New Frontier » Policy

We have to find a way to leverage existing infrastructure

Nate — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 00:44:15 +0000

First, scale-up means learning by doing, which takes time in the energy industry. Where energy technology relies on conversion processes — as with next-generation nuclear energy, biofuels or carbon capture and storage (CCS) — historically it has taken three years to build a demonstration plant, one year to start it up and two to five years to overcome setbacks and reach satisfactory operability. So it can take a decade to reach the point where one is confident enough to build the first full-scale commercial plant. It can take another decade to build a dozen.

Leverage existing infrastructure: After reaching materiality, growth curves have historically levelled off (Fig. 1). This is our second law. Unlike consumer goods that may become obsolete in a few years, the capital goods of the energy system have a lifetime of 25–50 years. That means only 2–4% of existing technology needs replacing in a given year. These replacement rates are hard to increase because the economic barrier to replacing old technology is extremely high: industry will only consider early retirement of the existing capital stock if the total cost of the new technology (capital and operating costs) falls below the operating cost of the old.

The Truth about Biofuels

Nate — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:44:38 +0000

There are a lot of posts this week based on the findings of various reports on biofuels. The problem is complicated because, depending on the application and the change in land use, the impact can swing widely from negative to positive. Some thoughts on what a good biofuels project/policy would consist of:

1. If you can grow food, grow food. Forget the food/fuel debate; the economics are better for food in most places in the world. The reality is that a ton of food will bring more than a ton of biomass or biofuels. Focus on marginal lands to grow non-food energy crops. Incentivize these activities—not converting corn to ethanol.

2. Close the process so that any organic waste ends up back on the land. In doing this, stay clear of fertilizers and focus on increasing the soil content naturally.

3. Focus on biomass above baseline. Establish how much mass is there and focus on the additive effect of the process. If you have to burn down a forest to plant palm trees, it’s probably not a great net effect.

From the NY Times:

The study concluded that whether a biofuel is climate-friendly or not depends largely on whether it is based on crops or production residues. Biofuels of the latter category were generally considered beneficial for the environment, and generating electricity locally from waste materials was found — in mast cases — to be more energy efficient than converting biomass to liquid fuels.

From Yahoo:

Burning bioenergy and fossil energy release comparable quantities of carbon dioxide.

But in a key difference, bioenergy has been seen as preferable for combating climate change because overall emissions are — in theory — reduced, because biomass results from additional plant growth.

“This is because plants grown specifically for bioenergy absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and this offsets the emissions from the eventual burning of the biomass for energy,” said the study, adding that in contrast, burning forests releases stored carbon in the same way as burning oil.

However, both the studies note, the positive effect of biofuels on carbon emissions would necessarily be negated if land used to produce them had been cleared of forests to do so.

Melillo’s study also predicts the increased use of fertilizer in biofuels production will cause nitrous oxide emissions to become even more important than carbon losses in terms of potential for warming by the end of the century.

Oil Drum: The Speech Obama Needs to Give

Nate — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 17:24:27 +0000

From the Oil Drum:

In such a war — a war we are waging against our very life-support systems — we have no hope of winning. Our best hope is to, as quickly as possible, call off the war, regroup, and fundamentally restructure our society around the acceptance of our planet’s finite nature – around limits.

For the foreseeable future, contraction in all things material will be the rule of the day — decreased economic activity, decreased production, decreased consumption, decreased material wealth. This contraction is unavoidable, as it simply follows the advancing depletion of all the material and energy resources that made growth possible in the first place. All the advanced technology in the world cannot and will not revoke the Laws of Thermodynamics and the finite material limits of the Earth.