Ten Senators I would like to Thank
06 Aug 08 | CommentaryFinally, there seems to be a few people who are willing to compromise on an energy plan. It may not be perfect, but it is a thousand times better than what we have right now. For almost a year now, Republican Senators have been blocking the extension of the renewable energy tax credits. For about a month, the Democrats have been blocking any action on new off shore drilling. Both sides have been pointing fingers and other blaming each other for the current and looming energy crisis that we now face.
Even Paris Hilton came up with a better plan than the Bush/Cheney response, which seems to be somewhat muted. Paris Hilton for God’s sake.
Finally, 10 Senators, Democratic and Republican, came together to form a plan. The major aspects include:
- Expanding drilling opportunities off the East coast and Gulf of Mexico, which pleases Republicans
- Keeping a ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, a concession to Democrats
- Repealing a tax break for oil companies that Democrats have long called for
- Putting billions toward producing more alternative-fuel vehicles, in part paid for by the oil and gas industry
I don’t see any mention of extending the renewable energy credits in there, perhaps it is something they are still working on. In any case, at least they are trying to do something. Who are the ten Senators I’d like to Thank? They are these:
- Kent Conrad, D-North Dakota
- Saxby Chambliss, R-Georgia
- ohn Thune, R-South Dakota
- Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina
- Blanche Lincoln, D-Arkansas
- Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana
- Johnny Isakson, R-Georgia
- Bob Corker, R-Tennessee
- Mark Pryor, D-Arkansas
- Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska.
Thank you for caring and taking a stand, one that may be unpopular with your party and perhaps your constituents, but none the less, something that needs to be done.
Related posts
Tags: Commentary
The Truth about Offshore Oil Drilling
04 Aug 08 | Commentary, Conservation, EnvironmentYou have been hearing all sorts of things about drilling for oil offshore. The White House insists that it is the answer to at least some of our energy problems. Various news organizations have put out some interesting, if not slightly contrary and confusing stories on the subject.
I thought I’d boil it down to U.S. product vs. U.S. consumption.
Oil is a world wide market commodity, which means just because it was produced in the U.S. doesn’t mean it will be used here. Think of it as a huge jug with a bunch of straws stuck in it. Everyone sucks out what they need and then pays for it. That being said, I am going to analyze this as if it where only a U.S. problem, e.g. all oil produced, including the new offshore oil, will only be used in the U.S.
The offshore oil facts:
- The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proven non-producing reserves are 5.2 billion barrels (5,147,000,000) of oil. Some estimates show about 18 billion barrels (18,000,000,000) of recoverable oil in the offshore areas currently closed to drilling. Other estimates are much higher, about 78 billion barrels. For sake of argument, we will use The President’s numbers (18 billion).
- The U.S. currently uses 20.68 million barrels (20,680,000) of oil per day. This is projected to rise at 1.4% per year (source: DOE).
- The U.S. currently produces 5.064 million barrels (5,064,000) of oil per day. This is decreasing by about 1% per year (source: DOE)
- At current use rates, drilling in the offshore areas currently closed would provide about 2.4 years of oil (18,000,000,000 bl ÷ 20,680,000 bl/day = 870.4 days or 2.4 years ).
- It will take at least 10 years to bring the first oil well on line, by that time we will be using 23.77 million barrels per day and producing 4.58 million barrels per day. By this math, the new reserve could supply 938 days (18,000,000,000 bl ÷ (23,770,000 bl/day - 4,580,000 bl/day = 19,190,000 bl/day) = 938 days) or ~2.6 years of oil including current production.
Any way you slice it, clearly we have a problem. Drilling in offshore areas will give us 2.6 years of oil. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is though to contain about 10.4 billion barrels of oil. If drilling were allowed there, it would add 503 days (~1.4 years) to our oil supply.
Thus, the total Bush energy plan would add ~4 years of crude oil to our dwindling supply. Clearly not a long term plan. Even if we allow for reduced consumption due to higher prices, the outlook does not look good. During the first part of 2008, gasoline usage dropped by 1% over the same period in 2007. Overall demand for light sweat crude fell by about the same amount. For all the hullabaloo about high prices, not much of a dent.
Start thinking about this, plan ahead and be prepared. Perhaps nothing bad will happen, perhaps somehow energy use will be properly managed and everything will be okay…
Related posts
Tags: energy costs, peak oil
Do solar panels increase global warming?
01 Aug 08 | EnvironmentI have had several people tell me that solar panels, both photovoltaic and thermal, increase climate change, aka global warming due to the local “Heat Islanding” effect.
Others have said the cost (in CO2) of manufacturing and shipping solar panels is more than there subsequent use would eliminate.
Solar panel Heat Islanding
There is some validity to the first concern. If you take an area that was normally light reflective and put a solar panel in it, less light is being reflected and thus more heat is being generated. However, in the case of a solar thermal panel, most of that heat is then conducted away by Heat Transfer Fluid (HTF) for use or storage. A typical solar thermal panel is 65-70% efficient at converting and removing the energy striking it. The remaining 30-35% of the energy is either reflected off of the glazing or the absorber plate or it is lost due to heat transfer inefficiencies, insulation losses, etc. In short, a solar thermal panel is very efficient at collecting energy and removing it. Having a solar thermal panel on the roof of your house would reduce the solar gain because most of the heat energy is being removed to another location and the panel shades the roof it is attached to.
Photovoltaics however, are not as efficient as solar thermal. The average PV panel in use today is around 15% efficient. Some of the energy passes through the panel and some of it is reflected. Therefore, about 80% the energy striking the panel is converted to heat. The average insolation on earth at mean sea level is 1,000 watts per square meter per hour.
A 4.3 KW grid tied solar system has 24 Sanyo HIP190BA3 PV modules. Each Module is 1.16 M2. The total area is 26.78 M2. Therefore the total energy striking this array is 26.78 KW/hr. The total heat being generated by this array on a sunny day is about 22 KW/hr or about 75,000 BTU/hr. In the mean time, it is producing 4.3 KW of electricity. The average peak sun hours in the Hudson Valley is 4.5 per day so this system can be expected to produce an average of 19.35 kWh per day or 7063 kWh per year. Electricity production in the United States is about 32% efficient. Therefore, that 19.35 kWh if purchased from the power company, would have produced 13.16 KW of waste heat and 32.9 pounds of CO2 vs 99 KW of waste heat and zero pounds of CO2. This system will save 12,000 pounds of CO2 per year or 150 tons of CO2 over a 25 year life.
This should trigger two questions; How much of the sun’s energy would have been absorbed by the surface of the earth and turned into heat regardless of the solar panel and what importance does CO2 have on climate change. To answer the first question is rather complicated. It depends on the color of the surface, the angle of the sun striking the surface and the atmospheric insulative effect. The second question is a little easier to answer
CO2 in the production of solar panels
It takes about 3.6 years (in average insolation) for a PV cell to make the energy used in its production. Therefore, over a PV cell’s 25 year life, it will produce electricity and contribute 86% less CO2 than electricity generated by fossil fuels. This reducing in CO2, a known Green House Gas (GHG) which is thought to be significantly contributing to the global rising in temperatures more than off sets the local heat island effect that PV panels have.
Solar thermal panels take much less time to payback because they are made mainly from copper (absorber plate and piping), aluminum (frame and mounting), insulation and glass. These materials are readily recyclable which greatly reduced the energy required for extraction and refining. Additionally, a solar thermal panel is much more efficient at collecting energy, so the energy payback comes in about 1.5 years. Most solar HW systems have some type of AC pump. Taking that into consideration, the Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROEI) while the system is operational is about 15, or for every 1 watt of electricity used, 15 watts of energy are gained. In the Hudson Valley, a two panel SDHW system can expect to save about 3,350 kWh per year. That equals about 5,690 pounds of CO2 per year or 71 tons of CO2 over a 25 year life span.
Related posts
Tags: climate change, Environment, photovoltaics, solar thermal
Central Hudson is requesting a rate hike
29 Jul 08 | Solar ElectricIn one of the stranger press releases I have read in a while, Central Hudson Energy Group (NYSE:CHG) states:
Higher energy costs induced our customers to use less energy… the weakening economy has further induced our customers to use less energy… As a result, we believe it is necessary and prudent to take two actions. First, we are reducing our earnings guidance for 2008, and second, we are filing a utility rate case to bring our revenues into line with the costs to serve our customers. (emphasis mine)
Which is interesting in a way. The stock holders of a publicly traded company expect a certain payout over time, the utility company does everything in it’s power to provide that payout, including reducing line men and support staff, ect. However, when the economy really hits the floor and people begin conserving electricity so they can still pay for it, it is time to ask for a rate increase. Nice. By the way, I am already paying ¢16.8/kWh. How much higher can it go?
This is the problem with a publicly traded utility company. The most important thing is not the customer or the quality of service, its the bottom line on a P&L. It is more important to the CEO and the board of directors to keep the stock value high so they can get their yearly bonus and retire to Martha’s Vineyard than to provide good, reasonably priced electrical service to the community.
So, what is a homeowner to do? If you have read this blog, you already know the answer to that. Take control of the situation and be your own power company. Photovoltaics are looking more and more competitive these days especially with the state incentives available. As energy prices continue to rise and PV prices either stay relatively the same or drop, the utility companies will find themselves competing head to head with renewable energy products. They may find that they are pricing themselves out of a customer.
Update: It looks like they are filing for 3.5% increase on electricity and 10% on natural gas.
Related posts
Tags: energy costs, photovoltaics, utility companies
Coal Power, our competitor.
28 Jul 08 | EnvironmentGet ready. As the energy crisis deeps, we will start to see more and more advertising by large scale energy producers about how drilling for more oil off the coast or in ANWR or perhaps removing more mountain tops in West Virgina will help us out of our problem.
The truth is, we are in it too deep for any of that to make much difference. WE have to transition to a new energy economy, one that depends more on distributed energy generation than huge centralized generating facilities. There will be many nay sayers that will say physics do not support the concept, or it will be too expensive, or take too long. The nay sayers are wrong.
Physics do support the switch to renewable energy to power almost all of our needs. Heavy transportation may still need to rely on fossil fuels for now, everything else can be powered by electric, which can be generated by solar, wind, hydro, wave, tidal, ocean currents etc. Distributed generation is better than centralized generation because the electrical grid is less likely to suffer a catastrophic failure, like it did in the summer of 2003 during the Northeast blackout.
Remove the oil and coal subsides. That will lower our federal taxes, something that is near and dear to the heart of every conservative, and allow the energy market to float on the economy, the way it is supposed to. Then you will see solar, wind, etc, etc, become viable competitors. The renewable energy sector would not have to rely on handouts from congress every few years to stay in business.
As far as a time frame, drilling in the north slope of Alaska or the continental shelf will take too long. It will be at least 10 years from drilling the first well until the time the first barrel of oil hits the market. While we wait, the economy will crash, we will all be broke or owned by Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, the production of solar and wind products are on the rise. New manufacturing capacity for raw materials and finished products is being added every year. R and D continues and new more efficient methods are coming on line.
The sooner we focus on that solution, the better off we will be.
This is a pretty good example of how large companies try to spin there environmentally disastrous products with some nice music and neighborly looking people.
Coal power. Cheap. Abundant. Cheap.
At the end of the ad, they should run a fast speaking disclaimer like all the used car adds you hear on the radio. Something like this:
This ad does not represent the truth. Using coal power releases sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, mercury, radio active elements and other harmful substances into the atmosphere. Sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides cause acid rain, carbon monoxide is a deadly gas, carbon dioxide may increase global warming, mercury causes birth defects and brain damage, radio active elements cause birth defects and are a known carcinogen. The mining of coal seriously disrupts the environment and leads to permanent damage in most cases. Jobs created by coal industry are dangerous, low paying and often lead to black lung disease or other deadly health conditions. Use with caution.
WE need to make sure that the government does what WE want, lets stay focused. Don’t be fooled by all the hype in slick marketing.