Techtrend

Renewable timetable is a long shot

by Rolf E. Westgard

Al Gore’s well-intentioned challenge that we produce “100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years” represents a widely held delusion that we can’t afford to harbor.

The delusion is shared by the Minnesota Legislature, which is requiring the state’s largest utility, Xcel Energy, to get at least 24 percent of its energy from wind by 2020.

One of the most frequently ignored energy issues is the time required to bring forth a major new fuel to the world’s energy supply. Until the mid-19th century, burning wood powered the world. Then coal gradually surpassed wood into the first part of the 20th century. Oil was discovered in the 1860s, but it was a century before it surpassed coal as our largest energy fuel.

Trillions of dollars are now invested in the world’s infrastructure to mine, process and deliver coal, oil and natural gas. As distinguished professor Vaclav Smil of the University of Manitoba recently put it, “It is delusional to think that the United States can install in a decade wind and solar generating capacity equivalent to that of thermal power plants that took nearly 60 years to construct.”

Texas has three times the name plate wind capacity of any other state — 8,000-plus megawatts. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas manages the Texas electric grids. ERCOT reports that its unpredictable wind farms actually supply just a little more than 700 MW during summer power demand, and provide just 1 percent of Texas’ power needs of about 72,000 MW.

ERCOT’s 2015 forecast still has wind at just more than 1 percent despite plans for many more turbines.

For the United States, the Energy Information Administration is forecasting wind and solar together will supply less than 3 percent of our electric energy in 2020.

On biofuels, the U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is calling for 15 billion gallons of ethanol from corn by 2022. This will require nearly 40 million prime crop acres dedicated to corn for ethanol to supply just 7 percent of our gasoline consumption.

There is a role in our energy needs for alternatives like wind, solar and biofuels.

But the assumption that they will make a major, near-term supply contribution is distracting us from hard choices involving aggressive conservation, life style changes and major investments in energy efficient public transport.

We do have serious issues with fossil fuel burning. Coal is an increasing environmental problem, and oil supplies may well peak in the near future.

We need to improve energy efficiency with upgraded buildings, high-mileage vehicles and electric public transport.

The way we produce and transport food may have to be recast to avoid transporting so much of it for great distances.

Funding and encouraging these efforts will likely require unpopular but affordable energy taxes, especially on gasoline and coal production.

Above all, we need more realism and less political dreaming as we approach a difficult energy future.

As we look toward our energy horizon today, energy analysts don’t see those multicolored renewable rainbows our political leaders and their lobbyists are depicting.

The primary color out there for analysts who don’t have to run for office is coal-dust black.

Meaningful Numbers of Plug-In Hybrids Are Decades Away
By JAD MOUAWAD

Plug-in hybrids like the Chevy Volt, above, would not have a significant impact on the nation’s oil consumption or carbon emissions before 2030, according to a new study.

The mass-introduction of the plug-in hybrid electric car is still a few decades away, according to new analysis by the National Research Council.

The study, released on Monday, also found that the next generation of plug-in hybrids could require hundreds of billions of dollars in government subsidies to take off.

Even then, plug-in hybrids would not have a significant impact on the nation’s oil consumption or carbon emissions before 2030. Savings in oil imports would also be modest, according to the report, which was financed with the help of the Energy Department.

Dozens of carmakers, including Toyota, General Motors and Nissan, are developing new plug-in hybrid, which will begin showing up in showrooms next year. (Toyota just announced today that “several tens of thousands” of plug-in Priuses would go on sale in 2012 2011.) These types of cars have both an electric and a gasoline-powered engine. They are built to run primarily on the electric battery, but if extra power is needed for a long drive, the gas engine eventually kicks in. Users are supposed to be able to recharge their cars by hooking them directly into electric power outlets at home or at work.

The report found that plug-in electric cars could number 40 million by 2030 — provided that rapid progress is made in battery technology and that the government provided hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies and incentives. However, the study suggested that a “more realistic” scenario is closer to 13 million cars. That would represent 4 percent of the estimated 300 million cars that would be on the road by then.

The main reason behind this slow rollout relates to the cost of the batteries. Building a plug-in hybrid that can run for 40 miles on electricity costs $18,000 more than a similar conventional car, the report stated. While a mile driven on electricity costs less than one driven on gasoline, “it is likely to be several decades before lifetime fuel savings start to balance the higher first cost of the vehicles,” the report said.

“Lithium-ion-battery technology has been developing rapidly, especially at the cell level, but costs are still high, and the potential for dramatic reductions appears limited,” the report stated.

원문출처: http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/report-meaningful-numbers-of-plug-in-hybrids-still-decades-away/

Skepticism Persists as Nissan’s Ghosn Leads Charge Into EV Age
By Roger Schreffler and Mack Chrysle

Carlos Ghosn is a man on a mission.

In recent months, the charismatic president and CEO of Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. and Renault SA has been sales pitching for electric vehicles so hard in so many places, industry analysts have begun to wonder whether he’s selling an automotive elixir or snake oil.

His speeches are persuasive, touching on everything that suggests EVs and zero emissions are “the wave of the future” for global auto makers, led by Nissan.

“We are probably the only auto maker (together with Renault) already spending more than ?4 billion ($6 billion) on electric cars and zero emissions,” Ghosn says in a presentation to the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Japan in mid-October. “This is not a bet but the result of a very thorough analysis of market forces and government policies. We feel electric cars are ready now.”

The era of “cheap oil” is ending, Ghosn says, pointing out electricity can be generated in many ways utilizing coal, natural gas, wood, wind, nuclear or solar energy. Every government around the world today, right or left, is becoming more concerned about the environment and how to preserve Planet Earth, he stresses.

The Nissan approach to changing times and circumstances varies from that of competitors in one critical area.

“The big difference is our intention to be a big player in the battery industry,” Ghosn says. “To have a sustainable strategy in electric-car or zero-emission markets, any car maker needs to have clear control of the battery. This is a core technology, and we are making it a core business.”

He cites Nissan projections EVs will represent 10% of the global auto market in 2020, despite other studies suggesting penetration as low as 1%.

The confidence builder? When the company asked people for their first choice between a hybrid, electric or internal-combustion car, 9% of the Japanese and 8% of the Americans queried opted for electric.

Nissan will offer its Leaf EV in the U.S. and Japan in 2010. A year later, Renault will roll out the first of its EV lineup in Israel, Denmark and France. And, in 2012, Renault and Nissan will launch “a full-fledged offensive” with many cars in as many markets as possible.

Nissan Leaf.

The electric car will be a long-term project, involving long-term investment and long-term positioning.

“We need incentives to jump-start the technology,” the Renault/Nissan CEO admits. “We need three to four years of support. Incentives will pave the way, and then it will be a normal competition.”

And there’s the rub.

Other auto makers share Ghosn’s enthusiasm for EVs to one degree or another.

Mitsubishi Motors Corp. launched the iMiEV earlier this year and hopes to sell 15,000 units in 2015, by which time a cargo version of the car, exhibited at October’s Tokyo Motor Show as a concept, should be on the market as well.

PSA Peugeot Citroen, working jointly with Mitsubishi, will offer its i-MiEV-based iOn in late 2010, while Hyundai Motor Co. Ltd. is developing an EV for fleet use, also aiming for a late-2010 launch.

Other brands planning near-term launches: Ford, BMW, Fiat, Mercedes and Volvo.

Even tiny Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd., maker of Subaru cars, is in the hunt with the June launch of its Stella EV.

Still, other auto makers are hedging their bets – or being realistic.

General Motors Co.’s Volt, due in 2010, is a plug-in hybrid, which executives say could be converted into a pure EV if and when necessary.

Toyota Motor Corp. Executive Vice President Takeshi Uchiyamada predicts hybrids will account for 30% of Toyota sales by 2020 and won’t even venture a guess about the share of plug-in hybrids and EVs by then.

But assuming the market recovers and Toyota re-grows its business to 10 million or even 12 million units, 30% of those global sales would be somewhere between 3 million and 3.6 million. And none would be EV sales, nor probably involve lithium-ion batteries like those in the Leaf.

Several years ago, Honda Motor Co. Ltd. predicted 20% of its sales in 2020 would be hybrids, and the company’s focus is still on mild-hybrid technology, leaving little room for EVs. Honda currently is working with GS Yuasa Corp., the Li-ion battery supplier for Mitsubishi’s i-MiEV and PSA’s iOn, on development of a battery for a future hybrid.

Toyota’s battery subsidiary, Panasonic EV Energy Co. Ltd., currently is producing 4-cell Li-ion batteries for the intelligent stop/start system on the Vitz and Yaris. But the supplier’s main business is nickel-metal-hydride battery packs, which it supplies to all Toyota hybrids and Honda’s Civic Hybrid.

Yet skeptics and naysayers leave Ghosn undeterred.

“The only question is, ‘Are we ready now or should we wait for five more years until we have better technology and lower cost?’” he said during a panel discussion in New York at the Clinton Global Initiative in September. “We think the time is now.”

Intuitively, that makes sense – if the numbers work. It is the strategy Toyota took launching the Prius in December 1997, namely cash-in on the publicity, develop real-world operational experience and keep filing patents, while counting on volume growth to bring down costs eventually.

The Leaf’s chief designer, Masato Inoue, sees it in precisely those terms. “We want to be first on the market, and the Prius (business) model is proven,” he says.

In mid-November, in California to kick-off a U.S. marketing tour, Ghosn tells reporters the Leaf will be the first affordable, mass-market electric car priced competitively with similar-size cars and says he expects to make money on the vehicle.

The 64,000-yen question is when? Surely not at launch time when battery costs, alone, not counting motors and inverters, will well exceed the auto maker’s mass-production target of ¥500,000 ($5,600) per set.

Though positive about Nissan’s technology, which it jointly developed with NEC Corp., analysts are skeptical about the auto maker’s cost goals.

Many industry experts believe Ghosn’s vision of near-future EV demand is a daydream, distorted by over-optimism and colored by an unrealistic view of battery costs, prompting unanswered questions as to just how high incentives and subsidies will need to go to create sufficient EV demand and who will be ready and able to offer this kind of support.

“It’s time for a reality check,” says CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets analyst Kanehide Yahata, who estimates combined EV and plug-in hybrid sales will account for no more than 1.5% of global demand in 2015. Because bringing down battery costs is the major deterrent, Yahata declines to venture a 2020 forecast.

In the next five years, he believes it may be possible to lower those costs to $500 per kilowatt-hour. But that is still double the level needed to make EVs competitive with conventional powertrains and shrink their price penalty to below $5,000 per car, presumably including motors, inverters and battery-cooling systems.

A University of Michigan study indicates U.S. consumers are willing to pay only $2,500 extra for a plug-in hybrid. The new Prius cost penalty, not counting research and development, is estimated at about $2,200.

In Japan, minivehicles selling for about ¥1 million ($11,000) account for one-third of total vehicle sales. Cars under 2L in engine displacement, priced below ¥2 million ($23,000), take another third of sales. Buyers in these segments can’t afford EVs, even with huge subsidies.

Yet combined subsidies and incentives for the Leaf in Japan – national, prefectural and municipal – are expected to range from ¥1.3 million ($15,000) to more than ¥2 million, similar to those passed on to owners of Mitsubishi’s i-MiEV, when the car hits dealer showrooms toward the end of next year.

This means the net price to the consumer will be on the order of ¥2.5 million ($28,000), give or take several hundred thousand yen (several thousand dollars), assuming the central government renews its subsidy program due to end next March.

Nissan does not confirm a Leaf sales price.

“Ghosn’s analysis is compelling on most major issues except one – who will pay for the massive subsidies needed to underpin EV sales?” says a senior bureaucrat in Tokyo. “On that vital point, he fails.”

Japan’s national debt is off the charts at about ¥924 trillion ($10.4 trillion) projected for the end of 2009, while its public debt as a percentage of its gross domestic product is more than double all Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries except Italy.

Much the same situation can be seen in the U.S. and European Union, where mounting debts and massive budget shortfalls at all government levels, from national to local, easily could dampen EV sales prospects despite their positive environmental impact.

On top of this, all of the leading EV proponents, notably Nissan, Renault, Mitsubishi and PSA, carry huge debt loads. And three of them – Nissan, Renault and PSA – reported substantial operating losses over the past 12-13 months, adding to their debt and limiting their abilities to promote zero-emission technologies without government support.

Some experts say recharging time and driving range are the biggest drawbacks to EVs, but ultimately these are a function of battery capacity and cost, the first of which is too little, the second too much.

According to Ghosn, the Leaf’s 100-mile (160-km) range covers 90% of the daily driving needs in Japan and most other major markets. The problem is that other 10%.

“Buyers would basically be paying the price of a Lexus for a second car,” one Nissan official admits.

While the basic story line is right, Ghosn has omitted a few details that could make the road ahead a little bumpier – namely, that the Leaf’s 100-mile range is achieved without engaging the car’s air-conditioner and heater, which knocks off 30%. Also, the life of the battery for automotive use is estimated at only four to five years.

To Nissan’s credit, it has taken steps to address the battery-life problem by entering into a joint venture with Japanese trading house Sumitomo Corp. Under the plan announced in October, batteries will be recycled for home and industrial use as backup storage devices for solar panels.

The next decade more likely will be one featuring the growth of hybrids, not EVs, and substantially improved conventional powerplants. For example, Mazda Motor Corp.’s new Sky engine series, due out in 2011, will offer 15% better fuel economy. And there are jokers with sharp elbows in the deck.

China reportedly is prepared to outspend the U.S. – and most likely Japan – in EV development and leave foreign competitors far behind.

Chinese Li-ion battery maker BYD Co. Ltd., the world’s leading supplier to mobile phone manufacturers and a small producer of cars, introduced a plug-in hybrid last December, the F3DM, and reportedly is planning an EV launch in the near future.

Analysts have been bullish on the company ever since Warren Buffet took an equity stake last year. However, CLSA’s Yahata warns that BYD still hasn’t introduced a battery pack for personal computers, slightly up the development curve from mobile phone batteries, “thus an EV battery might take some time,” he says.

Japan’s new central government, now pushing for a 25% reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions by 2020, also could spur EV growth. The problem again is who is going to pay?

But if Japan can put in place the necessary infrastructure and car makers and suppliers can slash battery costs, the policy could propel the nation’s auto industry into the dominant position for years to come, much like its currently leadership in hybrids.

Not to be ignored is competition from Toyota, with cumulative global hybrid sales of 2.1 million units through September. The third-generation Prius, launched in May, has been Japan’s top-selling car for five consecutive months and is on target to easily surpass 200,000 units globally in the current fiscal year.

It is interesting to note as well that when the Prius bowed in 1997, Toyota had nearly ¥3 trillion ($34 billion) in the bank to support this hybrid initiative during the first few years when it lost money on every sale, whereas Nissan still has a ¥293 billion ($3.3 billion) net debt. Mitsubishi and Subaru also lack deep financial pockets.

Yet, Nissan could hold a wild card. If the company really has developed the industry’s most affordable Li-ion battery, as some analysts have reported, it possibly could propel the global auto industry into the zero-emissions age as Ghosn foresees.

Nissan has been developing Li-ion batteries for 20 years, initially working with Sony Corp. and now with NEC. By late 2012, if the auto maker’s business plan is sound, it will have annual production capacity for 385,000 battery sets in Japan, the U.K., the U.S. and elsewhere.

Adding in capacity planned by partner Renault, total Alliance capacity would approach 500,000 units, yielding real economies of scale.

Energy Minister Jean-Louis Borloo announced in October that France would invest E2.5 billion ($3.6 billion) over the next 10 years in research, subsidies, infrastructure development, battery production, pilot projects and bonuses for car makers building green cars.

Add to that, Nissan has entered into more than 30 partnerships with national, state and city governments and utilities to develop EV technology in 13 countries including Japan.

How much is hype and how much offers real business potential, only time will tell.

But the strategic tie-ups clearly suggest that either the automotive elixir is addictive or the snake oil has bite.

기사원문: http://wardsauto.com/ar/skepticism_ghosn_ev_091201/index.html

Just use less
Energy savings to be big part of nation’s energy future

The easiest way to reduce U.S. consumption of greenhouse gas-emitting fossil fuels may not involve changing the way it is generated, but rather simply using less of it, an energy expert said.

Maxine Savitz, vice president of the National Academy of Engineering, former deputy assistant secretary for conservation in the U.S. Department of Energy, and a member of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, said the energy efficiency gained through new technologies in buildings, cars, and industry could reduce energy use as much as 30 percent by 2030.

Savitz, who spoke at the Science Center as part of the Harvard University Center for the Environment’s (HUCE) Future of Energy lecture series on Nov. 17, presented the results of reports by the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering that assessed technology’s potential to transform the nation’s energy production, distribution, and use.

The reports conclude, Savitz said, that the United States needs a concerted and sustained energy approach, but that potential efficiencies from technology in buildings, transportation, and industry could cut energy consumption 15 percent by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030. The savings from heating, cooling, lighting, and other building systems alone could counterbalance the projected growth in energy consumption through 2030, meaning that no new power plants would be needed. In addition, Savitz said, those estimates were calculated assuming that people continue their everyday behavior. Savings from conservation-related behavior change — such as walking to work instead of driving, turning the thermostat down, and wearing heavier clothes at home — were not included in those calculations and could potentially add significantly to energy savings.

“Deploying existing energy-efficient technology is the nearest term and lowest-cost option,” Savitz said.

Savitz, a retired general manager of technology partnerships for Honeywell Inc., also lamented the country’s shift away from energy efficiency during the 1980s. In response to a question by HUCE Director Daniel Schrag, Savitz said that if the nation had maintained the savings momentum gained in the late 1970s, it would be far ahead on conserving energy now.

Savitz said the last couple of years have been exciting for those involved in energy conservation and efficiency, with public interest at levels not seen since the 1970s. The question, she said, is how long such interest will continue. Savitz said that any U.S. energy solutions will require a portfolio of changes across many fields, not just energy efficiency.

Savitz was part of the team that drafted the report on the potential for energy efficiency through technology, released earlier this year. Other subcommittees looked at power generation from renewable energy sources and at the potential for using coal and biomass to create liquid transportation fuels.

There are several promising options for new electricity supplies, Savitz said, including nuclear power plants that utilize novel technology, coal plants with carbon capture and sequestration technology, and increased use of wind power. Renewables provide just 8 or 9 percent of the nation’s energy, with most of that from hydropower. The United States could draw 20 percent of its power from wind, she said, but that would require a major investment, including building 100,000 turbines at a cost of $100 billion for capital improvements.

There are few immediate alternatives to using gasoline for liquid transportation, Savitz said. Fuel use is projected to reach about 15 million barrels a day by 2035, and just 2.5 million barrels can reasonably be expected to come from clean biofuels or liquid-coal technology.

“We’re going to be using petroleum fuels for a long time in the transportation sector,” Savitz said.

The United States has proven in the past that it can increase energy efficiency, Savitz said. Consumption rose continuously until the 1970s, when it leveled off, before beginning to grow again, increasing 40 percent in the decades since. Now, 40 percent of the nation’s energy goes to light, heat, cool, and otherwise run buildings. Transportation uses another 28 percent, while industry uses 33 percent.

Though the U.S. economy has become more energy-efficient in recent years, it still uses about twice as much energy per dollar of gross domestic product as European economies, Savitz said. Greater energy efficiency is possible for a host of building systems and appliances, in both residential and industrial settings. Savitz cited possible improvements in everything from television sets to heating and cooling systems to windows to clothes washers to lighting, for which new light-emitting diode bulbs are poised to reduce energy consumption even from that of compact fluorescent light bulbs.

Savitz used the example of the refrigerator to illustrate the potential for savings from energy efficiency. Refrigerators in 1947 averaged eight cubic feet and used 400 kilowatt hours of electricity. Refrigerators grew in both size and energy consumption through the 1970s, when their energy use began to decline. That dip continues, and now, although they’re much larger at roughly 22 cubic feet, they use only slightly more energy than they did more than half a century ago.

Though there is great promise of savings from energy efficiency, there are barriers to adopting these technologies too, Savitz said, including lack of information, problems with capital availability, regulatory policies, ownership status, and the uncertain psychological factors involved in making people embrace change.

That last issue has gotten the least attention, Savitz said, but is a significant variable. You only have to consider why consumers suddenly changed driving and car-buying habits when gas prices topped $4 a gallon to understand how significant and difficult to predict it can be.

“How do people make decisions? Why at $4 do people drive less, but at $3 they don’t?” Savitz asked.

The Fallacy Of Alternative Energy

By Peter Goodchild

14 November, 2009
Countercurrents.org

The term “alternative energy” starts its life as something like an oxymoron. A “source of energy” either exists or it does not. If it exists, it is being used, and the word “alternative” is therefore at best confusing if not deliberately misleading. If it does not exist, it is not being used. There is no mysterious borderland between those two states of existence and nonexistence.

It is not possible for an “alternative energy” to exist somehow in a virginal state, to be utterly undetected and unused. Refusing to deal with overpopulation directly, humans live in a world of ubiquitous destitution, and they have incessantly tried to find ways of relieving the pressures of resource consumption. In such a milieu, the search for an untouched form of “alternative energy” is irrational.

There is an air of both desperation and credulity in the quest for such an elixir, a mad scrambling for something that is basically an object of blind faith. To “desperation and credulity” could even be added “intemperance,” replacing “elixir” with “elixirs”: How many forms of “alternative energy” would humans need to find and utilize before they were happy?

The above principles can be extended even further. There is a rough positive correlation between the “sustainability” or future longevity ― as well as the practicality ― of a “source of energy” and the number of years to which this source has already been put to use. A thousand years from now, firewood will no doubt be harvested to some extent, but uranium is unlikely to be a major item of trade.

As with “source of energy,” I am putting the words “alternative energy” in quotation marks to emphasize that it is a highly problematic term, perhaps one that should be avoided. As a close cousin to an oxymoron, “alternative energy” is in the same league as “sustainable development [or growth]” and “eco-village” or “transition town” (which, contrary to my previous understanding, is not a town where donkeys are ridden). In terms of logic, or the lack thereof, the use of the term “alternative energy” can also be seen as incorporating a petitio principii, which Webster’s defines as “the fallacy of assuming in the premise of an argument the conclusion which is to be proved.”

Something else resembling an oxymoron, in the same class as the others above, and used for similar fallacious purposes, would be “cutting-edge technology,” as the term frequently appears in my email in-box: “Peter, you’re ignoring the exciting trends in cutting-edge technology.” As is often said, it’s curious how these exciting trends only pop up when human beings are suddenly facing the reality of expensive cars with no gasoline. But I generally just refer my correspondent to Dmitry Orlov’s statement in “Our Village”:

“There is an element to American culture that never ceases to amuse me. Even when grappling with the idea of economic disintegration, Americans attempt to cast it in terms of technological or economic progress: eco‑villages, sustainable development, energy efficiency and so on. Under the circumstances, such compulsive techno‑optimism seems maladaptive. I love the new advances in organic farming, which I find fascinating and very useful, but why do people seem incapable of doing the simplest things without making them into projects, preferably ones that involve some element of new technology? Thousands of years of happy composting using heaps and pits are behind us: now we need bins ― and plastic, oil‑based ones at that!”

Plastic compost bins are the tip of a gigantic pyramid, the summit of a vast infrastructure composed of government, education, and extensive division of labor. When that huge edifice is no longer in place to create those plastic compost bins, we can stop dreaming such back-to-nature dreams. Piling garden refuse into such containers might be pleasant, and it may even have a purpose, but by using these things one is hardly following the precepts of Rousseau and Thoreau. A high-tech solution is precisely no solution.

Let us return, however, to the term “source of energy.” As it is generally used, it suffers from a lack of scientific rigor. Is there any objective, unprejudiced collection of empirical evidence that the planet Earth, or parts thereof, should be looked upon as “sources of energy”? From what perspective do we derive this term? The geologist’s? The astronomer’s? Certainly it is not that of the physicist. Yes, a physicist might use such a term, but not as if it were a universally recognized label meaning “coal, oil, natural gas, and so on.” The label might suit the purposes of the historian or sociologist, but only with the understanding that these disciplines are those of the humanities, not of the sciences. The label would also suit the purposes of the engineer, but again only in terms of human goals. “Source of energy,” in other words, has meaning from the perspective of human needs, but as it is now used it is questionable as a term reflecting an objective event in external reality.

The planet Earth, if I may be forgiven for belaboring the obvious, was not designed and built with “sources of energy” as parts of its structure. (I would be inclined to say that it was not designed and built at all, but that would be a digression.) If, by some quirk of geology or biology, there was plant material, or falling water, or uranium, that could, with human ingenuity, be used to produce heat and light, then that was lucky for humanity, but it says nothing else.

The major “sources of energy,” using the term in that subjective and non-scientific sense, are fairly obvious: oil, coal, and natural gas, as well as ― much further down the list ― nuclear power and hydro. These sources now allow us to “produce energy” (in the humanistic sense) at the rate of about 16 terawatts. All other sources of “energy” amount to far less than 16 terawatts, and that will always be the case. (Yes, solar energy reaching the Earth is considerable, but it is spread out so thinly that it is not very useful.)

Descending from these Aristotelian heights, what grand conclusions can we draw? Perhaps the most important deduction is that the Earth is not an infinite repository of “sources of energy” for the delectation of mankind. The Earth is just a rock, floating in space. If a “source of energy” was not there at the beginning of the Earth, then all the “cutting-edge technology” with which we are so enamored is not going to put it there.

We, as humans, are not in a position either to create or to redesign a planet that has an equatorial diameter of about 12,756 kilometers but is, in essence, nothing more than an accident of Nature. If anything appears on Earth that is of use to us, then we are fortunate. If such a thing does not appear on Earth, perhaps contrary to our expectations, then we must be resigned to the fact.

I sympathize with those who, since about the 1960s, have been putting all their money into the bottomless pit of the “alternative energy” industry, but my compassion does not extend to prevarication. There is really no sense in devoting vast amounts of time in trying to prove that 2+2=5. But the case is worse than that: unfortunately, so many people who get into discussions over “alternative energy” have simply never bothered to do their basic homework.

The kind of writing I look for could be roughly described as follows. We might consider the 11 points listed below. Then we might ask: What would points 12 and 13, etc. be? At the same time, of course, we should not be brooding perpetually over points 1 and 2, or acting as if 1 and 2 were great new discoveries.

1. The entire world’s economy is based on oil and other fossil fuels. These provide fuel, lubricants, asphalt, paint, plastics, fertilizer, and many other products. In the year 2000 alone, about 30 billion barrels of oil were consumed.

2. In 1850, before commercial production began, there were about 2 trillion barrels of oil in the ground. By about the year 2008, half of that oil had been consumed, so about 1 trillion barrels remained.

3. By the year 2030, oil production will be down to about half of its peak production.

4. “Unconventional oil” is not very useful. Oil can be produced from tar sands, for example, but 2 barrels of conventional oil must be burned as fuel in order to produce 3 barrels of tar-sands oil.

5. The amount of energy that can be derived from “alternative energy” is not sufficient to replace that of 30 billion annual barrels of oil ― or even to replace more than a small fraction of that amount. In addition, “alternative energy” itself requires “oil energy,” even if only as an infrastructure.

6. “Alternative energy” has a host of other problems. Fuel cells require hydrogen derived from fossil fuels. Biofuels require enormous amounts of land. Hydroelectric dams are reaching their practical limits. Solar, wind, and geothermal power require prodigious amounts of equipment, a self-defeating process. Nuclear power faces a shortage of fuel, and it creates serious environmental dangers.

7. Modern agriculture depends on fossil fuels for fertilizers, pesticides, and for the operation of machines for harvesting, processing, and transporting. Without fossil fuels, it will be impossible to feed a global population of several billion people. Widespread famine is inevitable.

8. The global economy is highly dependent on metals, including iron, copper, and aluminum. The mining industry faces two problems: huge requirements of energy (derived from fossil fuels), and a shortage of high-quality ore.

9. The global economy also uses enormous amounts of electricity. (Electricity is not a source of energy; it is just a means of carrying energy.) Electricity is almost entirely derived from disappearing sources: fossil fuels, water power, or nuclear energy.

10. Without oil, metals, and electricity, modern forms of transportation and communication will disappear. Without transportation and communication, the social structure in turn will disappear: government, education, and large-scale division of labor.

11. Small human communities will survive, but they will be relying on primitive technology, since their daily needs will have to be provided mainly by resources in the immediate environment. These communities may need to defend themselves against — or isolate themselves from — groups that are less able or less willing to be self-sufficient.

To say that the coming centuries will be a challenge would be an enormous understatement. Perhaps in a future scriptorium, when the facts and legends about the present era are being scratched onto parchment, there will be a chance to reflect on the foolishness of spending time on electric toys and magic tricks, when so much of more practical value could have been done to mitigate the ravages of famine, plague, and war.

Peter Goodchild is the author of Survival Skills of the North American Indians, published by Chicago Review Press. His email address is odonatus@live.com.