My Working Model: Oil to Solar

It’s been a couple of years since I last watched Vinod Khosla talk about biofuels. During the second half of 2006 he cruised around the country giving a big pep talk on the promise of corn ethanol. This was during the news-cycle lead-up to President Bush’s early 2007 SOTUS, and the advent of US ethanol mandates. Also at that time we saw a big ethanol ipo wave, as most of the companies which are now bankrupt first came public.

amber-wavesEthanol was of course doomed to fail. There is simply not enough energy content in young organic material to provide the feedstock for a sustainable business model. Vinod Khosla was told at the time that he was wrong, and, that the majority of his unsupportable claims for ethanol were  incorrect. The birth-death cycle of corn ethanol now bears this out. Despite all the lovely ethanol company websites, the false Green claims and the amber waves of grain all golden in the sun, neither corn ethanol or other biofuels were able to compete against the true miracle liquid known as oil. It wasn’t because of marketing, subsidies, consumer preference, or cultural stupidity. The failure of biofuels is a direct result of a rather brutish fact: turning organic material into liquid fuel may be an achievement in alchemy, but it does not capture much energy.

Yesterday at this week’s Milken Conference, Vinod Khosla could be found discussing the same trajectory that he promoted several years ago, this time for cellulosic ethanol (H/T to Paul Kedrosky who sent me the clip overnight). And yes, Khosla is still framing the prospect of biofuels as a scalable, workable replacement for oil. Sigh.

After spending nearly ten years myself studying energy, coal, uranium, natural gas, solar, wind, government policy, and of course the master commodity, oil, I have pretty much come up with a working model for how I think the next decade or two will play out. As for biofuels, they will play no significant role in the world’s energy mix. And while all the other fossil fuels show some possibilities for enhanced use–and here I am thinking mainly of natural gas and coal–I remain committed to oil as the miracle, concentrated energy source that can be increasingly leveraged to build out a future energy architecture. That future energy architecture in my view will have at its core solar energy. Which is kind of a nice story, poetically speaking, because oil itself is ancient solar energy.

States, regions, and countries that either have the ability or are already monetizing their oil inheritance and using the nellis-afbproceeds to build large array solar should be watched. This is one of the reasons I remain quite interested in (currently “doomed”) California. Whether the Californians know it or like it, they will indeed someday and maybe soon be forced to monetize their offshore oil. This would neither be a tragedy for the environment, nor a strategic folly as long as every penny of the proceeds was used to build utility grade solar in the deserts, and electrified transport along the coast. That said, my point is broader than its implications for California.

In my Oil to Solar model, the world will increasingly migrate to more efficient use of Oil, thus distributing oil’s concentrated power more deeply into the world’s population of 6.7 billion people. This of course means each person in the Western OECD countries will use alot less oil–so that 25 people in the developing countries can use oil just a little bit more, or use oil for the very first time. The global solar buildout wave, while currently underway in both developed and developing countries will eventually accelerate in the developed world, where the legacy automobile grid is a disadvantage, but where the legacy electrical grid is big plus.

The Oil to Solar model will, in my opinion receive lots of marginal help from other fossil fuels and other alternative energy, such as Wind. In addition, it’s still not clear that an electrical grid can be anchored by Solar (although there is work being done in this area as well, relating to overnight storage). So it’s likely that Nuclear, Coal, and Natural Gas will continue to play a role, even long-term roles. But as a model for both investment, and policy, and as a way to avoid such dead-ends as biofuels, I think it will work as a guide for the next two decades.

-Gregor

Photos: Grains in the Dakotas, and, a Large PV Solar Array at Nellis AFB, Nevada.

Further Reading: Vinod Khosla Debunked, Robert Rapier, R-Squared Blog, 24 July 2006

Further Viewing: Vinod Khosla at Google, Think Outside the Barrel, 29 March 2006

  • Gregor Smith
    Hi, Gregor Smith from Oklahoma here. I just wanted to thank you for the good article and explain that California must consider seriously the grid ramifications of an extra heavy earthquake, expected in the next few years. By spending money on grid improvements further away from the coast, they can be prepared more readily to emergency situations that will necessitate the need for energy outside the coastal regions. I recommend that they concentrate on minigrid improvements, so that each component can stay up in case of catastrophic failures. If you'd like to talk, email at gregors@att.net a member of the Pickensplan.com group set.
  • gregor.us
    Thankyou for your keen observations. You are suggesting that California needs redundancy and a less tightly coupled grid system. As we have seen, many of the systems in the US have progressed in scale to the superjumbo level without much attention given to being robust.

    Cheers. Interesting name you got there. Never seen that before. .:-)

    G
  • Gregor, U know I love the Wind Option and with Charlie Munger talking WIND and SOLAR ((and of course I prefer the WIND side)), I think its '''game over'' to WIND Power.....check out VESTAS and APWR and lets chat, ZOLT and Hexcel interesting plays 4 Wind Power by the carbon fiber plays 4 wind blades
  • gregor.us
    I am neutral on Wind. I like Wind as a new source of PowerGen and am impressed with the EROEI of course. I also accept that it's easier for the financial community to see the Wind payback time than it is with Solar. They perceive more clarity on the investment return.

    What concerns me about Wind, and excites me about Solar, is the issue of moving parts--and--the fact that you really can site-place Solar in geographical spots where the energy flow is likely to be steadier than in even the best Wind spots.

    That said, where the huge failure (and thus opportunity) probably lies in Wind and Solar is that the financing community does not accept that PowerGen Kw from current sources (Nuke, NG, Coal) will be much more expensive 10 years from now. As long as one trods along believing that current costs don't move much, then why be interested in Wind and Solar.

    Of course I take a different view. I see the Kwh as potentially 3-5 times more expensive in 10 years, principally because so much of the world will be getting onto a Grid and off of liquid fuels.

    G
  • Oil is a great energy dense storage mechanism. ultra-capicitors could be an interesting piece of the puzzle mitigating the transmission and consumption issues associated with off-grid energy and transport uses.
  • gregor.us
    Storage is a fascinating area. There will be lots of money made by innovators who can both juice throughputs and stem losses from classic heat/energy exchange processes.

    G
  • Harshal Patel
    Electric DriveTrains makes sense for passenger cars and light duty trucks. But what about large transport like semi's? Aren't biofuels (biodiesel in my opinion) the best option available?
  • gregor.us
    While I see no broad role for biofuels, I do think they can be used best in the locales where they are produced. Sending biofuels by pipeline takes a marginally uneconomic product and makes matters worse. However, as we have built plants across the upper Midwest and the Plains, my suggestion would--yes--use those to fuel trucks and farm equipment locally. There is indeed a small net energy pick-up from biofuel production. But, it simply doesn't scale out on a national configuration once you get into pipelines, etc.

    G
  • Biofuels have been so attractive because their mirage allows OECD countries to pretend, if only for a moment, that we don't have to stop living the oil-powered fantasy of the last fifty years. It's been pretty great - we drain a much higher per-capita amount of oil from the world, benefit from the industrial productivity that comes with it, build great suburbs, buy SUVs, and generally have an awesome time. Why would you want to entertain such scenarios as $15/gallon gas?

    But alas, the structural reality of dwindling cheap, easy oil, plus the swelling ranks of Indians and Chinese and Indonesians and Nigerians who want travel, hot showers, health care and good jobs...it just doesn't make the cheap oil advantage of the last half-century very likely in the NEXT half-century. The idea of powering everything with celery stalks instead of millions of years worth of compressed solar energy just sounded so darn nice, who wouldn't want to believe it?

    Drat, the soul of the analyst comes through, and the hard slap of reality upside the head says that we'll be using coal, natural gas, and oil until we find a way to drastically reduce demand and improve technology. No celery stalks will be invited to the party, I fear.
  • gregor.us
    One of your strengths as a writer is that you are quite successfully able to capture speech rhythms in your prose. Thus, disarming the reader pretty effectively and then of course you are funny, so the laughs are genuine. Just remember to not truncate what you have to say and let the prose feed out at good length, like a series of long fishing lines.

    Anyway, I'll assume you've discovered that you are pretty good at persuasion. Which you'll need to more of , I gather, from your hilarious stories in trying to get people to pay attention to the future.

    Oh, woops, this was supposed to be about biofuels, oil, and solar.

    But it is. Because I can assure you that while energy realities are determinative in the long-run, in the near-run the game is almost entirely about persuasion and who gets what platform, from which to speak.

    This is intellectual war. Let there be no doubt about it.

    G
  • So should we step up the heavy artillery? Because I feel like we are caught between myopic defenders of the profitable status quo and bleary-eyed dreamers who think that we're going to power 12 trillion dollar economies on arugula stalks and fairy farts.

    So let's get writing, I guess. C'est la guerre!
  • I wish I could see your vision of the future coming true, but I don't.

    I believe we have entered the period of receding horizons, the point at which getting off oil gets further away from us rather than closer because the ability of the economy to kick its addiction to oil diminishes every day.

    A full exposition of my thesis is here, where you can read (or participate in) a conversation I'm having with Christopher Mims:
    You've Bought Your Last Car
    http://tr.im/jKvr
  • gregor.us

    That was a good post, and I've been watching for Peak Autos for a couple of years now.


    Your overall view, if I do understand your core position, is that we are now confined to a depletion paradigm where everytime the economy tries to get off the floor, it will get knocked back down again pretty quickly. I am sympathetic to that view. I am also quite sympathetic to the view that policy errors can and will--potentially--exacerbate the situation.


    It's likely that I am not quite as deterministic now, as I may have been in the past. In truth I see a very good chance for a final Oil Age Hurrah. Enough so that I would be unwilling to bet just yet on petro-collapse.


    Anyway, as now doubt you appreciate, these are subjects which deserve days of discussion, not just 10 sentences in order to see how a person sees the issues in all their compexity.


    Nice looking blog you have, btw. Love that mountain train.


     


    G

  • Thanks for the compliment. :-)

    Yes, you understand my point exactly. I think we're following the Economic Staircase Model down now. We've just gone down one stair step and we're likely to hold for a bit until oil goes back up in price. Then we descend another stair. However, a complex-adaptive system like our economy is unlikely to tolerate too many steps down before it implodes. At that point it will be much like one of the Twin Towers falling -- unstoppable.

    Here is the Economic Staircase Model:
    http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn29/aangeli...

    As I said, we don't get too many steps, though, because, try as I might, I can't find a flaw in Colin Campbell's description of petrocollapse here:
    http://tr.im/jWXt

    Without energy to pay back the debt on the books, our economic system is doomed. We haven't even begun to see the bankruptcies and debt defaults facing us once we hit really expensive oil.

    Have you seen my video "Preparing for a Post Peak Life?"
    www.postpeakliving.com/preparing-post-peak-life

    It's getting rather good traffic and it has a pretty animation of the Staircase Model, too :-)
  • tessant
    ok, set up...here are the links...let me know if this looks good to you:

    article link:
    http://www.solarfeeds.com/gregorus/6941-my-work...

    your bio page:
    http://www.solarfeeds.com/gregorus
  • gregor.us
    Thanks so much. Looks great.

    Best,

    G
  • tessant
    thanks...will post link after i am done setting up your link, etc...
  • Poetic and convincing, as usual. If I want to be scared, I read ClimateProgress; if I want to hear about how market forces could help us get off at least one of the fossil fuel teats, I come here.
  • gregor.us
    One reality we have to face up to is that there are no solutions that really scale-up to help America's fleet of 300m vehicles transition significantly, and I mean significantly, away from oil.

    The analysis gets alot easier once one agrees with that premise. Hence, the US has to kill a ton of automobile use through electrified public transport, then kill some more through urban electric vehicles, and then grant that alot of driving in trucking and farming in the nation's long-distance interiors will still have to run on liquid fuel.

    Much of the country had light rail at the turn of the last century. We just need to go into 5-10 selected cities in the US with rich, dense, automobile use and attack them with commuter rail and light rail.

    Placing climate change before actually getting cars off the road (dealing with the oil problem) is not going to work.

    Finally, no plan can work unless everyone sacrifices some of their core beliefs. Everyone has to experience some discomfort, on all sides of the political spectrum.

    G
  • brasil61
    Hi G ..nice ..what's your take on electric ..or natgas taking out a large percentage of oil as the main leg of transportation fuel ..10 years 20 before its truly adopted here?..never?..lol ..anyway nice piece..
  • gregor.us
    I'm positive on EVs making good penetration in North American cities. It also seems clear that NG will be used as CNG, especially in corporate fleets. Adoption however is never as fast as anticipated in transport however.

    G
  • tessant
    i would love to feature this article on my site, solarfeeds.com
    please email me to discuss...great stuff here.

    scott
    sweitman at gmail
  • gregor.us
    Hi Scott,

    You are more than welcome to throw the article up on your site in part, or
    in its entirety. With a link back to me.

    Very glad you likes the piece, and I think by using it there is benefit to
    both of us.

    Post and Link away!

    G
  • zebra
    Latest Hugh Hendry interview. Guy is very entertaining.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/30447441

    via TheDocument

    http://www.thedocument.com/stock_market_blog/20...
  • gregor.us

    In a recent interview, Hugh seemed to allow that he had tempted the trading Gods with some recent hubris. That said he does seem to have become unhappy in the last 6 weeks, as the market has regrouped and bought risk.


    I've had a good exhange with Hugh's office this year. He read my January newsletter, and responded in part in his own newsletter. He's been kind enough to include me in his client mailings, so I've had a chance to hear about his portfolio.


    I wish Hugh well, but I disagree with his outlook.


     


    G

blog comments powered by Disqus