"Can we use wind pumps in the US to extract oil from North America? It's a win-win, as it uses renewable energy to reduce our dependence on imported oil. "
The implication is to only consume domestic oil, hence, the point about domestic oil only lasting 3 years at full consumption.
IRstuff has summarized the oil situation well. Saudi could shut down tomorrow and push the price over $200/bbl, or pump more and push the price down to around $40/bbl.
I will confess a lot of ignorance on proven reserves and OPEC so I have two questions:
1. Do we really know proven reserves globally? There are two different theories on the formation of oil.
2. Do all of those OPEC countries act as a cartel or independent nations? Some of those nations need to maintain production to keep their natives happy.
Help me understand what oil production has to do with wind generation, and solar generation?
Oil consumption seems to be more of transportation problem. Wind generation is a problem for the power grid. How do they relate other than a minor way?
Now natural gas, once compressed can be used as a transportation fuel, but that usage will increase the cost ofelectricity (there is a link there).
We also can look at using compressed air as a fuel in cars, and the refueling time should be short compaired to battery technology. But compressed air production will impact several other energy sources (compressed air production dosen't sound right, but I have to call it something).
In a county business meeting Friday, the AGW topic arose and how politicized it is, which obfuscates people because they don't know who to believe in the scientific community. That statement feeds nicely into this man's resignation letter.......
A very one-sided commentary from a man no longer capable of retracting or defending his commentary, having passed away last month.
While there is no doubt that sizable amounts of money exist on that side of the argument, an equally large, if not larger stake exists on the side of the naysayers. Lewis claimed "trillions" of dollars driving the debate in one direction, yet never mentioned the actual trillions of dollars in fossil fuel production and consumption, nor the trillions of dollars of machinery and infrastructural dedicated to fossil fuel usage.
What's the point of that? China's industries pollute unfettered, regardless of what product they build. Even the wonderful local recycling events that collect up dead batteries, dead computers, dead monitors, etc., have reputation of shipping all that toxic and hazardous refuse to China for reclamation. It's well known that such reclamation facilities are cesspools of toxicity. Seems pretty clear what agenda that author is serving.
China apparently feels that they have so many people that a few premature deaths are of little consequence. Just look up any mention of tainted milk.
Hmm.
The point is that everything has a price.
When it comes to child labour exploitation then there is usually a group concerned enough to agitate for ethical purchasing. For example, the supermarkets now sell lots more "Fair Trade" products and manufacturers are at least a bit more concerned about trying to present an image of being "responsible" and "ethical".
During Apartheid agitators were able to influence the way big companies where dealing with South Africa.
This attitude has seen investment banks, pension finds etc take a bit more care about where they invest their funds. It has even caused the UK labour government to approach arms trading with an "ethical" claim.
So the point is that if there is something objectionable that something might be done.
The problem is that labelling something green blinkers a lot of people.
There is nothing unethical, it seems, about the BBC pension funds being heavily invested into projects that depend on the success of AGW scams.
So when it comes to manufacturing wind turbines in such a way, will we see this condemned or will we hear about breaking eggs to make an omelette.
On the other hand thee point is that this is yet another of those examples of thee law of unintended consequences.
My colleague ran an electronics factory (joint venture) in China. There was a lot he wanted to do and wasn't allowed to despite being the MD. The factory was built on land simply taken from farmers without recompense. The working conditions were appalling by western standards.
When he noted the condition of the drinking water he ordered a water purifier but he was prevented from having it installed by the local Manager. This wasn't simple neglect but a deliberate policy.
He was, in the end, glad to be out of there.
But to what extent would there be a movement to insist on appropriate standards being imposed and how successful would it be?
The fact of something happening doesn't mean it has to continue to happen. It could be made that appropriate measures are made a condition of the contracts.
Too many things happen to the advantage of some parts of the population at the expense of others. It doesn't have to be that way. It isn't axiomatic.
The problem is implied error in costing, by saying, "See what a mess going green creates." But, the issue is doing business in China, period; regardless of the product, the Chinese have zip in the way of consumer and environmental protection, cases in point, tainted milk and toxic toy paints. The only saving grace is an occasional execution by the Red Army for something truly heinous.
The question should be whether going green with the appropriate chain of safeguards produces in the same results as doing business in China. To paint wind power in a poor light based on known issues with Chinese business practices is simply disingenuous, since the nongreen products that the Chinese produce have similar impacts on the environment and quality of life in China.
The point is that if you want to go green you either impose and enforce strict contractual requirements associated with the environment or you pay the price to have the things made elsewhere.
In china there is a factor called "quality fade" and since it is recognised, anyone wanting to manufacture in China must consider that it is either susceptible to remedy or it isn't.
You take your choice and then decide what to do.
This is the choice being made by the turbine manufacturing companies which are mostly European. Luxuriating in their "green credentials" they are thus making a mockery of the environmental cause by choosing to manufacture in China as they have done by closing down or not exploiting European manufacturing locations.
Since wind turbines are never going to be economically competitive, there is no ROI and and hence, having made a decsion to spend tax payers money on something that isn't going to pay for itself on the basis of "its for your own good, trust us." then that ethos should extend to the manufacturing and equally justify a higher price for the turbines.
Seems to me the Wind Turbine companies should be taken to task by the various governments investing tax money in this nonsense.
They have been busy closing European manufacturing sites and sub contracting it all to China in full knowledge of the problems, and there have been many.
That reduces the China problem to the magnets.... one problem might be manageable. Or you find a new solution.
This is all an aside from the bottom line question which is how green these things are anyway.
Just about everything "green" seems either subject to the law of unintended consequences or not thought through properly or both.
Of course, the way energy costs are going, the magic equation of
labour costs*distance-to-market*fuel costs which is what makes China the manufacturing giant it is, are the one vulnerability of the Chinese economic model. When China made a major grab for fossil fuels including bunker fuels (for power and shipping) they pushed the price up so far that for some products they came second. An example is car seats which all of a sudden were cheaper to acquire from Mexico. Repeated across the board this could be damaging.
At the moment, for all the toxic toys, the quality fade etc. China is not going to worry because they still get the business.
But if they started to lose significant business because of energy costs or because of some kind of imposed conditions, these issues then things might possibly be susceptible to change.
The only thing I would wonder about is if the usual results would apply. We may have reached a point where we have to take what we are offered and lump it. China is just too big in manufacturing and in any "economic conflict" China could strangle the west by embargoing exports and be able to contain any internal consequences in the short term.
And, incidentally, this is another reason why going green is most likely to become unilateralist economic suicide.
Under what conceivable circumstances will China stop emitting CO2? How can you make them stop burning coal?
Ironically, as soon as I clicked on that link, a pop-up ad from DuPont came up: "new brush control herbicide" to be applied at the base of your towers. Kind of a mixed message there!
seems helpful until one contemplates the importance of the differences between assertions, facts, and demonstrable experiences. Cogeneration is indeed a superb way to realize more effective use of an energy source (coal, gas, oil, or whatever), but there are painfully severe limitations on its practicality. It is essential that a reasonably adjacent user of the "waste heat" be suitable not only for the quantity and quality of the "waste heat stream," but also the timing of its availability. The costs of heat recovery systems are seldom inexpensive (both physically and financially), and waste heat is just that. "Waste heat" is indeed a "waste" because its value is degraded below the point of local usefulness. For example, 1000 Btu's at 1000F are obviously much more valuable and potentially useful than 1000 Btu's at 200F. If an evaluation fails to take such facts into proper consideration, false and misleading conclusions can easily be reached.
The "smart grid" concept is also potentially useful, but only to the extent of its capabilities. It does not add any energy to the grid, it merely provides some control capabilities.
Remote wind, solar, or other energy sources still carry with them the transmission system losses which inherently increase with distance.
The long and short of all of this is that there are no simple, easy solutions, and everything involves very substantial investments (both physical and financial).
The inherent reliability problems of wind and solar power do indeed make them preferentially more costly because of the burden that their reliability limitations impose upon the relibility needs of the connected system. The article "
should be read and re-read until understood by anyone and everyone. It very nicely expresses the very problems that seem so often to be dreamily dismissed by those with overly hopeful attitudes about "renewable" energy sources.
Energy storage does offer some aid to the reliability problems, but energy storage systems have their own inherent problems. The main one is the physical reality that "energy out" will always be significantly less than "energy in" for any such system. Therefore, that inherent lost energy must come from some source either conventional or renewable. The practical balances may prove to be very different from anyone's initial presumptions.
I very much favor the development of new and different energy conversion and power production systems, and the more truly environmentally friendly the better. The diffences that I have with many, if not most, "environmentalists" is their failure to recognize that the mere declaration that something is "environmentally friendly" provides no assurance that the subject device, system, or proposal will not have adverse consequences that greatly overwhelm the anticipated good presumed to be provided by that device, system, or proposal.
It is very easy to "draw a line around" some seemingly wonderful item for the purpose of evaluating its performance and decree that it is wonderful. Unfortunately, when that "magic line" is drawn around the truly complete system (mining, manufacturing, transportation, ...) the evaluation is sure to be less favorable.
Plug-in electric cars provide a convenient example of this problem. They are commonly described as being zero-emission vehicles. Looking at just the vehicle itself, it may indeed have near zero emissions (abraded rubber from the tires surely constitutes an emission, for example). The complete evaluation of its zero-emission status changes dramatically when one is forced to consider the energy sources, transmission & distribution system losses, manufacturing, .... How can the complete system associated with such a vehicle ever be considered to be zero-emission other than by denying the existence of reality? Similar problems are associated with all systems whether conventional or otherwise, and nothing can be considered to be truly "environmentally friendly" unless the entire system and its effects are thoroughly and fairly evaluated and then found to be truly beneficial in the whole.
Valuable advice from a professor many years ago: First, design for graceful failure. Everything we build will eventually fail, so we must strive to avoid injuries or secondary damage when that failure occurs. Only then can practicality and economics be properly considered.
One of the advantages of the unbundling and deregulation of power generation was the concept of auto-generators.
This is a major market for power plant producers.
Typically some industries are very heat and steam usage intensive.
Paper and textile production, for example.
By producing their own power and utilising the bulk of the heat/steam in their processes they may have some small surplus to make available to other users but they also have the opportunity to sell electricity to the grid.
Some such auto-generators start off in a small way and then expand and in expanding vary the power plant mix so they can take advantage of fuel prices by switching from gas to fuel oils to distillates as and when appropriate.
There are many advantages to this.
But it does question the balance of many small localised generating facilities compared to a few regional major power generators.
Shades of Schumacher perhaps? (Small is Beautiful).
Some people consider that one of the risks inherent in the hoped for development of fusion reactors is that the focus is still largely on a very few major generating plants where the ideal might be for a many very small power plants.
I guess ideal would be one power plant per house? virtually zero distribution...distribution is a major cost of the Big is beautiful approach. It is also a problem for win generation...something commented on this article:
ccfowler: the "thorough and fair evaluation" you talk about is next to impossible. And it's unnecessary. All you need to do is to put a price on energy to account for the undesired effects which are currently accounted ZERO cost, and the market will sort out the winners from the losers. Obviously, setting those relative costs is a matter for "thorough and fair evaluation", so it's not so simple- but it's a darn sight better than having governments betting on winners and losers via unsustainable subsidy.
Pricing energy properly does one thing more important than any other: it treats the economics of a Joule or a kWh the same way, whether it's new generation or consumption avoided by conservation and energy efficiency improvement. The latter is always preferable because it has the lowest environmental impact over the long term.
In regard to waste heat, it's time we stopped treating this waste, and CO2, as wastes which have zero costs of disposal. This will fundamentally alter the calculations in regard to what investments for the use of secondary heat resources are economically justified. We used to throw away a lot of useful stuff until we altered the "tipping cost" for these wastes.
