Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air- Great Read

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by clifp
I am simply saying that while you may be the 5%, for the other 95% if we cut our oil consumption in 1/2 to 10 million barrels a day (which would also mostly eliminate our dependence of foreign oil) that would be a good thing.

(Bold added)
I don't know why people think if we use less oil that the percentage of oil we purchase from overseas will decline. It won't (necessarily). We will (and should) continue to buy oil from overseas as long as it is cheaper than what we pull out of the ground here. General rule: "Energy independence" is a campaign slogan that makes no economic sense.

We can make a parallel to this, to explain it from another angle:

Instead of a reduction in consumption, an increase in domestic supply of oil would (according to clifp's premise) have the same effect in "eliminating our dependence on foreign oil". But, we can produce all the cars we need here in the US - GM Ford and Chrysler have plenty of empty plants and available workforce. But people still buy foreign cars.

Yes, partially because of perceived (or actual) quality differences in those cars, but probably mostly due to "value". So, as long as foreign oil is a better value than meeting our demands domestically (either through increased production of oil or alternative energy, reduced consumption, or both), we will choose to buy some foreign oil, whether we are dependent on it, or not.

And samclem makes a good point - cut our oil needs in half, and we will *still* buy that remaining half from wherever we can get it at the best value. And if we are buying less on the open market, the prices will drop (relatively), making it tough to pass up.

-ERD50

 

[clifp]

Ok I'll concede that cutting our oil consumption in 1/2 wouldn't eliminate our dependence on foreign oil under normal circumstance. But it would make us less vulnerable to 70s style. oil embargo

(As an aside, does anybody know did the price of oil from producers like Canada or Britain rise more during the oil embargo. Or in other words how does an embargo of a global commodity like oil work?)

Anyway, the ER board has already been down this road of dividing GDP by energy use (using CO2 emissions as a rough approximation for "dirty" energy use). See our discussion starting at #76 in this thread. In fact, it was exactly one year ago today that one of our most respected and insightful posters* wrote (post 83) " . . . This does make US quite energy efficient per $ of GDP." He's a smart guy and I agree with him wholeheartedly.

My that is no fair using my own words against me, especially when combined with flattery LOL. However this isn't an apples to apples comparison. GDP per ton of CO2 emissions is different than KWh per GDP/per capita. You were the one who made reasonable assumption that CO2 emission was good substitute for energy consumption. I am inclined to believe the data in SE:WHTA more than a a collection of articles pulled from Wiki, simply because I think Mackay was very careful to make valid comparison. So with new data my opinion has shifted.

I agree that the distances in the US mean we will never achieve the energy efficiency of a place like Europe. I picked Argentina because it is also a large (bigger than Alaska) country and not particularly densely populated. I think Argentina living standards are closer to the US than Chad, but I not willing to scale my standard of living back to that level. On other hand I do hope that BRIC countries could in the future live like folks in Argentina.

Overall, after reading the book, I was surprised to see how generally inefficient the US was at using energy. In fact, I pretty much agree with what even more respected poster* said a year ago on the topic

Nope, we're not "saints" in the US, but we ain't demons, either. And, as oil gets more expensive, we're in a fairly good spot relative to the rest of the world:
-- We've got lots of coal. Sure, the price will go up as oil gets more scarce, but at the very least US producers will gain from this. "We're the Saudi Arabia of coal." Dirty--yes, but that's fixable at the right price.
-- There are no technical or political barriers to increasing US nuclear power production
-- Where we waste energy is on the consumer side. That's a good thing. It's a lot easier for people to start driving more efficient cars and maybe even carpool than it is to convert a huge, energy-hungry industrial base to production of a different item or to use of a different energy source. How will the creaky industrial infrastructure of Eastern Europe fair? How are European consumers going to cut back in the face of higher oil prices--cram 150 people into each bus? Strap more seats on the top of their Smart cars? Will Thais bolt a sidecar to the other flank of their 50c scooter? In the words of Mark Twain (in an entirely different context), they "have neglected their [bad] habits . . . she was a sinking ship with no freight to throw overboard." The US has plenty of "freight to throw overboard" and still keep our production and standard of living high!

So which one is true Sam? does the US have plenty of freight to throw overboard or will "few in the world will burn it [oil] more efficiently and with less pollution"

*SamClem

 

[ERD50]

clifp - I think samclem may be speaking more to the pollution from burning a gallon of fuel, not just the CO2.

I read recently (forget the details), that some island nation had a huge smog problem. Most of the smog came from little 2-cycle engines used for transportation and delivery vehicles. They had almost zero pollution controls.

In this article, the govt started subsidizing loans for a cylinder head replacement (I think it included fuel injection). Not only did this design cut pollution, but it improved fuel economy so delivery people could actually repay the loan on fuel savings (the local govt might have subsidized some of the cost, I don't recall). But, by charging for the upgrade, the people who benefit most (and provided the most benefit in smog reduction with these upgrades) were the ones to apply for it.

Anyhow, a vehicle w/o pollution controls spews out hundreds and thousands of times as much nasty stuff as our US cars. Even our current standards are tougher than Europe, one reason we don't see their diesels here.

-ERD50

 

[samclem]

Hoist by my own petard! But not so fast.

Overall, after reading the book, I was surprised to see how generally inefficient the US was at using energy. In fact, I pretty much agree with what even more respected poster* said a year ago on the topic
So which one is true Sam? does the US have plenty of freight to throw overboard or will "few in the world will burn it [oil] more efficiently and with less pollution"

*SamClem

Okay, I see the gloves are coming off. It's only a little dirty to point out [-]total contradictions[/-] small inconsistencies from posts a year apart, it is downright mean to point out inconsistencies between near-simultaneous posts!

Unfortunately, I've only got time for a brief parry (and explanation). With regard to our industry, I think we are very efficient. This has nothing to do with our altruism or basic goodness, but because businesses here (largely free of state subsidies, etc) have a reason to watch all their costs, including energy costs. The situation is different with regard to "consumer use" of energy in the US-- we are a wealthy people, we live long distances from each other, and fuel has been historically cheap. It's no surprise that we buy heavy sedans, trucks and SUVs. We buy energy-using TVs and toys. We can afford larger houses than even Europeans with similar GDP/capita, and these houses have higher embodied energy costs and cost more fuel to run. So, I'd defend both of my statements: Few national "wealth engines" use fuel as efficiently as the US, and few end consumers waste it as much as we do. And, we do still have plenty of "freight to throw overboard" while maintaining our standard of living--but it's mostly on the "retail" side, not the "industrial" side.

Re: the book (SE). I like MacKay's writing and explanatory style and applaud his approach, but I'm afraid he's glossing over some important items, and I suspect he does have an agenda. I'm only on Chapter 1, but he says (page 11) :

Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide; each gas has different physical properties; it’s conventional to express all gas emissions in “equivalent amounts of carbon dioxide,” where “equivalent” means “having the same warming effect over a period of 100 years.”

Okay, what about water vapor? It is, by far, the most plentiful and important greenhouse gas. But MacKay goes on for pages and pages about "total greenhouse gas emissions" for various regions and never tells us if he's including this most ubiquitous villain in his numbers or not. Now, many global warming adherents make a good case for minimizing the impact of H2O (due to efficient feedback mechanisms), but MacKay ought to make this point himself. In fact, the term "water vapour" (sic) shows up in his 300+ page book only thrice. In addition, from what I can tell he talks nothing about the important homeostatic mechanisms that will (eventually) reduce greenhouse gases (the equivalent of adding more passport control officers in his Ch 1 example). This is not a book that purports to explain global warming, but GW is one of the main reasons he says the rest of his book is worth considering. For a guy claiming to be a facts-based explainer, he shouldn't demand that the reader take this fundamental point (the existence of anthropogenic GW) on such flimsy evidence.

But, there's much more to read, and much that seems worthwhile.

 

[brewer12345]

I am not gifted in the area of math and engineering is a closed book to me. But I am (a) interested in reducing my impact on the environament, (b) a late adopter, and (c) lazy. So personally, I go for the low hanging fruit, of which there seems to be an awful lot lying around:

- Solar doesn't work for my location and seems a bit of a question mark in terms of energy savings, so I switched to a green power supplier. They indicate that the power supplied is mostly wind and small scale hydro, although I think some nat gas is used. In any case, its all inarguably a hell of a lot cleaner than coal, which was the predominant power source for my inccumbent local supplier. Incremental cost per month is roughly $10/month per family of 4.
- I finally saw dimmable compact fluorescents for sale at a reasonable price. After the local utility's rebate, payback is pretty swift vs. the incandescents I used to use. When they work the kinks and oustized costs out of LEDs, I will switch to those.
- Instead of driving to work, I take the train. Kind of a "duh" thing, but probably the most effective thing I could possibly do.
- I pay more attention to what the stuff I buy is packaged in. If I can buy one of two products at about the same cost, but one has far less superfluous packaging, I pick it. Bonus points for recyclability.
- Any appliance that dies gets replaced by a high efficiency model.

This stuff is relatively small potatoes and doesn't require much effort or understanding. I think most of it is stuff people will not argue over as far as energy efficiency and pollution savings. The hard part is how to motivate the population to pick the low hanging fruit.

And help me out: natural gas is cheap and abundant, as well as a good deal cleaner than oil and orders of magnitude cleaner than coal. Why don't we use more nat gas?

 

[FinanceDude]

- Solar doesn't work for my location and seems a bit of a question mark in terms of energy savings, so I switched to a green power supplier. They indicate that the power supplied is mostly wind and small scale hydro, although I think some nat gas is used. In any case, its all inarguably a hell of a lot cleaner than coal, which was the predominant power source for my inccumbent local supplier. Incremental cost per month is roughly $10/month per family of 4.

At least you HAVE a CHOICE.........

- I finally saw dimmable compact fluorescents for sale at a reasonable price. After the local utility's rebate, payback is pretty swift vs. the incandescents I used to use. When they work the kinks and oustized costs out of LEDs, I will switch to those.

Wonder what we are going to do with all the MERCURY in those CFL's?? LEDs are the future.........

- Instead of driving to work, I take the train. Kind of a "duh" thing, but probably the most effective thing I could possibly do.

What's a train?

This stuff is relatively small potatoes and doesn't require much effort or understanding. I think most of it is stuff people will not argue over as far as energy efficiency and pollution savings. The hard part is how to motivate the population to pick the low hanging fruit.

Make it stupidly cheap so NOT replacing the old energy sucker is just plain dumb.........

And help me out: natural gas is cheap and abundant, as well as a good deal cleaner than oil and orders of magnitude cleaner than coal. Why don't we use more nat gas?

It's almost impossible to build them, due to the NIMBY folks and local close-minded zoning and planning commissions, along with overbearing state regulation.........

 

[brewer12345]

It ain't that hard to introduce choice to most of the regional power grids.

As for the mercury in CFLs, its peanuts compared to a tiny amount of coal fired power.

I think the nat gas comment is politics talking, FD. Not far from me are a whole bunch of generating stations fired by fuel oil. I think that if the generator submitted a plan to repower them with nat gas the local planning boards would fall over themselves to approve it.

 

[ERD50]

This stuff is relatively small potatoes and doesn't require much effort or understanding.... The hard part is how to motivate the population to pick the low hanging fruit.

I agree that it's hard to find really big things. One thing to keep in mind, that I've been discussing in some other threads, is that "avoidance" has an immediate payback (turning off a light, combining a couple trips into town, carpooling, adjusting the thermostat, etc). There is no "investment" (expenditure of even more energy), no "payback period", just immediate savings. Many other things require an initial investment in energy (and $), and are a negative until payback is met.

And help me out: natural gas is cheap and abundant, as well as a good deal cleaner than oil and orders of magnitude cleaner than coal. Why don't we use more nat gas?

I'm no expert, but I think transportation plays into it - you can dump coal onto a long train or barge, and ship oil, but NG has to be piped to be cost competitive. Also, I think NG is sort of a "by product" of an oil well. If you tried to get more of it, the cost would go up and users would switch to coal oil.

Since I heat my home with NG, I'm not too thrilled at all these plans to use more of it - it will probably raise my costs. But that is just my self-centered view.

-ERD50

 

[brewer12345]

I'm no expert, but I think transportation plays into it - you can dump coal onto a long train or barge, and ship oil, but NG has to be piped to be cost competitive. Also, I think NG is sort of a "by product" of an oil well. If you tried to get more of it, the cost would go up and users would switch to coal oil.

Since I heat my home with NG, I'm not too thrilled at all these plans to use more of it - it will probably raise my costs. But that is just my self-centered view.

-ERD50

I know more than I let on about natgas; my question was a leading one. There are issues with using lots of natural gas, but there is currently a ton of it in storage that nobody seems to need and the industry seems to have a relatively easy time finding new reserves when prices are high enough to encourage drilling. As for transportation, pipelines are already in place all over the place and are constantly being expanded, newly installed, etc. Some areas have a bottleneck of supply, but most do not.

I do not view nat gas as a long term solution. Instead it is likely to be a bridge to better things and in the meantime it is a lot cleaner than just about any other fossil fuel. The current pricing disparity between oil and nat gas would also seem to encourage gas usage. Nat gas also seems to be relatively easily transformed into other things (nat gas easily makes methanol which makes almost anything, for example), so one would think that it could be transformed into motor fuel pretty easily.

BWTFDIK...

 

[clifp]

As you probably know natural gas was on of the key elements of the T Boone Pickens plan. Essentially it uses wind to make electricity along with natural gas. It use Natural gas in the form of LPG instead of oil to power vehicles especially commercial fleets.

I am not an expert on the Pickens plan, but from what I do know it was pretty comprehensive, large enough in scale to make a difference, had garnered public support, and sadly appears to be if not fatally wounded than severely scaled down.

 

[Sam]

Thank you clifp for the link to the book and synopsis.
Sam

 

[brewer12345]

As you probably know natural gas was on of the key elements of the T Boone Pickens plan. Essentially it uses wind to make electricity along with natural gas. It use Natural gas in the form of LPG instead of oil to power vehicles especially commercial fleets.

Mr. Pickens' plan was self serving tripe intended to profit himself and his investors. So I would not shed too many tears over it.

Switching to LPG seems expensive and complicated from a vehicle and infrastructure perspective. Simpler to use nat gas to make methanol to make DME as a diesel substitute/extender. Can use existing vehicles and fuel distribution networks that way.

 

[Sam]

This is the best book I've read about renewable energy, consumption, and global warming. This David McKay is just great.

I love the way he put numbers into perpective. Could not help laughing out loud at the "Birds lost in action" chart on page 64.

I finally understood how CO2 concentration was obtained in the past. But I still don't know how temperature was determined. Did he mentioned it anywhere in the book? I've not finished reading yet.

Sam

 

[ERD50]

Mr. Pickens' plan was self serving tripe intended to profit himself and his investors.

I agree, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't also good for the general public.

NG for cars - I think that is mostly spin. Commercial wind seems to make some sense though. Passive conservation is the real winner - tough to put together a business case that could profit from that though. We'll teach you to turn off the light, and you give us a % of the savings? Does not sound very profitable.

-ERD50

 

[CCdaCE]

I agree, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't also good for the general public.

NG for cars - I think that is mostly spin. Commercial wind seems to make some sense though. Passive conservation is the real winner - tough to put together a business case that could profit from that though. We'll teach you to turn off the light, and you give us a % of the savings? Does not sound very profitable.

-ERD50

That's where the [-] insert random Administration name here[/-] gestapo gets involved.



-CC

 

[HFWR]

Thanks clifp...

Thanks clifp... -ERD50

clifp,

Thank you for the link. Gonna read it.

Clif --
Thanks much for pointing us to this book....

Thank you clifp for the link to the book and synopsis.
Sam

Ahem... http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f27/sustainable-energy-without-the-hot-air-44312.html



Thanks, clifp! This is the discussion I'd hoped to start...

While I agree that unplugging our "wall warts" probably gives a false feeling of "doing something", I also agree with ERD50 that a "penny saved is a penny earned". I think we need a new mindset. Maybe we should have to pedal a bicycle, connected to a generator, in order to leave every light and appliance in the house on...

While browsing the magazine section at the bookstore recently, a fellow browser noticed some article on the cover of a mag, and proceeded to start an unwelcome conversation with me about "they want us to drive them there small cars"... I'm thinking, aside from STFU, "ok, we'll send your a$$ to the Middle East, so you can earn your right to drive a gas hog..."

Seriously, though, to provide a working economy requires energy, so we'll have to solve this "problem", or risk some unpleasant consequences.

 

[ERD50]

Ahem... http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f27/sustainable-energy-without-the-hot-air-44312.html

I *thought* this thread title seemed familiar Figured it was my faulty memory.

I had to check back, I had some stuff going on and I only made a couple posts around that time frame, so I think I skimmed and moved on.

But thanks for bringing it up at the time!

Oh, and while " a penny saved is a penny earned", it's important to remember that it is still only a penny. To make any real dent in energy usage, we need a lot of pennies saved.

-ERD50

 

[HFWR]

Granted that we need a LOT of pennies...

A prime example from here in [-]hell[/-] Texas is the hubby in the idling car, a/c blasting, waiting for DW to reemerge from the mall. Why not go in and hang around the food court, marveling at [-]the cute teeny-bopper mallrats[/-] our cultural differences? Or, better yet, stay the freak home...

I remember commenting on the "Green" channel that appeared on my cable a couple of years ago. I thought, kewl, maybe like the Science channel, only devoted to "green" topics. Turns out it's mostly fluff, with reality shows, and celebs touting all the stupid shite they do to be "green". I was particularly impressed by Alice Cooper, who recycles golf balls. Never mind that he's golfing in Phoenix, where keeping a golf course "green" must be a monumental [-]waste[/-] undertaking...

 

[Nords]

Maybe we should have to pedal a bicycle, connected to a generator, in order to leave every light and appliance in the house on...

Reminds me of Ed Begley & Bill Nye...

 

[clifp]

Hey, I said I found the article (the CNN article not your post) on the forum. On the other hand, I did have a career in marketing, which basically means you take other people's good ideas and repackage them .

The next level up (or down) is a career in politics, in which you take other people's good idea, repackage them. Claim it was your idea and collect lots of money for talking about them.

HFWR, I'll be sending you complimentary tickets to my new documentary.

Sustainable Energy: An Inconvenient truth

 

[samclem]

More fun math!

Here's another back-of-the-envelope exercise that is in keeping with the overall approach of SE:WTHA. What is the energy payback period for the construction of a large hydrolectric project? Case study: Energy payback for the embodied energy (EE) in the Hoover Dam.
Construction materials:
Concrete: 4.36 million cu/yds, with EE of 4050 Kwh per yd = 17,700,000,000 kwh = 17,700 gWh
Steel (reinforcing, pipes, valves, etc) : 178,000,000 lbs with EE of 74 kwh/lb = 13,170,000,000 kwh = 13,170 gWh

Total embodied energy of the major construction materials: 31,000 gWh

The Hoover Dam turbines produce 4000 gWh per year. It was "energy neutral" (for construction materials) after less than 8 years. This doesn't include all the other energy (lots of electricity needed to run the coolers to refrigerate the cement as it cured for several years, trucks and cranes to move the materials, extra caloric intake of al the workers, etc), but it seem likely that the dam was a net producer of energy after about 10-12 years. Since then it has all been gravy.

I was surprised by this, I would have guessed it would take much longer to "pay back" all the energy needed to make that concrete and steel.

P.S.: In 2008, the average US nuclear power plant produced 12,400 gWh, or approximately three times as much electricity as was produced at Hoover Dam

 

[FUEGO]

Here's a little green entertainment for you. I have partially completed an electricity consumption inventory in my house to see what passive loads are sucking down electricity. Here's the spreadsheet. So far I have not found anything that uses more than 4 watts passively. 21" CRT uses 4 watts when in sleep mode (goes into that after 1 hr), but I still turn it off at night. Now I know I am tricking myself, only saving less than $4 a year by doing so. Phone charger uses less than 1 watt. Old clunky 32" CRT tv that weighs 180 lb - 1 watt when off. 1 watt equals close about 9 kWh per year if left on constantly. Or just under a buck where I live. Not a big deal and definitely not worth constant plugging and unplugging.

 

[HFWR]

Here's a little green entertainment for you. I have partially completed an electricity consumption inventory in my house to see what passive loads are sucking down electricity. Here's the spreadsheet. So far I have not found anything that uses more than 4 watts passively. 21" CRT uses 4 watts when in sleep mode (goes into that after 1 hr), but I still turn it off at night. Now I know I am tricking myself, only saving less than $4 a year by doing so. Phone charger uses less than 1 watt. Old clunky 32" CRT tv that weighs 180 lb - 1 watt when off. 1 watt equals close about 9 kWh per year if left on constantly. Or just under a buck where I live. Not a big deal and definitely not worth constant plugging and unplugging.

At 115M households in the US, that would be around 1 GWh, a large number, except when compared to the estimated 29000 TWh used annually (2005)...

 

[FUEGO]

At 115M households in the US, that would be around 1 GWh, a large number, except when compared to the estimated 29000 TWh used annually (2005)...

Wow, if all of us just unplugged one phone charger we could save a gigawatt! That does sound like a lot. Until it is put in perspective.

 

[ERD50]

Here's a little green entertainment for you. I have partially completed an electricity consumption inventory in my house to see what passive loads are sucking down electricity.
....

Old clunky 32" CRT tv that weighs 180 lb - 1 watt when off. 1 watt equals close about 9 kWh per year if left on constantly. Or just under a buck where I live. Not a big deal and definitely not worth constant plugging and unplugging.

I also started a spreadhseet last fall after buying a Kill-a-watt meter (inspired by Trombone-Al). I also added a column for the % of time that I estimated it was in each state (on, off, idle).

I need to measure a lot more things. But some things that I was turning on/off, after measuring, I decided to leave them ON all the time. They didn't use enough when idle to justify the wear tear on the switch, or the start up cycle from OFF (my printer goes through a wake-up routine - likely to cause some premature wear).

But I'd like to understand where my power is going. I had a $76 bill during a month with no A/C or heat (fan running). ~ $67 of that is based on consumption (~ 670KWHr). My ancient, supposedly inefficient freezer is only ~ $6/month (have not checked fridge yet). Electric dryer is a big one, but I checked the meter before/after and we estimated the on time this past wash day and it was maybe $3 a week.

Water well pump 3/4hp, but that can't be running much ( ~ 2 minute cycle to replace 10 gallons), 1/3hp sump pump doesn't run much. Hmmmm, ss says my porch/garage lights on timers are a bigger draw than I thought - already have CFLs in most of those (I need one incandescent, a 25W one to keep the timer activated) - maybe I'll unscrew a couple. Six bulbs * 15 watts average * 6 hours/day (less than that in summer though) is ~ $16 month, surprised by that one. I need to keep plugging away (unplugging away?) at this.

-ERD50