Category Coal Energy

After reviewing oil data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), Global Petroleum Consumption , it may be helpful to put energy consumption into perspective. Most of us are quite familiar with alternative energy such as solar and wind, but the reality is, even if solar and wind could supply all of electric energy needs, the majority of our energy needs is still predicated on access to oil.

While industry experts and scientist debate whether more drilling will ameliorate the energy challenge we face, let’s look at a couple of data points. Figure 1 US Oil Field Oil Production and Drilling Rigs – illustrates that higher drilling activity as measured by Baker Hughes Rig Count data does not necessarily correlate to more oil production as measured by US Oil Field Production by the EIA. Higher drilling activity does not produce more oil.

Figure 1 US Oil Field Production and Drilling Rigs
Source: Energy Information Administration and Baker Hughes research

Despite the large investment in drilling rigs that more than doubled from 1,475 in 1974 to over 3,100 in 1982, US oil production remained relatively flat. Moreover, even the most recent drilling expansion activity that again more than doubled from 1,032 rigs in 2003 to over 2,300 rigs in 2009, resulted in relatively flat oil production, suggesting that on the margin unit oil production per drilling rig was declining. Perhaps even more disturbing is that the most recent drilling activity in the US was accomplished through extensive use of technology. Seismic imaging technology is being used to better locate oil deposits and horizontal drilling technologies are employed to more efficiently extract the oil, yet oil production still lags historic levels. While on the margin, newly announced offshore drilling could add to domestic oil production, extraction costs of oil will continue to rise adding to further oil price increases.

However, what is most profound is our dependence on oil for most of our energy needs similar to how wood was used for fuel construction material during the 1300’s and 1600’s. If we translate energy consumption into equivalent measuring units such as kilowatt-hours, we can compare and rank energy consumption. Although electricity is captured through consumption of several fuels most notably coal, a comparison of energy usage between oil and electric provides an interesting perspective.

Figure 2 Energy Perspective – provides a simple comparison of the consumption of oil and electricity measured in gigawatt-hours (one million kilowatt hours). A barrel of oil is equivalent to approximately 5.79 million BTUs or 1,699 KWH and the US consumed approximately 19.5 million barrels per day equating to 12 million gigawatt-hours a year. The US uses 4 million gigawatt-hours of electric energy annually. The critical point is that even if solar and wind supplied all of our electric energy needs, it would still only comprise 30% of our total energy needs. Therefore, without an energy strategy that facilitates migration towards a substitute for oil, particularly for transportation, we are missing the boat.

Figure 2 Energy Perspective
Source: Energy Information Administration and Green Econometrics research

It’s not all doom and gloom. Technologies are advancing, economies of scale are driving costs lower, and the economics for new approaches to transportation are improving. From hybrids and electric vehicles benefiting from advances lithium-ion batteries to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles getting 600 miles on a tank of fuel. These advanced technologies could mitigate our addiction to oil, however, without formulating an energy strategy directing investments towards optimizing the economics, energy efficiency, environment, and technology, we may miss the opportunity.

The bottom line is that oil is supply-constrained as there are no readily available substitutes, and therefore, without a means to rapidly expand production; supply disruptions could have a pernicious and painful impact on our economy, national security, and welfare.

The development of an energy efficiency strategy incorporates analysis of energy expenditures and energy consumption. The energy strategy must incorporate dynamics between costs, budgets and the consumption of energy including the monitoring of kilowatt-hours (KWH) of electricity and liquid hydrocarbon fuels consumed. By analyzing both the financial and the energy consumption components we are better positioned to frame the scope of the energy efficiency projects.

We start with a comprehensive energy audit analyzing energy consumption and expenditures. After determining which activities offer the fastest, cheapest, and greatest economic impact we are then able to define the scope of energy efficiency projects. The next step in the energy strategy process is to assess, rank and specify energy saving opportunities. At this phase, we have a broad understanding of the scope of energy efficiency projects within the appropriate budgetary considerations.

Conduct Energy Audit and Analyze Energy Spending

Upon analysis of the energy expenditures and the appropriate budgetary considerations, we commence with an energy audit to examine the dimensions of energy consumption. The energy audit establishes an energy efficiency baseline for buildings and vehicles. In the energy audit, energy consumption is measured by source and activity using monitors attached to branch circuits, gas pipes, and fuel lines. In this manner, energy consumption is evaluated from a financial and physical perspective and baseline usage patterns are established for electricity and other fuels.

During the energy audit, an analysis of energy intensity is measured. For buildings, energy consumption is measured in kilowatt-hours per square-foot to identify which activities consume the most energy. The energy intensity measurements are then ranked by consumption activity and compared to actual energy expenditures.

The purpose of the energy audit is to establish a baseline of energy consumption and the energy intensity associated with each building, department, vehicles, and/or activity usage category. By constructing an effective energy efficiency strategy that identifies and measures energy demand by activity, a better understanding of economic- and financial-impact is established. The critical component to the energy audit is measurement and verification were wireless Internet-based energy monitoring provide data before and after energy efficiency projects commence. The energy audit and energy monitoring systems together with financial analysis of energy consumption serve as the framework to rank and assess energy efficiency projects.

Heuristically, energy consumption in buildings is tied to lighting; and heating, cooling, and ventilation systems see Energy Intensity . The following chart, Figure 1 serves to illustrate which activities contribute most to energy consumption in buildings.

Figure 1 Kilowatt-hours (KWH) per Square Foot

According to information provided by the DOE, lighting, cooling and ventilation alone account for nearly two-thirds of all energy consumption in a building. For perspective, electric energy demand is increasing at an annualized rate of 1.6%. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), demand for electricity grew 21% between 1995 and 2006.

The energy consumption audit provides a means to assess which activities should be further analyzed for energy efficiency projects. The baseline energy usage measured in KWH per square foot serves as the framework to evaluate that locations and activities could benefit from lighting retrofits, equipment upgrades, structural improvements, and energy monitoring systems.

As a consequence of increasing energy consumption in buildings, electric generation relies extensively on hydrocarbon fuels that carry adverse environmental effects. Figure 2 illustrates the proportion of coal and other hydrocarbon fuels that are used to generate electricity in comparison to renewable energy sources. Coal still accounts for nearly half of all electric generation while contributing the most in terms of harmful emissions such as carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and sulfur dioxide.

FIGURE 2: Electric Generation Method

As part of the energy audit process for buildings, an energy consumption analysis of lighting and HVAC systems is evaluated along with the building’s insulation R-Value (resistance to heat flow where the higher the R-value, the greater the insulating effectiveness). In addition to lighting and HVAC systems, specialized equipment may also account for large energy demand. During our energy audit, we plan to identify and measure energy usage of special equipment in order to construct energy efficiency initiatives with clearly defined and measurable energy reduction targets.

Energy efficiency for transportation vehicles is one of the most significant factors to manage. The fact that there are no real substitutes for oil in the transportation industry illustrates two important points: 1) structural changes to driving patterns are required to see appreciable changes to oil consumption and 2) government authorities are vulnerable, with no readily available substitutes for oil, supply disruption could negatively impact transportation systems. Therefore, we emphasize fuel management systems for fleets and vehicles that monitor fuel consumption and efficiencies. DOE studies have indicated that changing driving habits could improve fuel efficiency by up to 30%.

Vehicle mounted devices that integrated fuel consumption feedback as the vehicle is driven promotes higher fuel efficiency. These off the shelf products are cost-effective, offering payback in months that dramatically improves fuel efficiencies. Aside from routine tune-ups, limiting weight, and checking tire pressure, augmenting driving patterns through gauges that provide feedback on fuel efficiency make the difference in saving energy.

In most situations, fuel management systems can be installed without significant mechanical aptitude. The ScanGaugeII from Linear-Logic is useable on most vehicles manufactured after 1996 including Gas, Diesel, Propane and Hybrid Vehicles and are designed to be installed by the consumer with plug-and-play instructions.

Identify and Measure Energy Demand by Activity

From the Energy Audit, the energy intensity of targeted buildings and fuel efficiencies of official vehicles are established. In buildings, it’s the lighting and heating, ventilation, and cooling that comprise the bulk of energy consumption.

Heating, ventilation, and cooling represent a significant portion of energy consumption in buildings and are a priority target for energy analysis. The Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio (SEER) is employed as an assessment of the equipment and analyzed in conjunction with building insulation. The efficiency of air conditioners is often rated in SEER ratio, which is defined by the Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute and provides a standard unit measure of performance. The higher the SEER rating of a cooling system the more energy efficient the system is. The SEER rating is the amount of BTU (British Thermal Units) of cooling output divided by the total electric energy input in watt-hours.

For heating systems in a building, Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency (AFUE) is used to measure and compare the performance of different systems. DOE studies have indicated that even with known AFUE efficiency ratings, heat losses defined as idle losses contribute to degradation in heating system efficiency,

To analyze energy consumption of heating and air conditioning systems (HVAC), we evaluate the building’s R-Value in comparison to the energy efficiency of the current heating and air conditioning systems. The energy demand evaluation includes a cost-benefit analysis comparing options in either HVAC system upgrade and/or improvements to the building’s insulation R-Value. By comparing the buildings R-Value in conjunction with HVAC efficiency performance, projects offering the greatest cost effectiveness are identified. The building’s R-Values can be measured using FLIR Systems infrared camera and software system. In this manner, the replacement cost of an HVAC system and costs to improve the building’s R-Value are analyzed to measure economic benefits. This information will allow the building owner to make an informed decision on whether any energy efficiency investment into HVAC upgrade or improvement to R-Value demonstrate economic benefit, i.e. positive financial return.

Consideration for heating and cooling systems upgrades are assessed by equipment SEER and AFUE ratings, installation costs, and efficiency payback. After equipment assessment is complete, proposals will be provided along with estimates for upgrade costs and payback analysis.

Benchmark and Analyze Energy Intensity

After conducting the energy audit, and compiling data on energy usage by activity category, we benchmark and analyze energy projects offering the greatest opportunities. As illustrated in Figure 3, energy efficiency for lighting systems can be substantially improved by retrofitting legacy light fixtures with higher efficiency fixtures and bulbs.

The energy audit and analysis provide the framework to evaluate energy efficiency projects. By analyzing energy consumption and the economic benefits associated with the energy savings projects, the most efficient and economically beneficial initiatives are identified and ranked.

FIGURE 3: Energy Savings in KWH per Square Foot Figure 1 Kilowatt-hours (KWH) per Square Foot

Establish Measurable Goals and Objectives

To establish relevant goals and objectives we are evaluating projects that are adhering to the SMART goal approach: specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and timely. Energy efficiency gains are most pronounced with lighting retrofits and energy monitoring in buildings in buildings and energy monitoring in vehicles.

After conducting an energy audit, analyzing energy consumption activities and the economics of energy efficiency projects, realistic and achievable energy savings goals are defined. Key performance metrics for energy savings are defined for buildings and vehicles. Key performance indicators are established for each project. For example, KWHs saved are defined for lighting retrofit projects, efficiency improvements for HVAC system upgrades, R-Value improvements for building insulation, and MPG gains for vehicles.

For each energy savings project, timelines are established with clearly defined milestones. Energy projects are presented with costs; expected energy savings measured in energy and dollar units, cost benefit analysis, and timelines.

Architect the Deployment of Energy Monitoring Systems

One of the first energy initiatives to consider in any energy savings project is the installation of an energy monitoring system for vehicles and buildings. Energy monitoring systems demonstrate the fastest and most economical pathways to achieving energy savings.

Energy monitoring systems for motor vehicles also demonstrate positive economic returns and real energy savings. The $180 energy-monitoring device with 10% fuel efficiency gain achieves breakeven at 14,500 miles with gasoline costing $2.50 a gallon.

Evaluate Feasibility of Renewable Energy Projects

Renewable energy projects such as solar and wind energy systems are often costly with long payback periods. Without tax incentives and grants, renewable energy projects are unable to demonstrate positive financial returns. However, utility rates for electric are expected to increase, improving the case for renewable energy projects. To improve the viability of alternative energy projects, energy efficiency projects such as lighting retrofit serve to lower energy consumption and therefore enhance the feasibility of solar and wind energy projects.

Last month First Solar (FSLR) achieved a milestone in the solar industry with its announcement of $1 per Watt reducing its production cost for solar modules to 98 cents per watt, thereby braking the $1 per watt price barrier.. While the achievement is great news for the solar industry some studies suggest more work is needed. An article in Popular Mechanics $1 per Watt talks of university studies questioning the scalability of solar given the immense global needs for energy. Last year our post included an article Solar Energy Limits – Possible Constraints in Tellurium Production? discussing possible limits on tellurium production on thin film solar photovoltaic (PV) suppliers.

In addition, Barron’s published an article (March 30, 2009)_ Nightfall Comes to Solar Land providing unique insight into the economics of solar PV suppliers. High oil prices and soaring stock prices on solar PV companies fueled silicon suppliers to ramp production capacity that has now transitioned, according to the Barron’s article, into an over supply of polysilicon used in the production of PV panels and subsequently, eroding the cost advantage established by thin film PV companies such as First Solar and Energy Conversion Devices (ENER) over polysilicon PV firms such as SunPower (SPWRA).

However, the PV panels typically represent approximately half the cost of a solar energy system. The following figure, Solar Installation Costs compares the total cost of installing a solar energy system which includes labor and supporting matertials.

Figure 1 Solar Installation Costs

As illustrated in Figure 1, the panels represent a significant cost of installation, but the labor and support brackets for the PV panels are significant as well. While thin film PV enjoys significantly lower panel costs and is easier to install, the supporting brackets are sometimes more expensive. As prices for silicon fall, the cost disparity between thin film and silicon PV will narrow.

Figure 2 Solar Energy Economics

In Figure 2 Green Econometrics is comparing PV efficiency as measured by watts per square meter versus cost per watt. The selected companies represent a small portion of the global PV suppliers, but do illustrate the position of the leading US suppliers. The ideal model is to lower cost per watt while improving PV efficiency. But be cognizant that PV module cost per watt may not be indicative of the total system costs.

A comparison of wind and solar energy costs is demonstrated by Detronics and offers a useful framework to compare wind and solar costs by kilowatt-hour (KWH). As a caveat, wind and solar resources will vary dramatically by location. In the Detronics example, the costs per KWH represent the production over one year and both wind and solar have 20-year life spans. Over twenty years the 1,000-watt wind systems cost per KWH of $7.35 would average approximately $0.36 per KWH and the 750-watt solar systems cost of $10.68 would amount about $0.53 per KWH over the investment period.

Figure 3 Alternative Energy Pricing

The Alternative Energy Pricing chart was base on research from Solarbuzz which is one of the leading research firms in solar energy. The cost per KWH that Solarbuzz provides is a global average. Even with cost per watt falling below $1.00, the system costs after installation are closer to $5.00 according to Abound Solar (formerly known as AVA Solar) and is still higher than parity with grid with a cost of $0.21 per KWH.

The bottom line is that despite the lower PV panel costs; we are still not at parity with hydrocarbon fuels such as coal and oil. Carbon based taxing or alternative energy stimulus and more investment into alternative energy is required to improve the economics of solar and wind.

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.

To understand current energy prices it may serve us to examine historical energy prices. Our theme is energy economics and specifically that energy prices follow the laws of supply and demand to set pricing.

There are some interesting perspectives on historical energy prices from several books including Security Analysis, 1940 edition by Benjamin Graham and David Dodd, The Great Wave, by David Hackett Fischer; and The Industrial Revolution in World History, by Peter Stearns. These books provide extensive data on pricing, industry revenues, and the framework that energy and technology serve in the economics of the industrial world.

Figure 1 Historical Energy Prices

With the risk of oversimplification, our first figure shows there have been four distinct energy prices waves that have rippled through history. The scarcity of wood that was used for building homes, heating, and tools became increasing scarce as deforestation spread through Europe in the 1300s and followed again in the 1600’s. Coal prices rose rapidly with the War of 1812 and the Napoleonic Wars. Oil prices peaked in 1982 and to an all time high of $145.16 on July 14, 2008.

Figure 2 Medieval Wood Prices

During the Medieval period in world history wood prices increased nearly threefold according to David Fischer in the The Great Wave. Wood prices rose with scarcity and peaked in 1320 as impact of the Bubonic Plague began to kill a quarter of Europe’s’ population. Twenty years from its peak in 1320, wood prices declined by 48% as the Bubonic Plague reduces the population and in turn, lowering the demand for wood.

Figure 3 Wood Prices

Figure 3. Illustrates the rapid rise in the demand for wood as the growing world populations benefited advances in science and agriculture from the Renaissance period. Wood is used for just about everything and prices climb as more land is used for agriculture leading to deforestation exacerbating the wood shortage. As demand for wood increases, prices subsequently follow. By the end of the 1600’s, coal begins to substitute for wood as an energy alternative.

With advances in technology came improvements in coal mining and transportation that allowed coal to substitute for wood as an energy source. With the invention such as Thomas Newcomen’s steam, powered pump in 1712 that facilitated coal mining and James Watt’s steam engine in 1765 that lead to advances in transportation including railroads and machinery, coal grew in importance as an energy source. These advances in technology enabled greater supplies of coal to enter the market which lead to declines in energy prices.

Figure 4 Coal Prices

We can gleam from Figure 4 that coal prices peaked in 1810-to-1815 coinciding with the War of 1812 and the Napoleonic Wars. The technological advances in mining and transportations fostered the development of an infrastructure to support the coal industry. The price of coal rose as wars ragging in Europe and the US, increased the demand for materials and supplies such as coal. However, as the wars came to an end, the abundant supplies of coal allowed prices to fall keeping energy prices low.

Oil entered the picture with the drilling of the first oil well in northwestern Pennsylvania in 1859 and the Internal Combustion Engine in 1860 that facilitated the development of the oil industry.

As oil emerged to become the dominant fuel of the 20th Century, it’s only recently that we face supply shortages. To better understand the dynamics of energy pricing in the face of changing demand, a review of spending on railroads and electricity may serve as a surrogate for discretionary and consumer stable spending patterns.

Figure 5 Industry Segment Revenues

Figure 5 illustrates changes in the aggregate revenues of railroads in comparison to electric utilizes during the Great Depression. Copious notes taken by Graham and Dodd for their book Security Analysis help to demonstrate the economic laws of supply and demand.

The change in demand was most pronounced in railroad revenues. Expenditures on railroads, the more discretionary of the two industries, declined 51% from 1929 to 1993 as measured by gross receipts for the railroad industry. Over this same period, spending on the consumer stable, electricity only encountered a decline of 9%. In economic terms, railroads demonstrate greater demand elasticity meaning there is greater change in demand at prices change or this period, disposable income. While there is some discretionary portion of our spending associated with oil, a large portion of spending on oil is out of necessity. Therefore, even during times of great economic distress, the propensity for energy consumption is not eradicated entirely.

The bottom line: Energy pricing will continue to be dictated by supply and demand. Hydrocarbon fuels such as oil are finite in nature and therefore, without definitive strategies to cultivate alternative energy resources we will remain hostage to the vagaries in energy prices..

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.

A brief review of history and in particular the industrial Revolution, it’s quite apparent that economic growth is inextricably linked to energy. As energy is tied to our economy, our future is dependent upon equitable access to energy. This in turn sets the framework of our dependence on oil and hence, why our national security is tied to securing the flow of oil.

Eighteenth-Century England gave birth to the Industrial Revolution. Four critical components provided the framework enabling the Industrial Revolution: Labor, Technology, Risk Capital, and Energy

Improving efficiencies in agriculture lead to an increase in the food supply while minimizing the amount of labor required to cultivating crops. The improving agriculture efficiencies lead to population growth and an available labor force that began to migrate to the cities.

Advances in science and technology gave way to improvements in manufacturing, mining, and transportation. It was the harnessing of steam power such as Thomas Newcomen’s steam, powered pump in 1712 for coal mining and James Watt’s steam engine in 1765 that lead to railroads and machinery.

Risk capital was also an important element for the development of the Industrial Revolution. Risk capital and the entrepreneurial spirit that allowed capital to be applied innovation helped transition England into the largest economy in the world.

And Energy. Access to an available source of energy was instrumental fueling the Industrial Revolution. With wood being used for just about everything in the early 1700’s from housing, wagons, tools, and fuel, deforestation lead to energy scarcity. It was coal that enabled the growth of Industrial Revolution by providing an accessible energy source.

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. Given that we import nearly 60% of the oil we consume, most of our wealth travels abroad. More emphasis on alternative energies could help ameliorate our dependence on oil.

Figure 1 U.S. Energy Consumption by Fuel

While solar and wind energy have seen some very strong growth, alternative energy still account for less then 2% of our global energy production.

We need to realize that our dependence on oil could cripple our economy. Supply constraints or disruption to oil flow could derail economic activity. It should be an imperative for our national security to develop alternative energies.

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.

Oil prices remain at historically high levels and threaten our economy with higher home heating and transportation costs. With a lot of rhetoric over Peak Oil as well as claims that Tar Sands offer a viable substitute for oil, let’s examine a couple of facts to determine the feasibility and sustainability of supplementing our current demand for oil with tar sands.

According to Bureau of Land Management’s on line resource for Oil Shale and Tar Sands, tar sands are a mixture of clay, sand, water, and bitumen, which is liquid hydrocarbon oil like substance. Tar sands consist of about 10%-to-15% liquid hydrocarbon and an 80%-to-85% mixture of mineral water, clay, and sand, and 4%-to-6% water. It takes about two tons of tar sands, which are extracted, mainly through strip mining, and processed to produce one barrel of oil.

According to Alberta Energy, sand oil production was at 966,000 barrels per day (bbl/d) in 2005 and is expected to reach 3 million bbl/d by 2020 and possibly even 5 million bbl/d by 2030. Alberta’s sand oil reserves at 1,704 million barrels, but proven and extractable using current technology, the estimate is 175 billion barrels which is second to Saudi Arabia’s 260 billion according to CBS 60 Minutes

However, with productions level of Alberta’s sand oil at 3 or even 5 million barrels per day, it represents just 4%-to-6% of the world’s oil needs. The U.S. consumed an average of approximately 20.5 million bbl/d in 2006 as indicated by the Energy Information Administration.

If it takes two tons of tar sand to produce one barrel of oil, the ability to increase production to 3 million barrels per day would amount to mining of 2.1 billion tons of tar sand. Total coal mining in the U.S. for 2006 was 1.1 billion tons according to EIA Coal Data At 5 million barrels per day, equivalent to about 6% of the world oil production in 2006, would amount to 3.6 billion tons of tar sand. That would be significantly larger than the 1.3 billion tons total world production of Iron ore in 2005 Info Comm. That appears to be a lot of mining for a 6% increase of oil on the world market. The added tar sand oil would make a significant contribution to U.S. oil needs.

According to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers capital investment in Alberta’s oil sands amounted to $10.4 billion in 2005. That’s not a bad investment considering that even with production levels of 1 million barrels a day, revenue potential could be $29 billion a year with oil over $80 per barrel.

Figure 1 U.S. Oil Supply and Demand

Given the that tar sands only provide a fraction of our energy requirements and is burdened by carbon emission even during extraction, a commitment to solar energy fuel cells may offer a better return on investment. The bottom line is oil derived from tar sand is only a supplement to our energy demands, it’s non-renewable, adds to carbon emissions, requires extensive processing, and must be mined.

Without greater investment into solar and hydrogen energies, we are held hostage to rising oil prices. Alternative energies such as solar and hydrogen fuel cells offer tremendous potential to provide energy independence and energy security. The dependence of the U.S. upon imported foreign oil raises inflation, weakens our currency, exacerbates the trade deficit, and forces consumers to pay higher prices for home heating and transportation. With oil exceeding $80 a barrel in late September 2007, the only beneficiaries are countries exporting oil and oil conglomerates. I guess when countries such as Dubai, after accumulating a large trade surplus based on inflated oil prices, decides to diversify away from oil and buy a non-voting stake in the NASDAQ market, it’s a wake-up call.

To better understand the potential of alternative energy, we should try to understand two basic concepts of energy: Specific Energy and Energy Density. Without digressing into chemistry 101, (Molecular Weight Calculator) the specific energy of a fuel relates the inherent energy of the fuel relative to its weight. Typically, specific energy is measured in kilo-joules (kj) per gram. A joule is a measure of kinetic energy – one joule is the amount of energy needed to move two kilograms at a velocity of one meter per second. Or a kilo-joule equals one kilowatt-second meaning one kilowatt-hour (KWH) equals to 3,600 kilo-joules. Your local electric utility bills you by the KWH, which according to the US Department of Energy Average Retail Price of Electricity in 2007 is approximately $0.11 per KWH.

Table 1 Specific Energy and Energy Density

The specific energy of a fuel tells us how much energy can be derived from a measured amount fuel by weight. By ranking each fuel by its specific energy, one can determine how efficient each fuel is. Specific energy and fuel density are often proportional to the ratio of carbon and hydrogen atoms in the fuel. A reference to the specific energy and energy values of most fuels can be found at Hydrogen Properties

Figure 1 Specific Energy
Figure 1 illustrates how fuels compare according to their specific energy. As we can see, hydrogen, because it’s extremely light, has the highest specific energy in comparison to hydrocarbon fuels.

This however, is not the full story because volume or energy storage requirement becomes a significant factor for gaseous fuels. Specific energy is important to analyze fuel efficiency by weight, but for hydrogen that must be pressurized and cooled to bring to a liquid state, the energy density become more relevant to fuel efficiency.

Figure 2 Energy Density: KWH per Gallon

Figure 2 illustrates how fuels compare according to their energy density, that is, energy relative the container size. As we can see from figure 2, hydrogen, because it is so light, requires 15.9 times the container volume to provide the energy of diesel or oil. In comparison to diesel, ethanol requires 1.6x the container size for the same amount of energy.

The container size becomes a significant detriment for housing hydrogen. Energy density is usually measured in kilo-joules per cubic meter (kj/m3). As kilo-joules are readily translated into KWH by multiplying by the number of seconds in an hour (3,600) and the College of the Deserts’ computation into gallons, we are converting the data into KWH per gallon for those of us in the U.S.

Hydrogen fares poorly relative to energy density. However, technology offers an approach to enhance the benefits of hydrogen with fuel cells. Fuel cell enable hydrogen molecules to interact with oxygen through a membrane that allows transmission in only one direction to convert H2 into an electric current to power your automobile. Fuel Cell Basics Fuel cells often capture the hydrogen electron from hydrocarbon fuel such as methane allow convention fuels to generate hydrogen for electric generation.

In a hydrogen-based economy, solar energy can provide electric to generate hydrogen through electrolysis and vice versa. Jeremy Rifkin’s The Hydrogen Economy eloquently illustrated the hydrogen economy where fuel cell act as mini power plants and the electric network resembles the Internet where cars plug into an electrical grid supplemented by solar cells at your home and work. Electric power generation moves from large utility generation to a distributed generation – everyone plugged in can generate power to the grid. The key benefit of hydrogen is that it democratizes the energy economy bringing power to all countries in the world.

An interesting technical analysis of hydrogen energy is provided by Ulf Bossel and Baldur Eliasson Energy and the Hydrogen Economy The bottom line is that solar and hydrogen energies offer tremendous potential to low long-term fuel costs and improve our environment and climate. More research is required to lower costs and improve feasibility.

To measure the efficiency of conventional hydrocarbon fuels, we need a common measure of energy. The Kilowatt-Hours (KWH), the billing quantity of electric usage, serves as a useful measure of energy because we can equate KWH to engine horsepower performance, heat energy of a fuel, and compare energy costs on a common level. KWH can be used to determine which fuel is most efficient by measuring the heat output of each fuel.

A BTU is the amount of heat necessary to raise one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit and each fuel has its own BTU measure. For example, one ton of coal produces about 21.1 million BTUs, which would equate to 6,182 KWH. One KWH equals 3,413 BTUs.

A framework to measure energy costs is to convert each fuel type into KWH of energy. Some helpful links to common fuel conversions Energy Units and Conversions KEEP, BTU by Tree, and Fuel BTUs

We want to establish common energy measure to evaluate home heating fuel efficiency for each fuel type. Our first step is to measure the BTU value for each fuel type. The next step is to divide the BTU value for each fuel by 3,413 to arrive at its corresponding KWH energy value.

Kilowatt-Hour per Unit of Fuel
The energy value of a unit of fuel depends on its mass, carbon and hydrogen content, and the ratio of carbon to hydrogen. In general, hydrogen generates approximately 62,000 BTU per pound and carbon generates around 14,500 BTUs per pound. The combustion process is complex and while higher hydrogen content improves energy BTU levels, not all hydrogen goes to heat. Some hydrogen combines with oxygen to form water. Coal Combustion and Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Energy Comparison
1 pound of wood = 6,401 BTUs = 1.9 KWH
1 pound of coal = 13,000 BTUs = 3.8 KWH
1,000 cubic foot of natural gas = 1,000,021 BTUs = 299 KWH
1 gallon of oil = 138,095 BTUs = 40.5 KWH
1 gallon of propane = 91,500 BTUs 26.8 KWH

Figure 1a Kilowatt-Hours per Pound

As seen from figure 1, natural gas provides the highest efficiency level followed by oil. Wood offers the lowest efficiency per pound at 1.9 KWH/lb and is followed by coal with twice the efficiency at 3.8 KWH/lb. Oil offers almost a 70% efficiency improvement over coal and propane is just slightly more efficient than coal.

Fuel Energy Efficiency
Wood = 1.9 KWH per pound
Coal = 3.8 KWH per pound
Natural Gas = 6.9 KWH per pound (liquid and gas measures are calculated at 6.3 pounds per gallon)
Oil = 6.4 KWH per pound
Propane = 4.3 KWH per pound

This is not the full story. While the energy efficiency of the fuel is important, a lot depends on the fuel efficiency of the stove or furnace that is used to heat your home. The heating efficiency of your stove or furnace has a substantial impact on the overall efficiency of the fuel’s heat value. The adjusted KWH in figure 1 indicates the fuel efficiency adjusted for the efficiency of the heating system. There is also some variance in the fuel efficiency given impurities, temperature, and water presence.

Adjusted Fuel Energy Efficiency
Wood @ 1.9 KWH per pound and stove efficiency of 70% equals 1.3 KWH/lb
Coal @ 3.8 KWH /lb and stove efficiency of 70% = 2.7 KWH/lb
Natural Gas @ 6.9 KWH /lb and furnace efficiency of 95% = 6.5 KWH/lb
Oil @ 6.4 KWH /lb and furnace efficiency of 85% = 5.5 KWH/lb
Propane @ 4.3 KWH /lb and furnace efficiency of 95% = 4.0 KWH/lb

Figure 1b Kilowatt-Hours per Kilogram

Figure 1b proves the same fuel types measured by liters and kilograms. While the absolute numbers are different, the relative fuel efficiency among the fuels is the same.

Energy Economics

The final phase of our fuel efficiency exercise is to compare an economic measure of fuel cost. The market price of fuel will vary by location, usage amount, and market conditions. Our prices were quarterly average U.S. energy prices by fuel type:
Natural Gas Prices, , Oil Prices, and Propane Prices
Coal and wood prices were based on local residential delivery.

Figure 2 Cost per Kilowatt-Hours

Coal and wood are among the lowest priced fuels. However, coal and wood require extensive hands-on control and cleaning which are not factored into costs. Natural gas is offered in many urban areas and is currently priced below oil or propane. Natural gas offers higher energy efficiency and is priced lower than oil or propane, but is not available in all urban markets and very limited rural availability.

The trade off between oil and propane, which can be found in most markets, is operating efficiency and maintenance. Modern oil furnaces are demonstrating higher operating efficiencies, but cost significantly more than propane. Oil does offer higher efficiency than propane, but maintenance costs are higher for oil furnaces and that cost is not reflected in these fuel costs measures.

Electric heat in some markets where utility rates are below oil or gas may offer favorable economics, but electric rates might be going higher as utilities switch to lower carbon emission fuels. The challenge is to migrate electric utilities from lower-priced coal with high CO2 emissions to natural gas with lower carbon emissions. The cost to lower CO2 emissions from coal burning utilities could force natural gas prices to rise. The bottom line is that energy prices will continue to rise with natural gas tide to oil production. Even with higher fuel prices, there is still a tremendous disparity between conventional and alternative energies with the cost of solar near $0.38 per KWH and residential electric rates of $0.11 per KWH.

Carbon Economics

Emission of CO2 from hydrocarbon fuels depends on the carbon content and hydrogen-carbon ratio. When a hydrocarbon fuel burns, the carbon and hydrogen atoms separate. Hydrogen (H) combines with oxygen (O) to form water (H2O), and carbon (C) combines with oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO2).
How can a gallon of gas produce 20 pounds of CO2

From this example, a carbon atom has an atomic weight of 12, combines with two oxygen atoms each with a weight of 16, to produce a single molecule of CO2 an atomic weight of 44. To measure the amount of CO2 produced from a hydrocarbon fuel, the weight of the carbon in the fuel is multiplied by (44 divided 12) or 3.67.

Wood has half the carbon content than coal, but coal is twice as efficient as wood and therefore both have nearly the same high level carbon footprint. Oil benefits from having higher energy efficiency than propane giving oil 30% lower CO2 emissions pound for pound.

Figure 3 Pounds of CO2 by Fuel Type

Natural gas, because of its low carbon content and high fuel efficiency, achieves lower CO2 emissions than oil, propane, or coal. Natural gas produces 46% less CO2 than coal and 10% less than oil. With coal relatively abundant and cheap in comparison to oil or natural gas, energy prices may increase as electric utilities switch to lower CO2 emission natural gas or invest into emission reduction processes that add to capital costs and operating expense.

Why the economics of coal helps us better understand the benefits of wind and solar energy

On August 8, 1829, the Stourbridge Lion made entry as the first American steam locomotive in Honesdale, PA initiating the American Railroad. The steam locomotive railroad was the first developed to transport Anthracite coal mined in nearby Carbondale, PA to a canal in Honesdale, linking to the Hudson River in New York.

Coal as fuel energy has had an early use in American history with the 50 tons dug in 1748. Coal 1748 The history of coal dates backs to 2,000 BC and for oil it is even longer. Coal was cheaper and more efficient than wood. Coal was also more efficient to run most steam-powered engines, but was costly to transport and mine.

In terms of heating efficiency, coal offers almost double the energy, pound for pound, in comparison to wood. Energy Units and Conversions KEEP
Coal was difficult to mine and transport so engineers in America during the Industrial Revolution faced many challenges. Anthracite coal commanded a premium price because it emitted less smoke, was harder and contained more carbon giving it more fuel content than softer Bituminous or Lignite coals. There are several types of coal along a hard-to-soft classification. The makeup of coal changes according to compounds of lower hydrogen content and higher carbon – types of coal. Coal Ash Research Center University of North Dakota
The Anthracite coal deposits in Northeastern, PA are the largest deposit in the U.S. The gravity railroad linking Carbondale to Honesdale was an example of capital, knowledge, and technology meeting the growing need for energy.

Figure 1 Gravity Railroad

Coal was an important component for commerce and heating. With access to the large Anthracite coal deposits in Northeastern, PA, New York City gained an advantage over competing port cities like Boston and Philadelphia. It was the energy infrastructure of the railroad and canal transportation network that enabled New York to access coal. Essentially, coal provided the fuel for the Industrial Revolution and New York City’s ability to access coal to meet the needs of its growing population and commerce was critical to the city’s success. Honesdale, PA was named in honor of then mayor of New York. Wayne County Historical Society

To understand the economics of coal let’s start with a measurement of energy. One ton of coal is equal to 16.2-to-26 million BTUs (British thermal units) of energy. A BTU is the amount of heat necessary to raise one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit.

What is the economical value of a BTU? A common metric we should understand, particularly when we pay our utility bills is the kilowatt-hour – the amount of electricity consumed per hour. The KWH can be used to compare the efficiency and cost of wood, coal, oil, and gas. Also we can equate KWH to horsepower and have a common measure between energy usage and costs for our home and car.

Let’s convert fuel energy into a common equivalent. One-kilowatt hour (KWH) equals 3,413 BTUs. One ton of coal produces, on the average, 21.1 million BTUs, which equals 6,182 KWH of electric at a cost of about $36 per short ton (2,000 pounds). That means coal cost less than$0.01 per KWH. To put that into perspective, a barrel of oil at $77/barrel produces 1,700 KWH of electric equating to 60% higher efficiency pound for pound than coal. However, on a cost per KWH basis, oil cost about $0.05 per KWH. Coal’s lower cost per KWH is why it is still used today to generate electric.

Today, the Moosic Mountains who’s 1,940 foot pass became a formidable engineering challenge for transporting coal from Carbondale to Honesdale is adorned with wind mills from Florida Power & Light providing 64.5 megawatts of electric, enough to power 22,000 homes. Florida Power & Light
(FPL) is the largest generator of wind energy in the U.S. The irony is the mountain range with the largest deposits of Anthracite coal in the world and first used to provide electric to New York City, is now hosting windmills to generate electricity for homes and businesses.

Figure 2 Wind Energy

FPL is one of the growing list of utilities that are adopting alternative energy including wind energy programs in 15 states and offering rebates up to $20,000 for solar photovoltaic residential systems and up to $100,000 for commercial systems. The windmills atop Moosic Mountains produce electric replacing 3,800 tons of coal a year. A ton of coal produces 746 kg (1,644 lb.) carbon, so the windmills save our atmosphere from about 3,131 tons of CO2. The incremental increase in CO2 emissions should be added to the cost of coal because it has significantly higher carbon byproduct per KWH than oil or gas. Carbon content of fossil fuels

The coalmines are closed today along with the railroads and canals. Changes in the economic value of coal impacted numerous towns and villages across the region. Anthracite coal production in Pennsylvania reached its peak in 1917 when more than 100 million tons of coal was mined with the anthracite industry employment reaching its peak in 1914 with about 181,000 workers. Anthracite Coal

The value of coal diminished as demand shifted towards coke for iron and steel and oil became an energy substitute. The Carbondale region with its vast Anthracite coal deposits suffered as a result of falling demand for Anthracite coal. According the World Coal Institute, Anthracite coal has high carbon and energy content, but Bituminous coal accounts for majority of the world coal consumption because it is more abundant while coke is used in the iron and steel industry. World Coal Institute

The Northeastern, PA region experienced an economic shock as Anthracite coal lost its appeal. Demand shifted towards oil at the high end for transportation and the more abundant Bituminous coal at the low end. Anthracite represents only 8% of coal production today with Bituminous accounting for 76% and Lignite 16%. Those communities in Northeastern, PA that were more tightly linked to coal mining fell deeper into financial turmoil as the demand for Anthracite coal declined.

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 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.

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. Utilities could migrate to natural gas to reduce carbon emissions, but with a cost of $0.03 per KWH, there is no economic incentive. Alternative energies such as wind and solar could provide a longer economic benefit to users, our environment, and the economy.

Our next step is to develop a framework to measure the fixed and marginal costs of alternative energy.