Ecobella Blog

According to the International Energy Agency, here’s what it would take to achieve the goal of cutting GHG emissions by 50% between now and mid-century:

• 30 new nuclear plants;
• 17,000 windmills;
• 400 biomass power plants;
• Two hydroelectric facilities the size of China’s massive Three Gorges Dam; and
• 42 coal and gas power plants with yet-to-be-developed carbon-capture technology.

Now consider this: this list does not describe what we would have to build between now and 2050, but what we would have to build each and every year until then!

One more thing: even if we managed to do all this (which we obviously cannot), the impact on global temperatures would be hardly noticeable by 2050. According to the best-known climate-economic model, this vast undertaking would likely wind up reducing global temperatures by just one-tenth of one degree centigrade (one-fifth of one degree Fahrenheit), while holding back sea-level rises by only one centimeter (less than half an inch).

An extra catch.  Unless we find a way, we depend our well being in the mid and long term on a few countries/persons that set up the production and price of oil.  That is without even mentioning even these powerful countries/persons cannot fully control what mother nature can provide…

Source: Project Syndicate

The world will never ran out of oil.  That is the simple truth, whether you like it or not.

To keep demand and supply balanced, the price of oil will rise.

At a given point, other fuels will start replacing oil.

In the future our economy will no longer depend on oil.

This would be the happy ending of a fairy tale.

Hold on…  While this transition takes place, hundreds of millions (maybe even billions) of people will see their well being vanished.  At the same time, the world will see new billionaires (maybe even a trillionaire) flourish.

Are we in agreement?

The big million-dollar question is what happens from here to there…and what can we do to be prepared?

No doubt the transition is going to challenge our civilization.  It’s our challenge.

So what happens when there is a net decrease in energy flow through our civilization for we are absolutely dependent upon increasing flows of concentrated energy to evolve, grow, to form and maintain our complex civilization?

This point is not rhetorical, access to increasing flows of concentrated energy, which can be transformed into work and dispersed energy, is the foundation upon which our civilization stands. Yet we are at a point where these flows are, with high probability, about to begin decreasing.

There is growing concern, as expressed by Maquarie Bank, Goldman Sachs, McKinsey consultants, the International Energy Agency and the Saudi Oil minister Ali Naimi amongst others, that as the global economy begins to recover we will experience another rise in oil prices which will choke off further growth or in the words of Ali Naimi, constrained or declining oil production will “take the wheels of an already derailed global economy”.

Oil contributes to about 40% of global energy production, but over 90% of all transport fuel. It provided the physical linkages of good and people across the globalised economy.

We should intuit that an energy withdrawal should have major systemic implications, for without energy flows nothing happens.

Once the effects of decline become apparent, we could lose much of what we might call the operational fabric of our civilization. The operational fabric comprises the given conditions at any time that support system wide functionality. This includes functioning markets, financing, monetary stability, operational supply-chains, transport, digital infrastructure, command & control, health service, institutions of trust, and sociopolitical stability. It is what we casually assume does and will exist, and which provides the structural foundation for any project we wish to develop.

How could our economy choke? How could we loose grip?

When oil was at $135 per barrel, the US was spending the equivalent of $1Trillion per annum for oil, which is equivalent to 15% of US take-home pay for all taxpayers, nor does this percentage account for indirect rises associated with food (highly fossil-fuel dependent, and competitive with bio-fuels), and natural gas (price correlated). This hit discretionary consumption and put pressure on peoples‟ ability to service their loans.

Current biofuel production is 1.45 mb/d. However the energy content of a barrel of biofuels is much less than the energy content of a barrel of oil that is replacing, so in energy terms current biofuel production is about 1mb/d. To produce at this level has taken years of growth and subsidies, we would need to expand the industry by 275% in the first year alone, when even at the industries height it had a maximum growth rate of less than 30%.

Global food production is already straining against a rising demand and the stresses of soil degradation, water constraints, over-fishing, and the burgeoning effects of climate change. It is estimated that between seven and ten calories of fossil fuel energy go into every one calorie of food energy we consume. For example, it has been estimated that without nitrogen fertilizer, produced from natural gas, no more than 48% of today’s population could be fed at the inadequate per capital level of 1900. Today it is true to say that no country is self-sufficient in food production.

Do you think this is pessimistic science fiction?

Well two-thirds of oil producing countries has already passed their local peak. For example, the United States peaked in 1970, and the United Kingdom in 1999 and decline has continued in both cases. It should be noted that both countries contain the worlds‟ best universities, most dynamic financial markets, most technologically able exploration and production companies, and stable pro-business political environments. Nevertheless, in neither case has decline been halted.

As large old fields producing cheap oil decline, more and more effort must be made to maintain production with the discovery and production from smaller and more expensive fields. In financial terms, adding each new barrel of production (the marginal barrel) becomes more expensive. Sadad al-Huseini said in 2007 that the technical floor (the basic cost of producing oil) was about $70 per barrel on the margin, and that this would rise by $12 per annum (assuming demand was maintained by economic growth). This rapid escalation in the marginal cost of producing oil is recent. In early 2002, the marginal barrel was $20.

Manfred KISSLING

Editor

Related article:  FEASTA

China is aggressively protecting the economic growth that is transforming the lives of its citizens, instead of spending a fortune battling a problem that is unlikely to affect it negatively until next century. Little wonder, then, that Ed Miliband, Britain’s Secretary for Energy and Climate Change, found “impossible resistance” from China to a global carbon mitigation deal.

A global deal in which countries committed to spending 0.2% of GDP to develop non-carbon-emitting energy technologies would increase current spending 50-fold, and it would still be many times cheaper than a global carbon deal. It would also ensure that richer nations pay more, taking much of the political heat out of the debate.

Most importantly, such an approach would bring about the transformational technological breakthroughs that are required to make green energy sources cheap and effective enough to fuel a carbon-free future.

By: Bjorn Lomborg

To read full article: Project Syndicate

LONDON (Reuters) – Spain had to shut down some of its wind turbines on Wednesday as wet and windy weather caused a surge in green electricity generation at a time of low demand, grid operator Red Electrica said.

The country’s thousands of wind turbines supplied a new record of 54.1 percent of demand early on Wednesday, forcing gas- and coal-fired power plants to run at minimum output to avoid system overload as hydropower companies drained brimming reservoirs.

“High wind output in the early hours of this morning, together with the high level of hydropower generation, due to reservoirs opening up after recent rains, forced the control center to cut thermal power to a technical minimum,” Red Electrica said in a statement.

“Due to low demand at the moment this was not enough … So the control center had to order wind power production to be cut between 4 am and 7 am this morning by 600 megawatts.”

Spain has invested heavily in wind power generation over the last decade to cut carbon emissions and reduce its reliance on imported fuel.

It now has over 18,000 MW of turbines installed, out of a total power generation capacity of about 93,000 MW, and first produced over half of its electricity with them early on November 9.

Wind turbines are seen as a key technology for producing electricity without emitting climate-warming carbon. But the Spanish experience highlights the difficulties for grid and other plant operators in balancing the system when the wind blows hard and there is little demand, especially early in the morning.

Greater numbers of electric cars charging up overnight could help absorb some of the extra output in future but there are still too few to make a difference.

Wind power output hit 54.1 percent of demand at around 0350 local time (0250 GMT) on Wednesday, or over 10,000 megawatts.

Even after the order to cut output the remaining turbines were still producing around 40 percent of Spain’s power at around 7 am, reducing the contribution of coal and gas plants to under 5 percent in the hours in between, according to Red Electrica data.

Source: REUTERS

In a recent interview, Mr. Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, a think tank, and author of “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming,” correctly states, “For almost 20 years, from Rio to Kyoto to Copenhagen, we’ve been wasting time, pursuing the failed strategy of cutting carbon-dioxide emissions. It’s about time we changed course. Do we really want to be remembered as the generation that wasted another decade? For years, we have been spinning our wheels on what I call the Rio-Kyoto-Copenhagen road to nowhere, slavishly following the notion—first endorsed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and then extended in Kyoto 13 years later—that the only way to stop global warming is by means of draconian reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. All we have to show for this devotion is a continuing series of unmet targets, along with a startling increase in the number of people who no longer think climate change is worth worrying about.”

China and India recently announced plans to reduce the carbon intensity, or the amount of carbon-dioxide emissions per unit of gross domestic product, of their economies over the next decade. China, which increased vehicle fuel-efficiency standards in recent years, wants to cut its carbon intensity by as much as 45% from 2005 levels by 2020 while India has targeted a reduction of as much as 25% from 2005 levels over the next decade. The Chinese can promise to do this because they’re modernizing their economy. They’re investing in more efficient energy sources and nuclear power. So this in essence is basically saying, “We’re just going to promise to do what we’re going to do anyway.” The situation is the same for India. Estimates show that India will probably end up, if they do nothing, reducing its carbon intensity by almost 50%.

In order for the world to keep temperatures from rising beyond a ceiling of 1.5 °C to 2 °C above pre-Industrial Revolution levels via solely reducing carbon emissions, it is estimated that the annual cost will be US$40 trillion by the end of the century. Mr. Lomborg estimates that for every dollar spent, the world will avoid only about two cents of climate damage. Furthermore, each dollar spent on traditional cap-and-trade plans only brings about US$0.90 in benefits. However, climate economists predict that if investment in clean energy technology is dramatically increased, for every dollar spent, the world will avoid eleven dollars of climate damage.

“Instead of trying to make fossil fuels more expensive, we should focus on making alternative energy cheaper. The cost of fully implementing the Kyoto Protocol (in terms of lost economic growth) has been estimated at roughly $180 billion a year. For just a little more than half that amount, we could fund a fifty-fold increase in spending on R&D for the kind of game-changing technological breakthroughs—like smart grids, ultra-efficient batteries or even cheap, manageable fusion—we will need to end our addiction to fossil fuels. Such a commitment would resolve many of today’s political challenges. Developing nations would be much more likely to embrace a positive path of innovation than a punitive one that handicaps their ability to grow their economies, ” Mr. Lomborg says. Trying to force drastic carbon emissions cuts in the short-term doesn’t work economically or politically.

Source: Green Car Congress

Fossil fuels, after all, are an early first industrial revolution, 19th century technology. But we are now applying nanotechnology to the design of renewable energy technologies such as solar energy.

As a result, the cost per watt of solar energy is coming down rapidly and the total amount of solar energy is growing exponentially. It has in fact been doubling every two years for the past 20 years and is now only eight doublings away from meeting all of the world’s energy needs.

Source: NYDailyNews

Mercedes-Benz, arguably the people who invented the automobile, has been making great strides putting fuel cell technology into street cars.

The boys from Stuttgart say the B-Class F-Cell, as it’s officially called, is the “first electric car fully suited for everyday driving and with the driving dynamics of a two-liter petrol car.”

When it hits the road next year, the hydrogen-hungry B-Class will be the first series-produced fuel cell EV on the road. Yes, with only 200 planned it is a small-scale production run. But it is worth noting the cars will be coming to both Europe and America within a few months.

The fuel cell is 40 percent smaller than the system used in the 2004 A-Class F-Cell, and Mercedes says it develops 30 percent more power, all the while consuming 30 percent less fuel.

Source: Autopia

Norway opened on Tuesday the world’s first osmotic power plant, which produces emissions-free electricity by mixing fresh water and sea water through a special membrane.

State-owned utility Statkraft’s prototype plant, which for now will produce a tiny 2 kilowatts to 4 kilowatts of power or enough to run a coffee machine, will enable Statkraft to test and develop the technology needed to drive down production costs.

The plant is driven by osmosis that naturally draws fresh water across a membrane and toward the seawater side. This creates higher pressure on the sea water side, driving a turbine and producing electricity.

“While salt might not save the world alone, we believe osmotic power will be an interesting part of the renewable energy mix of the future,” Statkraft Chief Executive Baard Mikkelsen told reporters.

Statkraft, Europe’s largest producer of renewable energy with experience in hydropower that provides nearly all of Norway’s electricity, aims to begin building commercial osmotic power plants by 2015.

The main issue is to improve the efficiency of the membrane from around 1 watt per square meter now to some 5 watts, which Statkraft says would make osmotic power costs comparable to those from other renewable sources.

The prototype, on the Oslo fjord and about 40 miles south of the Norwegian capital, has about 2,000 square meters of membrane.

Future full-scale plants producing 25 megawatts of electricity, enough to provide power for 30,000 European households, would be as large as a football stadium and require some 5 million square meters of membrane, Statkraft said.

Once new membrane “architecture” is solved, Statkraft believes the global production capacity for osmotic energy could amount to 1,600 to 1,700 terawatt hours annually, or about half of the European Union’s total electricity demand.

Europe’s osmotic power potential is seen at 180 terawatts, or about 5 percent of total consumption, which could help the bloc reach renewable energy goals set to curb emissions of heat-trapping gases and limit global warming.

Osmotic power, which can be located anywhere where clean fresh water runs into the sea, is seen as more reliable than more variable wind or solar energy.

Source: REUTERS

The world is closer to a peak in oil supply than International Energy Agency estimates admit, UK newspaper The Guardian reported in today’s edition, citing an unidentified “whistleblower” at the IEA.

The IEA, which advises 28 industrialized countries on energy policy, is scheduled to release its World Energy Outlook today. Its 2008 Outlook forecasts world oil supply will rise to 106 million barrels per day in 2030.

“Many inside the organization believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90 million to 95 million barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further,” the Guardian quoted the IEA source as saying.

Fatih Birol, the IEA’s chief economist, could not immediately be reached by Reuters for comment on the Guardian article, which appeared on the newspaper’s front page.

While the Paris-based IEA has repeatedly warned that a lack of investment could lead to a strain on supply, it maintains that there is enough oil in the ground.

Its 2008 World Energy Outlook said global oil output was “not expected to peak before 2030.”

The peak oil theory – that supply has reached or will soon reach a high point and then fall – has long been confined to the fringes of informed opinion within the industry.

There is also growing interest in peak demand, the view that oil supply will reach a high point because of policies to curb fuel use as part of efforts to counteract global warming, not a lack of supply.

Source: Upstream Online, Reuters

A new technique that tapped previously inaccessible supplies of natural gas in the United States is spreading to the rest of the world, raising hopes of a huge expansion in global reserves of the cleanest fossil fuel.

Italian and Norwegian oil engineers and geologists have arrived in Texas, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania to learn how to extract gas from layers of a black rock called shale. Companies are leasing huge tracts of land across Europe for exploration. And oil executives are gathering rocks and scrutinizing Asian and North African geological maps in search of other fields.

The global drilling rush is still in its early stages. But energy analysts are already predicting that shale could reduce Europe’s dependence on Russian natural gas. They said they believed that gas reserves in many countries could increase over the next two decades, comparable with the 40 percent increase in the United States in recent years.

“It’s a breakout play that is going to identify gigantic resources around the world,” said Amy Myers Jaffe, an energy expert at Rice University. “That will change the geopolitics of natural gas.

More extensive use of natural gas could aid in reducing global warming, because gas produces fewer emissions of greenhouse gases than either oil or coal. China and India, which have growing economies that rely heavily on coal for electricity, appear to have large potential for production of shale gas. Larger gas reserves would encourage developing countries to convert more of their transportation fleets to use natural gas rather than gasoline.

Shale is a sedimentary rock rich in organic material that is found in many parts of the world. It was of little use as a source of gas until about a decade ago, when American companies developed new techniques to fracture the rock and drill horizontally.

Because so little drilling has been done in shale fields outside of the United States and Canada, gas analysts have made a wide array of estimates for how much shale gas could be tapped globally. Even the most conservative estimates are enormous, projecting at least a 20 percent increase in the world’s known reserves of natural gas.

One recent study by IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a consulting group, calculated that the recoverable shale gas outside of North America could turn out to be equivalent to 211 years’ worth of natural gas consumption in the United States at the present level of demand, and maybe as much as 690 years. The low figure would represent a 50 percent increase in the world’s known gas reserves, and the high figure, a 160 percent increase.

The projections suggest that the new method of producing gas “is the biggest energy innovation of the decade,” said Daniel Yergin, chairman of the Cambridge consulting group. “And the amazing thing is there was no grand opening ceremony for it. It just snuck up.”

Over the last five years, production of gas from shale has spread across wide swaths of Texas, Louisiana and Pennsylvania. All the new production has produced a glut of gas in the United States, helping to drive down gas prices and utility costs.

Now American companies are looking abroad for lucrative shale fields in countries hungry for more energy. They are focusing particularly on Europe, where gas prices are sometimes twice what they are in the United States, and large shale beds are located close to some cities.

Exxon Mobil has drilled a few exploratory wells in Germany in recent months. Devon Energy is teaming up with Total, the French oil company, seeking approval to drill in France. ConocoPhillips announced recently that it had signed an agreement with a subsidiary of a small British firm to explore a million acres in the Baltic Basin of Poland.

Early estimates of recoverable European shale gas resources range up to 400 trillion cubic feet, less than half the industry’s estimates of what is recoverable in the United States. But European energy executives say they are excited about the prospects because the Continent’s conventional gas reserves are too small to meet demand.

Source: NYT