Map Reveals a Web of Oil Imports

Credit: Rocky Mountain Institute

For an illuminating look at the web of oil imports that we depend on, check out this interactive Google Maps-based infographic at the Rocky Mountain Institute, an organization that promotes technology for energy efficiency.

The map features a timeline starting in 1973. As a cursor moves along the timeline (click the "play" button to automate the cursor's movement, or control the movement yourself by clicking and dragging the cursor), the world map above it changes, showing how much oil is flowing to the United States, and from which countries. Changing a setting (under "Map Units" in the left column, select "Dollars") shows how much money is flowing out of the United States, and to where. You can select a specific oil crisis (buttons below the timeline) to see the segment of the timeline related to that crisis.

You can also click a button (left column, "ANWR") to see the size of the potential oil flow from the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. When oil consumption was low in the late 1980s, after the oil crisis of that era triggered a massive drop in consumption, it looks substantial. But in 2008, it looks vanishingly small.

One of the most salient things illustrated by the map is just how long oil prices stayed low after the oil crisis of the late 1970s: long enough for people to forget the lessons of that crisis and start buying big, heavy cars again, and get truly addicted to oil.

Smarter Buildings Shown to Dramatically Cut Energy Use

Over the holidays, the most e-mailed story published by the New York Times was almost devoid of news, but it was arguably one of the most important things the paper could have run. It's an account of an old and simple idea: saving money by ensuring that your house is well insulated.

Thick walls and insulation, insulated windows placed on the side of the house where the sun shines, eaves that shade these windows during the summer, a ventilation system that uses an old technology called a heat exchanger--all make it possible to heat a house in the winter with a hair dryer and cool it in the summer with a small window air conditioner. And that's only on the most extreme days, when temperatures are very low or very high. Most of the time, no heating or air conditioning is needed at all. Amory Lovins, founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, an organization that promotes energy efficiency, has built such a home for himself in the mountains of Colorado. It features a tropical indoor garden. He says he enjoys coming in from the blowing snow and bitter cold and eating a freshly picked banana.

These so-called passive houses have been around for decades. If designed and built properly, they don't even cost more than a conventional house (the extra money for better windows can be offset by the savings from not installing a furnace, for example). So why haven't more been built? Judging from the response to the New York Times article, not many people know about them. And builders (I used to work for a number of them) suffer from inertia. They'd rather go on building the same buildings they're used to.

Paul Torcellini, a researcher at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, says that the cheapest way to reduce carbon emissions is to use less energy. NREL recommends that people not turn to solar panels and wind turbines to power their homes and businesses until they have adopted passive measures, such as better insulation, which can reduce energy consumption by about 75 percent.

President-elect Obama apparently got the word. He plans to create tens of thousands of jobs by weatherizing one million homes.

Carbon-Capture Credits Blocked

International climate-change negotiators who gathered in Poznan, Poland, to draft a follow-on to the Kyoto Protocol appear to have rejected the talks' most controversial proposal: giving a big boost to carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, whereby carbon dioxide produced by coal-fired power plants is trapped deep underground.

The proposal was to award carbon credits to developing countries that installed CCS equipment--credits that they could then sell to industrialized nations or companies--but this morning, opponents successfully tabled the proposal until next June, according to climate policy blog Climatico.

Countries pushing the credits-for-CCS proposal included Japan, Norway, Australia, and Canada. All are major coal consumers eyeing CCS as a way to meet their own greenhouse-gas reduction targets and a way for oil and gas producers to use captured CO₂ for enhanced oil recovery. Japan and Canada also figure among the nations farthest behind in meeting emissions cuts mandated by the Kyoto Protocol, and they could be big buyers of CCS-generated carbon credits.

International Energy Agency (IEA) executive director Nobuo Tanaka had also added his support for the idea (see video above). Tanaka calls credits a means of accelerating development of capture and sequestration technologies, which the IEA sees as crucial to controlling emissions in countries like China that will remain heavily dependent on coal for decades to come. "These technologies need all the financial help they can get," says Tanaka.

But the idea has been red hot among the climate activists swarming Poznan this week as it unites a controversial technology with an already controversial program. The activists see carbon sequestration as a potentially risky technology that could delay the transition from coal to solar, wind, and other forms of renewable energy. Furthermore, the UN's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which manages the awarding of carbon credits to developing nations, attracts scorn from some who see carbon trading as a numbers game by which countries can avoid making real emissions cuts.

Many question whether emissions cuts certified for millions of dollars' worth of credits under the CDM wouldn't have occurred anyway. The UN recently acknowledged possible problems after spot-checking a leading CDM certification firm and identifying a series of "nonconformities" in its auditing practices. The firm, DNV Certification AS, was suspended but insists that it is addressing the concerns identified to regain its accreditation.

Poznan's ministerial-level talks start tomorrow and should wrap up on Friday. Unless they pop CCS back onto the agenda, the credits proposal will be stalled until next June's follow-up meeting in Bonn. That meeting is a prelude to the big game that will define global energy policy: final negotiations and, if all goes as planned, the signing of a "Kyoto II" treaty in Copenhagen next December.

Ford's Bailout Plea Focuses on Energy Efficiency

2008 Ford Escape Hybrid Credit: Ford Motor Company

Ford Motor Company has just released its plan for surviving in the current lousy economy--the report is part of an effort this week by the Big Three automakers to get massive loans from the government. They were rebuffed last month when they came to Washington begging for money and apparently not looking apologetic enough as they climbed into their private jets. This time at least two of the executives reportedly drove to Washington.

At the heart of the plan is the use of "advanced" technology to make cars with better fuel economy, including several hybrids and an electric van. From the report: "Half of our Ford, Lincoln and Mercury light duty nameplates qualify by 2010 as 'Advanced Technology Vehicles' under the Energy Independence and Security Act [EISA]."

So, is this a big deal?

Here's what an advanced technology vehicle is, according to EISA:

(1) ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLE- The term `advanced technology vehicle' means a light duty vehicle that meets--

(A) the Bin 5 Tier II emission standard established in regulations issued by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under section 202(i) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521(i)), or a lower-numbered Bin emission standard;

(B) any new emission standard in effect for fine particulate matter prescribed by the Administrator under that Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.); and

(C) at least 125 percent of the average base year combined fuel economy for vehicles with substantially similar attributes.

The first two have to do with non-carbon dioxide emissions, things such as particulates and other emissions that lead to smog. Bin 5 Tier II is the middle-of-the-road level of emissions under relatively new, strict emissions standards. Car companies haven't had trouble meeting these requirements, according to an EPA report. Being able to meet these standards in the future isn't that impressive.

Having fuel economy 25 percent higher than other similar vehicles is more impressive. How is Ford doing this? Next year the company will sell many of its cars with "Ecoboost" engines. These use direct-injection and turbo-charging to extract more power from engines, allowing the company to use smaller, more efficient engines. (For a related technology being considered by Ford, see "The Incredible Shrinking Engine.") The technology can improve fuel economy by 20 percent. The company is also doing smaller things, like using electric power steering pumps and 6-speed transmissions, which can improve efficiency by a few percentage points. It's also adding two more hybrids to the two it already has (the Escape and Mariner).

None of this is earth-shattering stuff--it's basically adapting existing technologies in smart ways. But it's good to see Ford is actually doing it. More cutting edge is the company's plan to sell plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles, starting with an electric van in 2010 and an electric sedan in 2011. More details will follow as Ford releases them, probably just before the North American International Auto Show in Detroit next month.

Fixing the Economy with Green Jobs

President-elect Barack Obama recently called for stimulating the economy in part by direct government investment in clean energy, specifically in projects "building wind farms and solar panels." Through various "green" policies and investments, he hopes to create five million new jobs.

A new report from Deutsche Bank supports this approach. It argues that it's possible to address challenges related to climate change, energy security, and the financial crisis at the same time by investing in four specific areas: energy-efficient buildings, electric power grids, renewable power, and public transportation. The report cites figures that suggest investing in these areas creates more jobs than investing in conventional energy sources because much of the old energy infrastructure is already in place. It says that "a $100 billion investment in energy and efficiency would result in 2 million new jobs, whereas a similar investment in old energy [such as coal or natural gas] would only create around 540,000 jobs."

What's more, the report continues, when the government invests in a project, other investors line up to invest as well. It "unlocks" private-sector funding and partnerships.

Detractors say that clean energy can have a negative effect on jobs, since it tends to cost more. If energy costs are high enough, it could force companies to cut jobs.

Limiting Coal Targets to Fight Climate Change

The quickest and most effective way to deal with emissions from new coal power plants might be to capture perhaps 60 percent of the gas, and not press for more ambitious targets, according to an analysis presented today at the 9th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, in Washington, DC.

Howard Herzog, a principal research engineer at MIT (where he manages an industry consortium on carbon capture and storage), explained to me that this route might be akin to the progression we are now seeing in automobiles: from gasoline-powered cars to hybrid versions, en route to a future full of plug-in hybrid or full-electric cars charged from an electric grid that conveys mainly clean renewable power.

Given that right now none of the 600 U.S. coal power plants--or virtually any other source of greenhouse gas--captures and sequesters CO₂, you have to start somewhere, he said. "We are trying to look at it from an energy security viewpoint, an economic viewpoint, and a carbon-capture viewpoint," said Herzog, who coauthored the analysis with Ashleigh Hildebrand, a graduate student in chemical engineering and technology policy.

Herzog went on to explain that coal is a secure American resource that doesn't require importing liquefied natural gas. Partial capture would be cheaper than full capture (which would require extra processing steps). Depending on the type of plant, reducing coal's CO₂ emissions by between 45 and 60 percent would mean that it emits as much CO₂ as a natural-gas power plant. And because the partial-emission version would be more economical, it could mean faster implementation, which would, in turn, help prove the feasibility of capturing and burying CO₂ (in various underground reservoirs, for the most part) on a massive scale. Research is continuing into the optimal capture levels on both coal-burning and coal-gasification designs, Herzog added.

The conference is mainly a technical affair, full of presentations on the suitability of various geologic formations for CO₂ storage, how to do seismic analysis of CO₂ reservoirs, and the experience of various pilot projects. Ruben Juanes, an assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at MIT, described his new model for calculating how much CO₂ a geologic formation can safely hold, for example.

But the critical importance of these various geologic and modeling studies was driven home in a keynote by Susan Solomon, an atmospheric chemist at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, who gave a primer on climate change over lunch. It wasn't new ground, but it's always good to be reminded of some basics, such as "We have made CO₂ [concentrations in the atmosphere] higher than it has been in more than half a million years, and that is the predominant cause of today's global warming."

Solomon reminded everyone that if we are to avert the worst effects of global warming and climate change--the droughts, the species extinctions, the water shortages, the catastrophic sea-level rise--we must act now and essentially dial our emissions back to something close to zero over the next few decades. Part of that will mean burying CO₂ rather than spewing it into the atmosphere. Unfortunately, we were reminded of these sobering realities while being served steak--that most fuel-intensive source of protein--in a banquet hall lit by hundreds of incandescent lightbulbs.