Will Alternative Energy Run Out Of Gas?

Clean-Energy Field Getting Bitten By Credit Crisis, But Long-Term Trends Point In Its Favor

(CNET)  By Martin LaMonica

---

People in the alternative energy business have said repeatedly there are "great fundamentals" driving their businesses, namely high fossil fuel prices, supportive government policies, and growing environmental awareness.

Now some of the pillars underpinning green technologies are wobbling. Oil prices have plummeted more than 50 percent since the summer, making traditional energy sources look a lot more affordable than they did six months ago for businesses and consumers alike. And the global credit crisis that has sucked the wind out of the economy has done damage to the funding of alternative energy projects as well.

The hardest hit by a freeze or reluctant lending are renewable energies which are already commercial, or on the cusp of getting there. These aren’t cheap little startups we’re talking about: Constructing a biofuels plant costs upwards of a $100 million while connecting a solar power plant, capable of powering tens of thousands of homes, is in the range of $500 million and $800 million, depending on the size. In the current credit market, it’s tough to come up with that money.

But don’t write off clean tech as another casualty of the souring economy quite yet. Today's clean energy field is a lot more resilient than in the days of the 1970s oil price shock for one simple reason - society's priorities have changed since then. Climate change and energy security are front-page issues that still command the attention of consumers, businesses, and politicians, regardless of the economy.

Industry is also catching up to the demand for greener and energy-efficient goods, everything from non-toxic cleaning products to small wind turbines. The solar industry projects that cost reductions from technology and manufacturing scale will make solar power match the retail cost of electricity in some areas within a few years.

Nonetheless, the ballyhooed clean tech revolution is being slowed. The length of that delay hinges on the economy, of course, and government policy. Federal incentives to stimulate the transition to more diverse energy sources could serve as a backstop to keep the alternative energy movement on track for both economic and environmental reasons, according to Mark Fulton, the global head of climate change investment research at Deutsche Bank. That is, if there aren’t other spending priorities, like bailing out Wall Street.

"The current debate in the next year will include arguments around energy security, which will be combined with the climate change issue, in order to get people focused on the fact that it's a necessity and an opportunity," Fulton said.

Business fundamentals

Just a few years ago, hardly anybody heard the terms "clean tech" or "green tech," which describe products that make better use natural resources. Renewable energy and efficiency certainly aren't new. But the clean-tech wave is founded on an important idea: a company can make money with environmentally friendly goods. GE's Ecomagination initiative and Wal-Mart's solar-powered "sustainable" stores are two high-profile corporate examples. But there are hundreds of small firms which have formed over the past five years.

Venture capitalists - the same people who bankrolled the dot-com boom - have lavished money on green-tech firms, making it the fastest growing investment sector. But these start-ups come with a hitch, one that's only getting worse with the credit crisis: Energy technology start-ups typically require far more money than what venture capitalists are equipped to invest to take a product from the lab to the market.

The current fiscal environment makes getting that "late-stage" funding even tougher and, if debt is involved, more expensive. In particular, financiers of energy projects don't like technology risk. Wind turbines are well proven and the returns predictable. But understanding the economics of making ethanol from wood chips at commercial scale is still a black art at this point.

To some, that late-stage funding barrier exposes a structural flaw when it comes to technical innovation in energy, environment, and water. "We need a new financing system," says Matthew Nordan, the president of emerging technology advisory firm Lux Research. "The old one from the 1970s is unlikely to make it happen."

A role for government?

But even amid slumping financial markets and volatile energy prices, there's cautious optimism regarding alternative energies. Why? Politicians - most notably both major presidential candidates - say renewable energy will play a major role in fixing the nation’s energy problems.

Government spending is the real wild card. State and federal governments have helped get many fledgling clean-energy companies out of the nest. Michigan and the Department of Energy, for example, funded construction of a plant to make ethanol from wood chips, one of several DOE-backed projects. States tend to be eager to promote clean-energy businesses to help grow their economies and create jobs. But these projects are likely to be squeezed as tax receipts fall and budgets scrutinized.

Renewable energy industries like wind, solar, and geothermal, got an important federal tax credit extended last month. Among other things, consumers can now get a 30 percent tax credit for solar electric panels.

Clean-energy advocates say much more should be done, such as bulking up the power grid and mandating that utilities get a percentage of their electricity from renewable sources.

On climate change, experts believe it's only a matter of time before there are federal laws to restrict greenhouse gas emission from heavy polluters, like utilities; California and the Northeast states have already pushed ahead with their own carbon-emission reduction programs.

More immediately, the world leaders' reaction to the financial crisis could determine whether and how quickly clean energy technologies will make an impact on the energy business.

Governments may treat the economic crisis as a reason to backpedal on emissions reduction targets. Another school of thought is to make energy and environment an important part of government stimulus spending to upgrade infrastructure.

Many technologies - solar, wind, geothermal, cellulosic ethanol - can be scaled up today. Others, such as storing carbon underground at coal plants, need more active government involvement to make economically feasible, said Fulton of Deutsche Bank.

"We do indeed have many technologies that are in commercialization, or close to it, that can have significant impacts on the whole energy and electricity mix," Fulton said. "But there are still some looming that need public and private capital to keep pushing them down the cost curve."

[optimist51]

It''s time to probably start looking at all the options.

Not all require oil. Project Unity is one example.

From their site...

The Field Frequency Modulator (FFM) System is capable of providing a continuous supply of cheap clean electrical power to any location on the planet, whereby assuring a sustainable future economy.

In addition to a sustainable source of energy, the controlled modulation of the underlying energy potential would also be applicable to human health, increased production of food crops.

The FFM System brings an end to our dependency on a non-renewable supply of oil, coal and natural gas.

The dynamic principles which allow for the design and construction of this system have been thoroughly researched and studied over a period of more than 40 years.

The time has come to explore all possibilities.

More Information at
http://www.gravitycontrol.org/projectunity2.html

[mitch5511]

I notice most people who are for McCain don''t have a clue how the economy works in the real world. They all have their spreadsheets and everything looks great on paper. However, in real terms, it''s a fantasy. McCain''s economic approach will break this country if GWB doesn''t beat him to it.

That''s why I voted for Obama!

[ubrew12]

hillaryin012 said: "OR IS IT%u2026%u2026%u2026REDISTRIBUTION OF SOMEONE ELSE%u2019S WEALTH IS A GREAT IDEA%u2026%u2026%u2026%u2026..or just a fools game !!"

Wanna hear a fools game? Republicans have been fooling Americans into thinking they don''t like Progressive taxation for 50 years, yet despite running the gov''t for 70% of the last 30 years, the wealthy still pay most of the taxes (cuz they own most of the country). Republicans are ''shocked...SHOCKED'' that wealth redistribution has been going on despite their rhetoric and apparently behind their backs.

Its so old

[ubrew12]

downsteamjim said: "How would you transport the power? How much would this new power grid cost? "

It''s an illustration of how much power is actually out there. I''m a supporter of the Pickens Plan, but that''s going to cost $$$ as well. Solar thermal comes down to the cost of the mirrors: make mirrors out of Aluminized mylar film (used in metallized balloons), velcro''d to plywood frames in the general form of a parabola, pull a slight vacuum to get the real shape, and wala: parabolic mirror for pennies. Has to be replaced once a year but still much cheaper than conventional mirrors. The rest is just molten salt in pipes (OK, not conventional pipes, but black-painted metal pipes with sintered glass sleeves around them, between which a vacuum has been pulled). The pipes dump their molten salt into underground tanks where it waits until needed. When needed, water is piped through heat exchangers in contact with the molten salt (on the other side), and turned to steam. Steam turbine -- electricity -- etc. Power enough for the western states, WITHOUT significant changes to the grid. Let Pickens take the Central states with wind turbines. Eastern states do other things: wind, solar, nuclear, coal, etc. The centerpiece of the Pickens Plan is natural gas for transportation: VERY good idea at this point in time. Let renewables take over the role of natural gas in electricity production.

[cm1148]

To begin with, to date, ALL alternative energy systems still rely on oil for them to work. It requires the oil infrastructure to supply the energy, tranportation, and manufacturing processes to create each of the alternatives.

A way would have to be found to work around that problem to make any of the ''alternative'' viable.

[downsteamjim]

To ubrew: Assuming you could get environment permits over a 100 mile square, how much would it cost? How would you transport the power? How much would this new power grid cost?

[ubrew12]

A 100 mile by 100 mile area of the desert southwest, covered with solar thermal collectors using molten salt as the absorber, produces enough energy to power the entire U.S., day and night. The technology for this was invented in the 19th century, a competent plumber could construct a solar thermal collector.

[upto1947]

As long as people like T. Boone Pickens are in the game. The people get screwed. He is no good for any thing. I hope he goes broke, but he wont. Congress well see to that.

[nothappyatall]

If you think nat gas will be produced by some friendly company, think again, the SAME oil cartells shafting us will continue to do so- Exxon-Mobil, BP etc. ALL of these terminals mentioned below are for taking in IMPORTED LNG from tanker ships, so much for producing all we need HERE at home!
--
The safety concerns surrounding LNG installations pose difficulties for energy companies attempting to build new terminals. No such terminals have been built in the U.S. for two decades, but applications to construct 30 more have been made in recent years. Only half a dozen are likely to materialize in the next decade. ExxonMobil has announced plans to build a $600 million plant on the Texas coast and wants to build three more in other states. ChevronTexaco announced plans to construct an off the coast of Baja California, Mexico and Royal Dutch/Shell and BP are among other companies driving to build new terminals in California, Texas, Alabama, Florida, Mexico, Nova Scotia and other locations. In most of these places opposition by local communities is mounting and it is not yet clear which consideration will prevail: public safety or economic need.

[nothappyatall]

Theres no free lunch folks, you switch massive numbers of homes and businesses over to natural gas the producers WILL raise prices on the open market- they are the same ones who control OIL prices and production, and why not? they have a product you WANT BADLY and they aren''t in the charity business!

Switch to solar panels? fine, think the companies that build those are going to keep "low " prices when demand spikes?? dream on- they are not in the charity business either- they have a product YOU WANT BADLY, so you WILL PAY the highest prices they can charge you- guaranteed!
In short, you can''t doctor shop when having a heart attack, and the one you go to can charge the max they think you can pay and then some.

[nothappyatall]

Ya want natural gas? ya gotta compete for it now;

Limited Availability for ''Cheap'' LNG to the U.S.
by Harold York, Director, Reliant Energy

There has been suggestion the U.S. import ''cheap'' LNG into the U.S. as a way to apply downward pressure on domestic natural gas prices. However, The U.S. will not be able to attract substantial volumes of spot LNG because there is little supply not committed to firm European and Asian contracts through 2005. Potential spot supplies, given distance from the U.S. and technical constraints at several U.S. regasification terminals, are unlikely to be significantly less expensive than marginal local production.

New Era in Natural Gas Pricing
Natural gas prices in the U.S. have risen to a level attractive to LNG imports since early 1999. As Figure 1 shows, gas prices must rise above $3.00/MMBtu to attract significant incremental volumes of LNG to the U.S.
The global supply/demand balance for LNG is pretty tight. In 2003 average utilization of nameplate capacity for liquefaction facilities was 87%, but ranged from 99% in Brunei to 20% in Libya

over the past four years, 75% of LNG imports have been under long-term contracts

energybulletin.net/node/2509

[nothappyatall]

And if you are really fat, go back to using a push mower.
Posted by mroutside12"

Oh yeah, save a QUART of gas a WEEK maybe, meanwhile it would take twice as long to mow and when you are done your appetite increases due to the work and you will in turn EAT more which uses oil.

"We IMPORT LPG by the tanker loads because we dont have enough, or did you miss that?"
Newster1

"No. Do the research. If you seek an energy source that the U.S. has in abundance, you find natural gas. Not only do we have a lot without importing
Posted by andor3"

Like I said- do the RESEARCH:

Countries that Import LNG (liquified natural gas)

United States of America (first regassifaction plant started 1971)
www.energy.ca.gov/lng/international.html

The U.S. Department of Energy expects LNG to account for 15% of U.S. gas consumption by 2025, compared to 1% today. Consequently, LNG imports into the U.S. are expected to grow by about 8.2% a year over the coming decade.

Study: LNG tankers make spectacular targets for terrorists
www.iags.org/n0121041.htm

[nothappyatall]

There also needs to be extremely aggressive conservation programs ensuring buildings are highly insulated, using CFL''''s, improving efficiencies of our industrial plants, and a huge effort at recycling and reducing wastes in landfills. We can also generate electricity by utilizing the methane created by the refuse in landfills. Utilities need to get at least 20% of their energy from solar, wind, or geothermal by 2020"

THAT IS ALL USELESS as long as we keep increasing the population! Y''all don''t seem to GET the connection- increase the population you increase consumption across the board, and it doesnt make a dam bit of difference how much we cut back, insulate, conserve or recycle- you put more people in dipping into those resources we WILL need MORE and more and more every year untill something "breaks"- massive pandemic, huge war, severe global climate change altering crop growing ability etc.

[walt1944-2009]

I have heard this argument over and over again since Richard "the Trickster" Nixon promised we would have alternate forms of energy back in 1970!!!!!

Every time some politician promises alternate forms of energy, it never happens. People get excited about it, some technological work is done, but that''s all. We ALWAYS END UP using the energy we are used to.

Why?

Because the BIG OIL companies, the BIG UTILITY companies, and their LOBBYISTS WON''T ALLOW IT!!!

Developing alternate forms of energy means spending money on R & D. Money that the Corporate Big Shots at BIG OIL and the UTILITY companies want for THEMSELVES!

It''s all GREEED!!!! CASE CLOSED!!!

SIG HEIL, I LOVE GREEED!!!, BUSH!!!
sig heil, I LOVE GREEED TOO!!!, McBush!!!
sig heil, I LIKE SPREADING THE WEALTH AROUND AT NEIMAN-MARCUS, MACY''S, AND SAKS 5TH AVENUE!!!, Palin!!!

[claydowner]

THE VERY WORST THING WE CAN DO IS BELIEVE THAT OIL WILL BE CHEAP AGAIN AND THAT WE DO NOT HAVE TO CHANGE. THIS IS A FATAL ECONOMIC MISTAKE. Read "Beyond Oil" written by Kenneth S. Deffeyes, a professor of geology. This downturn in oil prices is a temporary condition. China and India will have middle classes as large as the entire population of North America. We have about 800 million motor vehicles in the world there will be one billion vehicles by 2020. There is a good chance that we have reached Peak Oil. According to Hubbert analysis we reached Peak Oil in about 2005-06. This means that the finite amount of oil is at least beyond the halfway point. China, India, and other rapidly developing countries will consume more oil. This means that we will be sucking oil out of the ground faster than we can find new supplies of oil. Prices will rise again with vengeance. Cheap supplies of recoverable oil are gone forever.

People that believe we will have a long-term return to cheap oil are living in a world of delusion and denial. Oil could be $200 per barrel in the next decade or $7 to $8 per gallon. We need to think beyond today and think 10 years down the road. Staying on imported oil is sticking our economic head in a hangman''s noose of war, terrorism, bankruptcy, and permanent economic decline.

[sepa2]

Of course it will be relegated. An economy run by MBAs and lawyers bent of instant gain what else can you expect

[tired0fthebs]

You know what I changed my mind about Obama! I think he will be better for national security and the economy!

Plus sarah palin $150,000.00 on clothes, most Americans could have bought a home for that amount!

Besides I think Sarah Palin is really a Terrorist

Breaking News: The Terrorist Group AKA Alaska Independent party Calling on Russia to help secede from the Union
www.chilitoz.com
Extremists Mark Chryson and Steve Stoll former leaders of the Alaska Terrorist group AKA Independence Party and friends of Sarah Palin are calling on Russia to help them gain independence from the United States.

Watch video of Sarah palin addressing The Alaska Terrorist Group also known as The Independence party. They are calling for a civil war against the mainland.
www.chilitoz.com

[claydowner]

I meant "bold action now." There also needs to be extremely aggressive conservation programs ensuring buildings are highly insulated, using CFL''s, improving efficiencies of our industrial plants, and a huge effort at recycling and reducing wastes in landfills. We can also generate electricity by utilizing the methane created by the refuse in landfills. Utilities need to get at least 20% of their energy from solar, wind, or geothermal by 2020. Many countries who have these requirements for their electricity production are finding it easy to exceed their goals once they have the policy mechanisms in place that forces the country to adopt these energy strategies. Germany is a case in point they are getting about 17% of their electricity from renewables today. By 2020 they are on track to getting 30% or more. Portugal gets over 40% of its electricity from renewable sources solar, wind, and wave. There is no reason America can not get 20% or more of its electricity from renewables by 2020. What we are lacking is leadership. We have to realize that future oil prices could go to $200 per barrel or higher with China and India industrializing. There is no reprieve from higher oil prices. Renewables are the only way forward besides aggressive conservation.

[claydowner]

The greatest national security problem facing America is the hangman''s noose of imported oil. We import 70% of our fuel a large portion from petrol dictators who support terrorists. We can not afford to take our eye off the ball. The Wall Street bailout and subsequent recession fears will not stop the growth in the renewable energy industry. I support the Picken''s Plan but I believe that it is only a start.

We really need to get European turbocharged diesel cars that can get 65 MPG. Audi has a turbodiesel that gets 85 MPG and can pass California air emission standards. Why not use CNG for all or our trucks and building turbodiesels by the many tens of millions. Turbodiesels can also run on biodiesel fuel. There is a potential to marry up turbodiesel technology with electric hybrid technology. There is the potential of getting 100 MPG plus. This technology exists today. Why not combine the Pickens plan with a turbodiesel car plan. We also can get diesel fuel from our 200 year supply of coal using the Fischer-Tropsch gasification process used during WW II by the Germans, Japanese and then after the war South Africa. This kind of fuel could work as a transition to get us off of foreign oil forever. Lets get on with it now. I am sick and tired of seeing soldiers die in Iraq for imported oil. I want bodl action on energy policy now!

[Redoubt]

If after yet again finding our nation at the mercy of an oil industry run a multi billion dollar domestic hegemony and an OPEC made up of an entire cartel of potential enemy nations, we do NOTHING about freeing ourself and our economy... we deserve whatever we get.