June 2009 Archives
06/24/09 1:50 PM
While we were sneering, China was seizing "clean coal."
Making fun of clean coal has become a cottage industry for American
enviro-media types. (For a classic example, check out this snarky ad by the
Coen brothers.) But while we have been snickering, China is building a clean coal plant that will go online next year,
and has two more in the works. Last year alone China built 90 gigawatts of coal-fired power plants, which means that if China decides to use its
massive domestic market for carbon sequestration to develop cheap
technology and processes (provided that's possible) they could capture
an enormous world market for the equipment in a few decades.
In the US, clean coal has longer political legs more than economic ones, in part because of the way we play the politics of energy and greenhouse gases. America's Clean Coal experiment is FutureGen, a much talked-about coal plant which was supposed to sequester its carbon emissions. FutureGen, though, has always been a political creature, designed to delay limits on greenhouse gas emissions by coal fired power plants by promising a far off clean coal utopia. Here's an interesting quote from Kenneth Green at the American Enterprise Institute on Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS): "It's the universal fig leaf. For people who want to say they're not against coal when they really are, they hold up CCS. If CCS works, then coal is fine," Green said. "If you are a coal supporter, it lets you say to your coal people, 'I know you're going to get hit by cap and trade, but we're going to give you CCS. It's going to protect you, more or less.'"
Even the Bush administration had a hard time keeping a straight face, and so they stopped signing the checks for FutureGen. Recently, the Obama administration rescued FutureGen, and with a group of power companies the $1.6 billion project is now on track, sort of, to have some kind of plan-like thing ready by 2010.
When energy and technology projects are driven by short-term political considerations rather than more substantial economic or strategic ones, tax payers waste money (and market opportunities) with this on again off again pattern of support. By comparison, a number of long standing oil carbon capture and sequestration projects have been going profitably in the US for years. A few years ago the oil company BP talked about building about a for-profit project at its Carson refinery that reportedly was almost twice the size of FutureGen. (That project is now re-structuring.)
And in the meantime, China has become a frontrunner, skillfully leveraging domestic and foreign expertise, funds, (and worry!) to get three plants started. The plant near Tianjin is already partly built, and the first of its three phases of construction will be complete this year. International capital clearly sniffs where the action is and BP has opened a CCS collaboration center in Shanghai. The IEA, meanwhile, is congratulating China as a leader in the field.
In the US, it's time for everyone to leave behind the snarky politics of clean coal and get to work.
In the US, clean coal has longer political legs more than economic ones, in part because of the way we play the politics of energy and greenhouse gases. America's Clean Coal experiment is FutureGen, a much talked-about coal plant which was supposed to sequester its carbon emissions. FutureGen, though, has always been a political creature, designed to delay limits on greenhouse gas emissions by coal fired power plants by promising a far off clean coal utopia. Here's an interesting quote from Kenneth Green at the American Enterprise Institute on Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS): "It's the universal fig leaf. For people who want to say they're not against coal when they really are, they hold up CCS. If CCS works, then coal is fine," Green said. "If you are a coal supporter, it lets you say to your coal people, 'I know you're going to get hit by cap and trade, but we're going to give you CCS. It's going to protect you, more or less.'"
Even the Bush administration had a hard time keeping a straight face, and so they stopped signing the checks for FutureGen. Recently, the Obama administration rescued FutureGen, and with a group of power companies the $1.6 billion project is now on track, sort of, to have some kind of plan-like thing ready by 2010.
When energy and technology projects are driven by short-term political considerations rather than more substantial economic or strategic ones, tax payers waste money (and market opportunities) with this on again off again pattern of support. By comparison, a number of long standing oil carbon capture and sequestration projects have been going profitably in the US for years. A few years ago the oil company BP talked about building about a for-profit project at its Carson refinery that reportedly was almost twice the size of FutureGen. (That project is now re-structuring.)
And in the meantime, China has become a frontrunner, skillfully leveraging domestic and foreign expertise, funds, (and worry!) to get three plants started. The plant near Tianjin is already partly built, and the first of its three phases of construction will be complete this year. International capital clearly sniffs where the action is and BP has opened a CCS collaboration center in Shanghai. The IEA, meanwhile, is congratulating China as a leader in the field.
In the US, it's time for everyone to leave behind the snarky politics of clean coal and get to work.
06/19/09 2:07 PM
Favorite Gas Station of All Time
Gas prices are famously up all over the country, but undoubtedly one of the most expensive places to buy gas in the lower 48 is the California town of Lee Vining, which is on the Nevada side of the Sierras, just outside of Yosemite National Park, where a gallon of unleaded will run you $3.45-$3.60.
However, Lee Vining is also the site of my favorite gas station, the Tioga Toomey Gas Mart and Whoa Nellie Deli. This is a big Mobil station, set high on a hill--or maybe it's a mountainside--overlooking Mono Lake and its famously spooky tufas.
The killer attribute of this place is the "deli" which is actually a nuttily gourmet kitchen that turns out huge platefuls of food that can be consumed on the grass or on picnic tables. You can see the menu (and the bands) here. I am partial to the Herb Crusted Grilled Pork Tenderloin with apricot wild berry glaze, garlic mashed potatoes and fresh vegetables.
The last time I was there I met two sisters, ages 17 and 12 who were mule packers--ie their family had a bunch of mules that they rent out and load up for hiking expeditions into the Sierras. They'd done their mule duty for the week and lit into Lee Vining to eat the lobster taquitos, which have a confetti-ish quality (fried pink tortillas) that suited them well. The Deli is a continuous party all summer long.
And if that's not enough, sometimes there's a trapeze.
Feel free to post your favorite gas stations below.
06/16/09 8:20 PM
Climate Change Will Make You Sneeze! (Are we scared yet?)
As the debate over Waxman Markey Climate Legislation heats up,
something big and scary from experts at 13 government science agencies
has appeared: The Authoritative Assessment of National, Regional
Impacts of Global Climate Change.
As the name implies, this is an enormous, authoritative report, but it's certainly not the first. What is remarkable about the report is how it reflects a growing trend towards personalizing the impact of climate change. Hence slide five in this powerpoint showing that pollen levels will double by 2075. Message: You (or your kids) will sneeze! Another alarming slide shows that the climate of Illinois could become more like that of East Texas. And the South? Hot.
I'm sure that some will accuse the report of politicizing the science, but I don't think that's the case. Instead, I think climate scientists have decided to abandon the dry statistics (which were driven by political considerations) and talk about what they actually see in the future. One of the problems with climate change science is that much of the discussion has been confined to probabilities and scenarios, and translation of what this actually means has largely occurred among the climate cognoscenti. (I wrote last month about high level discussions of the potential necessity of eating jellyfish. We really aren't getting that on the evening news.) This report brings makes some of these conversations more accessible. But after a decade of confusing reports--and even disasters like Katrina-- will the economy-logged public demand action now?
Side note: I find this historical graph of how weather has dramatically increased grid outages since 1992 to be almost more shocking than the future trends. The Obama administration is putting together a cyber-warfare agency in part to protect the grid from attack. But who needs terrorists when you've got squirrels and the weather to do the job for you? Add in the Gulf Coast's oil infrastructure's vulnerability to hurricanes (and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is located there too) and you have... uh... the perfect storm.
As the name implies, this is an enormous, authoritative report, but it's certainly not the first. What is remarkable about the report is how it reflects a growing trend towards personalizing the impact of climate change. Hence slide five in this powerpoint showing that pollen levels will double by 2075. Message: You (or your kids) will sneeze! Another alarming slide shows that the climate of Illinois could become more like that of East Texas. And the South? Hot.
I'm sure that some will accuse the report of politicizing the science, but I don't think that's the case. Instead, I think climate scientists have decided to abandon the dry statistics (which were driven by political considerations) and talk about what they actually see in the future. One of the problems with climate change science is that much of the discussion has been confined to probabilities and scenarios, and translation of what this actually means has largely occurred among the climate cognoscenti. (I wrote last month about high level discussions of the potential necessity of eating jellyfish. We really aren't getting that on the evening news.) This report brings makes some of these conversations more accessible. But after a decade of confusing reports--and even disasters like Katrina-- will the economy-logged public demand action now?
Side note: I find this historical graph of how weather has dramatically increased grid outages since 1992 to be almost more shocking than the future trends. The Obama administration is putting together a cyber-warfare agency in part to protect the grid from attack. But who needs terrorists when you've got squirrels and the weather to do the job for you? Add in the Gulf Coast's oil infrastructure's vulnerability to hurricanes (and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is located there too) and you have... uh... the perfect storm.
06/12/09 10:22 AM
Little Big Stuff: Inverters don't get no respect
Inverters are the devices that convert AC power to DC. Solar panels are equipped with them so that the DC current can be integrated into household AC circuits. And homes that store energy from the grid in batteries (more on them in a second) also use inverters. But inverters are one of the tiny components of our energy system that have the potential to change the way we use
energy-if only we stopped treating them like little insignificant
commodities.
Kevin Bullis over at MIT's Technology Review made a good catch in an NREL paper that found that poorly functioning inverters actually reduced the power output of one array of solar panels by 40 percent by drawing power at night. (And that power can be scarce with panels to begin with.) And furthermore, if no one remembered to manually reset the inverters, the panels didn't produce power half the time the sun was shining. The NREL paper itself (pdf) mentions that poorly integrated components and shade can reduce the effectiveness of the system by 14-68%, which is a huge range.
Now the funny thing about inverters is that in India, they've become a cottage industry. This article from the Times of India describes a former autorickshaw driver who has become a maker of home-made (literally) inverters. The industry is in response to wild demand--India's overstretched utilities stage rolling blackouts (load-shedding) throughout the day, and savvy homes use inverters and batteries to pull power when the grid is functioning, and use the saved battery power to run TVs and fans when it's not.
So here are a few thoughts:
1. India's inverters and batteries are creating a DIY smart grid, where consumers could draw and store power when its cheap and use it when its not. The US has a large multi-year initiative to wire ourselves up with smart grid devices that may allow homeowners to see and control when and how we use power, shop for power with real time pricing, and could allow utilities to reduce our consumption when prices are really high (hot summer afternoons.) (Here are some smart grid papers by Dr. Massoud Amin.) India's solution is much funkier, and it may have a use in third world countries. But could we use some version of it in the US? Would home energy storage, combined with appliances like, say, air conditioners that store power as ice, make our grid more resilient, lower carbon, and cheaper?
2. Some non-profit that's looking for a project should design a safe, stable, cheap inverter that can be manufactured by low-tech entrepreneurs, creating jobs in India and elsewhere. The world is clearly going to need more inverters for solar --if not for shaky grids.
Kevin Bullis over at MIT's Technology Review made a good catch in an NREL paper that found that poorly functioning inverters actually reduced the power output of one array of solar panels by 40 percent by drawing power at night. (And that power can be scarce with panels to begin with.) And furthermore, if no one remembered to manually reset the inverters, the panels didn't produce power half the time the sun was shining. The NREL paper itself (pdf) mentions that poorly integrated components and shade can reduce the effectiveness of the system by 14-68%, which is a huge range.
Now the funny thing about inverters is that in India, they've become a cottage industry. This article from the Times of India describes a former autorickshaw driver who has become a maker of home-made (literally) inverters. The industry is in response to wild demand--India's overstretched utilities stage rolling blackouts (load-shedding) throughout the day, and savvy homes use inverters and batteries to pull power when the grid is functioning, and use the saved battery power to run TVs and fans when it's not.
So here are a few thoughts:
1. India's inverters and batteries are creating a DIY smart grid, where consumers could draw and store power when its cheap and use it when its not. The US has a large multi-year initiative to wire ourselves up with smart grid devices that may allow homeowners to see and control when and how we use power, shop for power with real time pricing, and could allow utilities to reduce our consumption when prices are really high (hot summer afternoons.) (Here are some smart grid papers by Dr. Massoud Amin.) India's solution is much funkier, and it may have a use in third world countries. But could we use some version of it in the US? Would home energy storage, combined with appliances like, say, air conditioners that store power as ice, make our grid more resilient, lower carbon, and cheaper?
2. Some non-profit that's looking for a project should design a safe, stable, cheap inverter that can be manufactured by low-tech entrepreneurs, creating jobs in India and elsewhere. The world is clearly going to need more inverters for solar --if not for shaky grids.
06/08/09 12:10 PM
Iran's Election and US
I was in Iran just before the US presidential election in 2004, and everywhere I went--but particularly within Iran's oil industry--Iranians said they wished that the world got to vote in the US election. In their opinion, the US president would affect their lives more than those of Americans, who would continue our lives of barbecues and driving to the mall regardless of who was in the White House. For Iranians, on the other hand, the outcome would influence their government's actions towards either openness or more isolation. More importantly, a president somewhat open to Iran could have led to lifting sanctions against Iran, which would have created desperately needed jobs in Iran and allowed more Iranians to travel to the US to see their relatives or get educations.
Now it's Iran's turn to hold an election and this time the US has a lot at stake. The outcome of the election could dramatically change the US's options in withdrawing from Iraq, stabilizing Afghanistan, reducing the money and effort we expend on policing the oil shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf, and allowing US firms to invest in Iran's oil industry.
Americans may no longer be on our way to the mall, and few realize we care about the election, but I personally am holding my breath to see what the outcome is next week. I love these photos of the campaign by Zohreh Soleimani, because they show a stark contrast in values and class between the supporters of President Ahmadinejad and Mir Hussein Moussavi.
But how far apart are they really?
At noon today, my New America Foundation colleagues Steve Clemons and Flynt Leverett are hooking up with Ken Ballen of Terror Free Tomorrow to release a poll on Iranian attitudes towards the election. They show a potential win for the President, but they also show an enormous desire to engage with the US. 70 percent favor investment by the US, and 69 percent say that the most significant way the US could improve relations would be to create a free trade treaty between the two countries.
Of course, Americans won't get to vote in Iran's election, but we will have the option of acting in our common interests.
I hope we have as much guts as those women in green.
Now it's Iran's turn to hold an election and this time the US has a lot at stake. The outcome of the election could dramatically change the US's options in withdrawing from Iraq, stabilizing Afghanistan, reducing the money and effort we expend on policing the oil shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf, and allowing US firms to invest in Iran's oil industry.
Americans may no longer be on our way to the mall, and few realize we care about the election, but I personally am holding my breath to see what the outcome is next week. I love these photos of the campaign by Zohreh Soleimani, because they show a stark contrast in values and class between the supporters of President Ahmadinejad and Mir Hussein Moussavi.
But how far apart are they really?
At noon today, my New America Foundation colleagues Steve Clemons and Flynt Leverett are hooking up with Ken Ballen of Terror Free Tomorrow to release a poll on Iranian attitudes towards the election. They show a potential win for the President, but they also show an enormous desire to engage with the US. 70 percent favor investment by the US, and 69 percent say that the most significant way the US could improve relations would be to create a free trade treaty between the two countries.
Of course, Americans won't get to vote in Iran's election, but we will have the option of acting in our common interests.
I hope we have as much guts as those women in green.
06/04/09 10:36 AM
Uganda: The Next Saudi Arabia?
Uganda is a landlocked country of 32 million that's a bit smaller than Oregon. GDP: $1100. And, according to this report of a meeting with a representative of the US Department of Energy, may have reserves that "rival" those of Saudi Arabia.
(For reference: Saudi Arabia produces well over 10 million barrels of oil a day and has reserves estimated at 267 billion barrels.)
The DOE expert says Uganda could produce 3.5 million barrels a day, and possibly much more, and then offers US help with environmental and governance issues.
I have no way of knowing how accurate the prediction of Uganda's oil reserves is, but even if there is a lot of oil there, there's no doubt that the place and oil source we call Saudi Arabia was the product of a particular moment in world history, and a particular relationship between the US as the emerging post-colonial world power and the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which needed protection as the Cold War heated up. In other words: More than oil made Saudi Arabia what it is today.
By contrast, this moment in history is a dramatically different petri dish. As this article shows, Uganda is actually considering NOT exporting its oil, which would mean that the reserves, no matter how large they are, would not realize their full value. Furthermore, Uganda is seriously looking at doing deals with both Iran and China--both in their own ways emerging powers without the baggage that the US has.
And the US has neither the diplomatic suasion nor the air of military invincibility that it had 50 years ago, or even 10 years ago. The US military, through AFRICOM, has a complex relationship with the government of Uganda and rival groups in nearby Democratic Republic of the Congo. Earlier this year, AFRICOM helped plan a horrifically botched raid on rebels who turned around and killed 900 civilians.
It's probably fair to say that regardless of how much oil is found, there will never be another Saudi Arabia, willing to invest so much of its income in creating spare capacity to keep America's vision of the world afloat with cheapish oil. For the US, chasing Saudi Arabias and oil reserves around the world has been part of our 20th century version of manifest destiny. But with incredible speed, the whole venture --both the good and the bad--is changing.
06/02/09 10:22 AM
How Long Will Republicans say "Yes" to the Drill?
The connection between the Republicans and oil drilling was a cliche long before Sarah Palin lead the "drill baby drill" chants during the election, but it seems to be taking on a life of its own. A recent post in the WSJ's Environmental Capital Blog highlights the Republican candidate for governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, who's hitching his political wagon to the drillbit:
"On energy, our opponents will say NO to offshore drilling, NO to clean coal, NO to nuclear, and NO to the new jobs and investment that come with it. When it comes to promoting energy independence: They'll just say NO, we'll just say YES!"
And while the drillbit probably looks like a wedge issue right now, it has a self-limiting characteristic, namely that Virginia's offshore reserves are estimated to be only 130 million barrels of oil, enough to supply the US for a week, according to the Washington Post.
The "drill baby drill" argument shows that the Republicans will stand up to environmentalists, but practically it's limited. After all, the US has just 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, and a quarter of the world's oil demand. The Persian Gulf holds 67 percent of the world's reserves, we find ourselves playing a measly 3 percent hand in a game that may go on for 50 years. Would we be better off drilling our stores now, or holding on to them when they're rarer or worth more? It seems to me that leaving those reserves in the ground could develop into a conservative position.
What might make Republicans say "Wait" to the drill? It seems that Obama's energy efficiency and alternative fuel projects are making the Saudis fret, according to Greg Priddy of Eurasia Group, "that their hydrocarbons based economy is being undermined." If so, there is already a strong security value to the "green" measures that Obama is encouraging, the the Republicans may want go one better by creating a national security-based "olive green" movement of their own.
"On energy, our opponents will say NO to offshore drilling, NO to clean coal, NO to nuclear, and NO to the new jobs and investment that come with it. When it comes to promoting energy independence: They'll just say NO, we'll just say YES!"
And while the drillbit probably looks like a wedge issue right now, it has a self-limiting characteristic, namely that Virginia's offshore reserves are estimated to be only 130 million barrels of oil, enough to supply the US for a week, according to the Washington Post.
The "drill baby drill" argument shows that the Republicans will stand up to environmentalists, but practically it's limited. After all, the US has just 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, and a quarter of the world's oil demand. The Persian Gulf holds 67 percent of the world's reserves, we find ourselves playing a measly 3 percent hand in a game that may go on for 50 years. Would we be better off drilling our stores now, or holding on to them when they're rarer or worth more? It seems to me that leaving those reserves in the ground could develop into a conservative position.
What might make Republicans say "Wait" to the drill? It seems that Obama's energy efficiency and alternative fuel projects are making the Saudis fret, according to Greg Priddy of Eurasia Group, "that their hydrocarbons based economy is being undermined." If so, there is already a strong security value to the "green" measures that Obama is encouraging, the the Republicans may want go one better by creating a national security-based "olive green" movement of their own.
