Showing posts with label Chevron. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chevron. Show all posts

Crowd-sourcing carbon pathways to 2050

I haven't tried it myself, but the new 2050 pathway calculator looks like a neat tool to stimulate reasonable public debate about climate trade-offs in the UK. Reminiscent of Chevron's Energyville, you input your choices for energy sources and see what the outcomes look like in 2050.

Via David MacKay, who also synthesizes the preferred pathways of eight expert panelists.
It's now open to the public to join in. In a couple more days, the opening panel will wrap up their conversation; it'll be interesting if they can achieve consensus on one or two pathways.
A promising experiment, and easily replicable in the U.S...

Does the rare earths market lie?

There is a lot of press about the scarcity of rare earths, but what is the market saying, and does it really lie? Compare these three points of view. First, America (and by the way MolyCorp is the only rare earths company in the U.S.):
“The pricing of the rare earths doesn’t make sense — they’ve been way too low for way too long,” grumbled John Benfield, the square-jawed senior chemical engineer at the [currently non-operational] Mountain Pass mine.
Then China:
Low prices for rare earth elements from China contributed to cuts at the Mountain Pass mine before it closed in 2002. They also discouraged most entrants to the industry until the last two years, when prices began to climb because of strong demand.
Then financial investors:
The Kaiser Bottom-Fish Online Index of share prices of rare earth companies soared eightfold last year, and has kept most of its gains. That has encouraged worries about a possible bubble.

“Most of them will get nice share prices for a while and then what goes up, comes down,” said Judith Chegwidden, a managing director and longtime rare earth specialist at Roskill Consulting Group in London.
I recognize that mines like these have long lead times, but when financial investors are worried about a bubble and prices are still not high enough to make American production viable, the worries start sounding to me more like supply chain security concerns (particularly for sensitive applications like defense) than commercial concerns about an aggregate supply shortfall. Also, if the rare elements are extremely valuable in minute quantities, they would be much easier to store than oil, for example (in which large-scale physical speculation has recently occurred), so why aren't savvy investors or countries doing this already?

While I'm critiquing, I also don’t really agree with this analysis:
With each start-up typically raising $10 million to $30 million and signing up one or two long-term customers, the ventures are fragmenting the market’s search for reliable supply sources beyond China. A result could be that few mines actually open outside China, which would remain the dominant supplier.

“The customers and the industry are not being discerning enough, and we’re going to end up with 70 rare earth companies employing geologists and rare earth directors and no more than five new mines by 2020,” predicted Dudley J. Kingsnorth, the best-known consultant in the industry and an adviser to some of the start-ups.
I would characterize that not as fragmentation, but as “competition”, which is generally believed to have positive effects in bringing supply to market in an economically efficient way, and without conceding rents to dominant suppliers.

Some other fascinating tidbits are that Molycorp was owned by Unocal when CNOOC made its famous and ultimately unsuccessful bid (farsightedness only now detected?), and its currently owned by a PE consortium, of which Goldman was a member but has recently sold its participation.

Energy games

David Mackay points to the Energy Game, an interesting-looking simulation designed to educate people about the trade-offs inherent in energy policy decisions. As I note in his comments, Chevron created a (VERY simplistic) online simulation, Energyville, along seemingly similar lines.

I would be curious to understand the Energy Game's level of realism and complexity. But most importantly, as Mackay says, these educational efforts are to be applauded.

Update: Commenter Damon has a neat app which shows graphically how energy demand compares to renewable energy supply. It's easy to think of ways the display could be expanded beyond the current binary renewable/non-renewable distinction (e.g. cost, GHG emissions reduction, etc.), but it looks like the guts are there in the model...

Exxon lends credibility to algae

I was under the impression that most of the big boys had looked at algal biofuels and passed, and that the space was dominated by start-ups like Sapphire, but now the biggest skeptic of them all, Exxon, has announced a substantial partnership and investment:
ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company has entered into a research and development alliance with SGI, a privately held company focused on developing genomic-driven solutions and founded by genome pioneer, Dr. J. Craig Venter, to develop advanced biofuels from photosynthetic algae that are compatible with today’s gasoline and diesel fuels.

Under the program, if research and development milestones are successfully met [my emphasis added later], ExxonMobil expects to spend more than $600 million, which includes $300 million in internal costs and potentially more than $300 million to SGI.
Maybe things have just been quietly chugging along - both Chevron and Shell announced similar partnerships about 18 months ago, and I have not heard anything about them since. My own limited understanding is that algae is technically attractive because of its super-high photosynthetic rate, but that unless you can figure out how to grow it in the ocean it runs into the same space/scaling issues as other biofuel feedstocks.

Update: Looks like this play still has a long time horizon:
Exxon’s Mr. Jacobs said it would be “five to ten years” before small-scale plants are up and running. And neither company wanted to put a pricetag on the fuel produced from algae, which with today’s technology is still vastly more expensive than gasoline.
Update 2: Earth2Tech has a nice cheat sheet of major investments in algal biofuels. At $650m, Exxon's is the second-largest behind Algenol Biofuels' $850m plant in Mexico, and the two are the only ones above $100m.