Dear Congress,

We, the American People, want a New Deal for energy.

We’re tired of watching the rest of the world kick the clean energy industry into high gear while we’re still stuck in neutral, debating a weak cap-and-trade bill that doesn’t come close to meeting our energy challenge.

Indeed, we believe the focus on climate change is fundamentally misguided. We should be thinking about what we put into the engine, not what comes out of the tailpipe. If we get energy transition right, the emissions problem will take care of itself. Incentivize, don’t penalize.

The “shovel ready” stimpak was nice, but we know that most of those jobs won’t be permanent. We also know that far more of it went to the dead end of roads and cars than to real, long-term fixes to our energy crisis.

Consider rail, the most viable solution to our oil-guzzling problem. You spent decades starving Amtrak of the funding that would make it truly viable, then doled out a paltry $13 billion stimulus for high-speed rail in America. That’s about 2% of what you need to spend on it. Meanwhile, China is spending $556 billion on a rail construction plan that will link nearly all its provincial cities in the next five years. The Shanghai-Beijing link alone is expected to create half a million jobs.

The desire for instant jobs gratification has actually done rail more harm than good. Directing the understaffed Federal Railroad Administration to sort through hundreds of plans and distribute a huge chunk of stimulus money as quickly as possible, before it had a chance to develop its national high-speed rail plan, bogged the agency down and misdirected its priorities, effectively setting back real progress.

Short-term thinking is what got us into this mess, and it’s not going to get us out.

We’re all for unleashing the can-do spirit and manufacturing might of America. We’re ready to do our part. But we’re going to need more than short term support. It’s going to take more than a one-year program to restore jobs that we spent three decades sending offshore.

The incentives that Congress has created for renewables and efficiency have always had the fatal flaw of being too short-lived. The resulting boom-and-bust cycles were devastating, and caused America to lose the edge in clean tech. Meanwhile, countries that made 20-year commitments to transforming their energy systems have become the world’s leaders in it.

It’s also time to tell us the truth about the future of energy. We understand now that we have a real problem which no amount of drilling or military intervention is going to cure. In return we promise that this time, we won’t crucify you–like we did President Carter.

The Challenge

Here is our reality:

• Oil production has peaked. Supply will be flattish for the next 2-4 years, then begin a long decline.
• We will lose roughly 25% of our oil supply in 25 years; 50% in 50 years; 100% in 100 years.
• To compensate for the decline of oil with renewables, the world would need to build the equivalent of all the world’s existing renewable energy capacity, every year.
• Since that is impossible, efficiency and a long transition to renewably powered infrastructure must make up the shortfall. This will take 50 years or more to achieve.
• It’s likely that we will also see the peaks of natural gas and coal in the next 20 years. Hydropower and nuclear will do little more than hold their current market share.
• By the end of the century, nearly everything will have to be powered by renewably-generated electricity, not liquids or gases.

The cap-and-trade bill’s aim to cut 600,000 barrels per day off U.S. oil demand–which is currently 19 million barrels per day (mbpd)–over a period of 10 years is a joke. That’s roughly the same amount that U.S. demand has grown over the last year.

We need to cut closer to 2 mbpd in 10 years, 6 mbpd in 20 years, 8 mbpd in 30 years and 10 mbpd in 40 years.

Do you have what it takes to confront this challenge, knowing that some of the solutions will be politically unpopular, impact your constituents back home, and take many times longer than your term in office to achieve?

Can you do what authoritarian and parliamentary governments elsewhere are already doing?

A Plan to Rebuild America

It’s time to come up with a real plan, an honest plan, to rebuild America under a new energy paradigm. One with serious, achievable 30-year and 50-year milestones that will slash our need for fossil fuels.

A plan based on facts and science, not political expediency. One that will create true, long-term wealth, prosperity, resiliency and self-sufficiency.

We need a Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security to prepare the country for the decline of oil, not sweet lies from the EIA which completely ignore it. As Lester Brown observed, “only Sweden and Iceland actually have anything that remotely resembles a plan to effectively cope with a shrinking supply of oil.”

We want to stop spending half a trillion dollars a year for imported oil, and develop a defense strategy for the day when our imports dry up.

We need stable, simple feed-in tariffs, which have been proven successes in Germany, Japan and Spain…not complex, corruptible, ineffectual policies like cap-and-trade or cap-and-tax. And we need them for 30 years, not one.

We want solar on every rooftop, a wind turbine in every field and a micro-hydro turbine in every running stream, wherever viable resources exist. Distributed generation is resilient, and brings value to every community. Along with it , we need distributed power storage, and a smart grid with micro-islanding so we can fall back on our own resources if the grid goes down.

We want a plan to manage our resources for the long term health of our society, like Norway and Saudi Arabia have. Instead of planning to use our remaining oil and gas so we can drive in inefficient cars more cheaply, we should be planning to convert it into the renewables and efficiency gains we’ll need in the future.

We want a defensive strategy for our grid with hardening against cyber-attacks.

We need to reverse the long process of globalization and bring manufacturing back home. Instead of a society now dependent on complex, world-spanning, highly optimized supply chains, we need local resiliency, redundancy, and diversity in all the essential sectors: energy, water, food, and security.

Finally, we need energy education at all levels–from the street to the universities, from business to government employees.

Do you have the guts to tell the truth about our energy challenge, and bring America up to speed on what she must do? Or will you wimp out and kick the can down the road a little farther, as your predecessors have, leaving America to learn about it the hard way and pay a price so much higher than it would be today?

Time to Act – Wisely

The days of economic growth may be gone forever for import-dependent developed countries like the United States, unless we downsize, relocalize, and work hard on energy transition.

What we need now is an honest, long-range strategy. We need to build rail, rip up roads and unwanted, unsustainable housing, replant farmland, massively beef up the electrical grid, and deploy millions of renewable energy generators–the more distributed, the better.

By planning for it now, we could achieve a somewhat orderly transition away from liquid fuels and toward efficient electric transport. We’ll still create millions of new jobs, only they’ll be the right jobs. Jobs that won’t disappear the next time oil spikes.

Congress cannot meet this challenge without teamwork and good sportsmanship. The Greens, the Browns, the Department of Energy, Congress and all of us must work together. It will take sacrifice on all sides.

We sincerely hope you are up to the challenge.

Until next time,

Chris

Related Articles

Seven Paths to Our Energy Future Energy analyst Chris Nelder reviews the case for peak fossil fuels and offer seven no-brainer paths to success in the coming renewable energy revolution.	Peak Oil and Other Mispriced Risks Energy analyst Chris Nelder offers some predictions that may sound crazy now but are actually quite likely, starting with peak oil and moving on to a slew of other mispriced risks.
Oil and Grid Power Security Risks Energy analyst Chris Nelder reviews several presentations on the energy aspects of national security at the 2009 ASPO-USA Peak Oil Conference.	Soccer and Energy Policy Energy analyst Chris Nelder draws some lessons from the world’s most beloved sport about how to formulate good energy policy.

When oil crossed $120 a barrel for the first time in May 2008, oil cornucopians knew they were in trouble. Prices had quadrupled in just five years, yet had failed to bring new production online. Regular crude had flatlined around 74 million barrels per day (mbpd). The case for peak oil was looking stronger with every new uptick in crude futures.

The following month, prominent peak oil critic and cornucopian Daniel Yergin of IHS-CERA changed his stance: The peak oil threat would be neutralized by peak demand. Gasoline consumption had peaked in the U.S. and Europe, he argued, due to the combined effects of increasing efficiency, biofuels, and the recession.

In 2009 the peak demand story seemed confirmed, as prices stabilized around $70 in June, and U.S. consumption remained well off its previous high. Most people thought the nearly 2 mbpd decline in U.S. petroleum demand from 2007 through 2009 owed to efficiency and people driving less.

In reality, only about 15% owed to reduced gasoline demand. The other 85% was lost in the commercial and industrial sector: jet fuel, distillates (including diesel), kerosene, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants, waxes, petroleum coke, asphalt and road oil, and other miscellaneous products.

Very simply, when oil got to $120 a barrel it cut into real productivity, and forced the world’s most developed economies to shrink. At $147, it wreaked serious damage.

As I explained in “Investment Themes for the Next Decade,” the new normal will be  cycles of bumping our heads against the supply ceiling, falling dazed to the floor, rising back to our knees, then finally standing, only to bump our heads against the ceiling once more.

Scooters Will Kill SUVs

Two interesting news stories crossed the wire this week, which portend badly for the world’s #1 net importer, the U.S.

The first was a Reuters report that the last quarter of 2009 had “wiped out” the equity of Mexican state oil monopoly Pemex, leaving it $1.4 billion in the negative. Falling crude output, falling refining margins and a burgeoning dependency of the state on its revenues had squeezed it to death.

Not only did the report offer further confirmation that the oil export crisis has arrived, but it also confirmed my growing suspicion that the oil production everyone has assumed will come online in five to ten years might, in fact, fail to materialize. Negative equity companies have a hard time raising capital for new exploration.

The second was a Bloomberg report that Saudi Arabia had agreed to double its oil exports to India, to some 866,000 barrels per day. India indicated separately that its onshore production of oil may peak this year.

This adds to the pressure on Saudi Arabia’s exports, whose oil shipments to China have been growing at a rate of 11-12% per year and now stand at roughly 1 million barrels per day (mbpd). China has eclipsed the U.S. as the primary bidder for Saudi oil, while U.S. imports from the Persian Gulf nation have fallen to a 22-year low.

The last two years have seen the marginal buyers of oil shift decisively to the non-OECD countries. A gallon of fuel delivers so much value in China and India–think peasants on scooters–that even at $120 a barrel, remarkable economic growth rates are possible. In major oil exporting countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, where subsidized gasoline still sells for under 25 cents a gallon, the appetite for fuel grows steadily every year with little thought given to efficiency.

It’s a different story in the U.S. For debt-laden consumers, an extra $50 or $75 to fill up the tank on an SUV every month sharply reduced discretionary income and starved the economy of its most fundamental driver, consumer demand.

The Real Meaning of Peak Demand

The most promising effort I’ve seen to quantify the role of efficiency in peak demand was a report in October of last year by Paul Sankey of Deutsche Bank entitled, “The Peak Oil Market.” My initial excitement quickly gave way to disappointment as dug into it, however, as I realized that its confident assertions were unsupported by the data. I applauded the effort enthusiastically–and I hope to see more serious work along the same lines–but it fell far short of proving that energy transition can be accomplished under the status quo of economic growth, let alone its optimistic twist on “The end is nigh for the age of oil.”

The fact is that peak demand in the OECD is not merely a function of efficiency gains and biofuels substitution, aided by a temporary recession.

Instead, peak demand will be the result of a permanent state of increasing depression in which non-OECD countries not only more than make up for the loss of OECD demand, but outbid them for the marginal barrel.

As we enter the post-peak phase of global oil supply sometime around 2012-2014, the price that heavily import-dependent countries like the U.S. would have to pay for that marginal barrel will become increasingly intolerable. In a weakened economy, $100 a barrel (or less) could be the new $120.

The true import of peak oil, therefore, may not be sustained high prices, but economic shrinkage. Demand will be destroyed long before oil gets to $200 a barrel, but it will not be destroyed by improved efficiency.

From where we stand today, it’s hard to make an argument for economic recovery. Persistently high unemployment rates, broken state and federal balance sheets, and an inflationary depression will continue to cut into petroleum demand. We spent the last several decades offshoring the fundamental value-adding sectors like energy production and manufacturing, and now our FIRE economy (finance, insurance, and real estate) rests entirely on real value created elsewhere.

The reason is simple: Energy is the only real currency. Every dollar of fiat currency or GDP was ultimately derived from cheap energy. Trying to print your way out of energy decline is like prescribing ever-higher doses of aspirin for a headache caused by a brain tumor. Yet those at the levers of monetary policy are, by all appearances, completely ignorant (or in willful denial) of this fundamental fact.

The vogue prescription for the sovereign debtors at greatest risk of default (see a Top 10 list here) is “austerity measures.” The theory is that a period of belt-tightening will stanch the fiscal bleeding until economic recovery puts everyone into the black again.

Yet, if primary energy supply is declining, and the rising star of developing economies is inexorably cutting into the supply available to developed and indebted economies, then there can be no recovery.

I have joked on Twitter that I’m expecting an “M-shaped recovery,” where we’re now on the second hump. A more accurate image is slow strangulation.

Two Questions for Recoveryistas

Those who would argue for economic recovery must answer two intractable questions.

The first is: Where will the energy come from, as more of the world’s net exporters become net importers?

Britain, Argentina, Indonesia, and others have become net importers in recent years. Mexico and Columbia are expected to follow suit within a decade. Clearly, we can’t all be net energy importers.

There is also the obstinate fact that aggregate net energy–the energy you get in return for investing energy in its production–has been dropping steadily. Oil net energy dropped from 100 in the early 1930s to 11 or less today. Net energy for natural gas is now in decline. We don’t have adequate data to know yet, but coal’s net energy is probably in decline too. Meanwhile, the net energy of all substitutes is low: wind, 18; solar, 6.8; nuclear, 5-15; all biofuels, under 2.

It is not surprising that a study of the Herold database (Gagnon, Hall, and Brinker, 2009) showed the amount of oil and gas produced per dollar spent declined between 1999 and 2006.

The second question is: If the creeping infection of sovereign default continues to spread to more countries, where will the money come from to bail them out? The answer has been, and continues to be, more aspirin. Without more cheap energy, monetary tactics to play the game into overtime will not only be futile, they will only draw us closer to the edge of the net energy cliff.

All of which begs a final question: If the answers are transition to renewables, and rebuilding our infrastructure for high efficiency, then where will the money and energy to do it all come from? And how long will it hold out?

Without cheap energy to fuel the growth that is hoped to pay off the accumulated debt, austerity will become an everyday reality, not a short-term fix. A reality that slowly sinks in for the rest of our lives, as net importers become progressively poorer.

The peak demand argument is a good one–but not for the nice reasons.

Until next time,

Related Articles

Have We Reached an Inflection Point in Economics History? Energy analyst Chris Nelder deconstructs the inflation/deflation debate and conjectures that we may have reached an inflection point in economic history, where the price at which energy is high enough to sustain new production is the same price at which things become too expensive, leaving us no option but to downsize.	Can Renewables Replace Fossil Fuels? Energy analyst Chris Nelder explores recent research in search of an answer to the question: Can renewables replace fossil fuels?
Investment Themes for the Next Decade Energy analyst Chris Nelder offers some big-picture energy investment themes for the next decade. Part 1 of a two-part series.	The Narrow Ledge of Oil Prices Energy analyst Chris Nelder explains why oil prices may be trapped in a tight range, and why that’s good for cleantech investors.
Peak Oil and Other Mispriced Risks Energy analyst Chris Nelder offers some predictions that may sound crazy now but are actually quite likely, starting with peak oil and moving on to a slew of other mispriced risks.

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

(1 Corinthians 13:11)

Judging by the excitement around the unveiling of the Bloom Box, you’d think it was the Second Coming.

The green blogs fell all over themselves repeating the breathless “Holy Grail” speculations in Lesley Stahl’s 60 Minutes report, which was indistinguishable from an in-house marketing puff piece.

Bloom Energy’s media blitz ended eight years in stealth mode, and the star-studded coming-out ceremony on Wednesday featured notables such as board member Gen. Colin Powell, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, legendary VC John Doerr of Kleiner, Perkins, Caulfield & Byers, Google co-founder Larry Page, eBay CEO John Donahoe and Wal-Mart COO Bill Simon.

The market could dwarf the Internet, they said. It’s like another Google. It’s a “disruptive technology” akin to cell phones replacing land lines. It will slash CO2 emissions and replace the grid. It’s twice as efficient as grid power generation. Its technology is based on common beach sand, not expensive and corrosive materials. It will “change the world.” (Cue Tom Waits’ “Step Right Up.”)

They congratulated themselves with bear hugs and “I love you, man”s.

Bloom Energy CEO KR Sridhar laid out his bold vision: Bloom Boxes would provide affordable, abundant, reliable, clean electricity to every home and business and light up the dark areas of the world–in a decade. It’s “a market size that starts with a ‘T’,” not a ‘B’, he said at the company’s 2002 launch.

After a decade of studying energy, such claims instantly arouse my skepticism. I had to take a closer look.

What It Is

The Bloom Box is a mini power plant based on fuel cell technology. Fuel cells use an electrochemical (not thermal) process to separate the protons and electrons of the fuel, then pass the electrons through a circuit to generate electricity. At the end of the process, the protons and electrons recombine along with oxygen. If the fuel is pure hydrogen, the emissions will be pure water, but if the fuel is a hydrocarbon, emissions will also contain carbon dioxide.

Fuel cells aren’t new. The first was invented by a Swiss-German chemist named Christian Friedrich Schönbein in 1838, and at least 20 different designs now exist. A long history of companies have attempted to bring a cost-effective and practical device to market, and in the last decade hundreds of millions of dollars have been poured into their research and development.

None have achieved real commercial viability yet. According to data assembled by Fuel Cells 2000, fewer than 1,000 units are in operation or planned worldwide.  One of the top public U.S. fuel cell manufacturers, Fuel Cell Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ: FCEL) has a mere 90 installations worldwide, and its stock has been moribund since 2002.

What’s new about the Bloom Box is that it claims to be high efficiency (producing more power with less waste heat than other fuel cells), small, relatively cheap, and able to run on a variety of fuels including natural gas, landfill gas, and biogas. Its solid oxide design reportedly uses zirconium oxide for the proton-exchange membrane oxygen ion conductor.

Let’s have a look at the numbers, assembled from Bloom’s statements and various blogs.

One cell produces 25 watts. A “residential sized” stack of cells produces 1 kilowatt (kW), which Sridhar claims could be on the market at a price point of $3000 in five years.

A 100 kW system (before incentives) costs $700,000 to $800,000. For my purposes I’ll take the high estimate and call it $8,000/kW.

Most units will run on natural gas. Assuming the gas costs $7 per million BTU, the cost of generation is in the $0.13 to $0.14 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) range, before subsidies.

After factoring in the federal 30% investment tax credit, the $2,500/kW California rebate, and the claimed 10-year lifespan, the unit should produce power for roughly $0.08 to $0.10/kWh. The average retail grid power price in the U.S. is about $0.11/kWh.

Under those metrics, the company claims it will take three to five years to pay itself off, including the cost of swapping out the used-up fuel cell stack twice during the 10-year warranty period. This strikes me as a highly dubious claim.

The CO2 emissions when running on natural gas are reportedly 0.8 pounds/kWh, as compared with 2 pounds/kWh for coal-fired plants and 1.3 pounds/kWh for natural gas-fired plants. Hence the squishy claim that the unit produces power with “half the emissions” of grid power from natural gas.

What It Isn’t

First, a 1 kW unit isn’t enough to power a house in the U.S. I know from my experience in the solar business that 2.5 kW on an averaged demand basis is more like it. Peak demand loads can be much higher. For example, a hair dryer, a microwave, and a toaster together could draw more than 5 kW. Large houses can need 10 kW or more on average. So even at Sridhar’s $3000 price point for a 1 kW unit, a residential application would cost more like $7500.

But long experience in watching “breakthrough” devices like this come to market tells me that one has to discount the initial claims by at least a factor of two. So the real price point will probably be closer to $6000/kW in five years, or $3000 in ten, in which case the unit might never pay itself off in a residential application over the 10-year warranty period.

A quick calculation by editor Rembrandt Koppelaar at The Oil Drum also questions the payback period. Assuming $0.10/kWh for grid power and an $800,000 cost for a 100 kW unit, he calculates it would pay itself off in 15 years–five years longer than its expected lifespan.

The eBay installation featured in the rollout offers a final example. The scant available information about this installation suggests that it consists of five 100 kW units, at a cost of $800,000 each, which have saved the company $100,000 in grid power costs over nine months. If that surmise is correct, then the $4 million installation will pay for itself in 30 years.

Second, since nearly all customers will run the unit on natural gas, it doesn’t fulfill the claims of clean, abundant, or cheap power.

If my expectation of a global natural gas peak in the 2020-2025 range is correct, it could in reality make the situation worse, by moving significant loads to natural gas just as supply starts to flatten out. In effect, it would allow us to crawl farther out on the fossil-fuel limb just before it cracks.

It definitely won’t make sense to use solar power to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen in order to use the hydrogen in a fuel cell. It would be far more efficient, and cheaper, to simply use the solar power.

Third, the suggestion that it will “replace the grid” is simply nonsense. Few of the customers in the commercial market will generate all of their power with Bloom Boxes (the high-profile campuses currently testing the units get 15% of their power or less from them), and most buildings already have grid connections. The units might eventually replace some of the load carried by utility power plants, but that’s about it.

Even a residential application would not eliminate the need for grid power unless it was sized to meet peak loads, which would not make economic sense.

Finally, and most importantly, there is the scale problem. I don’t know what universe you’d have to live in to think that a company currently producing one unit a day is going to put several billion of them into operation in one decade, or even five. Particularly if your outlook on capital markets for the next five decades is informed by an education in peak fossil fuels.

The Verdict

The Bloom Box doesn’t belong in any discussion about renewable, clean power or changing the world.

The main effect of the device would be to transfer some of the power generation load off centralized coal plants and onto distributed natural gas plants. Few customers (and probably only commercial and industrial ones, at that) will have the option of running it on biogas or landfill gas.

For the slightly more than half of the homes in the U.S. that even have a natural gas line, it won’t make economic sense.

Therefore I do not expect it to become a viable residential application. Nor do I expect it to light up the Third World without installing a network of natural gas lines–in itself, an unlikely proposition.

A fair comparison would be to a standard natural gas-fired backup generator. A quick Google search finds an 18 kW Briggs & Stratton natural gas backup generator for $4,200. If $3,000 will get me a 1 kW Bloom Box, then an 18 kW device would be $54,000. Is that a price premium any homeowner would pay for slightly reduced emissions?

For another cost comparison, at $8000/kW, rooftop solar (after incentives) is cheaper today. As long as you have a functioning grid, the 24×7 benefit of a fuel cell (assuming uninterrupted natural gas supply) wouldn’t be worth the cost premium over solar. And once it’s installed, a solar PV system consumes no fuel, and produces no emissions.

By time a Bloom Box goes for $3,000/kW, my bet is that solar will still be cheaper. Should natural gas prices go to $15 or $20 in the next decade (a not unreasonable proposition) then solar will be half the price, or less, and the payback period for the fuel cell would lengthen considerably.

What it can do is allow commercial customers to claim some green cred for reduced emissions while paying close to the going market rate for power.

However, I expect a solid handful of more mature companies (like FuelCell Energy, Kyocera, UTC, and Ballard Technologies) to give them a run for their money.

If the Bloom Box does, in fact, sport a 50% efficiency gain over utility plants–which I think still needs to be proved–then that should confer an advantage on it in the form of carbon reduction incentives. That may be the best advantage the Bloom Box has.

There are certainly important intangible benefits in distributed generation and baseload (24×7) capacity, as my readers well know. However, the Bloom Box’s reliance on natural gas cannot be overlooked, and it appears that nearly everyone has overlooked it here.

The short lifespan of the device and the need to swap out the cell stack every five years must be factored in as well. The cost of maintenance and the availability of service technicians are important questions that still loom over the Bloom. By comparison, a rooftop solar installation is low tech, low maintenance, and far more durable.

In short, I view the Bloom Box as a modest gain over the status quo in natural gas fired power supply. A world-changer it is not.

Too Big To Grail

The most interesting part of the Bloom Box story is the social aspect.

Lesley Stahl’s gushing 60 Minutes take on the Bloom Box was, in so many ways, a paragon of everything that’s wrong with energy coverage in the media.

She was in hot pursuit of “the next big thing,” and found the unit to be “awfully dazzling” in a market “worth bazillions.” “I’m installing a power plant!” she exclaimed with childlike glee, as she peeled the shipping packaging off a new unit.

She was obviously very impressed that the technology was an inversion of an invention that could produce oxygen so people could live on Mars.

Her opening statement, “In the world of energy, the Holy Grail is a power source that’s inexpensive and clean, with no emissions,” is either a complete non-sequitur, or a concise demonstration of her energy illiteracy. One leans toward the latter explanation after watching her ask if the box could use solar as a power source, and Sridhar’s humoring affirmation.

The pressure is clearly on the MSM to make some noise for Holy Grails.

There is also something telling about the appetite for hope in the way the blogosphere lapped up the excitement around the unveiling. The appeal to authority of the brass on stage clearly worked, producing uncritical comments like “Gee whiz, $400 million in capital, it clearly works, it’s cheap, and fits in my backyard? I’m in!”

The fact is that the energy problem is too big to grail. Or, as the peakists say, “There are no silver bullets, only silver BBs.”

BBs as in Bloom Box.

I want to be clear. I spent nearly two decades in the computer industry before I got seriously into energy. I used my first computer (a very early, educational prototype) at the age of five, in 1969. I saw the computer revolution firsthand, and I know the power of technological development.

But I also know that the ingrained optimism of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, as much as I love them, simply does not translate to the challenge of generating or saving hard BTUs. No single technology will save us. Moore’s Law does not apply here. The history of energy is littered with the bodies of enterprising souls just like them.

One thing I will say: Only a venture capital firm with the power of Kleiner, Perkins could coordinate such a media blitz and star-studded unveiling, and wow the socks off the media. My hat is off; they scored a major coup with this one.

I remain staunchly rooted in numbers, and of the mind that it’s better to have no hope than false hope, because it pushes us toward real solutions.

The Doomsday clock is ticking. It’s time to put aside childish things, retire the phrase “Holy Grail” permanently, and get real about energy.

Until next time,

Chris

Kudos to Lux Research, The Oil Drum, Wired and WattHead for their informed commentary on the Bloom Box.

Related Articles

The Future of the Southwest: Localization and Carrying Capacity Energy analyst Chris Nelder drives through the American Southwest and muses on how it will manage the transition to a renewably powered, localized future.	The Renewable Power Rebellion Energy analyst Chris Nelder considers secession as a useful strategy toward relocalizing communities.
Why Rooftop Solar Is Set to Explode Energy analyst Chris Nelder sees the pieces falling into place that will set the stage for an explosion of distributed rooftop solar in the United States.	Hydrogen Hype Energy analyst Chris Nelder debunks the hype around the “hydrogen economy” and hydrogen cars

If you’ve ever seen little kids play soccer, you know how comical it is to watch. The whole teams (except the goalies, who are usually bored and distracted by interesting bugs at their feet) chase the ball around en masse as the ball is more herded than played. Goals are the outcome of a chaotic knot of players kicking as rapidly as possible, not the skillful execution of premeditated strategy.
As players mature, they learn to play their positions and go where the ball will be, not where it is. They pass it around, executing well-rehearsed plays and setting up their shooters for scoring opportunities. Rarely do you see more than two or three people actually chasing the ball.

In short, they learn that teamwork is more important that personal performance if you want to score goals.

And so it is with energy policy.

The Pee Wee League

To be precise, we don’t have one. There is no playbook. We are simply hurtling at high speed toward the net energy cliff.

When Team Right has the ball, it furiously kicks it toward the fossil fuel and nuclear goal. Restrictive regulations are dismantled. New drilling leases are awarded. Piles of federal cash are shoveled to their preferred recipients. Investment in renewables and environmental protection is slashed. Wars for oil are started.

Then Team Left gets control, furiously herding the ball toward the green goal line. Incentives are awarded for wind and solar. Piles of federal cash are shoveled toward the renewable manufacturers. Taxes on fossil fuel producers are raised and their incentives are slashed.

Most of the American public lounges listlessly in the goal nets, distracted by scandals and the technological salvation du jour…the hydrogen economy, undiscovered oil bonanzas right beneath our feet, space based solar power, biofuels from algae and other overhyped phenomena.

And so it goes. Energy policy lurches around aimlessly in the middle of the field. Little progress is made.

On the rare occasion that the ball does make it toward a goal, a violent and senseless group thrashing ensues at the goal line. The ball ends up out of bounds more than it does in the net.

Incentives come and go, creating boom-and-bust cycles that prove devastating to progress and innovation for both the Brown and Green energy sectors. Wild price swings result. Nobody understands what’s causing it.

Fouls are called that might have been overlooked had the play been orderly. Oil speculators are scapegoated. Climate scientists are vilified.

The commentators on the sidelines excitedly report every kick, block, shove and stumble. They don’t realize they’re watching a pee wee league game, so they take it very seriously. The lack of coherent strategy never even crosses their minds.

We learn nothing from the game, and do nothing differently afterward. Trading rules may be slightly modified, and climate legislation may be rendered toothless or simply stall out, but nothing really changes.

We simply bunch up again, and resume our aimless herding.

Tribal Behavior

It’s fair to say that hardly anyone in America is energy literate. They couldn’t tell you what a kilowatt-hour is, where the power in their sockets comes from, how much oil the country consumes, or where it came from.

Energy simply isn’t taught until the college years, and even then only to engineers who specialize in it. Few bother to learn anything about it on their own time in their adult years. This is as true for elected officials as it is for the rank-and-file.

Only a tiny cohort have begun to seriously contemplate the challenges of energy transition.

Since we don’t really know the game, we fall back on our prewired, tribal behaviors.

Team Right tunes in to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and learns its talking points: Drill here, drill now, pay less! Nuclear power could save us in 20 years if we’d only build some reactors! Environmentalists and liberals who want to destroy America are responsible for our energy problems!

Team Left tunes into Al Gore and MSNBC and bones up on its talking points: The oil companies are evil and we should stop drilling now! Renewables could end global warming in 20 years if we’d only build them now! The fossil fuel industry and its Texan cronies are responsible for our energy problems!

Then they come together at social gatherings and Town Hell meetings. They bunch in their respective corners, lobbing their talking points like grenades. They thrash about frenetically. Then somebody says something out of bounds and the play pauses.

Nothing is learned by either team, because they have nothing to teach. You can’t have a rational exchange of information and find agreement on complex issues when you don’t actually understand what you’re talking about.

But you can always represent your tribe.

You don’t need to know the complex reality of nuclear power or understand that its future has a dozen or so hard, real-world limits. You don’t need to know that renewables are still less than 2% of the world primary energy supply and can only grow so quickly even if you tilt everything in its favor, particularly if you’re trying to build them after oil has peaked.

You don’t need to have the first clue about the insane complexity of climate science, or the validity of its models.

No independent thought or literacy is required of you. If somebody from your team claims we can innovate our way to zero carbon in 40 years because Moore’s Law says so, or that peak oil is bunk and the Invisible Hand will save us because economic theory says so, then that should be good enough for you.

It doesn’t matter if he’s been wrong about oil for the last five years straight, or if he has no particular expertise in the solutions he champions. If he’s on teevee all the time and he’s got a book, or he’s worth a couple billion dollars, he must be an authority, right?

Simply give the ball a good kick for your side, and your job is done.

A Playbook for Team America

It’s time for us to grow up and learn to play this game for real.

We need to gather in the locker room to watch some films of older, more mature players and try to copy their moves.

We’d take note of China’s long-term rail construction plan, instead of arguing that an abortion like Amtrak doesn’t pay for itself right this minute.

We’d plan to manage our resources for the long term health of our society, like Norway and Saudi Arabia do.

We might form an Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security like the UK has, to advise and prepare industry and policymakers for the decline of oil, instead of writing sunny official reports that completely fail to recognize reality.

We’d copy the proven successes of long-lived, stable feed-in tariffs in Germany and Japan instead of inventing complex, corruptible mechanisms like cap and trade.

We’d formulate and then execute 20- and 30-year plans to reduce our need for fossil fuels, instead of watching incentives come and go with every turnover of a Congressional seat.

Our playbook would begin with some rough milestones:

• Oil has peaked. Supply will be flattish for the next 2-4 years, then begin a long decline.
• We will lose 25% of our oil supply in 25 years, 50% in 50 years, and 100% in 100 years.
• To compensate for the decline of oil with renewables, the world would need to build the equivalent of all the world’s existing renewable energy capacity, every year.
• Since that is impossible, efficiency and energy transition must make up the shortfall.
• We will also see the peaks of natural gas and coal in the next 20 years. Hydropower and nuclear will do little more than hold their current market share.
• The days of economic growth may be gone forever for import-dependent developed countries like the U.S.
• The least painful path is to downsize, economize, and relocalize.
• By the end of the century, nearly everything will have to be powered by renewably-generated electricity, not liquids or gases.

Then we might draw up some plays, and practice them.

We’d invent a defensive strategy for our grid. We’d build in micro-islanding and distributed storage capacity so that single points of failure don’t cascade into widespread blackouts. We’d harden it against cyber-attacks.

We’d recognize the extreme vulnerability of importing nearly three-quarters of our daily oil supply, at a cost of around $500 billion a year. We’d understand that the knife edge is peak exports, not peak oil, and plan out a defense in case the exports from our top sources go to zero.

We’d stage practice drills for fuel shortages, to hone our local resiliency reflexes. We’d build redundancy for energy, water, food, and security.

Most importantly, we’d learn teamwork, and good sportsmanship. The Greens, the Browns, the Department of Energy, Congress and all the states would work together to score a win for Team America.

Or we can stay in the pee-wee league while the smart teams go on to play for the resource championship of the world.

In the end, we will deserve the energy future we get.

Until next time,

Chris

Image credit: Marina Youth Soccer League, Marina, CA

Related Articles

Investing in an Empire of Illusion Energy analyst Chris Nelder critiques an America in thrall to its illusions, and cautions investors to be self-reliant in facing the challenges ahead.	Resistance, Resilience, and Rebellion Energy analyst Chris Nelder ponders resistance, resilience, and rebellion as survival strategies.
The Oil Export Crisis Has Arrived Energy analyst Chris Nelder takes a close look at the declining oil exports of Venezuela and Mexico and sees U.S. imports bearing the brunt of the loss.	What Peak Oil Can Do for Climate Change Energy analyst Chris Nelder offers some insights from the peak oil study that should inform climate policy.

Distributed generation of renewable energy is off to a rocky start, but it’s finally making some headway.

The research side is looking good. The $28 billion request in the president’s FY 2011 budget for the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy includes large increases for programs including wind, weatherization, smart grid technologies and solar, plus $58 million for National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) infrastructure and $50 million to stimulate clean energy education.

An additional $300 million would support the Advanced Research Project Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) initiative. Modeled after the DARPA program that resulted in the Internet, ARPA-E will fund the fundamental research to incubate the energy grid of the future–what Ethernet inventor Bob Metcalfe termed the Enernet.

Grid investment is coming along well, with $75 million allocated to it in the budget request, plus $40 million toward grid storage solutions. It’s a relatively paltry amount, but it should be bolstered soon by major grid reform legislation making its way through Congress.

The production side has become a bit of a buyer’s market, yet manufacturers are still building new capacity in anticipation of the boom ahead. Yes, China is building more capacity in the U.S. than American companies are, but as I have argued previously, that’s fortunate given the urgency of our situation. Solar PV supply is high and prices are as low as they’ve ever been, which is constructive for new installations.

Overall, I would say we’re making progress on the hardware front. But then it’s easy to throw money at hardware.

The real problems now are in finance and policy. The big up-front cost has always been the main hurdle to distributed generation (and rooftop solar in particular), but now several ways to overcome it are available.

10 Million Solar Roofs

At the federal level, we have the “10 Million Solar Roofs and 10 Million Gallons of Solar Water Heating Act of 2010” bill introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, which was modeled after the California Solar Initiative (Ahnold’s “Million Solar Roofs” program).

A direct rebate of $1.75/watt for PV systems and $1/watt for solar hot water would offset somewhere around a quarter of the project cost. Combined with existing 30% federal investment tax credit (ITC), and state incentives where available, it could bring the end-user’s cost down to 25% of the actual retail price. The $2-3 billion price tag of the bill will be hard to swallow, but if it passes it would be a major shot in the arm for rooftop solar.

The more interesting solutions, however, are at the local level.

PACE

Under a fairly new type of program called property assessed clean energy (PACE), local governments float bond issues secured by real property in their districts and use the proceeds to fund renewable energy and efficiency projects. The property owners then pay back the debt as special assessment included in their property tax bill over 20 years. As an example, $12,000 in financing through the program would translate to roughly $75 a month in payments. If the property is sold, the energy systems and the tax obligation remain with it.

PACE is offered by Oakland-based Renewable Funding and has been implemented in three counties and three cities in California, including San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego and Sonoma. A statewide program expected to commence this year. San Francisco’s program was approved this week and will offer $150 million in bonding capacity.

Fifteen states have adopted PACE programs over the last year and a half, and interest continues to grow without discernable opposition. Contributing to the popularity of PACE is that it’s a voluntary program that only affects property owners who choose to participate, and that it applies to a wide range of measures in addition to rooftop solar.

Third-Party Financing

A different approach uses private third-party financing to front the cost of a solar PV system to end-users, who then pay it off over 15-20 years or more.

In the commercial sector, companies like Solar Power Partners (SPP) and SunRun of California assume the initial installation cost and own and operate the systems in exchange for a power purchase agreement (PPA) with the customer.

Power generated by the system is sold back to the customer, typically at or below grid rates. At the end of the PPA term, the customer can buy the system at fair market value or renew their PPA.

SPP’s targets include water districts, wineries, universities, airports, and other large facilities. Their current portfolio stands at about 14 MW, which is tiny compared to a single 500-1,000 MW coal-fired plant, but I see potential for robust growth in such financing options.

Cutting the out-of-pocket expense to zero makes solar PV a no-brainer for any facility that wants to produce some of its own power and lock in fixed power prices (and if they know anything about the future of energy, well they should).

The private capital behind the strategy gets a 5% annual rate of return or better at nearly zero risk, by assuming the 30% ITC and taking ownership of a producing, hard asset.

When lines of credit shrunk or dried up altogether in the Great Credit Drought of 2008-9, solar installation companies turned to private capital as well. Companies like Geoscape Solar of New Jersey and SolarCity of California offer financing options with zero upfront cost under PPAs and lease arrangements to the residential and small commercial market.

FITs

Feed-in tariffs, or FITs, have proved the world’s most effective incentive for rooftop solar and distributed power, typically offering customers three to four times the grid price for kilowatt-hours they generate. FITs are financed by incorporating their cost into grid power prices across the board, resulting in a very modest price increase for all customers.

The FIT in Japan was so successful that it is already being phased out.

The German FIT captured half the world market for solar modules in roughly five years, reached its target early, and is now accelerating its schedule for declining tariffs. Studies have already shown that the program has actually reduced the fully-considered costs of delivering power to the country.

Spain’s FIT was fully subscribed in short order, then fell victim to a federal budget shortfall as Spain descended to become the S in PIIGS–the nations at risk of sovereign default that have been rattling world markets recently.

A new FIT for the UK has just been announced which will pay 41 pence initially–as compared with a standard grid price in the 10-12 pence range–for production from residential-sized generators including PV, wind, micro-hydro and biomass. The tariff depends on the technology and is inflation-indexed.

In the U.S., the failure of the federal government to offer a FIT has prompted states and a few cities to try creating their own equivalents. Unfortunately, it’s a regulatory path fraught with peril, because the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) of 1978 forbids states from setting tariffs above the “avoided cost” of generation from other sources like conventional natural gas-fired plants.

As the excellent summary by Paul Gipe explains, a new report (actually a long legal opinion) from NREL lays out two legal paths states can take.

One is to lard the tariff over and above the avoided cost with revenue from renewable energy credits (RECs), subsidies and tax credits, which fall outside the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) jurisdiction.

Alternatively, in the handful of states where ownership of distribution and generation are split, utilities may offer higher tariffs for solar PV voluntarily, but the opportunities under this strategy are few.

The other practical path is for FERC to exempt generators under 20 MW from PURPA. The California Energy Commission has asked the state to seek a clarification from FERC on this point, and it seems likely that other state regulators will join that effort.

Since PURPA was written over three decades ago before the age of renewables began, this seems a reasonable fix to the problem. Rep. Jay Inslee of Washington has proposed the necessary changes to the law, but unfortunately they are tied up in the Waxman-Markey climate change bill, which is going nowhere fast.

The pieces are now–or will soon be–in place to enable an explosion of distributed renewable energy in the U.S. It has the technology, the financial mechanisms, the public sentiment, and the right cost of entry: zero. It will not be stymied by musty regulations, utility opposition or even the recalcitrance of banks.

Solar manufacturers, smart grid players, progressive but risk-averse capital, and most of all the public stand to benefit handsomely.

Until next time,

Chris

Related Articles

Rethinking Climate Policy: Incentivize, Don’t Penalize Energy analyst Chris Nelder argues that instead of focusing on emissions in climate policy, we should be encouraging renewable energy with incentives like feed-in tariffs.	Resistance, Resilience, and Rebellion Energy analyst Chris Nelder ponders resistance, resilience, and rebellion as survival strategies in light of the Haiti earthquake and a recent brutal storm system.
The Renewable Power Rebellion Energy analyst Chris Nelder considers secession as a useful strategy toward relocalizing communities.	The Day the World Turned from Brown to Green Energy analyst Chris Nelder marks the moment when public sentiment tipped away from fossil fuels and toward green energy.