Peak oil Says: peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil ... Talk to us about how the infrastructure of our cities need to be adapted to this changing world. Please don't blind us for the reality of what is going to happen with your tips and tricks to reduce emissions. It does not reflect the urgency of the situation. Have some guts and grow a vision. Don't do it for me, do it for your grand children.
peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil
...
Talk to us about how the infrastructure of our cities need to be adapted to this changing world.
Please don't blind us for the reality of what is going to happen with your tips and tricks to reduce emissions. It does not reflect the urgency of the situation.
Have some guts and grow a vision. Don't do it for me, do it for your grand children.
tonyw Says: ... It is now nearly three months since you started your most welcome blog but progress seems to be incredibly slow. WTI is hovering around $130 and there is talk about $200/barrel. Since the blog started WTI has increased by nearly 30% and still we are talking, in this thread about driving economically!! In this time we could have: Banned production of cars with emissions over say 225g/km. Introduced a European speed limit of 90km/h 55mph. Stopped expansion of airports and roads. None of the above would require new technology or training or huge funding. So let's stop moving the deckchairs around. I have lots more ideas but we all need to take action and responsibility especially those in positions of leadership.
It is now nearly three months since you started your most welcome blog but progress seems to be incredibly slow. WTI is hovering around $130 and there is talk about $200/barrel. Since the blog started WTI has increased by nearly 30% and still we are talking, in this thread about driving economically!!
In this time we could have:
Banned production of cars with emissions over say 225g/km.
Introduced a European speed limit of 90km/h 55mph.
Stopped expansion of airports and roads.
None of the above would require new technology or training or huge funding.
So let's stop moving the deckchairs around. I have lots more ideas but we all need to take action and responsibility especially those in positions of leadership.
Carolus Obscurus says: ... ... A textbook example is Andris's own account of his experience with an eco-driving simulator (see above). He writes: By applying all eco-driving tips, a normal driver is able to reduce his energy consumption in an urban circuit from 7.3 l/100km to 5 liters. Well, yes - but only on one of those simulator thingummies. On the real existing streets of real existing cities the likelihood of any normal driver being able to reduce her fuel consumption by 37% simply by applying a few eco-tips approaches zero. Perhaps amber or red light jumping would help, but that could have nasty consequences. On a similar vein, Commissioner Wallstrom has recently divulged on her own blog that ... by boiling less water - i.e. only just enough for your cup of tea - you could help save a lot of energy. If all Europeans boiled just the water they needed, thus avoiding 1 litre of unnecessarily boiled water per day, the energy saved could power one third of Europe's streetlights. Fairy tales of this kind tempt one to award a prize for the most ridiculous energy-saving tip of the month, something fit for `Private Eye' or `The Onion': ...
... A textbook example is Andris's own account of his experience with an eco-driving simulator (see above). He writes:
By applying all eco-driving tips, a normal driver is able to reduce his energy consumption in an urban circuit from 7.3 l/100km to 5 liters.
Well, yes - but only on one of those simulator thingummies. On the real existing streets of real existing cities the likelihood of any normal driver being able to reduce her fuel consumption by 37% simply by applying a few eco-tips approaches zero. Perhaps amber or red light jumping would help, but that could have nasty consequences.
On a similar vein, Commissioner Wallstrom has recently divulged on her own blog that
... by boiling less water - i.e. only just enough for your cup of tea - you could help save a lot of energy. If all Europeans boiled just the water they needed, thus avoiding 1 litre of unnecessarily boiled water per day, the energy saved could power one third of Europe's streetlights.
Fairy tales of this kind tempt one to award a prize for the most ridiculous energy-saving tip of the month, something fit for `Private Eye' or `The Onion':
Marcel Oeyen Says: I'm disappointed to see that the best you can come up with, in regard to energy efficiency, is ECO-driving. This shows that you, like most people, do not understand the true size of our energy and climate-problem. Don't you think that it would be more useful to use all your influence to get people out of their car and into public transport or onto their bike, than learning them to ECO-drive? By promoting this ECO-driving you give people the idea that it is OK to drive as much as they do. And since when is driving a car ECO?
I'm disappointed to see that the best you can come up with, in regard to energy efficiency, is ECO-driving.
This shows that you, like most people, do not understand the true size of our energy and climate-problem.
Don't you think that it would be more useful to use all your influence to get people out of their car and into public transport or onto their bike, than learning them to ECO-drive? By promoting this ECO-driving you give people the idea that it is OK to drive as much as they do. And since when is driving a car ECO?
As for the Commission's acting on the whole, what can I say? We just had oil topping 135$ and this week Andris writes a log entry talking about buying electricity at the supermarket. Go figure... Vencit omnia veritas.
We just had oil topping 135$ and this week Andris writes a log entry talking about buying electricity at the supermarket. Go figure...
Commissioner Andris Piebalgs' Blog: Buying green kilowatts in the supermarket (May 30, 2008)
Many people ask me what the internal energy market is about. Actually it does look like a very technical issue only suitable for engineers. It is technical indeed, but for final consumers, the opening of the energy market would mean that you can choose your electricity in the same way as you chose your potatoes. In other words, that there is a wide choice and your decision is based in your particular preferences. Wouldn't it be good that you can buy your kilowatt hours in the same supermarket that you buy your milk or your clothes? ... Last Friday, I visited a supermarket where you can indeed buy electricity as you buy tomatoes. The group Carrefour Belgium, a partner of our Sustainable Energy Campaign, has decided to sell electricity in their stores. Yes, like they sell food, clothes or books. And in order to target a particular market share they have decided to sell 100% renewable electricity. We had seen a similar phenomena when the Commission liberalised the sale of gasoline and diesel. Many supermarkets across Europe have entered this market, and this had a positive impact on prices and in the freedom of choice for consumers.
Last Friday, I visited a supermarket where you can indeed buy electricity as you buy tomatoes. The group Carrefour Belgium, a partner of our Sustainable Energy Campaign, has decided to sell electricity in their stores. Yes, like they sell food, clothes or books. And in order to target a particular market share they have decided to sell 100% renewable electricity. We had seen a similar phenomena when the Commission liberalised the sale of gasoline and diesel. Many supermarkets across Europe have entered this market, and this had a positive impact on prices and in the freedom of choice for consumers.
Migeru Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. May 31st, 2008 at 6:03 pm Dear Andris, Utilities are not potatoes and you know it. With the internal energy market you still have only one electrical grid. It may be broken down into interconnected subgrids each owned by a different company, but the point is that you don't have a choice of who owns the wires that feed power to your home, and nobody is offering to build a new infrastructure to "compete" with the existing one. This means your electricity provider needs to pay a usage fee to the infrastructure provider and the cost of that fee is passed on to you in your electricity bill. Utilities produce energy and sell it on a market by charging a price to feed power into the grid. This price is the "marginal" price, that is, it is dictated by whatever the momentary supply and demand conditions are, and then by the production cost of the most expensive KWh needed to satisfy the momentary demand. At present, baseload power is generally provided by (non-discretionary) nuclear and wind, and peak power by (discretionary) hydro, and fossil-carbon plants (coal, petroleum, gas). As hydro is cheap it is used if available in preference to fossil-carbon and so the marginal price is the price of one KWh of electricity from (normally) gas. Electricity from gas didn't use to be the most expensive, but the price of gas in international markets is pegged to oil futures, and as you know the price of oil futures has grown severalfold in the last few years, from under $60/bbl or even under $30bbl to over $120/bbl. This means the price of gas has grown and so has the price of the marginal KWh of electricity. Anyway, back to the power market. Marginal pricing and energy trading means that "100% renewable power", even though it is (in the current $135/bbl oil climate) cheaper to produce than gas, is still sold on the liberalised electricity market at the price of electricity from gas, which is rather expensive. The electricity provider pockets the difference. In a regulated monopoly situation, it would be possible for the price to be the average price as opposed to the marginal price, thus reducing the margins. Also, "100% renewable power" such as that offered by Carrefour is normally sold at a premium over "dirty" power, banking on the willingness of the "green" consumer to pay a little more to help the planet. However, as I argued above, electricity from hydro or wind is much cheaper to produce than form gas. So, we're being swindled. However, there are honest reasons for cheap, "green" power to be sold more expensive than "not guaranteed green" power. The problem is that, if green power were sold substantially cheaper to the retail consumer, demand would rush to green power and there just isn't enough green power generation to go around. Considering a KWh is indistinguishable from another KWh once it leaves the power generation plant, power is a single commodity with a single price. But clearly the consumers distinguish "dirty" from "green" power, so it is no longer a single commodity, but two different ones delivered by the same grid? I'm confused. Anyway, because of this indistinguishability, I am tempted to ask whether there is an electricity market regulator checking that a utility (or supermarket) is not selling more KWh of "100% renewable" power than they can produce or buy in the open power market? Because, potentially, all of us could be paying for "green power" while it is a known fact that a small fraction of all power generation is "green". Oh, I forgot a "regulator" is anathema to the market liberalisation ideologues running our energy policy, but you begin to see why there should be one. So, maybe it makes sense that green power is sold more expensive than dirty power, just so as to keep the demand for "100% renewable power" below the production capacity. But we should be clear about the margins involved. Finally, when you sayit is essential that the market is not dominated by the traditional companies (in many Member States by the traditional company), but make it easier for newcomers, maybe small renewable producers, or companies from other Member States to come and sell different products, at different pricesyou remind me of a consumer watchdog who recently appeared before a Commons committee of inquiry in the UK and claimed that the fact that electricity tariffs were virtually identical across suppliers was evidence of the failure of competition. In fact, it is entirely the opposite. The most intense competition is on price and so competition leads to price equalization across suppliers. Then other variations in the kind of service offered lead to second-order price differences. In fact, it is wholly unclear to me on what the various UK power providers are "innovating" spurred by the "competition" in the liberalised energy market. So, can we stop it with the patently incorrect statements that competition will lead to a range of retail prices (false if competition is primarily on price) and that power market liberalization will lead to cheaper power (false given that marginal prices are of necessity higher than average prices)? Thank you for your time.
May 31st, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Dear Andris,
Utilities are not potatoes and you know it.
With the internal energy market you still have only one electrical grid. It may be broken down into interconnected subgrids each owned by a different company, but the point is that you don't have a choice of who owns the wires that feed power to your home, and nobody is offering to build a new infrastructure to "compete" with the existing one. This means your electricity provider needs to pay a usage fee to the infrastructure provider and the cost of that fee is passed on to you in your electricity bill.
Utilities produce energy and sell it on a market by charging a price to feed power into the grid. This price is the "marginal" price, that is, it is dictated by whatever the momentary supply and demand conditions are, and then by the production cost of the most expensive KWh needed to satisfy the momentary demand. At present, baseload power is generally provided by (non-discretionary) nuclear and wind, and peak power by (discretionary) hydro, and fossil-carbon plants (coal, petroleum, gas). As hydro is cheap it is used if available in preference to fossil-carbon and so the marginal price is the price of one KWh of electricity from (normally) gas.
Electricity from gas didn't use to be the most expensive, but the price of gas in international markets is pegged to oil futures, and as you know the price of oil futures has grown severalfold in the last few years, from under $60/bbl or even under $30bbl to over $120/bbl. This means the price of gas has grown and so has the price of the marginal KWh of electricity.
Anyway, back to the power market. Marginal pricing and energy trading means that "100% renewable power", even though it is (in the current $135/bbl oil climate) cheaper to produce than gas, is still sold on the liberalised electricity market at the price of electricity from gas, which is rather expensive. The electricity provider pockets the difference. In a regulated monopoly situation, it would be possible for the price to be the average price as opposed to the marginal price, thus reducing the margins.
Also, "100% renewable power" such as that offered by Carrefour is normally sold at a premium over "dirty" power, banking on the willingness of the "green" consumer to pay a little more to help the planet. However, as I argued above, electricity from hydro or wind is much cheaper to produce than form gas. So, we're being swindled. However, there are honest reasons for cheap, "green" power to be sold more expensive than "not guaranteed green" power.
The problem is that, if green power were sold substantially cheaper to the retail consumer, demand would rush to green power and there just isn't enough green power generation to go around. Considering a KWh is indistinguishable from another KWh once it leaves the power generation plant, power is a single commodity with a single price. But clearly the consumers distinguish "dirty" from "green" power, so it is no longer a single commodity, but two different ones delivered by the same grid? I'm confused. Anyway, because of this indistinguishability, I am tempted to ask whether there is an electricity market regulator checking that a utility (or supermarket) is not selling more KWh of "100% renewable" power than they can produce or buy in the open power market? Because, potentially, all of us could be paying for "green power" while it is a known fact that a small fraction of all power generation is "green". Oh, I forgot a "regulator" is anathema to the market liberalisation ideologues running our energy policy, but you begin to see why there should be one.
So, maybe it makes sense that green power is sold more expensive than dirty power, just so as to keep the demand for "100% renewable power" below the production capacity. But we should be clear about the margins involved.
Finally, when you say
it is essential that the market is not dominated by the traditional companies (in many Member States by the traditional company), but make it easier for newcomers, maybe small renewable producers, or companies from other Member States to come and sell different products, at different prices
So, can we stop it with the patently incorrect statements that competition will lead to a range of retail prices (false if competition is primarily on price) and that power market liberalization will lead to cheaper power (false given that marginal prices are of necessity higher than average prices)?
Thank you for your time.
Many people ask me what the internal energy market is about. Actually it does look like a very technical issue only suitable for engineers. It is technical indeed, but for final consumers, the opening of the energy market would mean that you can choose your electricity in the same way as you chose your potatoes.
Which ranges between pathetic and an insult to the audience's intelligence. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
It will be interesting to see if your comment passes moderation.
The Big Lie about consumer competition is that consumers aren't the ones allowed to do the choosing - the choosing happens on the stock markets, and leverage is applied against companies which 'don't perform.'
Consumers don't have access to that leverage. It's analyst expecations which drive performance levels and consumer prices, and there's nothing 'competitive' about lowering prices.
The mythical notion of consumer choice as it's usually presented can't possibly exist in those circumstances. Instead you reliably get a distributed monopoly, which usually tries to turn itself into a cartel with explicit price fixing agreements, even when they're illegal.
these statements are misleading or plain wrong. I myself drive an ethanol-powered Saab 9-5 and certainly I would not even think of it if I had the slightest suspicion that I'm contributing in any way to global warming, or, even worse, to an international genocide.
Euan from the Oil Drum
So you are driving a vehicle that is only 5% efficient and is wasting 95% of the primary energy used to propel it. As the EU Energy Commissioner I would be keeping this very much secret.
Does Piebalgs actually read the comments? Most of them are high quality and demolish his arguments, but he doesn't - for some reason - appear to be listening.
They're substantial, structured posts with quite a bit of background, and would probably take a couple of hours to write from scratch. I'd be surprised if he feels he has that kind of time to spare on a blog which will only ever be a minority interest.
The lack of feedback and interaction is another give-away - it looks like push-blogging, not engagement blogging.
Does Piebalgs actually read the comments?
Perhaps he delegates the entire blog to some junior staffer. It would appear that he is a web poseur. If so this might be an opportunity. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
Has the "moderation" which your post awaited been provided? Was it displayed on his site? As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
And one other thing, if I turn a light on during the night how can anyone guarantee me that the electricity is not coming from a Coal or Nuclear power station (the baseload generators) instead of the windmill electricity I bought at the supermarket?
What a load of nonsense. Vencit omnia veritas.
andris might be forgiven for wondering what he has unleashed, starting this blog...
not much sign of engagement, yet. ~Government budget deficits are not nearly as dangerous as the deficits we have created in vital and complex natural systems.~ Naomi Klein.
How much is accounted for by the power to heat the ovens? When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
Commissioner Andris PIEBALGS: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/piebalgs/buying-green-kilowatts-in-the-supermarket/">
Henk Daalder Windparken Wiki Says: May 30th, 2008 at 10:04 pm This blog is only about marketplaces. The market is also about fair and sustainable production. ... Peak Oil Says: May 31st, 2008 at 5:08 pm peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil peak oil ... Thank you in advance for addressing this peak oil theory in your next blog. You can call it false and rubbish, but just let us know where you stand on this.
This blog is only about marketplaces. The market is also about fair and sustainable production.
Peak Oil Says: May 31st, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Thank you in advance for addressing this peak oil theory in your next blog. You can call it false and rubbish, but just let us know where you stand on this.
