As I have been researching and writing about Arctic energy development recently, there’s one important – and easy – policy prescription that often comes up: joining the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). As I mentioned in my article, “Energy Development in the Arctic: Threats and Opportunities” the USGS estimates that the Arctic region has 22% of the world’s undiscovered energy resources – and 84% of those resources are expected to occur offshore (so 18.5% of the undiscovered resources are on or under the Arctic seabed).

CONTINUE»

I am way behind on reading books that have been sent to me for review by various publishers. The pile on my desk is growing, because I have a bad habit of starting new books before I finish the one I am reading. Currently I am nearly finished with Oil’s Endless Bid, am halfway through Oil: Money, Politics, and Power in the 21st Century, and had started Amory Lovins’ Reinventing Fire until someone borrowed it from my office.

However, I did manage to recently finish Peter Tertzakian’s A Thousand Barrels a Second : The Coming Oil Break Point and the Challenges Facing an Energy Dependent World. This one had been on my bookshelf for a while (as opposed to the growing stack of books I have been sent to review), but it has been pretty high on my list of books to read. CONTINUE»

In this week’s episode of R-Squared Energy TV, I cover:

• Japan’s decision to abandon nuclear power (which will contend for the top energy story of the year — regardless of how it plays out)
• ConocoPhillips’ successful methane hydrates drilling test in the Arctic, and whether that means that methane hydrates will soon be a viable energy option
• The likelihood that gasoline prices have indeed peaked (for now)

A Moderate Willing to Work With Both Sides

I just wanted to take a quick moment to lament the loss of Senator Lugar to the Senate. He lost his Republican Primary election for the Indiana Senate seat last night by an astonishing 21 points. The issues of energy and environmental security, especially in how they affect America’s foreign policy, were central to his 36 years in the Senate. There were many other factors that helped bring him down — his age, the fact that he no longer lived in Indiana, and his votes on TARP and President Obama’s Supreme Court nominees.

Senator Lugar played a unique role in American energy and environmental policy because his position has really marked the center of American politics on these issues. That means that he’s been willing to work with both sides to get things done, and it also means that his views have shifted as the country’s views have shifted.

When I worked in the Senate, I had the opportunity to work with his staff on the Foreign Relations Committee, and there were few people anywhere on the Hill who were more professional. They simply were interested in seeking the best solutions on important issues, regardless of whether that solution came from the right of the left. One of my proudest moments was working to introduce and pass legislation for a clean-energy bank — now operated through the World Bank — that helps to fund clean energy development around the world. This truly was bipartisan, introduced by Senators Lugar, Biden, Menendez, and Hagel (my boss at the time). I am afraid, however, that this election marks the end of such solution-oriented legislating for a long time.
CONTINUE»

Earlier this week, the Washington Times wrote a particularly angry and irrational editorial arguing against the military planning for climate change. The proximate reason for their editorial was Secretary Panetta’s speech on May 2 at the Environmental Defense Fund in which he said “Climate Change has a Dramatic Impact on Our National Security.” ASP blogged about the speech last week.

Normally, I would not take the time to respond to the Washington Times editorial, as they are notorious for being at the far edge of the spectrum on this issue, and far away from any scientific mainstream, but some of the assertions are so scurrilous that they require a response. They simply cannot stand without being challenged.

They write that the national-security threat of climate change “is a fight America can’t afford.” However, as I have discussed before, a changing climate does pose real threats to America’s national security. Rising sea levels, changing precipitation patterns, increasingly dangerous weather disasters, and melting polar ice caps could destabilize countries, and the U.S. military must be prepared to react to the conflicts that could result from these changes. There is a robust academic argument about the precise linkages between climate and conflict, but that is not where this editorial goes.

Instead, there are some serious assertions in the editorial that must be responded to because they are so far from reality. I will precisely go through them.

CONTINUE»

A reader recently called my attention to a new and very interesting presentation from the Department of Energy’s Biomass Program:

Biofuels Design Cases

The presentation explored the question of whether the U.S. government is spending money on the right technology pathways. Costs were presented for biofuel produced from pyrolysis, algae, Fischer-Tropsch (FT), and methanol-to-gasoline (MTG) routes.

I want to share several slides from the presentation to give an idea of what the DOE thinks about the costs for producing biofuels via the various pathways. The first slide below shows the projected cost of production of biofuels via MTG, pyrolysis, and FT for the “Nth Biorefinery Plant” — which is defined as the projected fuel cost after a number of plants have been built and the learning curve has been mastered.

 Figure 1. DOE projections of costs for biofuel from MTG, pyrolysis, and FT routes.

CONTINUE»

One of the most contentious domestic political issues in the debate between energy development and environmental policy for over 20 years has been how to develop America’s energy resources in the Arctic. As Shell makes preparations to send offshore drilling rigs into the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas north of Alaska, I thought it would be important to walk through the history of energy exploration in Alaska.

Two weeks ago, I spoke as a part of a lecture series by the Massachusetts-based Manomet Center about energy development and ecosystems in the Arctic. Manomet is a conservation sciences organization that was founded to study migratory shorebirds; I was paired in the lecture with Stephen Brown, one of Manomet’s foremost experts on Alaskan shorebirds. The event was very interesting because it allowed a frank and open discussion of the threats and opportunities in the Arctic. The discussion below is adapted from my presentation.
CONTINUE»

Some test drive reports for the electric Ford Focus are out–fake radiator grill, optional leather seats, looks like a regular car, blah, blah, blah. Other than superficial appearances, it’s almost indistinguishable from a Leaf in performance, and costs a few grand more. One was used as the pace car at the NASCAR Sprint Car Series race last week in Richmond so at least they are marketing the thing and the Leaf really could use some competition. Then again, I also thought the Prius would have met some stiff competition from American hybrids by now. The latest episode of the sitcom 30 Rock was about an American engineered couch that was so uncomfortable the government bought them to torture terrorists …I think I have one of those couches.

CONTINUE»

In this week’s episode of R-Squared Energy TV, I talk about the significance of China’s dominance of rare earth element production, and the conversion of pyrolysis oil into fuel.

The questions answered this week are:

1. Can you discuss the uses of ‘rare earth’ elements in the production of renewable energies (i.e., wind and solar)? Furthermore, can you comment on the supply of rare earth elements? I recently watched this video from Real Clear Energy. Is it accurate that China controls 97% of the current supplies? What implications does this have on growth of hybrid transportation, the wind and the solar industry in the USA?

2. I was watching your reports and was wondering your opinion about the feasibility of pyrolysis. I’ve seen a lot of companies advertising that they have take plastic or tires and produce 80+% and 45% pyrolysis oil respectively. Is that accurate? You also mention upgrading of pyrolysis oil, are there any companies out there who can do it on a commercially viable process? If so could you point me in the right direction?

Senator Bernie Sanders is using Grist Magazine to lobby against government assistance for nuclear energy on the grounds that it’s a mature industry. I might agree with him if it really were a mature industry and if renewables really could carry the day without it. But it isn’t, and renewables can’t. It always irritates me to watch ignorant politicians screw with my children’s futures. As sometimes happens with my long-winded comments, the one I left over there got large enough to convert into a post over here.

Senator Sanders may have good intentions, but what’s new? We don’t need any more roads to hell paved by those. He’s just another member of the generation that has been systematically misinformed by “the end justifies the means” anti-nuclear lobby and our sensationalist for profit lay media.

An earlier article on Grist recently (and inadvertently) demonstrated with a simple graph that the most optimistic estimates for renewable energy do not come close to meeting our energy needs, all cost issues aside. CONTINUE»