Rant on Oil, thanks to the NYT

I know this is a bit off topic for this blog, but did you see the article in the New York Times this weekend called American Energy Policy, Asleep at the Spigot? There were several quotes that made me splurt my coffee onto the paper. Here's two of the gems.

Amazing Quote One: Regarding the current state of oil prices ($145 a barrel today), Chevron CEO David O'Reilly had the following to say:

"We can see how you can get to $100. At $140, I just don’t know how to explain it. We’re surprised."

How's that? The CEO of second largest US-based oil producer doesn't have a clue why his product is trading almost $50 over where he thinks it should be?

I'm going to go out on the limb and figure that Mr. O'Reilly has his finger on most of the market forces that are causing the huge run up in prices: limited refining capacity, increased foreign demand, etc. So when he says that the 50% premium that oil is getting over his expectations strikes me as just a little, uh, peculiar?

It's leading me to think that speculation is playing an ever larger role in the recent price jumps. More people are shoving money into oil to turn a quick dollar through commodity investment. Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part, hoping gas will get cheaper when the oil bubble finnaly bursts...

Amazing Quote Two: From Pete Domenici, ranking Republican member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and a 36-year veteran of the Senate:

"Much of what we’re seeing today could have been prevented or ameliorated had we chosen to act differently. It was a bipartisan failure to act."

Pick me up off the floor, a member of the United States Senate showing insight and laying blame at his own feet!

If you want villans in government, then look no further than legendary pols Carl Levin and John Dingell of Michigan. So short sighted are these two charlatans, they actually believed they were helping the US auto industry by preventing changes to CAFE standards when every indicator and measusurement proved that $1.50 per gallon oil was unsustainable. Their collective lack of vision is what's costing their state jobs and tax revenue.

Biofuel Bankrupcies? Shocking!

On Friday, Reuters reported on what everyone paying attention to the alternative fuel market already knew: biofuel markers are succumbing to untenable market conditions:

Soaring corn and soy prices on top of rising construction costs and tight credit markets have pushed about a dozen U.S. biofuel plants to file for bankruptcy protection, experts said.

To this equation you can also add the biblical deluge that the Midwest is currently experiencing and intensifying scrutiny of the biofuel vs. food. End result? A bad situation for biofuels is only going to get worse.

Companies succumbing early include Renova Energy LLC and Ethanex Energy Inc. And while bigger and more diversified players are able to avoid the ax to this point, they're being forced to make adjustments that werre unthinkable a year ago. Case in point: industry bellweather VeraSun will delay the opening of three ethanol plants with a total capacity of 330 million gallons per year.

Hey, Vinod, Make Up Your Mind!

I'm leery of making this blog an ongoing rant against grain-based biofuels such as ethanol. But lately there's been to many things to, well, rant about.

You know Vinod Khosla: started Sun Microsystems, made truckload of money, began VC-ing andm recently, has been making large investments in the biofuel start ups.

A couple of years ago, Mr. Khosla was on the leading endge of a rush of investment into ethanol. Now he might be getting a little defensive about those investments.

VK in October 2006.

"Challenges certainly exist with ethanol, but none are insurmountable, and – with apologies to Al Gore – the convenient truth is that corn ethanol is a crucial first step toward kicking our oil addiction."

VK on May 2008:

"Certain food-based biofuels like biodiesel have always been a bad idea. Others like corn ethanol have served a useful purpose and essentially are obsoleting themselves. We have eight or nine companies producing alternatives to corn ethanol that will be dramatically cheaper. And I just don't see how corn ethanol producers stay in business."

No, it's not a complete sea change. But methinks that one of the fellas behind the Silicon Valley "Green Rush" into new fuels is second guessing a bit...

A.E. (After Ethanol)

So, now what?

As the law of unintended consequences comes into play, the bloom is officially coming off of corn ethanol. A quick recap of some of the big reasons why:

1. Food Riots: Food prices are through the roof all over the world. Food riots in Egypt, Mexico, Haiti, Indonesia, and elsewhere are becoming a regular occurrence. In the US, inflation for food is at its highest rate since the Nixon administration. As a result, diverting a significant portion of the food supply from mouths to fuel tanks is becoming less a philosophical question than an economic one.

2. Net Energy Benefit: Or lack thereof. A growing body of work disputes the net energy benefit of ethanol. Never mind that it can't measure up to gasoline in terms of energy potential. Take into account that it must be trucked (can't distribute it through existing pipelines), and resulting output drops even further.

3. Environmental Disaster: Corn in particular requires intensive amounts of water and pesticides. Record corn prices have driven farmers to plant land that had been set aside for conservation efforts. Any GHG benefit is hotly debated.

4. Political Season Ending: The interminable US primary and presidential election will be drawing to a close in short order, meaning that the naked pandering for corn-belt special interest votes will lessen (though never go away...)

Again: so now what? After all, with the cost of a barrel of oil currently standing at over $118(4/23/08), the need to find alternative sources of energy isn't dissipating. If we assume that corn ethanol is really teetering toward its inevitable collapse, what are the the next options? Who/what are the winners? And losers?

Some initial thoughts:

1. Cellulosic Ethanol Specialists: While still a long way from being practical/affordable, cellulosic ethanol at least removes the corn part of the equation by focusing on sources like waste wood or non-food crops. It's also got some political heft to it, ever since the President's switchgrass reverie. There's also considerable investment capital being spent in this area. Companies to consider: Range Fuels, Verenium, and Iogen.

2. Big Agriculture: Multinationals like ADM and Monsanto are financially positioned to weather the coming corn-ethanol storms, and leverage their growing investments in alternatives like cellulosic ethanol. Buying sprees are probably inevitable.

3. Batteries. Most people agree that the next iteration of the car will not necessarily rely on any one technology (as in gasoline) to power it. There is no silver bullet. One possible exception here is advanced batteries. Each of the fueling sources are enhanced through effective 'range extension devices' (as burdensome a way of saying batteries as can be though of.) Applicability of lithium-ion, advanced lead acid, and other TBD battery technologies will most likely have near universal applicability. Some companies to consider: A123 Systems, EnerDel, Firefly, and Mobius Power (maybe...)

4. Hydrogen: I'm certainly no big fan of hydrogen. But, like it or not, investment $$$ still heads in this direction. It's not likely that this stream of money will expand greatly in the near term (given other priorities), but it will continue.

Zapped

Not to pile on or anything, but... well... I'm piling on.

Not doubt that you've all seen the article in Wired that throws Zap under the (presumably alt fuel powered) bus.

I knew it was bad, but not this bad. I naively figured that the folks at Zap were just idealistic incompetents. Despite my past ranting about the "company", I didn't fully grasp the level of duplicity that masqueraded as a management strategy.

Hopefully, this will be the end of Zap. Eliminating this bunch of charlatans from the conversation about new fuels and vehicle technologies will hopefully allows us to focus on the real innovators and entrepreneurs.

What to Expect in 2008

This is the crystal ball time of year in 'mainstream' media, so I don't see why this blog should be any different. Here's some things to consider / look out for in 2008, a year that could be a watershed for development of new fuels and efficiency technologies for the automobile.

People Will Continue to Throw Money at Corn Ethanol
And no one will be able to give good reason why. I've made no secret of my almost complete and utter disdain for corn-based ethanol (comparatively low energy output, water absorption, infrastructure challenges, diversion of food supply, etc.) In addition to these much discussed shortcomings, now we learn that farmers seeking to benefit from the Corn Boom of the Mid-Aughts have dumped so much nitrogen-based fertilizer into the Mississippi River, it's killed off virtually all species in a 7,900 square mile area in the Gulf of Mexico, a place fetchingly called the "Dead Zone".

So with all that going against corn ethanol, of course we can expect huge increases in spending in this area. Why? Three things: politics, politics, and politics. It's an election year, so pandering to Midwest farm states is essential. The recently passed Energy Bill (excuse me, the ‘‘Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007’’) dramatically increases funding on ethanol production and research, leading elation on the part of upstart suppliers like VeraSun.

Order of the Day (er, Year): Mergers and Acquisitions
Maybe you saw the news about VeraSun acquiring USBioenergy for stock. The resulting company will have enough (planned) capacity to put sector titan Archer Daniels-Midland in the number 2 spot.

Oh, we're just getting started. There's a glut of small, cooperatively owned ethanol producers throughout the Midwest (Iowa alone has 29 plants up and running with another 18 under development.) Next, the ethanol craze has produced a high demand for corn , thereby dramatically increasing costs for these small producers. Lastly, the federal government has legislated a huge jump in biofuel capacity, making the big suppliers eager to jockey for position.

The result? A whole bunch of small suppliers are going to turn the keys over to the big boys. The shakeout that follows will benefit the usual suspects like ADM and Monsanto. Smaller winners maybe VerSun, Range Fuels, Pacific Ethanol, and some others.

While ethanol company activity will get the lion's share of attention, M&A activity will extend to other alternative sectors as well. A precursor could be Ballard's sale of their automotive fuel cell business to Daimler and Ford.

OK, this is getting too long. I'll break it into separate posts. More later (I've still got 9 days before the New Year...)

EVS 23 Brain Droppings

Had an opportunity to spend the day down at the Electric Vehicle Symposium last Monday in Anaheim, CA. What follows are some top line observations and some really awful pictures I took with my exceedingly lame camera phone.

Two "Oh Crap" Moments: A number of presentations included some telling projections. For example:

• Current vehicle ownership: 12% of the global population (820 million vehicles). By 2020, it'll be 15% (1 billion vehicles). Highest growth, not surprisingly, will be in the developing world (India, China, Brazil, etc.) That’s 150 million more vehicles on the road in 12 years. Good chance that a large percentage of these will have to be alt fuel.
• California GhG Emissions goals. 80% reduction by 2050. To get there, one scenario
  estimates that 11% of the cars on the road will be gasoline powered ICE. The vast majority will be alt fuel mixed with battery driven electric drive. (BTW, hydrogen was estimated to be ~12%. I doubt it'll even be that much.)

Batteries Will be Ubiquitous: No matter what technology or fuel was being discussed, batteries are invariably the central theme. Now, granted it’s a conference about electric vehicles, so batteries are going to be part of the conversation. That said, the constant attention paid to batteries (chemistry, capabilities, etc.) speaks to the critical role advances in these technologies will play. Not surprisingly, the companies seeking the fill this rapidly growing need were present and accounted for: A123, EnerDel, etc.

First Sign of the Apocalypse Confirmed: In a presentation on the Chevy Volt, GM admitted that they’ve “made some mistakes in the past” related to efficiency technologies. Come to think of it, that probably qualifies as Understatement of the Decade as well...

Legislation Will Impact the Alt Fuel Market From All Directions: Whether it be emissions reduction (e.g. UK Low Emissions Zone around London), spurring innovation (e.g. Austrian Agency for Alternative Propulsion Systems), or other areas, governments will continue to be play a critical role. A combination of legislative carrots and sticks will provide huge opportunities for those companies that are to successfully anticipate and react.

I Get the Feeling China Is Big: No conference today is complete without a discussion about China and the implications of its market. No exception here. An official from the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology gave a brief talk on the state of EV research and emissions there. Essentially, the combination of a rapidly growing energy gap (resulting from a deficit of oil imports compared to growth in vehicle ownership) and air quality (or lack thereof) mean the government will be playing a very active role in developing and promoting alt fuel and efficiency technology adoption. One way will be through legislation: in 2000, the floor of Chinese vehicle efficiency was 9.5 liters per 100 KM. In 2010, that will drop to 6.7L / 100KM. The expectation is that the Chinese government will be investing heavily in R&D to facilitate necessary breakthroughs. One estimate was the MOST will receive 2.5% of GDP by 2020 (compared to 1.4% todat and under 1% in 1996.)

Tesla Update: The upstart EV car maker had a only a small booth, but had the foresight to put one of their roadsters in it. As a result, their set up regularly out drew the larger manufacturers, including Chevy Volt and the largely ignored Honda FCX Clarity. To be sure, the company still draws considerable buzz, but you get the feeling that there’s a certain antsiness to see these cars on the road after so much hype. At a presentation on the battery system, the Tesla rep pointedly wouldn't address questions regarding the transmission challenges they've been having. Still, he indicated that first deliveries will take place Q1 2008. Also, no warranty info about the battery pack as of yet, but the speculation is that it will be about 5 years / 100K miles driven.

Battery Buzz: Argonne National Labs partnered with EnerDel to research battery technology focusing on lithium Manganese spinel /lithium-titanate chemistry. Findings seem to indicate excellent power capability and life potential for a lower cost than comparatives.... A representative from Japan's Yuasa Corporation gave a technical discussion of their EH6 battery product. Given the reaction from the (very large) audience, there was a high degree of interest in the product. Lots of questions regarding cost, availablity for testing, distribution, etc. No other presenter in the forum had a similar level of interest.