1 Barrel of oil = 1640.8 kilowatt hours

US used 9,468,000 barrels per day 7/25/08 for motor gasoline.

Or 15,535,094,400 Kilowatt hours equivalent in gasoline for transportation, PER DAY, or 15.5 Billion Kilowatt hours per day.

Total electricity generated by US in 2006, 4059 BILLION Kilowatt hours,

Or 11.12 Billion Kilowatt hours per day.

So, we would have to increase electricity generation by a factor of about 140% to meet our transportation requirements by going to all electric.

Did Obama endorse rolling blackouts?

YES,
and Did Obama endorse rolling “black-INS”?
.
You’re not invited.

* Cost of installed generation, coal: $1,500/kW.

* Cost of installed generation, wind: $3,300/kW.

* Cost of installed generation, solar: $10,000 – $15,000/kW.

NZ has geothermal power generation but capacities and availability is relatively low (new plant coming online this month is only 90MW).

Thanks to wind and solar having no storage tank (e.g., similar to “run of river” hydro), operational efficiencies are as follows:

* Coal, 98%
* Hydro, 98% (assuming no drought, that is)
* Wind, 38 – 42%.

I don’t have a figure on solar, but not only is it genearlly lower than wind (unless the plant is located in a desert), it comes with the fact that PV cells are made using Big Oil. Oops.

Final statistic, from a Rio Tinto Coal press release back in 2005: pound for pound, uranium is 26,000 times more efficient than coal.

I once asked an “Environmental Management” instructor at the Freeman Business School (Tulane University) a question regarding efficiencies: in an earlier speech, he had claimed that the US was “horribly inefficient” and he encouraged his audience to “find ways to become more efficient”.

So, after having browsed an Encarta article on atomic theory one day, I posed the following question to him:

Sir, you stated in your speech that we should be more efficient in our use of energy. Now, I recently read that in chemical reactions, only the outermost layer of electrons of an atom are actually engaged in the reaction, a process that is very inefficient when considering the total mass of the atom. By comparison, nuclear fission releases the entire volume of energy resident in the atom when it is split in an atomic chain reaction.

I came to realize that there is an apparent paradox with regards to energy efficiency: the more efficient the use of energy becomes, it appears that the potential side effects of accidents or mistakes with regards to those processes are much more dangerous than processes that are inefficient. For example, combining atoms that create inert molecules release miniscule levels of energy; combining atoms that release higher levels of chemical energy lend themselves to explosions (that if uncontrolled, can cause massive damage to human health and welfare); and accidents involving the most efficient process currently controlled by man, nuclear fission, can pollute and destroy entire geographical regions.

So, with that thought in mind: how do you reconcile the risks of escalating efficiencies with your desire for us to utilize energy more efficiently?

The response I got:

“Uh, wow, I never thought about that…I’ll have to think on it…”
And he never came back to me with an answer.

Imagine that…

/rant OFF

The current Labour govt horribly botched “privatisation” (yes, with scare quotes) in the late 1990’s by spinning off what used to be ECNZ (Electricity Corporation New Zealand Ltd) into four SOE’s (State Owned Enterprises, majority owned by the Govt), a single lines company, and then sold off two generation networks which became completely private. Hold that thought.

NZ generation is currently 61% renewable power and 39% thermal (roughly). Almost all of the renewable power is hydro. Hold that thought too.

In 1991, a drought led to severe rationing by industrial users and pleas for voluntary reductions by residents. At the time, NZ was 85% hydro. Storage levels in the lakes fell to approx 750GWh, enough to continue only for a couple weeks without forcing rolling blackouts. This event was supposed to be a “1 in 100 year” event. Hold that thought too.

The generators that were spun off from ECNZ kept regional market areas, with little overlap. Trustpower, the national grid operator, is prevented by law from operating generation facilities of more than 1MW (basically, tiny little cogen schemes). Keep that in mind too.

And finally, scenario is complete, and all those “hold that thought” comments come together, as follows:

* More “100 year” drought events in years 2001, 2003, 2006, and 2008.
* Generation update: although more thermal generation is brought online between 1991 and 2008, capacities are relatively small. Largest coal-fired station (Huntly, 1000MW) is constrained from operating on warm days when cooling water outfalls reach 24degC. Smaller diesel-powered stations in North Island are taken offline due to asbestos concerns. Successive “big” hydro schemes fail to become reality due to various issues with hydro (problems securing water rights and environmental concerns about long-term changes on ecosystems due to hydro plants – one which imho, is finally becoming visible). Wind power comes online but is relatively miniscule; also there is anecdotal evidence that during the La Nina weather cycle, wind capacity dropped along with rain – not good news for wind operators).
* After 2003, NZ Govt created the EC (Electricity Commission), funding it by levy (yes, a pretty name for a tax) paid by all users. EC stiffs the market by mandating “dry year” spare capacity be built, at ratepayer expense. This facility (Whirinaki; diesel-fired) is very expensive to operate, among other inefficiencies.
* EC continues to report in “dry years” that although spot power prices are high (this time around, spot prices routinely exceeded NZ$500MWh during the “dry” season, for weeks), that the grid has excess generation and therefore cost of building new generation capacity is too high. However it never takes into account the economic losses of constrained capacity – this season alone, over NZ$3bn.
* Govt has now placed a moratorium banning any new thermal generation from being built in NZ, to allow it to meet its [artificial] Kyoto targets. NZ has enough lignite coal in the South Island alone to power additional generation for approximately 250 years, but thanks to the GHG crowd, they cannot touch it.
* Govt has also precluded significant upgrades to capacity due to requirements of its Resources Management Act, which mean that environmental concerns make any new proposals extremely difficult to get off the ground, never mind the thermal ban.
* Oddly enough, the four SOE’s and two private generation companies are raking in cash hand over fist, posting their highest profits ever, in dry years due to excessively high spot prices; yet, somehow, EC thinks there is no business case to allow new private investment into the grid.
* Finally, let’s pour more salt onto this wound: EC artifically fixes sale price of the “dry year” station at Whirinaki when it operated this past season, at $289/MWh; however, due to high fuel costs, its true operating price was well over $400/MWh. This artificially lowered price was used to create the business case that “proved” new generation would not be cost effective; then EC recovered its costs via levy to ratepayers.

I know this is a long rant. At the same time, NZ has created the screwed-up socialist market that Obama and his Democrat environmentalist friends want to inflict upon the US grid: artificial market manipulation that kills new growth, destroys wealth, and gives the Govt carte blanche to continue screwing with the market in the name of “helping” it. The net result will be higher and higher prices, higher economic losses (including job losses and more companies relocating operations offshore), and overall lowered quality of life, all so they can play God over the unwashed masses.

But then again, most of you guys know this about Obama and his cronies already.

-Wanderlust

Ed, better be careful. The left saw phallic images and the anti-Christ in McCain’s advertising. You’ll be next on their list as the latest racist. You used a word that contains “black” in your question.

Entelechy on August 5, 2008 at 4:32 PM

Yup.No doubt they would blacklist him.

So far Obama hasn’t advocated cold fusion as an alternative source of energy. It makes more sense than most of his program.

Cicero43 on August 5, 2008 at 2:23 PM

Obama’s October surprise…Dylithium Crystals.

And with unemployment, less people will even have jobs to drive to.

Win-Win situation there. Less energy, and less gas usage. I bet gas prices will fall as soon as we can drive the economy to collapse. Win again.

This plan just keeps looking better. What could possibly go wrong?

Heck, the collapse of all manufacturing industries (and other power hungry industries like concrete, fertilizer, etc.) will probably set off a chain reaction of economic collapses and even more unemployment.

Win again.

Damn, this plan has everything. And with the mass of unemployed, people will be eating less (also known as starving) reducing America’s Obesity epidemic… win again.

Damn, this plan has everything. I’m supporting Obama from here on out. What an amazing plan.

Example: I heard his speech about how proper tire inflation would negate our need for any oil drilling whatsoever, so I followed his lead! I did some rough calculations and figured that if I put 450 psi of air pressure in my tires, I would no longer need any fuel whatsover!

I had no success in reaching this goal on my first few attempts… upon considerable reflection (while still in my hospital bed), I came upon the idea to create tires out of welded titanium mesh to withstand this incredible pressure; I promptly ordered a set from a fabricator I found on eBay.

Today, I put them into action and the results are incredible! I was actually able to inflate them to 1,322 psi… as a result, I now have to stop my 1973 Ford Pinto every 60 miles or so to siphon off all of the fuel it has been creating – I have been giving it away at gas stations as I sing the praises of NObama.

I am now trying to fit car with a larger tank so that it will enable me to drive +250 miles before having to stop and dump all of the excess fuel.

Did Obama endorse rolling blackouts?

OBLAHBLAH, you are an absolute effing idiot, and don’t know diddle squat about the rolling blackouts in California.

The first clue is why Gov. Gray Davis got recalled, and Arnold Schwarzenegger got elected? Next clue, is WHY did the dumb, stupid democrat governor foolishly spend 30 billion in state surpluses for energy? I’m still angry Gray Davis was left so easily off the hook, and not doing serious jail time.

Yeah, go ahead, emualte Caleeefornia.

upinak on August 5, 2008 at 6:33 PM

I actually watch it occasionally. TruTV is my default when there isn’t anything else on late night and I’m trying to stay awake for Red Eye. “Black Gold” gets down and dirty with the crew and boss. I know a guy who did it for a living for awhile and I can picture him right there. He’s nice, but wildman crazy.

Did Obama endorse rolling black whiteouts?

Ed, better be careful.

Entelechy on August 5, 2008 at 4:32 PM

He’s safe now.

Shockingly dull.

Connie on August 5, 2008 at 6:30 PM

I haven’t had a chance to watch it.

But I am not sure you are being sarcastic or not.

Domestic drilling, however, would create jobs now.

Well, of course. Or am I the only one here who watches “Black Gold?”

yes, I probably am ;)

Chakra Hammer on August 5, 2008 at 5:46 PM

Does that go for other countries as well? I have an influx of eur-asians coming here.

Yeah, I believe that California’s electricity consumption is going up by 1000 MW per year. They’ve dropped their per capita consumption, but not their actual consumption.

geoff on August 5, 2008 at 5:43 PM

Maybe if they kicked out some of the illegal aliens they could save some electricity.. ;)