More than six billion people are consuming the remaining fossil fuels at a rapid and accelerating rate. As fossil fuels are depleted, will mankind develop renewable energy quickly enough to assure continuation of a decent standard of living? Building large numbers of renewable energy systems would consume large amounts of fossil fuels, so it is essential that we do not wait until fossil fuels become very scarce and expensive.
The US Department of
Energy said a successful transition to the post-petroleum era would require
several decades and a significant portion of our remaining fossil fuels. "The
first step is conservation, which frees up the necessary oil to begin building
the new infrastructure, like Biodiesel refineries."
—
Vinay Gupta
By Geir Moulson
Associated Press
Friday 04 June 2004
Bonn, Germany - More than 150 nations pledged Friday to promote alternative energy sources "with a sense of urgency," closing a global conference marked by warnings about the vulnerability of world oil supplies to terrorism.
The Renewables 2004 conference set no specific global targets, but approved an "international action program" of 192 projects by governments and international organizations to further wind, solar, geothermal and other energies.
A final declaration said governments "reaffirm their commitment to substantially increase with a sense of urgency the global share of renewable energy in the total energy supply."
The outcome received a generally positive response from environmental groups. World Wildlife Fund activist Stephan Singer said it moved the cause of renewable energies "dramatically forward."
"We think it's the best possible document for the time being," he said, adding that his organization was happy "to see that countries like the United States, Saudi Arabia and others committed (to the idea that) that renewable energies are a major part of the future."
Germany proposed the four-day conference after the 2002 World Summit for Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa, failed to agree on timetables and targets for expanding renewable energy use, despite European pressure.
It gained urgency because of soaring oil prices and attacks on foreign workers in Saudi Arabia.
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder urged delegates Thursday to "address the fact that the global economy's one-sided dependence on oil greatly increases our vulnerability to such terrorism."
The 154-nation Bonn meeting gathered a series of individual commitments.
They ranged from China's pledge to draw up a development strategy for renewable energy through a promise of increased funding by the World Bank to a French-German-Afghan initiative to improve energy access in rural Afghanistan.
The United States pledged research and development efforts to bring down the cost of solar and wind energy, and said it would expand production tax credits for alternative energies.
"We have sent an important political message to the world," Germany's development minister, Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, said in a closing speech.
"We must be clear that, given the huge demand in developing countries, the world will need far more energy than today," she said. "So an enormous expansion of renewable energies is needed."
February 3, 2003
A recently-released poll shows that energy efficiency and expanded development of renewable energy sources like wind and solar continue to be more popular by far than trying to increase oil and gas supplies.
The poll by Zogby International, conducted for the Wilderness Society from November 5-7, 2003, involved 1,003 likely voters chosen at random nationwide, and has an error margin of +/- 3.2 percentage points.
More than three of four voters support investing either in energy efficiency or renewable energy instead of trying to increase oil and gas
supplies. When asked, “Which of the following do you think is the best way to address the nation’s energy needs?” 40% responded, “Use energy more efficiently and develop more fuel-efficient cars and trucks so we use less oil;” 37% responded, “Expand development of alternative forms of energy like wind and solar power;” 16% said, “Drill for more oil and gas in the US to increase our energy supply;” and 2% said, “Get our oil-producing allies in other countries to send us more oil.”
Overwhelming majorities of Democrats (82%), Independents (80%), and Republicans (70%) say that investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy sources is preferable to drilling for more oil and gas in the U.S.
Similarly strong majorities exist in every region of the country and among all age, race, education and income categories.
Additional information about wind energy can be found at http://www.awea.org
Energy Files of Special Interest
Renewable and Alternative Energy Resources
Poll on Energy Budget Priorities, Utility Restructuring, Tax Incentives
Choices for a Brighter Future: Perspectives on Renewable Energy
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, MARCH 1998
THE END OF CHEAP OIL, by Colin J. Campbell & Jean H. Laherrère
Forecasts about the abundance of oil are usually warped by inconsistent definitions of "reserves". In truth, every year for the past two decades the industry has pumped more oil than it has discovered, and production will soon be unable to keep up with rising demand.
See the report.
Encircling the Production Peak, by Richard Duncan,
Institute on Energy and Man, Seattle, WA, 1997
See the report.
THE oil crisis, by C. J. Campbell;
Multi-Science Publishing Company & Petroconsultants, 1997
Read a sample chapter.
Available from
Amazon.com
Read the report.
Richard C. Duncan, Ph.D.
Institute on Energy and Man,
June 27, 1996
Read the report.
During the spring of 2004, Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) came close but ultimately were unable to bring their Climate Stewardship Act to a vote in the Senate in July. The bill is a comprehensive national policy that would set the first mandatory limits on U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases. McCain and Lieberman had been hoping for an even better showing of support than the 43 senators who sided with the measure in November 2003. That strong bipartisan vote shattered the myth that the U.S. Senate would never seriously consider action to address global warming. Senator McCain has vowed to keep bringing the issue back until the Senate takes a responsible approach to climate change.
by Dr. Larry Kinney, February 1, 1999
The Kyoto Conference once again placed environmental issues before the public, if only for a few days. On a per capita basis, America is far and away the world’s leading emitter of gasses that most scientists —except those who follow Limbaugh logic— believe contribute to global warming. Conventional wisdom holds that the fix is to limit emissions of greenhouse gasses, most of which are due to the burning of fossil fuels. The focus of debate at Kyoto was on limiting emissions: by how much; by which country; and by when.
The American delegation in Kyoto seemed about as eager to adopt decisive action on limiting emissions, as our nation’s leaders were to sign the Ottawa Treaty banning landmines. "Seems like a good idea, but we need more time" was a constant refrain in both cases, ignoring Martin Luther King’s insight that "it’s always the right time to do what’s right".
Perhaps there are some people who believe it’s a God-given right for Americans to foul the environment and that we should exercise this right with all due vigor. I hope their numbers are few. I suspect that the majority of those who favor foot dragging on limiting emissions—most of which are due to burning fossil fuels—believe that the current economic miracle is fueled by cheap energy. Hence, they fear that actions that threaten to limit consumption or raise prices may have deleterious effects on Wall Street’s Sacred Bull.
My view is that the potential for global warming is but one of many powerful reasons to substantially reduce our use of fossil fuels. Further, the economy as a whole will be better off if we redouble our efforts to attack the problem now, and on many fronts.
However, in allocating resources, I think it’s important to frame the "renewable" resources question quite carefully. All too frequently, when renewable sources of energy are discussed, the implicit assumption is that we need to meet our present and future "energy needs" with a mix of renewable and non-renewable sources that increasingly emphasizes the renewable. My concern is that this way of stating the problem assumes that the "needs" are a given; therefore the agenda should be to find alternative energy sources to meet them.
Ironically, the pursuit of alternative sources has taught us a great lesson about our presumed needs. Let me illustrate in the housing and transportation sectors.
An average home in upstate New York uses about 125 million BTUs to heat it during the winter. Typically, fuels like natural gas or fuel oil are used to supply this heat—the energy equivalent of about 125 person years of labor—at an annual cost of from $840 to $1,000 if using oil or natural gas. It is possible to design an active solar system to totally meet this need. In many climate areas, there is adequate insolation (sunshine) to supply solar heating during the winter, but in the Syracuse area, long-term storage is the only practical alternative. Solar energy needs to be collected when the sun is out and stored for when it’s needed. Water is probably the least expensive medium of storage, but it would require a 20,000 cubic foot super-insulated tank to do the job. (Imagine a swimming-pool-size container 40 feet x 50 feet by 10 feet deep covered with 6 inches of urethane.) The system would also require a solar array of 1,000 square feet or so (depending on the efficiencies of its elements), a pair of heat exchangers, several pumps, and a set of controls. The cost of such a system would be several tens of thousands of dollars, even for the do-it-yourselfer.
It’s enough to drive you to ask why you need 125 MBTUs to heat your home over the winter. The answer is that it may be due to many reasons, but a list of frequently occurring culprits includes:
Notice that windows and doors are not on this list. Replacing windows or doors is not usually cost effective unless the existing windows are major sources of air leakage that can only be treated by replacement.
Depending on what’s wrong, it’s often possible to halve the heating energy use of typical upstate homes for two or three thousand dollars. The greater the energy use per square foot, the easier (and more cost effective) it is to save energy. (Savings follows waste!) Nonetheless, even if somewhat heroic measures are taken, it’s hard to get 2,000 square foot houses down below 50 MBTUs for the heating season. Although that’s within reach of an active solar system, the best approach would probably be to use the active system to heat domestic hot water and supply some space heating during colder months, leaving the dead of winter for back-up sources like wood, coal, oil, or gas.
New dwellings offer better opportunities. Paul Howells, a scientist at the Syracuse Research Corporation, pioneered a simple construction technique that has the thermal virtues of a cave without the depravities of living underground. The result is a home which costs substantially less than conventional housing stock, is more comfortable, and can be heated for 10-12 MBTU/year, 10 percent that of a typical home. It uses the earth to buffer the home from temperature extremes and is quite comfortable in summer as well as winter. Heavy perimeter insulation in installed to thermally isolate the earth under the dwelling from the surrounding soil. Thick walls built like pole barns permit the installation of lots of insulation. Conventional trusses span large areas between exterior walls, making it easy to install a vapor barrier that seals the structure thoroughly. Combined with heavy attic insulation, a number of these houses have been built with R45 walls and R 60 ceilings. Careful attention is given to ventilation, which is controlled to ensure good indoor air quality while avoiding energy waste. Most of these homes also have 100 square feet or so of high-quality glazing (R-10 glazing is now widely available) oriented within 30 degrees of south. This passive solar feature is usually combined with an overhang to limit direct sun during summer months.
The very modest remaining heating energy needs of the structure may be met with a small, efficient wood stove (distribution of energy from single sources like wood stoves in tight, well-insulated homes is quite good) or even a conventional hot water heater fueled by a fossil fuel. In all events, the home may be left throughout the winter with no energy input at all; the fact that it is ideally insulated and coupled to the earth means that it will never drop below 55 degrees on the coldest day of the year. Further, a small, cheap active solar system could be employed to supply hot water needs for perhaps eight months of the year.
Is such a dwelling a solar home? Well, sure, it makes good and appropriate use of this marvelously renewable resource when it is available. I prefer to think of it as a dwelling that uses "alternative" energy resources, in this case good air sealing techniques and excellent insulation.
The pursuit of solar vehicles has yielded analogous results. A gallon of gasoline is a very concentrated form of energy. The sun is a powerful resource, but it is quite diffuse. (Only several hundred BTUs per square foot per hour are available to any collection system, however efficient.) Accordingly, one doesn’t begin with 3,000 pounds of pig iron with the fancy option package from an assembly line in Detroit. No, we have to learn to build much more elegant vehicles that are light, sleek, and strong. What’s evolving are super light cars made of carbon fiber with efficient electric motors at each wheel. These are fueled by electricity generated on board by fuel cells that burn hydrogen and produce only pure water vapor in the exhaust. Meanwhile a small on-board battery is charged when the brakes are applied, temporarily turning motors into generators. A small microprocessor coordinates the drive and energy functions to maximize efficiency and safety.
Note that designing to make good use of renewables results in creative thinking about our needs in the first place. In the housing and transportation sectors, there’s strong evidence that our needs may be less than expected. (Indeed, if high-speed trains became a reality, perhaps Americans’ love affair with the automobile and airplane could be abated. Passenger trains can achieve upwards of 2,000 passenger miles per gallon of fuel.)
These examples could be multiplied many fold. A few years ago, the average refrigerator used over 1200 kilowatts a year. Now, redesign forced by federal standards has yielded off-the-shelf refrigerators that use less than 500 kWh per year. At Synertech, we’re presently testing a 15 cubic foot automatic defrost unit that uses 350 kWh per year in 70 degree F kitchens. In bulk, they are available for only $330 apiece. The "secret" is better insulation, better controls, and better compressors; all assembled using more efficient techniques. The wide-scale adoption of energy-efficient refrigerators in this country alone will negate the need for building at least half a dozen large (800-megawatt) new power plants! For now, at least, an energy-efficient refrigerator represents a much better investment than active solar.
Neither the generation of electricity through photovoltaic cells or via concentrating reflectors that produce steam to turn generators are particularly economically attractive in our area yet, but photovoltaics may become so. As always, the trick is to limit demand by conservation-which we should be doing even if we’re still using the stuff from Niagara Mohawk.
There are lots of clever ways to do it. For example, there’s a home just south of Syracuse that has a small energy-efficient refrigerator which, like the rest of the house, runs off of photovoltaics. The energy-efficient refrigerator makes a gallon or two of ice each day, which in turn is used to cool a conventional refrigerator that had been discarded because of a failed compressor. Retrofitted with extra insulation, it serves as a very nice icebox. During winter months when photovoltaic power generation is down, the external world supplies the ice.
One of the most promising uses of solar energy is to provide natural lighting. The sun produces both light and heat. Trying to take advantage of heat in mid winter when fossil fuel energy is so cheap is problematic, as we have seen. However, in mid summer, solar lighting is very much available and may be put to a number of good uses. Its color properties are better than anything yet invented by humankind and utility companies haven’t figured out how to meter the source. Best of all, sunlight provides light very efficiently, which means that air conditioning loads in commercial buildings are lowered. Again, the trick is to design elegant, simple systems. In this case, the aim is to direct the sun to where it does the most good while minimizing glare. This is the principal area of research at Synertech, and some exciting new designs are under development.
It is not politically popular to point out the obvious. Nonetheless, exponential growth in the use of non-renewable resources is simply impossible; our finite globe can’t sustain it. Nor can our atmosphere and waters sustain exponential growth in pollutants. The leading cause of both is waste, not "need".
Our challenge is not to meet our energy needs with "alternative" energy sources. Our challenge is to meet our needs as human beings — to live well. To me, living well means comfortable, safe, housing; good indoor and outdoor air and water quality; wholesome, safe food; efficient, reliable, safe transportation, and the opportunity to create in peace. Energy consequences flow from these, but better living certainly does not necessitate more consumption.
We have the opportunity to create new systems-and retrofit old ones-with a view to minimizing waste and maximizing people functions. Genuinely elegant systems take advantage of "alternative" as well as renewable resources of many varieties.
The cost of energy varies substantially with what might be called its "quality". In the sense meant, electricity is judged of higher quality both because it is usually manufactured by heat engines that burn fuels of lower quality (wood, coal, gas, oil, uranium) at efficiencies of only 35 percent or so. Electricity is often the most convenient source of power. However, since electrical energy is sold by the kilowatt-hour, it is difficult to compare its costs with wood by the cord, coal by the ton, gas by the therm, or oil by the gallon. Accordingly, it is convenient to express all energy sources in a common unit.
A BTU is the energy necessary to raise a pound of water one-degree Fahrenheit. It follows, for example, that a hundred thousand BTUs (a therm) is the energy necessary to raise 10,000 pounds of water 10 degrees F. In people terms, a million BTUs (MBTUs) is the energy equivalent of about a person year of labor. As mentioned, it takes about 125 MBTUs to heat an average home for a winter in Central New York.
The table below shows some sample retail costs of energy to small consumers in New York State:
| Fuel | Unit | BTU/Unit | Cost/Unit | Cost/MBTU |
| Coal | Ton | 28,000,000 | $140 | $5.00 |
| Crude Oil | Barrel | 5,800,000 | $20.00 | $2.90 |
| Heating Oil | Gallon | 140,000 | $0.94 | $6.71 |
| Gasoline | Gallon | 125,000 | $1.20 | $9.60 |
| Natural Gas | Therm | 100,000 | $0.80 | $8.00 |
| Electricity | Kilowatt hour | 3,413 | $0.14 | $41.02 |
Several important inferences may be drawn from this data. First, energy in America is still widely available for a very modest cost. A gallon of gas costs only $1.20 here (it’s more than four times this number in most developed nations), yet it contains the energy equivalent of two months of labor. Second, the high-quality energy called electricity costs a lot more than the other fuels (although it’s still a bargain in this country. Electricity costs more than a dollar per kWh in Japan, $300 per MBTU).
The table below summarizes Onondaga County’s annual consumption of and costs for natural gas and electricity bought from Niagara Mohawk in 1995. There are several other suppliers of retail electricity in the County, including Solvay Electric, New York State Electric and Gas, and direct pipeline gas from remote vendors is delivered to a number of large consumers. Many buildings also consume fuel oil for space heating and other uses. In addition, of course, there are costs of energy for transportation, gasoline, and diesel fuel. Hence, it is likely that the annual bill for energy costs for all needs in Onondaga County approaches a billion dollars, over $2,000 for each resident.
| Fuel | Annual Consumption | Annual Cost |
| Natural Gas | 34,437,167 Decatherms (MBTU) | $155,140,053 |
| Electricity | 4,135,055,422 kWh | $421,357,431 |
| Totals | 48,549,982 MBTU | $576,497,484 |
Author:
Dr. Laurence F. Kinney
Southwest Energy Efficiency Project
2260 Baseline Road, Suite 200
Boulder, Colorado 80302 Phone: 303-447-0078
Fax: 303-786-8054
info@swenergy.org
larryfkinney@aol.com
June 3, 1999
From: SUN DAY Campaign <kbossong@cais.com>
A national public opinion survey released by a broad coalition of business, environmental, consumer, and energy policy organizations confirms that most citizens believe renewable energy and energy efficiency should be given priority for federal energy funding but that nuclear power and fossil fuels should be the first technologies subject to budget cuts.
Furthermore, by large margins, the public favors inclusion of provisions to promote sustainable energy technologies and consumer disclosure in federal electric utility restructuring legislation but oppose having electricity customers pay for uneconomic nuclear plants. Finally, Americans overwhelmingly support federal tax incentives to encourage the use of renewable energy in electricity production and to encourage the purchase of energy-efficient automobiles, homes, and heating and cooling systems.
These are among the key findings of the survey, "America Speaks Out on Energy: Funding Priorities, Electric Utility Restructuring, and Tax Incentives" conducted for the Sustainable Energy Coalition by Research/Strategy/ Management, Inc. of Sterling, Virginia from May 10-18 among a sample of 1,029 adult Americans 18 years of age and older. The survey has a margin of error of +/-3.0%.
For the fifth year in a row, a majority of all Americans (62%), and more than two-thirds (69%) of those expressing a preference, would give the highest priority to funding the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) renewable energy (i.e., solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and hydroelectric) and energy efficiency research and development (R&D) programs. On the other hand, nearly a third (31%) of respondents selected nuclear power as the first R&D program that should be subject to budget cuts, followed by fossil fuels (21%). Only 5% would cut funding for energy efficiency R&D while just 9% would reduce the renewable energy budget.
These findings, which reflect even higher levels of support for sustainable energy programs than were measured in the Coalition's earlier polls, cut across all political, gender, age, geographic, and income categories. Ironically, recent votes by the House Science Committee and Senate Appropriations Committee would allocate federal energy dollars in a manner completely at odds with the public's preferences.
By large margins, 78% of respondents support including a Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard requiring 10% of electricity be generated from solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass sources as part of federal electric utility restructuring legislation. In addition, 59% favor creating a Public Benefits Fund, supported by a 2-3% surcharge on utility bills, to fund energy efficiency, low-income energy assistance, and renewable energy R&D programs. There is also near-unanimity (89%) among Americans that electricity providers should be required to tell their customers the type of fuel being used to generate electricity as well as the type and amounts of air pollutants being emitted.
However, a lopsided majority (76%) of consumers believe electric utilities' shareholders, and not their customers, should be required to pay off the cost of uneconomic nuclear power plants as the utility industry is deregulated. Neither the White House nor anyone in Congress has yet to introduce a utility restructuring proposal that reflects the public's preferences.
More than 80% of respondents favor tax incentives to increase the use of renewable energy for the production of electricity either strongly (45%) or at least somewhat (36%). Furthermore, Americans overwhelmingly support making tax incentives available to encourage the purchase of energy-efficient vehicles, new homes, and heating and cooling equipment. More than three-quarters (77%) support such incentives for the purchase of automobiles that are at least twice as energy efficient as the average new car either strongly (46%) or at least somewhat (31%).
An even larger share of citizens (83%) support tax incentives to spur the purchase of new homes that are at least 30% more energy efficient than the average new home either strongly (51%) or at least somewhat (32%). Finally, 84% of those surveyed believe tax incentives should be made available to encourage the purchase of home heating and cooling systems that are at least 30% more energy-efficient with a majority (51%) agreeing strongly and another third (33%) agreeing at least somewhat. The findings suggest that the public is ready to support the Clinton Administration's yet-to-be-introduced package of tax incentives that comprise its Climate Change Technology Initiative.
# # # #
Copies of the 50-page survey, "America Speaks Out on Energy: Budget Priorities, Electric Utility Restructuring, and Tax Incentives" are available for $15 (pre-paid).
The Sustainable Energy Coalition is a coalition of 35 national business, environmental, consumer, and energy policy organizations (list available upon request) founded in 1992 to promote a shift in federal energy priorities away from nuclear and fossil fuels and towards renewables and energy efficiency.
 A furniture factory in Gardner, Massachusetts, has harnessed the renewable energy of the sun
|
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo., has released a book on how renewable resources can be harnessed to provide a clean, never-ending source of energy. The book, Choices for a Brighter Future: Perspectives on Renewable Energy, looks at renewable energy around the country and discusses the implications of the emerging competitive market for electricity and the policy options that would support the use of renewable energy. The book is available from the National Technical Information Service, (800)553-6847.
Throughout history, groups of people have managed to ignore problems until it was too late to prevent serious consequences. Example: Waiting until the Titanic began sinking before deciding that the ship should have had lifeboats for more than half of the passengers and crew.
Perhaps there is a fatal flaw in our nation's current planning and efforts to keep our energy supplies adequate and affordable. There are several reasons why the fuels often seem to be the least expensive source of energy in the USA:
Government subsidies could continue to make the use of fuels appear to be less expensive than the use of renewable energy sources until nearly all of our world's fuels have been consumed. If we allow that to happen, then we would no longer have the massive amounts of fuels necessary for adequately expanding the use of renewable energy systems and improving energy efficiency.
We may not know the true value of fuels until our remaining fuel reserves run low and we need to find adequate alternatives. Mankind has about 34 cubic miles of oil reserves remaining and is presently consuming about one cubic mile each year. Our inadequate domestic supply of natural gas and our growing dependence on foreign oil imports provide clues that our growing population has no time or fuel to waste if we intend to build enough renewable energy systems to sustain everyone in the USA during the post-fossil-fuel era.
Ten Steps to a Sustainable Energy Future (pdf file)
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy — U.S. Department of Energy
Report suggests renewables can meet half of global energy needs by 2050
|
"Our future may lie
beyond our vision, but it is not completely beyond our control. It
is the shaping impulse of America that neither fate nor nature nor the
irresistible tides of history, but the work of our own hands, matched to
reason and principle, that will determine our destiny. There is pride in
that, even arrogance, but there is also experience and truth. In any event,
it is the only way we can live." |
