Another silly post I got fed on face book:

Wow! 30%! Attributed to getting rid of old-style coal plants.

Of course, the US did it better:

http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html

However, the US is stupid about its coal plants. Our government wants any improvements to power plants to trigger massive overhauls of the generators. Instead of allowing power manufacturers to make their plants incrementally less polluting, Uncle Sam will only except perfection. As a result, our coal burning technology is outdated and stuck in the past. PowerLine had this up last week:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/04/a-note-on-coal.php

Showing how much Chinese plants have improved tremendously in the last decade, while US plants remain inefficient, polluting and stagnant.

Twice before my brother has posted about the land use required to have an extensive solar energy option. It is enormous:

[ China and Nuclear Power ] [A modern solar plant in Portugal] occupies about 0.234 square miles of land, and is expected to produce about 20 gigawatt-hours per year. That works out to an average power output of about 2.28 megawatts. How much land would we have to cover with these panels to get 200 gigawatts?

200,000 / 2.28 x 0.234 = 20,526 square miles.

That's like covering all of Massachusetts 2.5 times over.

...

[ Solar powered reality ] [After a comment from me quoting Steven Den Beste on the land requirements to supply enough power to replace California's gas usage--which Den Beste pegged at 525 square miles ]

According to the CIA, the USA has 4,165,110 km of paved roadway. Let's assume that the average width of a roadway is 50 feet, just a guess. Suppose that instead of paving all those streets, roads, highways and expressways we paved a big square in the middle of the desert. How big on a side would that square be?

sqrt(4165110 * 5/8*5280*50)/5280 = 157.0078

That square would only be 157 miles on a side. Think how much effort it took to pave that much. Think about how much effort it would be to cover that area with solar panels.

Now today on Watts Up With That they point out that all of that land has property taxes levied on it:

Producing 225,592 kilowatt hours of electricity in its first year of operation, a solar farm in eastern Kalamazoo Coun­ty that went online in early 2010 has exceeded expectations.

Also exceeding expecta­tions is the property tax, said Sam Field, a Kalamazoo attor­ney and one of the owners of Kalamazoo Solar.

The $27,689 tax bill for the Charleston Township prop­erty means that the owners are losing money, even when being paid a premium price of 45 cents a kilowatt hour by Consumers Energy, he said.

“That Michigan property tax burden works out to a cost of 12.3 cents per kilowatt hour,” Field said. “That amount is more than the retail value of the electricity.”

Also:

For comparison, Field re­searched the property tax for the Palisades Nuclear Plant in Covert Township along Lake Michigan. He found that the annual real and personal property taxes for Palisades are just over $12 million or .2 cents per kilowatt hour.

Good point:

Here's my question: Why are we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place? Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there.

As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production. (President Obama's tentative, selective opening of some Atlantic and offshore Alaska sites is now dead.)

And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we've had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

So we go deep, ultradeep — to such a technological frontier that no precedent exists for the April 20 blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.

Charles Krauthammer, Investors Business Daily

Interesting article on California's energy policy.

In many countries, electric utilities struggle to keep up with demand, and often fail. The World Bank estimates that almost 1.5 billion men, women, and children lack reliable access to electricity. They want it, but they can't have it. In new-agey   California, it's the other way around. The centerpiece of California's energy policy is really the absence of energy.

The state is in serious trouble. Its leadership doesn't seem to understand that.

A year ago today I wrote about T. Boone Pickens' energy plan

The plan itself seems to put a lot of emphasis on wind power and natural gas. I'm a little skeptical about the wind part, but the natural gas part sounds good for the short term. I would like to look a little closer on the practicality of wind power.

Now it seems the plan is dead

HOUSTON – Plans for the world's largest wind farm in the Texas Panhandle have been scrapped, energy baron T. Boone Pickens said Tuesday, and he's looking for a home for 687 giant wind turbines.

Sorry to hear that. I guess every billionaire is entitled to a Spruce Goose or two.

Title IX has been applied to colleges to mean that equal numbers of men and women should participate in sports, regardless of the relative interest between the genders towards participation. As a result, and in order to meet the number-of-women = number-of-men requirement, schools have been shedding men's sports. Not increasing women's, but for the most part cutting men's volleyball, wrestling, etc. (This is one reason why colleges are having trouble recruiting men and are more-and-more women-dominated. Schools with strong sports and engineering programs tend to be more equal in male/female campus ratios than ones without strong men's sports or an engineering focus.)

This is one of those shocking, surprising, startling, and utterly predicable outcomes of this sort of numbers game.

Now, let's turn to California's power-market regulations which state that by 2020--just 11 years from now--one-third, 33%, of California's power must come from renewable sources (but don't you dare use the dreaded n-word....I mean nuclear, of course.)

Which one of these two paths is the easiest way to meet the 33% goal:

1. Build lots of expensive and inefficient wind and solar plants that can not produce cost-effective energy, and must rely on government subsidy to lower the price to where consumers can consume it.
   
   
2. Or shut down the non-renewable and poluting gas- and coal-fired plants, reduce over-all supply, but meet the 33% quota?

The answer, of course is #2. So, just as with Title IX, we are likely to see some increase in renewable energy, but a much bigger shut down of non-renewables. This in a state which had rolling third-world-style blackouts a couple of years back, and which barely makes enough power to meet current, pre-recession demand.

California's self-inflicted damage and stupidity is really a sight to behold.

I only wish I was beholding it from outside the state!

I hate listening to presidents speak, but I was walking past the TV during Obama's press conference and caught this bit:

We all know why this is so important. The nation that leads in the creation of a clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the 21st century's global economy.

Considering there is really only one country currently leading the way in the creation of clean energy, and only one country which looks like it will continue in the lead for decades to come, and one country that is really far beyond any other in the creation of clean energy--because only one country has gotten past any nuclear squeemishness, Obama is obviously hailing the great nation of France! Tune up the Marine band and break out La Marseillaise.

Dear Mexico-

How are you? I am fine. I am wondering if I might give you a little advice. I have an idea that might make you some money. It's pretty simple.

Have you considered building a series of nuclear power plants near your border with the US? Tijuana is only 135 miles from LA. It's also 20 miles from San Diego, 417 from Tucson, 350 from Las Vegas and Phoenix. There are a lot of power-hungry Americans living there. Sure, it will cost you up front, but think of how much the USA will be willing to pay for that power once Cap'n Trade comes sailing in on his pirate schooner. Besides, you can avoid much of the cost by building an already existing design, say a modern French-designed plant. Litigation costs, a prohibitive factor in the USA, could be avoided easily by an act of your legislature. Yes, a few American eco-nuts will show up there for sit-ins and the like. You can enjoy throwing them in jail for a while. See how quickly they head back home to their ivy-league dorm rooms.

Anywho, it's just a thought.

Adios Amigo,

-Steve

Iowahawk... heading towards "National Treasure" status...

T. Boone Pickens has an ad or two in which he calls our purchasing of foreign oil "the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind." If I buy a car for $20k, is that a $20k transfer of my wealth to the car dealer? Is the car dealer $20k richer? Am I $20k poorer? Don't I have the car?



But what do I know. I'm not a billionaire.

Ann says: You are correct in that if I pay what I consider a reasonable price (or an unreasonable one that I must make out of necessity) for your product, and in return I get the use of that product, then it's true it is a 1:1 trade.

However, if I pull a commodity out of the ground for a few dollars a unit, but because of a real or perceived scarcity of that product, I can charge more than ten times the production cost, then I'm getting an awfully good deal out of it. And, if I then use my capital gains for nefarious things...such as funding a world-wide religious cult bent on world domination, which also just happens to engage in widespread war and terrorism against the very people who paid me for my commodity--people who themselves have vast quantities of this same commodity that they refuse to exploit, then all I have to say to the people who bought my stuff is this: SUCKERS!!!!

Updated below...

It was only a matter of time, but I didn't expect the wind power industry to be referred to as "Big Wind" so soon.

For decades, dairy farmers have wrested a living from the Tug -- accepting lives of wind-swept hardship with little prospect of much change...

"Is it worth destroying families, pitting neighbor against neighbor, father against son?" asks John Yancey, whose family has farmed Tug Hill for generations. "Is it worth destroying a whole way of life?"

Similar questions are being asked across the country as more small towns grapple with big money and big wind...

So there you have it. Evil Corporate Big Wind preying on poor desperate farm families, tricking them into signing away the air rights over their land. Where have you gone Woody Guthrie? We need you more than ever.

Update

Found via Instapundit, a related story from the New York Times

But in town after town, some residents say, the [wind] companies have delivered something else: an epidemic of corruption and intimidation, as they rush to acquire enough land to make the wind farms a reality.

Those photos have been more effective in black and white. What are they teaching in j-school these days?

I've written a few posts [1,2,3,4] on economic growth, energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Essentially I've pointed out that energy conservation plans, and the energy plans of both McCain and Obama are not going to help us for long, because with economic growth will come ever-increasing demand for energy.

Now there is this report from the UK on Greens who see GDP growth as the real root cause of the problem:

John Barrett, one of the authors of the reports by the Stockholm Environment Institute at York (SEI-Y) for the government and campaign group WWF*, was quoted by the BBC today:

"We are constantly battling against increases of wealth... There's a very fundamental problem here that no one really wants to talk about..."

Stuart Bond of WWF told the Beeb: "Our claims on emissions are simply a big lie.

"There is no way the government can hope to achieve any of its emissions targets without cheating unless it changes its policies on encouraging flying and hoping to satisfy people's insatiable demands for buying more and more stuff."

As to how that should be done, Bond was reluctant to give specifics. But he said there was a need for a "strategic plan to set out very clearly how the UK will become a low carbon economy by 2050... at the moment there is no central priority for environmental issues. Consumers' consumption of goods is the driver of emissions. The continued pursuit of GDP, of economic growth - that is a mantra that we must question."

So with one hand, I salute them for their honesty and recognition of economic growth as a factor. With the other I point to my temple and move my finger in small circles, the universal symbol for "cookoo."

Erratum. There was a mistake in my code. I have re-done the figure and the text in this post to reflect the correction. We are doing a little bit worse than I thought, compared to Western Europe and Japan.

In an earlier post, I wrote

... energy conservation of say 20% would only buy us about 7 1/2 years before we are right back in the same boat. This is assuming a modest growth rate of 3% for the economy. My guess is that 20% is a lot, in that it would take a lot of effort and belt-tightening to gain that sort of efficiency.

I would like to go back and try to get a handle on that 20% conservation, which I said was a lot. I recently found this very nice graph at the Wikipedia page on "Energy Consumption."



to which I have added the colored rays shooting out of the origin and the legend at top right (click image to zoom).

The underlying graph plots per capita energy consumption vs. per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The first thing that stands out with this graph is how much GDP per person the US produces vs. nearly every other country. Yes, the US uses a lot of energy, but that is mostly because we produce a lot of stuff per person. More than twice what Spain produces per person. Roughly 50% more per person than Germany. Only Japan has higher per capita output. The second thing to notice is that the US is not that inefficient. There are many countries that do worse than we do, and we are better than the world average. We are roughly as efficient as Spain. If we could get by with 90% of the energy we use, without decreasing GDP, we would be like France. That would buy us 3.6 years before we were consuming as much energy as we are today. Conserving 20% would make us as efficient as Germany, and buy us 7.5 years. The UK is doing well. We would have to cut about 32% of our energy use to get their level of efficiency, and we would gain 13 years in doing so. All of these calculation assume 3% annual growth in our GDP. Japan is doing very well in this regard. Cutting 50% of our energy would get us to where they are, and gain us 23 years. That's not nothing.

Japan and those western European countries have an advantage in that they are not as spread out as we are. They have less transportation costs, for people and freight. They may also have milder weather, I'm not sure. I doubt that many Americans would be willing to adopt a Japanese style of living. Very high population density, with a high percentage of people living in small (by American standards) apartments.

So the bottom line, I think, is that we can do better with our energy use. I still think that 20% would be an ambitious goal, gaining us about 7.5 years. Not earth changing, but not bad.

Wow. Just when I thought I couldn't have a lower opinion of government, I find data for this:
U.S. crude oil production has been plummeting since 1970. Why? What has been done about it? Tell me our oil troubles are "Bush's Fault." How many Presidents and Congresses have we had since 1970?

Ann says: It's also remarkable that this takes place after the 1970's oil embargo by OPEC. Just when we were given a vivid demonstration of the power of OPEC to slam our country, we decided, year-after-year, to strengthen their power.

It really makes no sense whatsoever.

No, not the physics-kind of conservation of energy. The kind where we save energy by using efficient light-bulbs, driving at 55mph, and wearing a sweater like Jimmy Carter wanted us to. I think it is over-rated.

I don't want to sound like too much of a crank here; I am not in any way opposed to conservation. There really isn't much of a downside. I just don't think that conservation programs are likely to yield any lasting improvement in our energy situation.

One reason for this is that part of the savings in energy that might come from more efficiency will be offset by increased consumption. Take compact fluorescent bulbs for example. In our home we are gradually replacing our incandescent bulbs with these more efficient models. They save money and energy in the long run, but not as much as you might think. Rather than replace a 60Watt incandescent with at "60Watt equivalent" CFL, I often use a "100Watt equivalent" CFL. This allows me to get more light out of fixtures in dingy areas of the house. There is still an energy savings, since a 100Watt equivalent CFL uses fewer than 60Watts, but there is not as much savings as proponents claim. Similarly, someone who buys a car that gets better mileage may well drive more, thereby lessening the fuel savings.

Finally, and most important, energy conservation of say 20% would only buy us about 7 1/2 years before we are right back in the same boat. This is assuming a modest growth rate of 3% for the economy. My guess is that 20% is a lot, in that it would take a lot of effort and belt-tightening to gain that sort of efficiency. See the graph below which shows how many years we "buy" for percentage gains in efficiency. What's more, I don't think this sort of conservation can be thought of as a resource we can keep tapping into. With decreasing marginal returns, each additional belt-tightening measure will gain us less and less.

So the bottom line, I think, is that conservation is not a panacea. It doesn't hurt, but it would be disingenuous to suggest that we "just need to get by on less." That's not going to cut it.

T. Boone Pickens, billionaire, has a plan to address America's energy problems. He put together an interesting video:



He's using his own money to promote this; his commercials on t.v. say "paid for by T. Boone. Pickens." (Is that a great name or what? )

The plan itself seems to put a lot of emphasis on wind power and natural gas. I'm a little skeptical about the wind part, but the natural gas part sounds good for the short term. I would like to look a little closer on the practicality of wind power.

I remain a nuclear man.

China has decided to ramp up its nuclear power program. It wants to have 100 Westinghouse nuclear reactors in operation or under construction by 2020.

If China follows through on these and other nuclear plans they should have 200GW of nuclear power completed by 2025. This would be double what the USA has now.

While China steams ahead to a nuclear future, here in the USA the talk is all about "alternative energy." I'm afraid we are stuck on stupid. Suppose we were to try to build a 200 gigawatt photovoltaic solar power plant, by scaling up a cutting edge plant, the Serpa solar power plant. This plant, in sunny Portugal, was completed last year and is one of the largest in the world. The solar panels in this plant rotate to track the sun as it moves across the sky.

It occupies about 0.234 square miles of land, and is expected to produce about 20 gigawatt-hours per year. That works out to an average power output of about 2.28 megawatts. How much land would we have to cover with these panels to get 200 gigawatts?

200,000 / 2.28 x 0.234 = 20,526 square miles.

That's like covering all of Massachusetts 2.5 times over. Compare the footprint of the proposed drilling in ANWR

3.13 square miles

The plain truth is that solar power plants on this scale are not going to happen. It would be nice if we had some political leader out there who understood that. Instead we get fantasies about solar, biofuels and wind. I suppose this is what politicians have always done, promising the impossible to win votes. I'm reminded of Bart Simpson, running for class president:

My opponent says there are no easy answers. I say, he's not looking hard enough!

At what point does a lack of a realistic energy plan compromise national security? How long can we keep putting off taking the necessary steps to avoid a catastrophic energy shortage? The time to drill for more oil is now. The time to get our nuclear program back in gear is now.

An interesting idea over at Planet Gore:

...why not go one step further and put nuclear reactors on military bases? With enough reactors, we could make the entire military and Federal government energy independent, as well as add much needed energy into the economy. As for who would run the reactors, that's the easy part. We have the most successful nuclear reactor operators in the world at our disposal: the U.S. Navy.

I'm not sure about having the DOD/DOE run electrical utilities, but I think this is an idea that's worth keeping in mind. By the time that wishful thinking about breakthroughs in "alternative energy" meet up with cold reality, it's possible the USA will need some real power, real fast. If this plan is NIMBY-proof, so much the better.

Another thing to add to my sisters posts, gas and gas II. This comes from Gateway Pundit via Classical Values. Here is a map showing where offshore drilling is prohibited:

I think it's pretty telling. Look who doesn't have any qualms about drilling 50 miles from Key West:

I spent some time on the DoE's stats pages, and made this graph. The blue line is gasoline "U.S. Total Gasoline All Sales/Deliveries by Prime Supplier" which I have normalized to January 1985's value. As you can see, it has gone up by 28.4%. The pink line is the "U. S. Operating Crude Oil Distillation Capacity", which I have again normalized to January 1985. It has gone up only 19.9%. So our gasoline sales have gone up 10% more than our refineries have been producing.



Gee, I just don't understand why gas prices have gone through the roof?!

Which just goes to show that the second most-poorly taught, and second most-important subject in American schools* is Economics. Gee, supply and demand? Never heard of it.

* the number 1 worst-taught/most-important subject is statistics.