Techtrend

We Need New Metrics for Sustainability
By John McElroy

One of the wonderful platitudes constantly extolled about the virtues of electric vehicles is that they have “zero emissions.”

EV advocates love to point out that not only do these vehicles not produce any emissions, they don’t even have a tailpipe. Of course, they are conveniently ignoring the emissions that EVs do produce.

I actually like EVs and believe their technology should be actively developed. But I don’t let my enthusiasm cloud my judgment about their impact on the environment, or about how well they’ll sell.

Earlier this summer, a report from the Argonne National Laboratory in the U.S. and Tsinghua University in China warned if EVs become widely adopted in China, they would cause much higher levels of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen.

That’s because China uses so much coal to generate the electricity needed to charge electric cars.

Even though the U.S. uses proportionately less coal than China, the lesson still applies: EVs are not zero emission vehicles. Even more, other studies show how gasoline and diesel engines running on various biofuels can meet or beat the emissions caused by electric cars, and do it at a far lower cost.

But the key to all these studies is using a well-to-wheels analysis. In other words, a precise measurement of the amount of energy that is consumed and the amount of emissions that are released, all the way from extracting the fuel, transporting and refining it, to the point where it is converted to turn the wheels on a car.

If you don’t do this kind of analysis, you can easily be misled as to what alternative fuel or power source is the cleanest and most efficient.

Actually, I would argue that a well-to-wheels analysis doesn’t go far enough. We need to be looking at a cradle-to-grave analysis, or better still, a cradle-to-cradle analysis. This would include the full recycling of an automobile, a critical component because the recycling of the batteries and power electronics in EV’s is quite energy intensive.

We stand on the brink of a new age in the auto industry. There is a mad rush to figure out the most efficient and environmentally friendly way to power the automobile. But if we limit ourselves to measuring emissions at the tailpipe, or calculating the energy consumed by the car itself, we’ll likely delude ourselves into picking an unsustainable technology.

True sustainability measures all impacts of a technology for at least seven generations. The thinking is if it hasn’t hurt anyone for seven generations, it probably isn’t going to hurt anyone, ever. We need to introduce this kind of assessment into picking the technology paths we want to pursue.

Even if we can’t hit on a perfect technology, we at least can pick the ones that are more sustainable than the others.

But before we can do that, we need to change our metrics. We need to stand back, expand the scope of what we’re looking at and figure out the big picture. Right now, we’re not measuring the right things.

John McElroy is editorial director of Blue Sky Productions and producer of “Autoline” for WTVS-Channel 56, Detroit, and “Autoline Daily,” the online video newscast.

Original article : http://wardsauto.com/commentary/we_need_metrics_101018/

Energy: Recognizing how much isn’t there.
by Robert Jensen

There’s no shortage of political blather in this year’s mid-term election campaigns, but most of us yearn for substantive discussion of the serious problems we face. What should the politicians be discussing? The University of Texas at Austin asked faculty members who teach about politics “to analyze, examine and provide their perspectives” on key political issues for the university’s web site, with new essays posted each weekday throughout the campaign season.
http://www.utexas.edu/know/2010/10/04/mid_term_elections/

[On my website] are my contributions, three short essays that raise critical questions about economics, empire, and energy that are routinely ignored by most politicians.
– Robert Jensen

Will America’s energy crisis be solved by more aggressive pursuit of fossil fuels or by more vigorous development of renewables?

In this campaign season, there are politicians on all sides. Chants of “drill, baby, drill” ring out, while others sing the praises of wind and solar, and some argue we must try everything.

Unfortunately, politicians don’t seem willing to face a more difficult reality: There is no solution, if by “solution” we mean producing enough energy to maintain our current levels of consumption indefinitely.

To deal with the energy crisis we must deal with a consumption crisis, but politicians are reluctant to run a campaign based on a call for “less” — the American Dream, after all, is always “more.” But, whether the public and politicians like it or not, our future is about learning to live with less, starting with a lot less energy.

In the United States, we have been living with the abundance produced by an industrial economy, all made possible by the concentrated energy of fossil fuels. We tell ourselves this is the product of our hard work, but our life of plenty was made possible by the incredible energy stored in coal, oil, and natural gas. How long can that continue?

It’s true that there’s a lot of coal in the ground, but burning all that coal means an acceleration of global warming and climate disruption. Easily accessible reserves of oil and gas are quickly being exhausted, and while geologists can’t tell us for sure when the wells will run dry, we should be thinking in decades, not centuries.

High-tech schemes for extracting oil from tar sands or “fracking” — hydraulic fracturing, a process of injecting water and chemicals deep underground to force out pockets of gas — are so ecologically destructive that they should be abandoned immediately. The same for most deep-water drilling; the Gulf disaster of the past year is a reminder that no matter how sophisticated the technology, we cannot control these processes. Nuclear energy presents the same trade-offs, magnified by our inability to dispose of the deadly waste safely.

There are more reasons to be positive about renewable energy sources, and intensifying research funding for wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass energy is the sensible move. But the reality to face there also is one of limits: None of those technologies, alone or in combination, will ever replace the energy stored in fossil fuels. The belief that because we want that energy we will create ways to produce it is the most naïve technological fundamentalism.

The most important step in dealing with our energy crisis is to realize just how much isn’t there. Either approach — believing that we can drill our way or invent our way out of the predicament — is magical thinking. Instead of fantasies of endless abundance, we have to recognize that a radical shift in the way our lives are arranged is necessary for survival. The most obvious of these arrangements we need to change is our car-based culture, but it doesn’t stop there. If there is to be a livable future, we need to commit in the present to major changes in our entire infrastructure.

The solution to the energy crisis can be stated simply: We must move around less and consume less. That means the solution is not only about where we get our energy, but how we define ourselves.

TRW Deal Portends Collision voidance for Masses

Collision-avoidance for entry-level vehicles lies on the horizon with TRW Automotive’s planned 2013 production launch of a low-bandwidth collision-warning system for the European market.

Such systems largely are the domain of luxury-segment vehicles and operate at 77 GHz. But TRW’s 24-GHz technology will provide the benefit of collision warning at a cost that is “fundamentally lower,” says Matt Roney, vice president-product planning.

A lower-bandwidth system is less effective at higher speeds than one that operates at 77 GHz, Roney concedes. But it “works great” up to about 87 mph (140 km/h).

“We actually feel this has a very good application for the North American market,” he tells Ward’s, adding TRW is in “active discussions” with several auto makers.

Potential pricing is in line with expectations for C-segment or even B-segment vehicles, Roney claims.

He is mum on details of the 2013 launch in Europe.

Longer range, Roney envisions entry-level vehicles as beneficiaries of collision-avoidance technology, which adds elements such as automatic braking or subtle steering inputs to collision-warning systems.

This scenario becomes more likely if the building blocks of these systems, such as 24 GHz radar, first proliferate in high-volume segments such as C- and B-cars.

“We want to bring radar and the longitudinal control and safety applications to mass-market vehicles,” Roney says of TRW.

TRW made its mark in collision-warning technology with a 77 GHz system on the ’02 Volkswagen Phaeton luxury sedan.

“Some of our competitors were hitting the market around the same time,” Roney says. “But what you saw was a very similar profile of vehicles, very high-end luxury vehicles. Daimler launched radars on their S-Class. And then you saw a few other competing technologies like LIDAR, which is laser-based, on some of the Volvo vehicles.

“We’re still focused on radar,” he adds. “What has changed is we are introducing a radar with a different frequency band.”

emayne@wardsauto.com

Original article: http://wardsauto.com/ar/trw_avoidance_masses_100923/

Maxwell Forecasts Peak Oil in Seven Years

Respected oil analyst and oil industry veteran Charles Maxwell (nicknamed the “Dean of Oil Analysts”) has forecast peak oil by 2017 or 2018:

Bracing For Peak Oil Production By Decade’s End

His prediction is not so remarkable, as is where he made his prediction. The prediction was in Forbes, which has often scoffed at the notion of a near-term peak. Some of Maxwell’s comments:

A bind is clearly coming. We think that the peak in production will actually occur in the period 2015 to 2020. And if I had to pick a particular year, I might use 2017 or 2018. That would suggest that around 2015, we will hit a near-plateau of production around the world, and we will hold it for maybe four or five years. On the other side of that plateau, production will begin slowly moving down. By 2020, we should be headed in a downward direction for oil output in the world each year instead of an upward direction, as we are today.

As far as the impact, you can put Maxwell down as a Long Recession believer. In a 2008 interview, he predicted:

“[Maxwell] expects an oil-induced financial crisis to start somewhere in the 2010 to 2015 timeframe,” Energytechstocks.com reported. “He said that, unlike the recession the U.S. appears to be in today, ‘This will not be six months of hell and then we come out of it.’ Rather, Maxwell expects this financial crisis to last at least 10 or 12 years, as the world goes through a prolonged period of price-induced rationing (eg, oil up to $300 a barrel and U.S. pump prices up to $15 a gallon).”

Maxwell and I are also on the same page regarding what will happen with the oil companies. Some people think that as oil declines, the oil companies will go out of business. I have a different view. I think that the rise in oil prices will be faster than the decline in production for most oil companies. Thus, they will make more money on less production. This will infuriate the public and the politicians, who will see sky-high pump prices at the same time the oil companies are raking in record profits (reminiscent of 2007-2008). Thus, there will be many calls for additional windfall profits taxes, and more calls for nationalizing the oil companies. Maxwell’s take:

In this case, “allow” means to allow the profits to flow through to the shareholders. What they will do is to put in excess profit taxes or windfall profit taxes on oil. That is the main problem that the oil industry will be dealing with in those future days. But even so, it looks like profits will rise significantly.

While there are some differences in the details, what Maxwell articulated approximates my own views.

* I view a global oil production peak within the decade as a near-certainty.
* I think there is a small probability that the peak has already occurred, but we won’t know that until several years after the fact.
* I don’t believe that there is anything in the technology pipeline that can prevent a growing gap between supply and today’s demand.
* I believe that gap will be closed by price-induced rationing, which will be very hard on businesses and individuals.

Higher prices will result in a very difficult transition period in which we are forced to use less because we simply don’t have the money to use the oil that we have historically used. This will be a period of great economic difficulty, lasting for years. At the same time that the economy is in great difficulty, oil companies will continue to reap big profits, causing an enormous amount of resentment and calls for higher taxation and greater regulation of the oil industry.

However, I also believe that humans are very resilient, and that we will eventually come through this. This is why I do not characterize myself as a ‘doomer.’ We do use a lot more energy than we absolutely have to use. I would bet that most people – if they really had to – could cut their fuel consumption by 50%. It wouldn’t necessarily be convenient or easy, but it could be done. But it takes planning to do this, and it is our collective failure to plan that is going to lead to the difficult period. It is during the difficult period that we will get serious about planning, and the subsequent modifications in our energy usage pattern will ultimately lead to recovery on the other side of the crisis. Energy transitions take time, but our energy consumption patterns will be forever altered relative to what they are today. I simply do not believe it will ever be possible to replace major shortfalls in oil production with renewables. It may be possible to replace 20% of today’s oil production, but beyond that there will be increasing competition with arable land for food production — and pressure to turn forested land into arable land.

Original article: http://peakoil.com/geology/maxwell-forecasts-peak-oil-in-seven-years/

Interview with Bob Hirsch on his team’s new book—“The Impending World Energy Mess”

by Steve Andrews

Robert L. Hirsch, Roger Bezdek and Robert Wendling have coauthored a new publication, this time a book called “The Impending World Energy Mess: What It Is and What It Means to You,” a book to be released by publisher Apogee Prime late this month. Hirsch will present material from his upcoming book at the October 7-9 ASPO-USA conference. Please see the full agenda for details at aspousa.org. He has spent his entire career working in the energy realm, from the oil sector to numerous forms of electric power generation. In 2005, this team published “The Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation & Risk Management.” Steve Andrews caught up with Bob Hirsch last week for Steve’s last interview and final work with the Peak Oil Review. (Steve co-established the Peak Oil Review the Tom Whipple some 243 issues ago in January 2006 and has both enjoyed and enormously appreciated a very close collaboration with Tom for nearly five years; Steve is now moving on to other endeavors.)

Andrews: In your earlier work dating back at least five years, you resisted forecasting a time frame for peak oil. There seems to be a bit of a change on that front in your book. Care to comment on that?

Bob Hirsch: In years past, there was considerable uncertainty in my mind about when the decline of world oil production might begin. Recently it became clear to me that it’s going to be sooner rather than later. I believe that the onset of the decline of world oil production is likely in the next two to five years. And when I say “oil,” I mean all liquid fuels.

Andrews: You say that once declining oil supplies hits, we’re likely to experience deepening worldwide economic damage. How is that likely to unfold? What is your most likely scenario?

Hirsch: Our thinking is that what happened in the two sudden oil shocks of 1973 and 1979 is very likely to be repeated when oil decline sets in. Those were two real world examples of oil shocks surprising people and causing panic. We believe that the same kind of thing is going to happen again, except that the problem is going to last much, much longer because, unlike before, there will be very few unused oil supply valves to turn on this time.

While economies have changed since the 1970s, the dependence on and importance of liquid fuels has not. And human nature hasn’t changed. People panic when they get suddenly frightened. Even though -peak oil‖ is recognized by a number of people, it is yet to be realized on a wide scale.

In the book we avoided consideration of such things as anarchy, wars, and other catastrophes that are conceivable. We see very little chance that things will be any better than what we describe, but things could easily be worse.

By the same token, we have faith that humankind is not going to collapse because of the oil decline problem. The world is in for considerable pain for a long time. Nevertheless, we have great faith in human resilience. People will come around, get very pragmatic, dig in and do what’s necessary to meet the challenges. As a result, when we get through all of this-which is going to take longer than a decade-the societies that emerge are going to be much stronger and much more pragmatic than they are today.

Andrews: You note that there will be no quick fixes. What mix of crash programs are you currently recommending as the focus of any accelerated policy efforts today?

Hirsch: We sketch practical, physical mitigation options for the world. They are the ones we described in 2005, plus or minus a few changes due to our being a little smarter now in some areas. In the book, we added what we call “administrative mitigation,” such as forced carpooling, forced telecommuting, and rationing. There is benefit to be gained from those options, but their implementation will not be simple.

For instance, rationing seems like a relatively simple concept but after one considers the details, it is incredibly complicated due to decisions that have to be made, the bureaucracies that have to be built, and the enforcement that has to be implemented. Understanding the complexities is necessary for practical decision-making.

Andrews: You introduce a new acronym in your book. What does LFROI stand for?

Hirsch: It stands for Liquid Fuels Return on Investment. The point is simply that if we have to invest liquid fuels into a process that is going to produce liquid fuels, we had better get a large multiplier on our liquid fuels investment or it is not worth the effort. The concept is clearly of fundamental importance. Options where LFROI is of particular concern are biomass-to-liquids processes, like corn and cellulosic ethanol, where large liquid fuels investments are required for harvesting and transporting biomass to processing.

Andrews: Following up there-since 1978, the most consistent investment we’ve made in alternative fuels is in ethanol from corn. If you were to address the US President and Senate as Energy Czar, what would you tell them about the policy we pursued vis-a-vis ethanol from corn?

Hirsch: I would tell them to learn from past mistakes. Corn-ethanol was appealing in many ways, but it turned out to be a loser from energy, cost, and environmental standpoints. People were grasping at straws — pun intended, sorry. People in the federal government wanted to do something to impact oil imports and to help farmers. I want to protect farmers myself; part of my growing up was on my grandfather’s farm.

Instead of grasping at this or that option which sounds good, government needs to demand serious, unbiased energy analysis so that pragmatic decisions can be made, and the private sector can carry out intelligent, unimpeded implementation. Right now we’re messed up because governments are picking winners and losers and strangling our energy systems.

Among other things we discuss in the book are solar and wind electric generation systems which are losers because they don’t provide what the public demands-electric power on demand; and don’t forget the often ignored fact that electric power generation options will have little impact on our oil import and impending oil shortage problems for a very long time.

Andrews: You state that societal priorities will change dramatically. Can you expound on that?

Hirsch: One of the biggest issues on the table now is climate change-global warming. Related concerns are going to have to give way to the urgent needs of immediate human existence after world oil production begins to decline. Our economies cannot flourish with very high-priced liquid fuels that are in deepening shortage. Massive, rapid, serious mitigation will be required. We can’t do everything at once, which means that global warming efforts and the dreams of a renewable energy future are going to have to be secondary to the urgent, large need to regain some sort of reasonable economic equilibrium.

Andrews: How will some of those changing societal priorities role down to impact individuals?

Hirsch: Every one of us will be impacted by the decline of world oil production. Liquid fuel costs are going to escalate dramatically-that’s what happened in 1973 and 1979, and it will happen again. There will be shortages, which will cause all kinds of problems. There will be rising unemployment and dramatic declines in stock markets. And there will be inflation. It happened before, and it is logical that it will happen again, except this time the pain will last a lot longer.

The question then becomes what can each of us as individuals do to protect ourselves. In our second-to-last chapter, we discuss the issues and investments that people should avoid, places where you can look to protect your nest egg, and things that you can do to minimize your personal damage. For instance, if you have a house in the country, far from a grocery store and places where you might work, you’re likely to get hit very hard when the value of that property declines. Remember, the primary reason those places were viable was abundant, cheap gasoline, which allowed people to get to and from them.

Andrews: When it comes to making personal choices, you write that individuals need to understand the situation in order to make the most intelligent choices. What is the key to that understanding here? Why aren’t more people getting this?

Hirsch: The key to making intelligent choices is having 60-80% of the relevant information. Less than 50% is often insufficient, while waiting for over 90% means you probably waited too long. The subject of the decline of world oil production (”peak oil”) is distasteful and painful, so trying to hide from the substance may be understandable, but the problem will not go away. How many of us really like to hear bad news, and how many of us are pragmatic enough to act soberly on bad news?

The current and the previous U.S. administration tried hard to minimize discussion of “peak oil,” because it’s really bad news. When the public consciousness is raised on this subject, the public will be furious with governments: why didn’t you tell us about this and what are you doing about it? Educating yourself ahead of the problem gives you the best chance of effectively coping, rather than being swept along with the current.

Andrews: Going back a bit, what choices are you making in your personal and family life that anticipate our looming energy problems?

Hirsch: One of my slides for my forthcoming presentation at the ASPO-USA conference in Washington is titled “Some of What I’ve Done.” It lists six points. Years ago, I went through the mental and emotional adjustment associated with what’s likely to happen when world oil production declines, and I pondered when it might begin; I determined then that I didn’t know, but I wanted to be in front of the problem rather than behind it, so I “peak-oil-proofed” my investments and personal life to the degree I thought reasonable.

For reasons outlined in our book, I got out of almost all stocks and bonds. I invested in some three-year annuities, which paid good interest and which I could quickly exit, and I reasoned that gold was going to go up dramatically when oil-related inflation hit. We moved to a home closer to shopping and mass transit, and I traded my gas-guzzler for a Prius. The first four steps turned out to be fortuitous because they helped us to weather the “Great Recession.” Given that I now believe that world oil production is likely to begin declining within two to five years, I think I’ve done about as much as I can do to protect my household.

Andrews: In the book you state that you dig into “realities that others are reluctant to discuss.” How so?

Hirsch: We were referring to the impending decline of world oil production and what it means; the climate change issue, both the uncertainties and the deplorable games being played by many in the environmental community; the realities of other energy sources, including renewables-we use the term “people are intoxicated on renewables;” and finally, what actions people might take to minimize the damage that is likely when world oil production goes into decline.

Andrews: For people who are already familiar with your paradigm-shifting report of 2005, is your book primarily a logical building on that foundation or do you think you have diverged substantially from the findings of that study?

Hirsch: The findings of our 2005 study have held up remarkably well over the last five years. Nobody has strongly argued that our mitigation estimates were wrong. One could argue the details of our estimates, but the story remains basically the same. In the book, we’ve updated our earlier considerations and added some things.

One of the biggest differences between 2005 and today is that, back then, we tended to think in terms of “peak oil” as a relatively sharp peak-production rising and then suddenly turning around and going into decline. That was what happened in the US Lower-48 States. Now we don’t think in terms of a sharp peak because world oil production has been on a fluctuating plateau since the middle of 2004 – world oil production has been essentially flat. We see that plateau as very likely continuing for the next two to five years and then decline setting in. So when I say “peak oil,” what I’m really talking about is the impending decline of world oil production from the existing fluctuation. I sometime use the term “peak oil” because it’s widely used, but it’s not now a strictly accurate descriptor. By the way, can you think of anyone who predicted the current five-year world oil production plateau? I can’t.

Andrews: So, at the end of the day, why did you write the book?

Hirsch: Along with you and many others, I’ve been talking and writing about this subject for years. A number of books and articles have been written, but the issue is still “below the horizon” for the general public. My hope was the kind of book that we could write might make a useful difference, so we undertook the effort.

By laying the oil, energy, and climate issues out in writing and carefully selecting our words, we hoped to be able to better communicate with a wide audience of intelligent lay-level people and to conceivably make a difference. That’s why we wrote the book.

Andrews: Why should people buy the book?

Hirsch: People should buy the book because the issues are very important to them in their personal lives. They need to understand the problems, however distasteful. The chances of not getting burnt are essentially zero. Being forewarned is to be forearmed.

Original article: http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2010/09/interview-with-bob-hirsch-on-his-team-new-book-the-impending-world-energy-mess/