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

  • http://www.PostPeakLiving.com aangel

    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?”
    http://www.postpeakliving.com/preparing-post-peak-life

    It's getting rather good traffic and it has a pretty animation of the Staircase Model, too :-)

  • http://www.Wind4me.com Wind4me

    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

  • http://www.Wind4me.com Wind4me

    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

  • http://www.Wind4me.com Wind4me

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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.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.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