Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Green Energy: Kenya Goes Geothermal (Thanks To Israel's Ormat)

Posted: 09 Dec 2008 06:10 AM PST

(Hat Tip: Cleantech Investing in Israel, Image: Ormat Olkaria III geothermal power plant in Kenya)

After being in the news due to past political riots (and family ties to the President Elect), it looks like the nation of Kenya has yet another reason for being in the spotlight--this time for embracing green technology.

(Ormat Press Release) Ormat Technologies, Inc. [...] announced today at an American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE) event the completion of phase two construction at the Olkaria III geothermal power plant in Kenya. The power plant has been synchronized to the grid, adding 35 MW of base load capacity to the existing 13 MW plant that has been in continuous operation since 2001 with availability between 97% and 99%.

The expanded power plant will save 120,000 tons of imported oil, mitigate approximately 200,000 tons of CO2 emissions per year and reduce the average production cost of electricity in Kenya while reducing its dependence on imports.

"Ormat is proud to have built up the plant capacity to the original target of 48 MW," said Lucien Bronicki, Chairman and Chief Technical Officer of Ormat. "This accomplishment was made possible by Ormat's belief in Kenya's economy combined with the hard work and dedication of our Kenyan employees and colleagues."

This is great news for Kenya, as the African nation already imports about half a million barrels of oil from Sudan a month (which is probably not a good thing due to the genocide happening in the region).

Hopefully Israel (through Ormat) can help build more of these geothermal power plants, as it could help spur the African continent to not only become more energy independent, but set an example for the rest of the continent (if not the world as well).

Friday, November 21, 2008

Lithium phosphate batteries in Brammo’s Enertia all-electric motorcycle


Battery Companies On Starting Grid For Motorcycle Deal

21st November 2008

Valence Technology, a developer of safe lithium phosphate energy storage solutions, says that it has finalized a supply agreement with Brammo, a manufacturer of ultra-efficient, lightweight vehicles. Building on a collaborative development process, Valence will provide lithium phosphate batteries for installation in Brammo’s Enertia all-electric motorcycle.

"We are very pleased to announce this agreement as it reflects the hard work and collaboration of both the Valence and Brammo teams,” said Robert L. Kanode, president and CEO of Valence. "This agreement with Brammo epitomizes our approach to work with our customers from initial introduction to final adoption, which we are currently applying to other companies that are in our development pipeline. We continue to see growing acceptance of our lithium phosphate energy storage solutions in the electric vehicle market as we educate customers on the benefits of our technology.”

Weighing only 280 pounds, the Enertia motorcycle is an urban commuter bike that exceeds 50 mph and 45 miles on a single 3-hour charge. At approximately 40 cents per charge or about 1 cent per mile, the Enertia is positioned to be the compelling green alternative for the new urban consumer. The Enertia standard model went on sale in 2008.

“Following the successful completion of $10 million in Series A funding, this supply agreement with Valence was critical as we move forward to bring our Enertia motorcycle to market next year,” said Craig Bramscher, CEO of Brammo, Inc. “The battery is the enabling technology for our bike and Valence’s chemistry provides both an amazing life cycle and inherent safety not found in other lithium-ion batteries. We have been testing and evaluating their solution for some time and we were impressed by Valence’s level of knowledge and support.”

While modern motorcycles currently produce up to 15 times the emissions per mile as the average new car or light-duty truck, the Brammo Enertia emits no pollutants or carbon while riding, making it a true zero-emissions vehicle. The lithium phosphate energy storage solutions supplied by Valence contribute to Enertia’s extremely low environmental impact. In addition to being fully recyclable, lithium phosphate is also intrinsically safer than other lithium chemistries and contains no heavy metals.

Monday, November 17, 2008

Cool Earth's New inexpensive Concentrating PV balloon

Cool Earth has developed breakthrough solar technology that can ultimately produce enough clean energy to address the global energy crisis. This patented concentrated photovoltaic (CPV) technology dramatically reduces the cost and time to develop solar power plants capable of generating massive amounts of clean energy at prices competitive with fossil fuels.

Our technology, which is the basis for our power plants, is "reshaping solar energy" in a very literal way: Most of today's solar energy systems take the form of flat panels or boxes-with-lenses and require large amounts of heavy, expensive materials. Our inflated solar concentrators, on the other hand, are shaped like balloons and are primarily made of inexpensive and free materials. This design approach radically reduces material requirements as well as our plant deployment costs and time.

Schematic

Solar Concentrators Focus the Sun…

Our inflated, balloon-shaped concentrators are key to Cool Earth's innovative design. Each 8-foot-diameter concentrator is made of plastic film—the same kind of plastic film used to bag potato chips, pretzels, and so on—with a transparent upper hemisphere and a reflective lower hemisphere. When inflated with air, the concentrator naturally forms a shape that focuses or concentrates sunlight onto a PV cell placed at the focal point. This means we need fewer cells to produce a lot more electricity. In fact, a single cell in our concentrator generates about 300 to 400 times the electricity of a cell without a concentrator.

The inflated structure is naturally strong—strong enough to support a person's weight—and aerodynamically stable, able to withstand winds of 125 miles per hour. Finally, the transparent upper surface protects the PV cell and mirrored surface from the environment, including rain and snow, as well as insects and dirt.

Each concentrator has additional structural components: a small steel strut and a harness. The steel strut, tethered in place, holds the cell at the focal point inside the concentrator and provides a conduit for a small water loop that cools the cell. A lightweight, flexible steel band forms a harness around the circumference of the concentrator and is used to hold and point the concentrator.

A Support System Holds It All in Place…

The concentrators are suspended with our patented support system, which is based on the architectural principles of tensegrity. (Tensegrity structures stabilize their shapes by continuous tension or "tensional integrity" rather than by continuous compression.) The resulting system of wood posts and steel cables uses a minimum amount of material, has a small footprint, and causes the least disruption to the natural environment of any solar power plant.

…And, That's It!

All in all, a simple, elegant solution.


For More Information— Please download a copy of our Solar Power 2006 Presentation in PDF format.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Denial: problems of hydrogen, nuclear coal energy - vs. geothermal, electric cars

September 2, 2008

The Elephant Under the Rug: Denial and Failed Energy Projects

by Thomas R. Blakeslee, Clearlight Foundation At the World Renewable Energy Conference in Glasgow I recently witnessed the strange phenomenon of group denial first hand. After a paper about hydrogen-fueled cars, some embarrassing questions were asked about the practicalities of storing and delivering hydrogen to the cars. The questions were dismissed and the questioners meekly backed down. I wanted to jump in and set them straight but keenly felt the group pressure to not ruin the party. I couldn't do it!

Groupthink is a strange phenomenon resulting from our deep genetic programming as herd animals: If our peer group is ignoring the giant lump in the living room rug, we will naturally imitate their behavior and walk around the elephant hidden there. We tend to be drawn into a sort of mass hallucination where everyone conforms to an unspoken agreement to ignore the inconvenient but obvious truth. We walk around the lump without consciously seeing it.

Group denial can be dangerous. The housing bubble and the dotcom bubble are recent disastrous examples. The loan officers, realtors, journalists, investment bankers and regulators that caused the housing bubble were all blind to the developing problem as they rationalized and convinced themselves that every thing was OK. It is now painfully clear that they were unconsciously caught up in a fantasy world of denial. When you're making lots of money, it's natural to think that you must be brilliant. Your peer group supports you and nobody wants to spoil the party. It's not intentional, just human nature.

I learned a lot about group denial eight years ago when I lost millions on dotcom stocks. It seemed so certain that those hot stocks would regain their past glory. I was drawn deeply into dotcom denial. There were voices speaking the truth then, but my peer group and I kept the faith and laughed together at them.

U.S. energy policy has developed several similar delusions where people are still getting rich pursuing failed projects that should have been abandoned years ago. Mare than half of our US $4 billion DOE science budget is being spent to keep alive failed programs. Saving face and saving contracts has made denial the order of the day. Billions in subsidy money finance a war chest for lobbying that keeps these programs alive.

Let's look closer at the denial of fatal flaws in three major DOE programs where money is being spent recklessly and entire industries, government agencies and journalists are in group denial:

The Hydrogen Initiative: US $246 million 2009 budget

Honda now has a few beautiful, finished-looking, FCX hydrogen cars on the road. But wait! How do we produce and distribute the hydrogen that runs them? The tanker trucks that replenish gasoline stations can carry about 300 fill-ups. However, hydrogen takes up much more space and requires high-pressure cylinders that weigh 65 times as much as the hydrogen they contain! One giant 13 ton hydrogen delivery truck can carry only about 10 fill-ups! By ignoring this fatal flaw in the hydrogen economy idea we have created the illusion of success that is grossly inefficient compared to electric cars. Well-to-wheel efficiency analysis of the Honda FCX shows that the Tesla pure electric car is 3X more efficient and produces 1/3 the CO2 emissions!

Group denial makes us ignore obvious but inconvenient truths like the inherent inefficiency of the hydrogen economy. It was overlooked when the project was conceived, which is forgivable, but now denial makes us overlook it when we should know better. Batteries charged from the grid are clearly a better way to go; yet the DOE budget for battery development is less than one-fifth of the hydrogen budget.

Electrical distribution for overnight recharging is already installed in virtually every home that has a car. Batteries can store and retrieve that electricity with 95% efficiency to drive motors that are 90% efficient. Hydrogen would require a whole new fueling infrastructure. But why bother? It can't begin to compete with electricity because the efficiency of producing, transporting, storing and then converting hydrogen to electricity with a fuel cell is pathetic by comparison.

When I have a writing deadline it gives me great energy for fixing things around the house to avoid facing the real problem. That's exactly what we have done in the hydrogen initiative. We had great fun creating a nifty looking car. Now if we could just figure out a way to get fuel to it that is competitive with charging a battery we would really have something.

Nuclear Power: US $1.4 Billion 2009 budget, $44 billion spent so far

The heavily subsidized nuclear industry died in 1979 when the Three-mile island and Chernobyl accidents made it painfully clear that the radioactive substances used were just too dangerous to be spread all over the map. Both accidents could have been much worse had a real meltdown occurred.

Denial has become easier today as memories fade it is much easier to pretend there is no problem and get on board the "nuclear renaissance." It's very similar to the recent housing bubble (renaissance), which was only possible because memories of the previous housing bubble that burst in 1990 had faded. The federal government bailout from our housing bubble may cost a trillion dollars before we are through. Amazingly, the "nuclear renaissance" is built on the promise of a similar bailout included in the 2005 energy bill: Nuclear accidents will have a maximum liability to the builder of only US $10.9 billion. If there is a meltdown, taxpayers have been generously volunteered to pay for any excess damages! Sandia estimated that damages could reach US $600 billion but we are optimistic because our memories have faded since the last disaster.

The 9/11 attacks showed us how easily a meltdown could be arranged by a well-aimed terrorist-hijacked airliner crash. In fact, if you're a terrorist, the possibilities with nuclear fuel and waste stored all over the map will be endless. The "nuclear renaissance" will be a bonanza for terrorists.

A Safe Way to Harness Nuclear Power

Nuclear elements in the earth are continually decaying, producing so much heat that the core of the earth is about 6000°C, hotter than the surface of the sun. In fact, 99.9% of the earth's volume is hot enough to boil water. We can generate all the electric power we need from that heat by simply drilling through the earth's crust and using water to carry the underground heat up to turbine generators on the earth's surface. This way we leave the dangerous radioactive elements where they are and simply use the heat they naturally generate to run our power plants.

This may sound like an impossible dream, but it is already being done profitably, producing 10 gigawatts of electricity worldwide at costs competitive with coal. It is called geothermal power generation. The source of heat in geothermal power is the decay of uranium and thorium in rocks safely sequestered underground. It is crazy is to dig these dangerous elements out, concentrate them and ship them to dangerous reactors just to boil water to run generators.

With geothermal power we boil the water by sending it down a well to the hot rocks. Steam comes out of a second well nearby and drives a turbine generator. Simple and safe! The steam is condensed and recycled, so water consumption is minimal. No pollution no dangerous waste and no fuel cost. What's the catch? Geothermal power is as cheap as coal in areas where the earth's crust is thin but drilling costs currently make it too expensive in most parts of the world. A breakthrough in drilling technology could make it practical everywhere.

Geothermal drilling is expensive mainly because we are using technology developed for oil exploration. Geothermal power requires deeper, larger holes, often through hard rock. If just 5% of the US $70 billion in federal money already lavished on nuclear power had been spent on drilling technology, we could have geothermal power virtually anywhere today. Hydrothermal spalling technology is capable of drilling five times faster through hard rock but zero federal money is available for its development. Google recently made a US $11 million investment in this technology.

No new nuclear power plants have been built in thirty years. The few plants now under construction are years behind schedule and billions over budget. Any plants in planning today will not be complete until at least 2020 and will be very expensive. With an aggressive drilling research program geothermal plants could fill our baseload power needs much sooner and at lower cost.

Clean Coal Technology: US $754 million 2009 budget

Coal power generation began a steep decline in 1983 when the horrendous pollution problems it was creating became impossible to ignore. Memories fade so denial has created a "renaissance" in coal spurred by a marvelous invention called "clean coal." This oxymoron doesn't actually exist but sounds like just the thing for solving our energy problems.

The problem is that "clean coal" will never be economical because when we burn coal each carbon atom joins with two oxygen atoms so every ton of coal we burn produces 3.7 tons of CO2! That currently amounts to nearly 10 billion tons of CO2 per year! One of the research projects budgeted for 2009 will try to sequester one million tons of CO2 per year. That's a mere fraction of the amount we need to hide! It's only 5% of what a single large power plant can produce.

Denial allows us to ignore this as a minor detail that can be worked out later. In reality the whole idea is clearly flawed and not economical. The "clean coal" initiative is a crash program to rescue a powerful industry, not a credible attempt to solve our energy problems. If we spent even a fraction of the money wasted on this boondoggle to develop advanced geothermal drilling technology we could quickly solve our energy problems and put a stop to the terrible environmental destruction being wreaked by coal.

Our energy policymaking has been hijacked by the coal and nuclear industries. They have sabotaged appropriations that have real potential for solving our energy problems and directed vast billions instead to keeping their dying industries alive. Technology could solve our energy and pollution problems if we could just free ourselves from the political stranglehold of these heavily subsidized industries.

Thomas R. Blakeslee is president of The Clearlight Foundation, a non-profit organization that invests in renewable energy and other socially useful companies and issues cash grants to individuals who are working effectively for change.

Sunday, August 24, 2008

Giant Israeli Firm May Launch Alternate Electric Car Project

August 25, '08

(IsraelNN.com) The giant Israeli holding company IDB may launch its own electric car project and compete with Shai Aggasi's Project Better Place, Globes reported. Aggasi's project is being advanced in coordination with French automaker Renault-Nissan, and IDB is talking with Chinese manufacturer BYD Auto.

The Chinese company's executives said earlier this month that they intended to market an electric car n Israel and in its own country following a meeting with President Shimon Peres.

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Thirty Reasons Why Organizations Must Get Off Petroleum Now

August 11, 2008
renewableenergyworld.com
by Charles Cresson Wood

Don't get me wrong -- I am very concerned about global warming and climate change. In the long run, that's one of the most serious challenges that humans face as a species. But in the short run, the world is no longer able to produce petroleum in sufficient volume to satisfy its demand. Soon it will not be able to produce petroleum in sufficient volume to satisfy its needs.

Reflecting this, a majority of the world's major oil producing countries now see that their production is in decline. These post-peak producers include the United Kingdom, Norway, Denmark, Venezuela, Mexico, Nigeria, Canada and the United States. Likewise, the world's discovery of new fields peaked in 1965, and it generally lags production by about 40 years. That means that total world production will decline sometime soon, if it has not already.

What's more, the price of crude oil has risen 95% over the last year, and this reveals that worldwide supply can no longer keep up with worldwide demand. Peak oil and its impacts will seriously affect us much sooner than climate change will, although the sooner we stop burning fossil fuels, the soon we take care of both of these very serious problems.

Although global warming gets a lot of press these days, the major media are strangely silent about peak oil. In a culture that makes it a habit to be short-term in its focus, it is astounding that more Americans are not seriously concerned about peak oil. In this brief piece, I list 30 reasons why we all must immediately start to transition away from petroleum. Although a great deal of transition-related work remains to be done, we now have eleven commercially available alternative fuels that can stand-in for petroleum. Although it looks as though all-electric cars are going to be the long-term winner, depending on the circumstances, a wide variety of other alternatives may be appropriate, at least as transition fuels. The other options include ethanol, butanol, di-methyl ether, bio-diesel, straight vegetable oil, bio-methane, natural gas, propane, hydrogen and synthetic liquid fuel.

Don't take my word for any of this. Look it up on the web or ask the retired expert geologists who used to work for the oil companies, such as Dr. Colin J. Campbell. Read some books such as Richard Heinberg's The Party's Over, or Dale Allen Pfeiffer's The End Of The Oil Age. When you really see the big picture, you will no doubt agree with me that a reorientation away from petroleum, towards renewables, is absolutely required, and it is required now.

By making the transition away from petroleum-based fuels, organizations can or will:

1. Respond to the increasing publicity about, and moral pressure favoring, the adoption of alternatives to petroleum. In the process, they will note that staff morale and public support can be augmented when an organization shows that it is in fact acting in an ecologically-responsible way.

2. Reduce and mitigate the adverse environmental impacts related to the use of oil. These impacts including air pollution from refineries, poisoning of flora and fauna when oil is produced in wilderness areas, and damages done by oil spills on land as well as in the sea. Note that burning fossil fuels contributes about 80% of the worldwide emissions of carbon dioxide.

3. Benefit from government incentives, such as loans, subsidies, and special tax credits. Organizations should expect that these incentives will become not only more common, but also considerably more compelling in the years ahead. The current U.S. alternative fuel vehicle tax credit of up to $4,000/vehicle is an example.

4. Exploit new business opportunities in alternative energy. Many progressive companies, such as General Electric and Siemens, see the transition away from oil as a significant business opportunity. These companies have invested a great deal of money in the development of new products and services to support this transition.

5. Take advantage of the marketing opportunities afforded to those organizations that paint themselves as green. Polls show that consumers are willing to pay considerably more for products and services that are indeed better for the environment.

6. Go beyond the massive spin campaign now underway to obfuscate the peak oil message. Countries such as Saudi Arabia conceal the real numbers about their available petroleum reserves and there is ample evidence that many producing countries are over-estimating these reserves. It is time for organizations to go beyond the "we need to study this" or "the jury is still out" phase, and time for organizations to enter the "begin transitioning right now" phase.

7. Show real thought leadership and catapult the organization into a position of public prominence. The U.S. government is clearly resisting change when it comes to transitioning away from oil, in fact there is ample evidence of gridlock in Washington on these issues. As a result, individuals, communities, and organizations need to all initiate their own plans for the transition away from petroleum.

8. Prepare for government-dictated mandatory changeovers to alternative energy sources, and away from petroleum. Recent research indicates that the world has, at most, thirty years to get the gasoline completely out of cars, and to otherwise stop burning fossil fuels. So while there are no current laws or regulations that require a complete conversion to new transportation technologies, for certain types of organizations, there are already partial mandatory conversion laws and regulations in place (in the U.S., one such law is the National Energy Policy Act of 1992).

9. Limit the likely future damage caused by government fuel rationing. They should expect that there will soon be rationing because even conservative organizations like the International Energy Agency (IEA) have developed plans to impose rationing via the authority of the United Nations.

10. Avoid restrictions in the petroleum-based fuel supply created by government-imposed price controls. In an effort to look as though they are doing something about the rapidly increasing price of petroleum-based fuels, many governments will impose price controls, as Richard Nixon did on oil in the 1970s. But the record is clear that these price controls do not work — they in fact create shortages.

11. Avoid a black market in petroleum-based fuels and the related government corruption. Government interventions (price controls, rationing, etc.) in the oil market will become increasingly common in the years ahead. The real-world experience in countries, such as Nigeria, shows that fuel adulteration, political bribes for favors, and related corruption problems will soon follow.

12. Prepare for a new business environment where energy is scarce. Reflecting the difficulties that we as a species are having when it comes to transitioning to renewable energy systems, over the next decade, the total amount of available energy, on a per capita basis, is likely to be considerably lower than it is today. In large measure this is because the available quantities of fossil fuels will be considerably reduced. Politician claims about the "American way of life being non-negotiable" don't in any way change this fact of life.

13. Recognize that conversion will take years of sustained and dedicated effort. Warnings about peaking world oil supply were issued more than 30 years ago, so we have had plenty of time to prepare. Unfortunately, very little has been done, and we are now in an oil crisis. Nonetheless, it still takes years to establish the new technologies, the new infrastructures, the new habits, and the new economic systems needed to fully support and exploit alternatives.

14. Begin to recreate themselves so that they are truly independent from oil, so that they open up new and previously unappreciated options. Oil is now used, in one way or another, in just about every industrial product produced (such as paints, carpets, detergents, food additives, fertilizers, and pesticides). Organizations are more likely to see and create new possibilities, such as organic and natural products, when they move away from their dependency on oil.

15. Formally acknowledge just how many of their internal costs have been oil dependent. An examination of the income statements for many organizations over the last several years will indicate that fuel has been a relatively minor and immaterial cost. But this will dramatically change in the years ahead, as the airlines and trucking firms are already coming to appreciate.

16. Lower the future cost of goods sold and/or future overhead costs. By moving to alternatives, organizations can at least partially unhook themselves from the direct correlation between the increase in the price of oil and the increase in the price of other goods. For example, studies show that a 33% increase in the price of oil translates to a 0.6% to 0.9% increase in the consumer price of food.

17. Insulate themselves from volatile oil prices caused by increasing political involvement in the oil market. Uncertain future supplies of petroleum are making prices for oil volatile, and we can expect that this volatility will get worse in the near future. This volatility will be made worse by the maneuvers of certain governments, such as that of Russia, as they attempt to gain greater power and influence using their energy resources as weapons.

18. Insulate themselves from volatile oil prices caused by speculators participating in the oil market. While speculators have recently been blamed for the run-up in the price of oil, the presence of speculators is really only a reflection of the widespread belief that there is major money to be made in the futures market and similar commodities exchanges. While speculators may be able to change the price of oil in the short run, in the long run they are not able to affect the market price, because they do not change the underlying supply and demand. Organizations transitioning away from oil can thus eliminate the need to be in competition with speculators for a dwindling supply of oil.

19. Expect that real oil prices will significantly increase because governments will add new taxes, and eliminate the existing subsidies that have encouraged the consumption of oil. While many countries, such as Iran and the United States, have subsidized both the oil industry and consumers using oil, as global supplies become tighter in the years ahead, governments will change their policies to discourage the consumption of oil. These same organizations will thus avoid having to pay the much higher cost of future petroleum-based fuels. Note that a full-costing analysis recently done by Milton Copulos at the National Defense Council Foundation indicated that the true cost of American gasoline is now US $8/gallon (this includes government subsidies, the cost of the war in Iraq, etc.).

20. Anticipate that government attempts to buffer the volatility in the oil market will diminish and soon cease. Many governments such as China and the U.S. have invested in "strategic petroleum reserves" to help buffer their domestic markets against oil shocks in the world market, but these and related approaches will soon become too costly and as a result they will be abandoned. The world is facing a shortage of certain raw materials, such as oil, and no measure of government meddling can protect consumers of oil from that fact.

21. Prepare for carbon taxes intended to reduce greenhouse gases and deal with climate change. Western Europe is currently setting an example for the rest of the world in terms of adopting laws and regulations to discourage carbon dioxide emissions. The approaches found there (including cap-and-trade systems) are likely to be found in many other countries in the years ahead. So organizations that have adopted certain alternatives, such as electric vehicles, will be well prepared for these new laws and regulations.

22. Set their organizations free from the traditional link between economic growth and inexpensive oil. The recent economic growth of both China and India has been inextricably tied-up with, and enabled by, the availability of relatively inexpensive fossil fuels. But in the future, when these fuels are much more expensive, economic growth will still be possible when renewable alternatives are employed.

23. Achieve freedom from the oil supply problems occasioned by the super-sensitivity of the oil market to small disruptions. The oil embargo against the United States in 1973 provided an example of how a relatively small reduction in the supply of oil can cause a profound impact, and although the world has changed since then, the panic and impact associated with such disruptions will still be quite serious. For example, Dr. Henry Kissinger called this oil embargo "the most threatening event for the world's developed economies since World War II."

24. Obtain freedom from oil supply problems caused by trouble in the complex oil transportation network. The routes taken to deliver oil from producing country to consuming country are often long and complex, and because the buffers in the system are now so small, relatively small disruptions in that highly tuned system, perhaps caused by terrorist incidents, can cause serious supply disruptions for the consumers of oil.

25. Avoid damage from fuel supply interruptions caused by resource wars. Research by Professor Michael T. Klare indicates that the cause of recent wars and violent conflicts has in many cases been competition for resources, often petroleum. Without question, the struggle for control over these scarce and valuable materials will worsen in the years ahead.

26. Obtain freedom from supply shortages caused by the long time it takes to build new oil production facilities. Many oil producers have been under-investing in infrastructure in the recent years. It can take five years or more before new wells are able to produce oil. This means that even if there are vast and economically accessible reserves of oil locked under the ground or ocean, it will still be many years before this oil can be brought to market.

27. Limit fossil fuel supply interruptions occasioned by refinery upgrade problems. The further we go beyond the world peak in supply, the more undesirable the quality of the oil will be (tar sands are a good example). This is because the most desirable oil was produced first because it was more easily obtained, less expensive to process, etc. The less desirable oil produced in the years ahead requires that refineries be retooled so that they can process heavier oil, oil containing more sulfur, and the like. Delays associated with this retooling may lead to local shortages.

28. Avoid having to scramble at the same time that nearly everyone else is scrambling to transition to alternatives. By transitioning now, organizations can take advantage of commercially-available alternative energy products and services, rather than coping with delays when everyone else is attempting to transition at the same time (when an even more severe petroleum crisis occurs).

29. Off-load gas guzzlers and other petroleum-dependent equipment while there is still a market for these machines. At a certain point, the decline in the availability of petroleum will be quite rapid, especially for those consumers in oil-importing countries. Those consumers who get rid of their gas guzzlers and related equipment now will at least receive some money for these machines, while they may receive nothing after the rapid decline takes place.

30. Help to assure that their workforces are able to get to work. As gasoline and petro-diesel prices soar in the years ahead, the poorest segment of an organization's work force may be forced to quit their jobs because they can no longer afford to commute long distances from remote suburbs. So an organization that helps its workers transition to alternatives (including public transportation) will then be more likely to retain these same workers in the years ahead. Reflecting this, a recent Business Week survey indicated 26% of workers were considering quitting their jobs to get a better commute, and 65% thought that their employers should step-up and take the lead in dealing with this problem.

So if your organization isn't already seriously planning for its transition away from petroleum-based fuels, talk to your department manager about it, talk to your firm's Chief Operations Manager about it, talk to the organization's Contingency Planning Manager about it and/or start an employee brown-bag discussion about it. Within your community, write your legislators, meet with your city council representatives, mention it to your neighbors and otherwise help to shift people's consciousness so that they will soon move away from petroleum. The first step is widespread awareness that this transition must in fact take place now; the resulting actions will follow naturally from that awareness.

Charles Cresson Wood is an alternative fuels management consultant with Post-Petroleum Transportation, in Sausalito, California. His latest book is Kicking The Gasoline & Petro-Diesel Habit: A Business Manager's Blueprint For Action. For more information about the book, as well as a mechanism to contact him, go to www.kickingthegasoline.com.

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Kibbutz Saves >NIS 100,000 running vehicles on LPG

August 19, '08
Kibbutz Saves More Than NIS 100,000 in Car Fuel

(IsraelNN.com) Kibbutz Be'eri is saving more than NIS 100,000 in fuel for its vehicles by running them on liquified petroleum gas (LPG), instead of gasoline or diesel, according to a report published in the Hebrew-language Haaretz. Of the community's 100 vehicles, 64 are already running on LPG and another 20 will be converted shortly.

According to Avraham Dvori, former head of the Eshkol Regional Council and a member of the kibbutz, LPG technology "as been in use for decades in places such as Australia and South America." The LPG kit is attached to the engine, and can be removed, allowing the vehicle to run on its original gasoline-based engine if need be. Dvori said there are 36 LPG filling stations around the country.