I had a fantastic day yesterday soaking up knowledge at the Geothermal Energy Association workshop on financing geothermal projects. This was a business workshop with the morning focused on politics, regulation, and government agencies (note to politicos – less interference would be more here…) and the afternoon dedicated to the attributes required for fundable geothermal projects. The speakers were mostly engaging, the content was rich, and the room was awkwardly laid out, but had windows.

One thing I hadn’t realized (naively) was just how politicized the issue of renewable energy is. That became quite clear at the workshop and the elections last week will help as soon-to-be-Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is a geothermal fan (Nevada is rich in geothermal resources.) Hopefully, Congress and the Administration will choose to collaborate on renewable issues extending the production tax credit and making leases of BLM land and NEPA environmental assessments more accessible and faster. I’ll believe that when I see it…

Technorati Tags: Geothermal | Finance | Workshop

Exxon reported $10.5B in profit for their most recent quarter of activity. Another quarterly report, another $10B profit, it’s good to be Exxon. That’s what they call in the business, real money…$1350 profit per second.

If just this quarter of Exxon’s profit was invested in renewable electricity generation using wind, it could fund approximately 10 GW of production leading to around 26 terawatt hours (TWh) (or 26,280,000,000,000 watt hours) of power and that could displace about 26 million kilotons of pollutants annually. This would require the investment of just ONE quarter’s profit.

The economic payback? About 13 years at current electric power prices ($30/MWh net of expenses.)

The lifetime profit? ~$11B.

The public relations and image value? Priceless.


Technorati Tags: Energy | Exxon | Profit

If it wasn’t so sad, it would be funny that many countries with interests counter to the US are profiting immensely from our energy demands. Let’s face it, our appetite for energy in the US is insatiable. As a result, we can as a country be held hostage by those who have the resources necessary to supply our habit and those same people may engage in outright hostile activities toward the US with very little worry of reprisal (with the present situation in Iraq.)

What is the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) anyway? According to the OPEC website it is:

OPEC is a permanent, intergovernmental organization consisting of 11 developing nations, whose economies rely on oil export revenues. One of OPEC’s primary missions is to achieve stable oil prices, which are fair and reasonable to consumers and producers.

If we view the dictionary.com definition of cartel, it states: an international syndicate, combine, or trust formed especially to regulate prices and output in some field of business. Let’s be plain about this, OPEC was founded to be a cartel, has the mission of a cartel, and is a cartel beholden to no one, but it’s 11 member states. Curiously, if the consumers of it’s product were smart enough and had sufficient will to respond to the cartel in an organized and consistent way, they could bring it down. (Other than demanding that the cartel produce more and not charge too much for that right…..which is what these consumers do now.) Why does this cartel have so much power? Because it controls 78% of the world’s proven petroleum reserves (897 billion barrels.)

Just who are the 11 OPEC member states?

• Algeria – Former French colony, now an unstable Arab state, 99% Sunni Muslim
• Indonesia – Former Dutch colony and Japanese possession, now a populous, predominantly Muslim (88%) state
• Iran – Formerly known as Persia, now a militant Islamic state suspected of supporting terrorism globally. Recently has asserted its right to join the nuclear nation club.
• Iraq – We’ve all heard enough about Iraq over the past 16 years.
• Kuwait – Former British colony, compartitively friendly post-liberation from Iraq, predominantly Muslim.
• Libya – Former Ottoman and Italian colony, recently reformed renouncing terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, predominantly Muslim.
• Nigeria – Former British colony, now an unstable African state, about 50% Muslim.
• Qatar – Former British protectorate, now a stable Arab state, predominantly Muslim.
• Saudi Arabia – A stable, Islamic monarchy. 100% Muslim.
• United Arab Emirates – Former British protectorate, progressive state by middle-eastern standards, predominantly Muslim.
• Venuzeula – Former Spanish colony and part of Gran Colombia, now stable socialist state, predominantly Catholic.

What do all these member states have in common? In general, they don’t care much for the US or our policies, but they’re happy to take our money to invest in our ultimate destruction. It’s rare to find such true irony.

By now you might be thinking “well this is depressing.” It is, but doesn’t have to be. With the technologies we have TODAY, we can make the decision to become independent of cartels simply by switching our focus and investment to renewable energy technology, both in electricity generation and in transportation. It can’t happen overnight, but it can happen within 20 years. BTW, what do you think you’ll be paying for a gallon of gasoline in 2026? I’ll bet you’re not saying $2.50…. A funny thing happens to unified producers when their largest, most dependent customer ceases to buy their product – they unravel from the inside out.

We have the ability to disentangle ourselves from this mess, shame on us if we don’t act upon it. The time to start is now.


Technorati Tags: Energy | Oil | OPEC

That’s a question I’ve gotten routinely. Here’s the “official” definition from the US Government used to purchase renewable energy:

Executive Order 13323: Renewable energy is energy produced from biomass, geothermal, solar, and wind sources.

Practically speaking, renewable energy is energy whose source is not destroyed when harnessed. The principal renewable energy sources in use today are:

• Hydro: Harnesses water action (gravity, tides, etc.)
• Solar Thermal: Harnesses the Sun’s heat
• Solar Photovoltaic: Harnesses the Sun’s photons
• Wind: Harnesses wind currents
• Geothermal: Harnesses the heat of the Earth
• Biomass: Harnesses photosynthesis process

Each of these sources has a number of different technologies associated with their capture and translation to energy in our society. For instance, in the wind case, wind energy is translated to mechanical energy by physically turning a shaft. That shaft in turn is connected to a generator which translates the mechanical energy into electrical energy. Wind energy has one huge advantage over say, natural gas fired electricity generation: Wind is free. That economic benefit can’t help but assert itself as fossil fuels become more scarce and more expensive.

Besides not destroying the source of the energy, renewable energy sources often have other benefits like low levels pollutants emitted into the atmosphere. Renewable energy is also termed sustainable because of its unique properties. The renewable energy sources exist, the technologies to harness these sources exist, therefore there is little reason not to pursue renewable energy both for electricity generation and for transportation.


Technorati Tags: Renewable | Energy | Sources

In previous entries we’ve discussed how much electricity the US is producing and consuming, what the sources of generation are, and how much it costs from a monetary perspective. But there are other costs.

This entry will focus on the largest fuel source for electricity generation, coal. This is an ancient source that is well understood and drives a massive supply chain from real estate with mineral rights clear through mining and transportation and finally ending up in places like electricity generation. Without a doubt the technology for oxidizing (burning) coal to create heat which in turn is transferred to liquids which through phase change from liquid to gas pressurize and then drive turbines attached to generators, has improved dramatically. Back during the early days of the industrial revolution cities like Pittsburgh were covered in smog and soot.

The state of the art today is that approximately 1,000 kg (~2,200 lbs) of carbon dioxide and approximately 13kg of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are emitted into the atmosphere for each MWh of power generated by burning coal. As is well known, carbon dioxide is a major contributor to global warming and the sulfur and nitrogen oxides are key ingredients to acid rain. This level of emissions is a vast improvement from the late 19th century, but still constitutes a problem. With 5% of the population of the earth, the US is responsible for 23% of carbon dioxide emissions on the planet (not just electricity generation, transportation has alot to do with that number as well.) (Source: US Environmental Protection Agency.)

One of the key challenges in limiting emissions is the increasing demand for electricity. Right now, the demand is outstripping the new cleaner generation technology’s installation rate which means that older, less efficient, more polluting coal generation plants are staying in production longer than is desirable. Each time a new technology (be it natural gas or photovoltaics) is deployed, it either meets new demand or displaces older, less cost effective generation technologies. Given the increasing cost of fossil fuels, there is an opportunity to focus our attention more completely on the installation of renewable electric generation at a scale that makes the economics attractive in addition to exceeding the growth in electricity demand. That could have the effect of displacing less effective generation technologies and as a side effect, limit harmful emissions.


Technorati Tags: Energy | Pollution | Emissions