where the energy solutions for tomorrow are analyzed today

FAQ

Answers to questions that I'm frequently asked, on this site, at seminars, or at the coffee shop. Under construction....

 

If you cannot find your favorite questions, send them in by using the comment option on this page.

 

Global warming

 

Do you believe in global warming?

A better question would be: do you believe that human activities have the potential to affect global climate? The answer to that is yes. Let's discuss.

Three important observations have been made. First, the scale at which we are emitting green house gases is large enough to affect atmospheric concentrations. For example, there is a very strong correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and the level of human carbon dioxide emissions. So, no question there. Second, there is clear and mounting evidence that the averaged global temperature is rising. Third, comparing carbon dioxide concentrations over many thousands of years to global averaged temperatures, it appears that temperatures increase at the same time as carbon dioxide concentrations increase.

Looking at these observations, it is tempting to jump to the immediate conclusion that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming, and that the globe will continue to warm if carbon dioxide emissions continue to grow. Also, most leading global climate models do predict a temperature increase for increasing carbon dioxide emissions. Now, it is true that these models are not guaranteed to be accurate. Global climate prediction involves many physical processes that have complex interactions. We can certainly not claim that the models are correct, nor that we understand the underlying physics sufficiently well. But, what they do show is that there is a potential that increased GHG emissions affect global climate. That together with the observations made, convinces me that there is a clear risk that our behavior will impact global climate. And the consequences of this impact can be severe. If there is a risk, with potentially severe consequences, we should insure ourselves against it. No question.

 

By how much will global temperature increase over the next 30 years or so?

We can not say. Maybe a lot, maybe not that much. The physics is too complex to make accurate predictions. But, that does not mean we can just forget about it all together. As I argue above, the risk that global temperatures will rise is there. We can not afford that risk.

 

Is there anything we can do? Are we not too far down this path to change anything?

The worst we can do is nothing. And yes, I do believe that we can make a difference. There is no immediate silver bullet, but there are various ways to reduce emissions and change behavior: efficiency, renewables such as wind and solar, electric transport, carbon capture and storage, cleaner fossil-fuel production, cleaner coal burning. We need a portfolio of actions. But most of all we need to stop arguing about who is right and who is wrong and accept that there is a risk, and that we should to our utmost to mitigate it.

 

Fossil Fuels

 

Are we running out of oil anytime soon?

Nope, we are not. The easy-to-produce oil reserves are declining, but there is plenty of oil to be found that is non-conventional, including heavy oil, shale oil, tar sands. Estimated resources are a couple of trillion barrels total: enough to last us for quite a few decades. This is also a frightening thought: there is oil, it will likely be produced unless we wean ourselves off oil by moving to alternative transport, but both production and consumption of this oil is damaging to the environment.

 

Can the US become energy independent any time soon?

No, we cannot. I know this is claimed by many a politician, but it is impossible. We currently import over 10 million barrels of oil per day, more than half of our consumption, and mostly used for transport. I'm not a fan of biomass production for ethanol, but even if we did go that way, there is not a chance we can replace our imports with nationally produced ethanol, not in the next few years and not in the next few decades. The only way to make an immediate impact on imports, and reduce our oil dependency is to consume less. High mpg cars, fewer car trips.

 

Is it true that we are importing most of our oil from the Middle East?

No. Here are approximate import numbers: almost 20% from Canada (!), around 12% each from Mexico, Saudi-Arabia and Nigeria, 10% from Venezuela and the rest from a list of other countries, all supplying 6% or less. Total imports from OPEC countries are around 40%. Surprised that Canada is our biggest exporter?

 

Renewables

 

Why are you such a strong proponent of solar energy?

Because solar energy is the most abundant resource, far exceeding any other renewable energy resource we know of. If we develop technologies to capture this energy effectively, we are in good shape.

 

Is wind cost-competitive?

Yes, now it is, on good sites onshore. Off-shore wind is still more expensive in terms of costs per kilowatthour of energy produced as compared to coal-fired, gas-fired or nuclear power plants. But that is also only if external costs (health effects, pollution) are not taken into account. It's frequently claimed that without tax incentives, wind would not be economical. This is a bit unfair, as ever y energy resource is subsidized, one way or another.

Comments

Has anyone thought of the other side?

Hi Margot
I love playing the Devil's Advocate. So, please don't judge me as obnoxious right away.
1. Historically, our ancestors have created problems for us and we have managed to clean up after their excesses. Why can't we expect later generations to deal with our greenhouse emissions when they start significantly influencing their lifestyles? I mean, as some people see it, the most anyone has to do is to move out of Equatorial regions and repopulate Alaska, Greenland and Siberia.
2. Another argument made often is that Climate Change is a cyclical process and anthropogenic activity simply accelerates it. If the Canary Islands have to sink, they will sink. Do we really have an interest in delaying it?
3. Now, there is a lot of research funding going into reducing greenhouse emissions with efficient engines and power plants. Has anyone thought of reducing the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by accelerating their consumption. I mean a Genetically Modified potato that photosynthesises and consumes CO2 at twice the normal rate is one GM product that even Whole Foods would be ready to sell!
:)
Addy

Devil's advocates

Hi Addy,

Playing the devil's advocate is always a good thing.

As to your first point, it is my personal conviction that I should leave this planet the same or a better place for future generations. If I can avoid problems now by measures that are possible to take, why should I want the children and their children to clean up my mess? There may have been messes made in the past that we had to clean up, but the messes are getting bigger: our population is growing rapidly so whatever mess we make now is a lot harder to clean up then localized messes our ancestors made in the past. And, I simply don't believe in an attitude of "well, we had to clean up messes, so others should too". It's a matter of how responsible you feel.
Moving millions or billions of people I don't see as something that can be described as "the most anyone has to do". Any mass migration will lead to tremendous tensions and conflicts and I dread the thought.

As to 2, I don't think we understand climate response enough to know what would anyway have happened. Yes, it is cyclical but what we are observing now is rather different from anything that we have seen (or seen the evidence of) in the past.

This is also why it is scary to play with the environment. It's not a simple system that behaves in a predictable manner. We do not in fact know exactly what CO2 increases will lead to what temperature changes. What we do know is that there is a risk the consequences can be severe. That's all that matters to me: we are changing the environment (and there is no arguing about that as the observations are all clear) and there is a risk that this may lead to large climate changes. If I know there is a risk of something really bad happening, I insure myself against it. We all do. So, in this case, there is no doubt in my mind we should insure ourselves against climate change. The best way to do this is to not bring the natural CO2 cycles and other GHG cycles off balance.
Geo-engineering as you suggest in 3 is very dangerous indeed. The solution you bring up will not scale in any way (the numbers we are talking about are *huge*) but other solutions that people have brought up may make an impact. However, because the responses in nature are never linear and simple, who knows what other effects geo-engineering solutions will have? It's really scary to start messing things about. I would never dare. There is no one who can accurately model responses and assess large scale effects.

Cheers, Margot

For an average middle-class

For an average middle-class American family, how much of the carbon footprint is from airplane travel? How much is that relative to their automobile carbon footprint? In my case I am guessing that air-travel consumption is at least a much as the car, assuming that my air travel is at 80 mpg per person.

Fuel consumption in plane vs car

Interesting question. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics has the required data. Take a look for example at the US passenger miles table. For the year 2005, it lists a total number of 583,689 million passenger miles for air travel and 4,884,557 million passenger miles for vehicle transport. So, per person we travel around 8 times as many car miles as airplane miles. And, our fuel consumption per passenger mile in a plane is typically lower than in a car. Have a look at these numbers:

As with cars, planes vary widely in terms of spent fuel per passenger mile. As one example, a Boeing 747-400 will consume roughly 3000 gallons of fuel per hour, or 3000 gallons for around 600 miles. This is 0.20 miles per gallon. Using a typical occupancy rate of 75% (300 people in the plane), this means around 60 passenger miles per gallon.

To compute the number of passenger miles per gallon for a car, let's take an average car occupancy rate of 1.5 passengers per car, and an average fuel consumption of 25 miles per gallon (US average at the moment). Then, we get around 38 passenger miles to the gallon for typical car traffic.

All in all, the average American person consumes quite a bit less in airplane travel than in car travel.

What would happend with electric cars?

Last week I saw the film "Who killed the electric car?", and when reading this page, the question crossed my mind...Foreign national mortgage

What the numbers would be if we were using GM Electric Car (EV1)?
I'm not a technician but you might find the info required to do the math here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1

And since that EV1 is already "dead", what would the numbers be if all of us were using cars similar to the prius (hybrid car)?
Again, here you have a link to the wikipedia article on hybrids: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_car

Thanks!