After Keystone XL, oil companies seeking outlet for Alberta Tar Sands oil via Vancouver

Here in the U.S. we effectively killed the Keystone XL project.  Aren't we proud of ourselves?  We held anti-Keystone XL rallies in front of the White House and elsewhere, and got Obama to reject the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.  That should mean the end of the tar sands crude oil plans, right?  That icky stuff should be remaining safe in Alberta?  Nope.  Sorry.  The oil companies are taking an end-run through even more sensitive territory.  Namely, over the mountains, through the woods, and into Vancouver where it will be loaded on ships to be sold to China.

Here's a map.

The tar sands are in Alberta, shipping ports in Vancouver.  The original route had been south across the Plains states to shipping terminals in the Southern U.S.  The new route is across these mountains, to shipping terminals in Vancouver.  The end goal is the same, sale of this crude oil on the world market, the difference is the route.

This route goes across many miles of pristine wilderness and native peoples lands.  It goes across the headwaters of two rivers that each have the largest Salmon runs in North America.

Here's a map of the Vancouver area:

Notice that for ships to get in and out of Vancouver requires navigating a long set of passages between islands that head into the sounds which connect between Seattle and Vancouver.

Below is audio from Radio Ecoshock which did an excellent job covering this in a recent episode.  The people in the episode speak about these issues much better than I can.  Listen to them.

But first is video of a young lady singing a song ...



And the same young lady speaking at a TEDx meeting

This text will be replaced

Is GM going to build the Chevy Volt in China, and does it matter if they do?

Reports have been circulating since last year that GM is planning to move electric car development and/or manufacturing to China.  In some circles, especially those who like to rephrase GM's name as "Government Motors", this thought is highly controversial.  In truth GM sells more cars in China than it does in the U.S., China has become the largest market for vehicle sales in the world, surpassing the U.S., GM has 30 subsidiaries or joint ventures in China, some of which focus on electric vehicle technology.  In other words, GM is a U.S. Government (partially) owned and subsidized corporation acting to increase jobs in China when jobs are badly needed here in the U.S.   These are facts which do not sit well with some, obviously.

A couple weeks ago the first Chevy Volt was delivered to China for "for vehicle and infrastructure testing and analysis".  This and a recent statement by GM that "we'll know in June whether [the Chevy Volt] will have legs or not," that "you adjust production to demand," and that GM "will keep driving the cost down," has reawakened talk about whether GM is planning to move electric vehicle production to China.  For example a recent news report stated as a fact that "GM has already agreed to transfer production for the next EV platform to China," which isn't entirely true (as we see below), but is obviously a concern for those demanding that Obama's green jobs vision be successful in creating jobs in the U.S.

In part the issue is one of globalization.  All the major corporations have significant operations in other countries, and it's sometimes tough to properly answer whether any specific globalized corporation is an "American Company" or not.  For example, GM’s largest national market is China, their international headquarters are in Shanghai, the company does business in over 120 countries, it has manufacturing facilities in over 30 countries, and uses these brands in countries around the world:  Baojun, Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, Daewoo, Holden, Isuzu, Jiefang, Opel, Vauxhall and Wuling.  Is GM an American Company?  Or is it a globalized company that has no loyalty to any given country?

Nearly a year ago, in February 2011, GM reaffirmed their commitment to having a strong presence of aggressive investment in China.  At the time GM Chairman and CEO Dan Akerson was quoted saying  “GM will continue to make China one of our priorities.  We plan to introduce more than 20 new and upgraded models over the next two years, strengthen our local product development capability, expand our cooperation and sharing of technology with local partners, and lead in the introduction of new energy vehicles including the Chevrolet Volt extended-range electric vehicle. All of this is part of GM’s long-term commitment to the sustainable development of China’s automotive industry.”

In September 2011, an agreement was made between GM and SAIC to co-develop a new electric vehicle architecture in China.  The Pan Asia Technical Automotive Center (PATAC), an already existing facility jointly owned by GM and SAIC, will be used to house the development.  They stated at the time the target was delivery of products developed in China with Chen Hong, president of SAIC Motor, saying “Our agreement will enable SAIC and GM to take advantage of economies of scale and get new technology to the market faster than by going it alone. It will help bring about our goal of leading the automotive industry in new energy vehicles and our vision of sustainable transportation."  They described it as developing "key components" in China, to develop vehicles for sale in China under both GM and SAIC branding, and to use the newly developed vehicle architecture to develop vehicles to be sold around the world.

The same month the GM China Advanced Technical Center opened as the newest of GM's network of technical centers around the world.  This center, in Shanghai, was described as "the most comprehensive advanced automotive technology development center in China," will work with the PATAC just mentioned, and will house four design organizations: the China Science Lab, Vehicle Engineering Lab, Advanced Powertrain Engineering Lab and Advanced Design Center.   The first phase, the Advanced Materials Laboratory Building, includes a battery cell testing lab, battery material lab, metallography and electrochemical lab, cell fabrication lab, and micro-foundry and formability lab.

In December 2011, GM announced the second phase of the ATC was on track for completion in July 2012.  GM said the organizations installed in the second of the ATC would "focus on advanced design, vehicle engineering, advanced powertrain development, urban mobility and manufacturing processes"

Also in December, GM announced opening a design studio in China.  The center is located at GM's headquarters in China, and is focused on developing vehicle designs for the Chinese market and other key global markets.  Wulin Gaowa, Design Director of GM China Advanced Studio, said "The China market is playing a dominant role both in Asia and globally. As demand in China accounts for a bigger portion of GM’s global sales, our success in China is critical.  We need to closely monitor and predict Chinese customers’ mobility behaviors, needs and preferences to ensure we are bringing the right products to the market."

GM also issued many press releases over the last year bragging about strong sales growth in China.

As a globalized corporation some would say GM would be foolish to ignore China, especially considering how big the Chinese appetite is for buying cars and trucks.

Yet there are some who like to portray China's growth as a threat to the U.S. and for example throw out phrases like "SAIC taking over development of GM's electric vehicle platform means that the taxpayer money spent on the promise of a bright green future with loads of American jobs created is now going to benefit China."  In other words, the perception is that SAIC (which is owned by the Chinese government) is being handed electric vehicle technology on a platter.  As SAIC's Chairman said above, their corporate goal is to be the leader in developing electric vehicles and sustainable transportation.

The actual news, however, is more along the "Sputnik Moment" meme that Energy Secretary Chu has spoken of numerous times.  China is moving quickly to develop a strong clean technology industry, and already has leading companies working on electric vehicle and battery technology.  What's most urgently needed is to strengthen the US clean technology industry.  Many of the people making statements like in the previous paragraph are also slamming the Obama administration for meddling in the free market by subsidizing the companies that would be developing the US clean technology industry.  By spurning grants and loans to domestic clean tech companies, where would those companies turn?  There are many examples of formerly U.S. companies shutting down domestic operations to set up shop in China, to seek the grants and loans the Chinese government offers.

But let's get back to the question at the top.  Is GM going to build the Volt in China, and does it matter?  If we go by the GM/SAIC press release, their plan is not precisely laid out.  It's clear they plan to develop electric vehicle components in China for use on vehicles sold in China, and to jointly develop in China an electric vehicle platform for sale around the world.  GM has already set up a battery testing and development laboratory in Shanghai, and is working rapidly to develop other labs.  Does that mean GM will stop development activities in the U.S.?  Is this any different from Microsoft, or Google, or any other company setting up offshore research and development centers?  All the globalized companies are doing this, so why is GM under special scrutiny here?  If globalization is bad then it's bad for any company to engage in globalization.  If globalization is good, then its good for any company to engage in globalization.

Volt Owners May Soon Get Charged with Renewable Energy via the Smart Grid

A couple days ago GM and Google announced a joint project to explore using smart grid technologies to let Volt owners get the semblance of sourcing their electricity from renewable energy resources.  The technology appears to the user via OnStar, and shows the percentage of available renewable energy on the grid.  Data from this forecast is downloaded to the OnStar cloud, or Advanced Telematics Operating Management System (ATOMS). OnStar uses this signal to simultaneously manage the charging of many Volts and to match the renewable energy availability. A mobile app could also be used to alert customers when renewable energy is available.

The project is a test fleet of 17 Volts at Google's headquarters.

“This demonstration shows that in the near future customers will have a real signal of demand for renewable energy,” said Nick Pudar, OnStar vice president of planning and business development. “As customers configure their Volts to favor renewable energy for their charging cycle, this real demand signal will influence utilities to tap into renewable sources."

The renewable energy technology is the latest addition to OnStar’s suite of Smart Grid solutions. OnStar has also developed intelligent energy management technology solutions including:

• Demand response – This solution connects utilities to companies that have intelligent energy management products. These companies can use OnStar to manage energy use for Volt customers who opt in for the service. This future service allows the customer to save money on energy costs while enabling more efficient use of the electric grid.
• Time-of-Use (TOU) rates – OnStar can receive dynamic TOU pricing from utilities and notify Volt owners of the rate plan offers via email. Owners will be able to use OnStar to load the rate plans directly into their vehicle and access them to schedule charging during lower-rate periods.
• Charging data – OnStar also sends and receives EV data that helps utility providers without having to interface with the vehicle’s electric vehicle supply equipment. This includes location-based EV data that identifies charging locations and determines potential load scenarios.

How can President Obama be so right in rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline, but so wrong on why?

Today President Obama's administration rejected the Keystone XL pipeline project, and we can expect a chorus of jubilation from the environmental groups.  My email has already received statements from 350.org and the NRDC applauding this decision.  I'm happy it came out this way, that the pipeline was rejected, but the Administrations statement makes my blood boil over how short sighted and wrong it actually is.

The proposed Keystone XL pipeline would carry tar sands oil from Canada to Texas refineries. Tar sands oil is one of the dirtiest most environmentally devastating sources of the fossil fuels required to power gasoline/diesel powered vehicles, and the proposed pipeline runs the risk of ruptures and leakages such as the one which befouled the Yellowstone River in the summer of 2011.   Extracting oil from the tar sands is extremely expensive and requires what's essentially strip mining sands, heating it with steam, to convert the tar into a liquid oil.

The Keystone XL project in particular is meant to send oil to refineries in Texas who then will sell that oil on the global market.  Meaning that the Keystone XL project was not going to assist "energy security" of the United States (or Canada) but instead fuel the global market for fossil fuel.

Organizations like 350.org oppose the Keystone XL project because it continues the regime of fossil fuel increasing the levels of atmospheric carbon and leading to more climate change stuff.  I wrote some coverage of the project and one particular protest against it in Nov 2011: 350.org to encircle the White House on Nov 6 protesting Keystone XL pipeline.  Climate change is a serious problem to be sure but it's not the only problem our society is facing.

Here's the text of President Obama's statement made earlier today:-

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

January 18, 2012

Statement by the President on the Keystone XL Pipeline

Earlier today, I received the Secretary of State’s recommendation on the pending application for the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline.  As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment.  As a result, the Secretary of State has recommended that the application be denied.  And after reviewing the State Department’s report, I agree.

This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people.  I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my Administration’s commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil.  Under my Administration, domestic oil and natural gas production is up, while imports of foreign oil are down.  In the months ahead, we will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security –including the potential development of an oil pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma to the Gulf of Mexico – even as we set higher efficiency standards for cars and trucks and invest in alternatives like biofuels and natural gas.  And we will do so in a way that benefits American workers and businesses without risking the health and safety of the American people and the environment.

Let's take this apart.

First thing I see is that he's laying the blame on the Republicans and their arbitrary deadlines as if his Administration might have approved the project if it weren't for those pushy Republicans.  Eh?  He's probably simply aiming to score a political point by painting the Republicans as obstructionists, and that's fine as far as it goes.

Now, we go a little further and he makes two contradictory statements.  First he says "commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil" and then goes on to talk about partnering with the oil and gas industry to expand oil and gas production as well as "development of an oil pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma to the Gulf of Mexico".

I'm sorry .. but .. this is contradictory and also hypocritical.  There is no way that expanding oil and gas production reduces dependence on oil.  Period. 

The issue is NOT about energy security as defined as "American-made energy".  The problem with "American-made energy" is that America peaked its oil production in 1971.  There is no way for American oil fields to keep up with the energy demand.  That fact leaves America vulnerable to having foreign powers dictate to us the conditions of our economy, because they set the price of oil and can increase the price we pay if desired. 

That is the energy security quandary, that America's energy supply is vulnerable to manipulation by countries that are not friendly to America.  It's not just America but all the advanced "Western" countries because largely speaking the oil producing countries are not the primary consumers of oil, and the oil consuming countries are not the oil producing countries.  In other words none of the oil consuming countries have domestic oil supplies, meaning that we're all at risk to manipulation by the oil producing countries.

The proper definition for "energy security" would be, yes, domestic energy sources.  But, as I said, domestic fossil oil supplies cannot be increased so it leaves an unsolved question about the method to generating enough "energy" from domestic sources to drive the U.S. economy.  Fossil oil won't do it so the question is how do we drive all the cars and trucks and airplanes etc when fossil oil supplies start shrinking?  (NOTE: The global oil companies appear to have already peaked world oil production)

It's great, in a way, for domestic security that "domestic oil and natural gas production is up, while imports of foreign oil are down".  It means that less of U.S. economic wealth is sent overseas to buy fossil oil.  But, as I noted, the U.S. supplies of oil and gas have already peaked and cannot be increased to supply the total needs of the U.S. transportation fleet or heating needs or the other uses of these fuels.

THEIR EFFORT TO "partner with the oil and gas industry" WILL DO VERY LITTLE TO "increase our energy security" IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY.  Again, U.S. oil and gas supplies have already peaked.

What's needed is urgent action on developing electric vehicles and developing a clean electricity generation system.  Fossil oil is primarily used in transportation, and continued dependence on fossil oil driven transportation is the crux of the problem we're facing.  That the transportation system will collapse as the fossil oil supply collapses as the global peak of oil production becomes more apparent in the next couple years.

Improving the efficiency of the U.S. vehicle fleet is a huge step in the right direction.  It will buy us time by making real steps to decrease fossil oil use while the effort to build useful electrified vehicles plays out.  Obama's statement does discuss the proposal to increase CAFE standards, and it's great so far as it goes.  The real direction must remain firmly on electrified vehicles because they have fuel flexibility because electrons can come from any energy source.

Will large electric vehicles cook the planet?

In an op-ed published on Australian website businessinsider.com.au, Ross Blade makes an effort to tell us how large electric vehicles will cook the planet, while small electric vehicles won't.  Ross Blade, for those who don't know, is the Chief Executive of Australian based companies Blade Energy Solutions and Blade Electric Vehicles, meaning he runs a company which designs and manufactures electric vehicles.  Meaning, his opinion is worth paying attention to, but in this case I'm wondering what he's smoking.

Blade's op-ed piece is in response to an article in The Australian Financial Review titled "Era of cheap energy needn't be over", that itself is a response to Australian Resources Minister Martin Ferguson who claimed that "the era of cheap energy is over".   In other words, Blade is inserting his opinion into the ongoing debate between two views on the energy supply debate. 

Some claim we can continue using as much energy as we want to for as long as we want to because there is a limitless supply of oil or coal or natural gas.  However a rational look at the facts says this is a fallacy.  We're on a planet of a limited size and the fossil oil, fossil coal, and fossil natural gas resources are not only limited but extraction and use of those resources are actively harming the climate and environment.

As Blade points out "we" (humanity) has, in just a hundred years or so, released over half the CO2 which "nature" (the planet) had sequestered over the years.  This has resulted in a drastic increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations which environmentalists say will cause (is causing) tremendous problems in the climate.

Blade goes on to describe Moran's position as we should "continuing with business as usual by burning the equivalent amount in coal – this despite the fact that coal has only half the energy of oil and releases twice the CO2." Oil supplies are beginning to peak, meaning that oil companies will be unable to continue meeting the increasing demand for oil, except at the cost of extreme measures such as strip-mining tar sands deposits and ever-deeper-ever-more-dangerous off-shore drilling. 

Many are saying we can keep up the game of modern society by tapping into coal or natural gas reserves, and perhaps converting them into liquid fuels because that's what's needed to run the vehicles we're accustomed to driving.  Blade suggests "the headlong rush to extract coal seam gas marks the tipping point where we can no longer extract enough oil to meet our voracious demand for energy," and I completely agree.  He also says "Renewables are in no position to fill the energy gap," and I rather think this is something he is wrong about.  However he is also the CEO of an Energy products company and has a better view on this than I do.

The quandary is - how does humanity continue having a transportation system of the sort we currently enjoy.  Oil supplies are peaking, and the replacement fuels aren't terribly practical.  The tar sands and offshore drilling are immensely expensive, and using biofuels (ethanol or biodiesel) will require huge tracts of lands to grow the crops to turn into fuel.  Electric vehicles don't require liquid fuels and I'm sure that Ross Blade would love (as would I) to see a tremendous uptick in electric vehicle usage. 

Blade points to a project recently done in Australia he describes as:  just up the road from General Motors Holden, a group of parts makers led by Better Place and Futuris have built a Holden Commodore EV at their own expense – with some money from the government – to prove to GMH and the government that it can be done cost-effectively”
 He cites figures that a vehicle the size of the Commodore EV would require 32 kilowatt-hours to go 100 kilometers, saying that it is a tremendous amount of energy, or "more than twice what the smaller Mitsubishi iMiev or Blade Electron require to travel the same distance".  Because it uses more energy than a smaller EV, that means the Commodore EV would be responsible for causing more coal to be burned than would a smaller EV.

He goes on to say "era of cheap energy is over and it is time, as a society, to cut back our energy consumption," meaning that "we" can no longer afford to have large vehicles.  I don't know what the Holden Commodore is, but say its one of the typical SUV's we see so frequently on the road.  It is true that a larger vehicle requires more energy to move than a small vehicle and that's one reason that small cars are more fuel efficient than big ones.

His argument is playing right into the hands of those who warn about environmentalists who insist the only way forward is by suffering in cold unlit houses and making our own yogurt because the miracle of modern society is doomed to failure.  That is, he's an environmentalist and green tech entrepreneur who's saying explicitly that we cannot afford to have large electric vehicles.

His argument also plays into the hands of those who tarnish electric vehicles with the image that they're really coal fired because electricity most often comes from coal fired power plants.

The place where I started veering off from his story, when he said renewable energy resources won't be enough, is telling.  Because he contends that renewable energy resources won't be enough, it means that in the mind of Ross Blade electricity will continue coming primarily from sources like coal, natural gas or uranium.  None of which are clean nor renewable.  This means that Ross Blade contends that in the due course of time we simply will be unable to continue the game of modern society at all because eventually coal and natural gas and uranium will all reach a peak supply point, that is if we don't cook the climate first with all the added CO2 into the atmosphere or that the uranium power plants don't first poison everything.

I do agree completely with him that all of us must look at reducing energy consumption, and to do so through higher efficiency.  But I'm puzzled by his idea that "small electric cars" will be able to survive as a technology while "large electric cars" will not.  The difference between the two in energy cost isn't all that great.  Where a drastic energy gain can be made is a large scale adoption of electric cargo bicycles, because you're talking an order of magnitude of improved energy efficiency.  Where an electric car might get 110 miles/gallon equivalent energy efficiency, an electric bicycle can get 1500 miles/gallon equivalent efficiency.


Why large EVs may cook the planet