As I write this we're all still watching the horrible oil rig disaster unfold. Here are some spectacular photos of the event via Twitter.
Eleven dead already. The entire Gulf of Mexico coastline threatened. Is there already talk of this catalyzing a move further away from oil? The fact is that oil and related hydrocarbons are still relatively cheap and plentiful. Or is the whole enterprise just too big to fail? I worked for a time on a project devoted to making gasoline from natural gas. During this time I became familiar with the business phrase "shutdown economics" which in that case meant that any new technology had to be good enough to make the existing technology unprofitable and pay for the cost of recapitalization.
We'd all like for wind and solar energy to be cheaper. But we're not anywhere close to replacing hydrocarbons.
It's not so much that wind and solar are so expensive; neither is as effecient as hydrocarbons are. It's a myth that a field of windmills can replace a natural gas-fired plant. Wind and solar, with the technology available today, can only augment those systems. And though their efficiency will eventually increase, and prices will fall, the cost of energy will still be driven by demand.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, this is a tragedy in the Gulf but we should remember that accidents of this scale are extremely rare. We were able to clean up after the Exxon Valdez disaster and there's no reason to believe the same won't happen here. No doubt it'll be difficult and costly, but to allow this accident to thwart future energy exploration would compound the tragedy.
(Here in Oklahoma, Chesapeake Energy is leading the way for the exploration for natural gas. I think that's the way to go. And no I'm not shill for Chesapeake.)
It's not so much that wind and solar are so expensive; neither is as effecient as hydrocarbons are.
ReplyDeleteThat's easy to see, especially for transportation fuels. And yet, like the abstract describes in the oxygen post that I linked to, we're not really burning things efficiently, generating more waste heat burning fuels than need be, even though it's impossible not to waste some energy as heat.
"We were able to clean up after the Exxon Valdez disaster and there's no reason to believe the same won't happen here."
ReplyDeleteWe don't know that yet. And at what cost - not just BP's cost, but to the industry and livelihoods of all these people along the Gulf Coast? To the hundreds of species of animals that live there?
I just find that response a bit blase.
We will continue drilling, but we're going to have to learn from BP's mistakes, and there are plenty of them. They've got a bad record of misrepresenting risk. We're all too accepting of the "who could have known?" excuse - as if we should prepare only for that which is precedented, not that which is possible but costly and bothersome to acknowledge.
We don't know that yet. And at what cost - not just BP's cost, but to the industry and livelihoods of all these people along the Gulf Coast?
ReplyDeleteUltimately, cost should be bourn by anybody who uses oil. In a sense, that's next season's fuels floating out there about to torched off.
The causes of this disaster are getting more interesting and intriguing. I am as mistrustful as the next as to the cause of the event. There is just too much at stake here. Regardless, the big focus should be on plugging the gusher and sequestering the slick.
Beth- thanks for stopping by in this time of stress for you and other NOLAers.
On the way out west last week I read in the in-flight magazine that U Minnesota researchers have succeeded in manipulating the hydrocarbon yield of a certain, highly viable crop from 2% to > 12% through molecular biology. If nothing else, growing hydrocarbons on land would reduce the problems associated with spills and fires resulting from accidents off-shore.
ReplyDeleteAnd oh yeah, they suck up the greenhouses gases that fossil fuels release.
The Pickens Plan advocates natural gas as a transition fuel for the transportation industries that are most reliant on fossil fuels during the currently exponentially increasing efficiency of generation seen in a a now competitive wind energy industry.
BTW, speaking of being out west, is that where you got your alias? It was pretty cool looking up somewhere around Santa Cruz and finding a sign looking like the avatar you used to have with the exact same lettering on it spelling out verbatim: "El Pollo Real".
If nothing else, growing hydrocarbons on land would reduce the problems associated with spills and fires resulting from accidents off-shore.
ReplyDelete(Glenn Reynolds voice): Faster please.
is that where you got your alias?
No. Hector Owen asked me about it too and I explained here.
"growing hydrocarbons on land" = displacing food crops. Or cutting down the rain forest, as is happening in Brazil, Indonesia and Malaysia, among other places.
ReplyDelete"Ultimately, cost should be bourn by anybody who uses oil." Everybody uses oil, and everybody will bear the cost. The Obama administration will find a way to maximize the cost.
At Ace of Spades: Ixtoc I: The Last Bad One in the Gulf. Stuff happens. Earth abides.
There is no viable substitute for fuels derived from crude oil in many applications. Jet fuel, is one example.
ReplyDeleteI visited the areas in Alaska where the Valdez spill washed ashore. Those areas are now clean, partly due to the clean-up undertaken by humans, and partly by earth's natural actions. I have no doubt that the mess in the Gulf will one day be fully cleaned up.
I also visited the onshore oil fields in Alaska's north slope. I was able to obtain a security clearance and was taken into the oil fields by a BP representative to see drilling and pumping operations. The area was pristine. No spills, no trash, no empty trash bags. It was utterly spotless. The steps taken to keep the area clean were extensive.
I also toured similar oil fields and pumping operations in northwestern Canada. Again, utterly spotless.
What I saw caused me to wonder why offshore drilling is favored over onshore. An onshore spill or well blowout is so much easier to contain and control than one that occurs at 5,000 feet below sea level.
I do not understand why the drilling in the Baaken range (Dakotas, Montana) has been delayed and delayed. The Baaken range may hold as much crude as is underground is Saudi Arabia.
Automobiles can easily be adapted to run on compressed natural gas. The natural gas field under upstage New York, and stretching down into Pennsylvania is believed to hold enough gas to power all the US powerplants, homes and cars for the next 100 years. But politicians have locked up the drilling process in endless self-serving battles and needless regulations.
Electric cars are generally foolish ideas. We do not have an electric grid that can support re-charging car batteries. Remember brown-outs during hot summer months? Now add several million recharging cars to the gird. The result would be total collapse.
Besides, most US electric plants are coal powered. Which means that electric cars and trains are really coal-powered cars and trains.