| The Energy Challenge 2004 | ||||
|
||||
The NEPDG report has seven key weaknesses that must be addressed and have so far, during the last 3 years, been ignored. In priority order these are:
Energy will be the most important issue facing the country in this decade, even more than, but inseparable from, terrorism. We need a policy and strategy that set aside partisan differences, ignore special interest pressures, and give the Energy Challenge the priority it deserves.
The worst aspect of this problem is that present legislation (passed in the House and pending in the Senate) is largely based on the NEPDG report, remains unchanged since late 2001, and is largely contrary to the country’s real needs. There is major emphasis on development of new domestic supplies with large subsidies for oil, gas, coal and nuclear, and little attention to the demand side or to renewables. In spite of the fact that, since the legislation was written, oil prices have doubled, coal prices have nearly doubled, natural gas prices have more than tripled, and energy company profits have soared, the proposed subsidies haven’t changed. Also E&D activity hasn’t exactly soared. Clearly domestic prospects are not attractive enough for development on the shareholders money, but legislators don’t get it.
Assertions
The energy challenge we face is the most important issue of this decade in terms
of its impact on future generations. If we get the answers right, we have a good
chance to take the challenge in stride, with no more than minor economic impact.
If we get them wrong, this decade will prove (in retrospect) to have been the
most important decade in the country’s history. The decisions we make can
either set us on a path of smooth transition to a new energy economy, or on a
slide toward a future of deprivation for our children and grandchildren and
generations to come. Unfortunately, most of our elected leaders are living in a
world of no information, misinformation, or disinformation. Unless this
situation changes, they are unlikely to make the best decisions.
No information results mainly from the fact that energy has not been an
issue, so the homework has not been done. Misinformation derives mainly from
dealing with assumptions and opinions rather than facts, well-meaning but
one-sided viewpoints, too short time horizons (20 years or less), and expecting
that the future will be like the past. Disinformation comes mainly from two
sources, one of which has some claim to innocence:
- Economic models that are based on invalid and usually unstated fundamental
assumptions
- Selfish special interests that are, at best, economical with the truth.
Following is a set of declarations or assertions that introduce the key issues, and that can be made with a high degree of confidence:
Several conclusions can be inferred from the above assertions:
Clearly we need a balanced and measured approach; focused on the long-term national interest, unswayed by short-term special interests, and dealing with all of supply side, demand side, alternatives, regulations, and incentives.
Background
In dealing with the question of energy, we need to start by trying to understand
and/or suppress some of the sources of confusion. We also need to start with a
basis of facts before getting to projections, assumptions and opinions. Finally,
we need to quantify issues as much as possible, always within a comparable
framework. The following will address a few key aspects of these topics.
Quads2 – A quad is a quadrillion Btu’s of energy, or 293 billion KWh of energy. In 2000 the USA consumed about 98 quads, of which 35 quads or 36% were consumed in supplying 11 quads of electricity, and 26 quads or 27% powered transportation. Primary sources were:
KWh/MWh – Kilowatt hours and megawatt hours. Power is measured in watts. Energy is measured in watt hours. A watt hour is 1 watt of power applied for 1 hour. A KWh is one thousand watt hours. A MWh is one million watt hours. Scientists use joules to express energy, but KWh are more familiar and more useful here. (1 KWh = 3.6 million joules or 3.6 MJ)
Gb – Gigabarrels or billion barrels. Oil production, consumption and
reserves are usually expressed in Gb. The world consumed nearly 28 Gb of oil
in 2000, or about 76 million barrels of oil per day. We are now at 83 Mb/d
or near 31 Gb/yr in 2004. The USA consumes about ¼ of that or 7+ Gb/year =
19+ million barrels/day.
- For calibration, ANWR reserves are estimated to be 10.4 Gb as the most likely number with only about 6 Gb considered recoverable. The 30 Gb quoted by Senator Murkowski in 2001 is a 5% probability figure.
- World oil production capacity in late 2004 is estimated as <85 million barrels/day, with the only slack capacity now available being for heavy/sour crude.
Tcf - Tera cubic feet or trillion cubic feet. The Europeans use Tcm or
trillion cubic meters. One cubic meter is about 35 cubic feet. Annual
natural gas production, consumption and resources are expressed in Tcf.
Daily/weekly consumption is expressed in Bcf or billion cu. ft.
- One Tcf of natural gas provides about 299 billion KWh or 1.02 quads of primary energy when burned efficiently (one cubic foot = .299 KWh)
- USA proven reserves are a little more than 160 Tcf, and consumption has averaged very near 20 Tcf/year for the last decade. Discovery approximately equaled consumption during the 90s, but is now falling well short.
Bst - Billion short tons. Coal production is expressed in short tons. One short ton of top grade USA anthracite has the embedded energy of 4.4 barrels of oil. However, USA coal averages nearer 3.4 barrels. The 1998 USA production of 1.1 Bst of coal provided the primary energy equivalent of 3.75 Gb of oil.
Boe – Barrels of oil equivalent. In order to be able to grasp the relative amounts of primary energy from different sources, coal and natural gas are sometimes expressed in Boe. For the USA on average, 1 short ton of coal is equivalent to 3.4 barrels of oil. 5,600 cu ft. of NG = 1 barrel oil, or 1 Tcf = 180 Mb of oil.
- If it could be done, it would already be being done. This assumption ignores the ignorance of what is possible, adoption time lags, priorities, conservative engineering practices and technology developments.
This first principle leads economists to ignore or assume away physical limits to supply and thus overestimate resource availability, in our case fossil fuels, especially oil and natural gas. It also assumes away practical limits on recovery rates, even if the plentiful resource exists.
The second principle leads to the conclusion that no energy economies or efficiencies are possible, because everything possible is in practice, and therefore the only way to reduce energy is to downsize the economy. When this assumption underpins an economic model, the model inevitably produces false conclusions. Beware of any “expert” input from economists on the subject of energy, and check who sponsors their work.
In fact, retrofitting the national infrastructure, industrial, commercial and consumer, would create millions of jobs. Reducing dependence on imported oil would both improve the balance of payments and reduce the national security costs of ensuring the supply lines. Energy efficiencies can be realized at much lower costs per KWh than adding to supply, and usually more quickly also. The USA has been the victim of unlimited cheap energy and has therefore lacked incentive to address the demand side. Switzerland, lacking our blessing, has an energy intensity per unit of GDP less than 1/2 of ours and can not be considered economically deprived.
As it is we now face, during the next 30 years, irreversibly declining supplies and increasing costs of oil and gas. The resulting increase in energy costs will act like a tax, slowing economic growth. We can mitigate this problem by vigorously addressing development of alternatives (renewables), and--more effectively in the very short run--by emphasizing, not downplaying, demand side improvements.
Another issue that we do not have to address urgently now, but that is implicit in the whole discussion, is the limits to growth. For a very short period in human history (about 200 years) we have been able to develop a philosophy of unending economic growth, powered by limitless cheap energy. Even with a successful conversion to renewables, we will reach insurmountable limits to energy in less than 200 years, at present world growth rates. Other limitations will kick in before energy, e.g. food.
We probably have less than 100 years to shift to a philosophy of sustainability and progress without growth. Energy is a good starting point.
While addressing a present US challenge, we must not ignore the far future or the world.
| a b 9.11.04 |
This article totally sums up my filosofy
on the subject of sustainable development and energy use. Congrat's.
The only obmission in your total picture is the choice we (the west) are making for our agriculture. Our three main crops are wheat, corn and soy. They all need enormous amount of fossil fuel energy to be grown, harvested and processed, since most of those three crops aren't eaten in their natural form. (see http://www.petroleumworld.com/SF090504.htm) Even if we succeed in transforming our energy supply to a mix of nuke and renewables, combined with a hydrogen storage resource, we will 'screw' ourselves up by basically just relying on those three basic crop for our increasingly populous world. Some basic figures : - Every single calorie we eat is backed by at least a calorie of oil, more like ten. - David Pimentel, an expert on food and energy at Cornell University, has estimated that if all of the world ate the way the United States eats, humanity would exhaust all known global fossil-fuel reserves in just over seven years. Pimentel has his detractors. Some have accused him of being off on other calculations by as much as 30 percent. Fine. Make it ten years. - Fertilisers derived from oil&gas are simply wasted away. The Mississippi River's heavily fertilized effluvia has created a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico the size of New Jersey. - About two thirds of U.S. grain corn is labeled "processed," meaning it is milled and otherwise refined for food or industrial uses. More than 45 percent of that becomes sugar, the grinding, milling, wetting, drying, and baking of a breakfast cereal requires about four calories of energy for every calorie of food energy it produces. A two-pound bag of breakfast cereal burns the energy of a half-gallon of gasoline in its making.
|
| a b 9.11.04 |
- All together the food-processing
industry in the United States uses about ten calories of fossil-fuel
energy for every calorie of food energy it produces. That number does not
include the fuel used in transporting the food from the factory to a store
near you, or the fuel used by millions of people driving to thousands of
super discount stores on the edge of town, where the land is cheap.
- Eating a carrot gives the diner all that carrot's energy, but feeding carrots to a chicken, then eating the chicken, reduces the energy by a factor of ten. The chicken wastes some energy, stores some as feathers, bones, and other inedibles, and uses most of it just to live long enough to be eaten. As a rough rule of thumb, that factor of ten applies to each level up the food chain, which is why some fish, such as tuna, can be a horror in all of this. Eighty percent of the grain the United States produces goes to livestock. It takes thirty-five calories of fossil fuel to make a calorie of beef this way; sixty-eight to make one calorie of pork. The same result could be achieved by just putting the animals in the field and letting them eat native prairie grass, avoiding fossil fuel consumption. Prairie's productivity is lost for grain, grain's productivity is lost in livestock, livestock's protein is lost to human fat-all federally subsidized for about $15 billion a year, two thirds of which goes directly to only two crops, corn and wheat. LET'S HOPE THE REST OF THE WORLD DOESN'T TAKE OVER USA's FEEDING HABITS. However, when seeing the exploding numbers of fast food joints going up all over the world, I am very pessimistic.
|
| a b 9.11.04 |
Remark : this was written on 9/11. My
condoleances for the ones who suffered on that fatefull day. Let's hope
your decision makers will learn from Iraq's missteps, and decide to
implement Mr Duffin's proposals. That will be very hard, but the
alternative route is a dead-end and thus even worse. Or do you all think
the USA will be able to stay on top of things for the whole 21th century?
Europe had it's turn and is now dying off, just as Japan. China and India
are on their way up, and in thirty years will be as big in GDP as the USA,
even when their population still will be far poorer per capita than the
average john doe.
So what do you want : WW3 for oil & gas or everyone his own local energy resources? Real fuel costs In U.S. Cents/kWh in some european countries, when externalities (full costs of environmental degradation) are included : Germany : Coal & lignite = 3-6 ; Oil = 5-8 ; Gas = 1-2 ; Nuclear = 0.6 ; Biomass = 3 ; PV = 0.1-0.3 ; Wind = 0.05 France : Coal & lignite = 7-11 ; Oil = 8-12 ; Gas = 2-4 ; Nuclear = 0.3 ; Biomass = 1 ; Hydro = 1 U.K. : Coal & lignite = 4-7 ; Oil = 3-5 ; Gas = 1-2 ; Nuclear = 0.25 ; Biomass = 1 ; Wind = 0.15 Portugal : Coal & lignite = 4-7 ; Gas = 1-2 ; Biomass = 1-2 ; Hydro = 0.03 Sweden : Coal & lignite = 2-4 ; Biomass = 0.3 ; Hydro = 0-0.7 Source : http://www.inri.us/pages/2/index.htm?gen_time=1083949207994 Of course nuke power seems cheap, but spent fuel storage costs aren’t included in the figures. Knowing that the UK has now (2004) around 53 000 cubic meter of spent nuke waste to store in very special conditions, that should change the total fuel cost/kWh picture significantly. Biomass has decreased with 20% in 10 years due to equipment efficiency increases and lower fuel cost, and that trend is seen as continuing for renewables like biomass, wind and PV.
|
| Len Gould 9.11.04 |
Mr Duffin: A truely heroic and worthwhile
effort. No quibbles, you're right on. One suggestion, you should give up
on the old "common units" system. Things are so much easier once
you start thinking in metric and it's really not difficult after the first
six months.
Also for anyone interested, an error-free version of those figures in the comment above is availabe at the original source, the European ExternE project at http://www.externe.info, numbers at http://www.externe.info/figures.html ; And BTW they clearly state that spent fuel management for its lifetime is entirely includes in the Nuclear figures which range from 0.25 for the UK to 0.7 Euro cents per kwhr. Though we all know that "spent" fuel needs to be re-processed and re-used, not either buried or permanently sequestered inaccessably in silicon carbide pellets as in a pebble bed reactor, meaning it should be assigned a negative externality cost not a positive. However, no problem.
|
| a b 9.13.04 |
Mr Gould, concerning your statement :
"And BTW they clearly state that spent fuel management for its
lifetime is entirely includes in the Nuclear figures which range from 0.25
for the UK to 0.7 Euro cents per kwhr."
www.externe.info "The report also says that nuclear power involves relatively low external costs due to its low influence on global warming and its low probability of accidents in the EU power plants. Wind and hydro energy present the lowest external costs. The methodology used to calculate the external cost is called impact pathway methodology. This methodology sets out by measuring emissions (including applying uniform measuring methods to allow comparison), then the dispersion of pollutants in the environment and the subsequent increase in ambient concentrations is monitored. After that, impact on issues such as crop yield or health is evaluated. The methodology finishes with an assessment of the resulting cost. "
|
| a b 9.13.04 |
Mr Gould, concerning your statement :
"Though we all know that "spent" fuel needs to be
re-processed and re-used, not either buried or permanently sequestered
inaccessably in silicon carbide pellets as in a pebble bed reactor,
meaning it should be assigned a negative externality cost not a positive.
However, no problem. "
Please find hereunder the mess the British are finding themselves in follwoing exactly what you propose. It is very long winded, but offer a stunning view on how UN-economic the process is, and certainly shows that the wouldn't be able to compete head-on with renewable energy without governement subsidies. http://www-tec.open.ac.uk/eeru/natta/renewonline/rol50/17.htm The US backed off reprocessing, and the Fast Breeder Reactor, many years ago, but there has been pressure to reconsider given the Bush decision to relook at the nuclear option. Separating out the plutonium from spent fuel is sometimes seen as one way to reduce the amount of high level (very radioactive) waste that needs to be stored- even though of course reprocessing does create a lot of extra low and intermediate level waste which also has to be stored. The UK and France are the only countries with major reprocessing operations. The UK’s reprocessing operation at Sellafield produces plutonium that is used to make Mixed Oxide Fuel for sale around the world- although it has proven to be hard to find markets as it is expensive and there is plenty of cheap uranium available. BNFL has indicated that it may abandon reprocessing by 2010. Certainly British Energy, the UK’s main nuclear plant operator, is not keen on paying the extra cost of reprocessing its spent fuel- it would prefer the cheaper option of dry storage of spent fuel rods, which is the approach adopted by most other countries. Whatever happens with regard to reprocessing in the UK, we will be faced with a legacy of high, low and intermediate waste- much of the later two types having been created by reprocessing. In addition, decomissioning old nuclear facilities will create more. Currently, the government is setting up a Nuclear Decommisioning Authority to deal with this problem- it will in effect take over much of BNFL’s responsibilities in this area, although in practice it seems that a revamped BNFL will actually do the work.
|
| a b 9.13.04 |
It is interesting in this context that a
government minister, Lord Davies of Oldham, told the Lords during passage
of the Energy Bill through parliament that “We consider a great deal of
the activity of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, particularly at
Thorp and Sellafield Mox Plant, to be loss-making”. British Energy (BE),
which was privatised in 1996, is also now struggling to survive despite
government support, so things do not look good for the UK nuclear
industry, and recriminations are now beginning to emerge. During hearings
following on from a National Audit Office review which had concluded that
BE had at least initially only been monitored with a ‘light touch’,
members of the influential House of Commons Public Accounts Committee
denounced BE for “deceiving” and “misleading” shareholders. They
also accused DTI officials of “incredible incompetence” over their
handling of BE’s collapse. And to round things off, Sir Robin Young,
permanent secretary at the DTI, had conceded that “British Energy, ‘in
the light of experience’ should not have privatised” (FT 12/2/04).
Brian Wilson, until recently Labours Energy Minister, seemed to agree in
an Observer article (Feb15), laying much of the blame for the mess on the
Conservatives. But even they have, it seems, changed policy. Tory
environment spokesman Caroline Spelman commented during the Environment
debate (see Reviews) ‘until an adequate environmental solution is found
to the problems of waste from nuclear energy, nuclear power is not an
option that can enthusiastically be embraced. So far, such a solution has
not been found.’ Phasing out BNFL Work is underway to decommission the
Windscale Pile No. 1- the plant that suffered a fire in 1957. In response
to a Parliamentary Question in Dec, Stephen Timms noted that ‘The Pile
One reactor is considered by international experts to be one of the most
challenging decommissioning tasks in the nuclear industry’. Timms
reported that Phase One decommissioning involved clearing up and sealing
the air and water ducts and was completed in 1999, at a cost of £14m.
Phase Two involves removal of hazardous materials and treating and
packaging the resultant wastes, and to date the costs had been
approximately £30 m. He added that one of the key challenges was
‘limited knowledge of the extent of damage to the fire-affected core’.
We wish the clean-up crews well. However, the fate of the rest of
Sellafield is still far from clear. THORP, the nuclear fuel reprocessing
plant at Sellafield, and the Sellafield MOX plutonium fuel plant were,
rather oddly, both excluded from consideration in the governments recent
strategy review of BNFL. The ostensible reason given by the Energy
Minister, Stephen Timms, was that they would both pass to the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority when it is established in 2005, so that it
‘was not appropriate for them to be considered as part of the review’.
In a letter to the Guardian, (17/12/03), Dr David Lowry said that this was
‘akin to conducting a review of Transport for London, but excluding
consideration of buses and underground trains’.
|
| a b 9.13.04 |
Taking in Waste The UK does not allow the
import of radioactive waste, but we do take in spent fuel for
reprocessing-and that creates wastes as well as plutonium. Under the terms
of some of the reprocessing contracts, if countries will accept the
plutonium back in the form of MOX, then we will deal with the extra
wastes. It’s called ‘intermediate level waste substitution’. Asked
about the scale of this Energy Minister Stephen Timms commented: ‘The
NAC International report estimates that the volume of overseas
intermediate level radioactive waste (ILW) retained in the UK as a result
of ILW substitution would be about 1.4% of the UK’s total ILW. This
amounts to approximately 3,00m 3 . This would be partially offset by a
reduction in high level waste that would otherwise be retained in the UK
of about 50m 3 .’ This idea was not well received by everyone. Speaking
during the House of Commons debate on the environment in Feb (see
Reviews), Lib Dem MP Norman Baker criticised the latest Consultation paper
on proposals for intermediate level radioactive waste substitution. ‘The
thrust of that supposedly independent paper is that we should not
necessarily return to the countries whence it came all the waste generated
from reprocessing. Why? Presumably it is because that suggestion would
enable prices to be cut and business in that doubtful area to be propped
up. The fact is that we have more than 75,000 cu m of intermediate-level
waste lying around in this country, with no clear idea or strategy on how
to deal with it. Nirex has no solution. Its last suggestion was pulled and
it has not come back with another proposal since, but it now seems to want
more of the stuff. The projections already suggest that we will have
107,000 cu m of intermediate-level waste by 2010, and 143,000 cu m by
2030. It seems that we want more waste from other countries to add to that
stockpile. However, the author of that report- NAC International- makes
some of its money by carrying out work for BNFL. A parliamentary answer
that I received yesterday confirmed both that that financial arrangement
exists and that the DTI was aware of it before it commissioned NAC to
write the report. That is simply not acceptable. That paper is discredited
and the DTI should now withdraw it.’
|
| a b 9.13.04 |
1 british pound equals 1.5 US dollar.
|
| a b 9.13.04 |
So, do you want nuke's that provide
relatively clean and cheap electricity but still generates waste streams
whatever process is used, or do you prefer to focus on renewables first?
Renewables that also provide even cheaper electricity than nuke plants, as
shown above (nuke power in germany : 0.6US$cent/kWh, windpower=
0.05US$/kWh ; U.K. : Nuclear = 0.25 ; Wind = 0.15 ) , up until a real
proper solution is found for all those nuke plant wastes that are
stockpiling around?
Offshore windpower in europe has the potential to provide all required electricity needs for europe. I know that it is not possible to solely rely on windpower for stability of supply reasons, but the potential hasn't even be scratched in a decent way. And I don't even look at other alternatives, as solar water heating, geothermal CHP, hydro in all it's forms (dams, run-of-river, tidal and wave), biomass and PV panels for sun rich mediteranean countries. Mr Duffin's proposal should be the energy plan for the whole planet.
|
| a b 9.13.04 |
Mr Gould, concerning your statement :
"Also for anyone interested, an error-free version of those figures
in the comment above is availabe at the original source, the European
ExternE project at http://www.externe.info, numbers at http://www.externe.info/figures.html
; "
After reviewing your link, I saw that my figures were indeed inaccurate but almost identical to the one you find under your post, excepted for nuclear in germany. Wind and hydro power is the CHEAPEST form of clean energy, ahead of nuclear by a factor of 0 to 4. Germany : Coal & lignite = 3-6 ; Oil = 5-8 ; Gas = 1-2 ; Nuclear = 0.2 ; Biomass = 3 ; PV = 0.6 ; Wind = 0.05 France : Coal & lignite = 7-10 ; Oil = 8-11 ; Gas = 2-4 ; Nuclear = 0.3 ; Biomass = 1 ; Hydro = 1 U.K. : Coal & lignite = 4-7 ; Oil = 3-5 ; Gas = 1-2 ; Nuclear = 0.25 ; Biomass = 1 ; Wind = 0.15 Portugal : Coal & lignite = 4-7 ; Gas = 1-2 ; Biomass = 1-2 ; Hydro = 0.03 Sweden : Coal & lignite = 2-4 ; Biomass = 0.3 ; Hydro = 0-0.7
|
| Len Gould 9.13.04 |
a.b. I only managed to read your last comment, and of course again found an error. The Externe report makes NO comment on which is the "cheapest" form of clean energy, only on how much must be "added" to the vendor's price in order to cover unpaid use of social commons. Adding 0.7 euro to nuclear's 4.5 euro price leaves it MUCH cheaper than adding even 0 to whatever price reliable wind gen might be. |
To subscribe or visit this site go to: http://www.energypulse.net