The Sierra Club is not happy
Posted by Yankee on October 14, 2005 - 1:56pm
Read on below the fold. (Hat tip: Gristmill)
Oil industry members of Congress and their allies in the Administration believe that America needs new petroleum sacrifice zones. It's not enough that the oil industry has devastated the Louisiana and Texas coasts by destroying the wetlands that should have protected New Orleans, by fouling the turtle nesting areas of Padre Island National Seashore, and by killing and maiming thousands of residents of Cancer Alley along the Mississippi River. Now, California, Florida, the Carolinas, Virginia, and New England must also be turned over to the oil industry. First we must throw them billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars to ensure their engorged profits. Then we will allow them to build new refineries without regard for their neighbors or for state and local control. Then we will bribe state governors to turn their coastlines into oil fields to feed these new refineries. And then we will eliminate public health standards to make these refineries even more profitable. This is not even a conspiracy -- it's not secretive enough.
One thing Pope says in his post is that he believes that government subsidies to all forms of energy production should be eliminated in order to level the playing field. I don't think I agree with this. If the big corporations are only given subsidies for the renewables, they'll switch more of their output to the production of alternative energies/cars/etc, which will speed up the R&D in this area. Of course they'll still produce conventional petroleum, and cars (etc), because that will always be profitable, but maybe they'll have incentive to make up for lost time on the "energies of the future".
But I could be wrong, so as always, I'm eagerly awaiting your debunking.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
As I see it, if you start with the more or less universal model accepted by PO-aware people, that PO is real and is close enough to be at least a Real Concern, then the following conclusions seem (at least to me) to be inarguable:
But who is smart and unbiased enough to spearhead such an effort? Government has brought us debacles like the "synfuels" scams, where spraying a bit of diesel fuel onto your coal will net huge government subsidies.
Markets, when they work, provide beautiful practical solutions. Who do you nominate the be the wise, visible hand to guide us through this situation when the market won't work? Maybe Kenneth Lay is available-he understands market failures ...
"My current thinking is that the combination of three things will yield optimum results:
* tax "bad" energy, and "hogs" of bad energy higher
* research possible replacements
* allow a free market in those replacements
That would seem to guarantee that the bad goes away, and the most efficient replaces it.
The problem with the status quo is that the corn lobby fights the hydrogen lobby, and the winner will likely be political rather than practical."
I also wrote that I didn't expect it to happen. We are left to guess if the current mess is even tweakable, or if it is our bed, and we have to lie in it.
BTW, the Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute, and Dan Becker ofr the Sierra Club, got together on an earlier no-subsidy paper
In the late '70s, for example, they had simultaneous lawsuits in California attempting to stop nuclear power projects, hydro dams, fossil fuel power plants, and even geothermal power projects.
The problem with such advocacy groups is that they show no balance. If you try to block every energy source, then you are working against every one who needs energy.
As to the mythical "level playing field" - well, Mr. Pope can hold his breathe and turn blue, it ain't gonna happen. So long as we require regulations, the quantitative effects of those regulations can distort and even overwhelm any free market economic decision. A case in point is mercury emissions from coal. A trivial health risk at current levels but a huge handicap to coal plants at the proposed regulatory limits.
Since we can have neither pure energy "command-and-control" nor pure free market decisionmaking, we'll just have to slug it out, one regulatory revision, one EIS, one market rule structure at at time. The economic warfare tactics that opponents of energy supply, such as the Sierra Club, wage against producers is getting very expensive for the public.
I'll tell you want I don't want in my backyard - wasteful inefficient cars that blare their horn right in front of my apartment at all hours of the night and present the quickest way to the emergency room for pedestrians and bikers.
But in terms of production, I think the real problem is that the local community does not reap the benefits of the energy production. I think each community should try to become as self sufficient in energy production as possible so if Virginia wants to have offshore drill and risk ruining their beaches instead of finding alternatives, let them decide that and reap the benefits or consequences of their decisions. But let it be done locally, not nationally.
They're very popular.
As to the cars under your window, I promise, I'd never do that to you, PeakGuy!
I thought the effort to put LNG terminal permitting under FERC rather than the local communities was a step in the right direction (ie anti-NIMBY). The final law looks like a step in the right direction but I'm fuzzy as to the real effects. Here in California, the Long Beach terminal looks a lot worst than the Channel platform proposal. We'll probably need both.
Improvements like IGCC could cut mercury emissions by 90% or more, along with huge cuts in sulfur, NOx and particulates and a large boost in efficiency. I see every reason to cut mercury emissions limits.
On the other hand, it is true that environmental groups can seem to operate in NIMBY fashion as well, suing to stop a powerplant but wanting the energy to come from somewhere else. Don't forget, however, that most pollution laws have arisen in response to harm that has been done. There are many areas where people are advised not to eat more than a small amount of local fish because many cumulative "minor" sources of mercury finally resulted in unsafe concentrations in the food chain.
So for instance, the subsidy that the auto industry gets in having roads made for it is not a direct subsidy for gasoline, but is sure does subsidize the the automobile lifestyle which consumes lots of gasoline. Same with writing off interest on a home loan, allows people to buy bigger homes and therefore they use more energy. and on and on.
I once calculated the true cost of every bbl of crude coming out of the US-influenced middle east - my numbers were not very accurate nor scientific, but given that a goodly portion of the military budget is black and/or can't be easily broken down by region, I think my estimate at the time was light.
Crude had been trading near 40$ a barrel; my calculations implied a 26$/bbl surcharge would cover the military operations in the area.
My point is not to criticize or make value judgements; even if not a single drop of oil came out of the region there would still be military installations and investments in the area. But clearly there is a direct relationship between military spending in the region and the region's strategic value for every barrel of oil.
These costs are never talked about.
So, we've actually got oil that costs way more than $105, we just didn't notice.
(1) Economic Issues: Globalization has created serious economic imbalances as well an increased thirst for energy. We may be for a bumpy ride here.
(2) Peak oil Issue: How to manage the shift that is coming.
(3) Environmental degradation and serious destruction of the biosphere, and global warming. No more need be said about these two, perhaps the nastiest beasties with which we will ever have to deal.
Each set of issues has its proponents, declaring that its issue is central to all others. This will not be easy to untangle intelligently. Handling all three simultaneously is going to be difficult.
Somehow we have to get the experts in all three fields talking with one another, understanding each other's issues. Right now TOD focuses primarily on one of these issues. I know that opening TOD to all these issues at once is just too much to handle, but eventually we will have to do it. I would suggest expanding the core TOD team to include an economist as well as someone who has a solid overview of the last issue: environmental degradation and global warming.
The pure economic approach to this mess would be, to price all forms of energy so that they reflect all the external costs (pollution, accident risk, decommissioning, military and strategic costs) as well the "internal" production costs. I don't know if that is the best approach (though it sure would be an improvement over what we have now); I do know that it probably won't happen either.
Consider the ridiculous trial settlements for trivial items that have been in the news the last few years. A cagey lawyer could get a huge settlement on punitive damages alone. Without Price-Anderson, the corporations involved are playing "you-bet-your-company." The lack of something similar to Price-Anderson in China is retarding their nuclear power industry. In the mean time, they just burn more coal. Note that you can't get insurance for war or civil insurrection either.
It is worthwhile noting that the government has not paid out a single penny under Price-Anderson in its decades of existence. The industry does maintain a very substantial amount of private insurance and regularly gets full refund of its premiums.
And the risk is not transferred to the locals but to the Federal government. It is vaguely like our response to Katrina and the failure of the federally funded levees. When a problem is too big, the larger society as a whole has to step in. The benefits of nuclear power to the US are manifold - lower pollution, reduced imports of oil, stable and low electricity prices, etc.
It has been a darn good bet so far.
He concludes that for the powerful among us, wealth is the ability to fight off everybody else in oder to have exclusive access to the "good stuff" (the sweet spots on this finite planet).
Well, oil is the "good stuff". So according to his thinking, those in power will use their arsenal of weapons to make sure they continue to get the "good stuff" even if no one else does.
Here is the link to the thinker's site:
http://futurepositive.synearth.net/2002/07/17
So, the good oil is that military power will be used to capture the good stuff, reducing most to living off the smell of an oily rag.
Your first post on The Oil Drum is right on! I have been in the environmental consulting field for over 30 years, and I have seen how the enthusiasm for dealing with environmental issues has waxed and waned with the times and with who happens to be in power.
In a nutshell, while both the Republicans and Democrats in Washington pay lip service to environmental issues, neither takes them very seriously and will always subordinate them to powerful, well-funded special interests. While 'saving the environment' was big stuff in the early 1970s, it is old hat in 2005, and most people tend to be bored with the whole subject.
You are totally correct in that as we get more desparate for energy, you will see environmental protection being relaxed or outright ignored. And maybe that's the way it should be (at least till we get past the crisis point, if we ever do).
For example, we have a refinery here in Delaware that specializes in processing high-sulfur crude. It is 48 years old, has had at least 5 different owners, the latest being Valero Energy (the last time I looked), and has a long and abysmal history of environmental and safety violations, one bordering on negligent homicide. It just pays its fines (usually after years of legal negotiations) and keeps on doing what it's doing. While the public for years has been kicking and screaming to have it shut down, there is no way that is ever going to happen, given the current crunch in refining capacity.
So, I think that air quality will take a distant back seat to putting various energy projects on line ASAP. And as we get more into coal liquifaction, tar sands, oil shale, etc, the amount of enviornmental degradation will increase, thus erasing a lot of the progress that has been made. That is the price that is going to be paid.
"The public" wants the refinery closed, or so they "scream". But "the public" also wants to drive more and more so that "the public" can make ever bigger and bigger bigger killings on mega-houses. "The public" wants to fly more and more for less and less reason. To accomodate all this, "the public" insists that fuel should be dirt cheap and that refineries should be investigated, not for cleanliness, but with a view to forcing prices down. Despite all the hypocritical screaming, then, "the public" would never agree to pay more to bring the refinery up to standard. That old standby, Somebody Else, is always supposed to pay. And so it goes with "the public", on and on, ad infinitum, world without end.
Disregard the demonstrations, and the "screaming", and the silly, unworkable answers "the public" echoes back to pollsters. Pay close attention to how "the public" really spend their money and carry out their activities - once the TV cameras have gone away and "the public" is no longer shilling for them.
As somebody once said, may you live in interesting times.
As I have seen many times, industry loves to present a false choice: let us avoid environmental and safety requirements or do without our vital product. During the 1970s almost all of the major industries in the US cried loudly that the new air and water pollution regulations were going to put them out of business. Well, it just didn't happen. The ones that went out of business did so mainly as the result of their own mismanagement.
The Delaware refinery is by far the largest single source of sulfur dioxide emissions in the surrounding area, but each of the last several owners has found creative ways of avoiding agreed-to requirements for improved sulfur removal and recovery. This has been going on for at least the last 8 years, and no one really knows when such a system will actually be up and running. Surely, with oil prices what they are these days, it's not that Valero, the present owner, lacks the money.
I think you will see the worsening energy situation being used as a cynical ploy to circumvent environmental protection requirements.
If the public wants refineries held to standards, then they need to be willing to pay appropriately for product. Or, perhaps, they can just pray for the best and rely on Saudi Arabia to build capacity.
I just don't see any appetite for paying. Indeed, attorneys-general and other politicians have been rushing to launch investigations aimed at making product prices as cheap as possible, maybe even cheaper than possible. And they've been calling for suspensions of routine maintenance for months now, even before the hurricanes. In that sense, yes, the AGs and politicians are perhaps not that concerned with upholding standards that cost money, at least not just now.
When they get done with their grandstanding, they may well have driven refinery margins right back down to where they were through the 90s, i.e. just enough to keep the rusty old hulks going and not a penny more. Maybe not, but what rational pension fund manager could bet that the current high margins will persist?
The issue is power and security; a nation which has the refineries for a particular type of crude has a measure of control over it. If the refineries move to the Middle East, so does the control (and the potential for terrorist disruption soars).
I've been arguing since 9/11 that we need to convert away from oil just to collapse the economies of the OPEC dictatorships. The entire Wahhabist movement will dry up and blow away without our money to give them power.
""What About Super Fuel Efficient Cars?"
Hybrids or so called "hyper-cars" aren't the answer either because the construction of an average car consumes approximately 27-54 barrels (1,110-2,200 gallons) of oil. Thus, a crash program to replace the 700 million internal combustion vehicles currently on the road with super fuel-efficient or alternative fuel-powered vehicles would consume approximately 18-36 billion barrels of oil, which is the amount of oil the world currently consumes in six-to-twelve months. Consequently, such a program (while well-intentioned) would actually bring the collapse upon us even sooner." --Matt Savinar, http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html
"Automobiles: Manufacture Versus Use" http://www.ilea.org/lcas/macleanlave1998.html
Before pushing personal transportation wonders it would be wise to resurrect the railroad system, at least to the pre-World War Two level of service. 85-95% of fuel use is by cars and trucks. Ship by rail and it takes a bit longer to find its way to your door, big deal.
I think the public disdain for SUVs is misplaced - a better place to attack conspicuous consumption is in "pleasure" airline travel. I remember being on a short air trip sitting next to some chick. I was telling her about my new car with a V8 and she started berating me. Yet she was flying at 600 mph from California to the French Rivera for a vacation at the beach! She was probably using more resources in her one trip that I would in a year of driving.
If a car lasts 17 years, it uses its energy-equivalent of manufacture (of which a great deal is NOT drawn from oil) about every 2.5 years. It's even quicker at the beginning because newer vehicles are driven more. A vehicle which increased effective economy from 25 MPG to 250 MPG would save its energy of production in less than 3 years, and probably less than 2. If we substituted hypercars for current production, production could be ramped up very rapidly without changing energy consumption because of the savings from the new vehicles. If we are only concerned with energy from oil (and not coal, wind, etc.) production could probably be doubled. (It would make no sense to increase capacity very much because the factories would be idled after the replacement was over.)
Strange that Savinar wouldn't grasp that... or maybe he's trying to lead people away from that concept. What side is he on, anyway?
It appears that the "problem" of the need for energy to build energy-saving products can be addressed by doing the replacement at a measured pace; to the extent that this invested energy is offset by not building less-efficient products, it would be a win from day one. If consumption can be cut at the rate of 6% per year, this would more than outpace all but the most pessimistic rates of decline in oil production.
Last, note that the above figures are averages. New vehicles tend to be driven more than older vehicles, so the savings from production of hypercars would be front-loaded.
That's why I'm pushing so hard on electric propulsion; it leaves much territory still accessible and liveable even if there is a serious liquid fuel crunch.I read that as total world oil usage, as in ~82bbd(?) * six to twelve months. Was I mistaken?
BTW Cal Cars has a Plug-in hybrid list.
http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/calcars-news
If we muck with the ILEA numbers, a car needs about 19 barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) to build and uses another 144 BOE in fuel, plus another 17 BOE in the fuel cycle (total 161 BOE); if the life of the car is 14 years, the car and the fuel cycle burn the equivalent of its manufacturing energy in about 20 months.
A large part of the energy of construction is drawn from non-petroleum sources like coal for smelting steel, so the actual petroleum portion for manufacture is considerably smaller. If hypercars required 50% more energy to build and half of the total was from petroleum (for e.g. FRP to replace metal) each hypercar would consume ~14 barrels of oil to build. It would then save 10.3 barrels of oil every year (90% of 161 barrels over 14 years). It looks like a complete switch to hypercars would result in a brief bump in oil consumption followed by a slide to pre-switch levels in about a year, and a continuous decrease until conversion was complete.
And let's be realistic on the mpg figures. I understand a plug-in Prius, using predominantly the electric motor, can get about 120mpg for a short distance. Real world, the winner of the 2004 EnergyWise rally in New Zealand was a carefully driven Prius which achieved 70.3mpg. Every other production car entered used more fuel. We've got a long way to go before we can practically get to 100mpg, let alone 250.
A vehicle designed around a much larger battery pack could do considerably better. That's one thing we don't have; all current hybrids are either modifications of current gas vehicles (original Prius, Escape, Civic, Accord, Lexus, all GM trucks) or have a very small volume devoted to batteries (Insight, current Prius). If room is allowed for more bulk and weight of batteries (to allow cheaper batteries to be used), more demand can be transferred to electricity.
That depends how you define "practically". The Li-ion Prius+ is currently too expensive to be practical, but it's a very practical vehicle to use. If you made something like a hybridized EV-1 or an Enigma, you could easily average over 100 MPG in typical patterns of use. Part of the problem is that all current vehicles (or the mods) are essentially hand-built. Volume production could slash the price of everything except batteries, and a vehicle designed around lead-acid batteries wouldn't need much money for those either.Here's where I'd start: the average mpg of the US 2004 model year fleet, cars and light trucks/SUV's, was 24.7mpg. The French fleet averages 43 mpg. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2004/11/average_fuel_co.html In other words, the average French driver goes 74% farther on a gallon than the average American. Let's do simplicity first.