• View
• Edit
• Page History
• All Recent Changes
• Print

Matt

I took a look at the "energy & environment" section of ExxonMobil's website (http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Files/Corporate/tomorrows_energy.pdf):

Summary

In their document "Tomorrow's Energy", Exxon considers the relationship between energy demands, economic progress and the environment. Acknowledging that our current path of economic growth demands large amount of energy, they predict that new technologies and more efficient use of fuels will ensure that, "at least through 2030, fossil fuels will continue to satisfy the vast majority of global demand" (p3). Of course, this prediction is predicated on the assumption that new technologies will allow current energy sources to be used more efficiently and at higher intensities; additionally, it is critical that access to resources and adequate investments are granted to the industry. While non-fossil energies will expand, they will not provide a significant amount (about 1%) of the world's energy needs. Exxon does not feel this is a bad thing, as "global oil resources are adequate" (p5) so long as there are "continued technology advances..., substantial investment... and governments [cooperate in] providing access to acreage, opening markets, reducing barriers to trade and avoiding harmful policies, such as subsidies and regulations, that can weaken or distort energy markets" (p6).

In regards to managing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Exxon recognizes that most nations will not meet target levels as specified by the Kyoto Protocol. However, they suggest that, if countries that exceeded their levels were allowed to purchase carbon bonds from nations running surpluses, no further action would be necessary to reduce emissions as there is already a global surplus "which is large enough to compensate for missed targets among other industrialized nations" (p8). Indeed, Exxon warns that these emission targets can be very detrimental to businesses by creating levels of uncertainty that deter the significant investments that will be necessary to develop new technologies and sustain the industry.

Additionally, while acknowledging the possibility of climate change. However, "the complexity of the climate system makes it difficult to understand past and future consequences of greenhouse gas increases" (p10). Exxon concedes that the risk of climate change requires action, but that the action should be tempered with a recognition of the uncertainties that remain. Current action being taken by Exxon includes tracking and reporting emission levels, further research, developing new technologies, and continuing to look for ways to increase efficiency and better manage our resources. Exxon is confident that their tested and disciplined approach will continue to be successful, and they will be able to navigate whatever challenges the future holds.

Review

This website seems targeted both at stockholders/investors and persons concerned about Exxon's role in the energy issue. It really strives to put a good image on the industry and the company, but it is difficult to take some of the things said seriously. I attempted to distill some of the more particular telling statements out from all of the other P.C., feel good filler. The overall impression I got from the website was that, while Exxon is aware of the public scrutiny and increasing demand for clean, renewable energies, they are unwilling to help make positive changes unless it will benefit them. As a profit-seeking company that must answer to shareholders, this doesn't come as a huge surprise. Still, it is disappointing to see the organization's willingness to discount the future (even if things will be fine for the next 25 years) in order to increase profits right now. Hopefully increasing pressures (public, environmental, etc) will alter incentives sufficiently to influence management's course toward developing renewable, clean energies rather than continuing to invest resources into the established, but ultimately doomed, fossil fuels.

Course Writing Assignment

I'm looking at two articles from the Economist that discuss Britain's Nuclear policy and how it affects other energies (most specifically wind). The articles can be found here (http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=821240&story_id=10498995) and here (http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=821240&story_id=10024594)

Nuclear energy has long been regarded with a certain sense of fear; tales of Chernobyl or Three Mile Island have instilled reservations about nuclear power due to the possibility of similar disasters occurring elsewhere. However, it seems that nuclear energy may be receiving a second look. Whether it be that we are realizing fossil fuels are not a feasible long-term energy solution and so must look to alternative sources, or are just that enough time has passed to assuage our fears, public opinion of nuclear energy is on the rise. When residents of Dungeness, Kent, where nuclear power plants operate but will soon be taken out of commission, were asked what they would like to see replace the plants, the most common response was new plants.

Nuclear energy is beginning to look very attractive as an energy source. Advances in technology and safety have changed local attitudes so that the plants are perceived more as a boon to the community by providing numerous jobs to an area that might not be able to support other large employers, rather than as a threat to the community in the form of imminent meltdown and nuclear disaster. Further, with rising concerns regarding carbon emissions and climate change, nuclear energy's ability to create energy without producing significant levels of carbon dioxide gives it potential as an environmentally friendly energy solution. Finally, uranium can be procured from stable countries with friendly relations, such as Canada and Australia, ending our dependency on oil largely exported from the Middle East.

If that was the end of the story, it seems that there would be no question that nuclear power was the way to go and we might ask whey construction hasn't begun on new plants across the world. Unfortunately, nuclear energy is still not without controversy. While a meltdown or similar disaster is no longer perceived as great of a threat as it once was, it is not absolutely ruled out. Additionally, while nuclear energy does not produce dangerous amounts of carbon emissions, it does produce other dangerous byproducts. There is still uncertainty as to how we can securely store the deadly radioactive waste that will probably continue to be lethal long after the human race has run its course.

Lastly, there is the economic issue. Nuclear facilities require enormous initial investment, which can make any delays in construction or fluctuations in energy demand extremely costly to the industry. Due to safety concerns and other setbacks, it is not uncommon for construction of new plants to take over a decade, and while demand is mostly predictable, controlling it is a different matter. Safety concerns can make nuclear energy unreliable at times, as well. It is not unheard of for plants to be temporarily shut down to inspect small malfunctions, resulting in increases pressures on other energy sources and higher prices to consumers. In times of low demand in the past, governments have had to subsidize nuclear energy with bailouts to cover losses. These issues make some question whether or not nuclear energy can be privately operated without government aid.

The large initial investments would ultimately require that money be diverted from other projects, effectively putting most of our eggs in one basket. The current political atmosphere in Britain confirms these fears, as policy makers look to reduce previously set goals for establishing renewable energies like wind power in favor of nuclear energy. While nuclear energy certainly has potential to ameliorate our energy crisis, we must be careful that we do not neglect alternative solutions as well, lest we arrive at the same predicament in the distant future.

Group Project:

Things to consider when constructing a cabin in Northern Minnesota (47.9N)

It gets very cold in the winter, so temperature control is a major factor for any design. There are many ways that proper heating can be produced and maintained using very little active energy:

Solar water heaters can be effective even in cold climates. In addition to providing hot water most of the year, they have potential to provide other benefits such as radiant floor and space heating. Proper insulation (r-40 walls and r-60 ceilings) can make heating and cooling very efficient. Window placement and type is incredibly important. South-facing windows are essential for capturing passive solar heat in the winter, while overhangs can block the sun during the summer and prevent unwanted cooling needs. Unnecessary north-facing windows should be avoided, as should large west-facing windows, as both may contribute to heating and cooling costs with only fringe passive benefits. Because the temperature of the Earth does not fluctuate dramatically throughout the year, this can be utilized to provide geo-thermal heating or cooling. When constructing the foundation of the house, the potential for this should be explored. Efficient heat-recovering ventilators should be considered as well. Most important is the placement of the building, its orientation and location and size of windows. If superfluous space is eliminated and the above recommendations are implemented, it is likely that many expenses, such as a furnace, can be avoided. Additionally, integrating the design into the surrounding landscape to take advantage of radiant barriers and windbreaks is essential. The house should be built into the environment, not over it. In those rare instances when the above is insufficient for heating needs, a wood stove or fireplace would be a reasonable backup solution. It could be fueled by the numerous fallen and dead trees on the property, and would provide a nice ambient setting in addition to its more pragmatic uses.

With heating and cooling needs largely taken care, we can how to deal with electrical needs.

Being in a cabin in the North woods means that you won't have a large number of appliances that need to be powered (at least it should). The biggest things will be a refrigerator and stove. The purchase of an efficient refrigerator will be well-worth the extra cost in the long run. Consider using the wood stove or purchasing a propane stove for cooking needs. The small number of appliances means that it is very feasible to provide all of your energy needs with photo-voltaic panels. Rooms should be designed to maximize solar lighting. Again, building and window placement is essential for this. Other things can be done as well, including finishing rooms with colors and materials that optimize lighting. When solar lighting is unavailable (at night), make sure to use efficient bulbs (such as CFLs) and to keep light fixtures in good repair.

It is very possible to provide all of the cabin's energy needs with only the implementation of these simple recommendations. Eliminating small inefficiencies like leaking ducts can also improve costs. These suggestions are cost-effective because most will last as long as the structure stands and provide the majority of your needs. Additionally, they will improve the enjoyment you get out of the building and the environment, as the natural environment will not have to compete with the roar of a furnace or the mechanical noise of an air conditioner. This design will let the natural ambiance take center stage all the time.

Lovins et al - Natural Capitalism (82-109) Lovins - The Super-Efficient Passive Building Frontier (79-81) Gamble - Living Wisely and Well: Home Heating and Cooling Rocky Mountain Institute - Home Energy Brief #1 Lighting (1-4) Gamble - Iowa Wind & Sun Power: Power Your Home with Wind & Sun (1-2)