Didn’t Environmentalists Cheer the Demise of the Keystone XL Pipeline?

Yes, yes environmentalists did cheer the demise of the Keystone XL pipeline.  By stopping a Republican amendment earlier this year, the decision on whether to build the pipeline from Canada through the central US was left in President Obama’s hands, which was “rejected“.

It turns out that both the “rejection” wasn’t really a rejection and the cheerleading probably happened too soon.  I say that because today, Obama pushed for the southern branch of the pipeline to be finished faster than originally projected.  Many of the same environmentalists who cheered the original “decision” (read: delay) are the same ones who are now decrying this latest call.

I would put more stock into those complaints if those environmentalists hadn’t spent so much time and energy earlier this year trying to convince me that Obama’s “decision” was really and truly final and Keystone wouldn’t get built.  I argued then, and was proven correct today, that Obama’s “decision” really was a delay – it was enough action to get the topic out of the headlines in an election year when he can’t afford to piss off elements of his base too much.

The pipeline was always going to be and in fact will be built in the US.  The part that people should be paying attention to is this: the fossil fuels the pipeline delivers will not be sold in the US – it will be sold overseas because it can fetch a higher price that way.  In return, the “environmentally conscious” President who “cares about the economy” will gladly oversee an increase in deliverable fossil fuels to a largely unregulated, subsidized marketplace which will result in higher fuel prices for every American.  Those fossil fuels will be burned faster than they otherwise would have been and the resultant global warming forcing will be left to future generations to deal with.

But please vote for President Obama in November because who knows what would have happened to the Keystone pipeline if a Republican was in office – it might have gotten built or something horrible like that!  It will be better to get just a little tiny bit of what you want instead of more of what you want if you stop voting for politicians who take your interests for granted.

Solar Power Gains Are Good; Much, Much More Needed

A couple of articles about solar power caught my eye this week.  To be very clear from the outset, I am a huge proponent of solar power via all the myriad technologies out there today as well as those under development.  I have a solar PV system on my house that generates more electricity than my family consumes on a monthly and yearly basis (by a decent margin).  Keep these facts in mind as you read my comments on the pieces I found.

The first article dealt with solar installations just in the state of Colorado, which “jumped in 2011″.  CO installed 91 megawatts (MW) in 2011.  Nationwide, according to the author, solar installations more than doubled to 1,885 MW or ~1.9GW – a not insubstantial number in and of itself.  California installed 542 MW, New Jersey 313 MW, Arizona 273 MW, and New Mexico 116 MW.  Additionally, the weighted average cost of installed systems dropped 20% – also a piece of good news.

While reading up on something unrelated, I came across a graphic from a post at CleanTechnica which was touting U.S. solar installations.  As you can see below, they point out that 17 nuclear power plants worth of solar peak power shipped in 2010.

I’m not sure what size power plants they use for comparison, but for now I’ll assume that it was the same size that I used for a class analysis last semester – 0.75GW.  Note further the key adjective: “peak power”.  That is the power that the solar systems can deliver on a clear day when the sun is as perpendicular to the arrays as is possible.  That value lasts for only a short period out of any day with current technologies.  This isn’t a criticism – my system had a peak power rating too but I know I can’t expect that power to be generated throughout the day and certainly none will be generated at night.

Okay, with those caveats out of the way, here is my take on all this information: those national numbers aren’t nearly enough to address our CO2 emissions.  From the same analysis I referenced above, I calculated that the U.S. needs a minimum of 25 0.75GW nuclear power plants installed per year to meet our stated 2020 GHG reduction goal of 20% of 2005 emissions.  That’s well more than the solar PV-equivalent that was installed in 2010.  If we instead want to hit our stated 80% GHG reduction goal by 2050, we need a minimum of 111 0.75GW nuclear power plants (or their equivalent) installed per year through 2050.  Those numbers include a very conservative increase of 0.32% energy demand per year through the same time frames.

The solar industry has made great strides in the U.S. – but I am convinced it is nowhere close to enough to address the magnitude of global warming that is likely to occur.  These numbers are good news, but we need a whole lot more great news.  Which means we need some serious policy work done to ensure that great news is reported someday soon.

Gasoline Usage Still Way Down YoY; Oil Prices Rising

According to NDD at the Bonddad Blog, Year-over-Year gasoline usage in the U.S. remains significantly negative: 8167 M gallons this year vs. 8810 M gallons last year this week.  That’s -7.3%.

Yet oil prices increased this week by over $4 to $103.24 per barrel and gas prices at the pump rose $0.04 to $3.52 (national average).

Let ‘s state this clearly: it’s not American demand driving those prices up.  We can attribute part of the increase to other growing economies.  But as more people are figuring out all the time, a not inconsequential part of it is commodity speculators.  Then there’s tension over Iran that the Republican Teabaggers are trying to inflame – they just love them all the war and conflict they can gin up (as long as their family members aren’t required to actually serve, dont’cha know).  Finally, don’t discount the role of the giant fossil fuel industry here – do you think they’re taking the Keystone pipeline decision in peace?

As the folks at Bonddad Blog state, oil and gas prices this high helped act like a choke collar on the U.S. economy last year.  Given the relative growing health of the economy since, and the similarly growing prospects for Obama’s reelection largely as a result, that collar might be forcefully reapplied (or no action taken by some to remove it) in order to dim his electoral chances.

Germany Installed More Solar PV In December Than The U.S. Did In All Of 2011

I’m so glad the U.S. has a more efficient marketplace than those socialist European countries.  That oft-parroted talking point must be the reason that Germany installed more than twice as much solar PV in December 2011 than the U.S. did in January through December 2011.  That’s right: twice as much in 1/12th the time at half the cost.

It’s a good thing we Americans have everything figured out already.  Otherwise, we would be trailing in installing technologies that we invented.  Oh wait, we are trailing.  The bottom line: feed-in tariffs work.

Slow 2011 Hybrid Car Sales & $4 Gas

I’ve read numerous articles in the first week of the new year describing the “disappointing” sales numbers of hybrid and electric vehicles in the U.S. in 2011.  It somehow makes sense to declare a subsector industry dead after sales came in under expectations.  Interestingly, the same hybrid/electric naysayers didn’t have the same opinion when internal combustion car sales tanked a few years back.

Here is the latest article, written from the Detroit Auto Show.  It brings together a couple of salient facts which aren’t explored in any depth.

Hybrid sales waned as gasoline prices ebbed in 2011, declining to 2.2 percent of the market from 2.4 percent a year earlier, according to the research firm LMC Automotive. Meanwhile, sales of the Nissan Leaf electric car and the Chevrolet Volt plug-in each fell short of expectations.

Analysts do not expect the segment to grow significantly this year: the combination of gas prices below $4 a gallon and higher upfront costs for the cars is not attracting consumers.

I understand the higher upfront costs, especially in the continued economic malaise that most Americans are experiencing.  The $4 per gallon of gas is an interesting factoid to throw in there though, don’t you think?  After all, we’ve only visually seen $4 gas once so far.  Gas prices in 2011 came close to $4, but the magic `4` never appeared on signs.

Which brings me to the following: demand in 2011, especially the 2nd half of 2011, was multiple percentage points below demand in 2010.  Yet gas prices rose to close to $4 anyway.  It’s all supply and demand, you might say, especially demand in other countries which would lead to higher fundamental prices.  Well, oil prices shot up in Feb-Apr from $84 to almost $114 per gallon, then fell back below $80 by Sep (when gas prices were highest, despite slack demand in the U.S.).  Oil is trading at more than $100 per gallon again now, yet gas prices continue to decline.

No, there are more variables than simply supply and demand at play.  $4 gas represents an important psychological barrier for traders just as it does for gasoline consumers.  There is incredible pressure to keep prices from rising above that threshold because too few people can think critically: when prices pass the threshold, one trader panics, then most everybody else panics.  Consumers are just as irrational, however.  More than anything, they sense that $4 gas represents some kind of significant threshold, even though too few consumers can analyze at which threshold gas represents a significant point at which their household budget is adversely affected.  Moreover, consumers have an irrational desire to recoup additional costs of a hybrid/electric vehicle inside of 1 year.  Where are their similar demands for products they’ve been buying their entire lives?  It really doesn’t exist.

In 2000, Toyota sold 5,600 Prii in the U.S. (the 1st year available).  In 2011, Nissan sold 9,700 Leafs in the U.S. (the 1st year available), or 73% more units than the Prius.  75% more sales of just 1 new hybrid/electric is a very significant number.  Imagine if there were 73% more sales of a new kind of cell phone than a different cell phone 10 years after the first was introduced.  That would be touted as a wild success story.  The poor treatment of the hybrid/electric vehicle segment is pitiful.  Is there a long path toward 1.5 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015?  Yes, there is.  But you might want to share with the rest of the car industry that having aggressive 2015 goals is a really bad idea.  I doubt you’ll receive much of an audience.

Wind Power Advancements Translates To More Competitive Energy Source

Past wind farm deployments and advances in the wind energy sector have worked to open up new areas primed for future deployment.  As tower heights rise from 50 meters to 80 meters above the ground, turbine can capture more wind captured at one time (higher wind speeds are usually present away from the ground) as well as during more parts of the day.

The result is that instead of 7.4-8.4 m/s wind speeds, new turbines can capture 8.5-10 m/s winds (see map below (gif source & pdf).  This translates to a 1.2 cent reduction per kilowatt-hour of wind energy: 10.8 cents, down from 12.0 cents.  My utility currently charges 4.6 cents per kilowatt-hour of energy.  The utility’s energy mix as of 2010 was: 61.31% coal, 26.88% natural gas, 10.26% wind, ~1% rest).  They are also filing for a 5.99% increase in electricity charges.

Unsurprisingly, the cost of wind continues to fall as deployment accelerates and R&D is performed.  This happens while corporate welfare for dirty energy still dwarfs the subsidies for clean energy.  It is remarkable that the renewable energy sector grew at the rate it has while it has faced a relatively hostile policy environment.  Imagine what the clean energy industry (and our environment) would look like if we were serious about it 40 years ago.

I’ll have more of my thoughts on this kind of news going forward.  Transitioning from 61.31% coal, 10.26% wind and 0.29% solar to a clean energy-dominant mix will prove incredibly difficult, for instance.  Some good policies have been implemented to help that happen, but I wonder if the scope of the problem has been accurately assessed.

Oil Back Near $100/Barrel: Where Is The Demand?

The price per barrel of oil is back up near $100 as of the end of last week and through today’s trading.  According to the free-marketeers, that must mean gasoline demand has been through the roof.  Oops, not so much: demand is down -4.3% YoY, at 8671 M gallons vs. 9056 M a year ago, as noted at The Bonddad Blog.

Clearly, something other than just demand is and has been at work.  Oil trading is as much gambling as the stock market is.  All the volatility that consumers are affected by arises primarily from large amounts of bets placed on anticipated prices.

Why is this important?  As NDD notes, “This [oil's price] is back above the recession-trigger level calculated by analyst Steve Kopits. Gas at the pump declined $.03 to $3.42 a gallon. Measured this way, we probably are still about $.15 above the 2008 recession trigger level.”  Those bets have real-world implications.  Recessions are easier to trigger when oil and gas prices remain high.

Keystone XL: Obama Plays His “Base” Like A Fiddle

There’s lots of cheerleading going on from the environmental sidelines over this:

There will be a “supplemental” environmental impact statement — presumably one that isn’t rigged. It “could be completed as early as the first quarter of 2013.”

A SEIS completed in 2013.  Hmm, what about that date might be important?  Oh, I know – it’s the quarter after the 2012 general election.  After Obama wins because environmentalists and others vote for him, convinced that he’s playing 11th-dimensional chess after all of his stunning successes in his first term.  Or after he loses because the Teabaggers remain more motivated than the trod-upon Democratic base.

Either way, I fully expect the Keystone XL project to more forward starting in 2013.  Bill McKibben can bluff all he wants: “The president should know that If this pipeline proposal somehow reemerges from the review process we will use every tool at our disposal to keep it from ever being built”.  What leverage will McKibben or any other environmentalist have on Obama or his Republican Teabagger replacement in 2013?

A delay is not a victory, Bill & Joe.  But keep cheering.  I just know that will make all the difference in 2013 since climate change is one of Obama’s highest priorities.

Carmakers Agree To Near-Doubling of mpg: 54.5 by 2025

I didn’t think I’d see this day come any time soon: U.S. and foreign carmakers have agreed with the Obama administration to increase miles-per-gallon standards of cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. to 54.5mpg by 2025.  This follows news that standards will be increased to 35.5mpg by 2016.

Note that both of these standards are well within reach of today’s technologies.  Nothing revolutionary has to happen in the next 14 years to achieve these standards, as carmakers have already demonstrated in Europe and Asia.  What’s been missing in America is the will power to do the strategically correct thing: reduce fuel consumption, which will help ease the impact on Earth’s climate system, save consumers money, and boost our national security standards, all at one time.

Economic Short-Sightedness & The Environment: Canadian Tar Sands Oil

Among other energy-related news, Canadian tar sands oil has maintained a relatively low profile, even in American environmental circles.  That’s dangerously short-sighted.  As I’ve argued against overt climate change denialism, it seems some groups closer to my worldview need some education and encouragement to do the correct thing.

The U.S. State Department apparently has been working to alleviate concerns of parties in Canada interested in transporting tar sands oil from Alberta to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries.  This wouldn’t change the balance of what gets processed in the U.S. very much, but one of the arguments for doing this would be to decrease the amount of oil processed from unstable regions (i.e. the Middle East).  The U.S. State Department, in 2009, helped work on this and other messaging for pro-dirty energy interests.  That would be the Obama State Department, headed by Hillary Clinton.  Obama has taken some actions which can be characterized as good in dealing with the threat of climate change.  Unfortunately, this isn’t the only action he’s taken which can be characterized as bad.

Additional parties deserve to be called out:

Yet pressure to approve the Keystone XL addition is high. Its supporters in Congress and industry — it also has the support of the AFL-CIO and Teamsters union — estimate that it would create more than 300,000 American jobs, reduce dependence on crude oil from unstable or hostile governments and push down gasoline prices.

This economically-based short-sightedness is appalling.  I’ll ask the AFL-CIO and Teamsters (groups I generally support, by the way) the same question I’ve asked climate change deniers: when global ecosystems collapse as a result of our heat-trapping pollution, do they really think they’re going to be worried about job availability?  Our societies and civilization are at stake – the foundations upon which jobs exist.  Without those, jobs, either union or not, won’t matter.  We’ll be far more concerned with simple day-to-day survival problems such as locating fresh water and having enough food to eat.

I understand the desire to push for good jobs.  People today live in the societies of today, and ours isn’t one that is inclined to share power with the lower and middle classes.  However, the unions themselves deserve additional examination of what candidates they supported in the past that were all to willing to undercut their interests once in office, much as Obama has done.

If the tar sands oil, which requires burning natural gas to drill for, by the way, is burned, CO2 concentrations will jump from today’s 390ppm to over 600ppm.  That doesn’t include any other source of heat-trapping pollution – that’s only considering tar sands oil.  600ppm will produce a world which is unlivable by a majority of today’s species, mostly because of the time-scale over which we jump to 600ppm (see my recent blog post about CO2 concentrations and the PETM).  The thought that pro-worker groups would be willing to trade 300,000 jobs in the next handful of years that would help contribute to an unlivable planet in the next few centuries makes my stomach turn.