Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I’ve spent the last week in the Solomon Islands, which is northeast of Australia. It’s a wonderful place for me to come back to, even if only for a week, as I lived here for nine years. It’s a curious place, one of the UNs “LDCs”, the “Least Developed Countries.” It is the most rural country in the Pacific, with about 90% of the people still living in small scattered villages on hundreds of islands. Most people from outside the Solomon Islands have never heard about it until I say that the capital city, Honiara, is on the island of Guadalcanal.
I wrote my last post from here in the Solomon Islands, about how energy and GDP are different ways of measuring the same thing. I got to thinking about the Solomons GDP ($1,600 per year, tied for 187th out of 225 countries with countries like Chad and Tajikistan) and the energy use in the Solomons. Here’s the Solos’ energy consumption by type of fuel:
Figure 1. Energy Use by Fuel Type, Solomon Islands. Photo Source
As an aside, looking at that chart, you’d think that the Solomons should be the poster child for alternative energy. Three-quarters of the country’s energy comes from biomass, what’s not to like?
What’s not to like is trachoma and lung disease from cooking over open fires, plus lots of unburnt hydrocarbons and brown carbon from wood smoke, huge inefficiency losses, and other issues. But I digress. Looking at that graph, I was reminded that we mark the dawn of human civilization by a single act – the domestication of fire.
Fire was our first use of a concentrated energy source, our first step towards a GDP greater than what humans can do unaided. Unfortunately, for much of the Solomon Islands, it remains the only energy available in concentrated form. Three quarters of the energy used is plain old garden variety fire. In addition to household use, it provides the energy for two of the very few ways that the rural islanders can make money – copra (dried coconut meat) and cocoa. Both require heat for drying.
Now, given the general equivalency of energy consumption and GDP, what does that mean for the Solomons? It means that this lovely environmentally correct bio-fuelled country will never climb out of its poverty without more energy. Fire is not nearly enough to fuel an economy in the 20th century.
What about the petroleum fuels? What are they being used for in the Solomons? Here is the breakdown:
Figure 2. What the Fossil Fuels (diesel, petrol, natural gas, kerosene) are Used For in the Solomon Islands. Photo Source
The main thing that sticks out is that, in great contrast to the US situation, more than half of the Solomons fuel is used for transportation. This is a consequence of the way things are transported here … mostly by outboard canoe. There are perhaps a hundred miles of paved road in the entire country. Everything is moved by boats large and small. The big boats take things to the provincial centres (such as they are), and people go to buy them in their small canoes powered by outboards.
The good news in the graph is that electricity sector is 100% diesel-powered, so at least there is hope there. The islands are steep and rainfall is abundant, and there are some good hydropower sites. That means some substitution is possible.
Overall, once again we see that development in Solomon Islands is a function of energy, and that as long as they are relying on fire and a handful of petrol, they will never fire up the economy in any significant manner.
Now, I started this whole island travelogue with a very specific point in mind. It has to do with a pet peeve of mine. This is the pernicious idea that the way to solve the “energy problem” is to make fuel more expensive through taxes, so people will use less of it and become more efficient in its use. (As an aside, I don’t see the “energy problem” as being people using too much fuel, but as being people who don’t have affordable fuel. But hey, that’s just me.)
There’s two problems with that “tax our way to energy freedom” idea. First, in the Solomons, a trip from Gizo Island to Kolombagara Island in a particular boat might take, I don’t know, call it ten litres of fuel. If fuel prices go up and the operator can only afford eight litres, he’s stuck. He can’t economize and get more efficient like the theory says he’s supposed to, the outboard engine burns so much an hour. And he can’t just use the eight litres he can buy, it will leave him marooned in mid-ocean. He’s stuck in port, and out of the game.
There’s a worse problem, though. This is that taxing energy is taxing the wrong end of the production process. This slows the whole production process down before it can be started. I saw this in Honiara when fuel prices got high in 2008. For a while you couldn’t buy fish in the market of the capital city. Why? Because fuel cost too much, so it wasn’t worth it for the guys to go out fishing … and a significant chunk of the fuel price in the Solomons is taxes to the Government.
This is taxing the wrong end of the production process. Countries should tax the outputs of production (in this case the fish) and not the inputs (fuel, fishing gear, and boats). You want to encourage people to fish by making the entry cost for production inputs as low as possible.
There’s also a more subtle problem with taxing the wrong end of the production chain. Output prices are typically some multiple of the price of production. This means that adding a dollar on the input side often leads to a two dollar jump in the final price … not good.
Then, when the boats can go out and fish because the cost of inputs is low, the country should tax their output. Tax the fish in the markets. It will perhaps make the fish slightly more expensive for the customer … but at least there may be fish in the markets, instead of empty boats tied up by the markets. When the fuel prices were so high in 2008 and fish were either wildly expensive or unobtainable, the health of the kids suffered because fish is a main source of protein in the islands. That’s not a direction that I want to go.
In summary:
1. Taxing energy to force people to economize and become more efficient can be very counterproductive at the poor end of the economic spectrum. People are already using as little energy as they can possibly get away with, because from their point of view energy is already very expensive. In addition, they may not be physically able to economize or increase their efficiency.
2. If a country decides to use taxes as a (very blunt) instrument of energy policy, it should tax the outputs of production, rather than the inputs to production. This allows production to increase, instead of crippling it.
3. In the absence of often unavailable changes in efficiencies (see outboard motors above), forcing people to use less fuel through taxes means lowering the GDP. For places like the Solomon Islands, that’s the last thing we want to do, lots of folks there are way out on the economic edge already.
Finally, in the very best Solomons fashion, this is being written while I’m waiting for the departure at the airport, because the plane is two hours late. Or as they call that here in the Solos, “right on time” … wish me luck, when and if the plane arrives I’m bound back to Nowherica.
w.
This has been a very interesting post. I have been to a number of places with people living on the edge of starvation, but never on remote islands like the Solomons. I believe the only road out of their situation is if some country or company should find an interest in developing some kind of industry or other economic activity that would bring in outside money and technically sophisticated workers. This is an agrarian society, and I doubt has any engineers or construction workers to build things like ethanol from sugar plants. During WWII, soldiers found that Guadalcanal was a terrible place to be because of malaria and fungus diseases. If the other islands are similar, the only thing I can think of that might attract interest would be a pharmaceutical company looking for the next wonder drug developed from natural plants in this remote location.
If you open your minds to the possibility AGW could be real and put yourself around the other side of the table for a moment, the logical response is to consider that hypothetical I outlined- ie we could all agree to ditch all other forms of taxation for total reliance on CO2E taxing to gain a maximum income/price effect and yet still retain the benefits of a ‘free’ market we all know produces the greatest good for the greatest number. Notice that ticks a lot of our boxes vis a vis the current constitutional marketplace we find ourselves inheriting (ie that we have deliberately or inadvertently ‘engineered’ over a long period) The warmenistas could well be right that it’s high time for a radical paradigm shift and hold that thought. What’s wrong with giving them their head on CO2E taxing? Lots of ticks for it. Administratively simple to collect at the mine or well-head, virtually unavoidable, neutral in its effects(doesn’t discriminate between private, business, charitable or religious endeavours) yet quite progressive in the sense that we know it will soak the wealthy/rich harder because of their much higher consumption of fossil fuels. Also it taxes the life blood of capital rather than human sweat, effort, entrepreneurship and risk taking and wouldn’t that be an added bonus for those with largely only their physical labour to sell? Even without the threat of AGW it facilitates the transitioning from a peak oil world and furthermore would make the existing stock of manufactured goods more advantageous than plundering the natural environment with more fossil fuels. ie it would favour quality over quantity and enhance the value of recycling manufactures with large fossil fuel outlays inherent in them. Lots of ticks and few crosses when you think about it and I put it to a number of committed warmenistas for their consideration. That lead me to the next obvious step in a new constitutional ‘free’ green marketplace. Can you see it?
I’ve a BETTER idea: User fees.
Why taxes at all? If you use a so-called ‘government service,’ then you pay a ‘user fee’ for that ‘service.’
Who needs most of what governments do anyway? I certainly don’t!
The lot of them are nought but a pack of blood suckers on the government teat.
With NO TAXES at all, then the only thing needed is that which is used.
If you don’t use it, then you don’t pay for it. AND, if NOBODY USES IT, then it isn’t needed!
How hard can it be?
observa says:
November 18, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Like you, the US EPA believes AGW is real. They are about to impose a huge carbon tax which will cost billions and billions of dollars. Their own estimate of the benefits from the plan?
They say it will cool the earth by 0.03°C by 2030 …
See, the problem with taxing carbon is IT DOESN’T WORK!!! You can argue pro and con about AGW, but even the EPA says their own billion dollar plan will give us a result that can’t even be measured …
And you guys wonder why nobody believes in your scare stories any more? We’ve heard too many bogus plans like yours that will impoverish the world and accomplish nada. Zip. Zero. Unmeasureable. All that you do when you propose them is to confirm our opinion that far too many AGW supporters don’t have a clue about the real world, and just want a “feel-good” solution no matter how many poor people it might hurt.
So as politely as I can say it, let me say, please get your grabby hands and your pathetic plans out of my pockets before they get chopped off at the wrist …
Pytlozvejk says:
November 18, 2010 at 2:28 pm (Edit)
Many thanks, Pytlozvejk, but you seem to be temporarily caught in a world without imagination. For example, you could raise the rental price of the market stalls by an amount that on average will give you the money you previously raised through energy taxes. Im sure there are other solutions.
Grey Lensman says:
November 18, 2010 at 3:47 am
Richard
Is this the plant
http://www.power-technology.com/projects/mokai/
Nope, not that one, this one
http://www.mightyriverpower.co.nz/News/Detail.aspx?id=1639
I am not sure how costs can be markedly reduced. This is a geologically active area, we had a significant earthquake in 1987 (6.2 Richter) so structures have to be engineered accordingly. Also, geothermal steam contains a high proportion of H2S which oxidises readily into H2SO3 and H2SO4 so there needs to be a designed resistance to acid corrosion, combined with air pollution controls. Connection to the grid costs must have been minimal as the access point is less than 2Km away.
Grey Lensman says:
November 18, 2010 at 6:17 am
I am keeping on point with Willis re the energy/GDP equation and how it effects the Solomon Islands and how they can practically address it. Here are two conflicting stories on the Biofuel deebate
http://www.sustainableethanolinitiative.com/Sve/Standardsidor/Filer/Myths_vs_Facts.pdf
http://www.liv.ac.uk/~jan/teaching/References/Walker%202009.PDF
For the Islander the scientific debate means little. If he can grow it and reap an income, he is happy. …
If you believe that, I suspect that you don’t know many Pacific Islanders. Like everyone else they do things for a variety of reasons, but “to reap an income” is usually far enough down the list to doom a project like you propose to a messy death … and we haven’t even gotten to issues involving the land, which in the Solomons is another project killer in itself.
Finally, other than the Guadalcanal Plains (where they grow oil palm and cocoa), most of the land in the Solos is quasi-vertical, it’s volcanic islands with steep slopes almost everywhere. This means that you are looking at smallholder production of a crop with which they are totally unfamiliar … bad combo.
However, I have to say again that I greatly enjoy the plans that the AGW supporters come up with. For anyone who has actually tried to do anything similar to what is being proposed, they are often a refreshing burst of absurd assumptions and unworkable conclusions, wrapped up in enough good will (and authentic good will, I will say in their defense) to sweeten several tanker loads of lemon juice.
Unfortunately, my laughter soon stops when they add that I am expected to pay for their naiveté out of my pocket …
re post by observa says: November 18, 2010 at 3:01 pm
it will soak the wealthy/rich harder because of their much higher consumption of fossil fuels. Also it taxes the life blood of capital rather than human sweat, effort, entrepreneurship and risk taking and wouldn’t that be an added bonus for those with largely only their physical labour to sell? Even without the threat of AGW it facilitates the transitioning from a peak oil world…
Sigh. So, observa, the likes of John Travolta gives up one of his 6 jets and perhaps sells one of ??? properties to cover the cost increases of his CO2 heavy lifestyle – meanwhile, the increased fuel cost bankrupts and puts literally tens of thousands into bankruptcy and poverty as they can no longer pay the fuel costs to get to work plus the increased cost of all the food and every other product they buy, and they can no longer pay their utility bills and start going without basic utilities to varying degrees – or they become homeless. Medicaide, unemployment rolls, food stamps, all forms of welfare explode, with that burden ultimately coming out of the pockets of the now far fewer people who are still able to earn enough to even pay taxes… and so the domino’s fall, and that’s just using the USA as an example.
So, please, explain to me how raising fuel costs/taxing CO2 somehow soaks the rich more than the poor?
And that doesn’t even directly consider the fact that you are only considering individuals – who gets ‘soaked’ the most is every single business or manufacturing project that uses a lot of energy. So many of those are quickly forced out of business, and the price of everything from the others is drastically increased. Now who does that soak? EVERYONE, with the poorest by far the least able to absorb cost increases and so therefore hurt by far the worst.
Please, explain to me what the difference is between: “the life blood of capital” and “human sweat, effort, entrepreneurship and risk taking?” Are those not the one and same thing?
Lastly, have you kept up to date on “peak oil?” By “up to date,” I mean, not just from the “peak oil” advocate’s side, but also from alternate viewpoints?? Peak oil simply doesn’t seem to be an issue until probably the end of this century – and by then, considering the pace of our technological advances, the fact that “peak oil” was supposed to occur back around 1920 and yet every single decade since those first claims of peak oil we’ve had MORE proven reserves around the world than each proceeding decade… as early as 2004 at least (likely far earlier for all I know), we’ve known that the USA alone has enough shale oil to provide for the high end projections of USA oil needs for the next 100 years, at competitive prices (competitive to current oil prices that is, or 2004 prices if that was lower). USA shale contains roughly twice the amount of oil in the Canadian oil sands, and when you add the two together, IIRC it’s more oil than the total known world proven oil reserves. Ironic timing, but yesterday there was a NYT article no less that touched on some of these issues: “There Will Be Fuel” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/business/energy-environment/17FUEL.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
All in all, I just find it very difficult to credit arguments based on ‘peak oil.’ Nor can I see anything but harm in policies that hurt almost everyone, and disproportionally the most poor, in order to avoid ‘peak oil’ or a supposed possible 2 degree temperature increase by 2100, for which beggaring so many would by the best estimates of those supporting these policies, have a minuscule effect on those 90 years in the future temperatures. Even more so when one considers just who does benefit from these sorts of schemes – expanded governments, expanded government control of entire economies and all citizens, and massive wealth redistribution – all of which is absolutely bound to be shot thru with corruption, inefficiency, fraud, etc. We see these problems even in the best government – it gets far worse in third world countries, so again, who actually gets soaked by far the worst? The poor, and the poorer the country, the worse the effect is likely to be on the poor in those nations.
Seems to me that its a very bad deal, all the way around.
Willis said
Quote
However, I have to say again that I greatly enjoy the plans that the AGW supporters come up with. For anyone who has actually tried to do anything similar to what is being proposed, they are often a refreshing burst of absurd assumptions and unworkable conclusions, wrapped up in enough good will (and authentic good will, I will say in their defense) to sweeten several tanker loads of lemon juice.
Unquote
I agree with you 100%, for the record, I have never believed the global warming scam and have spoken out against it from when it started. But, I do believe in people, their needs and their aspirations to better life. Thus Corporations play second fiddle to people.
That is one of the problems with wind power, its sold as a corporate solution. It can work on individual basis.
Similarly , Islander need to rely on corporate imported fuel But with some effort they dont need too. I am only drawing attention to the potential alternative.
I know what you refer to, I live in Malaysia and have close contacts, daily with the South pacific. In the specific case of Solomon Islands, I think the best best is geothermal with other back ups. Dont put all your eggs in one basket. I posted the link to the latest scheme in New Zealand.
Really appreciate your work and its nice to see you looking at the implications on ordinary people.
Willis Eschenbach says:
November 18, 2010 at 12:23 pm
“economical” varies by market. (And I wouldn’t say that nobody knows!) If the alternative is to ship in fuels at great expense, then fuel from algae can be competitive. ISTR that the break-even point was about USD$100/bbl equivalent in oil. There has been a great deal of research (at great expense) into biofuels from algae over recent decades, but very little of it aimed at methods of making it cheaper and “low-tech”, appropriate technologies. The research instead appears to have been to widen the technology-divide.
But even the appropriate technologies won’t help if the people that the technology is there to serve, either reject or fail to appreciate its value. I understand that if such technology were to be implemented by some, that there is a high risk of a shift in the balance of power in island politics. So it’s not just the level of the technology that must fit the field of deployment, it must also slot into the social structure for it to succeed. Technology is inherently disruptive. Its purpose is, after all, to change the way that we live.
(I always hesitate to write all my thoughts on a blog response; imply to preserve some illusion of brevity. Rest assured that I have considered a wide range of issues and consequences even if they haven’t been written down.)
As for the “world heritage” reefs and lagoons, if those are more important to the Islanders than cheaper transport to provide a better standard of living and better health services, then that’s their choice. I’ll also not hesitate to remind them of that choice when they complain about the expense of transport and poor health standards; or when they stretch out their hands for a donation.
I’m happy to help people who are trying to work towards making a better life for themselves (and others) but I have no time at all for those who seek to perpetuate or impose misery.
P.S. You should have let us know where you were heading and approximately when. At the very least you’d have a friend or three to call. Not all hotels and motels are full, there are dozens listed in the Brisbane area, with rooms currently available; if you’re not too fussy. From my secret travel tips.
889
Nov 18, 4:19, 2010
Sometimes, communities like the Solomon Islands need a little help from Governments, not necessarily their own, Australia is proud to be of assistance through RAMSI and continues to do so.
The discussion on this site is a painful demonstration of why solutions generated in the first world tend to fall over when attempts are made to implement them in the third world. Fortunately, some posters have mentioned a few of the features that make implementing economists’ solutions difficult.
Like the fact that SI covers some 777000 square kilometres, but only 28000 sq km is dry land (well, not exactly dry, because it’s mostly rainforest)
Like the fact that the population is also spread very thinly, and mostly engaged in fishing and subsistence agriculture- few economies of scale here.
Like the fact that education is not compulsory, and fewer than a third complete a fairly basic secondary school.
Like an absence of government infrastructure that makes policy implementation/ taxation /service delivery often difficult, sometimes impossible, and always costly.
Like the fact that clan and regional loyalties are the main determinants of decision-making- not to mention serious ethnic tension that spilled over a decade ago, which led to Australian military intervention.
Like the fact that corruption is endemic at all levels- Government Ministers enriching themselves selling off timber harvesting rights for next-to nothing to Malaysian-based interests etc IIRC fishing rights suffered the same fate. The government was insolvent in 2002.
Like a land tenure system based on customary or clan rights- getting agreement to do anything different, like eg establishing cash cropping, is almost impossible.
If your proposed solutions don’t recognise the facts on the ground, they will fail.
Bernd says
Quote
“economical” varies by market
Unquote
That really is a major part of the problem in finding solutions. Beside climate warming “science” economics must rate as one of the most phoney sciences. Sorry econoomists.
We see posts above referring to “not economical” or soaking the rich (huh) or Taxing Incomes. I wonder what planet they live on.
A classic is the energy in/out argument, yes it has validity but needs to be considered in context. Several said above that biofuels consume as much energy as deliver it. Well I have looked for years and I cant see it at all in any form. Growing an oil palm is so simple, very little effort or energy input, no matter how you define energy and it delivers 1300 gallons per acre per year.
In a similar vein they talk about subsidy buy totally ignore the inherent subsidies on fossil oi.
Thus I sate the simple obvious, if it works, it works.
QED
I saw a bit of the Solomons thirty years ago, Since then they would have done better without the civil war. An optimistic, generous and interesting people. The wontok system is a barrier to development. Wontok is pidgin for ‘One Talk’ and reflects the many languages and cultures of the pacific, a wontok can be a tribe, a grouping or a ‘mate’ in aussie lingo. They have been ripped off by western companies for copra, timber and resources, this continues. Copra is used in margarine and the middle man makes the money. The village gardens provide good subsistence agriculture and good nutrition. Canned tuna and imported rice were the main nutritional issues. They actually have more of the basics for long term survival than many western societies. I’ll go back one day.
Richard thank you for the Mighty river info. I can now do some very basic illustrative sums.
Mighty river produces 100 MW and cost USD 232 Million
NZ electricty price is USD 0.126 per KW/Hr
That converts to USD 302,400 per day ( I know, ignore transmission costs/losses)
Fuel cost zero
Two years to recover capital cost
The worlds largest and most efficient diesel engine produces 80MW
Fuel cost alone at todays prices is USD 150,720 (plus a substantial lubrication cost)
Now the latter requires waste heat unit, low pressure turbine, massive operation and maintenance costs, emission control costs etc. The operation and control/management system is also vastly more complex.
Now NZ produces approx 75% of its power requirements by renewable sources, amongst the highest in the world. So why are thay spending good money on wind farms. You will not throttle hydro or geo when the wind blows and why spend money on instant fossil fuel back up. Makes zero sense.
Looked at in this simplistic way, the calculated efficiency really means nothing.
Now the punchline re costs.
The diesel engine mentioned above plus a 1200 foot ship, 220 feet wide able to carry 15,000 containers cost in total usd 170 million. So why did NZ pay usd 270 million for a bunch of holes, a turbine, an alternator and a building?
Thats what I meant when I said the costs can be reduced greatly.
Simple figures, yes, but its a starting point. Its what makes me say “what is going on here”. Then get into the detail.
I can see that we could go to USD 1,000 per KW, above Solomon Islander budgets but way within NZ purchasing power.
Then who owns the energy? Who benefits? How about some EnergyBonds to fund more, Bonds issued by the owners?
Grey Lensman says:
November 19, 2010 at 6:22 am
In the U.S. hydro-electric power is $119/mwh to produce. Compare that with $119 for nuclear, $111 for biomass, $115 for geothermal, $149 for wind, $100 for coal, $396 for solar photovoltaic, and (drum roll please) the undisputed king of low-cost electricity $79 for natural gas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Levelized_energy_cost.jpg
Caveat: this is for NEW power production. New hydro is so expensive because it requires dams to be built and condemnation of private property flooded by the newly created reservoir.
One of the comments by a congressman at the recent climate change hearing said something notable – generating electricity isn’t a problem. Liquid fuels are the problem on a number of levels. The U.S. transportation sector runs on liquid fuels and electricity isn’t a viable substitute. He made the point that no one ever talks about aircraft being powered by electric motors – it simply isn’t feasible. That underscores the problem with electricity. The only viable alternative I can see is liquid fuel from biomass. Not just any old biomass but rather from genetically engineered artficial organisms whose sole task in life is efficiently turning air, sunlight, and water into fuel oil and alcohol, both of which fit almost seamlessly into existing liquid fuel infrastructure.
Electricity I believe will eventually be largely generated by decentralized photovoltaics in combination with centralized generation where central generation is used to satisfy demand when the sun isn’t shining. While PV is very expensive today the key thing about it is that it is electronic in nature and should rapidly decline in price like all other electronic gimcracks have done in the past – PV technology isn’t following Moore’s Law of twofold cost/performance improvement every 18 months but it’s still on the same kind of curve. It’s really more of manufacturing engineering problem than a discovery (science) problem. Manufacturing advances are much more predictable than scientific advances.
Bernd Felsche says:
November 18, 2010 at 6:07 pm
Well, if somebody knows, they’re keeping it very, very quiet. Otherwise, if someone knew how to do it economically, they’d be selling it and making millions.
But as far as I know, there’s not a drop of algal fuel on the market, so … how about you stop being coy, and name names of whoever it is that knows how to economically turn algae into diesel.
DesertYote says:
November 18, 2010 at 7:57 am
“This is a bunch of Marxist garbage. I haven’t seen to many happy poor people, except in socialist mythology. I sure was not very happy trying to figure out how to get enough food to feed my son every night, or how to cook a meal without electricity.”
Maybe I’ve just been fortunate. I’ve seen and shared a great deal of joy and celebration of life where there was little money but the culture was rich in community and interpersonal relationships with friends and extended family. Mexican, Native American, and even Amish cultures. The latter two cultures are rather communal. Conversely I’ve seen plenty of well-off people who are miserable decadent wretches who drink themselves to sleep every night. I wouldn’t give better than even odds that the people living in any random wealthy American household gets more joy out of life than the poor Mexican day laborers they hire to take care of their landscaping nor would I bet the former are in any better overall health.
But I was really wondering about tropical islanders not different cultures living within the U.S. because I have no personal experience with islanders. If you look at suicide rates among the 100+ countries in the list I linked you’ll see that tropical island nations are clustered at the lowest suicide rates and Japan, which is one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, is in the top five for highest suicide rate. There seems to be no correlation with suicide rate and the factors one might expect to cause extreme unhappiness like poverty or socialist governments.
Here’s the link again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate#List
Levelised energy costs say it all, same malaise as Global Warming and its adjusted temps.
Trouble with electricity nobody runs transport on it. So what, every tonne saved of fossil fuel is a tonne saved. Every tonne of CO@ur momisugly ( if you think thats important) not emitted is a tonne saved
Same with biofuels every gallon used is a petro gallon not used.
I am staggered they dont understand that.
See my figures above, from real life, they work
Willis Eschenbach says:
November 19, 2010 at 9:32 pm:
The point about economic viability stands. If nobody’s doing it, doesn’t mean that it can’t be done. There’s a matter of startup capital; and as you correctly observe, breaking into the culture to gain some acceptance.
The few photos that I’ve seen of the area show lagoons with endemic algae. Some of that could be harvested on a small scale and should certainly be analysed to determine which endemic strains would be most suitable for further development. Failing to use endemic strains has been the main cause for the failure of such projects. (Despite that factor having been documented by the FAO decades ago.) If no endemic strains provide the potential for high yield, then the project should not proceed.
With the potential of each acre producing 3000 gallons of diesel a year from high-yield strains (before deducting the fuel used used to drive pond races and harvesting when there’s not enough wind), it would require a relatively small area of lagoon to supplement the fuel needs using “cottage industry” methods. A village could produce enough fuel to run a diesel generator as well as its boats. It is not the object of the exercise to turn the islanders into oil Sheiks; but to affordably, for them, to increase the amount of affordable, available energy.
Other algal oil ventures have failed because they compete with cheap oil. In the case of the Solomon Islands (and other islands in the Pacific), the oil isn’t cheap. As you know, fuel can be very, very expensive on those islands; putting a cap on the potential productivity and standard of living of the islanders.
Other reasons for failure stem from (scientists) trying to implement inappropriate technologies (i.e. failing to employ Engineers and local knowledge).
The other factors to keep in mind is that algal oil production doesn’t compete for land or fresh water resources. It doesn’t require food to be used as a fuel, but it can in fact be used to enhance agricultural yields. Also, it can make use of sewage from increasing settlements; and the exhaust from carbon-burning generators can be piped directly into the raceways during sunlight hours in order to improve the yield.
btw: I was recently stunned to read that Baking Soda Dramatically Boosts Oil Production in Algae. Stunned because they deem it dramatic, a discovery and a surprise. Perhaps that can also give you a sense of the state of spurious research in the area..
oh dear … 2:35 a.m. 3 hours after starting thjs response before going to bed. I hear rain on the roof and now smell the parched plants slurping it up. Good night.
Hi, geo;
Want to give your imagination some fun exercise?
How about an average cost of $0.0025/kwh world-wide?
Could happen. If the project at LPPhysics.com succeeds, small 5MW generators costing about $250,000 FOB factory door and with output about ¼¢/kwh could start hitting the world market in about 5 yrs.
re post: Brian H says: November 20, 2010 at 1:21 pm
I wouldn’t hold my breath on fusion, let alone commercial micro fusion devices. For many decades now it has sounded very promising that we were almost there and commercial fusion was just around the corner. While some great advances in the technology has been made, practically we’re no closer now than we were long ago. To the best of my knowledge, no one has even managed ignition yet. It’d sure be great if they do – and it could happen any day, but frankly I wouldn’t be surprised if they still weren’t there yet in another few decades, unfortunately.
What is perhaps much closer and more practical at this point, in that its an existing known technology, is micro nuclear power devices. Depending on the model, they’re about the size of a hot tub, 25MW (power for about 20,000 average American homes & far more than that for the electrical usage typical somewhere like the Solomans I’m sure), self contained & virtually zero operation or maintenance requirements, life span of 7 to 10 years, and about $25M to $50M depending on where you read about them (or maybe its depending on the manufacturer?). Another version is 200 kw (power for about 100 average American homes), 40 to 50 year life span, 20 ft x 6 ft, still easily transportable by ship, rail, truck, plane.
Anyhow, there are a half dozen or more different micro reactor designs, each with varying parameters, but expected electricity costs between 5 to 10 cents/kwh.
I have no idea if locations like the Solomans could even begin to swing something like this in terms of cost (suspect not but would be curious to know, tho!) – or if they get enough foreign aid to even be able to consider something like this or anything else in this ball park price wise. On the face of things however it sounds as if it might be more practical, reasonable size, and cheaper than some of the other options that have been mentioned here.
Brian H says:
November 20, 2010 at 1:21 pm
I’m an optimist. And I think that the timelines are grossly optimistic. And the costs in the order of wishful thinking.
Take e.g. the EU wholesale price of electricity which is about €0.04/kWh; but ocnsumers in e.g. Germany have to pay €0.25/kWh. The additional cost is in taxes of one form or another (e.g. by forcing electricity generators to buy co-generated electricity at up to €0.60/kWh) as well as the distribution network. Building and maintaining the network of generation plant, long and short-range distribution as well as sub-stations carries a significant cost.
The ability to build small generating capacity cheaply doesn’t automatically allow one to do away with a large part of the grid infrastructure. People and businesses want reliable power and no machine is completely reliable. So redundancy has to be provided; meaning some sort of inter-connect between small generators, with extra capacity provision for the inevitable failure of a neighbouring station.
Such interconnection requires a sophisticated control system. You can’t simply hook the wires together! And the more connected generating nodes, the greater the chance of grid instability. That is almost exactly the same problem as is experienced with wind power when it’s connected to the main grid.
As a stepping-stone, I’d first like to see nett energy produced by the advertised process. That may take 5 years. It’s not happening now AFAICT. Then one has to commercialise the plant. That’s not going to happen in less than 3 to 5 years, even ifthere are early adopters willing to take a high risk. Those things take time. Throwing more money at the development doesn’t speed up development unless it’s starved of funding. Generous funding instead has the perverse effect of slowing development. (vis “climate research”).
Governments will be made to regulate and control these “magic boxes” that people can’t be bothered to try to understand. Fear-mongers out of ignorance or with ulterior motive, will delay and obstruct for a decade.
It would be optimistic to assume a timeline of 20 years for full, commercial production at the cost competitive with conventional and existing nuclear technologies. And then a couple of decades to adapt the electricity grid.
The prospectus ends up in the recycling bin if it vaunts a time to market of 5 years, where the underlying technology is not yet shown to work and the necessary technologies unknown.