Days

OK, no, seriously I'm not ready to join the "I love fossil fuels" crowd, however, having said that we do need a dose of reality. Fossil fuels are not going away soon. What's more, even though their market penetration might begin to drop, their absolute use is still increasing and will continue to rise in the short / medium term. Let's face the fact that our current world economy is almost fully dependent on fossil fuels. As an example, let's mention Apple, a company that apparently is not connected to the fossil fuel industry. Well, the news is that it fully depends on fossil fuels and without them even that mighty technology company would probably go bankrupt. It produces most of its hardware in China: a coal powered economy. It transports its products halfway around the world in oil powered ships, trucks and airplanes. The electricity with which its devices are operated by the final user comes mainly from coal and natural gas. The c...

Are carbon taxes a good idea? Why are so many people asking their governments to implement carbon taxes? Isn't asking for carbon taxes defeatism? In other words, does it mean that current alternatives to fossil fuels "know" they cannot compete with the leader and thus, instead of focusing on improving their own technology, prefer to try to ruin the party for the other guys? Let's remember that at the end of the day carbon taxes are just taxes. So thanks, but no thanks. On the other hand, technology is more important than taxes. Did Apple demand a BlackBerry tax before releasing its first iPhone? Did Apple demand a Kodak tax? Did Apple demand a Nokia tax? No, no, no. They just brought better technology to market and made the entrenched players irrelevant. Sure, if you artificially inflate the costs of fossil fuels, alternatives might seem relatively more attractive but at the cost of decreasing the affordability of energy for all. Also,...

I was mildly shocked yesterday because one of my nuclear friends started "supporting" renewables.* His intention was to "appease" renewable backers so they may eventually agree not to oppose nuclear. Well, in my opinion that is the wrong approach. Scientists pinpoint the problems but it is us engineers that need to solve those problems. Renewables, in general, make no sense. Why?  Because they are intermittent, unreliable, diffuse (in other words, they require loads of material and area to produce significant amounts of power), expensive (particularly when the "system" is considered), short lived (compared to other options) and do not particularly reduce carbon emissions (again, once the system is considered). Yes, they have and will continue to have a niche in the global energy market, but it makes no sense to subsidize them to push them above and beyond their "natural" market penetration. Solar, for example, mak...

Will we ever master fusion to produce useful electricity? I think the answer here is a resounding yes. However, that is not the important question. The important question is: what would be the anticipated cost of the kWh produced by a fusion reactor once the technology is mature? If fusion cannot compete with fission, then it will never provide significant amounts of power for humanity. We need to consider fission is a moving target, since it is improving and promising new designs are in the pipeline. ITER is currently one of the most important fusion projects getting funded and its building costs have increased to US$ 16 billion.* This reactor is designed to never produce a single MWh of electricity.  It will only produce heat and then be shut down. This is my bet: fusion would provide (if at all) less than 1% of our total primary energy supply by 2050. Today, fission costs are low, and they will probably get lower in the years ahead.** Con...

Year in, year out we keep grinding out that sausage that the only solution to combat global warming is reducing our CO2 emissions, and thus to reduce our fossil fuel consumption (or, even more to the fringe, to massively implement CCS). Well, we have news for you: bar a black swan or two, significantly reducing our FF consumption in the next few decades ain't gonna happen. Period. End of story. Elvis has left the (choose one: coal mine, oil rig, gas well).  Renewables are growing fast but at the same time going nowhere. Hydro has pretty much maxed out in percent of out total energy. Nuclear seems promising but it is taking forever to ramp up. Will nuclear be the energy of the 22st century? Probably. But that is still far in the future.  Consequently, fossil fuels will continue to provide most of our total primary energy supply at least through 2050 and possibly for the rest of the century. Let's, as an example, review projections for China. Since C...

I consider myself a "sensible believer" in Global Warming. In my definition, what does "sensible believer" mean? I believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus that increased concentrations of it in the atmosphere would tend to increase the amount of heat trapped by that same atmosphere. Also, I believe there is enough relatively unbiased evidence to state that over the past 50 years, the average temperature of the planet has increased by ~0.64°C. So far, so good, but then come some "inconvenient" questions, like, for example: Of the ~0.64°C, how much is man made? Is all this temperature increase due to increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere? Are there other mechanisms that would provide positive / negative feedback to the effect of the CO2? Would all the effects of an eventual warming of the planet be negative? Or, could there be positive consequences also? If there could also be positive consequences, would they co...

In general, in the quest for lowering our CO2 emissions, efficiency/insulation is the lowest of low hanging fruits. It gives us more bang for the buck than renewable energy. Let me elaborate.  Let's make here a simple exercise comparing, say, installing solar panels in your house vs. replacing your lamps by more efficient ones.  Sure, this is something that is well on its way in many countries but it is an example of what can be done also with air conditioners (replacing them with units of higher SEER ratings), by the installation of insulation, and literally with hundreds of other efficiency projects. Again, we'll elaborate on the lamps vs. solar one since it is very easy to present. Let's say a 100 Watt incandescent light bulb costs $1 US dollar. Let's say the equivalent to replace the above (23W) CFL bulb costs $3.00. (Your prices may vary, but these are the cost ball park figures I've just checked right now at Amazon.com). Let's say ...

First, I want to thank Katherine for recommending this book. Before "Energy for Future Presidents" I thought Robert Bryce's books on energy were the best introduction to energy / climate change for non specialists but now, in my opinion, this book by Mr. Muller is clearly superior. Let me present some of the key points developed in the book: Global warming is real, however, there is no alarmism or catastrophism here. The science of warming by CO2 is presented, but also the deliberate efforts by some scientists to make it seem worse than it actually is to "spur people to action." He also states the obvious: the real challenge to emissions reductions is not anymore in the "developed" world but in "developing economies." Interestingly, the best thing the USA can do to reduce emissions is helping China develop its shale gas (so they may replace coal with natural gas). Electric Vehicles: the cost challenge of batteries is proba...

Yes, I'm a climate change believer, but I will be siding with the deniers. Why? Because many of the actions proposed by vocal believers are worse than doing nothing. Here are some examples: Renewable* energy targets. Why take this indirect and probably counter productive approach? Who says renewables reduce emissions system-wise? Show me one country with emissions below 100 grams per kWh that has achieved it primarily with solar and wind. The silence is deafening.  Subsidies (overt and covert) for renewables. Let's not overlook that priority access to the grid by renewables IS a sort of subsidy. Why are reliable producers penalized to accommodate random energy dumps from renewables? It is not fair.  Label wood as "renewable" and shamelessly burn it. And since Europe doesn't have enough, then let's burn the forests of North America! Block energy access to the poor (particularly in poor countries). Oh, yes, India doesn't have the ...