida where it is difficult to transport coal.
Alternative energy sources such as wind, may displace coal, but have no
effect on our use of oil..
Over half the oil used in the U.S. is for gasoline.
Of the 21 million barrels per day of oil used by the U.S., around 11
million barrels are for gasoline.
The question really becomes whether new technology
could replace gasoline and thereby cut nearly all our usage of foreign
oil.
Fortunately a new class of automobile is in the
offing, the Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV). It could take fifty
years for the PHEV to capture 75% of the U.S. market for automobiles;
but, if successful, the PHEV has the potential to eliminate much of the
oil imported from foreign countries.
PHEV’s in conjunction with drilling on the outer
continental shelf and ANWR, coupled with a potentially successful new
technology for extracting oil from shale, would result in the United
States not having to import foreign oil.
But wait, say the experts, we can’t decouple the
U.S. market from the world market; and in this they are correct. The
price of oil will be set by the world market for oil.
However, there are other benefits of having an
energy policy that leads towards independence from foreign oil.
Some benefits include:
-
Improving our balance of payments. Rather than shipping billions of dollars off-shore those dollars, or more accurately the interest from those dollars, could be used at home for needed infrastructure improvements.
-
It would help isolate the U.S. from oil interruptions by countries who despise America. A cut-off of oil would still result in higher prices, but our strategic position would be enhanced if we didn’t have to rely on foreign oil.
-
Removing 11 million barrels of oil from the world market would put downward pressure on prices. This would be especially true if the use of PHEV’s became commonplace around the world.
Converting from oil to electricity for driving our
vehicles would require generating more electricity. But, as noted above,
we have ample supplies of coal so we would have largely achieved
“energy” independence by shifting from gasoline to electricity.
Prohibiting the use of coal, as global warming
alarmists require, would destroy this opportunity for achieving “energy”
independence.
April 13, 2008
TSAugust
A convergence of events in 2009 could dictate the
future of global warming and of legislation to control CO2.
Temperatures:
Recent events have shown that the Earth’s so called
temperature has reached a plateau and could be declining.
Global temperatures have remained more or less constant
or the past several years, until this winter when winter has struck
with a vengeance around the world.
Sea ice extent in the Northern Hemisphere was the
greatest in the past four years. “And the January 2008 Southern
Hemisphere sea ice extent was significantly above the 1979-2000 mean.”
Now this empirical evidence has been confirmed by
the four major global temperature tracking organizations, Hadley, NASA,
UAH and RSS. Each has released data showing that global temperatures
have plunged this winter.
The winter of 2008-09 could answer the question of
whether world temperatures are in decline.
Sun:
The lack of sun spots has triggered new conjecture
about whether the sun is the primary force behind global warming.
Lorne Gunter of the National Post writes; "The last
time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that
lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850."
U.S. Cap & Trade
legislation:
Congress is poised to enact Carbon Cap & Trade
regulations. Several Bills are in the Senate to establish regulations to
control CO2 emissions. (See Carbon
Folly for additional information.)
It’s doubtful any of these Bills will be enacted
during an election year, though there will be considerable sturm, drang
and angst over the issue.
The Congress in 2009 is more likely to seriously
consider enacting Cap & Trade to dramatically cut CO2 emissions.
UN International Plan to
Control CO2 emissions:
UN climate change negotiations, launched in Bali in
December 2007, are to be completed during 2009. These negotiations are
to result in an international agreement, frequently dubbed Kyoto II, to
cut CO2 emissions by targeted amounts.
So, 2009 Could be destined to see the convergence of
these forces.
-
Will next winter be cold and further indicate that the Earth is no longer warming?
-
Will the sun spot cycle finally begin, or will it continue to be delayed or be weak?
-
Will Congress actually pass Cap & Trade legislation to dramatically cut CO2?
-
Will all 190 nations, including China and India, agree to mandated cuts in the level of CO2 emissions as proposed by the UN?
The year 2009 could go down in history.
Quote was from the Daily Telegraph.
Source of some material was the Daily Tech.
March 9, 2008
TSAugust
Trojan Horse or Camel's Nose.
Considerable media attention has been given to President Bush’ call for a meeting between the world’s 15 largest emitters of CO2.
In Europe the fear is that the President’s call for such a meeting will undermine the G8 meeting where Chancellor Merkel is striving to have the world adopt caps on CO2 emissions.
Germany’s environmental minister, Sigmar Gabriel, warned the plan might be a "Trojan horse." A German financial paper announced, "Bush torpedoes Merkel's climate plans."
Chancellor Merkel wants the world to adopt a global target that cuts CO2 emissions 50% from 1990 levels by 2050.
European leaders also fear that a meeting of leading emitters in the United States, outside the U.N., would undermine the role of the United Nations and create a parallel competing path.
Meanwhile in the U.S. there is concern the President’s proposal is the camel’s nose under the tent that will result in Congress adopting a cap and trade system for CO2 emissions.
The thinking goes, “once the U.S. is caught up in negotiations with world leaders the pressure will be too great to resist.” This is what happened with the Rio negotiations when the UN adopted the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that led to the Kyoto Protocol.
President Bush’ vision is for an approach where individual countries establish goals reflecting their own conditions and where technology plays a predominant role in achieving reductions in CO2. While White House spokesmen rule out a cap and trade system, the momentum from meetings between world leaders that include the U.S. would give those in congress who support a cap and trade system the leverage to adopt cap and trade legislation. Once adopted, there would be no turning back and the U.S. would be on the slippery slope of energy regulation.
June 3, 2007
TSAugust
Note: TSAugust resists publishing commentary, but President Bush’ proposal is so newsworthy it was felt our commentary would be useful.
EU: The Canary in the Energy Coal Mine.
Forget California as a predictor for the U.S.
Look instead to Europe as the canary in the energy coal mine.
For a glimpse of our future if we follow a path of carbon caps and energy controls, we can look to the EU and its energy policies.
Europe faces an energy crisis of unprecedented proportions, a crisis being brought about by Europe’s fixation on green policies, CO2 emissions and global warming.
The implications of Europe’s folly are breathtaking.
The collapse of Europe's economy froma lack of electricity could have serious consequences for the global economy.
If current EU policies persist, Russia will have a stranglehold on Europe. What Stalin couldn’t accomplish, Putin can at least partially achieve. Russian troops will not have to occupy Paris and Berlin when Moscow can unduly influence Europe’s policies by controlling its supply of natural gas.
California had an energy crisis a few years ago but has recovered because it could import its electricity and natural gas from the rest of the United States. Europe must import much of its natural gas from Russia and has nowhere to turn for electricity, other than what it produces within the EU.
France and Switzerland are in the best position re supplies of electricity. Switzerland has large hydro reserves but must still import electricity from France during the six winter months. Meanwhile France has indicated it will be unable to export electricity in a few years as it will need all the electricity it produces for itself. It is estimated that none of the other European countries will have sufficient capacity to supply their own needs for electricity.
Britain was 80 per cent self-sufficient, but will have to import almost all its gas and more than half its oil by 2020.
Each EU country has indicated it will rely on imports of electricity. … But these imports will be non-existent.
By one estimate, Europe will have a deficit of 1800 Terra Watt Hours by 2030. (Total consumption by the EU 27 in 2006 was approximately 3300 TWhr.)
Dismantling of nuclear power plants at the behest of the greens in Germany will contribute to this shortfall.
Renewables are incapable of doing more than slightly denting the shortfall in Europe. Renewables (excluding hydro) currently account for only 4.9% of total power consumption. A ten fold increase in solar would only account for 0.5% of total power production. The low hanging fruit of wind power has already been exploited, while public objections to new installations mount. The greens effectively prevent building the needed transmission lines, which, ironically, prevents the transmission of wind power to where it’s needed.
Whether newly discovered natural gas deposits off Norway can have an effect on the political equation is uncertain.
The only possible short range solution is to install gas turbines, but this exacerbates Europe’s dependence on Russia.
Europe imports 44% of its natural gas from Russia. Gazprom delivers 70% of its production to Europe. And Gazprom has signed an agreement with Sonatrach (Algeria) which is a large supplier of natural gas to Europe.
Russia’s efforts to establish a Natural Gas Cartel can only add to Europe’s problems.
On May 12th, Russia, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan agreed to expand the natural gas pipelines from the vast Turkmen reserves directly to Russia, further isolating Europe from an alternative supply of natural gas.
To further tighten the energy noose around Europe, Russia has approved plans to build an oil pipeline that bypasses Belarus so as to supply Europe directly from Russian refineries.
Russia has demonstrated its willingness to use energy as a weapon by halting shipments to Lithuania and conducting a cyber war on Estonia.
The Institut Thomas More reports; “[European] Electricity suppliers are already counting on periodic power cuts to entire towns and industrial zones within the next years. Today we cannot begin to imagine twelve hour power cuts in entire cities like Zurich or Frankfurt. What would the consequences be for electronic data, especially in the banking system? The economic fall-out could be catastrophic.
Sources:
The Financial Times
Institut Thomas More
Vattenfall
May 27, 2007
TSAugust
An Inconvenient Truth, Movie by Al Gore.
The viewer is left with three impressions:
-
The movie is well done; it is entertaining.
-
The movie is about Al Gore; much more so than about global warming
-
The movie is pure propaganda; it relies on half truths, distorted graphics and exciting pictures to beguile its audience
The basic premise of the movie is that CO2 is the cause of global warming and that mankind is responsible.
It relies on a 650,000 year record of temperatures and CO2 levels without indicating which is cause and which is effect; does CO2 cause higher temperatures or do higher temperatures cause CO2?
Beyond this issue, which is being debated by scientists, there are a myriad of half truths, including:
-
The movie shows in stunning detail the melting of the Larson Ice Shelf in
-
Startling pictures show that the glaciers on
-
Slick computer graphics show how
The
movie tries to incite fear by showing Katrina’s devastation while
ascribing large hurricanes to global warming; and then by dramatically
showing, with computer graphics, how a sudden influx of fresh water could
shut down the
The movie ignores the research that hurricanes come in cycles and that global warming is having little, if any effect, on the severity of storms of any kind (including tornados).
The
movie used the theory that a large freshwater lake in
The
movie then blithely turns to
The movie tries to discredit so-called skeptics by citing a report in Science Magazine that a search was unable to identify any scientific literature opposing global warming theory. This study has been shown to be wrong; and that there is an abundance of literature by scientists showing that catastrophic global warming is not happening.
The TSAugust website contains factual information and avoids political observations: However, it’s safe to say that Hillary Clinton should see this movie because it could well be Al Gore’s entrée into current presidential politics.
TSAugust
Note:
The movie was seen in
References:
Greenland
Ice Thickness; Norwegian, Russian and U.S. institutes led by Ola
Johannessen at the Mohn Sverdrup center for Global Ocean Studies and
Operational Oceanography in Norway.
Chris
Landsea, of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
Carl
Wunsch (Professor of Physical
Oceanography, MIT): "the only way to produce an ocean
circulation without the
Submission to Science Magazine re false study by N. Oreskes that there were no papers in the scientific literature by so-called skeptics of global warming.: By Benny J Peiser, Faculty of Science, Henry Cotton Campus, Liverpool John Moores University, 15-21 Webster Street Liverpool L3 2ET UNITED KINGDOM
Is
BP Hypocritical?
British Petroleum spends large amounts of money on TV and print advertising to convince Americans that BP is a paragon of virtue when it comes to the environment. Their slogan is “Beyond Petroleum."
British Petroleum’s TV ads claim BP sold over 500,000 gallons of Ethanol fuel. One ad says we must start putting good things in our cars just like we have to put good food in our stomachs. Another asks: What will we be burning in our cars? … Grass and garbage?
This is a company that makes its profits from selling oil. BP is the second largest oil company. Environmental activities are miniscule with respect to their business; which is oil. They may claim to have sold 500,000 gallons of Ethanol, but it’s fair to ask whether they did so in response to the law requiring an additive. In addition they didn’t make the Ethanol: They merely mixed Ethanol with their gasoline and sold it, primarily as a mixture of 10% or 15% Ethanol - 85% gasoline.
It now becomes clear, BP could have done more to operate its refineries and facilities safely and in the best interest of the environment.
Last
year [2005] an explosion at a BP refinery in
This
year they have had to shut down their
For comparison, the Trans Alaska Pipeline uses a pig every year to 18 months to measure the wall thickness of the pipeline.
Even
before having to shut down the
BP’s
actions have placed Americans in a bind, possibly causing higher gas
prices. The oil that should be coming from
ExxonMobil,
Conoco-Phillips and Chevron are also oil companies, but they stick to
their knitting and don’t claim to be something they aren’t.
It’s
in
TSAugust
Senators
Threaten Freedom of Speech?
Global Warming hysteria is reaching a crescendo and is now threatening freedom of speech.
Here
is a quote from The Guardian. “Every time someone dies as a result of
floods in
This type of rhetoric is an effort to squelch debate on global warming and is becoming more pronounced.
More
sinister is an effort by
The Wall Street Journal published an editorial and portions of the letter signed by Senators Snowe and Rockefeller. The WSJ called it a gag order.
The entire letter is available by clicking here.
The letter makes it clear these Senators are trying to stifle free speech. The letter states: “It is our hope that under your leadership [CEO Tillerson], ExxonMobil would end its dangerous support of the ‘deniers’."
Their
letter has the temerity to state ExxonMobil is being unpatriotic when they
say, “ExxonMobil is not alone in jeopardizing the credibility
and stature of the
The
letter uses the term “deniers.” Here is what Roger Pielke, Jr,
Professor of Environmental Sciences at the
The letter from Senators Snowe and Rockefeller is an affront to every American, especially scientists who believe in scientific debate.
Thomas
Huxley had it right: "The improver of natural knowledge absolutely
refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the
highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin." (Emphasis added.)
“The
scientific method is based on the testing of hypotheses with the help of
(1) empiric observations, (2) laboratory experiments, and (3) the theory
based on these. If these three parts produce identical results the
hypothesis has credibility.” Even then, additional experiments must
replicate the initial results in order to have a credible theory.
(Extracted from an article by Prof.
Tom V. Segalstad, head of the
Global Warming theory doesn’t meet this test.
Reputable
scientists have said there is “no consensus.” One example of many is
Richard Lindzen, the
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. Another is Patrick
J. Michaels, Professor
of Environmental Sciences University
of
Free
speech is threatened when
TSAugust
Copyright © 2002 - 2008 TSAugust