Featured Blog Posts All Blog Posts
 

Know the Enemy in the War Against Oil

By Dana Blankenhorn
March 3, 2011   |   38 Comments

Do you like this blog post?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

38 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 38
March 4, 2011
Regarding subsidies, the International Energy Agency's 2010 World Energy Outlook has noted "fossil-fuel consumption subsidies amounted to $312 billion in 2009." In the same year, according to the IEA, renewable energies received just $57 billion of "government support."

The rough math on that is renewables got just $1 for every $5-6 given to fossil fuels. That is amazing, isn't it?
Comment
2 of 38
March 4, 2011
chrisjrose It's not really amazing. What's amazing is how much attention attacks on renewable subsidies are getting in the media, as opposed to the dead silence on the President's proposal to scale back fossil fuel subsidies.

Republicans just said no and that was the end of the debate. It's our fault -- yours, mine, everyone's in this space -- that it ended with that.

We need to get more savvy, more aggressive, and more ruthless in exposing groups like CFACT, which just Tweeted a dismissal of this piece as "that old tired line again." (If it were untrue they would have called it "lie" but don't the words sound similar.)
Comment
3 of 38
March 4, 2011
My guess is that the "anonymous" troll from CFACT above is trying to be cute with a stupid comment but in reality, it only exposes the troll's mentality of the US Chamber of Commerce and CFACT.

The World Banksters and Big Oil have thousands of paid propagandist and they budget millions for propaganda, corruption, bribery and extortion to control Mass Media, banking and the continued use of fossil fuels.

Media propaganda like the stooge anonymous above are more common today. Green Energy World sites like this should filter comments made by an outside and unidentified source!

"Anonymous" is the most common way of propaganda sabotage attacks on web sites and is easily guarded against simply by having a person register before allowing comments!
Anonymous could be coming at us from the inside!
No image available
Comment
4 of 38
Anonymous
March 4, 2011
chrisjrose writes in comment #1:
"The rough math on that is renewables got just $1 for every $5-6 given to fossil fuels. That is amazing, isn't it?"

His comparison is flawed. Consumption subsidies are policies in the developing world that lower the price of energy to below free market rates. A typical example is when oil producers sell oil within their own borders at cheap rates. Often this is done by authoritarian governments as a way of placating their populations (Iran had ~$100 Billion in consumption subsidies in the last list I saw) . This money does NOT flow into the hands of fossil fuel companies so it is not comparable to the subsidies given in the developed world to companies in the renewable energy sector. Consumption subsidies are certainly poor energy policy (unless you are a dictator wishing to maintain political power) but they are not a plot to prop up the fossil fuel industry. In fact, consumption subsides in the developing world tend to lead to higher prices for fossil fuels in the developed world so they tend to make renewable energy more competitive. There are some subsidies that DO go directly to the fossil fuel industry, but these are much smaller than the consumption subsidies of the developing world. If you compare the subsidies for renewables to the subsidies given directly to the fossil fuel industry the picture is much more favorable for renewables (and this does not even count the effect of RPS requirements and mandated ratepayer funding of renewables).
Steven
No image available
Comment
5 of 38
Anonymous
March 4, 2011
The author complains about Kevin Kemm and about this piece that he wrote:
"http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/is-renewable-energy-push-really-economically-sound-2011-03-04"

However none of his remarks seem applicable to the message in this particular article. In the cited piece Kemm merely points out the economic consequences of the boom and bust cycle caused by European FITs that started out way too generous and which have been reeled in so fast (and sometimes retroactively removed) that they have caused chaos in the PV industry. I think we would find many within the renewable community that would agree these policies were poorly implemented.

Incidentally, I don't recall Edison ever complaining that "enemies" from the candle cartels where engaged in a war to hold back his products. If the renewable industry paid a little more attention to economic realities it might be further along in its goal of modernizing our energy infrastructure.
Steven
Comment
6 of 38
Excellent post. In addition, we can drive on electricity soon with electric cars or even better: compessed-air-cars. This will make renewables even more affordable in the light of rising oil prices...
Comment
7 of 38
March 5, 2011
In a county near where I live here in Norway, 1% of the county households now have electric cars. This is not so hard to understand. 95 octane gasoline is now over 9 US dollars/US gallon! Electric cars here can drive in the bus lane, saving about 1-1.5 hours in traffic depending on where you start and the amount of traffic. The toll into Oslo is now about $4 for 1 entry. Electric cars are exempted from this as well. As more and better electric car models come to the market, I will buy one myself. I expect many, many will do the same in the very near future.
Comment
8 of 38
March 5, 2011
And do not forget the cost of military interventions in the middle east, which for all purposes happen to protect our oil supply. The Iraq war is estimated to cost about 3 TRILLION US DOLLARS so far. This dwarfs all other subsidies to the oil industry. Yet we never talk about it, even when it was documented in a book written by a Nobel prize winner in economics (Joseph E. Stiglitz). Folks this book was released over 2 years ago, and it has been completely ignored. The facts, reality and truth of the free ride the oil industry enjoys defy absolutely all explanation.
Comment
9 of 38
March 5, 2011
The folks at GreenGas.cc get no reply from the Canadian or US government. Their machines make zero emissions fuel for $1.50 a gallon. Sometimes I notice in blogs someone will pop up and say they can not exist. Yet we visited and saw the fuel working. I never thought of trolls.
Comment
10 of 38
March 5, 2011
Hi:

Nice article and of course the usual responses from the usual players.... Its a good thing there is cut and paste...

.....Bill
Comment
11 of 38
March 6, 2011
"This is what CFACT fears. They fear renewable energy that costs less than oil, because it will reduce the value of Exxon-Mobil reserves."

With regards to oil fired electricity, renewable energy does cost less. But electricity only represents a small fraction of oil consumption. Until there are a large number of electric cars on the road, renewable energy (other than ethanol) does not directly compete with oil. Given the current economic and oil supply problems in the US, it would be wise to give oil companies the increased access to the oil supplies that they are asking for. The US Admin's current policy is economic and political suicide. The recent spike in oil prices will undoubtedly cause another recession, despite the Admin's effort to "talk it down".
Comment
12 of 38
March 7, 2011
Clee,

The fact that Nissan is no longer taking reservations for the Leaf should tell you everything that you need to know.

You take reservations when you expect to sell out... I could see maybe reserving some to tease people to get to the dealership... but that doesn't really make sense if you're trying to sell an ELECTRIC car to tease them to come to the dealership to look at gasoline-burning cars - at least it doesn't make sense if you believe that the electric car is a viable purchase.

My guess is that they saw a rapid slow-down in the rate of people taking reservations, and they didn't want the story to focus on "three weeks ago, 2000 people reserved the Leaf, two weeks ago only 1200 reservations were made, and last week only 800 reservations. There's only been 30,000 reservations total, and Nissan is slated to produce 100,000 in their first run. The question now is: will they even sell out of their first run, or is this going to be a total bust?

Note that the Prius was still taking reservations for the first 5 years of its release, and they sold out every year almost 9 months in advance during that time.

Todd-Flash outlined what it will really take for these cars to become economically viable: $9/gallon gasoline, plus other incentives. Of course, in Norway there actually is spare hydropower capacity, so switching to electricity doesn't harm the planet. Here, we're switching from petroleum to coal, at a net greater harm, and we're considering paying through the nose to do so.

I bet Nissan doesn't sell out its first run at list price.
Comment
13 of 38
March 8, 2011
Lets get some facts straight people. Electric cars are already cheaper to operate @ 5 cents/mile. And gas is already $4/gallon in some parts of the country. I pay $4/gallon and get 15 MPG. That's 27 cents/mile. Leaf pre-orders are 6,000 in Japan and they stopped taking orders @ 20,000 in the US. The original production planned for 2011 was 10,000 vehicles. But since there has been so much interest, Nissan now plans on doubling production this year, by putting many workers on overtime. And electric cars do not trade oil for coal, they trade oil for excess night time electric capacity.

And to my original point, spiking oil prices hurts (not helps) renewable energy development. Efforts should be placed on keeping oil prices at a reasonable level, as high oil prices will undoubtedly cause another recession.
Comment
14 of 38
March 8, 2011
The sad thing is (from an American's perspective), as the author pointed out, CFACT emerged in the 1970's as have dozens of other groups working on behalf of the fossil fuel industry and legislators continue to listen to these guys in spite of knowing who they represent. Our political leaders, Democrats and Republicans alike, for decades have been allowing the fossil fuel industry to write policy which has given shortshrift to renewables at the expense of jobs and economic growth AND has gotten our country (and the world) into the situation is is now in.

Fossil fuels have effectively painted renewables as environmental extremists and convolute energy policy debate by injecting controversy into the discourse. They're good at it. The global warming debate is a great example, in my opinion, of how fossil fuels take an issue and twist things around to effectively keep things status quo. Renewable energy R/D started in our country as an answer to the oil cartel holding the country hostage in the 70's....and we still don't have an energy policy that has or is significantly different in terms of where our energy comes from. Kudo's to the solar and wind people (and other sort of emerging technologies) who have stayed with these technologies in spite of the odds of "WINNING".....we're WINNING. we're getting there and I think "they" are concerned. Someday legislators will get it and truly effective policy will price in the cost of defending foreign oil supplies and health related costs and legislation will be written to foster homegrown economic development through local energy development.

To start with we should be paying at the pumps the cost of defending mideastern oil (and other related health care costs from fossil fuels). That 3 trillion dollars and etc. mentioned earlier and the lives cost would give the big mouths pause.
Comment
15 of 38
March 8, 2011
Clee - last year Nissan's press release stated a first-run of 100,000 cars. Now they've dialed it back to 50,000... but their original plan was for 100,000.

John-Bronson - you need help with your "facts". First, the Leaf is a vehicle that is the same size as a Ford Fiesta or Chevy Cruise Eco, both list for ~$15,000... yet the Leaf sells for 33,500 for a base model. At $4/gallon and 30 mpg, either of the two micro-cars above would cost 13 cents/mile. At 10 cents/kWh, the Leaf would cost 4 cents/mile. That's an $18,500 premium to reduce the operating expense by 9 cents/mile. Which means that it would require ~200,000 miles before you "break even"... but that's before you consider things like interest on the purchase, higher insurance and taxes for a higher cost car, and substitution effects - must drive a different car to do anything other than commute to work, often must rent one.

No, there's no economic sense in that purchase until gasoline is FAR more expensive.

As for "off-peak electricity", what do you think is used to generate that? Current nuclear is used to full capacity, and they won't suddenly build another nuclear plant to accommodate a few dozen cars in any given city... They'll ramp up their fossil baseload power - that's coal every time. So you'll use COAL to power your car rather than petroleum... resulting in a DIRTIER ride overall. Congratulations, that seems like a worthy goal to penalize yourself economically to achieve.

First you must learn facts, then you can set them straight.
Comment
16 of 38
March 8, 2011
One of these days the world's oil supply is going to run out. When that happens, millions, if not billions, of people will starve to death. The only ones that will survive will be the ones that hunt or grow their own food, or those who can get to the farm in a vehicle the doesn't require oil.
Comment
17 of 38
March 8, 2011
@glenn-doty-175949

Let's see you post an article that shows the Cruze or Fiesta have 26,000 customers on their waiting list.

Here's one for the Leaf.

http://www.manufacturingdigital.com/tags/mitsuru-yonekawa/nissan-leaf-production-reach-full-capacity-end-march

That's pretty good for a car that's not even in the dealer showroom. And don't forget the Imiev, Volt, Coda, Tesla, and many other EVs coming to maket.

And that's a nice coal strawman. Coal power generation in the US is a decreasing percentage of the power generation mix. EV deployment will not cause an increase in coal use.

With regards to your mileage figures, it is a well known fact that auto manufacturer mileage figures are overstated. And if you think oil prices are going to remain stable at these levels for the next 10 years, you're really dreaming.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1817753634&play=1
Comment
18 of 38
March 8, 2011
John -

The Ford Fiesta doesn't have a waiting list because it's on the market now, along with dozens of competing cars that perform equal to or better than it does. I used it as a base of comparison, not an endorsement. (But there were ~16 million gas burning vehicles sold last year in the U.S. verses a few hundred electric cars.)

The point of my post was that the Leaf doesn't compare in terms of cost, even at $4/gallon. I suspect that $4-$5/gallon is a reasonable projection for the next 12 year average price, and average prices should be considered when buying a car.

As for coal power, coal power is what we have in SPARE CAPACITY. If you plug in a NEW DEMAND LOAD, that cannot be satisfied with systems that are currently operating and fully utilized. Some NEW production has to be ramped up to accommodate that additional demand. So spare capacity is all that can be considered when determining what will fuel your new plug-in vehicle.

Power companies will have spare coal power and spare natural gas power... the natural gas costs more, so they will use the coal first. This is very simple, and well understood.

In the Midwest, they currently have to lock down wind turbines and/or pitch the blades out of the wind whenever the wind blows during the night. So if anyone buys an electric car THERE, some of the energy used to power their car will be carbon neutral... But anywhere else in the U.S. there is absolutely no spare power other than fossil-sourced.
Comment
19 of 38
March 8, 2011
If you want to replace oil you need to find "clean, affordable electricity." We haven't found that yet - keep looking.
Comment
20 of 38
ZNE
March 8, 2011
Hmmm - this post has a pretty good exchange of viewpoints mixed with fairly decent facts sprinkled about. But everyone, RE-FOCUS on long term solutions with renewable energy (we are conversing at RenewableEnergyWorld.com, yes?).

#1 Economic viability of renewable energy (solar, etc.) is only dictated by our threshold of affordability; the key variables of Planned Obsolescence and Natural Impacts to product lifespan not withstanding, all mean that we should sacrifice our egos and inflated lifestyles long enough in order to create the change we all ultimately know is the 'right thing to do'.

#2 Yes, the increase in fossil fuel production costs (price of gas, etc.) directly drives the Renewable Energy concept, industry and market. Come now, the law of supply and demand along with the concept of "what the market will bare" didn't just vaporize into outer space everyone. As the price of fuel, and our utility bills keep rising, we (ya know, humans) will DEMAND something else in response. It's just that simple.

#3 The Auto Industry, Bill Oil, and the Utility Companies are one single joint venture in energy distribution. The three are the epitomy of an "economy of scale" otherwise known as a global economy. They are experts in bean counting. For lack of a better term - they've thought of it already and are well ahead of the curve in planning ways to stay in business by doing the same thing in a different way. This is why they all own the majority of the large RE projects around the globe.

#4 To the Anonomous goob and the Religous fanatic: Really. Really? ..Really?!
Comment
21 of 38
March 8, 2011
Glenn wrote:

"As for coal power, coal power is what we have in SPARE CAPACITY. If you plug in a NEW DEMAND LOAD, that cannot be satisfied with systems that are currently operating and fully utilized. Some NEW production has to be ramped up to accommodate that additional demand. So spare capacity is all that can be considered when determining what will fuel your new plug-in vehicle."

Boiler type powerplants do not get ramped down at night. This means the US has approximately 40% of unused night time electrical capacity. This unused electrical capacity could power 80% of the US auto fleet in EVs without burning any more fossil fuels than are currently being used. By the time that 80% of the fleet are EVs, coal will be a much smaller portion of electrical production.
Comment
22 of 38
March 8, 2011
Glenn wrote:

" I suspect that $4-$5/gallon is a reasonable projection for the next 12 year average price, and average prices should be considered when buying a car."

Then you must not disagree with the analysts I linked. They are predicting a 10% increase in price for every 1/2% increase in demand. That's roughtly a 30% increase in price EVERY YEAR!

It's interesting to note that the EIA still has 2005 as the year of maximum average production. This in spite of demand increases in non-OECD countries, and huge price increases since then.
Comment
23 of 38
ZNE
March 8, 2011
Ahh yes Clee!

Rising fossil fuel based energy costs ARE a key influence to the growth of RE. Ding ding ding ding....Lights are on (punn intended).
Comment
24 of 38
March 8, 2011
@Clee

Over the past 2 years, we have also added $4 trillion to the national debt. The budget deficit for last month was more than the entire year of 2007. 1/2 of US families are now on welfare programs. 25% of US children will be living below the poverty level. This hasn't happened in the US since the great depression. It sounds a lot like what Robert Hirsch described in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGHpWOSsDZk

People cheering for higher fossil fuel costs should really think about all of the effects that will cause.
Comment
25 of 38
March 8, 2011
I've been hopefully waiting for the solar industry to offer an affordable product since 1974 when a solar dealer moved next door. After 37 years of weekly breakthroughs it's still just a wannabe industry.

Seeing the bitterness and hatred on this site, I'm even more pessimistic about the future of residential solar. I fail to see where the petroleum industry is your competitor, but just a convenient scapegoat.
Comment
26 of 38
ZNE
March 9, 2011
Oh John-Bronson and Iggy D. - My two new obtuse friends on REW,

You're either part of the problem or part of the zero net energy solution. The solution in our case, is to sacrifice a great deal of our sense of entitlement, self righteousness, lazyness and greed for the greater good of our planet, children's futures, health, balanced and clean way of life. Ya know, more giving and less taking.

But then again.. you could just keep drinking from the well until there's nothing left including a plan B.

Enjoy.
Comment
27 of 38
March 9, 2011
ZNE wrote:

"The solution in our case, is to sacrifice a great deal of our sense of entitlement, self righteousness, lazyness and greed for the greater good of our planet, children's futures, health, balanced and clean way of life. Ya know, more giving and less taking."

Yes of course. Americans should be living in mud huts and burning cow dung for fuel, just like the rest of the world right? Excepting you, Al Gore, and the liberal elites of course. You need fossil fuel for your Gulf Streams, multiple mansions, and non-stop vacations!

Those silly oil workers in the Gulf don't need jobs. They can collect unemployment and welfare. And if the government runs out of money to give away, they can just print some more. What a great plan!
Comment
28 of 38
March 9, 2011
Clee,

Hydropower is load following to an extent, insofar as it can "turn down" or "ramp up" based on need by simply opening or closing some of the spillways.

However, the net total usage of hydropower in the Northwest is still 100%. There won't suddenly be more water behind the dam if you need more energy... they don't currently direct large volumes of water in such a way as to bypass the turbines.

So it's load following, but there's no spare capacity. The two terms are not interchangeable.

You would have to find instances where water is directed to bypass turbines to avoid electricity overproduction in order to assume excess nightly capacity. I assure you that you will not find evidence of such, because it doesn't happen.

So there would be no carbon-neutral energy credited for your plug-in car.
Comment
29 of 38
March 9, 2011
John -

To assume that gasoline prices would increase 30%/year means that you assume there will be constant economic growth in the face of ever-increasing oil prices... something that I assure you cannot be the case.

Oil prices may spike as high as $200-$225/bbl between 2012-2013, which will crash the economy and send oil prices plummeting to $40-$60/bbl, then there will be a few years of recovery before the next price spike... which will cause the next crash.

Assuming that oil will just constantly increase linearly shows a very poor understanding of the market balance - which I think sums up my opinion of CNBC's oil analysis.
Comment
30 of 38
ZNE
March 9, 2011
Glenn,

I agree with your 'peak and valley' statement as this law of economics holds true everywhere outside of utopia (pretty much everywhere). But it's still a driver of RE in general as people know that alternatives and options to energy production, consumption and efficiency are a necessity to our way of life sooner than later.

You make some great points though.
Comment
31 of 38
March 9, 2011
ZNE,

I'm an energy market analyst by profession... but the oil market is particularly important to me because I'm working on a renewable, carbon-neutral alternative to petroleum... and I'm very much aware of the impacts that the peak/trough cycle of the oil market has on renewable energy investment.
(to find out more, go to www.WindFuels.com, or check out our article at green tech media and the discussion that followed:
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/guest-post-kicking-oil-addiction-permanently-with-windfuels/)


As one who speaks from personal experience, I would say that your assumption that this drives RE is a bit oversimplified.

In 2004-2008, there was more money dumped into biofuels (for good or ill or both) than had been dumped there over the preceding 20 years. Food prices quadrupled, and ethanol yields increased by 5-fold. Then when the recession hit, and the price of gasoline went through the floor, some 60+% of the ethanol businesses went bankrupt.

We released our information - seeking capital - just as Lehman Brothers crashed. In light of the apocalypse that was ruining the biofuels industry, there was simply no interest in a new alternative fuels platform, regardless of competitiveness... and we're still seeking capital 2 1/2 years later - even though our process should compete with oil at $50-$70/bbl.

The market troughs scare away investors from any technology - regardless of its promise... while the market peaks draw in investors to any technology, regardless of its, er... stupidity. The electric car is a perfect example. That investment began with the assumption gasoline would be well above $5-$6/gallon, and now the purchase just looks dumb... and the manufacturers pushing these products are going to take serious losses.

I think having a stable oil market (easily provided by setting a buy and a sell point for the SPR) would help RE far more, provided the price was high enough (~$90/bbl).
Comment
32 of 38
March 9, 2011
Glenn wrote:

"Then when the recession hit, and the price of gasoline went through the floor, some 60+% of the ethanol businesses went bankrupt."

That's a huge overstatement. Ethanol production in 2007 was 6.5 billion gallons, 9 billion in 2008, 10.6 billion in 2009, and 13.2 billion in 2010. You can't have that kind of growth with 60% of the industry bankrupt. And yes oil prices went down in 2008, but they quickly bounced back up.

Oil demand growth is primarily from non-OECD countries like China. China continued to have growth despite the recession, and despite high oil prices. China is still adding several million new cars to their roads every year, and is also actively buying up oil resources around the world.
Comment
33 of 38
March 9, 2011
John,

GM and Chrysler both went bankrupt in 2010... yet car sales didn't slow down one bit (actually, vehicle sales for both companies improved dramatically in 2010). How many thousands of banks have gone bankrupt since 2010? Did that effect your banking? I personally banked with Wachovia, who went bankrupt - yet the local branch didn't close its doors a single day.

Bankrupcy only means shutting the doors and shutting the lights off for small industrial or commercial businesses. I didn't say the ethanol stopped flowing, I said the ethanol ventures went bankrupt and the investors and lenders got screwed - that happens to be true.
Comment
34 of 38
March 10, 2011
Clee,

This is how marginal load balances must be considered. The presumption is that any electricity demand that had been occurring would continue to be satisfied - first with renewables and nuclear energy (as their continued production is very low cost), then with coal when there is excess coal (it's cheaper than natural gas), then with natural gas when there is no excess coal.

So, the first 30% or so of the demand is credited with clean energy, while the remainder is fossil sourced.

This works in reduction as well as expansion. If you insulate your house, then during the day you are reducing consumption of natural gas, and during the night you are reducing consumption of coal - even if you have solar panels on you house that provide for your energy (because your solar power would then be sold back to the grid, and offset natural gas production).
This is why improving insulation or other energy efficiency investments have such advantageous cost/benefits.

Every increase in demand would always, therefore, be credited towards fossil sourced energy, and every decrease in demand would always be credited with reducing fossil sourced energy... regardless of whether the amount of renewable energy on the grid increases or not... if the renewables increased to 40%, then the first 40% of the electricity usage would be credited as carbon-neutral, etc..

Only when there is spare renewable capacity can you plug into a grid at any time and not be credited with further increasing fossil-sourced power.
Comment
35 of 38
March 10, 2011
Glen, I'd like to think that is how it is considered as you've described. Likely it is in your region but marginal load balancing needs to consider various forms of reserve margins that aren't talked about all too often with respect to renewable energy development....even if it is "marginal".

I don't think we are getting the grid penetration as a percentage of off setting fossil fuels with respect to renewable portfoliio standards or renewable energy objectives as you've described.

Marginal load balancing very much depends upon what your balancing RE with..gas or hydro perhaps works like you've described but coal doesn't ramp (quickly) too well.

With RE (especially in the upper Midwest) there is a problem with intermittency, load following, dispatchability and reliability which are reasons why there is so much focus on storage. We burn a lot of coal here.

Forecasting is getting better and better as more experience is gained. With the smart grid the grid percentages will
look much different from an energy supply perspective in the oncoming years with respect to smart grid technology and all the RE advances and distributed generation which is inevitably coming on line. Especially solar and especially DG in cities.

Storage,forecasting, smart grid along with advances in solar, etc. will help us achieve pollution offsets as you've described but I don't think we are there yet.
Comment
36 of 38
March 10, 2011
Johnlhle,

I am well aware of the curtailed wind in the Midwest, and the problems of wind intermittency. Note in some of my posts I've referred to the wind corridor as the only place where plugging in new demand might result in some of that energy being supplied by renewable energy.

The system we at Doty Energy are developing involves using intermittent off-peak energy to recycle CO2 into fuels, and we specifically intend to place these systems in the upper Midwest and the Texas Panhandle to stabilize the grid and allow for further penetration of wind.

I don't believe, however, that there is much of a chance for storage to help your situation. Nor would installing smart-meters in every home make any economic sense or significantly improve the situation.

Some notes on the subject can be found here:
http://www.dotyenergy.com/Economics/Econ_Stabilizing_RenewableGrid.htm

There is also a peer-reviewed paper on the subject here:
http://www.dotyenergy.com/PDFs/Doty-90377-Storage-ASME-ES10.pdf
Comment
37 of 38
March 13, 2011
As far as electric vehicles driven off of coal being dirtier than petroleum driven vehicles, that has already been proven wrong. CO2, NOx, and HCs would all substantially decrease compared to petroleum. On the other hand, SO2 and particulates would increase, but those could be prevented by having the proper scrubbers at the coal plants. Where I live it would almost be a wash for SO2 and particulate matter since less than half of the electricity I use come from coal.

The EPMA has determined that a gasoline powered vehicle needs to be at 70mpg to be at the same level of emissions as an EV. Last time I checked, we did not have any ICE vehicles capable of 70mpg.

http://www.empa.ch
Comment
38 of 38
March 16, 2011
anon.----" If Oil is the Enemy, maybe you should boycott oil. Don't eat any food farmed or transported using petroleum products."--------

Good idea. Biofuels can do anything that can be done with petroleum.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Dana Blankenhorn

View Dana Blankenhorn's Profile
About: Dana Blankenhorn has covered business and technology since 1978. He covered the Houston oil boom of the 1970s, began making his living online in 1985, and launc... more »

Advertise With Us

Comment:Visions Blue Sky Energy, Inc. Leybold Optics EnPower Systems Inc. Unirac, Inc. Hydrogen Education Foundation REC Solar
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters