The Oil Drum: Europe

As the first gentle snowflakes of winter settled on the windscreen of my car I was reminded, yet again, of the turning of the seasons and our need for power to keep us warm through the coming months. Last week I commented on how jobs might be created as the pattern of power supply begins to change, particularly with the incentives that might be a part of a new initiative. Two factors often get understated, however, in the current anticipation of the changes that a new Administration may bring. The first of these is the time that it will take to get any decision implemented at a scale that can be meaningful, and the second is the scale itself of the problem that now faces us.

To steal a phrase “It is the best of times, it is the worst of times,” although the rest of the opening to A Tale of Two Cities (“It was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair,”) may also be appropriate. It is also interesting, and will become more so as the new Administration seeks to find a way forward out of the compounding problems that now face it. The WSJ has noted the statements by President-elect Obama earlier:

On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama argued that spending $150 billion over the next decade to boost energy efficiency would help create five million jobs. The jobs would include insulation installers, to make houses more energy-efficient, wind-turbine builders, to displace coal-fired electricity, and construction workers, to build greener buildings and upgrade the electrical grid.

It goes on to note that if renewable energy is only brought on-line to displace conventional coal power, then the net job losses from existing industries may well offset the gains in wind power. That topic brought a discussion in comments a couple of days ago. It is, however, perhaps worth pursuing in a little more detail.

This is a simplified version of the presentation I will be making this Tuesday morning at the ASPO 7 Conference (the full presentation should be posted on that website in a couple of days). I must admit that I have been a bit nonplussed to see that the peak oil community seems to share the oil industry's dismissal of wind power as irrelevant and useless in the face of the currently energy challenge (maybe I am unfairly judging from a few individuals' comments, but it's definitely an existing undercurrent in the community).

So, in reaction, let me put up here a few arguments that suggest that wind could play a major role in solving our current energy woes - not a silver bullet, but rather more than a side show.

First, the "wind is too small to make a difference" argument: well, so was nuclear, until it got big enough. Wind is following the exact same growth trajectory:

Pure Power
EWEA, March 2008 (pdf)

The following is a guest post by Tom Konrad, PhD. Tom is an investment blogger who brings readers ideas for investments that may benefit from Peak Oil and Climate Change at AltEnergyStocks.com, where this article is cross published.

Last month, I posted some nice maps showing when and where good wind resources are found in the US. Now I've found something better: a visual comparison of electrical load with wind farm production[pdf file], published by the Western Area Power Administration in 2006. The study compared electricity production from five wind farms in Northern Colorado, Southwestern Nebraska, and Central Wyoming in 2004, 2005, and the start of 2006, compared with electricity consumption in the same area over the same time period.

In this post, I will talk about American Petroleum Institute's new Energy IQ Game and a related bloggers call, which Nate Hagens, Robert Rapier, and I participated in.

Last year, the American Petroleum institute (API) developed an Energy IQ Survey. This year, they revised it slightly and made it into a game. You can play, by clicking on this link:

The audio tape and the transcript for the API bloggers call can be accessed here.

It seems to me that there is likely to be a very short path from petroleum shortages to electricity shortages. There are a lot of issues involved, from the fact that the fuels used in electricity production are themselves dependent on petroleum for their extraction and transportation, to the current state of the US electricity infrastructure, to the impact of peak oil on debt financing. I have written about most of these issues before, but since the petroleum/electricity link is such an important one, I thought I would devote an article to putting the pieces together.

Fuels used for electricity generation

In the United States, the primary fuel used for electricity generation is coal, at 49% of electricity production. Natural gas follows at 22%; nuclear at 19%; hydroelectric at 6%, and petroleum at 1.6%. The newer renewables are all quite small: wood at 0.93%; wind at .77%; waste at .41%; and solar (for electricity generation) at 0.01%.

This is a transcript of a speech by Richard K. Lester, MIT professor of nuclear science and engineering and director of the Industrial Performance Center, who spoke on 14 JUL 2008 at the annual meeting of the National Governors Association. The prepared version of Lester's speech is below the fold.

I found the speech interesting, so I thought I would bring it to you. A quote that particularly caught my eye is the following: "And so, to conclude, it is long past time for serious federal leadership on energy innovation. But it is also time to move beyond the Manhattan/Apollo Project metaphor. A better metaphor might be a domestic Marshall Plan for energy innovation. The original Manhattan project involved a relatively small number of people working in secret. The original Marshall Plan took everyone, working together, to rebuild the broken European economy."

Al Gore has made a major speech in Washington this morning, setting out an ambitious goal for the USA to produce all of its electricity from carbon-free sources by 2020. I thought I'd comment on the technical feasibility of the plan, and the underlying economics of such an endeavour.

from the Department of Energy's recently published study about bringing wind power to 20% of total generation

The short answer is: while 100% is probably unrealistic, it's not unreasonable to expect to be able to get pretty close to that number (say, in the 50-90% range) in that timeframe, and it is very likely that it makes a LOT of sense economically.

Disclosure (or reminder): I am an investment banker for the energy sector. I do a lot of work with the wind sector, as the posts in my wind power series attest, but not only. Whether a pipeline or a wind farm, the job of a project financier is to ensure that the projects make sense for all interested parties (including the regulator) in the long run, and wind projects have to meet the same hurdles as other power plants or oil fields. Thus I'm supposed to remain level-headed when discussing wind projects!

Problems:

• Excessive Oil Consumption by the USA, much higher than OECD average
• Economic, Energy, and Environmental costs with related National Security issues that result from excessive oil consumption
• No Real Plan to Significantly Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Lack of Non-Oil Transportation: there are no alternatives for essential transportation that don’t use oil
• Inadequate Railroad Capacity
• Speed and reliability of today’s Rail Freight cannot compete with Truck Freight for many cargoes
• Weak Electrical Grid with limited inter-regional transmission and stability problems
• Lack of markets and transmission capacity for remote Prime Wind Farm Sites
• Chronic Under-investment in long lived, beneficial infrastructure

The Silver BB

• Electrify 36,000 miles of mainline railroads
• Expand Railroad capacity and speed by adding double tracks, better signals and more grade separation
• New 110 mph tracks for passengers and freight added to existing rail ROWs as a second step
• In many, but not all cases, use the railroad ROW as new electrical transmission line corridors
• Promote the use of rail lines, usually spur lines, as wind turbine sites with rail transported cranes and materials
• Take advantage of the lower marginal economic costs of railroads, where the more we use it, the less it costs per unit. A diffuse economic benefit for many sectors of the economy.

This is me in front of the windfarm which I helped finance two years ago. It's up and running, and will be generating clean energy for the next 20-25 years - at a price guaranteed not to increase for the whole period. It was inaugurated yesterday and christened Princess Amalia windfarm, after the young daughter of the Dutch crown prince.

All my wind diaries are now listed in this Windpower index story.