I work for a company that is in the power industry

[XemaSab]

and our whole team meeting this morning was about renewable energy.

The boss man has been working on power projects for 30 years and he basically stated outright that our company was ONLY going to focus on renewables and/or carbon-neutral projects from now on--solar, wind, geothermal, and sequestration projects.

This comes after the Vice President in charge of oil and gas development said he doesn't expect his team will be working on those types of projects in 5 years.

I do not work for a little flaky hippie firm; we're a monster company with some of the biggest power, oil, and energy companies in the world as our clients. Yes, even Enron was once a client of ours.

If my firm is planning on phasing out of fossil fuels and into renewables, THE TIDE IS TRULY SHIFTING. :bounce:

[buddysmellgood]

1. I work for a school of engineering. Many republicans advise and influence

this fine place of learning. I can't believe what I hear when I'm in the room with these people. They are hot on renewable energy, innovation, efficiency and sustainability. It's like they joined the Al Gore fan club. The mantra is that the next generation of engineers absolutely MUST be trained to innovate and solve these problems. I agree, the tide is turning, behind Dubya's back.

[Kolesar]

7. To read the IEEE power society literature, you would not get that idea

In fact, the whole IEEE is pretty useless on the subject of energy reductions. Of course, they are in the business of selling electricity.

[buddysmellgood]

20. Well, the power electronics folks are doing their part. The technology to

improve efficiency dramatically (in air-conditioning) has been around for more than a decade. Industry won't use it until it has to or can gain a market edge with it somehow. A little leadership from government would go a long way.

[hunter]

21. The advances in power electronics and network theory have been extrordinary...

Yet in many ways we are still using 1930's technology to distribute electrical power.

Blackouts and brownouts should be a thing of the past.

[buddysmellgood]

22. Agreed. It's insane. I don't think we'll see much advance in power transmission

with privatization. Instead, we see utilities build power plants in another state, and then argue that they need new transmission lines to bring the power home. If you make your money managing transmission lines, the way to make more money, is manage more lines.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

2. Chasing the dollar...

It's what these co's will have to do to stay viable.

Thank god.

[NJCher]

3. the time has come

:applause:




Cher

[lostnotforgotten]

4. Peak Oiler Here: Told You So!

Just had to do it because so many of us have been castigated for chronicling the truth.

[suziedemocrat]

5. Good news! K & R !

[bemildred]

6. Good news.

:thumbsup:

[NNadir]

8. There is a big difference between what they are saying and doing.

I don't mean to rain on the parade, but the energy policies of every state can be seen by looking at what they have recently built and plan to build in the next several years.

It is found here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/planned_capacity_state.xls

I sorted this data, which runs from 2004, the recent past to 2008, the near future. I found that California's power capacity increases in that period will involve or did involve 7,518 MW of new natural gas capacity and only 156 MW of new renewable capacity. I don't know that Governor Hydrogen Hummer's brazillion solar roofs will effect this in the long term. Hopefully it will reduce the capacity utilization of natural gas and installation, but I'll believe it when I see it.

The California "sequestration" schemes that I have read about - primarily the one in Carson California - are shell games. They are schemes to drive out more oil that is otherwise unrecoverable. The carbon density of the oil removed is much higher than the carbon density of the gas being injected. Moreover the oil removed will almost certainly be burned mostly in automobiles and trucks where it will not be sequestered. Thus the Carson scheme will increase the carbon dioxide burden of the planet, not decrease it. Remember the unrecoverable oil is sequestered carbon. Therefore "injecting" carbon dioxide to pressurize oil wells is not good for climate change, but is, at best, a mild form mitigation. The enthusiasm for these projects results from marketing, not impact. I shutter to think what will happen if one of those pressurized wells ever fails and releases the "sequestered gases." Carson, Torrance, Lomita and the other areas around there are far more populated than Lake Nyos was. At Lake Nyos, the carbon dioxide release killed "only" 1800 people. Somehow I think the South Bay of Los Angeles County would give a much worse result unless the Santa Ana's are blowing at the time.

I hate to shatter enthusiasm, but I think we have zero hope of facing the problem if we don't look dispassionately at the facts of the case.

Nationwide the picture for new capacity isn't much better in the period between 2006 and 2010 than it is in California.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epaxlfile2_5.xls

Adding and calculating from the figures here we see that new capacity in the United States in that period will be 29% coal, 60% natural gas, 7% new non-hydrorenewables, and 0.02% new hydro, hydro being more or less tapped out.

Any nuclear capacity that is added will regrettably come on line after 2010.

[XemaSab]

10. I think they're pretty sincere about renewables

I think we're expecting a great deal more regulation in the future, and we have to change our business to take advantage of that. If it was impractical, we wouldn't do it.

Even if renewables are only a part of the total picture, with natural gas, conversion technology, and other not-so-green technologies making up the rest, isn't that a major step in the right direction? Coupled with the brazilion solar roofs and increased green building technologies?

You're not shattering my enthusiasm at all. :D

[NNadir]

11. It is a step in the right direction, but the extent to which can be realized

is open to question.

I have been hearing talk for a number of years and mostly what it has generated is not energy so much as complacency.

California has considerable renewable resources, notably geothermal capability. Unquestionably there is more room for wind. These facts have been talked about for decades though, but what has happened is the use of more natural gas.

Natural gas has been the path of least resistance for many power companies, but given the inherent instability of natural gas reserves worldwide, it has been a rather myopic form of denial. This is especially true in the capital of NIMBY, which in my view is California. Natural gas generally avoids NIMBY, unless of course one is talking about a natural gas import terminal off the coast of Malibu.

That said, California is one of the world's leaders in renewable energy, especially if one includes the hydroelectric capacity. As of 2003, 31% of their electrical energy was renewable, and that 31% broke down like this:



However that leaves 61% from fossil fuels, most of which is natural gas. Anything California does to reduce this 61% is helpful. As of 2003, California has more than 34,000 MWe of fossil fuel capacity. It's too much.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/state_profile/rsp_ca_table1.html

As for Governor Hydrogen Hummer, I don't think that his brazillion solar roofs is going to matter a hill of beans. Mostly it's about making him sound palatable to the public, but the public only hears what it wants to hear. I'd love to be proved wrong, but I'm hardly optimistic. In spite of decades of hype on the subject of solar PV, the entire United States produces less solar PV energy than two or three large coal plants. In fact even among solar advocates it is understood that world wide production can only produce as much energy as to replace one or two fossil plants per year.

[hunter]

13. We will cross our fingers and hope Mexico lands LNG for us...

I'm not so sure where we expect this Liquid Natural Gas to come from, or how we will pay for it, since we will be directly competing with rapidly developing nations such as China and India for it. It is almost a cargo cult of hope. If you build it they will come.

California has astonishing potential for renewable energy projects, and from the standpoint of variable energy sources such as wind and solar, or constant baseline sources such as nuclear, a huge potential for pumped storage schemes. For example, the Salton Sea in Southern California, which is 65 meters below sea level, if linked to the ocean, could probably provide energy storage for much of the Southwestern U.S. and Northwestern Mexico. Natural gas peaking plants could be made redundant, and the fraction of energy produced by wind or solar could grow very large.

The best way to reduce carbon dioxide emission is to leave fossil fuels in the ground. It is unlikely that sequestering carbon dioxide will ever be a viable solution.

If we cared we could probably close all coal power plants and convert a significant fraction of our freight transportation system to electricity within two decades. But it doesn't look like we are going to do that. It seems the current plan is to see how well humans cope with a no-ice climate phase. The odds are good that a lot of humans are going to die as sea levels rise and agriculture in traditionally fertile places fails.

[NNadir]

16. You may recall I wrote on the Salton Sea's energy potential some time ago.

I consider it one of my best posts on this web site and will be so self-serving as to link it again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x37366

I considered the Imperial Valley as a kind of ideal giant battery. The use of this gravatational resource in the form of what is called "pumped storage" would be one of the greatest renewable energy projects - and probably one of the most successful - of all time. It would involve the investment of many billions of dollars, but that investment would represent a real gift to the future, unlike a certain war garnering far more attention.

However, I don't think it will happen, not for a New York minute. They will continue to rely on gas in California until there isn't any. It's not like a discussion of the grand renewable future is something new in California. Then everyone will act surprised and start talking about coal gasification. Ultimately with rising sea levels, the Gulf of Baja will breach the Imperial Valley and the Salton Sea will find a less useful outlet to the Sea.

[hunter]

18. Cool, my image link still works. This time I will save that thread...

I see you started it and I ended it.

The Salton Sea and I go way back. I used to fish for corvina there with my dad. The sea was also the subject of one of my failed thesis attempts. (Note to students: Do not fight with your advisors.)



Recently I can't stop thinking about what an environmentally sound ocean water intake system might look like, especially one moving gigawatt quantities of sea water.

The idea of artificial tides on the Salton Sea fascinates me... How would tidal creatures adapt to tides based solely on human energy demands?

[NNadir]

19. Well, I'm sure it would be an interesting experiment.

Your original point about people worrying about salt intrusions is well taken too. I think it's a risk that can be managed, but that certainly the world of energy and the environment is not a stranger, regrettably, to overstating risk.

It is very unlikely that the Salton Sea renewable energy scheme would be risk free, although everyone insists that energy must be risk free in order to be acceptable. The way I've written it, we would certainly be talking, in the least case, about dumping some very saline water in the ocean, some risk (as you pointed out) of salt intrusions, as well as the necessity for some dams - some with saline reservoirs - in an active zone near the San Andreas fault. (Any desalination capacity will of course require messing with the salinity of existing habitats, maybe those in deep trenches, but assuming the existence of energy, we can assume California desalination.)

In fact, as is the case with many wind farms, people often insist that energy have no aesthetic costs, never mind environmental and health costs. Such people would certain involve headaches for the planners.

I think the aesthetic advantages of a healthy inland Salton Sea (and maybe some other artificial seas behind dams) would outweigh any costs though, but I'm sure that much of the money involved in such construction would involve tortured legal arguments. I do believe this is a case with a huge potentially huge positive economic and environmental advantage, if something like this can be made to work. Still I'm very cynical these days about whether people can either recognize, understand or act upon good ideas.

If people could understand good ideas, there would be about 2000 more functioning nuclear plants on the planet right now, but there isn't.

[jpak]

9. Huzzah!!!

That tide looks more like a tsunami...

:bounce:

(and don't expect any encouragement from the anti-renewable clown squad)

:evilgrin:

[skids]

12. Congratulations!

It's always good to know your day job is doing something constructive. I bet you're psyched. :-)

[bananas]

14. One more vote would put this on the greatest page

I think it deserves it.

[progressoid]

15. The almighty $$$.

They know that oil and coal are losing financial viability. If they want to stay in the biz they need to evolve.

Doubt it has anything to do with the environment.

[JohnWxy]

17. Even within companies there are political currents and technical-policy disagreements.

The old guard in the energy business tends to consider renewables as not "macho". The newer people are not burdened by these prejudices. They don't feel their manhood is jeopardized by investing in renewable sources of energy.

While the Cheney/Exxon-Mobil administration keeps it's head in the ground (per paid agreement) the ground is shifting all around them. While they resist change (yes, Republicans are good at paying lip service to causes they don't really give a shit about, that's nothing new. then when they are forced to do something sensible they claim credit for it based on B.S. they included in speeches over the years, during which time did nothing to further progress on the issue.) the change will proceed in spite of them. Unfortunately, the clever use of disinformation has slowed things down dangerously. We should be moving much faster, more aggressively in this direction. the only way to do this is acheiving a change in Congress next week.

Thanks for a first hand account of conditions 'inside the walls'(of corporate power).


Recommended.