Category Carbon and Climate

As President Obama takes office, energy efficiency takes center stage. One of he fastest roads to energy efficiency is to reduce consumption and the simplest approach to energy conservation is to change a light bulb.

Compact Fluorescent Light bulbs (CFL) recommended by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) offer substantial savings to homeowners. In the commercial market, lighting fixtures consume the greatest amount of electric energy; three times the energy consumption of air conditioning. According to research report from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey lighting consumes the largest amount of electricity in commercial buildings as measured by Kilowatt-hours (KWH) per Square Foot

To calculate KWH, multiply the wattage of your lighting fixture x the yearly hours of operation for your facility divided by 1,000. KWH per square foot provides a useful means of measuring the energy intensity of a building. Just divide KWH by the total square footage of the building.

In an energy audit one can determine the energy intensity of your building as measured by KWH/Sq Ft. Figure 1 illustrates the energy intensity by end use according to the EIA’s report in 2008 Electricity Consumption (kWh) Intensities by End Use.

Figure 1 Lighting Consumes Most Energy

Furthermore, as part of the same research from the EIA, most commercial buildings are not using energy efficient lighting. The study finds that most commercial buildings, even those built after 1980, still rely on legacy incandescent and standard fluorescent light fixtures.

Figure 2 Most Commercial Buildings Lack Energy Efficient Lighting

After your energy audit is complete and one knows their energy intensity the next step is to understand the efficiency of lighting systems. Lighting efficiency is measured in Lumens per Watt and is calculated by dividing the lumen output of the light by the Watts consumed. A lumen is one foot-candle foot-candle falling on one square foot of area.

While lumen output is important in measuring brightness, color temperature, measured in degrees Kelvin, indicates the hue color temperature of the light and is also important in evaluating lighting systems because lighting systems operating near 5500 degrees Kelvin simulate sunlight at noon. Energy efficient lighting fixtures provide twice the lumens per watt of electricity than legacy metal halide fixtures while offering higher color temperature enabling near daylight rendering.

Figure 3 Energy Efficient Lighting

The bottom line is small steps sometimes produce big results. Retrofitting your building with energy efficient lighting systems saves energy, reduces operating expenses, and improves employee productivity and safety, while saving the environment. A 1.3 KWH reduction in power consumption reduces carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 1 pound. Coal generates about half the electric power in the U.S. and produces roughly ¾ of a pound of CO2 for every KWH of electric. In addition, the feasibility of alternative energy such as solar and wind are more viable by reducing energy consumption in buildings.

Access to energy was instrumental fueling the Industrial Revolution. Over the last 200 years, industrial nations have migrated from wood to coal and now to oil as a source of energy. During the 1700’s, wood was used for just about everything from fuel to constructing houses and building wagons and even tools. As demand for wood increased, the cost of wood rose as deforestation led to the scarcity. The scarcity of wood resulted in deteriorating economics.

It was the availability and access to coal that enabled the growth of Industrial Revolution by providing accessible energy. The Industrial Revolution was predicated upon the availability of Labor, Technology, Capital, and Energy. Scarcity of any of these inputs could undermine economic growth, as was the case with capital during the Great Depression of the 1930’s and the Energy Shock of the 1970’s.

Oil, driven by rapid growth in automobile usage in the U.S, has replaced coal as the main energy fuel. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the 70% of oil consumption in the U.S. is for transportation .

Figure 1 US Oil Imports

Figure 1 illustrates US historical oil imports, as measured by the Energy Information Administration in U.S. Crude Oil Field Production (Thousand Barrels per Day) that dates back to 1970. The EIA provides oil import data dating back to 1910. To estimate the amount of money the US spends on oil imports every year, we can use the data from the State of Alaska Department of Revenue, which provides historical data on the price of oil an derive an average yearly figure.

Figure 2 US Oil Import Spending

Figure 2. appears quite staggering given the amount of money we send to oil producing countries. The US is spending hundreds of billions to import oil. According to the EIA, the US imported an average of 10,031,000 barrels per day equating to $263 billion in imported oil during 2007 when the State of Alaska measured the yearly average spot price for a barrel of oil at $72.

According to Solarbuzz, Germany leads the world in solar photovoltaic (PV) installations with 47% of the market while China increased its market share of PV production from 20% to 35%. The US accounts for 8% of the world solar PV installations. Solarbuzz indicates the global solar PV industry was $17 billion in 2007 and the average cost of solar electricity is $0.2141 per KWH. If a portion of our $260 billion sent to oil producing countries were to be invested into solar energy, perhaps the US would not lag the world in alternative energy.

The bottom line is that the money spent on importing oil has a deleterious impact on our economy and continues our dependence on hydrocarbon fuels producing carbon and other harmful byproducts that negatively impact our climate and health of our children. The longer we are dependent on oil, the longer our economy and environment suffer. Use your vote for alternative energy and not drill baby drill.

Rising energy prices and our diminishing supply of oil threaten our national security. Without access to energy our economy and national defense are vulnerable to collapse. As a solution to our energy needs, we hear political rhetoric to expand oil drilling, but our energy strategy requires a long term solution that means embracing alternative/renewable energy technologies such as solar and wind. It only takes a quick review of oil production statistics to realize how formidable the challenge is that we face.

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) in 2007, the US consumed 20.6 million barrels of oil per day (bpd) but we were only able to produce 8.5 million bpd, leaving a deficit of approximately 12.2 million bpd. This means the US needs to import 60% of its oil and at a cost of $130 per barrel, the US will spend approximately $600 billion a year on imported oil.

Oil prices have increased dramatically with an increase of 420% since 2001. The combined impact of rising prices and diminishing oil production leaves the US in a precarious position. Yet, drilling for more oil may not rectify this tenuous situation.

As an example, back in the 1980’s, drilling activity in Alaska helped to ameliorate the oil crisis of the 1970’s. Today, oil production in Alaska has declined significantly. From its peak in 1988, oil production in Alaska has decline 64%. In Figure 1, oil production in Alaska in contrasted to the price of oil per barrel from 1980 to June 2008.

Figure 1 Alaska Oil Production

When we measure the supply and demand for oil, we find in the US, it is really a supply problem. According to the EIA , US demand for oil is growing at an annual rate of one percent over the last ten years, but oil production is down 20% since 1987.

Figure 2 US Oil Production

The energy problem however, is global. The demand for oil in the US may slow, yet supply constraints driven by growing consumption in developing countries could exacerbate this already bleak picture. On a per capita basis, the US consumes approximately 25 barrels of oil per person annually or a little over 600 gallons a year. That figure greatly exceeds other countries and particularly those in developing nations such as China.

In China, oil consumption per person is only 2 barrels or 84 gallons a year. However, oil consumption in China on a per capita basis has increased 88% from 1996 to 2006 according to data from the EIA. Despite China’s one percent population growth, at its current oil consumption growth rate, China is expected to double its current oil consumption by 2015 to over 14 million bpd and exceed the US in oil consumption by 2020. China’s current oil appetite suggests that in 14 years China will require an additional 14.6 million barrels per day. Even if oil producing countries are able to produce the additional oil, those countries that are unable to meet their own needs such as the US and China, will continue to be held hostage to oil producing states.

Figure 3 China Oil Consumption per Capita

The bottom line: the energy model based on hydrocarbon fuels is broken. Neither drilling for more oil will not satisfy our energy needs nor will corn-based ethanol. We need to rapidly embrace electric vehicles using solar, wind, and fuel cell technologies to provide alternative energy solutions. It time to put energy as the most critical component of our national security. Energy should be front and center for the US election. It’s time to invest into clean and renewable energy solutions.

As energy and food prices set new world records, what can we do at home to avert the crisis? Food prices are rising because corn is diverted from food production to producing ethanol for use as fuel in motor vehicles and is exacerbated by the recent flooding in the Mid West. Oil prices continue to escalate as demand for oil in developing countries increases and supply constraints, rising production costs, and limited refining capacity constrain the supply of oil. These factors continue to weigh against homeowners that will face escalating fuel bills to heat or cool their homes. There are some viable alternative energy solutions including wind and solar as well as home insulation that should offset the rising cost of energy. As far as food for fuel, we need to break our dependence on hydrocarbons which continues to impact our climate and weather and transfer our wealth to oil producing nations

Corn Prices have increased 264% since 2005. The rising price of corn used for ethanol is causing farmers to plant more corn and less production of other grains such as wheat or soy. Lower supply of grains is driving up food prices. Rising food prices is most debilitating to the poor, especially those in developing countries.

Figure 1 Corn Prices

Growing demand for oil and questions over Peak Oil suggesting even with oil prices rising to such an elevated level, production is rather anemic. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) , while oil prices increased 344% since 2001, oil production from OPEC is up only 1.2% over this same period.

Figure 2 Oil Prices

According to the EIA The demand for oil in China is growing at an 8.1% CAGR over the last five years. With demand for oil growing significantly in developing countries and despite production developments in Saudi Arabia and the 5-to-8 billion deepwater Tupi oil discovery in over Brazil The Tupi announcement in January 2008 is the world’s biggest oil find since a 12-billion-barrel field discovered in 2000 in Kazakhstan according the International Herald Tribune. These new oil discoveries are often in inhospitable areas or deep ocean environments, which makes extraction costly and difficult.

Figure 3 Rig Count and OPEC Oil Production

What can we do? . Forget drilling for more oil, electric vehicles and investment into alternative energy is the only way to avert this crisis. OPEC area drilling activity is up 48% since 1998 and yet, despite dramatically higher oil prices, up 5 fold since 1998, OPEC oil production increased only 11% over 1998.

Homeowners could begin to deploy energy saving and alternative energy systems. Wind and solar energy could help reduce some of the pain. As consumer embrace hybrids, electric, and fuel cell vehicles, wind and solar should begin to offer a stronger value proposition. Energy saving tips such as compact fluorescent bulbs, on-demand hot water heaters, and thicker home insulation products should help reduce heating and cooling costs.

According to the American Wind Energy Association AWEA a turbine owner should have at least a 10 mph average wind speed and be paying at least 10 cents per Kilowatt-hour (KWH) for electricity. There are electric utility and tax credits available in some areas. There are also questions regarding zoning restrictions, and whether to connect to batteries for energy storage, or directly to your electric utility. Consult the Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States Wind Resource Maps to get a better understanding of wind speeds in your area.

Cost wind systems will vary depending on model and installation costs will vary by your location. The Whisper 500 from Southwest Windpower offers electric production of 538 KWK/month at 12 mph (5.4 m/s). The system weighs 155 lb (70 kg) and has blade span of 15 feet (4.5 m) and must be mounted on a tower in cement. At 538 KWH per month, that is enough energy to cover the needs a modest house with conservative electric usage. Small wind systems can range from under $1,000 to over $20,000 with a payback period of approximately five years depending on wind resources and utility rates.

Solar photovoltaic (PV) panels cost an average of $4.80 per watt according to Solarbuzz which is about $0.24 per KWH over a 20 year life of the PV system. With an average output of approximately 10.6-watts/square foot (114 w/m^2), a five KW PV systems would cover 515 square feet (47.8 sq. meters) costing approximately $36,000 before credits and tax benefits and produce about 490 KWH per month. Of course installations costs are extra, but with PV production ramping and new PV suppliers entering the market we can expect costs to decline. Federal and local tax credits as well as selling unused electric to your local utility offers economic value on the margin.

The economic value is expected to increase as costs decline and electric rates increase and we can expect significantly higher utility rates in the near future. The economics of zero carbon emissions is not even measured as a benefit to the consumer. We are just beginning to see the cost impact of extreme weather and climate change.

Consumers should try to ameliorate the rising cost of energy by investing into solar and wind. There are several companies offering complete installation services. Among these include: Akeena Solar (AKNS) in California and The Solar Center in New Jersey.

The bottom line: energy and food prices are creating a crisis for consumers globally and there are several initiatives that could help minimize the pain. In addition, the erratic weather patterns around the world may be just a prelude to climate changes due to the impact of carbon dioxide on climate, which may cost us much more in the long run. Let’s stop the drain of wealth cause by oil and invest into clean and renewable energy solutions.

The question of Peak Oil, first proposed by Dr. M. King Hubbert can best be illustrated by analyzing the supply and demand for oil. With use of statistics complied by Energy Information Administration (EIA) , the tenuous position our energy needs becomes more apparent. Let’s examine the latest data from the EIA to provide a picture of the global demand and supply of oil.

Oil Demand

Figure 1 Oil Demand U.S. and China

From Figure 1 we can see that while the demand for oil in the U.S. has grown at a rather moderate rate in comparison to China. The demand for oil in the U.S. declined at an average annual rate of 0.4% during the 1980’s. U.S. oil demand has averaged at a 1.5% compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) during the 1990’s and 1.0% in the last five years since 2001.

In China, demand for oil is grew at 2.7% CAGR during the 1980’s and increased to 7.6% in the 1990’s. Since 2001, the demand for oil in China is growing at an 8.1% CAGR over the last five years. The strong demand for oil from China is remains unabated and is driven by growing motor vehicle usage. In nine years, at its current growth rate, China’s oil consumption will exceed the level of oil consumption the U.S. had in 1991 and in twelve years exceed our current level.

Figure 2 Oil Demand in China

Figure 2 illustrates that the demand for oil in China is quite substantial. With the rate of growth in oil consumption in China exceeding 8% it won’t take very long to exacerbate our tenuous current energy position. Perhaps a review of oil production will shed some light on the topic.

Oil Supply

The following graphs provide a review of oil supply from the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, OPEC, Russia and surrounding Eurasia countries including the former Soviet Union.

Figure 3 Oil Production Middle East and Saudi Arabia

While oil production contracted somewhat during the 1980’s, oil production in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia has grown since 1980, but recent oil production appears constrained. Oil production in the Middle East is up 3.1% on a CAGR during the 1990’s, and has remained at that level since 2001. Saudi oil production grew 3.0% during the 1990’s, but has dropped slightly to 2.1% since 2001.

Meanwhile, among the countries of the former Soviet Union, we see oil production gaining strength. In the countries comprising the former Soviet Union (Eurasia), oil production is up 6.7% on a CAGR since 2001.

Figure 4 Oil Production Eurasia, Middle East and Saudi Arabia

Currently OPEC accounts for approximately 37% and Saudi Arabia 11% of the world’s oil production. Saudi Arabia is recognized as having the largest oil reserves in the world and its Ghawar oil field is the single most productive oil field in the world, according to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal . “Saudis Face Hurdle in New Oil Drilling” The Saudis are developing new fields such its Khurais field, but are finding production efforts challenging as they employ deep horizontal drilling and water injection to achieve production. Given what we glean from the EIA production statistics, achieving moderate oil production growth maybe more of a challenge then we think.

Figure 5 Monthly Oil Production

The bottom line is that our dependence on oil leaves us vulnerable not only to supply disruptions but also in trying to protect supply in countries that gravitate towards violence and terrorism. If more global efforts were employed to develop alternative energies, we could limit our dependence on oil, improve global economics by offering affordable energy to the world, and save our environment and climate – a small step for our planet.

Solar energy is gaining considerable attention from Wall Street and countries looking to achieve energy independence. Solar energy represents one of the most significant energy solutions to help eradicate our addiction to oil. Despite the tremendous success offered with solar photovoltaic (PV), more research is required to sustain further deployment and achieve energy independence. Some semiconductor materials used to develop photovoltaic devices are scarce and may limit PV from achieving mass penetration. Let’s review the current solar PV market to better understand the dynamics of this market.

Figure 1 PV Production by Year

Figure 1 demonstrates the rapid market growth of solar PV and Solarbuzz is astute to point out some critical data points: cumulative PV deployment is still less than 1% of global electric usage, PV industry faces capacity constraints, and Germany and Spain account for 47% and 23% of total PV deployment in 2007. With the significant growth in both the production and deployment of solar PV devices, the stock price of some of the leading PV suppliers have appreciated dramatically even despite a recent pull back in the beginning of the year.

Figure 2 PV Production of Leading Suppliers

Despite the turbulence on Wall Street in 2008 with the NASDAQ down 14% year-to-date, and Dow Jones Industrial Average down 7.3% YTD, investor appetite for clean technology stocks remains robust. First Solar (FSLR), a leading supplier of thin film solar PV remains in positive territory and is up nearly ten-fold from its IPO in November 2006. Thin film PV offers a cost advantage over traditional crystalline PV cells. PV devices employ various elements with different band gap properties to achieve improving solar efficiencies. (See our post on semiconductor band gaps: What’s Pushing Solar Energy Efficiency?, October 1st, 2007)

Figure 3 Market Capitalization Solar PV Suppliers

There are several elements used in thin film PV production. Among the elements used include cadmium and tellurium (CdTe), copper, indium, and selenium, (CuInSe), and copper, indium, gallium, and selenium (CIGS). These various elements are used to improve operating efficiencies and lower production costs of PV devices. In general, crystalline PV devices have higher solar efficiencies, but cost more due to their material thickness of 200-to-300 microns. Whereas, thin film PV are usually about 3 microns deep offering significantly lower production costs. However, SunPower (SPWR) the leading polycrystalline silicon PV supplier offers the highest solar efficiency a rating of 22.7% that started shipping in 2007.

Figure 4 FSLR and SPWR Solar PV Production

FSLR and SPWR are the two leading PV players as measured by Wall Street in terms of market valuation. The cost-efficiency tradeoff between these two PV suppliers offers an interesting framework to evaluate the solar PV market.

Figure 5 PV Cost-Efficiency

The stock market appears to be betting on FSLR given its market capitalization of $22 billion and trading at 43 times 2007 revenues of $504 million. FSLR employs CdTe in its solar modules. In several postings on Seeking Alpha starting back in November 2007, Anthony and Garcia de Alba have provided valuable insight into material constraints in the production of PV devices.

Tellurium is a rare metalloid element that is used in producing semiconductor materials because it does not conduct electricity. Tellurium is recovered as a by-product in refining and processing of gold and copper as well as other ores. Tellurium was primarily used to create metal alloys that enable easier machining of end products.

Because of its unique properties, Tellurium and cadmium (CdTe) have been used in thin film PV production since the 1980’s. According to a comprehensive study by Fthenakis and earlier work by Moskowitz “The Life Cycle Impact Analysis of Cadmium in CdTe PV Production”, CdTe is deposited on a thin film substrate using electrodeposition, chemical surface deposition, and vapor transport deposition. FSLR reports in their 10K that they employ a proprietary vapor transport deposition process for CdTe PV production.

A thin film of CdTe is deposited on a substrate at a thickness of 3 microns. According to the Fthenakis and Moskowitz, back in the 1980’s, a 10 megawatt (MW) PV facility employing vapor transport deposition of CdTe uses 3,720 kilograms (kg) of CdTe to achieve a10% efficiency at 3 microns. A one-one bond of CdTe with an atomic weight of Cd at 112.41 and Te at 127.60 suggests Te comprises 53% of the weigh of CdTe. With 3,720 kg of CdTe used at 10MW, the amount of Tellurium used is estimated at 1,978 kg or 197.8 kg/MW.

The electrodeposition CdTe process using a mixture of cadmium sulfate and tellurium dioxide used 880 kg of tellurium dioxide, which amounts to approximately 696.8 kg of Te for 10 MW PV productions. The electrodeposition CdTe process would equate to about 69.7 kg of Te per MW. For a 100 MW PV production approximately 7 tons of Te are consumed.

One would assume the PV production process would improve significantly from the 1980’s and the amount of Te consume would decline with improving efficiencies. This would suggest that FLSR at 200 MW PV capacity in 2007 would consume somewhere between 14 and 38 metric tons of tellurium. This figure is significantly higher than the estimates derived from the FSLR tellurium posts on Seeking Alpha that are closer to10 tons per 100 MW (100 kg/MW).

Figure 6 Te Production

Let’s proceed with the conservative figure of 100 kg/MW (10 tons at 100 MW) to assess the tellurium constraints. Tellurium production is a by-product of gold, copper and other ores. We have found Te production estimates ranging from 132 metric tons (MT) to 300 MT per annum. In a National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) report Assessment of Critical Thin Film Resources in 1999 estimated Te production between 200 and 300 metric tons per year in 1997 and indicated under utilization of capacity for the production of tellurium.

Let’s compare our conservative estimate of 100kg/MW Te usage for FSLR to the optimistic production forecast of 300 MT to evaluate capacity constraints for FSLR. With 300 MT (300,000 kg) global Te production and FSLR using 80% of the Te production, capacity of PV tops out at 2,400 MW (2.4 GW).

The U.S. electric energy usage in 2006 was 4,059.91 billion kilowatt hours (KWH) which translates into 463,460 MW (divide 4060 by 365 days x 24 hours). So without significant investment into research and development for PV FSLR could be constrained at 2,400 MW representing only 0.5% of the U.S. electric usage in 2004. Further more, if FSLR were to be constrained at 2.4 GW annual production, revenues ($2.60 per watt Q4/07) would peak at approximately $6.24 billion, a price-to-sales multiple of 3.4x with its market capitalization of $22 billion.

However, in comparison to leading companies in energy, pharmaceuticals, technology and finance, FSLR’s market capitalization is relatively small. Perhaps with improving production processes, FSLR could reduce the amount of Te per panel and improving mining and metal refinement process could increase Te production to expand the market for CdTe thin film PV devices.

Figure 7 Market Capitalization of Leading Companies

The bottom line is that more research and investment into alternative energies is required to ameliorate the world from being held hostage to oil and hydrocarbon fuels that are directly linked to rising CO2 levels and climate change.

With the infinite wisdom of the White House and U.S. Congress, food prices are now directly tied to the price oil. The price of corn-based ethanol is now determined by the price of gasoline that it substitutes in motor vehicles and that price is established by supply and demand for oil. The price of gasoline at your local gas station or convenience store is based on the price of oil. And now that the price of corn is rising because it is tied directly to oil, the price of other grains and subsequently, prices along the entire food chain are rising.

Corn Prices have increased 166% since 2005. The rising price of corn that is used to produce corn ethanol is causing farmers to direct their limited resources to grow more corn, which means other grains such as wheat or soy become scarce and their prices rise. The growing scarcity of grains for food products is raising price across the food chain. Developing a renewable energy solutions based on diverting food as a substitute for expensive gasoline forces food supplies to become scare and expensive.

It is the supply and demand for gasoline and diesel fuels that establishes the price at the pump. When corn ethanol is substituted for gasoline, prices tend to gravitate towards a mean price that continues to rise to keep pace with the escalating price of crude oil now over $110 per barrel. Corn prices are inextricably linked to oil prices and in turn; corn prices impact other grain prices that means it cost more to feed your family or to feed livestock and forces those prices higher.

The rise in corn prices is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Corn Prices

Irrespective of the timing of Peak Oil, a long-term energy strategy is required. The days of cheap oil are over. Remember how oil production in Alaska helped ease the U.S demand for foreign oil a couple of decades ago. Oil production in Alaska declined by nearly 75 percent from its peak in 1987 according a Washington Post article back in 2005. In November 2007, the Petroleum News indicated production in Alaska is expected to decline further in the future. The U.S. depends on oil production in the Gulf of Mexico for about 25% of our supply, according to the Department of Energy which is why the impact from Hurricane Katrina was so devastating.

Diminishing supply and rising demand suggests oil prices should continue to remain elevated. The rising motor vehicle usage in China (China Motor Vehicle Registration)
and India continues to influence the demand for oil.

Figure 2 Vehicle Registrations in China

Figure 2 and Figure 3 illustrate the rising use of motor vehicles in developing countries. This trends should continue and in turn, increase the demand for oil.

Figure 3 Automobile Sales in India

Maybe we should look to some leading countries in the development of alternative energy strategies. Perhaps we can learn from Norway’s HyNor Project. Solar photovoltaic projects being lead by Germany
and Spain.

So the next time you fill your tank or when you’re at your local food store and find that your wages don’t quite cover your food bill, ask your local Congressional representative for better planning on alternative energy strategies and solutions. Investment and research into solar, wind, electric vehicles, and hydrogen energy could provide real solutions by addressing energy needs, climate concerns, the environment, and food prices.

Oil continues to trade above $100 per barrel with the NYMEX CRUDE FUTURE closing at $101.84 on the last day of February 2008 and the US House of Representative passes legislation to raise $18 billion in new taxes for Big Oil to foster development of alternative energies. While President Bush plans to veto the legislation and Republicans claim the legislation unfairly impacts the oil industry, let’s look at the numbers. The legislation calls $18 billion tax over the next ten years so the impact amounts to $1.8 per year. The oil demand is approximately 20.6 million barrels per day according the to latest data from the Energy Information Administration. With oil at $100 per barrel the US will spend about $2 billion a day on oil and that equates to over $750 billion a year. In comparison to the total amount of oil we use, the tax is about 2/10th of one percent.

Figure 1 US Oil Supply and Demand

Well maybe that’s not a fare comparison. The bill, H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act. would roll back two tax breaks for the five largest U.S. oil companies and offer tax credits for energy efficient homes and gas-electric hybrid vehicles.
According to the CNN article, the money to be collected over the 10-year period would provide tax breaks for solar, wind and other alternative energies and for energy conservation. The legislation was approved 236-182, and is expected to cost the five largest oil companies an average of $1.8 billion a year over that period, according to an analysis by the House Ways and Means Committee. So in other words this bill just repeals tax breaks given to Big Oil to become more competitive in the global market.

Figure 2 Oil Prices and World Rig Count

So what is the $1.8 in tax impact on Big Oil? Let’s just look at the impact this would have if just Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM) had to endure the tax only. Exxon Mobil generated $404 billion revenues in 2007, which means if Exxon had to face this tax only, it would be less than ½ of 1% of revenues. Considering that some states impose a 6% sales tax on consumers, a tax impact of 0.2% on the largest oil companies seems rather innocuous.

If the world has to depend upon OPEC oil production, questions do arise over the expansion of oil production and OPEC’s willingness to supply oil despite oil over $100 per barrel. As figure 3 illustrates production among OPEC nations is faltering. Could this be a prelude to Peak Oil?

Figure 3 OPEC Oil Production

The bottom line is that without incentives and further research on alternative energies, the world continues to be held hostage to oil and hydrocarbon fuels which are directly linked to rising CO2 levels and climate change.

From the Industrial Revolution we learned that economic growth is inextricably linked to energy and as a result, our future is dependent upon equitable access to energy. When the Stourbridge Lion made entry as the first American steam locomotive in 1829 it was used to transport Anthracite coal mined in nearby Carbondale, PA to a canal in Honesdale that in turn linked to the Hudson River and onto New York City. Coal fueled the growth of New York and America’s Industrial Revolution because coal was cheap and more efficient than wood.

Advances in science and technology gave way to improvements in manufacturing, mining, and transportation. Energy became the catalyst to industrial growth. Steam power such as Thomas Newcomen’s steam powered pump in 1712 developed for coal mining and James Watt’s steam engine in 1765 were initially used to bring energy to market.

In terms of heating efficiency, coal at the time offered almost double the energy, pound for pound, in comparison to wood. Energy Units and Conversions KEEP Oil offers higher energy efficiencies over coal and wood, but as with most hydrocarbon fuels, carbon and other emissions are costly to our economy and environment.

With rapid growth in automobile production in the U.S., oil became the predominant form of fuel. According to the Energy Information Administration, in 2004 the U.S. spent over $468 billion on oil.

Figure 1 U.S. Energy Consumption by Fuel

We all need to become more conversant in understanding energy costs and efficiency and as a corollary, better understand the benefits of renewable energy such as solar, wind, and hydrogen fuel cells. A common metric we should understand is the kilowatt-hour (KWH) – the amount of electricity consumed per hour. The KWH is how we are billed by our local electric utility and can be used to compare costs and efficiency of hydrocarbon fuels and alternative energies.

One-kilowatt hour equals 3,413 British Thermal Units (BTUs). One ton of Bituminous Coal produces, on the average, 21.1 million BTUs, which equals 6,182 KWH of electric at a cost of about $48 per short ton (2,000 pounds). That means coal cost approximately $0.01 per KWH. To put that into perspective, a barrel of oil at $90/barrel distilled into $3.00 gallon gasoline is equivalent to 125,000 BTUs or 36.6 KWH of energy. Gasoline at $3.00/gallon equates to $0.08 per KWH. So gasoline at $3.00 per gallon is eight times more expensive than coal.

Is oil and gasoline significantly more efficient than coal? Let’s compare on a pound for pound basis. A pound of coal equates to about 10,500 BTUs or approximately 3.1 KWH per pound. A gallon of gasoline producing 125,000 BTUs weighs about 6 pounds equating to 6.1 KWH per pound (125,000 /3,413 /6). While gasoline is almost twice as efficient as coal, coal’s lower cost per KWH is why it is still used today to generate electric.

The Bottom Line: the economics of energy determines its use – coal still accounts for approximately half of our electric generation because it has a lower cost than other fuels. However, there are two factors to consider 1) the cost of carbon is not calculated into the full price of coal or other hydrocarbon fuels and 2) the cost of conventional fuel is calculated on a marginal basis while alternative fuel costs are calculated on a fixed cost basis. Meaning the cost of roads, trucks, and mining equipment is not factored into the price of each piece of coal, only the marginal cost of producing each ton of coal. For solar, hydrogen fuel cells, and wind energy systems, the cost to construct the system is factored into the total cost while the marginal cost of producing electric is virtually free. We need a framework to better measure the economics of alternative energy. The impact of carbon on our climate and global warming are clearly not measured in the costs of hydrocarbon fuels nor is the cost of protecting our access to oil such the cost the Iraq War.

Despite the carbon issues surrounding coal, (coal has higher carbon-to-hydrogen ratio in comparison to oil or gas) coal is more abundant and therefore is cheaper than oil. As electric utilities in 24 states embrace alternative energies through such programs as Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), perhaps the benefits of alternative energies will begin to combat the negative economics of hydrocarbon fuels.

Peak oil has been a discussion for several decades after the theory developed by Dr. M. King Hubbert was put forth to alert the world of the impending decline in oil production. Recent data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) oil production from the twelve members of OPEC has declined from its peak in 2005, despite increased global drilling activity.

Figure 1 OPEC Oil Production

Higher oil prices is driven demand for energy exploration and drilling is up significantly in the U.S. and the world according to Baker Hughes Worldwide Rig Count. Oil price continue to remain above $90/barrel and despite the increased oil drilling activity, oil production remains relatively flat.

Figure 1 demonstrates the tenuous nature of OPEC oil production with oil production declining almost 4% from the peak average production of 31.2 million barrels per day. One must remember that oil production is variable with up and down trends over time. However, with oil over $900 a barrel we are not seeing significant production increase despite the rise in oil drilling. Figure 2 illustrates world-drilling rigs in comparison to oil prices on a global basis. The U.S. accounts for over half the world oil drilling rigs yet our production is less than 10% of total global production.

Figure 2 Rig Count and Oil Production

What does all this mean? For one peak oil may be a reality or sooner then we like. Secondly, with concern over climate change and global warming, there is no real spending on alternative energy to help mitigate a potential shortage in oil. More spending on solar and hydrogen fuel cells is required to ameliorate the eminent disruption in oil flow. Without an orchestrated government mandate to develop alternative energies all nations face a national security issue that has the potential to cripple economic activity.

My September electric bill arrived the other day and I was interested in comparing my energy savings after swapping 60 and 100-watt light bulbs for Compact Fluorescent Light bulbs (CFL), as recommended by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Our progress in migrating to solar and wind energy is moving slower than expected. The CFL bulbs were a cheap investment so last year 12 standard light bulbs (two 100-watt and ten 60-watt) for ten 60-watt and two 100-watt CFL bulbs.

The results are impressive with improving energy reductions and money savings. Energy usage as measured by kilowatt-hours (KWH) is down an average of 30% from last and attributable to CFL, outdoor solar lighting as well as electric conservation efforts. However, the savings attributable to the CFL bulbs, of nearly $8 per month equate to an impressive return on investment of over 190% in one year.

While our initial calculations suggested energy savings (for lighting) called for reductions of over 70% when switching to CFL bulbs, the electric bill reduction was not that dramatic because large appliance usage account for a larger portion of electric power bill. However, when measuring the return on investment for a fast, cheap, and easy step to lower your electric bill, the CFL produces real savings,

The CFL bulbs cost around $4.00 for either a 100-watt or 60-watt equivalent light bulb. GE’s compact fluorescent lights were installed in August 2006 at a total cost of $48.00 (12 times $4.00 a light). According to GE the 60-watt CFL used 15-watts of power and the 100-watt CFL used approximately 26-to-29 watts of power. So theoretically, energy use, assuming lights were in operation for 4 hours per day, would save about 71 KWH a month. Our electric rates are currently at $0.108 per KWH which is at par with the U.S. average rate of Electricity Prices for Households $0.104 per KWH in 2006. Therefore, the CFL bulbs are saving about $7.71 per month from our electric bill amounting to $92.50 in savings over a year. That yields an investment return of 193% on a $48 investment in CFL bulbs.

Figure 1 CFL Energy Savings

Now of course, power usage varies by household, including the diligent habits of our children, so savings will vary. The bottom line is little steps sometimes produce big results – CFL bulbs do help reduce your electric bill with a small investment and also help the environment as each 1.3 KWH reduction in power use reduces carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 1 pound. Coal generates about half the electric power in the U.S. and produces roughly ¾ of a pound of CO2 for every KWH of electric. That means for every 1.3 KWH of electricity used (a 100-watt light used for 13.3 hours) produces one pound of CO2. CFL help reduce CO2 emissions by approximately 1.4 pounds per bulb based on light usage of just 1-hour/day a month.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is quite correct in suggesting that if every household in the U.S. substituted a 100-watt standard light bulb for a Compact Fluorescent Light bulb (CFL), it would eliminate an amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent to one million automobiles. However, it is the bigger picture that matters, – motor vehicles contribute the most to CO2 emissions. We must not forget that by focusing on CO2 emissions, they are admitting that CO2 is a real issue that potentially leads to global warming and climate change.

Let’s look at some facts about our carbon footprint. A 100-watt light in operation for 13.3 hours produces approximately one pound of CO2 when the electricity is generated by coal. Coal has significantly higher carbon emissions per kilowatt-hour (KWH) than oil or gas. Please see Carbon content of fossil fuels . Coal generates about half the electric power in the U.S. and produces roughly ¾ of a pound of CO2 for every KWH of electric. That means for every 1.3 KWH of electricity used (a 100-watt light used for 13.3 hours) we produce 1 pound of CO2. And remember it’s the oxygen in the air that contributes nearly 73% to the weight of CO2. This is why more CO2 is created than the actual weight of the fuel.

Using the same fuel emissions data, a motor vehicle with an average fuel efficiency of 22 miles per gallon (MPG), produces approximately 90 pounds of CO2 for every 100 miles driven. A gallon of gasoline produces nearly 20 pounds of CO2. That equates to one pound of CO2 for every mile driven by an SUV with a fuel efficiency of 19 MPG. (19.9 pounds/gallon times 1 mile divided by 19 MPG)

While it makes sense to address the issue of CO2 emissions, particularly as coal accounts for half of electric power generation and has higher CO2 emissions per KWH than oil, the real issue is an energy plan that givers us energy independence. Energy independence should equate to national security.

With the rapid growth in vehicle use around the world, it would be nice to know what are the most efficiency, economic, and least carbon emitting fuels. The number of motor vehicles on the road is increasing rapidly. The number of cars and trucks in China is up over 3,600 percent in the last thirty years. Data from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and Ward’s Communications, Ward’s World Motor Vehicle Data provide an interesting view of the growth in motor vehicle use.

Figure 1 China Truck and Car Registration

While the U.S. still accounts for the largest motor vehicle market, the rest of the world is quickly accelerating towards more vehicles on the road. Figure 2 shows the number of vehicle registrations over the last thirty years for China, the U.S. and the rest of the world (ROW). Vehicle registration growth in the U.S. has been growing at a 2% per year rate from 1975 to 2005. The largest growth in vehicle registration is in China and India where growth in the last ten years is up 195% and 99%, respectively.

Figure 2 World Vehicle Registration

With an explosion in motor vehicle use, what fuel should we be using to better performance and reduce emissions? Let’s go back to two basic concepts of energy: Specific Energy and Energy Density. For a quick review, (Molecular Weight Calculator) the specific energy of a fuel relates the inherent energy of the fuel relative to its weight. Specific energy is often measured in kilo-joules per gram (kj/g). One kilo-joule equals one kilowatt-second meaning one kilowatt-hour (KWH) equals to 3,600 kilo-joules. Also one British Thermal Unit (BTU) equals 1,055.05585 joules. A reference to the specific energy and energy values of most fuels can be found at Hydrogen Properties

Figure 3 Specific Energy

By specific energy hydrogen is the clear leader. However, vehicles must inherently carry their fuel supply, so to determine which fuel is best for motor vehicles, energy density of the fuel is the next measurement. While vehicle fuel efficiency is dependent upon a number of factors such as engine type and performance, make and model of vehicle, road conditions and fuel, we are focusing on fuel energy.

Figure 4 Energy Density: KWH per Gallon

Figure 4 illustrates how fuels compare with respect to energy density, that is, energy relative the container size. We again are using KWH to measure energy value. Hydrogen, because it is so light, requires 15.9 times the container volume to provide the same energy as diesel. Biodiesel provides more power per gallon than Ethanol, which requires 1.6x, the container size for the same amount of energy as diesel. Biodiesel and diesel are relatively similar with respect to energy density. While both Ethanol and Biodiesel are both form of renewable energy, Biodiesel offers more bang per gallon. Before we are able invest more into hydrogen and solar energy to bring alternative energy into parity with conventional hydrocarbon fuels, diesel and biodiesel offer better energy efficiency among hydrocarbon fuels.

Table 1 Specific Energy, Energy Density & CO2

As a final assessment of hydrocarbon fuels, let’s compare carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions among our list of fuels. CO2 emission is a function of carbon concentration and combustion process of the fuel. Fuel energy research at the Department of Environmental Protection (EPA) and DOE indicate 99% to nearly 100% combustion of with fuels used in vehicles. That means almost all of the atoms in the fuel are converted to either heat or byproducts such as CO2.

Figure 5 illustrates how much CO2 is produced per gallon of fuel. Remember the molecular weight of CO2 is about 44 with oxygen contributor nearly 73% of the weight and is taken from our atmosphere during combustion. This is why more CO2 is created than the actual weight of the fuel. A second factor needs to be considered when evaluating CO2 emission and that is how much CO2 is produced per energy value. In comparing CO2 emissions per KWH of energy, Ethanol produces about 7% less CO2 than diesel or Biodiesel and 5% less than gasoline. Neither of these estimates considers the emissions from the processing to produce Ethanol or Bioiesel.

Figure 5 CO2 per Gallon

The bottom line is Ethanol and Biodiesel provide marginal relief to our energy crisis with biodiesel offering better efficiency and Ethanol marginally less CO2 missions. The only real solution to our imminent energy crisis is alternative energies such as solar, hydrogen fuel cells, and wind.

With rising energy prices and growing concern over global warming, will advances in solar and alternative energies enable the development of affordable and efficient energy solutions. Caltech research on the energy conversion process may offer some insight.

Energy conversion, ways of converting sunlight to electric and chemical energy, offers promising advancements to make solar and hydrogen energies more practical and affordable. On the forefront of energy conversion research, the framework of developing disruptive energy technologies, is The Lewis Group, that is part of the California Institute of Technology’s division of Chemical and Chemical Engineering. The Lewis Group is working in several research areas some geared towards to better understanding of energy capture, conversion of light into electrical and chemical energy, and energy storage. These research projects include photo-electrochemical, which focuses on the chemistry of semiconductors and materials, surface modification of semiconductors to improve electrical properties, and nanocrystalline titanium dioxide that could potentially lead to significantly lower cost for converting sunlight to electrical energy. The Lewis Group research projects are much more than improving photovoltaic devices; they are also exploring ways to convert sunlight into stored fuel energy.

While we are providing a brief and very oversimplified view of the solar energy research, it is important to understand the dynamics of energy conversion because the conversion process impacts the efficiency and the production cost of photovoltaic (PV) devices and fuels cells. The Lewis Group has an interesting PowerPoint presentation available for download providing an overview of energy from consequences of CO2 emissions to the latest in new technologies to improve alternative energies. Of particular interest are the historical efficiency trends for various materials used in crystalline and thin-film solar cells, energy conversion strategies of turning light to fuel and electric, and the cost/efficiency tradeoff in photovoltaic devices.

Cost/Efficiency Tradeoff
Photovoltaic devices are limited in their practical efficiencies governed by the thermodynamic limits and production costs that involve tradeoffs in materials, production processes, and PV device packaging. The Lewis Group provides a thorough illustration of the efficiency trends for various PV devices materials such as crystalline silicon used in semiconductors as well as the new approaches to thin film PV including amorphous silicon, cadmium telluride (CdTe), copper indium deselenide (CIS) and copper indium gallium deselenide materials (CIGS). These thin film material could offer substantial PV devices price reductions as a result of higher efficiency or lower production costs.

Figure 1 Cost/Efficiency Tradeoff

There is a tradeoff between improving the efficiency of a PV device, that is the amount of electric energy per solar panel, and the cost to produce the PV device. The average efficiency for a PV device is between 15%-to-16% and the average cost between $100-to-$350 a square meter. The cost per square meter and PV efficiency measured in watts per square meter can equate to a cost per watt, which ranges from $1.25/watt to $2.00/watt. SunPower (SPWR), offers the leading PV single junction device efficiency of 22% employing crystalline silicon and is expected to reach 500 megawatts (MW) production capacity by late 2009 from 330 MW in 2007. First Solar (FSLR) is ramping its thin film cadmium telluride (CdTe) solar technology by leveraging its low cost advantage with high volume production with its 75 MW in operations Ohio and 100 MW coming online in Germany. Startup Nanosolar is focusing on thin film solar PVs with a blend of copper indium gallium deselenide (CIGS) materials along with a manufacturing process much like printing, by placing the material blend upon metal foil. Evergreen Solar (ESLR) employs an integrated manufacturing process from wafers to cells and panels based on its proprietary String Ribbon Wafer technology with production levels at 118 MW in 2007.

There is presently a practical limit to solar efficiencies of approximately 30% and a thermodynamic limit of about 83%. The Shockley-Queisser limit at 30% for single junction solar cell efficiency is a function photon absorption in a material. “Detailed Balance Limit of Efficiency of p-n Junction Solar Cells” (W Shockley and HJ Queisser, Journal of Applied Physics, 1961) found that photons delivering excitation energy above a threshold (the band gap) for charge carrier electrons is lost to heating, meaning excess photon energy generates heat and not electric current. Photons with energy levels below the band gap pass through the material and photons above the threshold are absorbed. The absorbed photons transfer their energy to excite the electrons in the material and create pairs of negative electrons and positive charges that, because of their repulsion, travel to opposite ends thereby generating electric current.

According to the Lewis Group, other factors that limit PV cell efficiency include reflective loss of approximately10% for a material like silicon and a fill factor constraint that peaks at 83%. The fill factor restraint is attributable to the current-voltage characteristics of a PV cell that deals with matching the photocurrent density and voltage.

NREL (DOE lab) and Spectrolab (a Boeing company BA) using a multijunction semiconductor approach along with solar concentrators have achieved solar cell efficiencies of 40.7% in lab experiments while commercial products operate at 26.5%-to-28.3% efficiency range. Solar cell suppliers could reduce costs through production improvements or improve PV efficiencies without adding to costs. PV cell suppliers should benefit from economies of scale to reduce production costs while advances in technology improve PV efficiencies.

Research conducted by the Lewis Group at Caltech indicates that materials selected for PV devices have unique properties in their ability to absorb sunlight and generate electricity. In their analysis of semiconductor materials, the Lewis Group research found two parameters, determined by the physical properties of the material, that influence the PV’s efficiency. One is the thickness of the material, measured in microns, required to absorb enough sunlight to bring particular atoms in the material to an excited state, thereby freeing the electron to generate an electric current. The second parameter in the PV material is length of time the excited electrons last before recombining to generate heat instead of electric. Some materials such as silicon require material thickness of 100 microns while gallium arsenide (GaAs) only 1-to-3 microns.

Energy Conversion
Conversion of energy into electric or fuel is advancing through research in photoelectrochemical materials for solid and liquid fuels. Improvements in efficiencies for PV devices and fuel cells offer tremendous potential for transportation and home electric use.

Figure 2 Efficiency of Photovoltaic Devices

From figure 2, it seams quite apparent that PV efficiency has improved substantially since the 1950’s. Please see the Department of Energy (DOE) Basic Research Needs for Solar Energy Utilization for detailed analysis of solar energy. Further progress in PV and fuel cell technologies is predicated upon successful funding of further research. The bottom line is that only through innovative research will a truly disruptive technology be developed that has the ability of changing the economics to deliver an energy solutions to all nations.

With oil prices over $80 per barrel, the National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association in its press release today Record Home Heating Prices for Heating is expecting the average home heating cost for the ’08-’08 season to rise 9.9%. For homeowners using oil heat, heating costs are expected to increase 28% and for homes using propane, a 30% increase is expected.

With rising energy costs driven by costly oil extraction, the potential impact from carbon emissions with our continuing use of oil on climate change and rising sea levels, as well as the potential for fuel supply disruptions, could exacerbate our tenuous relationship with energy.

Eventually, as price rise dramatically, alternative energy becomes more compelling. The problem is our economy is so inextricably link to oil, that our energy security is based on securing foreign oil.

Figure 1 Oil Prices and Home Heating Costs

Without support and research on alternative energies such as solar and fuel cell technologies, we are hostage to oil. The U.S. economy is facing one of the most crises since the Oil Embargo of the 1973. Inflation driven by escalating oil prices is impacting the cost of home heating, transportation, production, materials, and food, particularly as corn is diverted to ethanol production. The housing market is in turmoil with falling home values, rising foreclosures, and a credit crisis that is making it more difficult to secure a mortgage may lead to slower consumer spending. With rising inflation and slower growth we may find ourselves in an economic world described as stagflation that was coined in the ’70’s to describe the bleak environment when gas stations rationed fuel, unemployment grew and the Federal Reserve raised rates dramatically to quell inflation.If we could limit our dependence on foreign oil through investment into solar energy and fuel cell technologies, we would not be impacted by the exogenous events in oil producing nations.

We believe there are a number of catalyst that could serve to dramatically lower the cost of alternative energies. It takes initiatives from all of us to change the balance. After all, oil is becoming more costly to extract, new oil discoveries are in difficult and challenging environments, and oil will eventually run out – it is finite. If we wait to long, our ability to make a difference may not be available.

The second category 5 hurricane to hit Caribbean in two weeks leaves uncertainty in the energy market as oil prices head higher. While it is hard to draw the direct correlation between global warming and hurricanes strength, the fact is the oil production in the Gulf of Mexico accounts for 32% of our total oil production. In addition, the Gulf of Mexico is one the most productive oil and gas region as the U.S. faces declining petroleum product production despite significant increase in the number of oilrigs. The increasing likelihood of a weather related energy supply disruptions particularly from the Gulf area could dramatically increases to energy prices similar to Hurricane Katrina’s impact in 2005.

Higher oil prices have driven demand for energy exploration and investment into oil and gas drilling rigs. Since 1999, the number of drilling rigs has increased 112%. In the U.S., rig count is up 181% with 1,749 rigs in operation in 2007 from 622 in 1999 according to Baker Hughes. Worldwide Rig Count
According to RigZone there are 278 offshore drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico RigZone

Figure 1 Worldwide Rig Count

Figure 1 provides the rig count for the U.S. and the world. The U.S. accounts for over half the world oil drilling rigs yet our production is less than 10% of total global production. The Gulf of Mexico with 278 drilling rigs produces 32% of our oil with only 16% of the rigs. Hurricane Impacts on the U.S. Oil and Natural Gas Markets The rigs in the Gulf of Mexico are more productive and therefore any weather related disruption in the Gulf leaves us more vulnerable to energy shocks.

Figure 2 US Rig Count and Oil Production

While the U.S. rig count is up 118% from 1999, petroleum production is actually down 7%. On a global basis, oil and petroleum product production increased 13% since 1999 and this includes a 60% increase in the number of drilling rigs excluding the U.S. The bottom line is the U.S. and the rest of the world is experience diminishing returns on investments in oil production.

With diminishing returns on investment into oil, would it not be better to invest into alternative energy such as solar or wind. The truth is the cost of solar and wind are still dramatically higher than hydrocarbon fuels. The cost of solar on a kilowatt-hour (KWH) basis is approximately $0.38 per KWH in comparison to oil at $0.05 per KWH.

Figure 3 Cost per Kilowatt-Hours

Initiatives such as the trading of carbon credits leave little economic incentive to invest into alternative energy. A survey last year by TreeHugger found carbon credits trading for $5.50 to $13 per metric ton of carbon dioxide. Survey of Carbon offsets A metric ton of carbon dioxide equates to about 110 gallons of gasoline and at these prices, the carbon emission amounts to about $0.05-to-$0.12 to a gallon of gasoline. The carbon penalty does not even come close to bringing solar or wind energy on the same playing filed with hydrocarbon fuels. The Carbonfund organization offers a means to offset your carbon emissions with tax-deductible contributions

The cost of carbon emissions is not reflected in the market for energy. In addition, the market is unable to establish a fair price for carbon because there is no market force used to establish the value of carbon credits. We need a mechanism to bring solar energy at par with hydrocarbon fuels to limit our vulnerability to energy shocks and supply disruptions.