After learning of all the problems associated with fossil fuels-pushing CO2 concentrations to dangerous levels,creating pollution at every step,promoting energy poverty,establishing petrodictatorship,destroying quality of life,requiring exorbitant amounts of cash to build the infrastructure,escalating fuel prices,and immeasurable but infinite true costs-in spite of all these issues,we're still using the old inefficient fossil fuel energy system.
Why is that?
Before we can make any substantial shift away from fossil fuels,we need to fully understand why we are still using them.
If we try to move away from fossil fuels without understanding exactly why a clean energy revolution hasn't taken place yet,our efforts will be futile at best,and disastrous at worst.
There are many reasons why fossil fuels are still hoarding a whopping 86% of primary energy consumption in the world today.Who's to blame for that?
Usually lack of governmental leadership hits #1 on people's "culprit" list.
The Oil companies are close behind.
The Coal industry,Automakers,and the Lobbyists are right up there too.
Technology,business,consumer behavior,and downright ignorance (or insensibility) are typically included as well.
If I had to condense all the reasons why were still stuck in this mess down to one,it would be what I like to call the Triple Alliance Theory.
The Triple Alliance Theory is an outlook on not only why we are still stuck on using fossil fuels,but how we can get a clean energy economy in place.
It declares that the three fossil fuels-coal,oil,and gas-have pervaded our society so much that the very core of our society-the government,the economy,and our personal lives have been taken captive by them.
It goes on to say that because fossil fuels have taken such a strong grip on these three sectors of society,it has put us in a gridlock,a "stalemate",where no sector can take action towards sustainable energy because the other two would get in the way.
Think about it.
The government can't change if the voters or the economy won't.
The economy can't change if the government or the consumers won't.
The people can't change if the economy or the government won't.
So they don't change.They do nothing.
And we get stuck in what is called "circular cause and consequence".
The second thing you need to know about the triple alliance,is that if just one sector got separated or removed from the fossil fuel grip,it would change the other two,and we would have a clean energy economy.
For example,suppose the economy got separated from fossil fuels.This would happen if electricity from the sun was the same price as electricity from coal (if you include the true cost of coal,they are already equal;but those costs are not included yet).
Then we would get the "domino effect".
The economy would change the government's policy,and the economy would change people's personal lives and habits.
So,all we need to do is to separate one sector from fossil fuels.This,as we'll see later,requires us to get outside of this circular cause and consequence cycle.
The third thing we need to understand is that to the extent a sector is already involved in, or separated from fossil fuels,is the extent that fossil fuels or renewable energy is used in that country.
Coupled with this is that to the extent that a sector is receiving benefit or profit from fossil fuels,or harm and cost from fossil fuels,is the extent that that sector wants a fossil fueled economy,or a clean powered economy.
For example,if an economy is completely dependent on petroleum,it will pressure the government for favorable policies that would help the oil industry.
The government,of course,wouldn't want to hinder economic growth,so it doesn't aggressively pursue renewable energy,and instead helps expand petroleum drilling and consumption.
Or,on the flip side,if people are experiencing negative externalities in their backyards,so to speak,the people become separated from good experiences with fossil fuels,and thus their outlook or thinking about fossil fuels changes.And they will try to remove fossil fuel usage from that area.
In conclusion,basically we are addicted to fossil fuels because it has thoroughly permeated our government,the economy,and our personal lives-the core of society.
To get that clean energy economy we so much need,we'll have to separate or disconnect one sector,either the government,the economy,or our personal lives from the grip of fossil fuels.
So,are we there yet? No,not yet. We're still going around in circles.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
Total cost=$ Infinite
As costly as building,maintaining,and fueling our energy infrastructure is,we are not paying near enough.We aren't paying the true cost.
When we buy gasoline,the cost includes finding the oil,getting the oil out of the ground,refining the oil,and selling the oil (now gasoline),with transportation and profits mixed throughout.These costs are included in the purchase price.
But some costs are not included in the consumer purchase price,nor are they paid for by the energy companies.
These costs include environmental degradation,pollution,climate change,"petrodictatorship",energy insecurity,biodiversity loss,and health issues,to name a few.
These "added costs",which are not included in the price we pay,are called negative externalities.
The true cost of something includes these negative externalities.
"True cost economics is an economic model that seeks to include the cost of negative externalities into the pricing of goods and services."-from Investopedia.com
So,how does this all this relate to energy?
"Burning fossil fuels costs the United States about $120 billion a year in health costs, mostly because of thousands of premature deaths from air pollution, the National Academy of Sciences reported...
The estimates by the academy do not include damages from global warming, which has been linked to the gases produced by burning fossil fuels. The authors said the extent of such damage, and the timing, were too uncertain to estimate.
Nor did the study measure damage from burning oil for trains, ships and planes. And it did not include the environmental damage from coal mining or the pollution of rivers with chemicals that were filtered from coal plant smokestacks to keep the air clean...
Coal burning was the biggest single source of such external costs . The damages averaged 3.2 cents per kilowatt-hour.
The worst plants, generally the oldest and burning coal with the highest sulfur content, were 3.6 times worse than the average, with a cost of nearly 12 cents per kilowatt-hour.
The committee said environmental damage from gasoline and diesel fuel cost 1.2 cents to 1.7 cents per mile. A co-author of the study, Daniel S. Greenbaum, president of the Health Effects Institute, said that would come to 23 cents to 38 cents per gallon..."-From the New York Times
The Union of Concerned Scientists says,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/science/earth/20fossil.html?_r=2
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/impacts/the-hidden-cost-of-fossil.html
When we buy gasoline,the cost includes finding the oil,getting the oil out of the ground,refining the oil,and selling the oil (now gasoline),with transportation and profits mixed throughout.These costs are included in the purchase price.
But some costs are not included in the consumer purchase price,nor are they paid for by the energy companies.
These costs include environmental degradation,pollution,climate change,"petrodictatorship",energy insecurity,biodiversity loss,and health issues,to name a few.
These "added costs",which are not included in the price we pay,are called negative externalities.
The true cost of something includes these negative externalities.
"True cost economics is an economic model that seeks to include the cost of negative externalities into the pricing of goods and services."-from Investopedia.com
So,how does this all this relate to energy?
"Burning fossil fuels costs the United States about $120 billion a year in health costs, mostly because of thousands of premature deaths from air pollution, the National Academy of Sciences reported...
The estimates by the academy do not include damages from global warming, which has been linked to the gases produced by burning fossil fuels. The authors said the extent of such damage, and the timing, were too uncertain to estimate.
Nor did the study measure damage from burning oil for trains, ships and planes. And it did not include the environmental damage from coal mining or the pollution of rivers with chemicals that were filtered from coal plant smokestacks to keep the air clean...
Coal burning was the biggest single source of such external costs . The damages averaged 3.2 cents per kilowatt-hour.
The worst plants, generally the oldest and burning coal with the highest sulfur content, were 3.6 times worse than the average, with a cost of nearly 12 cents per kilowatt-hour.
The committee said environmental damage from gasoline and diesel fuel cost 1.2 cents to 1.7 cents per mile. A co-author of the study, Daniel S. Greenbaum, president of the Health Effects Institute, said that would come to 23 cents to 38 cents per gallon..."-From the New York Times
The Union of Concerned Scientists says,
"Since such costs are indirect and difficult to determine, they have traditionally remained external to the energy pricing system, and are thus often referred to as externalities. And since the producers and the users of energy do not pay for these costs, society as a whole must pay for them. But this pricing system masks the true costs of fossil fuels and results in damage to human health, the environment, and the economy."
According to a 2000 study for the Department of Energy, there is a significant cost attached to the mere fact of our dependence. Supply disruptions, price hikes, and loss of wealth suffered through the oil market upheavals have cost the U.S. economy around $7 trillion (1998 dollars) over the 30 years from 1970 to 2000.
We need to keep in mind a few things:
-These externalities are real,actual costs.They are not made up. -You are paying for them more than you realize.Often people say (or think),"My energy is already expensive,how could I afford the true cost of energy, if the externalities were to be recognized?" The answer is that someone,somewhere,is paying for these negative externalities.And sometimes that "someone" is you. Sometimes you pay for something you didn't even do.So let the ones at fault pay for it.
-A price tag cannot be put on these externalities.All figures that we try to come up with are estimates.How much is a clean river worth? How much is avoiding cancer worth? How much is clean air worth? These things are priceless,and thus,the cost of including all negative externalities in the pricing of fossil fuels is infinite.
So,after looking at it that way,maybe cheap coal isn't so cheap after all.
References:
http://library.thinkquest.org/26026/Economics/internalizing_costs.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/science/earth/20fossil.html?_r=2
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/impacts/the-hidden-cost-of-fossil.html
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Not so cheap anymore
Our energy system is expensive in three ways: 1.the initial cost of infrastructure 2.the cost of maintenance 3.the cost of fuel
The initial cost of energy infrastructure-the electrical power network,natural gas and petroleum pipelines,etc.-all of these are expensive to install.
For developed countries,this means they will keep their infrastructure as long as they can, to obtain a full return on their investments.
This is one of the main reasons we don't have a clean energy economy.
While some of the infrastructure from the old energy system can be used in the new energy system-such things as adapting pipelines to transport biofuels or hydrogen,or reducing power consumption on the existing grid-other things just aren't there that will need to be,like a recharging infrastructure for electric vehicles,or hydrogen filling stations,or a smart grid.
However,for developing countries,the high initial investment needed in infrastructure is an opportunity.Developing countries,countries largely without energy infrastructure, have the chance to avoid the fossil fuel energy system altogether!
They can move from no energy to clean energy.
Maintenance on our energy infrastructure is another cost to consider.
Much of our energy system was built between 1947 and 1975.
Some maintenance we are familiar with-road construction,auto repairs-and some are not so familiar, like "pigging".
But nonetheless all of our energy infrastructure requires maintenance,and this costs,and even more so with a fast-paced society,and ever increasing energy consumption.
The third cost of our energy system is the fuels (like gasoline or coal) or energy products (like electricity).The price of fossil fuels will only go up.
We may see them temporarily drop in price,but overall they can and will only increase in price.
The era of cheap fossil-fuels is over.
We are going farther,and deeper,and in more sensitive areas to get our petroleum and natural gas.
No longer do we drill and oil comes gushing up,as most people still believe.
Harder-to-find-and-get oil,means more expensive oil.
Lastly, the swings in prices characteristic of oil can be especially hard on oil-dependent economies,and industries.
These problems will accelerate when peak oil hits.
Check out these links (and whatever else you can find on your own about this topic):
http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1869.gif
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/press/2001/nep/chapter7.pdf
http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/files/Rice%20Global%20Forum.pdf
The initial cost of energy infrastructure-the electrical power network,natural gas and petroleum pipelines,etc.-all of these are expensive to install.
For developed countries,this means they will keep their infrastructure as long as they can, to obtain a full return on their investments.
This is one of the main reasons we don't have a clean energy economy.
While some of the infrastructure from the old energy system can be used in the new energy system-such things as adapting pipelines to transport biofuels or hydrogen,or reducing power consumption on the existing grid-other things just aren't there that will need to be,like a recharging infrastructure for electric vehicles,or hydrogen filling stations,or a smart grid.
However,for developing countries,the high initial investment needed in infrastructure is an opportunity.Developing countries,countries largely without energy infrastructure, have the chance to avoid the fossil fuel energy system altogether!
They can move from no energy to clean energy.
Maintenance on our energy infrastructure is another cost to consider.
Much of our energy system was built between 1947 and 1975.
Some maintenance we are familiar with-road construction,auto repairs-and some are not so familiar, like "pigging".
But nonetheless all of our energy infrastructure requires maintenance,and this costs,and even more so with a fast-paced society,and ever increasing energy consumption.
The third cost of our energy system is the fuels (like gasoline or coal) or energy products (like electricity).The price of fossil fuels will only go up.
We may see them temporarily drop in price,but overall they can and will only increase in price.
The era of cheap fossil-fuels is over.
We are going farther,and deeper,and in more sensitive areas to get our petroleum and natural gas.
No longer do we drill and oil comes gushing up,as most people still believe.
Harder-to-find-and-get oil,means more expensive oil.
Lastly, the swings in prices characteristic of oil can be especially hard on oil-dependent economies,and industries.
These problems will accelerate when peak oil hits.
Check out these links (and whatever else you can find on your own about this topic):
http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1869.gif
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/press/2001/nep/chapter7.pdf
http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/files/Rice%20Global%20Forum.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
