About Social Media Today
Comments by Geoffrey Styles Subscribe 
On Is Small Nuclear Reactor R&D Fleecing the Public?
There's no contradiction. I'm very supportive of EV and battery R&D. My beef is mainly with a $7,500 tax credit that is a) extraordinarily ineffecient in terms of the fuel and emissions savings it buys, relative to the unsubsidized hybrids with which these cars currently compete and b) structured to benefit mainly higher-income consumers, by virtue of the level of adjusted gross income necessary in order to be paying enough taxes to offset this non-refundable tax credit against. (Somewhere around $90k, depending on how earned.) So let's have a robust effort on SMRs, EVs, batteries, solar, improved shale recovery, and a full range of energy options, but let's be more cautious about funding deployment.
On Secretary of Energy for a Leaner DOE?
Ronald,
It's a portfolio question. Would you want an investment portfolio with 100% stocks, just because stocks had the best return at the moment?
On EV Op-Ed in Wall Street Journal Fails at Math
Quite the opposite. Experience curve effects are real, and I could point to lots of examples. However, they don't arrive on schedule, because it turns out to be hard to predict when you'll hit the relevant cumulative production marks. Talk to GM and Nissan about that. So it seems to me that your suggestion that we judge today's vehicles by some assumed future performance they don't yet exhibit is like standing in quicksand. Today's cars are either good enough for today's consumers or they aren't.
On EV Op-Ed in Wall Street Journal Fails at Math
So Bobbi, it sounds like you're saying that consumers (and policy makers) should ignore the actual data resulting from the testing program of the government agencies set up to do this and put their faith in an empirical rule that is essentially a statement of what is otherwise known as experience curve effects? Then why not just wait for those improved batteries and vehicles to arrive? If you want EVs to get off the ground, it must be on the basis of the performance we see today, just as has been the case for computers, cellphones, etc. Future improvements will benefit future customers, and they are not guaranteed to arrive on schedule.
On EV Op-Ed in Wall Street Journal Fails at Math
Max,
It may be the case that "there is no region of the United States where driving an electric car is not cleaner than driving the average gasoline vehicle" but I'm not sure that's really the best comparison. Here in Northern Virginia--not far from where such policies are set--with Dominion's mix of nuclear, coal and gas, a Nissan Leaf emits 200 g/mi. on a lifecycle basis, compared to the non-plug-in Prius at 222 g/mi. per the EPA's figures. Hard to justify a $7,500 tax credit for a 10% improvement.
On Secretary of Energy for a Leaner DOE?
Rick,
You raise an important concern and measures of "energy return on energy invested", if done rigorously, capture it. EROEI for oil & gas is certainly lower than it was in the first half of the 20th century, when shallow wells yielded gushers. However, it's still far above the level necessary to provide the energy surplus on which civilization depends. That's more than can be said for conventional biofuels, even when protein byproducts are counted. As for the 90%, of course you're right that it's only 90% of produced energy, as distinct from the constant flux of sunlight and other background energy we take for granted, all of which provide services that we depend on. That doesn't diminish the importance of the 90% to the global economy. Someday it will be made up of solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, biomass and other renewables, and fossil energy will be the tail, but we're still decades away from that point.
On Secretary of Energy for a Leaner DOE?
Jim,
I'm familiar with that study, and wasn't impressed by the methodology. Michael Levi's critique has it right. Too many questionable assumptions required, as well as natural sources. If you want to measure leakage, do it at the well, rather than extrapolating from miles away. There are other studies underway with greater access to the producing facilities, so this certainly won't be the last word.
The good news is that whatever the leakage rate turns out to be, it is much more manageable than the CO2 from the coal it is displacing. The EPA requires "green completions" from 2014.
On Plans for Green Jet Fuel Plant Flame Out
Rick,
Their fuel choice looked sensible from a competitive standpoint. Aviation turbines require a drop-in replacement for petroleum kerosene, so energy density per pound and combustion properties must fall in a fairly narrow range. Hydrotreated vegetable oils work in blends, and alcohol-derived kerosene fuels are undergoing tests. Liquid hydrogen is a candidate long-term, but hardly constitutes a drop-in substitute in today's jetliners or military aircraft.
On Plans for Green Jet Fuel Plant Flame Out
Tyler,
It's interesting that Rentech would cite the "lack of government incentives and regulations supporting alternative energy" in the Unites States as a principle reason behind this decision, when cellulose-based liquid fuels are eligible for a $1.01/gal producer tax credit here. The implication is that such fuels still cost more than $1 more per gallon to produce than the petroleum products with which they would compete, i.e. > $165/bbl. I hope the US Defense Department is paying attention, given their commitment to biofuels at a time of severe budget constraints.
On Willing to Pay Extra Tax to Drive an Electric Vehicle?
Sarah,
It's a complex issue, and this is a timely conversation. Although EVs and highly efficient hybrids are still a small part of the vehicle fleet, it's better to address this now than when their owners constitute another vast and immovable interest group. And no matter how you look at it, one would have to drive an extraordinary number of miles annually to balance out the $7,500 federal EV tax credit and various state incentives.
On Shale Gas and Tight Oil: Boom? Bust? Petering Out?
Bill,
There's nothing wrong with a little healthy skepticism, but with all due respect to Mr. Hughes, his leap from the decline rates of individual wells to his categorization that " 70% of US shale gas comes from fields that are either flat or in decline" is not warranted, when most of the slowdown of growth in these fields is a response to current low gas prices and the expiration of contractual requirements to "hold leases by production." Drilling fewer wells because they're currently unprofitable certainly slows output, but that is not the same as a decline driven by geology and the limits of the technology.
On EV Op-Ed in Wall Street Journal Fails at Math
Willem,
I agree with your conclusions, though I also believe we should continue to fund EV battery R&D. As I was reading your comment, however, I was struck by the divergence between the GHG analysis you present and the local pollution perspective that has been largely overshadowed by climate concerns. The "payback" on manufacturing emissions of smog-precursors isn't relevant to most buyers, because that "investment" mainly occurred elsewhere. It's easy to see why regions such as Southern California, with significant local air quality problems, would like EVs for that reason. Of course that logic doesn't apply with regard to CO2 and other GHGs, since their impact is mainly global, rather than local.