And what do I think about all of this?
Here are my 2 cents, in bits and pieces.

August 20, 2008: Offshore drilling

OK, it's time to write something about offshore drilling. When it first came into the spotlight I thought it would quickly disappear. But, it has proven to be a valuable election campaign tool, especially for McCain, with public emotions running high. Perhaps now that the oil price is coming down this issue will not have a strong appeal for much longer.

To get the oil price, please enable Javascript.

Of course allowing offshore drilling now will not do anything to reduce the price of gasoline in the US, not now and not in the future. Oil prices are driven globally, partly by supply and demand on the world market and partly by oil futures speculation. I do not like to guess what percentage of the current oil price is driven by speculation rather than actual market forces, but it is clear that part of the recent strong ups and downs in oil prices was driven by the latter. However, increasing demand on the world oil market is the prime driver. Countries such as China and India are increasing pressure on the market, and oil demand in other countries, including the USA, which consumes about 1/4 of the total yearly world production, has not abated as sharply as wished for.

The USA consumes on average around 7 billion barrels of oil per year, importing much over half of this volume. Compared to this, what expanded offshore drilling could give us, so many years from now when production would start, would only be a small percentage, but compared the world consumption of around 30 billion barrels it is certainly small fry. Not for the oil companies of course.
The question is therefore not whether offshore drilling could alleviate our pain at the pump, and whether it should even be considered as a plaster: this plaster won't stick.

However that oil reserves in easy to get to and cheap to produce places are not as plentiful as they once were. Hence the drive to hostile environments, such as offshore and in the Arctic, to satisfy current world oil hunger. This is happening not only in the USA but worldwide. The oil industry is also increasingly exploring and producing other nonconventional oil reserves including tar sands and shale oils. If I had to make a choice between either allowing offshore drilling or production of tar sands, I would probably choose offshore. In my mind, the increasing production of heavy oils, and in particular the tar sands, are the biggest environmental worry in the land of oil production.

As long as demand in the world oil market increases or stays level, there will be a movement towards exploring and producing new oil resources. The political answer is not to argue about offshore drilling, but to push for long lasting measures that reduce the need for nonconventional oil production.

If we want to alleviate pressure in the oil market, there is really only one answer: reduce demand. With the US consuming so much of the current available oil, we are a very good candidate for efficiency.

Let's fight about that, campaigners.

August 3, 2008: Ocean power

At the Orkney Islands, Scotland. Apart from their natural beauty, archaeological treasures, and, may I say, excellent Scapa and Highland Park whiskeys, the islands are also a world center for renewable energy of the wet kind. The European Marine Energy Center, with its headquarters in the attractive town of Stromness, provides two test sites for tidal current and wave energy devices. Amongst its users the developers of the Pelamis system and of openHydro, two of the most intriguing and potentially successful systems at this time.

Europe leads the way in ocean power, and Scotland in particular. It is perhaps not a surprise to see a strong push for marine energy development in Scotland. A proud country, which not that long ago created its own parliament independent of London, Scotland is keen to secure its energy future with decreasing production of its North Sea oil. Scotland is not very well suited for solar energy systems: the days I visit the sky showcases its typical greys and whites, but the winds are strong and so are the tidal currents and ocean waves around its islands. Coastal devices could potentially supply electricity to the islands, and also be transmitted South on an already existing power cable connecting to the main Scottish grid.

I am visiting to explore my own involvement in a large research project that aims to model tidal flow and ocean waves in the Pentland Firth in support of large scale tidal energy development in this fast flowing channel. Design of tidal energy systems is rather challenging. Imagine putting in 10-12 meter diameter turbines (akin to wind turbines) in strong flowing salt water in an area with frequent high winds and large ocean waves. Current designs are still in the survivability testing phase. Marine Current Turbines, the leader in the field, recently installed prototypes of their twin turbine SeaGen devices in Stangford Lough, Northern Ireland, to test under realistic conditions. Once designs such as SeaGen have been shown to be able to withstand the extreme environment they operate in, the next challenge is to make the technology more efficient. Current systems are heavily overengineered to improve strength and survivability in operating conditions, but economic survivability will require designs that can be produced more economically.

Wind turbine technology of course went through similar phases. Consider tidal turbine technology to be where wind was in the 70s. In the meantime, I'm very happy to see this push by Scotland, aided by European support, to develop marine energy. It will never be a widespread technology as the environmental conditions have to be right for the devices to work. But, where the conditions are right these energy devices are potentially very effective, especially for remote communities that now depend on diesel imports.

June 10, 2008

We have an incredible challenge at hand to secure energy for a growing world in a sustainable manner. We are not getting anywhere very fast because energy questions are heavily politicized and few people in power have the courage to think long term, to think globally and to act rather than talk.

So, what would I do if I were in charge? There is no doubt that first and foremost we most save. Efficiency is the now and near-term solution. You have probably heard many times already that we are wasteful in the USA, and yes, we are indeed. To make gains we need to act on the small scale, in our own lives, but first and foremost on the large scale. This means industry, this means building efficiency, this means better Cafe standards for cars, this means moving to a more sustainable mode of transport, amongst others.

If we desire to wean ourselves of fossil fuels, for environmental, economic or security reasons, we must find a replacement for coal in electricity generation, and a replacement for gasoline in transport. For me, the answer in both areas lies in renewables in the long term. With solar energy being the most abundant and plentiful resource, we need to push solar energy technologies forward fast. Solar is the silver bullet. Yes, it will take quite some years to get solar PV and solar thermal up to the level that we need. But that's why we have to start pushing as fast as we can. In the meantime we should keep encouraging wind energy generation too. I'm quite optimistic about wind. It's cost competitive in good sites and growing at a steady rate of 20% and higher. If we keep growing this fast, wind will very quickly be a substantial source. If we can manage to generate most of our electricity with renewables, and move towards electric transport in the meantime, we are really getting somewhere.

How about other renewables? Most will have a role to play, some larger than others. I am not a fan of large scale biomass energy crops. The energy density of such crops (how much energy it supplies per surface area) is much too low. It does not make any sense for that reason (it will always by orders of magnitude lower than solar energy) nor for other reasons, including water and food security and environmental impacts. Geothermal energy can be explored and will have a part to play. This is already very much the case in some countries (Iceland for example). Also, the technology is mostly there. Tidal and wave energy can be very useful in some areas. Commercial tidal and wave energy farms do not yet exist, but the first are being built. It will however be a long while before this technology is sufficiently developed to make any impact on a large scale.

I emphasize above that we need to think globally. Energy is no longer a local problem. Any decision we make in the US will impact the rest of the world. If we turn foodcrops into biomass crops for liquid fuel, we affect the world's food supply. If we start importing ethanol produced by Brazil or other countries, we choose to exploit the tropics for our own fuel addiction and will severely affect the environment in those areas, and therefore ultimately ours. If we keep using oil and support the production of non-conventional oils such as shale oils and tar sands, and/or if we keep consuming coal without capturing associated emissions, we impact the environment not only locally but globally.

For the same reason, we must lend our technical expertise to other countries that struggle on the road to first world status, in particular China and India. We cannot isolate them, condemn them for bad practices. Rather we should help them find solutions.

All easier said than done, I agree. But the first step is to recognize the scale of the problem, to think long term, to de-politicize energy issues, and to make some bold steps. A Marshall plan for energy. Who will step forward and suggest it?