Suddenly

For literally thousands of years, humanity made little technical progress at least as it helped to improve the life of millions upon millions of people and then, suddenly, 200 years ago or so our technological capabilities just exploded.

To what do we owe this?

On a first approximation we could say that fossil fuels were the trigger but on second thought, they had already been known for hundreds of years and little was made of them.

No, more important than the fuels themselves were the engines developed:

1. The steam engine.
2. The internal combustion engine.
3. The gas turbine.

These engines allowed coal, oil and natural gas to be converted into movement, into transportation.

Electricity had also been known for a long time but it was not until the electric generator (powered by one of the engines above) provided abundant energy to illuminate and power the world that electricity became overwhelmingly important.

However, electricity was not only power and light, it was also signals, and here the all important developments before 1950 were:

1. The telegraph
2. The telephone
3. Radio and television

Crude implementations of the first two could exist without electronics proper, but radio and television required an amplifier and thus came into being side by side with them the vacuum tube.

Finally, electricity was one more thing: "intelligence." The first fully electronic general purpose computer, ENIAC, came into being in the late 1940s. It used prodigious amounts of vacuum tubes (more than 18,000).

So, by 1950, we had cars, airplanes, trains, air conditioning, elevators, radio, television, telegraph, telephone and even some computers.

Accelerated progress seemed to lay in the past because the vacuum tube required loads of power and was too big and unreliable to be implemented by the thousands in computers and other devices.

Say, a basic cell phone was completely out of the question, let alone a personal computer, tablet or smart phone.

And then came William Shockley and the transistor.

The first transistors were more often than not just (lower power / smaller) replacements for vacuum tubes, but if we wanted hundreds, thousands, millions, billions of transistors in a single device another breakthrough was needed.

And then came Robert Noyce and the integrated circuit. This allowed complex circuits with many transistors to be built into a single crystal of silicon, but if we wanted a full computer to be swallowed in a single integrated circuit, another breakthrough was needed.

And then came Ted Hoff and the microprocessor.

So arguably, our awe inspiring current civilization critically depends on at least the following foundations:

1. Abundant / relatively cheap energy (mainly fossil fuels).
2. Engines that use those fuels to produce useful work.
3. Electricity that, aside from light and power, means signals and "intelligence."
4. The transistor / integrated circuit / microprocessor

The future challenge for our civilization is probably more than anywhere else in point number 1. If fossil fuels won't continue to be forever cheap and abundant, then we'll need other types of energy to replace fossil fuels.

How much time we have is open to discussion, but almost everybody agrees eventually we'll need to massively replace fossil fuels or enter into the twilight of our civilization as we know it.

Are the current alternatives we have today (nuclear and renewables) good enough to massively replace fossil fuels? Probably not.

In the past, technology has always come to our rescue:

Engine technology.
Electricity generation.
Semiconductors

Today, once more we need technological breakthroughs, this time to develop cheap / abundant / low carbon energy.

Let's remember that wide deployment of a technology critically depends on cost. The first transistors Fairchild Semiconductor produced for IBM in the 1950 had a price tag of $150 USD each in bulk amounts (1950's dollars). Today the cost of each transistor in an iPhone is around one millionth of a cent (2014 cents).

Thus, if something is going to replace fossil fuels, the cost of that energy is all important (we have to consider the full system, not only a component).

Will humanity rise to the challenge? Let's stay tuned.


Feel free to add to the conversation in Twitter: @luisbaram

Stroll In the Park on a Sunday Afternoon

It seems some people believe that moving to a low carbon economy is something easy that just requires "political will," and that the way forward is to pressure politicians with tumultuous "climate marches."

Well, it is not that easy, not even close.

To get an idea of the barriers to a low carbon economy, let's focus at the personal level. Here are some things an individual can do to drastically reduce her / his carbon emissions. Bear in mind that reducing the carbon emissions of humanity would literally be many orders of magnitude more difficult than this.

1. Eliminate air travel. Period. No looking back. Vacations should be relatively local. If you are used to travelling for business, then use video-conference to be in touch with your customers. Sure, it won't be as effective as face to face interactions, but  it is one of the prices to be paid for a lower carbon footprint.
2. Have less children or none at all. Off the bat, a new person that lives 65 years and produces the current average annual CO2 emissions (4.5 tons) would add almost 300 tons to the atmosphere in her lifetime. One billion persons would add 300 Gigatons, and this is considering the average emissions stay at today's value.
3. Eat less meat.
4. Buy much less stuff.
5. Adjust the thermostat in your A/C: make a point to be colder in winter and warmer in summer (without actually freezing or dehydrating).
6. Use your car less, much less or make without it altogether.
7. Try to enjoy cold showers, or at least cool showers.
8. Turn off every light / device as soon as you are through using it.
9. Assimilate (properly vetted) GMOs. We need to produce more food with less land/energy input.
10. In summary, embrace a lower standard of living for you and your family.

However, when things are distilled at the personal level, many "greens" rebel. They are not willing to participate in the game anymore. They want to just join in two or three "climate marches," pressure their university to "divest" from fossil fuels, glue a bumper sticker in their car with the "#GoSolar" message and re-tweet some Greenpeace thoughts.

Well, that will never work.

In truth, very few people will downgrade the standard of living of themselves and their children to "save" their eventual great-grandchildren. This is just human nature. Thus, bar a black swan (or two), the best way to reduce emissions (in addition to decreasing population) is technology.

Technology can help in two ways:

1. Do more with less (e.g., an LED light bulb produces many more lumens per watt than an equivalent incandescent lamp).
2. New massive amounts of low carbon energy. Current nuclear and renewables are at the most a stopgap. We need much better nuclear (fission and fusion) and other types of energy in the near future.

A happy, high energy future (with much less reliance on fossil fuels) will only materialize via technology.

Feel free to add to the conversation in Twitter: @luisbaram

Barking at the Wrong Tree?

Even though the science might (or might not) be settled, the climate discourse is still heated between those that sustain that carbon dioxide emissions are increasing the global temperature of the Earth and those that do not see it as a menace.

However, I believe this discussion is misguided and thus that we are barking at the wrong tree.

If the first camp is correct, then we need to drastically reduce our fossil fuel consumption. To be able to do this without destroying the world's economy (and thus severely curtailing the possibilities of reducing poverty and even shoving many / most of us toward that same poverty) would require a massive substitution of fossil fuels by other, lower carbon energy sources.

If the second camp is correct, the so called "deniers" then we still all probably agree that fossil fuels will not forever be cheap and abundant.

Consequently, it seems to me, both groups should agree that the (eventual) replacement of fossil fuels should be a top priority.

If we look around today, we see lots of PR from the renewable, efficiency and even the nuclear camps, but where the rubber meets the road, (in other words, massive alternative energy production ramp-up) we don't see anything worth noting.

The Energy Information Administration estimates that by the year 2040, close to 80% of our primary energy will still come from fossil fuels, however, since consumption is projected to increase in absolute terms that means more CO2 emissions than today.*

Yes, renewables (solar and wind) will survive and maybe even thrive in the coming decades but there is no way they will dominate the global energy market. Why? Because they are diffuse (in other words, weak), intermittent and unreliable. Renewables are in a sense a road to the past. Centuries ago, practically 100% of our energy was renewable but our civilization moved forward with denser and more reliable energy.

Current nuclear is not that much better. Yes, it is low carbon, yes it is orders of magnitude denser than renewables (and even than fossil fuels) but it is still too expensive and hard to scale up rapidly.

In his book Zero to One, Peter Thiel states that "only when your product is 10X better can you offer the customer transparent superiority." Well, that is certainly not yet the case respecting our current alternatives to fossil fuels.

The solution to our energy quandary has to be technology. We won't advance toward the future by walking backwards.

New nuclear (fission) designs in the drawing board seem great on paper, but to prove their concepts we would need massive implementation in the real world. This is not happening. At least not yet.

Even though it might not feel like it, our civilization has been upgrading its energy sources to better ones:

Coal is better than wood, wind and water.
Oil is better than coal.
Natural gas is better than oil.
Nuclear is better than natural gas.

Sure, the above statements are arguable, but the point is we have been moving to denser more reliable energy that is actually cleaner. (Without coal, we would probably had destroyed all our forests to use them as fuel).

So, bottom line, our civilization has been moving forward and there is no way back (at least not if we plan to support +7 billion persons).

Renewables are in a sense a return to the past. New nuclear (fission and fusion) can be a step forward, maybe even a giant step forward.

How much time do we have to replace, say, 50% of fossil fuels with nuclear? That depends on when fossil fuels will become painfully expensive / scarce.

Try as we might, this transition will probably not be fast. It may take 100, 150 years, or more, but as JFK used to say: let us begin!

Feel free to add to the conversation in Tweeter: @luisbaram

*http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/?src=home-b2

Ten Times Better

In his book, Zero to One, Peter Thiel states that "only when your product is 10X better can you offer the customer transparent superiority."

In the global warming discourse, it is often stated that fossil fuels should be replaced by renewable (solar, wind, geothermal) energy sources.

However the first question we should ask is if in fact renewables are ten times better than what they are supposed to be replacing.

Well, in reality renewables not only are not ten times better than fossil fuels, they are not even plain better. What's more, in most of the important attributes of an energy source, renewables are considerably worse than fossil fuels.

So maybe this is the reason renewables are barely represented in our civilization's total energy consumption.* And this is in spite of them being the recipients of considerable subsidies per unit of energy produced.

In his book The End of Energy Obesity, Peter Tertzakian states:

"The following framework of nine energy attributes will serve as a useful reference point for assessing how energy sources - renewable and nonrenewable - jockey for market share and for predicting how successfully we can incorporate them into our energy diet."

Following I will list Mr. Tertzakian nine energy attributes and will indicate in green where renewables are better than fossil fuels and in red where they are worse:

1. Versatility

2. Scalability

3. Storability and Transportability

4. Deliverability

5. Energy Density

6. Power Density

7. Constancy

8. Environmental Sensitivity

9. Energy Security

As we can see, the renewables loss is almost as bad as the Brazil - Germany one during the 2014 FIFA cup.

Consequently, if we are going to replace fossil fuels, we need something much better than renewables and we need a real sense of urgency in this endeavor unless we believe fossil fuels will forever be abundant and relatively inexpensive.

Feel free to add to the conversation in Twitter: @luisbaram


* http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/Energy-economics/statistical-review-2014/BP-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2014-full-report.pdf

Key World Energy Statistics 2014

The Key World Energy Statistics 2014 has just been published by the International Energy Agency.
A link to the full report is at the bottom of this page.

Total Primary Energy Supply. Fossil fuels still comprise 81.7% of the total (a slight market participation increase from the 2013 report).

Solar + Wind + Geothermal, etc., have finally exceeded 1% of the total.

Let's now see the top producers per energy source.

Oil:

Coal:

Natural Gas:

Nuclear:
Two countries represent almost 50% of the world's production.
Germany is still a nuclear nation.
China is coming from behind, but may eventually overtake the USA.

Hydro:
Nobody touches China.

And finally, here we present total final consumption:

Fell free to add to the conversation in Twitter: @luisbaram

Link to the full IEA report:

http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/key-world-energy-statistics-2014.html

Role Models

Both at the personal level as well as in the energy discourse, we sometimes select a role model based more on his glibness of talk rather than on his actions.

This post here is an effort to focus on results rather than on PR respecting the carbon intensity of electrical grids in selected countries.

All graphs shown below correspond to the latest IEA Monthly Electricity Survey. The first six months of 2014 are now finalized and shown here. A link to the full report can be found at the bottom of this page.

We will be listing the selected countries from the "best" to the "worst" based on the percentage of their electricity generated with combustible fuels.


1. Norway: 2%

2. Switzerland: 4%

3. France: 6%

4. Sweden: 9%

5. Canada: 22%

6. Spain: 33%

7. Finland: 42%

Note: now come the countries in which combustible fuels exceed 50% of their generated electricity.

8. Denmark: 56%

9. Germany: 63%

10. USA: 68%

11. UK: 68%

Next are the countries that are hovering close to 90% of combustible fuels in their electricity generation.

12. Australia: 87%

13. The Netherlands: 90%

14. Japan: 90% (in 2010 they were at 63%, big step backwards).

Thank you. Feel free to add to the conversation on Twitter: @luisbaram


Full IEA Report (click on June 2014).
http://www.iea.org/statistics/relatedsurveys/monthlyelectricitysurvey/

Political Will

We hear time and again in the climate discourse that what we need to solve the problem is "political will."

Well, maybe... but combating climate change through reducing our CO2 emissions is not something that can be done by passing a law or signing new regulations.

This is not a Manhattan Project, the Apollo Program or the Great Society of LBJ. It is probably the three of them combined and multiplied by ten, and even then...

We will not be free of fossil fuels by issuing an Emancipation Proclamation. If only it were that simple...

First, let's mention what we don't need respecting the transition to a low carbon economy:

1. To be told it will be easy. Because it won't.
2. To be told it will be cheap. Because it won't.
3. To be told it can be done fast. Because it won't.

Now, the first thing we need to understand is the MAGNITUDE of the energy we should transition from high carbon sources to lower carbon ones. And, by the way, the sooner we bury the "zero emissions" label, the better. No energy source is zero emissions. *

As we may see from the graph above, fossil fuels not only overwhelmingly dominate the energy market, but in absolute terms are the ones that are growing the fastest.**

Even though the OECD countries ARE taming their energy hunger, the non-OECD are increasing it as if they had an appointment. ***

And let's make no mistake: the overwhelming consideration for increasing energy consumption in these Non-OECD countries will be cost and ease of scalability.

The first thing we need to confront the climate challenge is to start telling the truth and this starts with Al Gore, Greenpeace, Paul Krugman and others. Here are some inconvenient truths:

a. Moving to a low carbon economy will be expensive. Very expensive. Thus the cost of energy for the final consumer will be higher, maybe even much higher.
b. If the cost of energy goes up, then the cost of almost everything else will also go up, including food.
c. After many trillions of euros of investment we will end up with less than we began with (lower carbon but more expensive energy). For the final user there would be little to see (except maybe much less pollution from coal burning).

All the people participating in a Climate March should go ahead and do it but be perfectly conscious that if they are FINALLY listened to by governments, THEIR cost of energy and everything else will go up. Is this a sacrifice they are willing to assume? Hopefully yes, but fully understanding what they are actually asking for and how it will affect them individually.

Now we are going to have to call names. It would be great just to leave this at the philosophical level but emissions won't drop just because we wish them to. No, we need MASSIVE deployments of low carbon energy. And here we have to face other truths (valid at least through the rest of this century):

1. Hydro was, is, and will continue to be the premier renewable energy.
2. Yes, wind and solar will conquer part of the energy pie but will almost certainly stay in single digits share of our global energy consumption. Why? Because they are intermittent, unreliable, diffuse and expensive.
3. (This is to some the worst of all the inconvenient truths), nuclear will have to perform the heavy low carbon lifting for our civilization. Sorry, but there is NO way around this. Make the math, it would be impossible in a financial / environmental sense to supply most of our global energy with renewables.

So, once it is boiled down to the essentials, this is the definition of political will respecting global warming:

Political will: paving the way for a massive, accelerated implementation of nuclear power.

All the rest is just talk, just platitudes, just expressing feel good words that change absolutely nothing.

Look around you! Is a massive nuclear power plant buildup currently happening in your country?

If yes, you are moving forward.

If no, it is business as usual and you are not going anywhere (except maybe to an overly hot planet).

Feel free to add to the conversation at Twitter: @luisbaram

Note: some people declare that renewable energy (solar or wind) is cheap but this is only because they piggy-back on the conventional energy grid (that ends up absorbing the costs of their intermittency). However, when all costs are considered, RE is expensive, intermittent and unreliable.

References:

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources

** bp.com/statisticalreview

*** www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/pdf/0484(2013).pdf

The Real Green Role Models

There is lots of hype in the energy discourse. Here we present the real way selected countries are generating their electricity.

We may be surprised to find out which are the countries actually taming fossil fuels in their electricity production. These countries tend to be quiet and yet they are the real role models the rest of the world should follow. World, are you listening?

Let's start the "tour."

Note: all graphs are from the latest IEA report. A link to the full report is provided at the end of this page.


Australia: in the land of uranium, coal rules.

Canada: go, Canada, go!

Denmark: good green PR, but in reality fossil fuels are still #1.

Finland: not yet "there" but most of its electricity comes from low carbon sources.

France: stop the presses! France HAS arrived. They have nearly eliminated fossil fuels from electricity production. Félicitations!

Germany: going nowhere, fast.

Japan: TOTAL MELTDOWN! Fossil fuels have come home to roost.

The Netherlands: WTF? Seriously, people.

Norway: if you have the hydro resources, don't think twice. GO HYDRO!

Spain: the most balanced energy diet on Earth. They do seem to believe in: never put all your eggs in the same basket.

Sweden: Almost paradise!

Switzerland: better than a Swiss watch! Looow carbon electricity.

UK: one year late, and one nuclear plant short.

USA: there is really nothing new to see here. Move on.

Conclusion: we can make mental exercises, scheme in a piece of paper and develop catchy slogans but actual results show who are the real green leaders (at least in the electricity sector). Let's quiet down the hype and focus on realities. Thank you.

Feel free to add to the conversation in Twitter: @luisbaram

Link to full IEA report: (click on May, 2014).

http://www.iea.org/statistics/relatedsurveys/monthlyelectricitysurvey/