Green Sheet

Grantham believes that the planet can only sustainably support about 1.5 billion humans, versus the 7 billion on Earth right now (heading to 10-12 billion).

So, basically, Grantham thinks most of us are going to starve to death.

Why?

In part because we're churning through a finite supply of something that is critical to our ability to produce food: Phosphorus.

Phosphorus is a critical ingredient of fertilizer, and there is a finite supply of it. The consensus is that we will hit "peak phosphorus" production within a few decades, after which point our phosphorus supply will inexorably decline. As it declines, we will be unable to feed ourselves.

Of course, ever since Malthus, a steady stream of doomsayers have predicted a ghastly end to the human population explosion — and, so far, they've all been wrong.

So why is a man of Grantham's intelligence adding his voice to this chorus?

And how real is this threat? Are we all going to starve? Is there any hope?

Humans have been around for a while. But for most of our existence, Grantham observes, our population was small and stable. Then it exploded.

Most of this explosion has come in the past 200 years--just as Malthus predicted. What Malthus did not foresee was the discovery of oil, commercial fertilizer, and other resources, which have (temporarily) supported this population explosion.

For the past 100 years, technology has made these resources cheaper to extract and produce, which has made them ever cheaper. Grantham thinks that trend has now permanently ended.

See the rest of the story at Business Insider

Please follow Business Insider on Twitter and Facebook.

byline?

dledvina — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 19:58:13 GMT

Please follow Green Sheet on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

test

dledvina — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 22:16:26 GMT

Please follow Green Sheet on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The Tesla Nightmare Shows Why Today's All-Electric Cars Are (Basically) Dead On Arrival

Henry Blodget — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 22:30:00 GMT

WATCH: We had a blast when we took 
a Tesla Roadster for a test drive.

Electric car maker Tesla is embroiled in a bitter public fight with The New York Times over whether the paper unfairly criticized one of Tesla's cars.

The battle has become a he-said, she-said affair, with both sides accusing the other of dirty tricks.

Regardless of who's right, the whole experience reveals why today's all-electric cars are, for all intents and purposes, dead on arrival:

Because they're not that useful for one of the key uses that most would-be car-owners would want to use them for -- the ability to comfortably, conveniently, and reliably transport oneself from city to city without living in fear that the battery will die and leave car and driver stranded.

New York Times John Broder's account of trying to drive from Washington to New York and then to Connecticut reveals how even a routine trip can be transformed into a stressful, uncomfortable, time-consuming hassle while driving an all-electric car. Despite having direct, real-time help from Tesla, Broder's car forced him to start worrying and conserving energy (turning down the heat, traveling slowly, "conditioning the battery," etc.) long before he reached his destination. And, in the end, he didn't reach it, because the car ran out of power and shut down.

This problem (and fear), importantly, is unique to all-electric cars.

Gas-powered cars do occasionally run out of gas, but gas is readily available and doesn't require hours of recharging time to pump it into the car.

"Hybrid" cars, meanwhile, which run on batteries sometimes, and gas-powered engines at other times, have a similarly infinite range — but they still benefit from the "greenness" and efficiency that is the primary selling point of electric cars. They're just not as novel, or cool. (Or expensive).

"Hybrid," propulsion, in fact, is clearly the winner in the current generation of efficient cars: Once one understands the convenience of having a gas engine available to charge a car's battery and extend its range, it seems preposterous to handicap the car by limiting its power to only a battery.

Regardless of whom you believe in the Tesla-NYT spat, you cannot help but observe this flaw:

Almost all the way from Washington DC to New York to Connecticut — a relatively short-haul trip for those accustomed to the simplicity, reliability, and convenience of modern cars — Broder was worried about running out of power. When his situation became critical, the Tesla began barking at him, ordering him to stop to recharge the battery immediately.

No normal driver accustomed to the freedom of driving a gas-powered or hybrid car would never voluntarily subject themselves to that.

They would either buy an all-electric car only for tooling around their neighborhoods or cities — or, with uber-rich drivers, for impressing their friends with a gorgeous, unusual, and sexy rich person's toy.

And the latter is what today's Teslas are.

They're amazing machines. Awesome to look at, cool to show off, and awesome to drive.

But no normal driver looking for a means of reliable, flexible, and convenient transportation would buy one as their primary vehicle, especially with gas still being so relatively cheap.

And that means that, for their owners, Teslas and other all-electric cars will be second or third (or fourth or fifth or sixth) cars.

Hopefully, in the future, battery technology and electric-car-infrastructure will advance to the point where all-electric cars have essentially infinite ranges, charging stations will be everywhere, and the cars can be charged immediately and conveniently, with a quick stop for "gas."

Or, maybe, electric car companies like Tesla will introduce super-cheap, super-convenient models that are designed to be used primarily for getting around town (and are priced for that convenience).

Either of those things would significantly improve the value proposition of today's all-electric cars--and, thereby, make them more useful. And at that point the decision would come down to the price-value tradeoff. (A tradeoff that is very important for people who can't afford to just buy an all-electric car as a toys.)

Until those things happen, though — all-electric cars will remain what they are today:

Curiosities and toys.

None of which is to say that Tesla isn't an amazing success story (it is), or that, for those who can afford a $100,000+ third or fourth car, Teslas aren't awesome. They are.

UPDATE: Some readers have interpreted this post as my saying that "Tesla sucks" or "Tesla is toast." I'm not saying either of those things. I do think Tesla owes the New York Times an apology for calling its review "fake," but Tesla's an amazing company, and, for those who can afford to buy their cars as accessories, their cars are awesome. This market--folks who can afford cool curiosities--is big enough to support Tesla, at least until people get bored of the idea of battery-powered cars. My point is broader: Battery technology, charging infrastructure, and the cost of gas have not yet reached the point where an all-electric car is an attractive option for normal drivers. For most people, the benefits don't justify the price. Hopefully, someday, they will.

Please follow Business Insider on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Elon Musk Claims To Have The Data That Proves His 'Fake' NYT Review Charge (TSLA)

Rob Wile — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:55:00 GMT

We've reached the next round in the New York Times versus Tesla fight.

To recap, reporter John Broder wrote a review critiquing the Model S' battery charge on Sunday.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk fired back on Twitter, Bloomberg and CNBC calling the review "fake" because Broder had left out parts of his trip that would have put extra stress on the car.

Broder responded on the Times' website, saying Musk had actually called him to apologize for the car's poor performance before slamming him on cable.

Now, Musk has posted a detailed blog bulleting the alleged flaws in Broder's review.

Tesla installs all sorts of monitors in to track the car's movements when it's given to journalists after a similar allegation about the car's battery capacity was leveled two years ago on the British show "Top Gear."

Musk says the data tell a different story than Broder's.

"While the vast majority of journalists are honest, some believe the facts shouldn’t get in the way of a salacious story," he writes.

That's a pretty heavy charge to level against a journalist.

So let's break it down...

First, Broder's story:

The Model S is supposed to go 265 miles before it needs to be charged.

The trip was from suburban Washington DC to Milford, Conn. and the weather was hovering in the '30s. Broder says he left with a full charge, reached a Delaware charging dock with the battery still having "roughly half its energy remaining."

He got lunch, and 49 minutes the display read “charge complete.” The "estimated available driving distance" was now 242 miles.

When Broder crossed into New Jersey, things began to go wrong:

...the estimated range was falling faster than miles were accumulating. At 68 miles since recharging, the range had dropped by 85 miles, and a little mental math told me that reaching Milford would be a stretch.

When he made it to Manhattan, the car had 79 miles left, and the Milford charging station was 73 miles away.

But "about 20 miles from Milford, less than 10 miles of range remained," he said.

He did make it to Milford and was able to recharge. He drove on to Groton and went to bed with 90 miles left.

When he woke up, the temperature had plummeted — and so had the mileage remaining.

The display showed 25 miles of remaining range — the electrical equivalent of someone having siphoned off more than two-thirds of the fuel that was in the tank when I parked.

The whole time, Broder tried to follow the car's voluminous rules and advice for max performance, still to no avail.

And now, Musk's take:

He claims the Model S battery never ran out of energy at any time. Here's his annotated chart that allegedly proves this:

But another chart does show the estimate mileage twice hit zero:

Musk says "the final leg of [Broder's] trip was 61 miles and yet he disconnected the charge cable when the range display stated 32 miles. He did so expressly against the advice of Tesla personnel and in obvious violation of common sense."

But Broder actually says this:

Instead, I spent nearly an hour at the Milford service plaza as the Tesla sucked electrons from the hitching post. When I continued my drive, the display read 185 miles, well beyond the distance I intended to cover before returning to the station the next morning for a recharge and returning to Manhattan.

And upon pulling in to Groton in the evening:

When I parked the car, its computer said I had 90 miles of range, twice the 46 miles back to Milford.

Musk quotes* Broder that “the car fell short of its projected range on the final leg” and that Broder "bizarrely states that the screen showed 'Est. remaining range: 32 miles.'

"The car actually did an admirable job exceeding its projected range."

Had he not insisted on doing a nonstop 61-mile trip while staring at a screen that estimated half that range, all would have been well. He constructed a no-win scenario for any vehicle, electric or gasoline.

On that leg, he drove right past a public charge station while the car repeatedly warned him that it was very low on range.

Most of Musk's resposnse hinges on these types of allegations — that Broder did not include essential parts of his trip that drained the car's battery further.

This would include, as Musk writes, "an unplanned detour through downtown Manhattan to give his brother a ride, the display said '0 miles remaining.'"

And when he to to Milford...

Instead of plugging in the car, he drove in circles for over half a mile in a tiny, 100-space parking lot. When the Model S valiantly refused to die, he eventually plugged it in.

It's unquestionably true that trying to find parking in Manhattan* could drain both man and machine, but it seems dubious to pin this on a detour that lasted less than two miles.

You can read the whole thing here.

For all the detail in Musk's post, it doesn't wipe away how taxing it seems to be to obey the car's demands.

Update: Broder emails regarding the Musk charge that "While the vast majority of journalists are honest, some believe the facts shouldn’t get in the way of a salacious story."

We're preparing a detailed response to the factual assertions in Mr. Musk's post, but I don't think we're going to respond to these and other ad hominem attacks.

*Correction: We originally said Musk cited quotes that did not appear in Broder's review. They were actually in a caption accompanying the story. We also incorrectly said Musk alleged Broder was trying to find parking in Manhattan. It was acutally Milford.

For the original Elon Musk frustration, see here >

Watch below our review of one of the best electric hybrid cars we've seen – The Chevy Volt

Please follow Getting There on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Elon Musk's SolarCity Goes Public, And The Stock Is Up 30% (SCTY)

Jay Yarow — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:11:00 GMT

Elon Musk's latest high risk company, SolarCity started public trading this morning.

It opened at $9.25 a share, according to Street Insider, a modest 16% pop from the IPO price.

Since then it's taken off, popping 30% to $10.50 a share.

It was priced at $8, a steep cut from what it originally wanted, which was $13-$15 a share.

Still, it's impressive to get a solar company on the public markets right now.

Solar City is a solar panel installer. Elon Musk, who is CEO of electric car company Tesla, and CEO of Rocketship company SpaceX is SolarCity's cofounder and chairman.

According to its S1, it had revenue of $103.4 million for the first nine months of this year, compared to $38.8 million in the same period a year ago. Its net loss during that period was $78 million, compared to a loss of $56.7 million the same period a year ago.

Please follow SAI on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

There's Been An Incredible Drop In Projected US Carbon-Dioxide Emissions

Joe Weisenthal — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 17:51:00 GMT

Without any major policy changes regarding energy use or climate change, the EIA has been massively ratcheting down projections of future US carbon-dioxide emissions from energy.

Via SoberLook, on Friday, the EIA came out and said that in 2040, the US will be emitting less carbon-dioxide from energy than we did in 2005! There's been a big downward shift in projections ever since the economic crisis that started in 2008, but even beyond that, the EIA sees big changes due to changes in the fuel mix, and the secular decline of transportation.

Below the dots is the full release from the EIA:

----------

Projections for U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions have generally been lowered in recent editions of the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), the long-term projections of the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The lowered projections reflect both market and policy developments that have reduced recent and projected growth in energy demand and its expected carbon intensity. The chart presents projected energy-related CO₂ emissions from AEOs issued since 2009 in terms of changes relative to emissions in 2005, a commonly used comparison year, particularly with regard to mitigation targets.

EIA's AEO reflects laws and regulations in place at the time the analysis was performed. New policies are incorporated in subsequent editions of the AEO as they are put in place. For example, updated fuel efficiency standards for light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles were incorporated in AEO2012 and AEO2013, tending to lower CO₂ emissions relative to earlier projections. The CO₂ projection in AEO2013 generally falls below that in AEO2012, and remains more than 5 percent below the 2005 level throughout a forecast horizon that for the first time extends to 2040. However, near-term expectations of industrial growth in response to the availability of low-priced natural gas result in somewhat higher projected levels of CO₂ emissions at the end of the current decade than in last year's outlook.

From 2009 to 2013, key changes in the AEO include:

Downward revisions in the economic growth outlook, which dampens energy demand growth
Lower transportation sector consumption of conventional fuels based on updated fuel economy standards, increased penetration of alternative fuels, and more modest growth in light-duty vehicle miles traveled
Generally higher energy prices, with the notable exception of natural gas, where recent and projected prices reflect the development of shale gas resources
Slower growth in electricity demand and increased use of low-carbon fuels for generation
Increased use of natural gas

Power sector transformation, based on decarbonization of the generation mix, occurs because natural gas and renewables gain market share at the expense of coal, reflecting:

Resource economics—high domestic production of natural gas at historically low prices, reflecting increased production of shale gas
Regulation—updated state renewable portfolio standards and efficiency standards, and cap-and-trade provisions of California Assembly Bill 32, as well as implementation of federal policies to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards and other policies and measures at local, state, and federal levels

In addition to publishing the Annual Energy Outlook, EIA also creates a report evaluating how our projections of key energy concepts compare with realized outcomes. The AEO Retrospective Review includes additional analysis of past projections of CO₂ emissions and other energy indicators like consumption, production, and prices.

Please follow Business Insider on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

- CLONE

Sebastian Howard — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 18:42:00 GMT

test

Please follow Green Sheet on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

A Genius Investor Thinks Billions Of People Are Going To Starve To Death — Here's Why

Henry Blodget and Rob Wile — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 15:23:00 GMT

Investor Jeremy Grantham of GMO recently published a startlingly depressing outlook for the future of humanity.

Grantham thinks the number of people on Earth has finally and permanently outstripped the planet's ability to support us.

Grantham believes that the planet can only sustainably support about 1.5 billion humans, versus the 7 billion on Earth right now (heading to 10-12 billion).

Basically, Grantham thinks most of us are going to starve to death.

Why?

In part because we're churning through a finite supply of something that is critical to our ability to produce food: Phosphorus.

Of course, ever since Malthus, a steady stream of doomsayers have predicted a ghastly end to the human population explosion--and, so far, they've all been wrong.

So why is a man of Grantham's intelligence adding his voice to this chorus?

And how real is this threat? Are we all going to starve?

Humans have been around for a while. But for most of our existence, our population was small and stable. Then it exploded.

Most of this explosion has come in the past 200 years--just as Malthus predicted. What Malthus did not foresee was the discovery of oil, commercial fertilizer, and other resources, which have (temporarily) supported this population explosion.

For the past 100 years, technology has made these resources cheaper to extract and produce, which has made them ever cheaper. Grantham thinks that trend has now permanently ended.

See the rest of the story at Business Insider

Please follow Business Insider on Twitter and Facebook.

GRANTHAM: We're Headed For A Disaster Of Biblical Proportions

Henry Blodget — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:26:00 GMT

Last year, legendary investor Jeremy Grantham of GMO published a treatise on exploding commodity prices.

He also offered a startlingly depressing outlook for the future of humanity.

Grantham believes the world has undergone a permanent "paradigm shift" in which the number of people on Earth has finally and permanently outstripped the planet's ability to support us.

The phenomenon of ever-more humans using a finite supply of natural resources cannot continue forever, Grantham says--and the prices of metals, hydrocarbons (oil), and food are now beginning to reflect that.

Grantham believes that the planet can only sustainably support about 1.5 billion humans, versus the 7 billion on Earth right now (heading to 10-12 billion). For all of history except the last 200 years, the human population has been controlled via the limits of the food supply. Grantham thinks that, eventually, the same force will come into play again.

The hope of the optimists, of course, is that science will find a solution to this problem, the way it has for the past 150 years.

Let's hope so.

In the meantime, here's a snapshot of Grantham's argument, along with his key points at the end.

In the past 200 years, the world population has exploded--just as Malthus predicted. What Malthus did not foresee was the discovery of oil and other natural resources, which have (temporarily) supported this population explosion. Those resources are now getting used up...

For the past 100 years, the prices of commodities have trended downward, as technology has made them cheaper to extract and produce. Grantham thinks that trend has now permanently ended.

Looking at oil, for example... Oil traded at about $16 a barrel for 100 years. Then, as demand outstripped supply, the paradigm shifted--to ~$35 a barrel. Now, Grantham thinks, the paradigm has shifted again, to a central value of about ~$75 a barrel

See the rest of the story at Business Insider

Please follow Business Insider on Twitter and Facebook.

Is America Really On Its Way To Being Energy Independent? Frack, Yeah!

The Economist — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 13:35:00 GMT

America is on track to produce all the energy it needs at home.

UNTIL the late 1950s America produced all the coal, oil and natural gas that its citizens could burn. But as they grew rich and bought cars as big as whales, America began to suck in fuel from beyond its shores. It now accounts for nearly a fifth of world energy consumption. China may be the world’s biggest consumer, but each American burns three and a half times as much as the average Chinese person.

Demand has more than doubled since America was last able to satisfy its energy needs from domestic sources. Nevertheless, there is a growing belief that it can do so again. During the election campaign, both presidential candidates suggested that "energy independence" was attainable. And indeed, the idea is no longer far-fetched. On November 12th the International Energy Agency (IEA), the rich world’s energy club, forecast that America could become the world’s largest oil producer by 2020, outstripping Saudi Arabia and Russia. It could also be more or less self-sufficient in energy by 2035.

The last time America was the world’s biggest oil producer was a decade ago. Thanks to a boom in unconventional energy, America could be churning out 11.1m barrels a day (b/d) by 2020. More than one jubilant media outlet has crowed about "Saudi America".

Drilling in shale beds has made America all but self-sufficient in natural gas. A shoreline dotted with vast and expensive, but mainly idle, plants to import gas in liquid form is a testament to this rapid transformation. So much gas has been fracked that its price has plummeted, and American drillers have started to use the same technology to extract oil, which is still costly, from shale beds.

Even as plenty more American oil gushes out of the ground, and biofuels and natural gas fill more tanks, cars are getting more efficient. So demand is waning: by 2035 the IEA expects American oil imports to have fallen to a third of current levels--just over 3m b/d. By then the country will be exporting roughly the same amount of energy, in the form of coal and gas.

Currently America exports only a little gas. The government has granted one import terminal a licence to convert its machinery so that it can turn gas into liquid for export. Another dozen want to do the same. The White House is unsure about this. Sending gas abroad might raise prices at home; though of course it would also generate pots of money.

The IEA’s forecasts look bold. But other analysts are even more optimistic. Plenty of Americans would be glad not to rely on pesky foreigners for oil and gas. But they should not imagine that they can separate themselves from world markets. Oil prices are determined by global supply and demand, and gas is going the same way. Will America be self-sufficient? Maybe. Independent? No.

Click here to subscribe to The Economist

Please follow Business Insider on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

This Is What Life Is Really Like In The North Dakota Oil Boomtown Of Williston

Robert Johnson — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:10:00 GMT

Ten years ago Williston, North Dakota was a quiet agricultural town with a population around 12,000.

Now, oil prices and drilling advancements have turned Williston into one of America's biggest oil boomtown, pushing its population to over 30,000. The wait at the town's Wal-Mart can push two hours, and the infrastructure is deeply strained.

I visited Williston in March. Interest in the small city is only continuing to grow as America's energy boom rolls on and concerns about a new drilling technique known as "fracking" increase.

These days, America's new boomtown is more in the news than ever, so we thought we'd re-visit what life is like there.

Williston, North Dakota is in the Northwestern portion of the state, not far from Montana and Canada

The town happens to sit in the center of the large Bakken oil formation — 640 square miles of oil, holding up to 34 billion barrels

Recent advancements in fracking allow operators to go deeper, more precisely than ever before

See the rest of the story at Business Insider

Please follow Business Insider on Twitter and Facebook.

Don't Forget What Happened Last Year -- The "Hurricane" Was A Dud...And Then Came The Floods

Henry Blodget — Sun, 28 Oct 2012 11:46:19 GMT

As the media frenzy over Hurricane Sandy grows, it's worth recalling what happened last year with Hurricane Irene.

The hurricane itself--the wind part--fizzled. But then came the rains. And in the next day or so, Vermont and upstate New York got hammered by massive floods.

It turns out the Irene story wasn't at the beach. It was in the mountains.

A few photos below. Click through for full galleries.

BRATTLEBORO, VERMONT

WAITSFIELD, VERMONT

CASTLETON STATE COLLEGE, near RUTLAND, VERMONT

Meanwhile, some towns in the Catskills in upstate New York are getting destroyed. Check the Watershed Post for details.

SHELBURNE, MA (Click for full gallery)

Please follow Science on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Forget About Renewable Energy, We Need Cheap Oil

James Stafford — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 22:13:00 GMT

What does our world's energy future look like? Does renewable energy feature as much in the energy production mix as many hope it will? Will natural gas and fracking help reduce our dependence upon oil and how will the world economy and trade fare as supplies of cheap oil continue to dwindle?

To help us take a look at this future scenario we had a chance to chat with Gail Tverberg – a well known commentator on energy issues and author of the popular blog, Our Finite World

In the interview Gail talks about:

• Why natural gas is not the energy savior we were hoping for
• Why renewable energy will not live up to the hype
• Why we shouldn't write off nuclear energy
• Why oil prices could fall in the future
• Why our energy future looks fairly bleak
• Why the government should be investing less in renewable energy
• Why constant economic growth is not a realistic goal

Gail Tverberg is an independent researcher who examines questions related to oil supply, substitutes, and their impact on the economy. Her background is as a casualty actuary, making financial projections within the insurance industry. She became interested in the question of oil shortages in 2005, and has written and spoken about the expected impact of limited oil supply since then to a variety of audiences: insurance, academic, "peak oil", and more general audiences.

James Stafford: Do you believe that shale gas is the energy savior we have been hoping for and can deliver all that has been promised? Or have we been oversold on its potential?

Gail Tverberg: I am doubtful that shale gas will be the energy savior that we have been hoping for. There are several issues: (a) It is hard for US natural gas prices to rise to the point where shale gas extraction will truly be profitable, because of competition with coal in electricity generation. (b) While natural gas can be used for transportation, it takes time, investment, and guaranteed long-term supply for it really to happen. This will be a long, slow process, if it occurs. (c) People won't stand for "fracking" next door, if the end result is LNG for Europe or Japan. We have otherwise "stranded" non-shale gas in Alaska that would be a better option to develop and sell abroad.

If shale gas does come into widespread use, it will take many years. The quantity will be helpful, but not huge. Furthermore, it will still be natural gas, rather than the fuel we really need, which is cheap oil.

James Stafford: The old dream of US energy independence has been finding its way into the headlines again as a combination of resurgent domestic oil production, improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency and the shale boom have led many experts to predict that although it is unlikely, it's no longer the fantasy it once was. What are your thoughts on US energy independence?

Gail Tverberg: I think that the direction in years ahead will be toward reduced trade of all sorts. By definition, every country will become "more independent," including more "energy independent". Whether or not current lifestyles are supportable with lower trade is another question.

James Stafford: Japan recently made the announcement that they aim to phase out nuclear power by 2040. What is your opinion on this decision and on nuclear energy in general? Can the world live without it?

Gail Tverberg: The decision by Japan is worrisome, because there aren't many good replacement options available. Japan has volcanoes, so it may have an option to use geothermal as an option. Also, 2040 is far enough away that other options may become available.

Phasing out nuclear in other countries is likely to be difficult. In most countries, this will likely mean "less electricity" or "more coal." It may also mean higher electricity cost, and lower competitiveness for manufacturers. Germany has already started the process of phasing out nuclear. It will be interesting to see how this works out.

In general, I think we should be taking a closer look at nuclear, because we have so few other low-carbon options. There is considerable dispute about the extent to which radiation from nuclear is a problem. This question needs to be examined more closely. To use nuclear long-term, we need to find ways to do it cheaply and without a huge amount of hot fuel that needs to be kept away from people indefinitely.

James Stafford: Renewable energy continues to be a favorite amongst many politicians – yet advances are slow and expensive. Do you see renewables making a meaningful contribution to global energy production? And if so over what time period?

Gail Tverberg: I have a hard time seeing that intermittent renewables (wind and solar photovoltaics) will play a big role in maintaining grid electricity, because of the stress they place on the grid, and the high cost of needed grid upgrades to handle them. Renewables from wood and biomass are hard to scale up, because wood supply is limited and because biomass use tends to compete with food production. Renewables from waste (left over cooking oil, for example) are not something we can count on for the long term, as people stay at home more, and dispose of less waste.

All renewables depend heavily on our fossil fuel system. For example, it takes fossil fuels to make new wind turbines and solar panels, to maintain the electrical grid, and to repair roads needed for maintaining the grid system. Biofuels depend on our fossil fuel based agricultural system.

I expect that the contribution renewables make will occur primarily during the next 10 or 20 years, and will decline over time, because of their fossil fuel dependence.

Quite a few individuals living off-grid would like to guarantee themselves long-term electricity supply through a few solar panels. This is really a separate application of renewables. It will work as long as the solar-panels work, and there are still the required peripherals (batteries, light bulbs, etc.) available—perhaps 30 years.

James Stafford: Are there any renewable energy technologies you are optimistic about and can see breaking away from the pack to help us extend the fossil fuel age?

Gail Tverberg: The technology that is probably best is solar thermal. It works like heating a hot water bottle in the sun. This is especially good for reducing the need to use fossil fuels to heat hot water in warm climates. But even this is not going to do a huge amount to fix our problems, especially if they are primarily financial in nature.

James Stafford: Renewable energy innovation has been coming under fire lately, with the Solyndra scandal and now Tesla motors are looking to be in trouble - both of whom were backed by government loan guarantees. Do you believe the government should be investing more or less in renewable energy companies?

Gail Tverberg: Less. I think we should be looking for inexpensive solutions. Anything that is high-priced starts with two strikes against it.

Also, I think if the true picture is considered, the amount of environmental benefits of renewables is very low, or perhaps negative. Their higher cost tends to make countries using them less competitive, sending production to China or other Asian countries where coal is the primary fuel. This may raise world carbon dioxide emissions.

Since 2000, world carbon dioxide emissions have increased far more than would have been expected based on prior patterns. A major cause seems to be the shift in industry to Asian countries, as countries attempted to reduce their own carbon footprint.

James Stafford: In a recent article you mentioned that the world economy is currently suffering from high-priced fuel syndrome. Would you be able to let our readers know a little more about this? And also if there is anything that can be done economically to help move beyond this syndrome?

Gail Tverberg: High priced fuel syndrome is primarily (but not entirely) a problem of fuel importers. It has symptoms such as the following:

• Slow economic growth or contraction
• People in discretionary industries laid off from work
• High unemployment rates
• Governments in increasingly poor financial situation
• Declining home and property values
• Rising food prices

Part of the problem seems to occur when fuel prices rise, and people cut back on discretionary spending. The result is layoffs. Fewer people pay taxes, and more collect unemployment benefits, causing financial problems for governments. The other part of the problem seems to be lack of competitiveness with countries (such as China and India) that use a cheaper fuel mix.

While oil is the fuel with the big price-problem in the US, high-priced natural gas contributes to the problem in Europe and Japan. High-priced renewables also contribute to the problem.

To keep costs down, we really need to consider cost first when considering alternatives to oil. Alternatives that need subsidies or mandates are likely to be a problem. Thus, in the US, natural gas right now might "work" as a substitute, but not offshore wind.

Regarding the competitiveness aspect, tariffs on international trade might help, but would reduce world output.

James Stafford: What is your position on peak oil? Have we already reached the peak in oil production? Or do you side with Daniel Yergin in saying we have decades more of production growth?

Gail Tverberg: I think the peak in oil production will be determined based on financial considerations. Such a peak is probably not very far away, because we are already experiencing lower economic growth and the governments of several countries are in dire financial straits.

As the oil price gets too high (or already is too high), governments of oil importing nations will be increasingly stressed by high unemployment and low revenue. Any way of fixing this problem (higher taxes, government layoffs, or reduced programs like Medicare, Social Security, and unemployment insurance) is likely to lead to lower disposable income and less "demand" for (that is, ability to pay for) products using oil.

With lower ability to pay for products using oil, the price of oil will drop. Fewer producers will be able to extract oil at this lower price, and the supply of oil will decrease.

James Stafford: What is your view on our energy future? Is it as bleak as some commentators point out – or is there a ray of hope for us?

Gail Tverberg: I see the future as fairly bleak. The big issue is the way high oil prices affect the economy, leading to recession, joblessness, and huge government deficits. The issue is really a lack of cheap oil.

This is an issue that can't be expected to go away, even with new (high priced) oil supply in the US, or with the possibility of more natural gas supply. We are right now experiencing adverse financial impacts from high oil prices, but these impacts are being disguised by artificially low interest rates and huge amounts of deficit spending.

I find it hard to see much of a ray of hope for avoiding some kind of discontinuity, because the problem seems to be already at hand. For example, I see Europe's current financial problems and the US's fiscal cliff as being a direct result of lower energy affordability, especially oil, in recent years.

James Stafford: We recently published a news piece on a broker who in a drunken stupor managed to move the oil markets. What do you believe moves oil prices – is it supply and demand or energy market traders – or a bit of both?

Gail Tverberg: I think that over the long run it is mostly supply and demand that moves prices. (Of course, demand has to be read as "affordability". People who are paying higher taxes can afford less oil products, so "demand" less.)

There may be some short-term impact of energy market traders, but it is likely quite small as a percentage of the total.

James Stafford: If oil prices continue to rise do you see Americans changing their driving and energy consumption habits?

Gail Tverberg: I think some changes will take place, but they will not be as fast as many would like. New car buyers are likely to be unwilling to pay large upfront costs for fuel-saving features, because they may not own the car for very long. Getting their money's worth will depend on getting a high resale price for the car.

People in poor financial condition are more likely to make big changes. People who lose their jobs may sell their cars, and share with others. Teenagers who don't get jobs will not buy a car. People with low wages and long commutes will look for people to share rides with.

James Stafford: A short while ago Forbes ran a piece on Thorium as possibly being the biggest energy breakthrough since fire and both China and India have announced their intentions to develop thorium reactors. What are your thoughts on thorium as a possible replacement for uranium?

Gail Tverberg: From everything I have heard, it is still a long ways away—at least 15 years. If it would work, it would be great.

James Stafford: In another article you have linked energy to employment and recession. Are you suggesting that without growth in energy production the economy will not grow, and employment levels will not rise?

Gail Tverberg: It takes external energy to make anything that we make in today's economy. It takes energy to operate construction equipment, or to operate a computer, or to manufacture and transport goods. Even making "services" requires energy.

So if we have a lot less energy, today's jobs are likely to be impacted. It is possible that we can create more half-time (and half-pay) jobs, but the result will still be that the world will be a lot poorer. We can still do jobs that don't require external energy (such as make a basket out of reeds, or wash clothes in a stream), but our productivity will be much lower than when electricity or oil was available to leverage our production.

James Stafford: What is the most pressing matter that will affect the world in your opinion? food shortage, water shortage, energy shortage, climate change, etc?

Gail Tverberg: I think the immediate problem will be financial, but caused by high-priced energy.

The big concern I have is that financial problems will lead to political disruption. The natural tendency of countries with less energy supply is to break into smaller units—for example, the Soviet Union broke up into Russia and its member nations. There is now talk about whether Catalonia can become independent from the rest of Spain, and whether the Euro can hold together. If breakups become a major pattern, even spreading to the New World, it could make international trade much more difficult than today.

Financial problems could also lead to debt defaults and rapidly shifting currency relationships. These, too, could lead to a reduction in international trade.

James Stafford: Economic growth is what the public expects, anything less is treated as a recession, but is constant economic growth a realistic goal? Is it achievable?

Gail Tverberg: Constant economic growth is not a realistic goal. We live in a finite world. This is obvious, if a person stops to think about it. There are only a finite number of atoms in the earth. There are interrelated biological systems on earth, and humans are one part. Humans cannot become too numerous without destroying the ecosystems that we depend on.

In a finite world, it is clear that eventually extraction will become more expensive. When we first started extracting fossil fuels, we started with what was easiest (and cheapest) to obtain. As we move to more difficult locations, such as deep under water, or the Arctic, the cost becomes more expensive. It is these high costs that seem to be disturbing economies now.

It appears to me that we are now hitting some version of "Limits to Growth". Most economists haven't figured out the connection between the economy and the natural world, so are oblivious to our current predicament.

James Stafford: If the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy is ever actually made, what do you believe will be the effect on GDP?

Gail Tverberg: I don't see renewable energy as being sustainable on its own. If it were, we might expect a GDP level of perhaps 10% or 15% of today's GDP.

James Stafford: Other than a severe reduction in the global population what solutions are available to humanity as it reaches the limits of the planet?

Gail Tverberg: Unfortunately, solutions seem few and far between. Our biggest problem seems to be a lack of time to fix a financial problem that seems very close at hand.

A partial solution for some people may be a reduced standard of living combined with local agriculture.

Regardless of what happens, we do have quite a lot of "stuff" that humans have made that will cushion any down slope—roads, houses, clothing, and tools, for example. Many people would like a solar panel or two for their long-term use. We also have knowledge that we did not have on the upslope.

The past 10,000 years for humans has been real miracle, first with the discovery of agriculture, and later with the discovery of fossil fuels. If there is a Guiding Hand behind what is happening, there may be other miracles in store, as well.

James Stafford: In your opinion, who will make the better president in terms of energy policies and saving the economy, at the upcoming elections?

Gail Tverberg: The last presidential candidate that I had real enthusiasm for was Ross Perot in 1996. He would have put the United States (and the world) on much more of an isolationist path. In retrospect, this is the one thing that would have helped put off the predicament we are in today, because it would have slowed world economic growth, and with it the extraction of resources. World population would probably be lower now, too.

In this election, I would probably slightly favor Romney, because he seems to have some grasp of the issues we are up against. As I look at the numbers, it is absolutely essential that we start cutting programs, if we are to balance the budget. As bad as fossil fuels may be, they provide our jobs, our food, light, and heat so we need to continue to extract them. We don't seem to have very good alternatives at this time. Even what we consider renewables depend upon fossil fuels.

In the next four years, I expect we will find ourselves doing a U-turn on economic growth. I don't think either candidate (or for that matter, any leader) will be able to handle this well. Ideally, the new leader should be looking at the issue of how to deal with a low-energy future. Do we move to local agriculture, and if so, how? If rationing is done, how should it be done? If there are not enough jobs for everyone, should we go to more part-time jobs?

Romney has been accused of flip-flopping, but in some ways, with such big changes coming, I think that what we need is someone who is willing to change his views with changing circumstances. We seem to be headed for truly uncharted territory.

James Stafford: Gail thank you for taking the time to speak with us.

NOW READ: 15 Mistakes That Nearly Wrecked My Adventures Abroad >

Please follow Money Game on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

These Are The Biggest Myths About Hybrid Cars

AskMen — Sat, 13 Oct 2012 14:24:00 GMT

I have a confession: I don’t compost. I don't always recycle plastic bags, and I probably take longer showers than I should. In fact, two weeks ago, I didn’t know what, exactly, a hybrid car really was.

Check out the myths >

That all changed when I got to test drive the first of Toyota’s all-new, all-electric RAV4 EV and got schooled on the entire Prius family -- the original Prius that made hybrids famous, the Prius C, V and even the Plug-In.

My time with Toyota made me think twice about traditional gas-powered cars. All the fears I'd always had about non-gas motored engines fell away as I learned about all the precautions and technology that went into these hybrids.

Which made me realize: Clearing up misconceptions about hybrids is crucial to getting people to realize, like I did, that there are plenty of ways to save energy in parts of your life where you won’t even notice the change. So, in an attempt to dispel any myths holding you back from going green, here are the 10 biggest misconceptions about hybrids.

More Women Than Men Drive Hybrids

Actually, the stats say that for the regular Prius, it's exactly 50/50. "If anything, it’s a little heavier on the men [drivers] because of the technology side. There’s a strong tech allure to the Prius," says Erica Gartsbeyn, Prius product manager at Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.

Even more surprisingly, the Prius Plug-In has a 67% male driver base, while the Prius C is 56% male-driven. The Prius C and V are more popular with women, however, most likely due to the feminine styling and colors.

Hybrids Aren't Fun To Drive

This just blatantly isn't true. Anyone who's been behind the wheel of a hybrid knows that the number of technology systems (from the premium seven-inch display audio with navigation and eco-drive monitor in the Prius to the EV's eight-inch touchscreen that supplies navigation and telematics showing exactly how much power you’re using) make these cars pretty fun to drive.

"People have begun to 'gamify' their driving habits," says Gartsbeyn. "The Prius has provided them with a number of different technology systems, and all of that becomes sort of a game to Prius drivers. They have tricks they talk about online. It’s become a little community-discussion board." Interested? Visit Prius Chat for a taste.

Hybrids Are Only For A Niche Buyer

Considering that Toyota has sold over 1.2 million Priuses in the U.S -- and globally over four million hybrids -- this myth seems to be on the decline. Furthermore, for Prius C buyers, 84% of them are buying their first hybrid. And for Prius V, 70% are first-time buyers. "It’s not only about loyalty anymore," says Gartsbeyn. "EVs and plug-ins may be niche, but hybrids have moved more toward the mainstream."

See the rest of the story at Business Insider

Please follow Getting There on Twitter and Facebook.

The Newest Vehicle From Smart Is This Awesome Electric Bike

Antony Ingram — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:28:00 GMT

After testing the 2013 Smart ForTwo Electric Drive, we were given the opportunity to try out another of Smart's electric vehicles.

Unlike the city car however, this vehicle has only half the number of seats, and half the number of wheels.

It's also, technically speaking, a hybrid--using an electric motor on the rear wheel, and... your legs.

It is of course the eBike, Smart's pedal-electric bicycle. And it could be the most convincing vehicle Smart makes.

Perfect fit

On the face of it, the eBike is a perfect fit for the Smart brand, far more so than other car companies which offer branded mountain bikes, skis, and other assorted corporate-logo'd 'lifestyle' junk.

After all, Smart started with the express purpose of revolutionizing urban transportation, by making parking easier and reducing running costs.

Bicycles may not be a revolution, but they're hard to beat as tools for cutting rapidly across a crowded city.

The bicycle, improved

The main issue with bicycles, to those of us who prefer our transport to have four wheels and a roof, is that you get hot and sweaty when it's dry, and hot, sweaty and wet when it rains.

The eBike won't stop you getting wet when it rains, but thanks to four levels of electric assistance, a large proportion of the physical exertion is removed from every journey.

In fact, it makes all but the toughest inclines a relative pleasure to ascend. You still need to pedal, but the electric motor adds to your own efforts to make the whole process much easier.

It also feels a little more sophisticated than your average bike, with a silent, maintenance-free carbon belt drive between pedals and rear hub, a small LCD display to track your progress, assistance and speed, and built-in front and rear LED lights for safety.

The best Smart?

Our ride took in the cycle-friendly streets of the U.K. town of Milton Keynes.

The pace at which the bike accelerates with only light pedal effort is initially surprising, though not unwelcome. Only three forward gears are offered but unless you live in a particularly hilly area, you're likely to leave it in top gear most of the time and let electric assistance handle the rest.

Top speed is only 15 mph--any more and the bike would have to be registered as a motorcycle--and that speed is easy enough to hit on the flat and up gentle hills

The relative lack of effort required to make progress is the real benefit, and while we didn't ride far enough to test Smart's claim of 62 miles of assistance, range barely diminished during our 30-minute ride--energy is regained when you brake, just like an electric car.

The touted price of $3,700 is quite expensive, but if you use it to commute every day rather than just keeping it in the garage as a frivolous toy, then it's something of a bargain--after all, a car would be much more expensive.

The Smart eBike, then, is both easy to ride, and fun to use. So much so, that it makes us think that it might be the best vehicle Smart makes.

After all, while the talented Smart Electric Drive is stuck in traffic with all the other cars, eBike users will be able to slide by unhindered, reaching their destination earlier--and not even out of breath.

You'll still get wet when it rains, of course...

Please follow Getting There on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Saudi Arabia Is Using Your Gas Dollars To Fund Solar Energy

John Voelcker — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 13:28:58 GMT

Renewable energy, especially solar, is making inroads into the U.S. power grid, but it's a very slow process.

And especially in the wake of the Solyndra collapse, it's one fraught with political wrangling.

But there's another country that plans to invest heavily in solar power, hoping to provide fully 30 percent of its energy needs from the sun in just 20 years.

That country is...Saudi Arabia.

Yes, the conservative kingdom and longtime U.S. ally wants to cut its own oil use.

Today, Saudi Arabia burns 850 million barrels of oil a year. That represents almost a third of its total production.

Later this year, the nation is expected to approve very ambitious plans for a massive array of renewable energy projects. The first installations should be completed next year.

The goal within two decades is for the country to have 25,000 megawatts of electricity coming rom solar-thermal plants, which use huge mirror arrays to focus sunshine into a concentrated ray that heats fluid into steam to drive turbine generators.

It also expects to create 16,000 megawatts of capacity using large arrays of photovoltaic solar cells, which are slowly but consistently falling in price as more production capacity comes online--particularly in China, which has made the industry a government priority.

Saudi Arabia also plans to add an additional 21,000 megawatts from other non-oil sources, including geothermal, wind, and nuclear plants.

The entire plan is expected to cost $109 billion, for which the country is seeking investment partners.

Industry analysts say the country can earn a healthy return on the investment by displacing a third of the oil it now consumes and selling that on the open market.

In other words, one of our major sources of imported oil thinks that spending more than $100 billion to cut its own oil consumption is a good deal--because we'll pay them more than that for the oil they don't use.

The next time U.S. drivers pay $4 a gallon or more for gasoline, that may be worth keeping in mind.

Please follow Getting There on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »