Using Less Fossil Fuel - It's Easy When You Know How

"As the informed public becomes aware of the impact of greenhouse gases, nuclear power is being promoted again, this time as a carbon-free energy source. But the popular notion that nuclear is carbon-neutral is faulty. High-grade uranium ores have already been exploited, and the mining and refining of lower-grade uranium ores are increasingly fossil-fuel intensive.... Humanity’s 'primary energy production,' including all fossil fuels, nuclear power, hydroelectric and renewables, is 13 terawatts (equivalent to 13,000 large power plants), less than 1/100 of 1 percent of the 170,000 terawatts continuously delivered to the earth as sunlight. With 600 terawatts of terrestrial potential, solar energy far exceeds all other possible forms of substitution....an electric vehicle is at least twice as efficient as a gasoline vehicle. We are ready for a good reason to get rid of the internal combustion engine in dense urban areas, where it is about as practical as a campfire in the kitchen. Efficiency in the face of oil depletion is that compelling reason. Solar technologies continue to improve, and so do electric vehicles. A battery with three times the energy density of lead-acid and a charging time under two minutes is scheduled for introduction in 2007 or 2008. Shanghai has an electromagnetic propulsion maglev train that travels at 270 miles per hour."
Dawn of the Solar Era - A Wake-Up Call
Solar Today, March/April 2006

"Solar electric panels will be installed on 20 municipal buildings across the oil-producing province of Alberta, city and federal government officials announced on Thursday.... In the past, renewable energy has not been needed or wanted in oil-rich Alberta, where the conventional oil sector has been a driver of the provincial economy for more than 50 years. In addition to conventional oil production, Alberta has vast oil sands, or tar sands...."
Oil-Rich Alberta Embraces Solar Power
Environment News Service, 30 June 2006

"Peter Hain has broken rank with the Cabinet to express doubts about building new nuclear power stations. Tony Blair is thought to favour nuclear after he said the issue was 'back on the agenda with a vengeance'. Mr Blair was accused of pre-empting the government's own energy review - a charge he denied. Mr Hain said if there had to be nuclear power it must work without huge public subsidy, which should be spent on renewable energy instead."
Hain sceptical on nuclear power
BBC Online, 30 June 2006

"The so-called energy review [in the UK] is in fact a review only of electricity generation, and does not address the two thirds of our energy needs that go towards heating and transport. We can’t run our cars or heat our houses with nuclear energy. So if we want to cut our carbon emissions significantly, building new nuclear power stations won’t help much. The Sustainable Development Commission has calculated that building ten new nuclear reactors would cut CO2 emissions by only 4 per cent. Other innovations could do far more than that. Our huge power stations — whether fuelled by coal, gas or nuclear — are grossly inefficient: they waste two thirds of the energy that they produce. Most of it rises into the air in the form of heat from the cooling towers. If Britain were to adopt a decentralised form of electricity generation, with much smaller combined heat and power (CHP) stations located in the communities they serve, then the heat produced by the stations could be channelled straight into factories and homes through hot water pipes. These CHP stations waste only 5-10 per cent of their energy. It can be done. The whole of Rotterdam runs on decentralised energy. So does more than half of Denmark. Closer to home, Woking has set up a local network that, together with energy efficiency measures, has cut emissions by a whopping 77 per cent. That puts nuclear savings in the shade. Decentralised energy is much cleaner than the current system and it improves energy security, because we don’t need to import so much gas.... Labour will certainly be alone in making a strong case for new nuclear stations. And the irony is that, while Mr Blair and Mr Brown think that this is the modern thing to do, they are in fact facing opposition parties with much more forward-thinking policies."
Tories: we don't want power
London Times, 23 June 2006

"In the war on global warming, the southern English town of Woking is tilting at the establishment, but unlike Don Quixote, it is using windmills instead of charging at them. The town of 90,000 has slashed emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from civic buildings by 77 percent and its success is proving a model for giants like nearby London and other cities from Australia and Canada..... Woking’s green plan was driven initially by the need to save money, but the town found it was also cutting CO2 emissions. As well as the power plant, a large hydrogen fuel cell -- the first of its kind in Britain -- provides heat and power to the local recreation center and rooftop solar panels power sheltered accommodation for pensioners. Fuel bills in the buildings supplied are lower than in the past, and Woking even sells power back to the national grid.... Last year, officials from cities around the world met in London to discuss conserving energy. A core group from around 20 cities are now working to push the agenda forward, looking at building standards, energy efficiency, sustainability and security of power supply. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has volunteered his city to host a follow-up meeting."
Town taps technology to curb carbon emissions
Reuters, 21 March 2006

"Leaders of the six-member Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which includes China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan, embraced a Chinese-led plan during the summit to increase military cooperation and discussed a Russian proposal to create a regional 'energy club' that would exclude the United States. The SCO also indicated it would soon invite Iran, India, Pakistan, and Mongolia - nations that have observer status in the organization - to become full members. That the SCO provided Iran with a diplomatic embrace at a time when the United States is trying to isolate Tehran over its nuclear program is yet another instance of how the grouping is thumbing its nose at Washington, analysts say.... Last July, as soon as Iran, India, and Pakistan were inducted into the SCO as observers, the organization also formally asked the United States to withdraw its troops from member states. Since then, Uzbekistan has asked the United States to vacate an air base it set up after the Sept. 11 attacks. Both Russia and India have also established military bases in Tajikistan, not far from the US base in that country. The economic endgame in all this is to dilute Washington's hold over the Caspian Sea's energy reserves, said Robert Karniol, Asia-Pacific editor for Jane's Defense Weekly. China and India, the world's fastest-growing energy consumers, want to divert Central Asia's energy resources toward their own economies, and Iran and Russia, the region's largest energy suppliers, are keen to reduce their dependence on sales to the West, Karniol said.....Over the last year, China, India, Russia, and Iran have signed energy deals valued at about $500 billion with one another and also have begun to talk of about creating a Central Asian 'energy club' that would have its own pipeline network and energy market. India and China have raised Washington's ire with a proposal to convert the prized Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which has been designed to bring gas to Europe, into a feeder for Asia. India wants to extend the pipeline to Syria, from where oil would be loaded onto tankers and shipped to Asia through the Red Sea."
Summit forges military ties in Central Asia
Boston Globe, 18 June 2006

"The shifting pattern of energy consumption is rattling Washington and aggravating an already intense rivalry with neighboring Japan over access to oil and gas supplies, adding to tensions in an already volatile region. 'The global demand for oil has been rising faster than supply because there's new economies that are beginning to gin up, new economies growing, like China and India,' President Bush said recently. 'Oil — the dependence upon oil is a national security problem, and an economic security problem,' Bush said. China is acutely aware of the security implications of its growing dependence on imported oil. For more than a decade, its three large state-owned companies have been scouring the globe, from Iran to Angola, to secure supplies. In the past six months alone, China has signed deals totaling more than $7 billion for stakes in oil and gas fields in Kazakhstan, Nigeria and Syria. A state-controlled company is reportedly considering a $2 billion bid for yet another Kazakh property. The worldwide buying spree helped net at least 3.5 million barrels per day of imported oil last year — enough to make China the world's third-leading consumer of foreign oil.Chinese demand is forecast to more than double by 2025, to 14.2 million barrels a day from the current 7 million a day, according to the U.S. government's Energy Information Agency..... Earlier this year, the Bush administration published a revised National Security Strategy that accused Chinese leaders of 'acting as if they can somehow 'lock up' energy supplies around the world or seek to direct markets rather than opening them up.'... Surging oil consumption by China, India and other emerging economies — on top of what is already being consumed by wealthy nations like the United States — has added urgency to the debate over future supplies. Some experts believe production will soon peak, and that looming shortages require a fast shift to alternatives.... In late April, Chinese President Hu Jintao flew to the kingdom for talks with Saudi Aramco, the world's largest oil producer — the latest episode in a continuing Chinese effort to ensure access to Saudi Arabia's 9.5 million barrels per day of oil production. That visit, coming just after meetings between Hu and Bush in the United States, was closely monitored in Washington.... China is studying alternative routes for African and Middle Eastern oil, including a pipeline through Myanmar, a port project in Pakistan and possibly even building a shipping channel through Thailand. It is also laying pipelines to former Soviet countries. China recently opened a 625-mile link carrying 190,000 barrels a day of Kazakh oil, providing its first direct access to potentially rich central Asian fields. Construction has begun on an even bigger pipeline project that when completed in 2010 will move up to 1.6 million barrels per day of crude from Russia's Irkutsk region to its Pacific coast, with a branch line running into northeastern China.... Given the risks, Washington should step up energy cooperation with China, says Sen. Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record) of Connecticut — a Democrat regarded as a close security ally of President Bush. 'These are two nations following similar international oil acquisition policies,' he said. 'If we let it go, this could end up in real military conflict, not just economic conflict.'"
China's Thirst for Oil Rattles Old Order
Associated Press, 11 June 2006

"China is moving into Africa on a grand scale. Still a developing nation itself, it has nonetheless now overtaken Britain to be the continent’s third-biggest trading partner after the United States and France. Its inroads into the world’s poorest continent are the the most striking sign of the biggest shake-up in patterns of world trade in a generation....For the world’s fastest growing economy, Africa is first and foremost a supplier of oil. In Sudan, state-owned oil companies have been investing since Western companies left in the mid-1990s. In 1996 China bought a 40 per cent stake in two oilfields and since 1998 it has helped to build a 930-mile pipeline from the fields to the Red Sea. Last year it bought 50 per cent of Sudan’s oil exports, accounting for 5 per cent of its needs. China has stakes in extraction in Nigeria, Angola and Algeria, among others. Its biggest deal so far came in January when CNOOC, the state-owned energy company, announced it would buy a 45 per cent stake in an offshore oilfield in Nigeria for $2.3 billion."
Thirst for oil fuels China's grand safari in Africa
London Times, 1 July 2006

"China's growing thirst for energy is set to be partially quenched after the opening today of a giant terminal to receive liquefied natural gas from Australia under a record $19bn (�10.4bn) deal between the countries. The Dapeng gas terminal in Shenzhen, the manufacturing heartland of southern China, is the first of more than a dozen similar facilities planned or under construction along the Chinese coast as the world's fastest-growing economy races to secure overseas power supplies.... It is part of a transformation in the global economy as resource-rich nations compete to do business with Beijing. For Australia, the 25-year contract to supply the Dapeng terminal, which was signed in 2004, is the country's largest-ever trade deal and both sides expect more to follow."
Thirsty China opens huge LNG terminal
Guardian, 28 June 2006

"The Iranians may possess less oil than the Saudis and less gas than the Russians, but no other country controls so much of both of these vital resources. Many states, including China, India, Japan and the European Union countries, already depend on Iran for significant shares of their petroleum supplies; and China and the others have been busy negotiating deals to develop, and then draw on, its mammoth natural-gas reserves."
New moves on the tripolar chessboard
Asia Times, 17 June 2006

"An energy review, due next month, is expected to call for additional nuclear power stations to be built as replacements for older plants. The Sustainable Development Commission said the nuclear option 'won't get us anywhere near tackling the UK's energy and climate change crisis'. Its chairman called for more efficient homes and less wasted power. The commission recommended the country's 'wasteful electricity network' be upgraded, with a greater emphasis on local power grids to reduce the proportion of supplies which were lost before reaching households."
Ministers warned on nuclear power
BBC Online, 29 June 2006

".....The town of Woking, located in the midst of Surrey’s London commuter belt, may not be widely perceived as a leader in energy innovation but that is what it has become. It already has the largest concentration of solar energy photovoltaics in the UK.

Along with the use of other technologies, the Borough Council has led the way in dramatically improving energy efficiency in its own properties. By 2004, energy consumption had been reduced by 49% and CO2 generation by an astonishing 77%.

Energy and water cost savings now stand at �1 million per annum. The Council has built the first hydrogen driven fuel-cell combined heat and power system (CHP) in the UK, from which pure water is also a by-product, in addition to the local generation of heat and power.

This system is still reliant on natural gas as a hydrogen source, although CHP plants could be run on renewable fuel sources in the future – such as biomass from farm crops and waste. However, by deploying CHP technology, much less fuel is required. Efficiencies as high as 90% can be achieved, compared with as little as 21% for energy delivered through the national grid.

The Council is now focused on expanding ‘green’ energy usage into the private sector, principally via the creation of a council-owned Energy and Environmental Services company called ‘Thamesway’, to provide integrated green energy services to the local community.

The approach includes the use of CHP, thermal storage, absorption cooling for air conditioning and refrigeration, renewables, and ‘private wire’ (i.e. heating, hot water, and electricity, supplied outside the national grid).

The associated green energy production enjoys exemption from the Climate Change Levy and much of the town centre is now connected to a local CHP system, from which surplus energy is also exported to sheltered housing and other local authority buildings. In addition to the substantial climate change mitigation benefits, users are supplied with sustainable energy services at less cost than from their previous energy supplier.

As a result of these achievements Woking Borough Council is the only local authority ever to have won the Queen’s Award for Enterprise......"

From Farm to Factory: The Energy Challenge We All Face
Profile, Summer 2006

For More Information On What's Going On In Woking
And How It Can Be Done In Your Town Too
Click Here

gpenergyreview.gif (8156 bytes)

No one disagrees that a big question mark hangs over our future energy supply. But what is the solution?

It may surprise you, but the current Energy Review isn’t just about nuclear power. It’s actually about a choice between two energy systems: centralised or decentralised. To be able to choose, we need to have a quick look at how these two systems work.

Here comes the science part

In a centralised energy system, coal, gas and nuclear power stations generate electricity, which is transmitted on a grid to where it is needed, often many hundreds of miles away. In this system two thirds of the energy generated is wasted as heat, for example as steam up a cooling tower. In fact, the heat loss is so large it is enough to provide all the heating and hot water needs of the entire UK.

In a decentralised energy system, the electricity is generated close to where it is needed, so that the heat, which would otherwise be wasted, can be used in the surrounding homes, offices and factories. These local energy generators are called Combined Heat and Power stations, and are up to 95% efficient, more than double the efficiency of centralised power stations.

What ‘Energy Gap’?

Looking at these two systems, the solution to the so-called ‘Energy Gap’ (caused by the decommissioning of nuclear power stations and declining North Sea gas) becomes obvious.

In a centralised energy system, the only way to plug the gap is by building new large-scale power stations to produce electricity, and by burning even more gas to provide heat for industry and homes. In a decentralised energy system, however, the electricity and heat are generated at the same time using the same fuel. So, by cutting out the waste, you effectively close the energy gap.

The real world

‘Ah,’ you say, ‘this decentralised energy sounds all very good in principle, but does it actually work?’

Well, yes it does. The entire city of Rotterdam, for example, runs on decentralised energy, as does over 50% of Denmark, and across Europe major cities such as Malm� and Helsinki have all adopted decentralised energy on a large scale. In fact, worldwide, decentralised energy systems are generating more energy than nuclear power stations.

Saving the planet

What about global warming, doesn’t nuclear produce less CO2 emissions?

Technically, it does. However, nuclear power, which provides 20% of our electricity, only represents 3.6% of the UK’s total energy use. So, its effect on our total CO2 emissions is very small. Indeed, the proposed new generation of 10 nuclear power stations would only cut our CO2 emissions by 4%. Any CO2 savings made here would be wiped out by the predicted expansion of airports alone.

Compare this to decentralised energy. Here, by doubling efficiency with Combined Heat and Power stations you use much less fuel overall for the same amount of energy, which in turn means you generate considerably less CO2 emissions. In fact, according to energy experts, this could be up to 30% less.

What about energy security?

One of the main arguments for nuclear power is that it will reduce our reliance on overseas gas supplies. Well, yes it could, but not by much. Only a third of the UK’s gas is actually used to generate electricity in power stations. The rest is used to generate heat for industrial processes, to warm our homes and to provide hot water.

A better system, surely, would be one that uses gas more efficiently to generate both electricity and heating at the same time. Thereby reducing the amount of gas that is needed overall - something decentralised energy achieves with Combined Heat and Power stations.

This is not all decentralised energy can do for energy security. Combined Heat and Power stations can mix efficient use of gas and coal with other types of cleaner fuels such as woodchip, straw or biogas, further reducing any reliance on gas.

Also, let’s not forget that nuclear power has its own very real dangers. It provides a high-risk target for terrorists, and it produces waste that remains deadly for over a million years.

How much!

Another problem with nuclear power is no one really knows how much it’s all going to cost. What we do know is that the bill for cleaning up the nuclear waste generated so far is estimated to be �90 billion. We also know that the only way to make nuclear power stations attractive to investors, i.e. the City, is for the government to pay for some of its higher costs. And, there are only two ways to make this happen. Either the taxpayer pays in higher taxes or the consumer pays in higher electricity prices.

Given that it is hard to estimate the costs of nuclear power, it is also hard to compare the costs of decentralised energy. However, an economic model used by the UK government concluded that a decentralised energy system would cost considerably less than upgrading a centralised energy system with new nuclear power stations. Interestingly, it also concluded that our energy bills would be cheaper.

Where do renewables fit in?

You may have noticed we haven’t mentioned renewable energy sources so far. This is because the UK can close the ‘Energy Gap’, cut CO2 emissions and reduce gas consumption just by using fossil fuels more efficiently. However, to move beyond fossil fuels, to create a fully sustainable and secure energy system, renewables must be an essential part of any solution.

Over to you Mr Blair
After reading this you might think, like us, that the UK should adopt a decentralised energy system. You may also be wondering why on earth the government hasn’t discussed this before. Unfortunately, this is one question we can’t answer. To find that out you’ll have to speak to Mr Blair himself. After all, his reports have an excellent track record for including all the facts.

"Cutting edge technology to cut greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon capture and off-shore wind, needs government support to make it competitive, said Head of Shell International Renewables Graeme Sweeney on Tuesday.... Carbon capture needs special sweeteners to get it off the ground, Sweeney said, as there is no particular financial incentive for power producers to add the technology to their continued burning of fossil fuels. Carbon capture involves burying heat-trapping gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) underground. 'It would require substantial public incentives to get this up and running,' he said of carbon capture and storage (CCS), speaking at a climate change conference in London. 'There's plenty of hydrocarbons (left) and people are going to use it. There are large amounts of coal, oil, oil sands and oil shales.' 'If you want to capture 10 percent of carbon emitted from current fossil fuel activity the infrastructure (required) would be the same size as the oil and gas industry, to deal with the volume. So you better get started soon.... Government will need to favour particular technologies, rather than leaving the energy mix to the market, Sweeney said. 'There is a problem to get stuff taken off the shelf and deployed. I believe off-shore wind can go... but you need to give it a differential position.... Shell International Renewables is a part of Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSa.L: Quote, Profile, Research). Shell would announce shortly a 100 megawatt plant in Germany for second generation solar activity, Sweeney added."
Green technology needs more public funding-Shell
Reuters, 27 June 2006

The Large Amounts Of Money Needed To Invest In Carbon Capture
Could Instead Be Going Into More Cost Effective Energy Conservation Incentives And Energy Technologies
Which Don't Generate CO2 In The First Place

"... climate disaster is still only in its very early stages: this is not a linear but a dynamic process of intensification. Indeed, at certain 'tipping points', emissions of greenhouse gases could leap unpredictably. The impact of this on human civilisation is at this stage unknowable. So is all this irreversible? Some is, but far the greater part is still to come and can be slowed and, over time, halted. But it requires more urgent and radical change in our transportation, economic systems and lifestyles than governments or industries anywhere have yet seriously contemplated. What then is to be done? If climate change is driven primarily by the burning of fossil fuels, the world must diversify quickly into renewable sources of energy — wind power, biomass, wave and tidal power and solar energy. Carbon capture and storage may be an option, but no clean coal-technology prototype has yet been built."
Michael Meacher, Former UK Environment Minister
Ten years to prevent catastrophe
London Times, 10 February 2006

"Peak oil is the point at which oil production rises to its highest point before declining. Almost all expert opinion agrees that it is fast approaching, possibly within five years, almost certainly within 15, according to the former Saudi oil chief, Dr Sadad al-Husseini.... Global oil production is 84m barrels a day. As the president of Exxon Mobil Exploration, John Thompson, said in 2003: 'By 2015 we will need to find, develop and produce a volume of new oil and gas that is equal to eight out of every 10 barrels being produced today.' That is not just a problem of better technology. Additional oil on that scale is not available. There are three options to escape this dilemma. One, which the US is ruthlessly pursuing, is to grab by force of arms the lion's share of what remains. A second is to shift into unconventional sources of oil - tar sands, extra heavy oils and gas to liquids processing. A third is to accelerate the switch out of oil altogether into renewable sources of energy, especially wind power, biomass, tidal power and solar. What is so disturbing is that long-term global policymaking on this, perhaps the biggest decision this century, is virtually non-existent and driven instead by self-destructive short-termism."
Michael Meacher, Former UK Environment Minister
Our only hope lies in forging a new energy world order
Daily Telegraph, 26 June 2006

"President Vladimir Putin's top political adviser Wednesday accused the United States of seeking international energy domination under the guise of promoting democracy and insisted that Russia is committed to building its own style of political pluralism without outside interference. 'When our partners interpret energy security as full control over our energy resources, I think we have a right to understand it differently,' said Vladislav Surkov, deputy head of the presidential administration and the architect of some of Putin's most controversial steps to reassert the power of the state in Russia. 'People talk to us about democracy, but they're really thinking about our energy resources,' Surkov said. He noted that during Vice President Dick Cheney's recent visit to Kazakhstan, an oil-rich state whose human-rights record is often criticized, the American 'harshly criticized Russia's democracy and then praised Kazakhstan's. Kazakhstan is our brother and neighbor, but I'll never believe they've advanced further in the cause of democracy than Russia has,' he said. 'We know our flaws. But we don't get involved in things that are not our business, and we'd like to be treated in the same way.' The politely combative tone came shortly before the arrival of U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other foreign ministers of the Group of 8 industrialized nations for annual meetings chaired by Russia this year. Energy security is a top theme for the talks, as is Russia's re-emergence as a global oil and gas superpower able to use its energy supplies as a lever in dealing with the new Western-backed democracies emerging along its borders. Wednesday's meeting with reporters was a rare look at the secretive, 41-year-old adviser widely known as the 'gray cardinal' of the Kremlin. Surkov has quietly played a significant role in steering Russia toward a return to state control over strategic sectors of the economy, from oil and gas, and managing the development of civil society."
Russia chastises U.S. over energy
Los Angeles Times, 29 June 2006

"The first option was the real reason behind the first Gulf War in 1991, to deter Saddam gaining control of the Saudi oilfields. It was also a major reason for the orchestrated revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, as well as the military interventions in Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, all of which offer key oil transit routes from the Caspian Sea Basin, which holds the world's biggest untapped fossil fuel resources, worth up to $5 trillion. Equally it is also one major reason for Russian intervention in Chechnya, part of the northerly transit route between the Caspian and Black Sea under current Russian control. It is certainly another reason for US concern about Iran, holding only slightly lower oil reserves than Iraq. But, above all, option one was the main trigger for the Iraq war. Of more than 80 oilfields discovered in Iraq, only about 21 have been at least partly developed. Despite this, Iraq's proven oil reserves exceed 110bn barrels but its total reserves are likely to be far more, perhaps even 200bn barrels more. This explains US determination to control this fulcrum but it has involved an escalating political, military and economic price that must make this option unsupportable even for the US. An alternative strategy is to take advantage of the rising oil price to develop unconventional oil sources, notably the Athabascan tar sands in Canada and the Venezuelan Orinoco heavy oils. However, the downsides in terms of cost, manpower, water shortages and, above all, CO2, are prohibitive. Cost-wise, the International Energy Agency reckons that investment needed in oil and gas over the next 25 years to meet an expected 50pc increase in global demand, will be $5 trillion, equivalent to more than four times the entire GNP of the UK. The biggest constraint, however, is environmental. It takes almost as much energy to mine, process, refine and upgrade the oil extracted from tar sand as the energy contained in the light oil produced. Worse still, the processing releases five to 10 times more greenhouse gases than a barrel of conventional oil. This is the exact opposite to the scientists' requirement for the world to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 60pc by 2050. The third option is clearly the right way forward - a new energy world order. The potential for powering the world economy via renewables is almost infinite. Governments should now be switching to this option, far faster and on a far greater scale."
Michael Meacher, Former UK Environment Minister
Our only hope lies in forging a new energy world order
Daily Telegraph, 26 June 2006

"There are many reasons to doubt that Saudi Arabia, the world`s biggest oil producer, can feed the globe`s ever-growing hunger for oil for as long as it claims, experts say..... Saudi estimates are much more optimistic than the reality, Zagar said, adding that his best estimate for proven reserves was significantly lower -- at 165 billion barrels. On loan from Exxon Mobil, Zagar worked on some giant Saudi Arabian oil fields in the late 1970s, and has researched their capabilities ever since. 'My contacts at Saudi Aramco tell me that they are under pressure to replace reserves depleted by production,' he said. The new, optimistic estimates are likely because of remapping old fields, he added. At the current production rate of 10 million barrels a day, according to Zagar`s estimates, reserves will decline by 2025, 17 years earlier than with Saudi figures, he said. 'That has drastic implications for the world`s economy,' he said. Saudi Aramco Chief Executive Officer Abdallah Jum`ah, however, says that due to new projects, the maximum sustained production capability could be increased to 12 million barrels per day by 2009, a plan backed by Ali Naimi, Saudi oil minister. That would push the decline date even closer, to 2020, he said."
Ananlysis: How much oil do Saudis have?
United Press International, 30 June 2006

"Former U.S. president Bill Clinton has urged newspaper editors to focus more attention on the depletion of the world’s oil reserves. In a June 17 speech to the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies convention in Little Rock, Arkansas, Clinton said a 'significant number of petroleum geologists' have warned that the world could be nearing the peak in oil production. .. At the AAN convention, Clinton delivered a detailed scientific explanation of some of the problems with the Ghawar oil reservoir [the largest field in the world in Saudi Arabia]. Clinton echoed Simmons’s claim that massive amounts of water have been injected into Ghawar to maintain oil pressure. 'It implies less oil than we previously thought,' Clinton said."
Clinton raises alarm about oil depletion
Georgia Straight (Canada), 22 June 2006

"We almost certainly are at or near what they call peak oil..."
Al Gore, former US Vice President
CNN, 14 June 2006

"The sun is the only energy source that can meet the oil depletion challenge. But solar energy ramp-up must be large-scale and immediate.... Peak oil is an emerging reality. With production already declining in all but a few major oil regions, an energy shortfall is inevitable. ... One place where the peak oil message is being heard is at the margins of the oil, gas and coal industries. As energy prices rise exponentially, researchers are attempting to exploit carbon-intensive, non-conventional fossil fuels to replace transportation fuels. Massive investments have been made to extract tar sands in Alberta; research is ramping up to find a way to convert oil shale in Wyoming and Colorado; and improved technologies are being developed to convert coal to liquids, using the same process that fueled Hitler’s desperate army. But such attempts have produced inadequate amounts of net energy. For heat to extract oil from tar sands, natural gas equivalent to one-third of a barrel is used per barrel. This natural gas is in addition to the liquid fuels and electricity needed for mining, refining and environmental remediation. Recognizing rising natural gas prices, advocates are even suggesting nuclear power to replace natural gas for heat in the extraction process. Nuclear power is also being examined for the extraction of oil shale. This misnamed substance (neither shale nor oil but marlstone and kerogen, an immature hydrocarbon) must be heated under pressure to convert it to oil. One proponent in Colorado envisions a nuclear facility generating more power to heat oil shale in situ than all electricity now consumed statewide. Water requirements and environmental impacts could be huge. As the informed public becomes aware of the impact of greenhouse gases, nuclear power is being promoted again, this time as a carbon-free energy source. But the popular notion that nuclear is carbon-neutral is faulty. High-grade uranium ores have already been exploited, and the mining and refining of lower-grade uranium ores are increasingly fossil-fuel intensive. If all bets are placed on marginal fossil fuels and nuclear power, the consequences for society will be dire. Perpetuating the automotive fleet, for example, may seem laudable. But propping up the fleet with low-grade fuels could be more dangerous than doing nothing because, as U.S. Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett suggests in his article (page 27), these marginal sources too will run out, and humanity will be left high and dry."
Dawn of the Solar Era - A Wake-Up Call
Solar Today, March/April 2006

"...every �1 invested in energy efficiency produces seven times as much CO2 abated as the same �1 invested in nuclear energy..."
Jonathon Porritt, chairman of the UK Sustainable Development Commission
Blair's nuclear error
Guardian, 30 June 2006

"You may have noticed we haven't mentioned renewable energy sources so far. This is because the UK can close the 'Energy Gap', cut CO2 emissions and reduce gas consumption just by using fossil fuels more efficiently. However, to move beyond fossil fuels, to create a fully sustainable and secure energy system, renewables must be an essential part of any solution."
Greenpeace Advert
London Times, 20 June 2006

"Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman called upon 'the best scientists and engineers in India' to pool their talent and collaborate with their American counterparts to expand research in finding alternative sources of energy. Referring to President Bush's Advanced Energy Initiative, 'an achievable program' to bring to market energy produced from cellulosic ethanol, hydrogen, solar and wind technologies, Mr Bodman said 'This will require the best scientists and the best engineers. Many of these individuals are to be found, not in the United States, but in India.' He expressed hope that the 'two countries can cooperate on these projects as well, as we are on the ITER and on FutureGen, to bring them to fruition that much sooner. ' Mr Bodman was addressing a symposium here yesterday on 'India's Changing Innovation System: Ahievements, Challenges, and Opportunities for Cooperation.'"
Find Alternative Energy Sources, Bodman Urges India
UNI, 17 June 2006

"Major oil corporations, most of whom have achieved record profits on the back of rocketing oil prices, have been told to reinvest in renewable energy. Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said oil corporations must be willing to reinvest a large portion of their profits for the research, development and commercialisation of renewable energy resources. 'Only by working together will we be able to resolve some of the long-term concerns weighing down the oil and gas industry. 'It is my vision to see that this process of cooperation between the public and private sectors begins at the soonest possible time,' he said. He was speaking at the opening of the 11th Annual Asia Oil and Gas Conference, themed 'Balancing The Interest Of Consumers and Producers' at the Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre."
Reinvest in renewable energy, Malaysian PM tells oil majors
Business Times, 12 June 2006

"Scientists have invented a plastic solar cell that can turn the sun's power into electrical energy, even on a cloudy day. The plastic material uses nanotechnology and contains the first solar cells able to harness the sun's invisible, infrared rays. The breakthrough has led theorists to predict that plastic solar cells could one day become five times more efficient than current solar cell technology.... The researchers envision that one day 'solar farms' consisting of the plastic material could be rolled across deserts to generate enough clean energy to supply the entire planet's power needs. 'The sun that reaches the Earth's surface delivers 10,000 times more energy than we consume,' said Ted Sargent, an electrical and computer engineering professor at the University of Toronto. Sargent is one of the inventors of the new plastic material. 'If we could cover 0.1 percent of the Earth's surface with [very efficient] large-area solar cells,' he said, 'we could in principle replace all of our energy habits with a source of power which is clean and renewable.'... The researchers combined specially designed nano particles called quantum dots with a polymer to make the plastic that can detect energy in the infrared. With further advances, the new plastic 'could allow up to 30 percent of the sun's radiant energy to be harnessed, compared to 6 percent in today's best plastic solar cells,' said Peter Peumans, a Stanford University electrical engineering professor, who studied the work."
Spray-On Solar-Power Cells Are True Breakthrough
National Geographic, 14 January 2005

"For the past half century, the limit of one electron per solar photon seemed a regrettable fact of semiconductor physics. However, in recent tests of semiconductor bits only a few nanometers in diameter—entities known as nanocrystals or quantum dots—researchers have been surprised to find that photons at solar energies commonly unleash multiple electrons. The number set loose depends on the dot's composition and—as a quirk of quantum mechanics—its size. Recent experiments on 8-nanometer-diameter lead selenide quantum dots have given the best results so far: Ultraviolet-light photons—albeit at a wavelength found sparingly in sunlight—released seven electrons apiece. That leap in producing electrons could lead to major improvements in solar cell efficiencies.... Efficiency could become a hallmark of many quantum-dot technologies. As oil prices soar to record levels, thrifty quantum dots promise to give solar energy in particular an even more powerful appeal."
Quantum-Dot Leap - Tapping tiny crystals' inexplicable light-harvesting talent
Science News, 3 June 2006

"Humanity’s 'primary energy production,' including all fossil fuels, nuclear power, hydroelectric and renewables, is 13 terawatts (equivalent to 13,000 large power plants), less than 1/100 of 1 percent of the 170,000 terawatts continuously delivered to the earth as sunlight. With 600 terawatts of terrestrial potential, solar energy far exceeds all other possible forms of substitution. Transportation in a post-cheap-oil world poses special challenges. If non-conventional fossil fuels are untenable and transportation is powered almost exclusively by liquid fuels, it is tempting to propose biomass as a substitute for oil. In the United States, 1 billion tons of biomass are managed each year. To meet all our energy needs, 7 billion tons more would be required. Obviously, electric airplanes or cargo ships are impractical, so biomass will play an important role in our energy future. But liquid fuels exclusively from plant material will be possible for transport at only about one-tenth the present level worldwide. Something has to give. Considering society’s huge investment in the vehicle fleet and these limitations of biofuels, it is difficult to imagine the transformation of transportation to renewable energy sources. To make the shift, the premise that solar energy must be converted into fuel has to be challenged. A direct path from sunlight to electricity can be 10 times as efficient as photosynthesis. Solar energy can’t be touched or put into a bottle. Solar is radiant energy, not a solid, liquid or gas. Electricity from renewables is ideally suited for urban transportation. It is nonpolluting and well-suited for fixed guide rail and automated routing of traffic, and an electric vehicle is at least twice as efficient as a gasoline vehicle. We are ready for a good reason to get rid of the internal combustion engine in dense urban areas, where it is about as practical as a campfire in the kitchen. Efficiency in the face of oil depletion is that compelling reason. Solar technologies continue to improve, and so do electric vehicles. A battery with three times the energy density of lead-acid and a charging time under two minutes is scheduled for introduction in 2007 or 2008. Shanghai has an electromagnetic propulsion maglev train that travels at 270 miles per hour."
Dawn of the Solar Era - A Wake-Up Call
Solar Today, March/April 2006

"... in large parts of emerging markets, solar power does not compete with mains electricity, because there is no grid. In Bangladesh, where more than two out of three households cannot get electricity out of a socket, some 80,000 homes now own a basic solar panel that generates about 50 watts of power. The energy is stored in a small battery and can light up three bright, energy-saving lamps for four hours, Sazzad Hossain, manager of Rahimafrooz told a solar industry conference in this southern German town at the end of last week.... 'The majority of rural households can afford solar lighting. They have no idea how much they spend on candles and kerosene,' said Andy Schroeter, managing director of Sunlabob. Researchers from the German Fraunhofer's Institute for Solar Energy's (ISE) rural electrification South East Asia programme agree that even in the world's poorest regions citizens can afford to pay for basic energy needs."
Asia Shows Solar Power Is Not Just for the Rich
Reuters, 27 June 2006