President Obama Grants One-Year Extension on Oil Leases

President Barack Obama granted oil companies a one-year extension on leases in parts Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. This action comes as the President faces pressure to do something about rising prices at the pump. It also comes just days after the Senate grilled oil company executives on high gasoline prices and record oil company profits. It gives the oil industry a significant win on its wish list.

The Obama Administration also announced that it will order the Department of the Interior to commence new lease sales in Alaska’s petroleum reserve, with the goal f having at least one lease sold by the end of 2011. It will also speed up environmental reviews.

John Howley
Woodbridge, New Jersey

Could This Be The Year for the All-Electric Car?

The stars are finally aligning for what might be the year of the electric car. Demand will be there as gasoline prices are expected to hit $4 per gallon this summer. Consumers will be able to test drive all-electric vehicles at car rental agencies such as Hertz, and a number of different manufacturers will offer a range of models to choose from. The infrastructure -- a network of electric recharging stations -- is starting to fall into place. There's even an iPhone app that will tell you where the nearest charging station is located.

Let's begin with demand for all-electric vehicles. As noted in yesterday's post, most experts expect oil prices to exceed $100 per barrel this year. That means gasoline prices above $4 per gallon this summer. And high prices are most likely here to stay. While most analysts expect that OPEC will try to keep prices in the $100 to $150 range, Morgan Stanley and others question whether they have enough capacity to keep up with increasing demand from China and other emerging economies. If not, then $200 per barrel oil is within the range of possibilities. John Hofmeister, former president of Shell Oil and author of "Why We Hate The Oil Companies," points out that this could mean gasoline at $5 per gallon by 2012.

Gasoline at $4 to $5 per gallon will start people thinking about alternatives. Can all-electric cars meet their needs?

Car makers and car rental companies are betting that consumers will fall in love with electric cars once they drive them, and so far the reviews have been great. Jim Motavalli, writing in Forbes.com, describes the Nissan Leaf as "impressive, quiet, comfortable, sophisticated, and bristling with high-tech aids to help with charging and plug-in connectivity." He also says that it "handles excellently." In addition to the Nissan Leaf and the Chevy Volt, new all-electric cars are expected this year from BMW, Ford, Mercedes, Mitsubishi, Renault, Subaru, and Toyota in a variety of price ranges. At the top end of the price range, you can even get the very sleek, powerful, and fast all-electric Aston Martin pictured above. A number of other manufacturers are also preparing to enter the market with all-electric vehicles, including China's BYD (backed by Warren Buffett), which is building an all-electric 5-passenger sedan.

OK, so the supply of all-electric vehicles and the demand for them might show up this year, but what about the infrastructure needed to recharge them? Turns out that charging stations are already in place, and more can come on line very quickly in response to demand. For example, utilities around the nation are installing recharging stations for electric cars. Hertz has installed charging stations in Manhattan, and will soon be installing more charging stations at select Starwood Hotels. Walmart has been planning to deploy recharging stations in its parking lots across the country, and if that happens it won't be long before Target, Walgreens, CVS, and other national chains follow the lead.

The constraint this year may be whether supply of all-electric vehicles can keep up with demand. When the Prius first came out, many prospective buyers found themselves on waiting lists to get one of the now iconic hybrids. The same could happen this year, especially with a federal tax credit of up to $7,500 for electric vehicles plus additional credits from states such as California, Georgia and Tennessee.

The longer term, and more troubling issue is whether the electric grid will be "smart" enough to handle the new type of demand for electricity. It is not simply a capacity issue. Existing generation capacity could probably handle tens of thousands of electric cars being recharged during off-peak hours, such as overnight. The problem arises if large numbers of electric cars are being charged during peak demand periods. Ideally, electric cars would act as back-up storage sending electricity back to the grid during peak demand hours and recharging during off-peak hours. But the grid is not yet capable of handling that or billing for it. Building a smarter grid, more than anything else, is the biggest barrier to a future of electric vehicles.

John Howley
Woodbridge, New Jersey

Kurdistan Attracts Billions for Oil Exploration

Investors are betting billions of dollars that oil will flow freely from wells being drilled in Kurdistan. The Financial Times reports that one small oil exploration company, Gulf Keystone Petroleum, already has a market capitalization of $1.9 billion, which would put it on the FTSE 250 index if it gets listed on the London Stock Exchange. Not bad for a company that has no proven reserves, has never earned any money for its investors, and has run operating losses every year of its existence.

Of course, Kurdistan is a pretty dangerous and unstable place. Just because you find oil today doesn't mean you will get to profit from it in the future.

So why does this company have a market capitalization of almost two billion dollars? Analysts say it is because investors are very confident that there are large oil reserves in the parts of Kurdistan where Gulf Keystone has been drilling. In fact, Gulf Keystone hit oil with its first well drilled in August 2009.

Ok. I can understand that line of thought. But this oil is in Kurdistan, a place that has been in almost continual violent conflict with Iraq since it was first recognized as an autonomous region in 1970. What about the very significant risks of violence, war, or even just political instability? How can a company afford all the security and insurance that must be necessary to cover those risks.

This is where we start to understand how the oil industry benefits from costs assumed by others. The ability to drill for oil in Kurdistan is a direct result of the hundreds of billions of dollars our governments have spent on the Iraq war and the ensuing seven years of efforts to stabilize that country. The door was opened, and it remains open, because of huge government investments and the personal sacrifices of hundreds of thousands of American, British, and other troops, including almost 5,000 Americans who lost their lives and more than 30,000 who were seriously wounded.

Next time we fill up our cars with relatively inexpensive gasoline, let's remember the hidden costs that are not reflected in the price. And let's also keep those costs in mind when we consider government investments in sustainable alternatives.

John Howley
Woodbridge, New Jersey
www.HowleyGreenEnergy.com

The (Green) Military-Industrial Complex

The US military is making a major push to deploy renewable energy on the battlefield because our soldiers are being killed protecting convoys of gasoline trucks. According to a front page story in The New York Times, the Secretary of the Navy "wants 50 percent of the power for the Navy and Marines to come from renewable energy sources by 2020."

There are many reasons for this dramatic push towards renewable energy on the battlefield:

1. Oil Kills

A US Army study found that one soldier or civilian is killed for every 24 fuel convoys that are sent out to provide fuel to troops on the battlefield. The Times reports that six Marines were wounded guarding oil convoys in just the past three months.


2. Oil Keeps Our Troops from Fighting the Enemy

The Navy Secretary is quoted in the Times as saying that guarding fuel in Afghanistan "is keeping our troops from doing what they were sent there to do, to fight or engage local people."


3. Oil is Outrageously Expensive

Do you think the military pays $2 or $3 per gallon for gasoline? Actually they get it for a wholesale price of about $1 per gallon, but transporting it to the battlefield adds on huge costs. For some remote locations, the cost of supplying fuel reaches $400 per gallon.


4. Oil Telegraphs Our Strategy to the Enemy

Want to know where our troops are low on fuel or getting ready to fight? Just follow the convoys of oil tankers. They will lead the enemy directly to our troops, inform the enemy of the size of our forces (more oil for larger contingents or more equipment), and provide hints of what might happen next. On the other hand, troops that do not need to re-fuel have tactical advantages not only on land but on sea as well. The Navy Secretary told the Times that "[e]very time you cut a ship away from the need to visit an oiler -- a fuel supply ship -- you create an advantage."


5.  Oil Causes Wars

Although not directly quoting the Secretary of the Navy, the Times reports that he and others said that "greater reliance on renewable energy improved national security, because fossil fuels often came from unstable regions and scarce supplies were a potential source of international conflict." Duh! You mean we fight wars over oil? When did someone realize that?

We have known all this for, well, forever. So why are we only now making the push for renewable energy on the battlefield? The Times suggests that recent advances in technology make renewable energy more viable. This tells only a very small part of the story. Most of the renewable energy technologies being used by the military are not based on dramatic technological breakthroughs. If the military had been serious in the past, it could have financed and tested new technologies better than almost anyone else. The Navy Secretary admitted as much: "If the Navy comes knocking, they will build it. The price will come down and the infrastructure will be created."

So why is the military "knocking" on the renewable energy door now? Simple. The war is not ending, and our the competitive advantages on the battlefield from high-tech weapons and communications are far more dependent on energy than ever before. Oil supply convoys have become a very dangerous Achilles heel.

Civilians should take note. Our civilian economy is also far more dependent on energy than ever before. In the future, other countries will compete against us for jobs and growth not on the basis of lower wages, but on the basis of lower energy costs. How competitive will our economy be when we are still paying for oil, coal, and other non-renewable fuels, while other countries are getting 50% or more of their power from sources with almost no ongoing fuel costs such as wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, and nuclear?

A great nation will not wait until we are in a crisis and stalemated on the economic battlefield. If we want to retain our status as a great nation, we must start building sustainable energy infrastructure right now. Let's build a competitive advantage into our economy with energy sources that have no fuel costs. Let's build a society that can say "No" to despotic oil regimes, "Keep your oil because we're not buying it." Let's build a society with a foreign policy focused on promoting our economic interests and our interests in democracy and human rights, instead of one that goes to war to protect access to oil fields.

If the military can do it on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, certainly we can do it from the comfort of home. Let's start right now.

John Howley
Orlando, Florida
www.HowleyGreenEnergy.com

Peak Oil and the Reactionary Media

Lloyd's of London issued a report two weeks ago warning that businesses must take our peak oil problems seriously. The report predicts oil prices above $200 per barrel by 2013, and it warns businesses to take action now or face "expensive and potentially catastrophic consequences."

News that the world's largest insurance market sees significant risks in the problem of peak oil was reported in the UK media, but I did not see (and have not been able to find) a single mention of it in the mainstream US media.

If the US media doesn't cover the story, does that mean the story isn't real? Even if the story comes from a reputable organization such as Lloyd's of London? What is going on here?

The problem is that "peak oil" is a very expensive story to develop and report. Our media prefer to report on "events" that they can simply "cover" and comment upon. For example, the media spent very little time or effort on the risks of offshore drilling or corrupt and ineffective government regulators before the BP Deepwater Horizon catastrophe happened. And you can bet that they will pay only passing attention to the complicated environmental consequences of that spill now that oil slicks on the surface are evaporating (no more photos of oil soaked pelicans) and the underwater video stream no longer shows oil gushing from a broken pipe.

Peak oil is not so dramatic as an oil spill, and its consequences are only felt over a period of years or decades. It is not the end of oil. It is simply the end of increasing oil reserves and the start of declining oil reserves.

As Lloyd's of London warns, however, peak oil will will be very disruptive over the coming decade or so. As reserves start decreasing instead of increasing, supplies will tighten and prices will rise. That will happen even in a weak economy. And as demand grows dramatically in developing markets, prices will rise dramatically.

It does not take an economics degree to understand that demand will grow dramatically in the coming decade. Billions of families in China, India, and other growing economies want more cars and SUVs just like the American dream. That's why, even in a Great Recession, GM is already selling more vehicles in China than it sells in the US. As the economy improves, China alone will put 2 or 3 times as many vehicles on the road as are on the road in the US today. Plus billions of people in China, India, and other developing countries would love to have lawnmowers, pickup trucks, ATVs, buses, recreational vehicles, air travel, and ocean cruises. Plus pharmaceuticals, plastics, cosmetics, and thousands of other products that contain petroleum by-products. Plus more factories and industrial plants to make all these oil-derived and oil-consuming products.

All of this dramatically increasing oil demand will occur as the accessible oil reserves start declining.

Now if only we could figure out a way to put that on streaming video.

John Howley
Orlando, Florida
www.HowleyGreenEnergy.com

Oil Disasters and Sub-Prime Mortgages: When Risk is Taken Out of the Price

The BP Deepwater Horizon catastrophe has much in common with the implosion of the sub-prime mortgage market. In both instances, very intelligent people failed to take basic precautions with risky investments. Why? Because the risks were not fully included in the investment analysis.

In the sub-prime mortgage market, the rating agencies gave what turned out to be deceptively favorable ratings to Collateralized Mortgage Obligations (CMOs), in part because the risks were chopped up and spread around in pools. Investors did not demand a high risk premium because they could not see the full extent of the risks.

Something very similar happened with BP's investment in the Deepwater Horizon. BP's spill response plan estimated the worst case scenario at 177,400 barrels of oil, a number that we now know was absurdly low. And the bulk of the risk was assumed by the US government when it limited BP's liability for damages claims to $75 million.

If BP had to assume the full risk (potentially billions of dollars) in a gulf that has seen some of the worst hurricanes (including Katrina), the insurance premiums or reserves required to cover that risk presumably would have been much larger. Larger insurance premiums or reserves would have reduced the potential return on investment for the project.

What would BP have done if the financial projections for the Deepwater Horizon project had been lower because they included the full cost of insuring against a multi-billion dollar risk? Maybe BP would have invested in a less-risky natural gas project that would have produced fuel with 30% to 40% lower carbon emissions. Or maybe BP would have invested in some of the new Green and sustainable technologies that it was touting in its advertisements. Or maybe it would have invested in a different oil project that did not carry the risk of destroying the fishing industry in the Gulf of Mexico.

Here's the bottom line: Our best hope for a future of clean and sustainable energy is to encourage rational investments by the private sector. That is only possible if the price of oil includes the full cost of pollution and the full cost of insuring against environmental disasters. Once that happens, alternative energy sources that do not carry those costs will become very attractive investments and the smart money will flock to them. So if you want to start a shift to cleaner and more sustainable energy sources, the first step is to stop subsidizing oil with free liability insurance courtesy of the US Government.

John Howley
www.HowleyGreenEnergy.com
Orlando, Florida

Mr. President, Put General Petraeus in Charge of the BP Catastrophe

Mr. President, if our shores were being attacked, you would not rely on profiteers and mercenaries to defend us. You would appoint our best General to lead the defense, and you would support him with our best troops. You would not "supervise" private companies and "approve" their decisions. You would appoint one person with authority to make all decisions, and that person would have undivided loyalty to you as President.

Well, our shores are under attack. By the worst man-made environmental catastrophe in history. Eleven people have died, untold thousands are losing their livelihoods, and the damage may haunt us for generations.

The first thing you must do is appoint a battle-tested General and call up the troops. Call the oil companies and tell them that you are drafting all of their top scientists and engineers. You want them in the gulf tomorrow morning. They will no longer report to the oil companies. Until this catastrophe ends, the scientists and engineers will report solely to a chain of command headed by General Petraeus who will be advised by Energy Secretary Chu.

They will not work only on plugging the blowout. They will also do everything possible to protect the people of this nation from the devastating effects of the blowout -- even if that means doing things that will increase BP's costs or reduce its future profits.

General Petraeus knows how to organize and lead people. He knows how to get things done. He will not be distracted by falling stock prices, profit and loss statements, or corporate lawyers advising on potential future liabilities. He will not increase the number of people cleaning the beach when the press is around, and then send them home without finishing the job when the press follows you back to Chicago or the White House. With General Petraeus in charge, you (and the American people) will be confidant that everything is being done with the sole objective of protecting our nation and its people.

Mr. President, you have said that we need the oil industry's superior expertise in deepwater oil drilling. That may be the case. But this is not about expertise. This is about leadership. It is not enough for you to "supervise" or "approve" everything that BP does.

We know from experience what happens when war profiteers and mercenaries like Halliburton and Blackwater make decisions subject to the "supervision" and "approval" of the US government. The profiteers make billions and the national interest is not well served.

You must relieve BP and all of its corporate officers from any authority to develop strategies or make decisions. They can provide technical support. They can serve as advisors. They can make suggestions. But you must have one person, and one person only, who is directly responsible for developing strategies and making decisions. And that person must have no loyalty other than his loyalty to you as President and to the People of the United States of America.

Mr. President, you promised us change. You promised us that we would no longer rely on war profiteers and mercenaries to defend this nation. We need you to keep that promise. Please put our best battle-tested General in charge of the situation and tell everyone else that they are reporting to him effective immediately.

John Howley
www.HowleyGreenEnergy.com
Orlando, Florida

NYC Mayor Bloomberg Promises to Clean Up Toxic Heating Oil

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) praised New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg for addressing the issue of toxic heating oil in New York City during his State of the City speech this afternoon. The mayor pledged that his administration will be "greening the heating fuels used in our schools and big buildings."

The mayor's announcement follows an EDF report last month showing that just one percent of New York City's buildings -- those burning the dirtiest grades of heating oil -- produce more pollution than all the city's cars and trucks combined.

"Mayor Bloomberg's pledge to green the dirtiest types of heating oil is one of the biggest steps New York can take to reduce soot pollution linked to asthma and heart disease," said Isabelle Silverman, an attorney for Environmental Defense Fund. "The dirtiest grades of heating oil must be phased out by 2020. Ten years is a long enough timeframe for buildings to convert and get the best use out of the older burners that can't burn cleaner fuel right away."

More information on toxic heating oil is available on the EDF Website.

John Howley
Orlando, Florida

When Big Oil Buys the Gas Company

Earlier this week ExxonMobil, the world’s largest publicly traded oil and gas producer, announced that it had agreed to buy XTO Energy, the second-largest producer of natural gas in the US. ExxonMobil will acquire XTO for stock valued at $31 billion, making this the biggest oil and gas deal in four years.

This acquisition (and more like it) will have very significant impacts in at least three areas: energy prices; advances in natural gas innovation; and climate change legislation.

1. The Impact on Energy Prices

By acquiring the second-largest natural gas producer in the US, ExxonMobil will increase its ability to influence natural gas prices.

Prices for natural gas under long-term contracts are currently fairly close to prices for oil when measured on a cost per BTU basis. But prices for natural gas on the spot market are much lower -- often as much as 400% lower -- than prices for oil. The more natural gas that remains available on the spot market, the more likely it is that prices for natural gas under long-term contracts will come down.

When independent natural gas companies like XTO selling gas on the spot market, there is pressure on prices for natural gas to go down. Which makes gas a nice alternative to oil and coal. Which ultimately puts pressure on oil and coal prices.

ExxonMobil and other major oil companies that buy natural gas companies could influence prices by simply selling less natural gas on the spot market. The major oil companies have plenty of cash, so they could hold onto their natural gas inventories until the gap between gas and oil narrows. That is not good for consumers . . . or for the country.

2. The Impact on Natural Gas Innovation

Over the last decade, a handful of the nation’s small energy companies discovered huge amounts of natural gas in new fields stretching from Texas to Pennsylvania. XTO was one of these companies. It grew almost unnoticed into the nation’s second-largest gas producer by amassing a substantial portfolio of gas fields and developing expertise in the complex technology needed to extract the gas from shale beds.

If the major oil companies buy up these smaller, innovative companies that are making all the new natural gas discoveries, then who will pursue new natural gas technologies in the future?

Good question.

3. The Impact on Climate Change Legislation

Oil is one of the major contributors to carbon emissions worldwide. Gas is a much cleaner fuel.

The oil industry and its trade organization, the American Petroleum Institute, have vehemently opposed any aspect of climate change legislation that would raise the price of petroleum-based products. In contrast, the natural gas industry has supported many aspects of climate change legislation. Because natural gas has relatively low carbon emissions, any restriction on carbon emissions will give it a competitive advantage over oil and coal.

If the major oil companies buy up all the significant natural gas companies, then who will advocate for climate change legislation?

Another good question.

John Howley

Orlando, Florida

More Important Than Copenhagen

I told you so.

Four months ago, I predicted that, "Those looking for simple solutions to climate change will be very disappointed by the absence of firm emission reduction targets in Copenhagen later this year. . . . But at the same time, [the US and China] will pursue a second path of cooperation towards achievable solutions with or without an agreement on targets." See US and China Forge a New Path on Climate Change.

That is exactly what the US and China did in Copenhagen yesterday.

Why? Because nothing this important and this complicated ever gets resolved by a committee.

Consider for a moment the race to put a man on the moon. Thomas Friedman and others have said that this should be our model for the Green energy revolution.

I agree. But we did not get to the moon by holding international conventions and listening to dictators and despots like Iran's Ahmadinejad, Zimbabwe's Mugabe, and Venezuela's Chavez lecture us on the evil nature of our plans to be the first to put a man on the moon. Nor did we wait until we could reach the lowest common denominator consensus with Russia, China and 180 other nations on how and when to put a man on the moon.

If we had followed the path of seeking international consensus before we went to the moon, then we probably never would have achieved the goal.

So, now that we have gotten Copenhagen out of our system, let's get down to the serious work of pursuing the Green energy revolution the old fashioned way. With vigorous competition among nations to be the most energy efficient and energy independent economies in the world.

Walmart has given us a good first step. The company has sent out a Sustainability Index survey to 100,000 of its suppliers. The survey asks each supplier to provide information about their carbon footprint, energy and water usage, plans and goals to reduce their carbon footprint, energy consumption and water usage, and other factors that affect the sustainability of their operations. For now, Walmart will review this data internally. But it plans in later stages to release the data to consumers and possibly even disclose a ranking of individual products based on a Sustainability Index for the product and the company that manufactured it.

If you were a factory owner in China, what would provide a better incentive for you to reduce your carbon footprint and use of energy and water? (a) An international treaty that committed China to nation-wide carbon reduction targets over a 20 or 30 year period? Or (b) a Walmart Sustainability Index that made your products unsellable to the world's largest retailer unless you reduced your own company's carbon footprint and use of energy and water?

Forget Copenhagen. We need barriers to entry that will make it difficult for producers around the world to sell their products unless they are made using non-polluting energy sources and sustainable manufacturing practices.

We also need to alter the economics of energy at home. Yes, solar and wind are more expensive than most carbon-emitting alternatives right now. But only because those carbon-emitting alternatives do not pay the full cost of their pollution. If we make coal and oil companies include in their pricing the cost of eliminating their products' emissions (either with cap and trade or a carbon tax), then solar, wind and other non-emitting alternatives would seem very inexpensive by comparison.

Lastly, we need to use government funding and regulations to promote sustainable energy based on the long-term benefits -- just as we did when we used government funds to finance space exploration.

Imagine, for example, if all new construction and renovations in the US had to be "net zero" in terms of direct and indirect carbon emissions. By "net zero" I mean that the amount of energy used by a facility from non-carbon-emitting sources like solar and wind is equal to or exceeds the amount of energy from carbon-emitting sources. This could be accomplished by a combination of building codes requiring higher levels of efficiency in buildings (which many local governments are already imposing) and subsidies for investments in solar, wind and other non-carbon-emitting energy sources.

Yes, this would cost us in the short term. But think for a moment about the competitive advantage this would give us in the longer term. What if five or ten years from now our factories used highly efficient buildings that required less energy, and that energy was supplied by solar and wind plants that had ZERO fuel costs. Our factories would have a tremendous competitive advantage over factories in China and elsewhere that continued to use power generated by coal and petroleum fuels.

I hear all those out there who say that climate issues are different because they transcend borders. But space travel transcended borders too. And we did not succeed with space travel by waiting for everyone to agree. We went out and did it.

John Howley
Woodbridge, New Jersey

Lessons From the History and Economics of Oil

My first assignment as a young lawyer -- and my introduction to the history and economics of the oil industry -- was on a behemoth antitrust case against the major oil companies.  In re Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation involved allegations that the major oil companies conspired to fix prices by "signaling" price changes to one another and by manipulating supplies and refinery operations during the 1970's.

In between days of reviewing thousands of documents, my fellow young lawyers and I had the pleasure of working with Daniel Yergin, who was retained as one of our expert witnesses and who had just written The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power, for which he would win the Pulitzer Prize.  His book is a comprehensive and fascinating account of the history and economics of the oil industry.  It is still about the best book you can find on the subject, and anyone interested in any aspect of the green energy movement must read it.

Recently, I came across a short video of Daniel Yergin reflecting on lessons that can be learned from previous shifts in energy usage as we try to move towards a more sustainable energy future.  He describes the environmental concerns of the 1950's that forced a shift from coal to oil, followed by a shift back to coal as the principal fuel for electricity generation due to coal's cost advantages and emerging technologies that ameliorated some of the environmental harms.  He also talks about the sunk costs in our existing energy infrastructure and how that creates inertia and limits our willingness and ability to change.

Click here to view the video.  Short and to the point . . . . . and definitely worth watching.

Of Energy Dreamers, Past and Present

Rich Karlgaard, the publisher of Forbes magazine, writes a column in every issue called “Digital Rules.” He is a very smart guy and, usually at least, very innovative and forward thinking.

I say “usually” because he just missed the boat in his latest blog entry on the future of renewables.

Mr. Karlgaard argues that we are stuck with coal, oil and nuclear as our major sources of electricity in the United States for the foreseeable future. He asserts that “[t]here is no way the U.S. economy can enjoy future prosperity without the big three electrical energy sources of clean coal, natural gas and nuclear.”

Why? Because only 10% of current electricity generation comes from renewable sources, and most of that comes from hydro. Solar and wind provide less than 3% of current electricity generation.

According to Mr. Karlgaard, solar, wind and other renewables cannot possibly meet a significant part of our electricity needs 10 years from now when they are starting from such a small base. His Forbes colleague Ken Fisher agrees, urging investors to “buy into fossil fuels” because they account for “89% of electricity” and “that fraction won’t change dramatically in the next decade.”

As for Thomas Friedman, John Doerr, and others who point to Moore’s Law and argue that renewables will experience the same rapid technological advances as semiconductors if given the right incentives, Karlgaard calls them “dreamers.”

Funny. That’s exactly what they said about Thomas Edison, Nicolas Telsa, and others who set out to build centralized electric power plants in the late 1800’s.

At that time, centralized electric power plants had an even smaller share of the market than renewables have today. In fact, there were only a couple of electric demonstration projects involving only a few hundred streetlights. Gas companies had a virtual monopoly on powering lights in homes and businesses, and the new electric power plants being built had to charge far higher prices than gas. The gas companies also had an existing and very efficient distribution system for their gas, while the electricity dreamers needed to build very expensive copper mains to carry the electricity to customers.

Edison, Telsa, Westinghouse, and the other dreamers who built our current centralized electric generation system also faced a number of very significant barriers beyond price. There was, for example, the fact that the electric motor had not yet been invented. So they were trying to sell electricity before it could be used in factories.

How did the dreamers prevail? Transportation and municipal contracts. The electricity dreamers got their break by building dedicated power plants for new electric streetcars and streetlights.

Once they built a base of electric generating capacity for streetcars and streetlights, the pace of innovation and growth quickened. Innovators began inventing other things to use electricity, including electric motors which revolutionized the economics of running a factory. By 1892 – less than 15 years after Edison’s first streetlight project – General Electric’s capitalization was $50 million. The incredible speed at which centralized electric power plants developed is described in The Power Makers, by Maury Klein:

“By 1900 electricity had become an integral part of American life, especially in cities. Between 1890 and 1905 the output of electric power in the United States increased a hundredfold. By revolutionizing production and manufacturing, electricity made possible the rise of the consumer economy that was to dominate the twentieth century and transform every corner of American life. Already factories consumed more than half of the electricity generated…. Arc lights illuminated the streets of even small towns and flooded with light the avenues of large cities. In 1902, some 51,000 electric streetcars whisked urban passengers along 22,000 miles of track."

Now Messrs. Karlgaard and Fisher may be correct that coal, oil and nuclear will still be significant contributors to our energy mix ten years from now. After all, centralized electric power plants did not force the gas industry into bankruptcy.

But the history of centralized electric power plants suggests that renewables can and will grow at a much faster pace than traditional fossil fuels as sources of electricity. Once started, that pace will accelerate as the competitive advantage of renewables starts having a significant impact on the bottom line.

Think about it. Five years from now, those who invested in solar and wind today will have ZERO fuel costs for that portion of their electricity needs, while those who did not invest in renewables today will still have to pay the cost of fuel for every kWh – and at higher prices than it is paying today. Add in the fact that renewable technologies five years from now will be even more efficient than today, and everyone will be clamoring for renewables. It is easy to see how the tipping point will be reached.

Or has it already been reached? China has just announced that it is constructing a 2 gigawatt solar power plant in Inner Mongolia, the largest solar plant in the world. That is on top of nearly 80 gigawatts of renewable energy that China has already built in recent years. When China has hundreds of gigawatts of fuel-free energy, what country will be able to compete when it must continually pay for fossil fuels to generate 90% of its electricity? More to the point, what country can afford to wait?

John Howley
Woodbridge, New Jersey

Oil (and golf) Lessons

Yesterday's plan for an afternoon of golf with Sue and Charlie ended suddenly when the lightening siren went off before we finished the second hole. Not wanting to leave Florida without playing golf, I showed up at my local course this morning hoping for an opening.

The starter got me out with a couple from Switzerland. Liz is a hospital administrator and Bruno just retired after trading oil for more than 40 years from offices in Singapore, Japan and Switzerland. Much as I dislike talking business on the golf course, this was an opportunity I could not pass up.

Here's what Bruno had to say:

JH: Do you miss trading?

BB: I never thought we would see oil over $100.

JH: How much of that is due to the weak dollar?

BB: A majority. That plus speculation. You have increased demand from places like China and India. But speculators have pushed prices past what demand can support.

JH: What about supply?

BB: There are some refinery bottlenecks, but we don't have an immediate crude shortage.

JH: What do you think about the new interest in global warming and conservation?

BB: Actually, I feel a little guilty. I spent my career helping to put all that carbon in the air.

JH: Do you think we can sustain the current interest in clean energy?

BB: I hope so. We'll see what happens when energy prices drop again.

JH: You sound pretty certain that will happen.

BB: Prices will drop suddenly when speculators realize that they have gone beyond what the fundamentals will support. Over time the dollar will get stronger too. It doesn't deserve to get stronger, but it will.

JH: How much will prices drop?

BB: That is difficult to calculate. There are too many variables. You have subjective variables like the panic of speculators caught on the wrong side of the trades, and a lot of other variables like inflation.

JH: The government statistics still show relatively low inflation numbers.

BB: The government must not buy milk or bread.

JH: When will oil prices drop?

BB: Do you think this putt will break to the right?

I took the hint. My interview was starting to distract Bruno from his game. He had been straight off the tee all morning, and now he was pushing everything to the right. Liz noticed too, and she stepped in to get Bruno focused back on golf.

She began by saying something in German that sounded a little harsh. Bruno straightened his spine. Then she switched to English to give him the most basic golf advice, but in the sweetest way. "I'll watch where the ball goes, darling," she said. "You can keep your head down."

John Howley
Orlando, Florida