Cloud + Local imagery storage

The Department of Homeland Security has said that it wants imagery delivered in the cloud. Several counties and states have expressed the same desire. Amazon S3 prices are quite reasonable for final imagery data delivered, especially compared to the outrageous prices that imagery vendors have been charging for what amounts to a well-backed-up on-site web server with static content. I've heard of hundreds of thousands of dollars for serving tens of terabytes.

Everyone wants the reliability, size, and performance scalability of cloud storage. No matter how popular your imagery becomes (e.g. you happen to have the only pre-Sandy imagery of Ocean City), and no matter how crappy your local internet link happens to be, folks all around the world can see your imagery. And many customers are more confident in Amazon or Google backups than their local IT backups.

But everyone also wants the reliability of local storage. E911 services have to stay up even when the internet connection goes down. So they need their own local storage. This also helps avoid some big bandwidth bills on the one site you know is going to hammer the server all the time.

So really, imagery customers want their data in both places. But that presents a small problem because you do want to ensure that the data on both stores is the same. This is the cache consistency problem. If you have many writers frequently updating your data and need transaction semantics, this problem forces an expensive solution. But, if like most imagery consumers you have an imagery database which is updated every couple of months by one of a few vendors, with no contention and no need for transaction semantics, then you don't need an expensive solution.

NetApp has a solution for this problem which involves TWO seriously expensive pieces of NetApp hardware, one at the customer site and one in a solo site with a fat pipe to Amazon. The two NetApp machines keep their data stores synchronized, and Amazon's elastic cloud accesses data stored at the colo over the fat pipe. This is... not actually cloud storage. This is really the kind of expensive shoehorned solution that probably pisses off customers more than me because they have to write the checks.

The right answer (for infrequently-updated imagery) is probably a few local servers with separate UPSes running Ceph and something like rsync to keep updates synchronized to S3. Clients in the call center fail over from the local servers to S3, clients outside the call center just use S3 directly.

I feel sure there must be some Linux vendor who would be happy to ship the Nth system they've build to do exactly this, for a reasonable markup to the underlying hardware.

More on hot-rock geothermal

When you drill a hole in the ground and flush water or CO2 through it, you cool the rock you've drilled through.  The amount of heat energy that comes up from that hole depends on how much rock you can cool.  And that depends on how conductive and permeable the rock is.

To get a feel for how much energy we're used to getting out of a hole in the ground, let's consider another industry that gets energy out of drilling holes in the ground: oil wells in the United States.  Half of US oil production comes from wells producing over 118 barrels of oil per day (ftp://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petrosystem/us_table.html).  That's about 6.6 megawatts of chemical energy, which can be converted into about 4 megawatts of electricity.  These wells typically run for 20 years.

Geothermal wells will have to produce similar amounts of energy or the cost of drilling the well will make them uneconomic.

To get 4 MW of electricity from rocks that you cool from, say, 220 C to 170 C, you first need about 16 megawatts of heat, since your heat source is cooler than an oil flame and the heat engine it runs will have a lower Carnot efficiency.  Over 20 years, that flow will cool about 100,000,000 cubic meters of rock 50 degrees C.  If your well is 1 kilometer deep, you need to have cooled a region about 350 meters in diameter around the well.  Geothermal on a scale large enough to make a difference will need thousands of these wells separated by 500 meters or more, but connected by hot steam pipelines to bring otherwise diffuse steam to turbines large enough to be cost effective.

If we are to lose at most 10 degrees C of temperature delta to conduction, the cracks in the rock that carry the flow of fluid cooling it must be separated by less than 25 meters.  If there is significant flow restriction in those cracks, the separation must be closer still.  Rock 1 km down has been under 230 atmospheres of pressure for millions of years, which tends to crush the pores and small cracks the rock would otherwise have.

If the rock is heavily fractured, as it is in the Northern California Geysers field, then water flow through the rock can cool enormous expanses like this.  The Geysers geothermal field has been a great success over many decades, but it has unusual geology.

If the rock is not heavily fractured, then the production of heat from the well will look good at first but then fall off as the rock immediately surrounding the well cools off.  For the investment to pay off, heat production must stay high for two decades or so.

My guess is that using CO2 rather than water as a heat transport fluid might improve the permeability of the rock and make more rock viable for geothermal production.  This might make some areas that would not work with water-based heat extraction economically viable, but I don't think it's going to make hot-rock geothermal work across the country.

Geothermal is not renewable

You can group geothermal plants into two types:

• The kind that pump water underground and take steam or hot high pressure water out.
• The kind that drill holes in the ground and use conduction to get heat out.

Admittedly, I don't know a great deal about geothermal systems, but I do understand heat flow reasonably well. And geothermal systems are all about heat flow. Here are the problems that I see:

Conduction is an impractical way to move utility-scale amounts of heat through anything but the thin walls of a heat exchanger. For instance, ground temperatures typically rise about 3 C for every 100 meters you go underground. Ground conductivity is about 1.5 watts/meter/kelvin. Multiply those two and get 45 kW/km^2. Remember that utility-scale power means you need hundreds of megawatts of heat. Bottom line: geothermal isn't renewable. It works by cooling down some chunk of rock in place, rather than by converting heat that rises from the earth's core.

You might think that a big hunk of rock can provide a lot of heat for a very long time. For instance, a cubic kilometer of granite, cooling 30 C, provides 2 gigawatt-years of heat. Figure 20% of that gets converted to electricity. Over 30 years, that cubic kilometer of granite will run a 13 megawatt power plant. We're going to need dozens of cubic kilometers.

You might think that dozens of cubic kilometers would be cheap. Ranch land out in Idaho goes for $360,000/km^2. Assuming you can suck the heat out of a vertical kilometer of rock, the 13 megawatts from that ground are going to bring you a present value of $90 million. Sounds great!

But wait... before you get started, you are going to have to shatter that cubic kilometer of rock so you can pump water through it to pick up the heat. The hydrofracking folks have learned quite a lot about getting fluid out of tight underground formations. I think the useful comparison to make is the value of the fluid extracted. Oil is worth $100/barrel right now, which is $850/m^3. Water from which we will extract 30 C of heat to make electricity at 4 cents a kilowatt-hour at 20% efficiency is worth 28 cents/m^3, ignoring the cost of capital to convert the heat to electricity. There is a factor of 3000 difference in the value of that fluid. Now hydrofracking rocks for heat doesn't have to be as thorough as hydrofracking them for oil, since you can count on ground conduction to do some work for you. But I don't think the difference is going to save a factor of 3000 in the fracking cost.

So, that means geothermal is going to be confined to places where the rock is already porous enough to pump water through. Like the Geysers in Northern California, which is a set of successful gigawatt geothermal plants. I think it's interesting that the output has been declining since 1987.

The problem is thought to be partial depletion of the local aquifer that supplies the steam, because steam temperatures have gone up as steam pressures have dropped. This sounds right to me, but I'll point out that the water in the aquifer is probably sitting in a zone of relatively cool rock which has hotter rock above it. As the aquifer has drained, the steam has to travel through more rock, causing more pressure drop, and thus less steam transport. Where water used to contact rock, steam does now, pulling less heat from the rock, so that the rock face heats up from conduction from hotter impermeable areas.

Wait... how did cool rock end up under hotter rock? The 150 or so gigawatt-years of heat that have been pulled out of the 78 km^2 area over the last 50 years have probably cooled a kilometer stack of rock by about 30 C (or maybe a thinner layer of rock by a larger temperature swing). I'm not at all convinced by the USGS claim that the heat source is the magma chamber 7km down. Assuming the magma surface is at 1250 C (the melting point of granite) and the permeable greywacke is at 230 C, a 78 km^2 area 6 km thick will conduct about 20 megawatts, an insignificant fraction of the energy being taken out.

Refilling the aquifer will help pull heat out of the shallower rock, but that's not going to last decades. To keep going longer they'll need to pull heat from deeper rock, and that's going to require hydrofracking the deeper greywacke.

And that's expensive.

Do powerplants use too much water?

Coal and nuclear powerplants make heat, convert some of that to electriciy, and reject the rest. They use water, and lots of it, to reject the heat.

The USGS says that thermoelectric powerplants (nearly all coal and nuclear) use 49% of the water withdrawn in the US. That sounds like a lot, and it is. It's also misleading.

92% of the water used by powerplants is used for once-through cooling. That means they suck water from the river, use it to cool their condensers, then pump it back the river at somewhat higher temperature. There are legal limits to the temperature they can send back out, and as the intake water temperature rises closer to those limits, they have to pump more water, and eventually shut down the powerplant. This has happened, famously, in France during a heat wave, right when everyone wanted to run their air conditioners.

The other 8% of the water used by powerplants is used in recirculating cooling. In these systems water is used to cool the condensers, but then some of that water is evaporated in those familiar hyperbolic cooling towers, which cools the rest, and the water is cycled around. These systems use a lot less water because they only need to make up the water that evaporates. Of that 8%, about 70% is evaporated and 30% returned to the lake or river it came from.

Since 1990, the US has mostly built gas-turbine powerplants. These reject heat in the form of incredibly hot jet exhaust, and don't need water. But they burn natural gas which has caused us to send our plastics industry to China. I don't think many people appreciate how dumb that was.

New nuclear plants in the US will be either on the coastline or evaporatively cooled, because there is no appetite for increasing the amount of once-through freshwater cooling. And I don't think there will be many evaporatively cooled plants at either greenfield or brownfield sites: Greenfield evaporatively cooled plants require new water rights which are very difficult to secure. Brownfield replacements of older coal fired powerplants will be difficult because nuclear plants are much bigger than older coal plants, reject a lot more heat, and so need a lot more water, getting back to the new water rights problem. That leaves new PWR development for areas with a lot of water (US southeast) and coastlines. [Edit: And any new coastline PWR developments are going to face new hurdles as a result of Fukushima.]

Water rights are one reason why I'm so interested in molten salt reactors. MSR cores and turbines run at higher temperatures than those of pressurized water reactor cores, so they can be air cooled without killing their efficiency (and thus jacking up their costs a lot). Air cooling is a good thing because it removes an entire class of regulatory problems, and thus an entire kind of project risk.

Pumping pool water

I've been looking into the costs of pumping water through the filters and valves and pipe work around the pool, and it's quite interesting. For context, you need to understand that we live in California, in the San Francisco Bay Area (known to our utility PG&E as area X). That means that we're going to be using the pool 9 months a year, and the marginal electricity we'll be using for the pool will cost us $0.424 to $0.497 per kilowatt-hour (Those are the charges for >24.2 kWh/day and >36.3 kWh/day). That sounds like a lot of money, and it's going to sound worse as you read below.

In 1997, marginal electricity with a basic residential rate was $0.122/kWh, so the average cost growth since then is 10.0% per year. That's substantially faster than the discount rate of 6% per year that I usually apply to future money. If the cost growth of energy exceeds the discount rate into the future, it means that the energy I spend to pump pool water 10 years from now will cost more in current dollars than the energy I spend today.

You can't extrapolate a growth curve indefinitely into the future, and the price of electricity in current dollars cannot rise without limit. That said, I'm fairly confident that over the next 40 years the price of electricity will at least keep up with a 6% discount rate. That means that I'm predicting that the electricity the pumps burn 40 years from now costs me just as much, today, as the electricity that the pumps burn today.

I want to compare the costs of running the pool with the cost of building it, so I can make decisions about what sort of equipment to install. In the face of electricity that does not discount into the future, I have to put some sort of time limit on how long the pool will be operated. I'm going to pick 40 years. At that point my grandkids are likely to have learned to swim, and there is an about even chance that I'll be dead and won't have to worry about money any more. Over 40 years (9 months a year), each kilowatt-hour burned, per day, costs a total of $4643 in 2010 dollars. The bottom line is that, had I built my new pool in a standard fashion, the electricity to run it would have cost over $150,000 in present value. That's more than the pool! Instead, I've spent a few thousand dollars improving the efficiency of the plumbing so that my projected present value cost is more like $40,000 (which can be improved further).

Those of you with astronomical electricity bills, and pools, may be wondering how did I do that?

Let's get started with a simple result that is relatively new for the residential pool industry: slower is better. If I run a pump at 42 GPM for 16 hours, it'll turn over about 40,000 gallons. If, instead, I run the pump at 84 GPM for 8 hours, it'll move the same number of gallons. However, and this is really important, the pump has to push about twice as hard to move water twice as fast. Power is pressure times flow, so pumping twice as much water up twice the pressure head takes 4 times as much flow power. 4x the power in half the time is 2x the energy, and energy is what you pay for. Bottom line: slow the pump down.

You should also get the most efficient pump possible. If you don't have solar and so don't need variable head, and can mount the pump below the level of the water surface, then get something like a Sequence 5100. Otherwise get an Intelliflow 4x160, which is what I got.

Slower-is-better isn't the complete answer, because of variable pump efficiency and in-line spring-loaded valves. So most pools won't run their pumps 24 hours a day, as I do.

Note that I talked about flow power in the paragraph above. Flow power is pressure (e.g. psi) times gallons per minute. Try it. Most pumps turn electricity into flow power with an efficiency that varies between 15 and 50%. 15% is the efficiency at low speeds (right before the pump stalls and efficiency goes to zero), and 50% is the efficiency at something near top speed. Variable-speed pumps, like the Intelliflow 4x160, usually hit their maximum efficiency at high RPM settings and high flow rates (but I include a counterexample in my spreadsheet link below). As a result, when you run the pump more slowly, less energy is required to move the water, but the pump takes more electricity to produce each joule of flow energy. You can see the pump power and head curves for the 4x160 on page 47 of the user's manual. And I've extracted the numbers off the chart and done efficiency calculations here. Bottom line: best efficiency is at 30 GPM for a normal pool. I'll be forced up to 42 GPM (at a measured 31% efficiency) because the pool is big.

The analysis gets a little complicated because most pools have in-line spring loaded valves, which should be banned. Many solar installations suggest a check valve between the filter and the water line going up to the roof, because the panels drain at the end of the day and you don't want those panels draining backward, through your filter, taking all the scum in there back out through your skimmer. An innocuous little check valve seems like just the ticket. One wrinkle is that the check valve requires something like 1 psi to open, and since the flow is working against that spring, there is a 1 psi drop across the valve at all flow rates. Another wrinkle: yet another spring-loaded valve, in the heater this time, which drops about 5 psi. I'll get to that later.

1 psi doesn't seem like much until you consider that 40,000 gallons pushed through 1 psi at 31% efficiency is 0.935 kilowatt hours. Still not much? The present value is $4343. It's actually a bit worse than that because the constant pressure drop causes the pump to stall at very low speeds, which changes the best operation point to something faster and thus even less efficient.

My last pool (not my design) ran the pump at about 35 psi. As I said, the present value of each psi is $4343, so if this pump had to do the same thing, the present value would be $150,000. That number is so large that you are thinking that it is funny money. It's not. That is this year's electric bill for $3800, and next year's bill for $4000, and the year after's bill for $4200, and so on. It's committed money: if I turn off the pump, the pool turns into a pond and the City folks come by and suggest how to abate mosquitoes. How did I end up with this problem?

Pool equipment is generally designed for low equipment cost, not low energy cost, because the equipment cost is what most homeowners look at. But when we look at cost of energy to drive this equipment, it becomes clear that most pool equipment design is completely insane. The details will come in following blog posts, but in short:

Part	Cost	Pressure drop @ 42 GPM	Power cost	Alternative	Cost	Pressure drop @ 42 GPM	Power cost
Rooftop pressure relief to drain solar panels	$50	8.6 psi for 2-story house	$37,400	Extra 3-port valve and parallel drain to pool	$400	0.1 psi	$430
Gas heater with internal spring-loaded valves (check page 9)	$1800	5 psi	$21,700	Bypass heater with 3" 3-port valve and an actuator	$2050	0.1 psi	$400
DE filter with multiport valve (check page 8)	$700	4 psi	$17,400	DE filter with 2 3-port valves and ozonator	$2100	1 psi	$4,300
100 feet of 2" pipe	$60	1.19 psi	$5,170	100 feet of 3" pipe	$110	0.173 psi	$751
2" check valve	$45	1 psi	$4,300	3" 2-port valve with actuator	$250	0.1 psi	$430
2" 3-port valve	$45	0.5 psi	$2,200	3" 3-port valve	$90	0.1 psi	$430

I've implemented all but one of these on my pool, and it works: I can pump 14 gallons/minute (nearly twice what is required) up through solar panels on my two-story house with 9.5 psi from the pump, and I can pump 40 gallons a minute through the filter at 6 psi. With a fix to bypass the heater (I didn't see that one ahead of time), the pressure drop from circulating water through the solar panels should come down to 5 psi or so.

If you work at Hayward or Pentair and you are wondering how you might fix up your product line to make it more attractive, let me make the following suggestions:

• A $1500 variable-frequency pump with a proper volute, achieving 80% efficiency when operating at 30 gallons/minute and a 5 psi would be a game changer, as it would cut most pool owners' electric bills in half. It would require 3" ports. Please make the main shaft seal ozone compatible.
• Rewrite your manuals to show pool installers how to use 3-port valves to bypass the heater and drain solar panels without spring-loaded pressure relief or check valves. I'll have diagrams for this on my blog shortly.
• A DE filter to go with that snazzy pump, with 3" ports and a valve system with less than 1 psi total drop when clean at 40 gpm. Make the grids ozone-compatible (stainless steel?), and figure out a way to either send the separated air back to the ozone generator or through a catalyst to break down the ozone and nitrogen oxides.
• Introduce or work with Del to produce an ozone generator which has the ozone passively sucked into the intake of the main pump. Alternatively, figure out how to make a low power air pump that forces the ozone into the high pressure water stream after the filter. The current Del air pump is far too power hungry.
• 3" sweep 90 degree and 45 degree elbows, with interiors matched to PVC schedule 40 IDs. There is a trick where you twist the flow as it goes through the corner which might improve losses a bit.
• 3" valves with smooth interior bores. This could be the breakthrough that gets people to take you as seriously as Jandy. The gussets on the valve door interiors now save tens of cents of plastic and cost homeowners hundreds of dollars.
• Since all the big pipework and valves will take up a lot of space, pay careful attention to how all the bits fit together into the space allowed for existing pool equipment pads. Maybe a replacement for the multi-port valve which is made of 3-inch Jandy-type valves would work.
• Fix the pool control systems so that a basic control box:
• can handle 10 valves,
• connects to (and comes with) a flow meter that works down to 10 gpm,
• and has thermistor inputs for solar return as well as intake water, so you can calculate how many BTUs are coming off the roof.

I think that's enough for now. I've been tweaking this post for 10 months, it's time to post!

Bill Gates nails it

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-gates/why-we-need-innovation-no_b_430699.html

His essential argument is:

• We have some agreement on two goals: 30% reduction of CO2 output by 2025, 80% reduction by 2050.
• Some countries will not make much reduction, and some countries, like China and India, will expand their CO2 output quite a bit as their huge populations pass through their own industrial revolution.
• Some portions of our western economies will not reduce their CO2 output easily. (I think this is a minor point.)
• The former goal might be achieved through conservation and improved efficiency.
• The latter goal requires that CO2 output from two sectors, transportation and electricity generation, be reduced to zero. Still more will be required, but this is a baseline.
• Once transport and electricity have been reduced to zero CO2 output, conservation in these areas will not improve our CO2 outputs. This is, for instance, why France doesn't bother subsidizing more efficient electric appliances, as many other countries do -- France's electricity is close to zero CO2, so improved electric efficiency doesn't reduce CO2 emissions.
• Therefore, reworking the economy to reduce transportation and electric consumption does not help towards the 2050 goal. To the extent that it costs money that could otherwise be spent on zero-CO2 electricity and transport, it frustrates progress towards the 2050 goal.

So, what does it take to get to zero CO2 from electricity and transport by 2050? These two subgoals are tied together: transport must be electrified.

Our transport sector currently burns 146 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel every year. In 2050, assuming an increase of 2%/year in transport miles and a fleet efficiency increase from 17 to 23 MPG, it will consume the equivalent of 248 billion gallons of petroleum. If we replace those vehicles with electric vehicles getting 3 km/kWh, those vehicles will consume 3 billion megawatt hours per year. The Nissan Leaf gets 5 km/kWh, so I think an estimate of 3 km/kWh average may be reasonable.

So, the big question raised by Gates' insight is, what can deliver energy like that? To my mind, there are two contenders, wind and nuclear.

The first problem is generation. And the second problem is storage, to cover variations in production as well as consumption.

Here is the generation problem:

The US consumed an average of 470 gigawatts in 2008. The EIA predicts annual increases of 2%/year, so that the average might be 1038 gigawatts in 2050, for the same uses we have today.

The additional 3 billion kWh per year needed to run the electric car fleet, if spread evenly through the year, amounts to 350 GW, which isn't really so bad when thought of in the context of total electric generation. So the grid in 2050 will have to deliver an average of 1400 GW.

1400 average gigawatts could come from 1 million 5 megawatt wind turbines spread over 1.2 million km^2 (at 1.2 watts/m^2). Right now, the US has 1.75 million km^2 of cultivated cropland, so switching US electricity and transport to wind would require a wind farming sector nearly as physically large as our crop farming sector. This is conceivable. After all, 150 years ago most farms had a wind turbine for pumping water. However, 150 years ago that turbine was not the majority of the capital on the farm. These new turbines will cost about $5000/acre, compared with the $2100/acre that farm real estate is currently worth. From an economic standpoint, wind farming would be a much larger activity than crop farming.

The turbines have a 30-year lifespan, so the cost is more than just the initial capital expense. By 2050 all of the turbines installed in the next decade will have worn out, and we'd be into a continuous replacement mode. Cost? $5 trillion in capital outlay for the turbines, another $5 trillion for the infrastructure, and around $160 billion a year (present dollars) for worn turbine replacement.

Here's the storage problem:

The morning commute in any major US city lasts for about 3 hours, with most of the activity in that last hour. The evening commute is longer and more centrally distributed. If we have east-west transmission lines capable of moving most of the commute peak power, we can smooth the U.S. commute peaks into two with four-hour wide centers. Even assuming this transmission capacity, electric consumption during commute hours would be about 500 GW above average.

The current thrust of electric-car research is to improve the batteries so significantly that the cars can be charged overnight and the batteries can provide all necessary power for daytime use. Per vehicle, that's about 18 kilowatt-hours per car, which sounds possible. There is a problem, however: there simply isn't enough material to make these batteries for all our cars.  [Edit: I was wrong, there is.  Lead-acid batteries require 240 kg lead for 18 kWh.  Lithium-ion batteries require 8.5 kg lithium for 18 kWh.]

• Lead-acid batteries would require 60 million metric tons of lead for the 254 million U.S. cars. World production of lead is around 4 million tons/year, and total reserves are around 170 million tons.
• Lithium-ion batteries store 75 watt-hours per pound, and can use about 60% of that (although a five-year life is a goal rather than a deliverable). 18 kWh would require 400 pounds of battery per car, which is physically possible. The U.S. fleet would require 2 million tons of lithium. Total recoverable worldwide lithium is 35 million tons.

The most economical way to store electricity is pumped hydro. Cars could pick up their electricity from metal strips in the freeway. Pumped hydro is at least plausible: the commute surge could be stored by pumping water from Lake Ontario back up to Lake Erie, raising Lake Erie by 60 cm twice a day.

Another way to achieve this goal is with nuclear reactors. Thousands of them. A nuclear electric infrastructure would have five big advantages over a wind infrastructure:

1. It would cost far less to build.
2. It would last 60 years or more.
3. It would not be weather dependent.
4. It would not require secondary storage (still more cost).
5. It would have far less environmental impact (no lakes with tides, no dead birds).

And the biggest advantage of all: it could keep getting bigger.

However, if we are to scale up the existing fleet of 104 reactors by over an order of magnitude, some things are going to have to change.

• Nobody really knows how much it will cost to build the next American reactor. We know that it costs the Koreans and Chinese $1.70/watt, and we know that it used to cost about that much in the U.S. If we build thousands of reactors, the cost will drop back into this range or below.
• Most of the new powerplants will have to be cooled by seawater or air, but not fresh water as is most commonly done today. We do not have enough fresh water to cool thousands of plants. Quite the contrary, by 2050 electric power and waste heat from reactors will be used to desalinate seawater for residential use, as is already the case in Florida and some California municipalities.
• Typical reactor sites will have a dozen or more gigawatt-class reactors, rather than the two or three as is common today. Far from being "extra large", gigawatt reactors are right-sized.
• Either very large new deposits of uranium will be discovered, or most reactors will be breeder reactors.

Bill Gates knows that the nuclear option is going to be the one we eventually choose, and he has a company, TerraPower, developing a new reactor which he hopes will cash in on the $100 billion/year domestic market for nuclear plants. I wish him the best.

System Design for Martha

I need to buy a new computer for Martha.

• Must drive a flat panel display
• Must accept data from a FireWire miniDV camera
• Must have a DVD burner
  
• We have an ancient parallel-port printer.... which would be nice to use.
  

I could buy a Mac Mini. The Mac Mini has the FireWire interface and DVD burner. However, it will never work with that printer (a replacement will cost $150). The graphics would be much better than any mini-ITX integrated graphics I'd get. We'd get the 2.53 GHz, 4 GB memory, 350 GB version, $830. A VMware executive will cost another $70. The whole thing will come in a nice little case and make very little noise, and I will have even less idea how the software works than I do with the PC.

Or, I could build a PC. I'd get a 3.16 GHz Intel E8500, 8GB memory, 500 GB hard drive. I can get a FireWire card and a DVD burner, and a motherboard that sports a parallel port. Martha will be happy that I didn't make her figure out a Mac (more to the point, how to run PC-only software under VMware on the Mac). Vista will almost certainly never work with the printer, and so I'll still have to get a replacement anyway (a wash at $150). Even crammed into a mini-ITX case (with some risk it will not all fit in the case), it'll cost $875. The Mini idles at 14 watts, and any PC I build will idle at 35 watts. The 20 watt difference, over 5 years of 24/7, costs an extra $350.

Update: Since Martha figures she's going to be stuck with the sysadmin, she opted for the PC, to avoid learning about VMware, Boot Camp, or any other virtualization. If we could order the Mac Mini with Windows preinstalled under a supervisor, such that I could have told Martha that she could simply install any Windows programs or drivers, then she probably would have gone for that. Oh well.

Chuck DeVore nails it

Relative Risk: Global Warming and Imported Fossil Fuels vs Nuclear Power

It's from last year, but Representative DeVore perfectly summarizes the environmental aspirations and political logjam in California, and points out that a voter initiative is possibly the only way to cut through the logjam.

World Wildlife Foundation donations suspended

At the July 8-10, 2009 G8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy, Allianz (a global insurance company) partnered with the World Wildlife Foundation to deliver and publicize a report on how the 8 richest countries in the world are doing at reducing their greenhouse gases. Sounds good.

WWF/Allianz "does not consider electricity generated by nuclear power a sustainable option", an opinion shared by many. Their trouble was that any simple ranking of countries will show that nuclear power has made France the world leader in reducing greenhouse gases. Since WWF/Allianz doesn't want to promote nuclear power, they cooked the numbers.

They didn't lie. There have been a number of outraged comments about this report, but these folks did not lie. Their footnotes say specifically that numbers for France were "adjusted as if electricity from nuclear power was generated from natural gas." The report also includes, in footnotes, the numbers correctly calculated.

One of those same footnotes says that "without the adjustment, France would rank first with Germany." Unfortunately, this comment is not supported by either facts, or by the WWF/Allianz numbers. By any numeric measure, France is way ahead of the rest of the industrialized world.

Because I feel that this report is intentionally misleading, my wife and I are suspending our donations to the WWF until they amend their report to rank countries based on facts. We're also going to have a talk with a few friends who also donate to the WWF. We don't do business with Allianz, so there's not much leverage there.

Those of you who don't actually care that much about CO2 emissions or global warming can stop here.

The report ranks the 8 richest countries in terms of their "past, present, and future climate performance". Here I've listed their overall ranking, along with WWF/Allianz' calculation of their emissions per capita and per million dollars of GDP.

1. Germany (12 tons/capita/year, 384 tons/M$ GDP)
2. United Kingdom (11 tons/capita/year, 334 tons/M$ GDP)
3. France (9 tons/capita/year, 276 tons/M$ GDP)
4. Italy (9 tons/capita/year, 328 tons/M$ GDP)
5. Japan (12 tons/capita/year, 367 tons/M$ GDP)
6. Russia (16 tons/capita/year, 1140 tons/M$ GDP)
7. United States (25 tons/capita/year, 567 tons/M$ GDP)
8. Canada (24 tons/capita/year, 668 tons/M$ GDP)

France got dinged because they have not improved emissions much since 1990 (they'd already built most of their nuclear fleet by then). I notice they also got dinged for not having strong mandatory targets imposed on utilities to promote energy efficiency. The report fails to note that in France, saving electricity doesn't significantly reduce CO2 emissions, so there is no need for such mandatory targets.

The report completely failed to note that France is building new nuclear power plants on its borders to export more CO2-free power. Not only is this action going to cause more improvement in Germany's CO2 output than Germany's own utility policies, but it is also going to be profitable, which means that France is going to be able to do it AGAIN in a few years. Germany, on the other hand, is busy bankrupting itself with huge feed-in tariffs, and is already switching from expensive, imported aranthracite coal to cheaper domestic brown coal which emits more CO2 and other pollutants.

The United States clearly needs to clean up its act. Which country should we model our environmental policies after?

Germany: 51% of German electricity comes from coal-fired powerplants. They are building or planning another 26. These will add 23 gigawatts of production. Germany will be forced close its coal mines in 34 years when it runs out of coal, at which point their coal imports will peak until they will switch to imported Russian methane. Germany also produces 4.4 gigawatts from wind turbines. There is a lot of talk about wind turbines but the power comes and will come from coal.

France: France closed its last coal mine in 2004. 4% of its electricity comes from coal. 78% of France's electricity comes from nuclear, and produces no CO2. Most of the rest (11%) comes from hydro, and produces no CO2. France exports 18% of it's electric production, and most of that (5.9 gigawatts, more than $2 billion a year) is sold to Italy, which is one reason why Italy's CO2 outputs are low.

Bottom line: WWF/Allianz fudged the numbers to support a policy goal. That's wrong, and we're stopping our contributions until they fix it.

It's a shame, by the way. I liked some of the other stuff they were doing.

Why New Nuclear

Senator Alexander Lamar has a white paper which well summarizes how I feel about our desperate energy situation, and lays out a plan for how to fix it:

Blueprint for 100 New Nuclear Reactors in 20 Years

It does have a thought which was new to me, however: Russia, China and India, as well as a host of other countries, have already built out a fair bit of coal, and are beginning a large build of nuclear. If their nuclear build fails, they will fall back on coal, and nothing the US does will change the course of global warming. If their nuclear build succeeds and surpasses us, they will cement their existing lead in the next major source of energy, and they will end up owning the base of our entire economy.

And this base is enormous. The US GDP was almost $14 trillion in 2007. Generation of electricity, at about $40/MWh, was $170 billion that year. But that electricity sold for $90/MWh, for a total of $373 billion. Electricity sales are 2.7% of our entire economy.

And consider industries that are part of that industrial base. In 2007, the United States used 4.1% of our electricity (170 million of the 4156 million MWh) to smelt 23 billion pounds of aluminum. That aluminum sold for $26 billion. The aluminum smelters probably spent around $40/MWh for that electricity, so the juice was 26% of their cost of goods sold. Since aluminum is an easily transported global commodity, their profit margins are thin and small changes in their costs can lead to large changes in who makes the aluminum.

We need to own our energy supplies. We need our own large forge to build the reactor pressure vessels (right now we depend on Japan). We need American companies to build, own, and operate these reactors. And we need it now.

What we really need is to stop the Waxman-Markey cap&trade bill, and adopt Alexander Lamar's plan instead. Write your congressman.

My Response to the New York Times

Here's a link to the New York Times article "Combative Start to Senate Climate Hearings".

And, here's my response:

I’m a Californian, I vote, and I want more nukes in my state. I’m fed up with the high cost of electricity. I’m pissed off that we switched from making plastics with our natural gas to making electricity — and shipped our plastics industry to China. That’s not environmentalism, it’s offshoring, as a direct result of public policy that my representatives voted in.

My power company is not incented to make good decisions about the power mix: when natural gas prices rise, they pass along the cost. When they look at natural gas they see a lower capital cost, and so they get the same return on less capital. Fine for them, but we get stuck with power prices that whipsaw our producers out of business. Ever noticed how inflation is quoted without the volatile food and energy component? We chose to make our energy prices volatile!

What we need right now are projects like the Hoover and Grand Coulee Dams: big, expensive government-funded projects that get lots of people working in well-paying jobs and deliver locked-in low priced power for a century or more. Nuclear plants are way better than hydro plants since they don’t kill fish (or anything else, for that matter).

I want to vote for a future in which energy prices are not volatile, and where the aluminum smelters and plastic plants come back to where we can regulate them and work in them. But I seem to be stuck between a choice between Green folks, who want to build temporary windmills which will kill our economy, and Conservatives who want to stick with imported fuels, which will kill our economy. Give me a third choice!

Zubrin's Plan

Energy plans are like ..., well, everybody's got one.  Today I'll be looking at Zubrin's plan, as presented by Anne Korin.  Check out her youtube presentation.

Anne likes Robert Zubrin's plan of making lots of ethanol from corn or sugar, and using that instead of oil to run our cars.  Digging below the surface, the bottom line is that in 2008 we used 42% of our corn crop to reduce oil imports by 3.7%.  So, we aren't going to replace a substantial amount of oil imports this way.  But Anne didn't get into that aspect.

Anne's politics are certainly different than mine.  She likes to talk about having little or no government, and letting the free market work.  At the same time, the present crisis is so very bad, and OPEC is removing freedom from the oil market, so she says we need the government to fix it.  Okay, so she's libertarian except when things are bad.  A governing system that only works in good cases doesn't sound very robust to me, but that's not really the point of this blog post.

Another issue I have with her otherwise excellent presentation is that I don't follow how OPEC, which controls about half of the oil supply, can remove freedom from the market.  You can read a detailed analysis at WTRG Economics which suggests that OPEC does not have even rough pricing control.

But I think this is just her ideology, and I don't care about that so much.  What is more interesting is her presentation of Zubrin's plan (unattributed) for fixing our balance of trade / economic insecurity problem.

The basic idea in the Zubrin plan is to mandate that all cars sold in the US accept both alcohol and gasoline fuels.  This change can be applied to all cars sold within a couple of years because it does not require large changes by auto manufacturers (contrast with hybrids, or plug-in hybrids, which have a much longer and more expensive adoption curve).  Having made that change, within a few years a substantial number of consumers will be able to use high-alcohol-content fuels..  When alcohol is cheaper than gas, gas stations will offer alcohol, and so consumers will have an economic alternative to gasoline.

We can make alcohol from corn or coal, or we can import alcohol fuel.  There are a lot of hazy details: corn-ethanol may be soaking up so much corn that we're starving people to death worldwide, corn may be crowding out the use of land for food, and it may be impossible to grow enough corn to matter.

The flex-fuel vehicle part sounds really good.  There are a few other details which sound really good to me as well:

• Eliminate the tax on imported ethanol, so that it competes with imported oil (which has no tax).
• Eliminate the tax on imported sugar.  Sugar cane is supposed to be a better feedstock for ethanol production than corn.

In the presentation above, one of the audience members asks if ethanol from corn replaces more oil than it consumes.  Anne says yes, and it appears she is right.  Here's a study of corn-ethanol production efficiency:

• Each BTU of corn-ethanol produced in the U.S. requires an average of 0.14 BTU of gasoline, diesel and fuel oil.
• This factor does not support the conclusion at the top of the study, that each gallon of ethanol displaces 7 gallons of imported oil.
• Correcting for the energy density of ethanol and gasoline, each gallon of ethanol produced domestically displaces 0.57 gallons of imported gasoline.
• The U.S. produced 13 billion gallons of ethanol in 2008, which displaced 7.36 billion gallons of gasoline, and reduced oil imports by 167 million barrels.  We imported 4.39 billion barrels over the same period, so the oil imports reduction was 3.7%.
• The U.S. used 5.1 billion bushels of corn in 2008 to make that ethanol, which was 42% of the total of 12.3 billion bushels grown that year.

Bottom line: we aren't going to displace more than, say, 10% of our oil imports in the future by using corn ethanol.  There just isn't enough corn.

The reason the question gets asked is that there is a different issue: does making corn ethanol yield more fuel energy than fossil fuel energy used?  The answer here is: it's close.  When you make ethanol, you make electricity along with it.  When you add in the energy value of the coproducts, a little more energy comes out than fossil fuel energy went in (this energy was supplied by the sun).

So, the right way to think of ethanol production is as a coal-to-liquids system.  It has the consequence of increasing the total amount of carbon dioxide emitted for a given amount of energy delivered to the automobile.

The World's Underwriter

This graph, from the New York Times, shows the extent of U.S. financial commitments made over the last year to deal with the credit crisis.

From December 2007 through September 2008, we committed $537 billion.  That is not money spent, but it is money put at risk by guaranteeing various financial instruments, and by loaning to banks that could not otherwise get loans.

But in September 2008 the Fed went nuts, nearly doubling the commitment to $1097 billion, or around $5500 per taxpayer.  (There are around 200M taxpayers, right?)

And then in October, the FDIC joined the Fed, and, according to the NYT, together they upped the commitment to $5069 billion.  I am not following the NYT very well here, however, since it appears that $1600 billion of this refers to the size of the commercial paper pool, and not the size of the projected government purchases within that pool.  So it's not like the government is actually selling $5 trillion of T bills.

It appears the Fed has become the world's underwriter.  The commercial paper thing appears pretty transparent, for instance.  The Fed sells T bills at 1% interest, and buys commercial paper at 5 to 10% interest.  So long as the default rate is lower than the spread, the Fed makes money.  Given the size of the money flow here, it is possible that the Fed could either make or lose amounts similar to the size of the national debt over the next couple of years.

Of course the problem is that someone at the Fed has to decide what rate they want for paper from which companies.  Since the decisions required are vast -- they have to price the entire commercial paper market -- one presumes the same people are doing this that just presided over the credit default swap implosion.  So, it seems like we might be more likely to headed for the "likely to double the national debt" outcome and less likely to end up at the "paid back the national debt" outcome.

This is Macroeconomics, for real.  Wow.  It really makes you wish there were a way to get off this train.

Spend, spend, spending our way out of recession

We have a consensus among politicians in this country that we must spend our way out of this recession.  Of course, there are many things to spend money on:

• For the last six years, the neocons within the Bush Administration have spent around 700 billion dollars of our money on wars, and committed another trillion or so to the aftermath of those wars (caring for the permanently maimed American soldiers).
• This March, the idea that everyone jumped at was spending money on consumer goods, so every American got a check for $400 from the government, and was exhorted to spend it on consumables.  Pfft!  Just like that, $80 billion gone.
• In just the last month, the Federal Reserve has spent hundreds of billions by buying stock in badly run banks whose value is justly plummeting as people realize how stupid their management was.

All of these have been colossal failures from an economic point of view.  And I do mean colossal.  The U.S. economy is about $13 trillion a year, and has a historic growth rate of about 3% per year.  It is the most awesome generator of wealth ever.  The economy usually generates about $400 billion a year in growth.  And our government is now throwing away money at a rate which entirely negates the economy's ability to grow at all.  The current trends guarantee that our children will be worse off than we are.  We are within a single order of magnitude of blowing away the entire output of the U.S. economy, which would reduce us to hunter-gatherers amid fancy energy-starved infrastructure within a year or two.  Lest you think that an order of magnitude increase in government spending is preposterous, consider that one department, the Fed, is now spending more than 1% of the U.S. GDP per month propping up just one industry.  The auto industry is lining up at the trough, and others aren't far behind.

Although the things the government spends money on now are crippling the economy, this is actually a good time for government spending to grow, so long as we spend money on the right things.  Private sector returns on investment are low, so the cost of borrowing has dropped, which means investments have longer to make a return.  This is a great time for the government to spend money on things that will cause the economy to grow in the long term:

• Domestic power infrastructure, like wind farms and nuclear powerplants.  These will make the cost of future energy more predictable.  Predictability means less risk, so that the cost of capital for energy-intensive manufacturing, like fertilizers and aluminum and steel and plastic, will be lower in the U.S. than in other countries without the same infrastructure.  That will give our descendants decades of competitive advantage, which is enough time for not just businesses but industries to grow.
• Health care efficiency.  I'm not suggesting we spend more on health care itself -- we're spending too much on health care.  I suspect that a huge amount of operational expense can be slashed from health care through radical restructuring without large amounts of investment.  The restructuring will be radical though.  Imagine the number of people put out of work if drug advertising stopped.
• Electrified transportation.  Hydrocarbon-based transport will always rely on imported fuels subject to ever-more volatile price swings.  The value of real estate depends in part on the cost of transportation (if you drive 40 miles to work at 20 mpg and $4/gallon and 3% discount, that's $100k present value), and so volatility in energy prices causes volatility in housing prices which caps the house value that people can afford.  Worse still, we get situations like the current housing bubble, caused by just 2 million people simulaneously finding out they bought way too much house.  (That's just 1.7% of the 116 million homes in the U.S.!)

At least the president-elect seems to have the right idea.  I heard him refer to investment spending as a "two-fer".  I was disappointed at his notion that half the good idea of a "two-fer" is just spending the money at all.  But at least he's looking for the right kind of thing to spend on.

Grove's plan

Now I've read Andy Grove's plan (at The American, or via Wired) to fix our energy dependence national security mess. Mr. Grove thinks, as I do, that national security is the most immediate problem we face.

There are flaws in both Grove's and Pickens' plans, but we can take good ideas from both and act on them immediately.

There are two steps to either plan:

1. Switch our vehicles to a non-petroleum energy form
2. Make that energy domestically

With Pickens' plan, we switch to natural gas to power cars (step 1), and simultaneously free up domestic methane production by building wind turbines (step 2). If we do step 1 without step 2, we end up switching from imported petroleum to imported natural gas, which suits Pickens quite well because he has lots of gas to sell us.

With Grove's plan, if we do step 1 without step 2, we've got a bunch of electric cars which will plug in at night. The extra demand at night will drive utilities to produce more baseload power -- coal, wind, or nuclear, in that order, all of which is domestic. The advantage of Grove's plan is that step 2 is handled by the market.

The problem with Grove's plan is that converting cars and trucks to electricity instead of natural gas is more costly. The added cost will cripple the plan in two ways:

1. It is so much more costly that the conversion will happen more slowly. Per year, less petroleum imports will be displaced.
2. Fewer vehicles, in the end, will be converted.

I think there are good ideas in both these plans that we should isolate and exploit immediately.

There are no forseeable battery technologies that will work on long distance trucks. The obvious substitution here is to move long distance freight by electrified train. We already have most of the rail infrastructure (rights of way are the big issue here), and the nation is already switching some cargoes back to rail. But railroads have been sick for a long time, and we have to fix them before they can help America.

Rail's crushing disadvantage compared to trucking is it's capital structure -- the fact that the same companies own the road and the trucks. Long distance trucking works because multiple companies run trucks over the same routes, which are owned and paid for by the U.S. government via tolls on the trucks and taxes on the diesel they burn. We should change rail to use this structure. The rail infrastructure should be electrified in the process, so that the independent trains can choose to run on cheaper domestically produced electricity where it is available. All the technology necessary is already developed and in production.

The good idea in Pickens' plan is to build lots (many tens of thousands) of wind turbines. Wind turbines displace imported natural gas with domestic labor, and that is the most useful part of his plan. If you then convert cars to run on natural gas rather than petroleum, you in turn displace some imported petroleum with some imported natural gas. This second step is a fine thing too, as petroleum costs more than natural gas per unit energy, but the first step is what is most important.

The United States made a terrible mistake during the 1990s by building nearly a terawatt of natural gas-fired turbines. The choice was driven by utilities who know that fuel costs can always be passed to the consumer, so that cheap gas turbines minimized investment and so maximized return on investment. The problem here is that utilities were allowed to make investments with large externalized costs. Market forces do not work to the advantage of most citizens unless the market is set up to internalize the costs that matter to the citizens. Because utilities have no sons and daughters to send to war, they cannot be allowed to make investment decisions that force us to send our sons and daughters to war.

Electric freight trains and wind turbines will not fix America's imported energy problem. Both, however, can be pursued immediately, are solid steps in the right direction that will not have to be reversed, and will make market-affecting changes in our consumption of imported energy. Both options will buy us some time during which we must develop better options.

In the medium term, we can build more nuclear power plants. These take longer than wind turbines to come on line, but the eventual impact can be much larger. The public discussion of our nuclear options is becoming more sensible, and I am beginning to hope that we may be able to begin building this infrastructure again after a two decade hiatus that has cost us terribly.

Nuclear power generation, if pursued in a sensible way, can drive the cost of electricity in the U.S. down below the cost of coal power in China, in a predictable, long-term way, which I think should be an explicit goal of our national energy policy. This will have the effect of "onshoring" basic industries that we have been moving overseas for decades. The onshoring effect is actually more powerful than displacing imported petroleum, because the imports that are replaced for a given amount of investment have higher added value.

Constraints to wind power

Jesse Ausubel has a pretty good essay which describes what he thinks the future of power production will look like. It's a somewhat rosy picture, and although I'm also optimistic (but not for the next few years), I disagree on a couple of points.

He, like I, thinks that we've got to get away from coal. I don't follow his reasoning for why he thinks we have to get away from coal. It seems he has identified a long term trend towards fuels with less carbon and more hydrogen, and he thinks we should make choices to perpetuate that trend. As near as I can tell, he's skipped the part about why the trend is a good thing. Perhaps he thinks consumers like lower carbon fuels because they tend to burn with fewer combustion byproducts, but he doesn't back this claim up with any market analysis.

I think we as a country need to stop burning coal because

• we import a lot of oil to burn coal (we spend almost as much on oil to move the coal as on the coal itself), so that the price of coal-fired power is quite sensitive to the cost of oil,
• it is politically possible to install lots more windpower, but coal is seeing opposition, and it is vital to our economic health to get a lot more electric supply,
• wind power is inelastic supply, whereas coal power is elastic. That is, a coal plant will shut down if the price of electricity falls below it's operating costs, but a wind turbine costs almost nothing to run and will keep generating through a larger swing in electricity prices, which will make our electricity supply more predictable,
  
• and finally and perhaps most importantly, because climate change matters.
  

My biggest point of disagreement is with Jesse's assertion that windpower is impractical due to land use constraints. Other, perhaps clearer-thinking people have made this same point. Jesse makes a very sobering calculation: he figures a wind farm produces 1.2 watts per square meter, average. To produce all of the U.S. grid's 450 gigawatts (average), you'd need a lot of land. Jesse calculates 780,000 square kilometers. The area of the U.S., for reference, is 9.16 million square kilometers, with 1.75 million square kilometers of cultivated cropland. I don't get quite as large a number as Jesse, but we'll take his 780k km^2 for now.

He figures that's just too much land. But this argument is trite. I'll skip over the point that farmland with wind turbines is still farmed land, and instead focus on a more basic question: How much is too much? I think too much is when the next wind turbine to be installed is projected to make no money. That could be all the farmland plus a lot of offshore turbines, or it could be just a few places in North Dakota. It won't be decided by people getting scared of erecting some more infrastructure on 44% of our existing cropland. Farms in the Netherlands in the 1800s were dotted with windmills, because that's what drove the pumps to keep the water out. Farms in the U.S. in the late 1800s were dotted with windmills, with parts shipped at enormous expense across the continent, because that's what pumped the irrigation water wells. Modern farms aren't currently dotted with wind turbines because they've been using oil instead.

Jesse's argument is also trite because it ignores the huge variation in windiness around the U.S. In North Dakota, the entire state is class 4 or above. That means the power available at 50 meters above the ground is 400-500 watts/meter^2. Even during the summer doldrums, the average power available is 300-400 watts/meter^2.

Jesse's 1.2 watts/meter^2 number comes from a wind farm in Lamar, Colorado. That wind farm has 108 1.5 MW turbines spread over a 11840 acre area. Multiply by a 30% capacity factor, and you get 1.01 watts/meter^2. (I'm not sure how he got the extra 20%.) Why is this number so low?

It's economics. The company that owns the wind turbines pays the company that owns the land on which the turbine is sited approximately $3000 to $6000 per year per turbine. The net present value of that payment stream is $60,000 to $120,000. The turbine costs $1,500,000, which is a lot more. Spacing the turbines farther apart slightly increases the power from each turbine, at small increases in royalty payments and road and cable construction costs. If land scarcity ever becomes an issue for wind farmers, I would expect $ per watt and watts per km^2 to go up. Note that $/watt may go up slightly, while watts per km^2 may go up a lot.

Consider that the first big wind farm, on the Altamont Pass, has a power density of 0.86 watts/m^2, which is lower than Lamar's density. If you follow that link, you'll note that wind farms vary from 0.24 watts/m^2 (Pierce County, N.D.) to 5.3 watts/m^2 (Braes of Doune, Scotland). I think land prices, more than turbine capability, is driving the energy density of these farms.

Note that the wind power map above quotes wind at 10 and 50 meters above the ground. Back when the Department of Energy began collecting data for these maps, those were considered the likely bounds of practically sized wind turbines. However, the Lamar turbine towers are 70 m tall. It turns out that the tower costs are mostly just steel, and the higher up you go, the faster the wind blows. After the industry got experience with the costs of siting, permitting, building, bird strikes, aesthetics, and so forth, it turned out worthwhile to spend more on steel in the tower and concrete in the foundation. As a result, watts per km^2 has gone up.

Is there a limit? Placing turbines closer together can collect more wind energy, but fundamentally most wind power is still being dissipated as turbulence and then heat higher up in the atmosphere. Bigger wind turbines reach farther up to capture more energy. It is hard for me to imagine that ground-based wind turbines are going to get substantially taller than they are now, and so I do not expect the average power yield to increase much beyond, say, 2 or 3 watts/m^2 average. 2 watts/m^2 across all of North and South Dakota would yield 750 gigawatts, which is why you hear wind advocates claiming that the Dakotas can power the rest of the U.S. They could, if you could transport the electricity to market.

Finally, I doubt very much that, even if windpower is wildly successful, it will ever account for anything like 100% of the U.S. grid's production. If many coal plants are forced out of production by lower cost wind plants, I would expect that some very efficient mine-mouth plants will remain. I will be astonished (and pleased) if wind ever produces half the U.S. capacity. If that ever happens, wind turbines will be a familiar sight, but not an overwhelming use of land.

Jesse also complains that wind turbines take significantly more steel and concrete than nuclear powerplants. Obviously the steel and concrete are factored into the current prices of turbines, so it's already part of the price comparisons being made. There are two future risks to large use of concrete and steel, however:

• Wind turbine prices in the future could be more closely tied to raw material prices (which in turn depend on the cost of energy) than on the price of labor (which depends on the state of the economy). This question resolves to whether future wind turbine prices are more sensitive to the cost of imported energy than electricity from coal is. Coal fired electricity is fairly sensitive to oil prices, so I doubt this is a problem.
• A large bump in wind turbine construction could use so much concrete and steel that it would distort the markets and cause large price increases.
  

The second issue got me to pull out the calculator again. Here are Jesse's numbers, actually Per Peterson's numbers, in context of the production necessary to build a 250 GWe average windpower grid (about half U.S. electric consumption):

• Steel: 460 metric tons per MWe. The U.S. produces about 90 million metric tons of steel every year. Over the 30 years it would take to build a new US grid, wind turbines would require 1.3 years' worth of production.
• Concrete: 870 cubic meters of concrete. The U.S. ready-mix industry produces about 350 million cubic meters a year, so we'd need 0.6 years' worth of concrete production.
  

These constitute a nice bump to domestic production, but are significantly less that ordinary year-to-year variation.

The bottom line: if the price is right (or even close), let's have all the wind turbines we can build, because it really could help with our foreign trade deficit, economic sensitivity to energy prices, and global warming.

Burning coal is burning oil

I found some numbers for the oil cost of burning coal.

Freight trains in the United States burn 1 gallon of diesel to move a ton of frieght 436 miles.

Average distance coal travels in US: 628 miles from mine mouth to powerplant. At $4.03/gallon, that's $5.80 for the diesel to move a ton of coal from the mine mouth to the powerplant, on average. Wyoming coal costs $9 at the mine mouth. So, electric producers pay almost as much for the diesel to move the coal as for the coal itself. Since marginal petroleum is imported, it's fair to say that coal is not entirely a domestic fuel.

The average powerplant cost for coal in the U.S. in 2006 was $34.26/ton. That's because coal mined outside of the Powder River basin in Wyoming costs a lot more to dig out -- the average mine-mouth price across the U.S. in 2006 was $25.16/ton. The difference is $9.10/ton, which is the cost of transport. The cost of diesel was a bit lower in 2006, but it looks like around half the transport cost is the diesel.

If the coal is 22 MJ/kg, and the plant is 35% efficient, then for each kWh at the powerplant you spend on average 1.8 cents for the coal. Just the fuel cost of the coal plant is more than the total operating cost of the Palo Verde nuclear powerplant, per kWh. This result is entirely independent of subsidies or clean coal. The black stuff is apparently just really expensive.

A while back, I snarkily suggested that mine mouth coal powerplants were a way to keep the pollution away from rich people. Looks like I was wrong:

• Transporting a kWh of electricity 1000 miles increases the cost by 19%.
• Transporting the coal necessary to make that electricity 1000 miles costs $14.49/ton, assuming cost is linear with distance. That's a 58% increase in the cost of the fuel. Assuming the fuel cost is 70% of the cost of producing electricity, that's a 40% increase in the cost of the electricity.
• 4000 miles (across the continent) by electricity: increase cost by 107%.
• 4000 miles by coal train: 160% increase.
  

What about the extra carbon? Transporting 1000 miles as electricity means you must make an extra 8.7% more electricity which gets lost in the wires, which produces 8.7% more CO2. Transporting 1000 miles by coal train burns 6.3 kg of carbon in the diesel to deliver perhaps 800 kg of carbon, which increases the total carbon released by 0.8%. Clearly the diesel locomotive is the lower carbon, if much more expensive, alternative.

Average distance coal travels in China: 230 miles. They're burning a lot less diesel to take advantage of their domestic coal.

Conservation versus outsourcing

Read "The Wonderful Curse of Natural Gas Price Volatility". It's short, just 12 pages long.

Check out the graph at the top of page 9: "U.S. Industrial Gas Demand Destruction". That's a 22% drop in industrial natural gas utilization between 1997 and 2006. That's not efficiency, that's offshoring! What's going on here?

• Natural gas is a feedstock for the fertilizer, chemical, and plastics industries, and a fuel for the electric generation industry.
• Electric power generators are less sensitive to the price of their fuel than fertilizer, ethanol, and plastics, since the latter three can all be shipped to us oversea, and electricity cannot.
• The electric generation industry is sensitive to the capital necessary to build capacity, because the rent on the capital to build their plants has to be priced into the electricity sold, and different plants do compete to produce and sell electricity. Thus, more capital-intensive plants are more likely to have lower return on investment if electricity prices dip.
• Gas turbine power plants have exceptionally low capital costs, making them very desirable to the power producers, and gas prices were low during the 1980s and 90s.
• So, electric generators built 200 gigawatts of gas turbine powerplants during the 1990s and early 00s, so that gas turbine plants now constitude 41% of our nameplate capacity (EIA figures). These gas turbine plants are now running at a capacity factor of 21%, and produce 20% of our domestic power (once again, EIA).
  
• Figure 7 of page 8 of the Ventyx report shows that between 1997 and 2006, gas consumption by the power generators rose from 11 to 17 billion cubic feet a day. That's all those gas turbines coming on line.
• It turns out there is a limited supply of domestic natural gas. Demand rose, supply stayed constant, and thus prices rose.
  
• Over the same time, industrial consumption dropped from 23 to 18 billion cubic feet a day. That's domestic fertilizer, chemical, and plastics production being moved overseas in response to higher feedstock costs.
• U.S. consumption of fertilizer, chemicals, and plastics has not dropped, and conversion from the feedstock to the final product increases value, so offshoring has driven the jobs overseas and also increased our trade deficit by much more than the cost of the natural gas consumed by the electric generation industry.
  

What we have here is another example of a strong negative correlation between the performance of the U.S. power generation industry and the U.S. economy as a whole. This is a tragedy, partially responsible for our $708 billion dollar/year trade deficit. That's an unpaid $2360 bill, per man, woman, and child, per year, for everyone in the United States.

This post and the last one may lead some of you to think I'm all for a command economy. No. I'm pretty sure that if we nationalized the electric power generation industry, we'd end up running it less efficiently, which would also lead to higher domestic power costs. I do think we need to bring the measure of performance of the electric power generation industry into better alignment with the domestic economy.

The domestic economy does well with cheap energy. In this context, gas turbines are a disaster, since they redirect a feedstock away from high-value-added uses (plastics) into low-value-added uses (electric generation). We have readily available substitutes for electric generation (coal and nuclear), but not natural gas. In some sense, all a gas turbine does is convert one kind of energy into another without increasing the domestic supply.

I don't know how to make domestic power producers profit more when the US economy has cheaper energy. The benefit of marginally cheaper power is probably nonlinear, and possibly unmeasureable in any way that would allow accountants to calculate a credit to power producers. I do not want to see more coal powerplants, because of the currently externalized cost of CO2 production, even though they are a cheap source of power. Perhaps the simplest way forward is what we have now: tax credits or subsidies for the obvious answers, like wind and nuclear, and just feel our way through, year by year, guessing which subsidies will distort the electricity market to best serve the interests of our citizens.

I'm sorry to keep harping on this energy and trade stuff, but to be honest, I'm scared. I don't understand how to predict what this trade deficit will do, nor do I understand how big is too big, but $700 billion feels too big. Our trade deficit, national budget deficit, credit crisis, housing market meltdown, and war in Iraq give me the feeling that this nation has derailed and is about to make a very expensive and possibly bloody mess.

The last time we got into a World War, we had just splurged on national infrastructure. Think about this: 90% of the Allied aluminum flying over Germany was made with power from the Grand Coulee Dam, built from 1933 to 1942, i.e. just in time. I'm not saying I expect another World War, but I am saying that when times get tough it's good to have serious infrastructure in your back pocket.

Subsidizing wheat in Afghanistan

Afghanistan grows most of the world's opium. Opium is technically an illegal crop there, and it is one of the few crops that makes enough money to support a farmer in Afghanistan. If you grow opium, the central government is officially supposed to stop you, and the local official will probably look the other way if you pay him off. It may seem cheaper and easier for the folks growing opium in the Taliban-controlled areas, since the Taliban actively helps farmers sell their crop, in exchange for some of the profit. I'm sure many farmers prefer the Taliban for purely economic reasons.

If wheat sold for more money, perhaps 3 times the world price (which is around $350-$400/metric ton), some folks think the value of the wheat crop would be large enough to encourage many farmers to switch to wheat production. Wheat is legal to grow, so their is no disadvantage for a wheat farmer to having a functional Afghani government. Foreign aid organizations could run grain mills which bought wheat at $1100/ton and sold the flour for $350/ton. Bread prices would presumably stay low as flour flooded the market, and Afghanistan would presumably become an exporter of flour.

Folks in Pakistan and Iran would be encouraged to sell grain to Afghanistan for milling. I'm not entirely sure this is an entirely bad thing. Presumably economic conditions do not vary dramatically as you cross the border, so that areas outside Afghanistan are probably also growing opium. And, as long as we stop bulk cargo deliveries of grain to Afghanistan, one would think it would be expensive to move large quantities of grain by, say, mule across the border. There is some subsidy at which it is not worth moving grain by mule. Hopefully it's cheaper for small Afghani farmers to get their product to the mills than it is for Pakistani importers.

So, how much would this cost? Afghanistan produced 4.4 million metric tons of wheat in 2007/2008, so someone would have to cough up $3.3 billion/year to carry this subsidy. That's real money, and apparently we'd have to keep it up for a decade or so. If there are not large agribusinesses in Afghanistan now, there will be within a year or two. These businesses will get efficient at growing grain in Afghanistan, and start to produce the majority of the grain there. The subsidy on grain will decrease over time, large efficient businesses will capture nearly all of it (as they capture farm subsidies in the U.S.), and the marginal farmers will move back to poppies. I don't have a great deal of hope for this effort.

By the way: anyone have a clue what this is?

Cost of oil, revisited

Last time I looked, oil was priced at $22/barrel and we were importing 9.14 million barrels a day, which made up 20% of our trade deficit of $374 billion. We were actually importing more, but I hadn't counted the refined stuff. So it was actually 12.6 million barrels/day, so $101 billion or 27% of the trade deficit.

Now, as you know, the oil spot price is around $95/barrel, but $72/barrel is closer to the average price, and we are importing 12.2 million barrels a day (crude plus some refined products). The census bureau has nicely summarized the data here, which doesn't quite match the simple math I would do. For Dec 2006-Nov 2007, they see petroleum imports as $283 billion (35%) of a $813 billion deficit.

Grim.

How much does a plug-in hybrid help?

• Over a 20-year lifetime, the car is driven 250k miles.
• It gets 75 mpg rather than 25 mpg.
• It burns 80 barrels of oil rather than 320 (and burns a bunch of domestic coal instead).
  
• It saves the importation of $15,500 of crude.
• It saves the user $23,000 in gas.
• It costs the user $5800 in electricity. (250k miles) / (3 miles/kw-hr) * (0.07 $/kw-hr)
  

My guess is that a practical plug-in hybrid chews up more electricity and gasoline than this, but it still seems pretty good. Unfortunately,

• It's made by Toyota in Japan, and costs $25,000, so the net trade debt increases. At least the money is going to a responsible nation like Japan. I will cede that eventually Toyota will make most of these plug-in hybrids here, and so only the profits will go to Japan.
  
• If 10 million cars in the U.S. were plug-in hybrids, it would reduce our oil imports by 282,000 barrels/day, or 2.3%.

That last point is a killer. It is just incredibly hard to replace oil.