Our First Peak Oil Recession

Our First Peak Oil Recession

Why Oil Prices May Never Rise Above $150
One of the most bedeviling problems for oil producers (and oil investors) is knowing when it's too cheap to keep producing, and when it's too expensive to sell.
Last year gave us new boundaries: $147 a barrel was too expensive, and $33 was too cheap. But those aren't terribly useful numbers in the real world.

We now know that $147 was extra-inflated by too much money sloshing into the sector, and $33 was extra-deflated by the fear and confusion that dominated all markets in December of last year. It's likely that tighter regulation of the oil futures market will tamp down the former, and the latter will not be seen again. . . so long as the world banking system continues to beg, borrow, and steal its way to stability and "full faith and credit."

If you're a Chevron trying to decide if you should plunk down another $5 billion for a big new deepwater platform, or a marginal producer of oil from unconventional sources where the production cost is high, you'll find it hard to commit to new projects with price volatility like that.
One way to get a handle on the question is to look at the supply side costs. As I wrote in March, the current cost of new production in the few places in the world where oil production can still be increased ranges from $60-$75 a barrel, and the average minimum is around $65. The more extreme and marginal projects we'll be eyeing in ten years' time will need closer to $100 a barrel to pay off.

But prices on the demand side of the equation are harder to gauge. Our First Peak Oil Recession
Several presenters at the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO) conference two weeks ago used measures of GDP to express the economy's tolerance limit for high oil prices.
Murphy changed the time scale from years to months at the end of the chart to demonstrate how the portion of GDP paying for oil last year spiked and crashed as much in 12 months as it did in 4-5 years during the most recent recessions.

Steven Kopits, Managing Director of Douglas-Westwood LLC, came to similar conclusions in his presentation. He noted how oil stopped responding to price signals in 2004, with production remaining basically flat even as prices tripled. The global oil supply only expanded by 2% while global GDP grew 17%, causing prices to increase by about 25% per year from 2003 on.
By 2008, when crude expenditures reached 4% of GDP, the U.S. fell into recession. In fact, said Kopits, oil over $80 would have been enough on its own to cause what he called "our first peak oil recession."

Former head of exploration and production for Saudi Aramco Sadad al-Husseini opined similarly in his interview with ASPO, saying that the spending ceiling is between 5% and 6% of global GPD. Accordingly, he thinks alternatives to petroleum like Arctic oil, coal- and gas-to-liquids, and so on may not be economical to develop because their costs are too high.

In essence, OECD countries are simply getting squeezed out of the market as the global drivers of demand shift to the developing world. When the cost of filling the tank on an SUV goes from $60 to $100, it really takes a bite out of consumption in America. But your average resident of, say, India or the Philippines can shrug off a 50-cent increase in the cost of filling the tank on his scooter, because he gets so much more economic value from the transportation.

Kopits believes that $70 oil is enough to effectively lock out the EU from the oil market, and $75 locks out the U.S. This begins to explain how, as independent oil producer Jeffrey Brown observed in his presentation, the U.S. was outbid by Kenya for oil last year.
On a related note, ASPO analyst Dave Cohen made a convincing argument that economic fundamentals will not support increased oil demand - even from China - for years to come, ensuring that global GDP growth remains weak.

In counterpoint, Matthew Simmons asserted that we don't yet know the economy's tolerance point, and thought it could be as high as $500-$700 a barrel.

This is where I must make my departure from Simmons' camp. The data presented on GDP and price at the conference have forced me to reconsider my longstanding belief that peak oil will bring much higher prices. Although prices 5 to 10 years from now, when we're well past the peak and into decline, remain an open question. . . I now doubt that we'll see oil over $150 anytime soon.

A Narrow Ledge
If these analyses are correct, then we are on what Kopits called "a narrow ledge": Houston needs $75 oil to keep drilling, but the economy goes into recession with oil at $80.
Two editors of "The Oil Drum" generally concurred. Nate Hagens put the boundaries a bit wider at $60 to keep drilling and $80-$100 as the economic pain tolerance point, and Gail Tverberg observed that oil at $75-$80 seems to kick off a recession.
If the stability of oil production relies on oil spending staying within roughly 4% and 5% of GDP, it's going to be dicey. But if the oil price ledge is only $5 wide, then it's not clear to me whether the global GDP can manage to stay on it.

In short, the world may not be able to continue executing the expensive oil projects of the future at all. The tension between the price of new production and the pain tolerance of the global economy may be resolved not by stable prices, but by a failure to bring new supply online.
This is indeed a crisis - but it's also a hint that it's time to focus on how we're going to replace oil.
Take it from Sadad al-Husseini: "The hidden opportunity may be efficiency and conservation."
The investment community has already heard that message. At the ASPO conference this year, I estimate that not one of the roughly 400 attendees represented development capital, while at a typical Cleantech Forum in San Francisco, at least half of the 1,500 or so attendees are with banks, VCs, and big hedge funds. Granted, the ASPO conferences are about information, not deal-making. . . Still, investors seem to prefer theses based on abundance to those based on scarcity.

It only makes sense. If you had a large chunk of capital to deploy in the energy space, would you rather try to balance on a narrow ledge, or jump into a sector that's growing at 30% per year - with no ceiling in sight - and the wind of oil depletion at its back?

Efficiency and conservation may not be as sexy as solar and wind, but for the next several decades they will be the only real way to survive a future of volatile oil and gas prices and declining supply. It takes a long time to rebuild an infrastructure. . . and in the meantime, we're going to have to make do with what we've got.

In the pursuit of investment capital, cleantech clearly has the edge over oil now.
Until next time,
Chris

Energy sector outlook Part 2 (2)

Renewable energy is still at the beginning of at least a 30-year secular bull market, and the decline of fossil fuels means the sky's the limit for its growth outlook. I doubt that we'll see again in our lifetimes the kind of growth that will happen in this next decade. I'm talking a once-in-a-century bull market here.

Solar and wind will continue to be the dominant technologies and receive strong investment, led by China and a few other projects like Masdar City and then moving into widespread adoption in the U.S. and the unsolarized parts of Europe (France, I'm looking at you!) by the end of the decade. The intermittency problem of wind and solar will be largely solved this decade, as new storage solutions come to market. Hundreds (perhaps thousands) of companies, small and large, have been working on a whole array of approaches to the problem, and I expect a few winners to emerge this decade. My bet that that a combination of vehicle-to-grid technology, flywheel storage, and large battery arrays or ultra capacitors will be the early winners. But there are many others, including stationary micro- or nano-scale hydrogen storage (but not hydrogen vehicles), pumped water, and compressed air. If regulatory and financing hurdles can be overcome - and I think they can in the next ten years - concentrating solar power (CSP) also holds enormous potential for cracking the storage problem at grid scale in solar-rich regions. As high as my long-term hopes for it have been, I reluctantly conclude that the geothermal sector will continue to see sluggish growth for at least the first half of the decade, due the difficulty of raising financing, regulatory, and underwriting hurdles and technical issues. Uncertainty over whether "enhanced geothermal" (deep, hot rock) projects cause earthquakes has shut down two major projects this month. The AltaRock Energy project north of the Geysers in California - the first major test of enhanced geothermal in the U.S. - was terminated immediately after another major project in Basel, Switzerland, was permanently shut down in response to a government study showing it was responsible for damaging earthquakes in 2006 and 2007. Likewise, it appears marine energy technologies are still lacking the research and development support they need to reach commercial viability. I do expect at least one or two of them to get there by the end of the decade, but I don't see them taking much market share. Final Thoughts The list of x-factors that could utterly change the outline I've offered here is so long that it questions the wisdom of even trying to attempt a decade-long outlook. Disease, war, natural disasters, monetary policy, drought and climate change, geopolitics, sovereign default, energy failures... you name it, it's in the mix. The one constant we can be sure of is human nature. I'm digging into some ancient history in search of clues to the future, and I suggest that you do, too. As we teeter on the peak of the biggest wealth bubble in human history and stare into the abyss, we would do well to learn the lessons of the past. Ours will not be the first empire to crumble, and there is nothing new about how or why it will happen. The only difference is the distance we have to fall. It's been a tough year and a wild decade, and I'm sure most of you will be happy to put it behind us. The next decade will be considerably harder, but it will force us to rethink our values and chart a more sustainable course into the future, as well as present some of the greatest wealth-making opportunities of all time.

For example, my colleagues Sam Hopkins and Nick Hodge are venturing out into emerging markets like Peru, China, and Morocco to find clean energy investments that will allow developing countries to leapfrog carbon-intense, rich-world energy habits. And as they report from the field, subscribers to their Green Chip International stock recommendation service will benefit. Again, my mind is drawn back to Dickens' critique of the British aristocracy in light of the French Revolution. The coming decade, as then, could be the best of times, it could be the worst of times. One thing is guaranteed: It will not lack for excitement.

Article by Chris -

Energy Outlook for the Next Decade: Part 2

Oil, Gas, Coal, Uranium, Renewables, Efficiency, Water, and Agriculture

Last week, I explored some of the big themes for the coming decade. For my final column of the year, I offer my specific outlooks for oil, natural gas, coal, renewables, uranium, efficiency, water, and agriculture. Oil

Oil will probably spend 2010 rangebound between $60 and $75, but could fall lower if the deflationary recession persists.

As I discussed in Part 1, it will probably take until 2012-2013 for demand growth to push the current 4-5 mbpd of spare capacity back down to the 1% breaking point, but then we should see another price spike.

For reasons I have discussed previously, I'm no longer convinced that the next few cycles of oil prices will breach the $147 peak or the $33 low set in 2008. But if Cohen's diagram (see Part 1) is correct, then we should continue to expect higher highs and higher lows, with oil peaking somewhere around $160s and bottoming around the $50s in the next cycle (with an error bar of perhaps $20!).

The best way to play it will be to scale in on the descent and scale out on the ascent, rather than trying to time the tops and bottoms.
By mid-decade, I think the world will be convinced that the peak of oil is in the past, putting an end to that debate. The realization should kick off an intense round of competition to secure the remaining resources, drawing more Chinese money to Canada, Brazil, and Africa, and committing the U.S. to retaining its military foothold in the Middle East.
Coal
As much as I hate to say it, coal is poised for a long-term bull market. As oil, and then natural gas decline, the world will fall back on it as the cheapest hydrocarbon of last resort in the next decade. It will be the fallback feedstock for liquid fuels for cars, trucks, and airplanes, plastics, and industrial chemicals.

The world will groan under the CO2 output of the devil we don't know, but will choose it over the devil we do know: economic decline. Therefore I expect the better part of the coal boom to fall in the latter half of the decade, as emissions concerns are overridden by economic pressure. Coal-to-liquids, in particular, will be the recipient of heavy sponsorship from the military and aviation sectors.

Natural Gas
The next decade outlook for natural gas is the most uncertain of all. The current glut in North America owing to the shale gas boom could be resolved in one of two ways: It will either continue through the decade, if long-term production rates are sustained at high levels, or it will crash around 2013-2014 if production falls rapidly after the initial burst of output, as some analysts believe.

There simply isn't enough data to make that call at this point, but my gut feeling is that there will be a short-term boom for the next few years, and a significant load will be shifted from diesel to CNG for transport trucks. Then supply will peter out before the end of the decade, with some ensuing panic.

Boom-and-bust cycles will characterize the North American gas market until prices stabilize above $7 per thousand cubic feet. LNG export capacity will continue to grow in the Middle East and Russia, but most of it will go to non-U.S. customers, and the North American market will remain largely domestic.
Uranium

As a spate of recent news reports have recognized, the global uranium supply is running low. We've nearly worked through the stockpile of uranium from retired nuclear weapons, and the quality and availability of fresh ores to mine is falling. As I do not see any significant momentum toward next generation reactor designs, I believe light water reactors will continue to dominate the nuclear sector, which means another decade of high demand for uranium.

While uranium supply peaks or declines, demand will continue to increase as new reactors are built, particularly in China and India. Nuclear power will not add a significant amount of primary energy to the global mix, but uranium will be a hot commodity. It will see at least one, and maybe two boom-and-bust cycles in the next decade.

One no-brainer investment in this sector would be Cameco Corporation (NYSE: CCJ). They've been making good progress lately and I think they will succeed in pumping the water out of their Cigar Lake mine and putting it back into action.
The whole uranium producer group should be a long-term hold for the decade.

Agriculture
At this point, I can't really think of any reason to be bearish about agriculture. Fertilizer and grains will be hot throughout the decade as we try to feed the world's growing population and combat the decline of oil with biofuels.

The added pressure will only exacerbate the problems inherent in commercial agriculture, accelerating the boom in organic and local food production.
The encroaching desertification of California - along with price spikes in oil - will make it increasingly difficult to export its produce to the Midwest and East Coast (unless by some miracle we get very serious, very quickly about rail in this country). This will have wide-ranging and very long-term implications for U.S. food supply.

GMOs designed for drought tolerance and water efficiency plays in the ag sector will figure prominently. Both technologies will probably see a frantic investment bubble this decade. How long they can hold back the tide of climate change and desertification will remain an open question in the '10s.

The long-term trend for agriculture is much easier to identify. By the end of the century, nearly all of our food supply will have to be relocalized. Those who are paying attention, however, will realize it by the end of this decade.
Accordingly, farmland will continue to be a hot market throughout the decade, particularly in Africa, Asia, Central and South America, and possibly Canada.

Water
Water will be one of the biggest investment areas - and socially speaking, one of the biggest pressure points - of the next decade, due to climate change and simple population overshoot.
This month brought three fresh examples of the issues we're facing:
* In a classic case of the energy-water nexus, the long-running drought in South America has reduced Venezuela's hydropower supply enough to force them to cut back on oil refining activity, with the end result that they'll have less heating oil to send to places like China this winter. China will make up the loss by burning more coal. * Much of East Africa received only 5% of its normal rainfall in November, putting millions of people at risk of starvation. * A new report found that the aquifers supporting the Central Valley of California, a region that produces 8% of the U.S. food supply, have lost more than 30 cubic kilometers of water (about 8 trillion gallons) since 2003 due to drought, reduced water exports from the Sacramento Delta, and too much groundwater pumping.
Water desalination and purification have long been a major investment focus in the Middle East, but the American Southwest, Australia, Africa, and South America will join them this decade as new markets in desperate need of solutions. Technologies running the gamut from personal water treatment to city-scale water desalination will benefit from this potentially enormous market.

Efficiency
Efficiency is by far the low-hanging fruit in our declining energy future, and this will be the Decade of Efficiency. Consider this simple metric: It takes $4-$5 in solar PV to generate the same amount of energy that $1 in insulation measures will save.
Cash for Clunkers and Cash for Caulkers were only the beginning of a long decade of incentives for higher efficiency. Not just cars and buildings... but appliances, combined heat and power applications, district heating from co-located waste heat generators, and dozens of other approaches will be vigorously pursued. By the end of the decade, I expect the efficiency of U.S. appliances and vehicles to approach what Europe enjoys today.
The largest niche in efficiency will be retrofitting homes with insulation, caulking, windows, and solar generation. Small businesses doing energy auditing and building efficiency upgrades - like San Francisco's Recurve, who have figured out how to scale their businesses - will be home runs. By the end of the decade, I also expect building efficiency, good passive solar design, and low water use to be mandatory elements of architectural college curricula.
Building the smart grid will be a top priority for this decade, along with at least the first part of a long-distance national HVDC grid. Not only will it enable the growth of renewable power, but it will be a saving grace in helping us cut the waste and make the most of our existing grid power supply.

Article by Chris -

Energy sector outlook (2)

Another driver of the down escalator is that the net energy (EROI, or energy returned on energy invested), of nearly all fossil fuel production is falling. Dr. Cutler Cleveland at Boston University has observed that the net energy of oil and gas extraction in the U.S. has decreased from 100:1 in the 1930s; to 30:1 in the 1970s; to roughly 11:1 as of 2000.Simply put: As the quality of the remaining fossil fuels declines, and they become more difficult to extract, it takes more energy to continue producing energy. This begs the question: What EROI must the replacements have to compensate for oil depletion? Vail presented several models attempting to answer it.

In his optimistic scenario, assuming a 5% rate of net energy decline and an EROI of 20 for the renewables, the "renewables gap" was filled in year 3.
In his pessimistic scenario, assuming a 10% rate of net energy decline and an EROI of 4 for the renewables, the gap wasn't filled until year 7.

For a sense of how reasonable those assumptions are, we must turn to the academic literature - since no business or government agency has yet shown any particular interest in EROI studies (much to my dismay). Studies assembled by David Murphy put the average EROI of wind at 18 (Kubiszewski, Cleveland, and Endres, 2009); solar at 6.8 (Battisti and Corrado, 2005), and nuclear at 5 to 15 (Lenzen, 2008; Hall, 2008). No data is available for geothermal or marine energy. All the biofuels are under 2, making them non-solutions if the minimum EROI for a society is indeed 3 (Hall, Balogh and Murphy, 2009).

[A quick aside: The huge range of the nuclear estimate is one indication of how difficult it is to accurately assess the costs of nuclear, which is part of the reason I still haven't written the article I know many of you are hoping to see some day. I'm working on it, and still looking for current research with appropriately inclusive boundaries and updated numbers. Nearly everyone is still using cost estimates that predate the commodities bull run, not even realizing how it distorts their analysis. So far, I have found nothing to change my outlook that the nuclear share of global supply will stay roughly the same for several decades.]I am not aware of any studies on the EROI of biomass not made into liquid fuels.
For example, methane digesters using waste, landfill gas, and so on. . . but its sources and uses are so varied that if the numbers were available, they probably wouldn't be very useful. While such applications are generally good, they're not very scalable: They work where they work, and don't where they don't. Theorem of Renewables SubstitutionWhere EROI analysis leaves us is unclear; it needs more research and a great deal more data.
There are some useful clues in it, though.

First, we know that biofuels - at least the ones we have today - won't help much, other than providing an alternate source of liquid fuels while we're making the transition to electric.

Second, we know that solar tends toward Vail's pessimistic scenario, and wind fits the bill for his optimistic scenario.But here's the rub: The lowest EROI source, biofuels, is the easiest to do, with the vigorous support of a huge lobby and Energy Secretary Chu himself. Rooftop solar is the next-easiest to do. . . but making up the lost BTUs takes longer, due to its moderate EROI. And the source with the highest EROI, wind, is the hardest. (I explained why solar is easier here.)

Therefore I propose the following, slightly snarky Theorem of Renewables Substitution: The easier it is to produce a source of renewable energy, the less it helps. The Winner: EfficiencyAll of these factors - the declining supply, the pressures of the developing world on demand, the renewables gap, and the theorem of renewables substitution - underscore how crucial efficiency is to addressing the energy crisis.They also underscore how profitable the entire energy sector will be for many years to come.With supply maxed out, and demand at the mercy of a developing world, the name of the game now is doing more with less. More efficient vehicles and appliances, building insulation, co-generation. . . and all the other ways to eliminate waste.I know it doesn't have the sex appeal of oh, say, space based solar power. . . but it's where the real gains will be made.
Until next time,ChrisChris Nelder is a self-taught energy expert who has intensively studied peak oil for five years, and written hundreds of articles on politics, peak oil and energy in general.

Energy Sector Outlook

Efficiency: The Way to Close the Renewables Gap

With peak oil already upon us, sustaining oil supply is akin to running up the down escalator.
Or, as Nate Hagens put it at the ASPO peak oil conference earlier this month, "Technology is in a race with depletion and is losing (so far)."

The urgent question then is: Can renewables fill the gap of oil depletion? Mind the Gap
The most recent global data summarized by fuel available from the EIA is, unfortunately, for 2006 and only preliminary (I know they're trying to improve their reporting, but seriously - they need to do better than that). But we'll use what we've got. . .

In 2006, the total amount of energy the world consumed was 469 quadrillion BTUs, or quads.*
If the latest information I gathered at the ASPO peak oil conference is correct (and I think it is, or at least as close to, correct as anybody is going to come at this point), then we should expect oil to begin declining at about 5% per year, starting around 2012-2014.

Of the 157 quads provided by oil, a 5% decline rate will give way to 7.85 quads lost per year, or 1.7% of the world's primary energy supply.
The "Geothermal and Other" category - supplying 1.6% of the world's primary energy - represents all the renewable sources combined: geothermal, solar, wind, biomass, and so on.
Since 1.7% is very close to 1.6%, we can put the challenge of substituting renewables for oil this way: Starting around 2012-2014, we will need to build the equivalent of the entire world's existing renewable energy capacity every year just to replace the lost BTUs from oil.

Fortunately, renewable energy of all kinds is enjoying a massive growth spurt, attracting trillions of dollars in investment capital. On average, the sector seems to be growing at about 30% per year, which is phenomenal. . . but it's not 100%.

In terms of BTU substitution, then, it seems unlikely that renewables can grow at the necessary rate.
Not Just BTUs
However, the challenge is more complex than mere BTU substitution.
Replacing the infrastructure, particularly transportation, that's based on oil with one based on renewably generated electricity will in itself require energy - and lots of it. As Vail pointed out, between 80% and 90% of the energy inputs for renewables must be made up front, before they start to pay any energy out.

Even if renewables were able to make up all of the lost energy from oil, still more would be needed to afford any economic growth.

In all, it seems a fair bet that it will take at least a decade for renewables to merely catch up with the annual toll of oil depletion. The gap will likely manifest as fuel shortages in the OECD, when the developing world outbids it for oil, and a long economic recession or depression. . . unless efficiency comes to the rescue.

To that point, Jeff Vail, an associate with Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP, said at the conference that population increase alone could offset as much as 30% of the improvement in conservation and efficiency. He noted that despite the recession, car sales are up 29% in India as people buy their very first cars.
Falling Net Energy

Until next time,
Chris
Chris Nelder is a self-taught energy expert who has intensively studied peak oil for five years, and written hundreds of articles on politics, peak oil and energy in general.

Alternative energy development

Alternative energy development

Japan is a densely populated country, and that makes the Japanese market more difficult compared with other markets. If we utilize the possibilities of near-shore installations or even offshore installations in the future, that will give us the possibility of continued use of wind energy. If we go offshore, it's more expensive because the construction of foundations is expensive. But often the wind is stronger offshore, and that can offset the higher costs. We're getting more and more competitive with our equipment. The price-if you measure it per kilowatt-hour produced-is going lower, due to the fact that turbines are getting more efficient. So we're creating increased interest in wind energy. If you compare it to other renewable energy sources, wind is by far the most competitive today. If we're able to utilize sites close to the sea or at sea with good wind machines, then the price per kilowatt-hour is competitive against other sources of energy, go the words of Svend Sigaard, who happens to be president and CEO of the world's largest wind turbine maker, Vestas wind systems out of Denmark. Vestas is heavily involved in investments of capital into helping Japan expand its wind turbine power generating capacity. It is seeking to get offshore installations put into place in a nation that it says is ready for the fruits of investment into alternative energy research and development.
The Japanese know that they cannot become subservient to the energy supply dictates of foreign nations-World War II taught them that, as the US decimated their oil supply lines and crippled their military machine. They need to produce energy of their own, and they being an isolated island nation with few natural resources that are conducive to energy production as it is defined now are very open to foreign investment and foreign development as well as the prospect of technological innovation that can make them independent. Allowing corporations such as Vestas to get the nation running on more wind-produced energy is a step in the right direction for the Japanese people.

The production of energy through what is known as microhydoelectric power plants has also been catching on in Japan. Japan has a myriad rivers and mountain streams, and these are ideally suited places for the putting up of microhydroelectric power plants, which are defined by the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization as power plants run by water which have a maximum output of 100 kilowatts or less. By comparison, "minihydroelectric" power plants can put out up to 1000 kilowatts of electrical energy.
In Japan, the small-scaled mini- and micro-hydroelectric power plants have been regarded for a considerable time as being suitable for creating electricity in mountainous regions, but they have through refinement come to be regarded as excellent for Japanese cities as well. Kawasaki City Waterworks, Japan Natural Energy Company, and Tokyo Electric Power Company have all been involved in the development of small-scale hydroelectric power plants within Japanese cities.
http://www.globalwarming-prevention.com/Alternative energy development

Alternative Energy article by Parry P

New Discoveries in Solar Energy

New Discoveries in Solar Energy

The time might not be far off when the use of solar energy becomes a norm. There is currently a deep conviction amongst experts that given a few years stretch, solar power preference be in excessive demand that the cost will go down, inexpensive enough to undercut the prices of oil-generated electricity.

Prior predictions that it will still take place in a decade may possibly no longer be true. The anger generated by the current prices in oil and its vulnerability to promote forces and other actions may have already been sufficient to polarized folks, governments and controlled communities into seriously making an allowance for a reliable alternative energy source.

You can not get a source more dependable than the sun. Even these days homes that uses its power does not merely benefit from the silent, energy generating, boundless power of the sun, it additionally spikes up the prices of their homes. Those that maintain solar powered homes are even reimbursed for the surplus power that they supply to the power grid.

Presently, heliostats, photovoltaic cells and plate collectors are being used to collect the energy by focusing these panels towards the sun or constructing and installing the panel's on spots where the sun shines most. Development in technology as we all know often has a snowball effect. It never stops rediscovering and reinventing that the speed of development could often be surprisingly fast.

Today, a polymer foil, thin as a sheet of paper and lighter by 200 times when compared to the regular glass collecting plates, are being developed. Chances are, these new inventions and discoveries could very well have a great potential for mass production. Previously, the glass-based materials used for heat collection need expensive substrates and require additional support for mounting due to its weight. The polymer foil, being very light could now be attached even to the walls of a structure.

So confident are scientists in the development of this technology that while the polymer foil is being developed, a plastic solar cell, based on nano technology is gaining breakthroughs. This plastic material can collect the power of the sun even on a cloudy day through harnessing the infrared rays is believed to be five times more efficient than the current technology.
While plastic materials for harnessing the power of the sun are not new, it is only recently that this plastic composite could harvest the infrared portion. Previously, only the visible rays are generated, the infrared part, which is half of the power of the sun, is invisible.

Currently, the best plastic solar cells could only harness 6% of the suns energy, with further study and development, this new plastic solar cells are expected to harness 30% of the suns solar power.

Scientists and researchers alike agree that ultimately, solar farms will be harnessing all our energy requirements and costs of power will drop. Today the price of solar powered energy is about 3 to 4 times per kilowatt hour compared with conventional electricity. That could change dramatically though the development of the existing technology and recent discoveries.

The roller pressed flexible plastic materials and the polymer foil are only two of the best hopes in arriving at a cleaner, greener and safer environment that could ultimately free the planet from its dependency on the depleting supply of oil.

Alternative energy article by Ben Forbes

Advantages of Biomass As a Source of Energy

As the future and impact of traditional fuels like petroleum and coal come into question biomass is getting more attention as an alternative source of energy.
Biomass is simply any material that is formed by living things. Plants, animals, fungus, micro organisms and even you are biomass. When people talk about biomass they are usually talking about biomass that can be used as a source of energy which is called biofuel.
Fossil fuels like coal and petroleum are believed to be the remains of ancient plants and animals so they are biomass too but when people talk about biomass they are usually referring to material that comes from living things today.
The major advantage of biomass is that it is renewable and considered carbon neural. Unlike fossil fuels biomass is part of the current natural carbon cycle so there is no long term net increase in carbon in the atmosphere when biofuels are burned.
Many biofuels can be produced from waste materials that come from producing other agricultural and forest products. In this case energy is being utilized that would otherwise have gone to waste.
It's a domestic source of energy that is less influenced by political instability and world events. Using biofuel supports local economies.
Unfortunately biofuels haven't been cost competitive with most other sources of energy. So far as a fuel for cars or for generating electricity the cost and energy loss from converting biomass into other forms of fuel and energy are too great. Advances in technology could make it more practical in the future but so far we aren't there yet.
There is an exception to this and that is using biomass for direct heating. People have been heating by burning biomass like wood for thousands of years. This old technology may still be proving to be the most efficient way to utilize biomass energy.
Traditional wood heat may not be practical for most people but wood and other biomass pellets are a practical alternative. Pellet stoves are becoming more popular and are almost as convenient and clean burning as traditional heating systems.
For people who want to use biomass for energy they can do so today by switching to pellets for home heating.

Alternative energy article by M Wilson

Eco-Friendly Transportation Choices

People are wising up to the fact that non-renewable sources of energy will eventually run out. Thus, the green movement, which promotes more earth friendly options, has flourished. From green buildings to hybrid vehicles to sustainable farming practices to going organic, there's many ways to go green. One of the best ways to go green is to choose a more eco-friendly transportation method.

Hybrid vehicles are growing in popularity and a large number of people all over the world are looking to buy these vehicles or starting to consider them more. Hybrid vehicles generally combine two sources of power for a vehicles, often with regular gas as the backup option. Some vehicles use CNG (compressed natural gas) as fuel, and these have very low emissions. Similarly, in Asian countries, a lot of vehicles have a LPG (liquefied petroleum gas) kit installed in them. This costs less than gas and the emissions are almost negligible. Electric vehicles are also growing in popularity. One may have to compromise on speed with these vehicles but they can be easily charged and electricity is much cheaper than gas or other energy options. The future may even see cars and vehicles running on solar energy. A lot of research is going into solar and sometime soon you just might see solar powered vehicles make their way on to the market.
In some countries, the concept of 'green trains' has been introduced. These trains use permanent magnet motors that provide increased propulsion chain efficiency. Along with this, the traction energy is also reduced and less harm is caused to the environment. The operating cost of these trains is also relatively low and this is perhaps the reason why many new trains are based on this concept.

The standard public modes of transportation are also being given serious consideration by the governments of various countries across the globe. In some countries, old buses are being replaced by newer ones that operate on CNG or LPG. In some urban cities, the government has placed a fine on those vehicles that do not pass the pollution check test.

Not only are these vehicles eco friendly, but many also have a low operating cost. More eco-friendly cars are becoming available and as the years go by, prices seem to be coming down. At present, only a few companies manufacture eco-friendly cars, but as the market grows, more companies will start manufacturing 'green vehicles'. The world is certainly taking an interest in reducing the pollution caused due to vehicles that run on diesel and gas. Much research is being carried out and new models of eco-friendly transportation are being developed all the time.

Alternative energy article by by Lydia Quinn

What Hybrid Cars Will Look Like In The Future?

A hybrid car is a vehicle that combines and uses the strengths of an electric as well as a gas powered engine. Hybrid car is a pollution-free, economical and eco-friendly option over the traditional gas powered and electric powered cars. The car has two sources of energy, which also result in fuel economy improvement. Hybrid cars are also referred to as hybrid electric vehicles.
In the recent years, many leading car companies like Honda, Toyota and Ford etc. have introduced hybrid cars and have captured the hybrid car market. Due to its benefits, many people want to buy a hybrid car, not only because it is cost-effective but also because of global warming and usage of non-renewable resources. Unfortunately, hybrid cars remain the most expensive cars and many people cannot afford to pay for them.

A general view of future hybrid cars is that new features will be added that will make the car more affordable and efficient at the same time.
Hybrid car industry still needs to improve a lot as there is a large market to capture worldwide.

In future, many companies have focused on making the car more affordable and more innovative. To capture the potential market for hybrid cars, there will definitely be many innovative features that will change the outlook of the hybrid cars completely.

One of the expected changes in hybrid cars in future is its change from gas-electric hybrid to diesel-electric hybrids. The diesel hybrids will be more efficient, but it will increase the car cost greatly. For this purpose, development in hybrid batteries will be the area of focus. A lithium-ion battery in hybrid cars is a good solution to the problem. A lithium-ion battery costs half of the NiMH battery, used in the hybrid cars today, and is three times more efficient.
Since renewable bio-fuels have gained popularity, they are also being considered to be used in hybrid cars. It is expected that many companies will introduce Flex-fuel Hybrid cars. Hydrogen is also a form of fuel that can be used, and companies like Toyota and Ford are working on the Hydrogen Hybrids.


It s also expected that future hybrid cars will be electrified. Electrified vehicle is something very innovative; it will take a little time for engineers to work on it, but it will change the automotive industry completely. Electrified vehicle will need to be plugged in and charged. These cars will be more efficient, environment friendly, clean and safe.
Hybrid cars will not only change in models and designs over the coming years, but will also be more cost-effective. The changes expected in the hybrid car market include low price batteries and Electric Assist. The use of the technology, new features and more automation will change the look of hybrid cars completely.

One can have an idea from some of the hybrid cars that are planned to be released in near future. These hybrid cars include Chevy Volt, BMW X5 Mild Hybrid, Dodge Zeo hybrid, Chrysler ecoVoyager, Ford Freestyle, GM Denail XT hybrid truck, Ford Five Hundred. Hyundai Sonata Hybrid, Porsche Cayenne hybrid, Toyota Prius Plug-in hybrid and Volvo Recharge, planned to be released in 2010 or later.

Alternative energy article by Danny Green

Solar lights are the best solution

Solar energy

Amongst the alternative sources of energy, solar energy is the best and most suitable alternate source of energy. It is environment friendly and is economical too. More and more innovation is being carried out in this field of energy. Solar energy is being widely used in lighting homes, offices and is used for lighting gardens, outdoor lighting, etc.

Advantages of solar lights:
-Economical: It is so economical that now most of the outdoor lighting is being done with solar lights and the conventional lighting using electric power is being withdrawn. As a result, considerable amount is being saved on electricity bill.
-Environment friendly: There is no carbon emission in production of solar lightings. Water or uranium is not required in production of electricity by use of solar power.
-It is natural: The solar energy is totally environment friendly. In the conventional form of production of electric power, there are chances that it may cause damage to the environment. For example, uranium that is used in producing electricity by atomic reactors may harm environment. There is ample scope to harness the natural energy of sun and so it is renewable energy.
-Installation is easy: Solar lights do not require to be connected to any wire. Each light is independent by itself and there is nothing like power grid to distribute the power to various lights installed. They are safe and do not harm children or animals because they do not create any heat.
-Low maintenance cost: As said earlier, solar lights do not require any wiring. In many cases they do not require bulbs also. There are no transformers to distribute the power. So maintenance cost is almost 'Nil'.

Solar lights are now gaining importance as the best alternative to conventional lighting. This has prompted the scientists to conduct further research to perfect the solar lighting technology. With dwindling natural resources and huge cost of excavating the existing natural resources, this alternative source of energy appears to be the best choice. One can tap this energy as long as the sun exists. Of course, the limitation factor is that it may not be effective during cloudy season and during night time. Scientists are making every effort to address this shortcoming of solar energy. The day is not far off when the scientists will come out with a solution and solar lights will be the next generation lights that we see shortly.

article by Adam Jackson

Hydrogen car

Hydrogen car

A hydrogen vehicle is an alternative fuel vehicle that uses hydrogen as its onboard fuel for motive power. The term may refer to a personal transportation vehicle, such as an automobile, or any other vehicle that uses hydrogen in a similar fashion, such as an aircraft. The power plants of such vehicles convert the chemical energy of hydrogen to mechanical energy (torque) in one of two methods: combustion, or electrochemical conversion in a fuel-cell:
In hydrogen internal combustion engine vehicles, the hydrogen is combusted in engines in fundamentally the same method as traditional internal combustion engine vehicles.
In fuel cell vehicles, the hydrogen is reacted with oxygen to produce water and electricity, the latter being used to power an electric traction motor.
Hydrogen fuel does not occur naturally on Earth and thus is not an energy source, but is an energy carrier. It can be made from a number of sources, currently it is most frequently made from methane or other fossil fuels. Hydrogen production via electrolysis of water is generally inefficient and expensive and is rarely used.
Many companies are working to develop technologies that can efficiently exploit the potential of hydrogen energy.

From wikipedia