"Reinventing Energy"

Jeffrey Sachs summarizes some of the ways we can respond to higher energy prices:

Reinventing energy, by Jeffrey D. Sachs, Project Syndicate: The world economy is being battered by sharply higher energy prices. ... No quick fix exists... Higher prices reflect basic conditions of supply and demand. The world economy – especially China, India and elsewhere in Asia – has been growing rapidly, leading to a steep increase in global demand for energy... Yet global supplies of oil, natural gas and coal can’t keep up easily...

In order for developing countries to continue enjoying rapid economic growth and for rich nations to avoid a slump, it is necessary to develop new energy technologies. Three objectives should be targeted: low-cost alternatives to fossil fuels, greater energy efficiency, and reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

The most promising technology in the long term is solar power. Total solar radiation hitting the Earth is about 1,000 times the world’s commercial energy use. This means that even a small part of the earth’s land surface, notably in desert regions, which receive massive solar radiation, can supply large amounts of electricity...

For example, solar power plants in America’s Mohave Desert could supply more than half of that nation’s electricity needs. Solar power plants in Northern Africa could supply ... Western Europe, while solar power plants in the Sahel of Africa, just south of the vast Sahara, could power much of West, East and Central Africa.

Perhaps the single most promising development in terms of energy efficiency is plug-in hybrid technology for automobiles, which may be able to triple the fuel efficiency ... within the next decade. The idea is that vehicles would run mainly on batteries recharged nightly on the electricity grid, with a gasoline-hybrid engine as a backup... General Motors may have an early version of this by 2010.

The most important technology for the safe environmental use of coal is the capture and geological storage of carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants. Such carbon capture and sequestration ... is needed urgently in major coal-consuming nations...

For all of these promising technologies, governments should be investing in the science... Without at least partial public financing, the uptake for these new technologies will be slow and uneven. Indeed, most major technologies that we now take for granted – airplanes, computers, the internet and new medicines, to name just a few – received crucial public financing in their early stages of development and deployment.

It’s shocking and worrisome that public financing remains slight because these technologies’ success could translate into literally trillions of dollars of economic output.

For example, according to the most recent data in 2006 from the International Energy Agency, the U.S. government annually invested a meager $3 billion in energy research and development. In inflation-adjusted dollars, this represents a decline of roughly 40 percent since the early 1980s and now equals what the U.S. spends on its military in just a day and a half. The situation is even more discouraging when we look at the particulars. ...

Of course, developing new energy technologies isn’t America’s responsibility alone. Global cooperation ... is needed to increase supplies and ensure that energy use is environmentally safe... This not only is good economics, but also good politics, as it can unite the world in our common interests, rather than dividing it in a bitter struggle over diminishing oil, gas and coal reserves.

Comments

[Fred X]

Where does reducing CO2 come into the scheme? I thought you were talking about ENERGY....not wasted energy in the form of some made up religion like Scientology or Man Made Global Warming. Luckily MMGW as a profitable cause is likely over. Let the Dems / socialist / communists ( I repeat myself ) try to raise taxes on energy now! The profit motive is gone. The weather is cooling. RIP MMGW as an active cause.

[bakho]

We stopped increasing fleet efficiency in the 1980s. We could easily increase average fleet gas mileage by 30 %. to over 30 mpg with the right CAFE standards. That would directly produce a drop in oil consumption. That would buy us time to add alternative energies.

Jimmy Carter was hated more for his energy policies and scolding people to change their habits than anything else he did. The change needs to be sold as a bargain. Better fuel economy = lower transportation costs.

[Elvis]

Fred X says...
Where does reducing CO2 come into the scheme?
That would be the last line of paragraph 2.

You sound like a man who wouldn't mind bombing Iran. Yawn.

[OhNoNotAgain]

"The weather is cooling"

Weather <> Global Warming

Put down the Republican crack pipe and pick up a book - you might learn something.

[John]

Of course, heaven forbid that we actually believe working scientists over the three Ls -- Libertarians, Limbaugh, and LaRouche -- about fundamental science issues. (This was a sarcastic response to Fred X.)

I believe that all of the things Sachs cites are possible solutions to the upcoming energy and global-warming problem. The one thing common to all is that the energy produced has to be transported, and is mostly in the form of electricity. Whatever we do, we should upgrade our world-wide electrical grid into a fault-tolerant system that would efficiently transport electricity to where it is needed.

Also, we must break the blight of suburban and exurban sprawl: outlying communities depend on the central city for their livelihoods, yet contribute nothing to the city except smog, traffic congestion, neighborhood destruction for ever more freeways, and ruthless oppression of the natives.

[Lafayette]

Nothing new under the sun

Article: Higher prices reflect basic conditions of supply and demand.

No, they don't. I suspect that Sachs doesn't get it.

Petroleum prices are determined by OPEC, which puts the prices pretty much anywhere they want by opening and shutting the Supply Spigot. That is not a basic condition, but a monopolistic one.

The Supply could become a torrent from a trickle in 24 hours. But, it won't. So, what is OPEC up to?

To my mind they feel, I think, that every marginal bit of capacity sold now is worth a lot less in revenue in the future -- because in the future it is irreplaceable. Because it is irreplaceable, its future revenue is 0. (Depending upon who far that future is.)

So, they are trying to make the flavour last. The Saudi government in particular and Iran as well will have some very, very difficult social problems when their deposits become depleted. The Saudis have developed such a thoroughly complacent class of people, heaven knows what they would do without oil -- when they could no longer squander their riches around Europe and the Far East.

They will sell us what to sustain their economies? Palm tree dates? No, they will sell of their holdings in sovereign funds and then .... nada, nothin' left.

For all the money they have had since the end of WW2, when the money started rolling in, they have developed what alternative economy against the day when the oil runs out?

So, they are now "forced" to ration their oil deposit reserves towards making them last as long as possible.

(General Motors may have an early version of this (hybrid car) by 2010.

Most industry experts see no significant penetration of hybrid cars for another two decades. Perhaps they are pipe-dreaming. But, the fact of the matter is that if there is no alternative source for the production of enegy, then electricity-fueled cars are not on. And, given the slow pace of nuclear energy coming on-line in America ... forget it.

Sachs is right when he proposes solar-tidal-water-nuclear-geothermal sourced electricity. But, then, that notion is nothing new under the sun either. (A good start would be to do as Europe has done -- give a tax break of up to half the cost for the usage of geothermal power in each new house being built.)

[anne]

Interestingly enough, though this should be a relatively cool year within the ewarming trend, given ocean current and sun spot activity, March turns out to have been the warmest month ever recorded for world land temperatures.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iqoJQ7KYibhW7Ed7AZKuuNZLzBIQD903UTQ00

[anne]

What should be considered is the effectiveness we experienced in using regulations to improve efficiency and conservation before corporate opposition all but ended such a direct regulation approach during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan. However, looking to Europe, Japan and Australia there is increasing reason to believe direct regulation critical in meaningfully improving conservation and efficiency.

Also, I and others have been thoroughly impressed by China's use of regulation in the midst of what is a most serious food price problem internationally. China's subsidy of domestic agriculture and early imposed price controls, should be closely studied for the evident fair effectiveness.

[Alex Tolley]

We appear to be replaying the 1970's. This time I hope that we actually deliver on solar energy after the last false start.

Lafayette, you are mistaken about the cartel power of OPEC. When overproduction was easy, OPEC nations would overproduce under the price ceiling and the oligopoly was broken. This was why oil prices sank in the 1980s and 1990s. Now we see actual production limits ("peak oil") coming up against demand. Historically the Saudis recognized that high oil prices encouraged non-OPEC exploration and production, plus alternatives like solar that they wished to discourage. The current oil price while providing a windfall is a reflection of how much OPEC has lost control of pricing.

[anne]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jiG8PT3cEiOqXFkMJuutD97RCoeQD907NRL00

April 23, 2008

EPA Scientists Complain About Political Pressure
By H. JOSEF HEBERT – Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Hundreds of Environmental Protection Agency scientists say they have been pressured by superiors to skew their findings, according to a survey released Wednesday by an advocacy group.

The Union of Concerned Scientists said more than half of the nearly 1,600 EPA staff scientists who responded online to a detailed questionnaire reported they had experienced incidents of political interference in their work.

EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar attributed some of the discontent to the "passion" scientists have toward their work. He said EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, as a longtime career scientist at the EPA himself, "weighs heavily the science given to him by the staff in making policy decisions."

But Francesca Grifo, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Scientific Integrity Program, said the survey results revealed "an agency in crisis" and "under siege from political pressures" especially among scientists involved in risk assessment and crafting regulations.

"The investigation shows researchers are generally continuing to do their work, but their scientific findings are tossed aside when it comes time to write regulations," said Grifo.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., in a letter sent Wednesday to Johnson, called the survey results disturbing and said they "suggest a pattern of ignoring and manipulating science." He said he planned to pursue the issue at an upcoming hearing by his Oversight and Government Reform Committee where Johnson is scheduled to testify.

The group sent an online questionnaire to 5,500 EPA scientists and received 1,586 responses, a majority of them senior scientists who have worked for the agency for 10 years or more. The survey included chemists, toxicologists, engineers, geologists and experts in the life and environmental sciences.

The report said 60 percent of those responding, or 889 scientists, reported personally experiencing what they viewed as political interference in their work over the last five years....

[jamzo]

the greatest market force in petroleum is the political goals of governments which control the supply and cost of oil

developed world dependence on energy owned by other governments is a fact that is now easily recognized by most people

the "invisible hand" of the market is there for everyone to see - saudi arabia, nigeria, venezuela, russia, iran, iraq

petroleum users are increasingly vulnerable to the political aspirations of petroleum owners

the media narrative that the US has no energy policy is untrue

the historical policy of the US has been to "leave it to private enterprise"

this will become increasingly difficult to maintain

the glory days of big oil and big auto in the past

energy policy proposals that address the US social and economic dependence on petroleum will start to play a bigger and bigger role in the political process

[Denis Drew]

WRITTEN WHILE OIL WAS -- ONLY -- $60/BARREL. MORE THAN TWICE AS TRUE TODAY?:

Free upgrade to plug-in hybrid?

If America imported half as much oil (only 5 million barrels a day) and paid half as much for it (only $30 a barrel) due to lower demand, we could save $165 billion a year (5 million X 365 X $30 instead of 10 million X 365 X $60 = a saving of $164,250 million a year).

$165 billion would be just enough to subsidize the the 16.5 million cars and trucks we build every year -- to be built as LITHIUM battery, PLUG-IN hybrids -- at $10,000 a vehicle! -- when, if and ever higher power lithium power is ready.

Alternately, Uncle Sam could offer a consumer tax credit large enough to cover the extra cost of buying a lithium hybrid -- to be recouped with a tax of 10% of the credit for the first 10 years, on whomever owns the car. Owner gas savings should recoup most or all of the tax.
***********************************
Doubly free upgrade!:

The Scuderi engine operates sort of like a backwards diesel -- injecting pressurized air into compressed fuel, instead of injecting vaporized fuel into compressed air -- may double power output for the same amount of fuel (partly by using the added turbulence of pressurized air interfacing more fuel molecules with more oxygen, as I understand it). Scuderi engines are single-stroke and thus need half as many cyliders saving much weight. Scuderi engines save brake power in the form of presurized air making them more efficient. Combine Scuderi engines with lithium hybrid technolgy (hybrid/hybrid) and for all we know the United States could become a net exporter of oil. :-)

(http://www.scuderigroup.com/)

[hari]

There is a way to overcome such political bias - ensure that policy is made by a professional staff selected on basis of competition. DON'T ALLOW POLITICAL APPOINTEES IN SENSITIVE SECTORS OF GOV MACHINERY.

This may be wishful thinking...but it should be tried. Inside EU setup permanancey of professional staff is based on their achieved competence in the sector. Politics does not interfere with their professional work.

[anne]

Where by the way was the least American attention given to the visit to the United Nations of the only indigenous national President, Evo Morales, who spoke on resource issues?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/22/biofuel.crisis/print

April 22, 2008

Biofuels Starving Our People, Leaders Tell UN
By Allegra Stratton - Guardian

The leaders of Bolivia and Peru have attacked the use of biofuels, saying they have made food too expensive for the poor.

Speaking at the United Nations, the Bolivian president, Evo Morales, said the increased use of farmland for fuel crops was causing a "tremendous increase" in food prices.

The Reuters news agency reported that the Peruvian president, Alan Garcia, called on developed countries to grow more food. In the last few months, food prices in Peru have run ahead of the country's general rate of inflation.

Their attack coincided with a report published today by the environmental group Friends of the Earth warning the EU of the perils of expanding biofuel use in Latin America. Last year the EU agreed on a target of 10% biofuel use for transport by 2020.

The report says the certification schemes being set up by some South American countries to ensure sustainable production of sugar cane and soya bean crops are not enough to prevent damage to the environment and "fail to address the biggest problems" caused by the cultivation of land currently covered by forests or smaller farms.

In his UN comments, Morales criticised "some South American presidents" for pushing biofuels. The Bolivian president did not name them but his views are in sharp contrast to those of the Brazilian president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who has said developing countries have enough land to produce both food and biofuels.

Morales called on developed nations to accept that problems created by biofuels in developing countries were partly their responsibility. After his speech, he told a news conference that "it is not an internal problem, it is an external problem".

"This is very serious," he said. "How important is life and how important are cars? So I say life first and cars second."

In his UN speech, Morales called for the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to take action against the biofuel industry "in order to avoid hunger and misery among our people"....

[taq]

check out this video at big picture:
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/04/the-air-car.html

it sounds even better than battery powered cars (batteries are toxic waste). Hopefully the cabin noise levels will be reduced.

[Lafayette]

Sucker

john: Whatever we do, we should upgrade our world-wide electrical grid into a fault-tolerant system that would efficiently transport electricity to where it is needed.

World-wide? There hasn't been a brown-out in France since lord knows when. And the last major national brown-out was in Italy about three years ago.

The European grid is up-to-date, with sales of wind-farm electricity over the grid increasing nicely in those countries that have aggressively adopted it.

A pilot massive (700 mirrors) solar-power generator is on-line in Spain, and under test. It will be replicated where necessary in southern Europe where annual sunshine is abundant. City dwellers cant get enough solar panels to fit them on their roofs to supplant energy from the grid. Their prices have doubled in the past two years.

France switched to nuclear energy in the early 1970s, so today somewhere between 60 and 70% comes from there, and a good deal from chip-wood burners for heating.

Europe is doing pretty good in having diversified its energy sources. It's lead-head from The Oil State that has been sitting on his brains for 8 years doing nothing. And, now with oil at 100$ a barrel, his Texan FAT CATS are sittin' pretty ... whilst YOU pay the bill at the pump. (He waited 8 long years to pull this off!)

Sucker ...

[anne]

Since 2005, in the midst of 7 of the last 8 years when international demand for grain was greater than supply, the increase in grain consumption for fuel use rose from 20 million tons a year to 50 million tons. Even as grain supplies have been shrinking, however, American trade policy has been aimed at turning developing nations away from agriculture subsidies and away from domestic food independence.

The voice of an indigenous leader, the only indigenous President, speaking on such a matter should at least have been heard at the White House in the course of an American visit. Where is our least diplomatic respect?

[piglet]

Conservation not even mentioned by Jeffrey Sachs. Yawn. They just don't get it.

[Cynthia]

Tapping into dirtier and more inferior forms of fossil fuels (coupled with the fact that very few alternatives are in the pipeline) is looking more and more like a clear (yet ominous) sign that Hubbert's peak is just around the corner. Plus it burns me up to no end that when America's oil supply peaked many decades ago, our policy leaders didn't push for large-scale infrastructure projects with conservation in mind -- projects related to living, working and especially traveling in our communities. And had our communities been designed to be more mass-transit friendly and less friendly to autos, then the pinch of skyrocketing fuel prices wouldn't be so painful today!

[Bruce Wilder]

Of course, there was one large-scale infrastructure project: it is called the Internet.

It would be hell on commercial real estate, but with a smidgen of effort, the office commute could be reduced in frequency by more than half.

[ken melvin]

In states like say, Tennessee, Missouri, ... w/ gas at nearly $4/gal, there are people who can't afford to drive to their jobs.

[donna]

A little town in Missouri is now using wind power to produce 120% of its energy needs, selling the extra and making a profit.

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1568/86/

We need a new rural electrification act, except this time to develop alternative energy sources. It can be done.

[Cynthia]

Bruce,

There's no doubt that the internet is a great way to conserve fuel; it has its limits, though...

Most of us, unfortunately, can't conduct business without leaving the comforts of our home PCs. If this wasn't the case, major thoroughfares across America wouldn't look like freakin' parking lots every day!

[ken melvin]

Years ago, back in the eighties, I tried to market a wave energy engine of my patent. When there's money, the Lockheeds, ARCOs, ... swarm around and get most or all of it (not because of their proposal, but due their connections in DC). Little or no good comes from such. Tremendous waste. I'd like to see competition for ideas that excludes this lot. Research meeds be directed to alternative renewables. Sequestering carbon's fine, but doesn't solve the energy problem. "Chaos" tells us to beware messing with systems in equilibrium (this includes solar and such schemes as tapping the Gulf Stream).

[daveNYC]

The Supply could become a torrent from a trickle in 24 hours. But, it won't. So, what is OPEC up to?

I think that OPEC is producing at near 100% capacity. They're keeping a little in reserve in case there's some kind of supply shock.

We should upgrade our electrical infrastructure so that it can take advantage of distributed energy distribution. That would allow for the easier usage of energy from relatively unreliable sources (sun and wind). You have enough turbines then you can rely on the wind blowing on at least some of them. Same sort of gig for solar. Course, that might not cover 100% of our needs, but it hopefully will allow us to shut down some of the dirtier power plants.

[robertdfeinman]

Another content free essay. Wasn't it Krugman who just blamed scientists for being arrogant and reinventing the wheel that wise economists had already perfected? Sachs needs to get out more.

For a start he could read the The Oil Drum blog, which has actual experts posting daily: http://www.theoildrum.com/

To see what the EU is doing he might want to try the new blog by one of their energy commissioners:
http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/piebalgs/

Finally I repeat what I always say when the standard economist advice is offered:

Three objectives should be targeted: low-cost alternatives to fossil fuels, greater energy efficiency, and reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

There are four choices not three, the fourth one is using less in the absolute. Improving efficiency only postpones the inevitable or increases demand. Why can't economists understand that there are alternatives to a constant growth model?
How about Herman Daly, for another point of view:

Steady-State Economics

[Bruce Wilder]

robertdfeinman: "Another content free essay."

I am inclined to agree. He seems to auditioning for Peter Pan. I am not optimistic about the long-run; adult realism is needed more, right now, than recourse to the techno-fantasizing behind a "goal" like, "low-cost alternatives to fossil fuels". It reminds me of the that wonderful scene in the Jack Nicolson/Helen Hunt film, As Good As It Gets, where the JN character has come to Brooklyn in the early morning hours to declare his love to Helen Hunt's character. With her mother lurking behind a door, she confronts JN out in the stairwell, and in despair at the combination of his obvious sincerity and weirdness, she addresses God (as many of us are inclined to do, at times), "Why can't I have a normal boyfried. Just a regular boyfriend, who doesn't go nuts on me!" Her mother pops out from behind the door, where she's been secretly eavesdropping, and, in the hope of intervening to keep this promising relationship between JN and HH alive, she declares, "We all want that, dear. It doesn't exist."

We need to be adults about what it will take to manage the planet's environment, climate, resources and ecology. And, that means, I think accepting some things we'd maybe rather not, like maybe we need even high-cost alternatives to fossil fuels.

Many of the best alternatives from an environmental standpoint are fairly "high-cost" (though maybe not so costly as to require forfeiting the future health of the planet). Solar and wind are going to require a major investment, not just in generation, but in energy storage and transmission infrastructure. This is not going to be cheap, and we should stop wish otherwise, and do what needs to be done.

Recognizing that it will not be cheap, we can then recognize that a lot of our energy usuage is foolish and wasteful, and we can conserve. No pain proposals, like renewed CAFE standards for automobiles, are too little, too late, now; we need to face the reality that gas, which costs $4/gallon is still too cheap by half.

When we are ready to face the real, and high cost of energy, then we will start behaving appropriately, and not like greedy children, insisting on the reality of Santa Claus, in order to extract gifts from fantasy parents.

And, could we talk about over-population? All of these problems have a heavy component, which is simply too damn many human beings on this planet. Over-population, and reducing human population, while it is still possible to retain some semblance of humanity in policy, has to become part of the shared perspective.

[Paul G. Brown]

*shrugs*

Nuclear fission and cars with big batteries. By 2008.

Basic thermodynamics. You can neither create energy, nor destroy it. Any any time you try to work with it you will lose some of it.

[gordon]

Jamzo: "the media narrative that the US has no energy policy is untrue".

How true! The US taxpayer has subsidised energy on a big scale for years. Apparently the US Senate is debating an energy bill, but according to Public Citizen, it's not exactly a breakthrough.

[Patricia Shannon]

The U.S. is a bunch of spoiled wimps.

[Patricia Shannon]

I should have said
The U.S. middle and upper classes are a bunch of spoiled wimps.

[Patricia Shannon]

I already have a car that gets more than 30 mpg, and it was built in 1996 - a Geo Metro, 5-speed, 4-cylinder.

[ScentOfViolets]

Per an earlier thread plain vanilla nuclear fission can supply the worlds energy needs for thousands of years at a minimum.

The technological problem of nuclear waste storage has long since been solved; with the screws being tightened, I imagine it will be politically solved in fairly short order as well.

Then there are other promising technologies such as href="http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Anything-Into-Oil1may03.htm">thermal depolymerization for transportation needs. Batteries simply aren't that good for what's being demanded of them, and there are hard theoretical limits on battery technology. The only way the electric automobile would ever be a viable form of transportation would be it drivers were willing to live within the performance limits (that may not be as fantastic as it sounds.) Or maybe - blue skying here - electrify the roads, make electricity 'too cheap to meter' as was promised in the 50's.

[Lafayette]

Cy: ... when America's oil supply peaked many decades ago, our policy leaders didn't push for large-scale infrastructure projects with conservation in mind

This was done in preference to BigOil that had no interest whatsoever in conservation. Neither did Detroit when Americans went on their SUV binge. (We have no one to blame but ourselves. They gave us what we wanted at the time.)

Also, we elect presidents beholden to vested business interests, because we, the body politic, are wedded to a costly electioneering system. Meaning this: In order to sway opinion, enormous amounts of media hype is necessary -- which is especially costly.

The two party system has its advantages. But, we can certainly find a more efficient way to elect our representatives without it costing us half a billion dollars, as this presidential race will do.

Europe and the US are coming at the usage of the televised image from entirely different directions. That is, Europe is privatizing its TV channels whereas the US has never known a Public Service TV.

Europe is right to deregulate its TV - which need not be a Public Service sponsored by the state. But, in doing so, many European countries still have an oversight body that maintains a tutelary function. TV channels in Europe are becoming private -- but NOT self-regulating, thank God. (As we have seen all too often, self-regulation is an oxymoron when left to businesses alone.)

This means that the supervising authority can instill a strict usage of campaign funding in order to assure it is not lopsided (meaning one party buys all the best spots for a political commercial) and all political parties have a fair chance to expound their political platforms.

Campaigns are therefore far less dependent upon donor money to be run. Which is goodness, since it cuts many of the umbilical cords between vested business interests and politicians.

[baileyman]

"low-cost alternatives to fossil fuels"

Yes, but there is nothing out there I've seen that has anything close to the energy ROI of fossil fuels. Put a few gallons into pumping and you get a barrel out of it. Most everything else has a payback in many years and that's only to get back the investment, not multiply it as in oil.

I don't think economists have AT ALL thought about how a dramatic reduction in energy ROI could work its way through the economy.

[Lafayette]

bm: Yes, but there is nothing out there I've seen that has anything close to the energy ROI of fossil fuels.

Because you are not factoring damages from climate change to property and life?

The ROI-calculations, were you to do them, would be very different, I suspect.

[baileyman]

Lafayette :

Yes, as far as you go. Energy ROI is an energy in, energy out calculation. It has nothing to do with other costs. The best that can be said about most alternatives is, sure, they're clean, but intrinsically uninteresting.