My Position Statement on a Variety of Energy Issues
Join the forum discussion on this post
Welcome to the new R-Squared! Our goals here are to provide a place to engage in respectful and thoughtful debate about the very important issue of energy.
I thought it might be a good idea to summarize my positions on a wide variety of energy issues. Here I will attempt to briefly cover my views on oil, coal, ethanol (cellulosic, corn, and sugarcane), renewable diesel (green and biodiesel), nuclear power, solar power, wind power, and then climate change. I don’t intend to cover a lot of ground explaining my positions in detail; I will save that for future essays.
The most important thing to note is that I try to let the data determine my position. But that also means that as new data come in, my position may shift. Therefore, my positions shouldn’t be viewed as being etched in stone.
I try to take a scientific approach in which data have to constantly be sifted through, categorized according to level of credibility, and incorporated into the position as appropriate. Of course the categorization step is important, because there are studies that are funded by interest groups that I put into a vastly different category than independent, peer-reviewed research.
To put my positions into perspective, let me explain how I see the world. First, I view energy as one of the most critical underpinnings of our society. Without energy, modern society falls apart. Thus, I think energy policy is a critically important – and very underrated – issue.
I believe renewable energy is critical to our future. Development of renewable energy is what I do for a living. But I am also an advocate of responsible use of taxpayer money. But what I see a lot of in the world today is taxpayer money flowing to companies that are just out hyping their technologies. I don’t want to see energy policy influenced by gross exaggerations, and yet that is the situation I see today. That is what motivates me to write.
Here is a rundown, with the briefest of explanations, on where I see the world of energy today. I will break this up in transportation fuels, electricity, and then a word on climate change. This list is by no means comprehensive, but I have tried to include the major contenders/pretenders.
Transportation Fuels
Corn ethanol – My position on corn ethanol is often distorted by supporters of U.S. ethanol policy. I am not against corn ethanol. What I am against are some of the policies that we have put in place, such as subsidies on top of mandates. The benefits of corn ethanol are typically exaggerated by various interest groups, and what I try to do is sift the real from the hype to understand what corn ethanol is actually delivering for the taxpayer investments we are making. That usually runs afoul of the hype, and thus I am painted as anti-ethanol. What I would like to see corn ethanol do is get the fossil fuels out of their operations.
Sugarcane ethanol – Has some distinct advantages over corn ethanol. Two of the key challenges for producing ethanol are logistics of getting low-energy-density biomass in, and the energy required to convert to ethanol and purify. These issues aren’t much of a factor for sugarcane ethanol, because clean waste biomass is already at the plant as a result of the sugarcane processing. So they essentially have free boiler fuel, which minimizes the fossil fuel inputs into the process. That enables ethanol production that is relatively cheap, and that is largely decoupled from the impact of volatile fossil fuel prices.
Cellulosic ethanol – More hype than substance. This was the topic of my graduate school research in the early 90’s, and even then there was a very long history. In fact, cellulosic ethanol has been commercialized multiple times around the world, beginning in 1898 in Germany. The U.S. built two plants during World War I and shut them both down after the war due to poor economics. Another was built in the U.S. during WWII in Oregon, never produced ethanol during the war, and was closed down after the war. During the past decade there has been a race to reinvent the wheel and become the “first” to commercialize cellulosic ethanol. Worse, groups doing gasification to mixed alcohols started calling their product cellulosic ethanol. But there are very fundamental differences.
Renewable diesels – There are two major types, biodiesel and green diesel. There are two different ways to make green diesel; gasification and subsequent Fischer-Tropsch or hydrocracking vegetable oils or animal fats. Biodiesel relies heavily on methanol, almost exclusively fossil-fuel derived, and will never in my opinion be viable without subsidies. The green diesels are expensive to produce, but have more long-term promise in being able to make a real contribution to the energy mix.
Algal fuel – A subset of renewable diesel. As with cellulosic ethanol, more hype than substance here. There are a couple of possible routes that could work, but right now algal fuel is a very long ways from the market. Beware of those who promise $2 or $3 fuel from algae.
Petroleum – While I have a background in the oil industry, I don’t wish to see the world continue to rely on petroleum. There are many reasons that I will detail in a future post, but I think we have built a society that is far too dependent on oil. The consequences of oil shortages in a petroleum-dependent world are severe, and that is a risk that I don’t believe we can afford in the long run. On the other hand, I recognize the reality that the world has long run on cheap petroleum, and we will need petroleum for many years to come. Thus, I don’t favor punitive legislation that causes artificial shortages while demand is still high.
Natural gas – Much cleaner than coal for the production of electricity, and the U.S. is in a pretty good position with respect to supply. Can be used to produce electricity, heat homes, or even fuel cars. A key question for me in the corn ethanol debate is whether it makes more sense to directly fuel cars with natural gas instead of converting the natural gas into fertilizer for the corn and then steam for the distillation of the ethanol.
Electricity
Wind power – Cost effective in some locations, but hindered by the intermittent nature of the source. Some issues with bird kills and noise, but my overall impression of wind has always been favorable.
Solar power – I love the idea of solar power, but costs and intermittency are a problem at present for solar PV. Solar thermal may be a more cost-effective option, and it also has the advantage of being able to produce power after the sun sets (up until the temperature of the thermal mass gets too low).
Geothermal – One of my favorite clean electricity technologies. In the right location, geothermal can be a very cost effective and clean producer of electricity. Deep geothermal is another matter, as it has been linked to triggering earthquakes.
Hydropower – Same class as geothermal for me. While there are some issues, this is the case with all energy sources, and hydropower’s issues are mild compared to some other energy sources. Comparatively, hydropower ranks very high on my list.
Coal – Very similar situation to oil. We have created a society that is very dependent on coal, and there are numerous environmental issues associated with coal. On the other hand, it is easy to see why we are so coal-dependent: It is very cheap relative to other fuel sources, and it provides reliable power. In the minds of consumers, cheap and reliable has historically won out over environmental concerns.
Nuclear – If you look at the projections for the growth of electricity demand – combined with the desires of many to see coal plants phased out – there is no other option than nuclear that can deliver the desired amounts of electricity. So I think we are going to need to expand nuclear power in the years ahead.
Climate Change
This is really too complex to summarize briefly, and in doing so I am afraid my position may be misunderstood. Whether you accept the idea that man is contributing to climate change, I don’t believe it is a good idea to conduct such a grand experiment on the atmosphere because the ultimate consequences can’t be predicted. However, I can’t see any trajectory that will result in a global decline in CO2 emissions. Despite all of the best efforts (e.g., Kyoto Protocol), global CO2 concentrations continue to increase. As China and India continue to industrialize and improve their standards of living, they will demand cheap power. Any way I look at it, global CO2 concentrations will continue to head up until we start to run short of fossil fuels.
None of that is to imply that I don’t think it is very serious issue. My position has long been that I am not an expert in the field, and so I defer to the experts. The consensus has always seemed to me that atmospheric scientists believe that the activities of mankind are contributing to climate change.
On the other hand, I also believe that the issue should continue to be debated. There is far too much rancor over climate change, with each side hurling accusations and insults. Let the debate take place in a respectful manner, and let’s not try to shout down the other side, or suppress information. But at the end of the day, it just seems to me that our efforts to stop rising carbon emissions are futile.
I have certainly left out a lot, and major details are missing. Most of the energy options I mentioned above will be expounded upon in future essays. Or, if you don’t want to wait, feel free to start that conversation yourself.
The 15 Most Recent Comments to "My Position Statement on a Variety of Energy Issues" are Displayed Below
Respond to the Article and View All 95 Comments in the Forums
Or Just Leave a Reply
About Me
Subscribe To R-Squared
Advertisement
Links
Forbes Energy News
The Oil Drum
The Energy Collective
Article Describing My Grad School Research
PPT Describing My Grad School Research
Advertisement
Guest Content
Doug Band attempts to bring the World Cup to the U.S.
CER Forums: Recent Topic Activity
-
Leaked Study on Peak Oil Warns of Severe Global Energy Crisis
by Walter Sobchak on September 2, 2010 at 11:41 PM
-
E85 Case Study: Iowa
by Paul N on September 2, 2010 at 8:26 PM
-
Web server down for a bit; hopefully running smoothly now
by Samuel R. Avro on September 1, 2010 at 3:12 PM
-
Algae to Ethanol Processing without drying
by Paul N on September 1, 2010 at 1:10 PM
“Kit, you are a piece of work.”
I suppose this is RR idea of being
civil.
RR said mercury is released from Coal
fired power plants but failed to document any problem from those
releases.
This is why I do not take RR seriously.
He does not understand the fundamentals. It is the dose that makes
the poison.
According to the CDC, which is part of
the federal government and not a coal company, says the risk of mercury is
zero because no one is above the threshold of harm.
The risk to everyone in the US is
insignificant from all sources of emissions from any coal plant in
the US.
“I guess I really shouldn’t worry
about it, because since I can’t see it there surely isn’t a problem.”
I worry about problems I can measure.
I worry about problems in my backyard. We as a nation monitor for
problems.
So RR thinks I am a ‘piece of work’
because I follow a systematic approaches like ISO 14000.
I worry about problems I can measure.
You can’t measure what you aren’t interested in measuring.
So RR thinks I am a ‘piece of work’
because I follow a systematic approaches like ISO 14000.
No,
you are a piece of work for chiding people for their sources, and then
turning around and using the coal lobby as your source that mercury
isn’t a problem. I guess you don’t believe smoking is harmful either.
After all the cigarette lobby has put out studies to that effect.
According to the CDC, which is part of
the federal government and not a coal company, says the risk of mercury is
zero because no one is above the threshold of harm.
Please document your claim. In fact, you can go to the CDC website and see
that they have written reports dealing with specific cases of mercury
exposure. In fact, their statements directly contradict your statement
above.
Further:
http://www.usgs.gov/themes/fac…..et/146-00/
“People are exposed to methylmercury almost entirely by eating
contaminated fish and wildlife that are at the top of aquatic
foodchains. The National Research Council, in its 2000 report on the
toxicological effects of methylmercury, pointed out that the population
at highest risk is the offspring of women who consume large amounts of
fish and seafood. The report went on to estimate that more than 60,000
children are born each year at risk for adverse neurodevelopmental
effects due to in utero exposure to methylmercury. In its 1997 Mercury
Study Report to Congress, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
concluded that mercury also may pose a risk to some adults and wildlife
populations that consume large amounts of fish that is contaminated by
mercury.
Alkali and metal processing, incineration of coal, and medical and
other waste, and mining of gold and mercury contribute greatly to
mercury concentrations in some areas, but atmospheric deposition is the
dominant source of mercury over most of the landscape. Once in the
atmosphere, mercury is widely disseminated and can circulate for years,
accounting for its wide-spread distribution.”
This is why I do not take RR seriously.
He does not understand the fundamentals. It is the dose that makes
the poison.
I am quite happy to let readers decide which one of us is credible and which isn’t.
RR
“I am quite happy to let readers
decide which one of us is credible and which isn’t.”
RR is interested in winning a
popularity contest while remaining ignorant.
Once again talks about risk without
quantifying it. Is the risk significant?
This link might help you RR.
http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/
Yes it was linked by ‘using the coal
lobby as your source’.
I suspect RR did not bother to read my
links and keep an open mind.
The reason RR comes to the wrong
conclusion is that he does not use standard methodology which is not
taught at blogging school.
In the this case the method is Source,
Pathway, and Receptor (SPR) analysis.
“Please document your claim. In fact,
you can go to the CDC website”
Been there many times RR, it is in fact
RR is not documenting his claims.
Some me the children above the
threshold of harm, show me the source of mercury is coal fired power
plants.
RR tactics are typical of anti-s. He
makes outrageous claims and demands others prove a negative. If
there is a significant problems, finding a smoking gun should be
easy.
RR can find an infinite number of web
sites that does document his concerns. He can not find people with
toxic levels of mercury from coal. Because these people do not exist
in the US.
Robert,
Can you clarify one part of your position on RFS mandates and VEETEC blender’s credits. There is no penalty associated with blenders not blending to the RFS mandate is there? And if there is not, isn’t an additional incentive needed to make this happen?
“There is no penalty associated with blenders not blending to the RFS mandate is there?”
There absolutely are penalties associated with not meeting the RFS. The RFS falls under the Clean Air Act, and as such refiner’s are bound to meet their mandates or suffer EPA penalties. Think about it. If there were enforcement mechanism in place, then the RFS would just be a friendly suggestion, no different at all from just having the subsidies in place. But if you note when the RFS became law, ethanol blending really took off at that point.
RR
Kit writes: “I suspect RR did not bother to read my
links and keep an open mind. “
Where Kit and I differ: I actually linked to a source at the USGS and quoted the portions that support my argument. Kit completely ignores that, insists that I am not supporting my argument, and links to an 18 meg file and suggests the report supports his point. Meanwhile, the very CDC that Kit says supports him has very direct statements in contradiction of Kit’s claimed support. So perhaps Kit would be better served by pulling out and quoting the supporting statements instead of expecting me to read an 18 meg report for signs that support his argument.
“R can find an infinite number of web
sites that does document his concerns. He can not find people with
toxic levels of mercury from coal. Because these people do not exist
in the US.”
That’s priceless, Kit. Mercury has been shown to be building up in the food chain. Mercury emissions from coal are implicated in this build-up. The toxic effect of mercury is well-known, as people have been poisoned by mercury. Kit wants people to start falling over dead before mercury emissions are acknowledged as a problem.
Kit, there are some things you don’t seem to understand. One is around risk assessment. If you have a known risk factor that is increasing, the standard isn’t “Yeah, but people aren’t dying yet.”
One very unusual thing about traveling around New Zealand is that there is often zero airport security. I mean zip; no ID, no metal detector. Why? Because there have been no terror attacks on planes from New Zealand. I remember when that was true in the U.S., and we used Kit’s standard on our risk assessments there of waiting for a tragedy before acting proactively…
RR
“RR tactics are typical of anti-s. He makes outrageous claims and demands others prove a negative. If there is a significant problems, finding a smoking gun should be easy.”
Ah, I meant to comment on this as well. This is another of your inconsistencies. When it suits you, you are the most negative person on the board. I don’t just mean negative, but negative and mean-spirited. Then when you are taking the pro-position, you call others the very name that embodies your own arguments. It is typical of the hypocritical nature of how you argue. Further, I would once again point out that the standard “If there is a significant problems, finding a smoking gun should be easy” is exactly the sort of standard that has led to problems again and again.
In my world, I don’t wait for disaster before acting. I realize that is the way it is in a lot of places, and apparently in your world – but I can recognize many dangers prior to them becoming disasters and then realizing “Maybe we should do something about that before it happens again.” Apply your standard to the dangers of cigarette smoking. The anti’s threw up smokescreens for years as more and more people died. Eventually, it became obvious to all, but the Kit P’s of the world delayed action by standing around saying “Show me with 100% certainty that it was cigarettes that killed this man.” Or, “Show me with 100% certainty that this huge pile of coal ash poses a danger…”
RR
“and then turning around and using
the coal lobby as your source that mercury isn’t a problem. I guess
you don’t believe smoking is harmful either. After all the cigarette
lobby has put out studies to that effect.”
RR brings up the cigarette lobby again
so I will address it. For those who are not aware, the electric
utilities are regulated public service entities with the
responsibility of providing electricity and protecting the
environment.
It is typical liberal clap trap to
equate marketing a consumer product with beneficial public service.
Neither my wife or I smoke, our children have ground up in smoke free
homes. Our parents and grandparents were almost all chain smokers.
The primary reason that I do not smoke
is that I could never see any benefit in it. I am sure Rufus will
agree that 40 years ago being a non-smoker in the military was rare
and cigarettes were subsidize. Aside from our children, I have not
encouraged anyone not to smoke. It is just none of my business.
Two years running, I represented my
school in the regional science fair. The year that Kennedy was
assassinated my project was on the hazards of smoking. The next year
I built an x-ray machine with tubes our of an old radio. I was a
teenage TV repairman before RR grew up to be part of the jet setting
throw it away society.
RR is just basically wrong about
mercury.
“Mercury has been shown to be
building up in the food chain.”
No, levels of mercury is declining in
the food chain. This is supported by every study I have read
including links that RR provided. This is a result of successful
regulations that have eliminated the largest sources of mercury. Now
coal which was a relatively small source (per power plant) is now the
largest source by industry but making electricity is very large
industry.
“emissions from coal are implicated
in this build-up”
Try legacy gold mining, smelting, and
making paper for the original build up which is not decreasing.
“people have been poisoned by
mercury”
Yes, a really long time ago before it
was regulated.
“contradiction of Kit’s”
Please cite page # of the CDC report.
If RR is a smart as he claims, he will be able to use the table of
contents to find the section on mercury.
RR you brought up mercury and made the
claim, support it.
“Kit wants people to start falling
over dead before mercury emissions are acknowledged as a problem.”
I just want RR to stop making stupid
statements about the industry I work in.
One of the interesting things about
mercury and the law of unintended consequences, is that tighter homes
can create a mercury inhalation hazard if mercury is spilled in the
home. The most recent case of mercury poisoning was two teenager
siblings who showed up in the emergency room with nerve damage so
severe they had trouble walking.
Turn out the cause was RR favorite
fossil fuel, natural gas. Those evil gas company workers (really
just not properly trained technician) managed to contaminate 9,000
homes replacing 100,000 gas meters.
Very interesting case study of the cost
of preventing a spill compared to calling the hazmat team to clean up
a mess.
Unlike RR my career has been dedicated
to being knowledge about how to protect the public, workers, and the
environment.
“If RR is a smart as he claims, he will be able to use the table of
contents to find the section on mercury. “
Kit’s way of not supporting his argument. He wants me to do the work of looking up the support for his argument. Nice try, bub, but you have to do your own work. I cited my source. You, on the other hand, have not. I asked you to document your claim and so far all we have is “The support is in that report. Go look it up.”
“Unlike RR my career has been dedicated to being knowledge about how to protect the public, workers, and the environment.”
Undoubtedly you believe this very strongly, because you have to constantly remind us that you consider yourself an expert. But you are really just some anonymous guy making claims on the Internet. From where I stand, you look like someone who had a couple of engineering classes in junior college, fancies himself an engineer but is really a technician, and directs his jealousy at real engineers who achieved the distinction that he wishes others would bestow upon him. But then again, I am no psychologist. Just a real engineer, with a real graduate degree in my field.
RR
“I cited my source.”
No, you have still not provided a
source for anyone being harmed. You do not have to be an environment
engineer to know there is a difference ‘could’ be harmed and ‘is’
being harmed.
Environment engineers like me use
numbers to quantify risk.
The risk of being harmed by the ugliest
oldest US coal plant is from all sources of emission is:
0.000001
RR brought up smoking. The risk of
being harmed by directly inhaling tobacco smoke on a regular basis
is:
0.999995
What these numbers mean in practical
terms it is very difficult to find anyone harmed by coal because they
do not exists.
On the other hand, finding someone who
has been harmed by smoking is very easy.
Environment engineers like me use
numbers to quantify risk.
The risk of being harmed by the ugliest
oldest US coal plant is from all sources of emission is:
0.000001
If you were really an environmental engineer, you would know not to use numbers out of context. If I have a coal plant in my backyard, then I have different risks than if one is thousands of miles away. If I average the risk across the entire population to come up with a small number, that doesn’t actually tell me whether a significant number of people are at risk. If 100 people are at a high level of risk and 100,000 are at no risk, the risk may come up as perfectly acceptable when averaged across the population. But that’s not how risks are assessed in the real world. We consider those 100 people and mitigate; we don’t say there isn’t a problem since the average risk to the rest of the population is low.
RR
The risk of being harmed by the ugliest oldest US coal plant in any US ‘backyard’ is from all sources of emission is:
0.000001
My numbers are not out context RR.
What that means is no one is harmed.
“But that’s not how risks are
assessed in the real world. We consider those 100 people and
mitigate”
That right RR and that is why the risk
of from producing electricity is insignificant.
Here is what RR does not understand.
The ugliest oldest US coal plant in the US is not the same ugliest
oldest US coal plant that was running downtown when I was a kid or
are currently running in China. Currently ugliest oldest US coal
plant in the US is a well maintained clean source of electricity.
Here is another example of what I am talking about with you using numbers out of context. The average risk that a coal ash deluge will arrive in your town is very low. It may be on the order of 0.000001. But the average risk that a coal ash deluge will arrive in specific towns is much higher, so we mitigate the risk for those towns, not the average.
And no, despite major clean-ups in recent years – something I have mentioned numerous times – there are still specific risks associated with living near certain coal-fired power plants or living/working around coal mines.
“Here is another example of what I am
talking about with you using numbers out of context.”
Here is another example of what anti-s
do. The change the subject and then accuse people of being out of
contest. What about this , what about that; on and on they go never
documenting actual examples.
While I was very specific about health
risk from emissions, RR is now tell me I am wrong about “The
average risk that a coal ash deluge will arrive in your town”.
Okay RR, you have changed the subject;
how about some data on the risk of ‘coal ash deluge’.
While the standards are the same for
public risk, we are now talking about the risk of an accident and not
routine. Has a ‘coal ash deluge’ harmed someone like the numerous
natural gas line pipeline that explosions that killed people because
the pipelines were poorly maintained. When drilling for natural gas,
are there impoundments that hold nasties for treatment and release?
Do drilling platforms blowup (because of a poor safety culture) and
helicopters crash?
Natural gas lobbies spend lots of time
pointing at coal but I think they should spend more time focused on
protecting the public and workers.
Guys after watching and hearing this discussion about climate change and global warming we are missing the fact that some day for sure oil reserves are going to be exhausted. So what we are going to do then? Wind energy definitely can’t replace the fossil fuels. Nuclear power is too dangerous and can fall into wrong hands.I feel that solar energy if fully tapped can be used. Moreover a lot of job opportunities can be created as well. Yesterday I did a little bit of research about the solar power potential on FreeCleanSolar.com and found out very nice info. I am fully convinced that solar is the future. Any comments??