Elizabeth Glassanos/FOREIGN POLICY

In perhaps its most ambitious undertaking since James IV launched the Scottish Royal Navy in the early 1500s, Scotland plans to generate 40 percent of its total energy from renewable sources by 2020, more than double its current percentage.

Scotland already leads the United Kingdom in green power, which, despite a lot of Kyoto-related hot air from Tony Blair, only gets 4 percent of its total energy from renewables as a whole. And Scotland will soon boast the largest wind farm in the U.K., when construction finishes on a massive £300m project south of Glasgow.

But there are many hurdles ahead for the wind business in Scotland: complaints from farmers, rural residents, and the tourist industry about sullied vistas, confusing and ever-changing regulatory requirements, long waits for project approvals, and so on.

For now, it's a good time to be a Scottish wind energy entrepreneur.

Iran's oil industry could completely collapse by 2015, according to Roger Stern, an economic geographer at Johns Hopkins University. Stern writes in the latest Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (not available online) that Iran's failure to reinvest in its oil infrastructure is resulting in a 10 to 12 percent annual decline in oil revenue. Surveying their oil debacle, Stern believes Iran's desire for nuclear technology for power generation is genuine, and that the U.S. should just "hold its breath" until Tehran's position softens. 

What they are doing to themselves is much worse than anything we could do," he said.

The one thing that would unite the country right now is to bomb them," Stern said. "Here is one problem that might solve itself." 

I don’t understand global warming and peak oil skeptics. What is their incentive to disprove global warming? Warming alarmists feel that they’re protecting the future of the planet—a pretty good incentive. But the skeptics don’t really get much payoff, unless they're energy majors, besides the opportunity to make fun of Al Gore. And yet people like Michael Crichton still get more press than Tyrell Owens on Monday Sportscenter.

If I were a scientist, and I knew that global warming and the oil crisis were only flukes, I’d keep my mouth shut. Why? Because there is money to be made when you know something to be true that no one else believes. Here’s my three step plan for getting wealthy fast, if you think that global warming is a hoax. 

If global warming and peak oil are not true, but thought to be true:

But above all, never reveal the secret that global warming is just a hoax, invented by Al Gore.

Andrew Penner/ Istockphoto

For ExxonMobil, the world is rapidly changing, but somehow their business will stay exactly the same. What follows are facts gleaned from ExxonMobil’s The Outlook for Energy, A view to 2030 (PDF)

• "Most of the world's growing energy needs by 2030 will continue to be met by oil, gas and coal." Today, 80% of the energy we use comes from fossil fuel. Exxon doesn't expect that number to change.
• The world will require "about 60%" more energy in 2030 than it does today. That's a total consumption of 325 million barrels per day.
• Non-OECD nations will account for 80% of that increase.
• In 2000, non-OECD countries drove roughly 100 million cars. By 2030 they’ll drive 500 million.
• If the world were not moving towards more efficient use of energy, our energy use in 2030 would be 100% higher than it is today. Good thing we're so efficient.
• By 2030, wind and solar will only account for 1% of all energy produced.
• By 2030, 30% of all new vehicles sold will be hybrids or other high-efficiency vehicles.
• Biofuels will make up only 2% of all liquid fuels by 2030, Bio-Willie notwithstanding.
• The USGS estimates there are around 3.2 trillion barrels of oil that can be extracted from the world. ExxonMobil sees around 4 trillion as economically recoverable.
• Corn-based ethanol is a non-starter. By 2012, the U.S. will burn up 21% of the U.S. corn crop to create 3% of our fuel. Exxon chortles: "...this provides some perspective on its ultimate potential as an alternative fuel supply."
• Cellulose is also too complicated to turn into fuel. The process involves enzymes and other things oil men find unfamiliar and strange. President Bush was foolish to tout the energy potential of switchgrass.
• Natural gas will become more popular than any other fuel, and most of it will be used in power generation.
• CO2 production will increase at exactly the same rate as energy consumption.
• There are four opportunities to reduce carbon emissions: nuclear power, advanced vehicles and fuels, carbon capture, and "breakthroughs."
• ExxonMobil helped establish (via a $100 million grant) Stanford Univeristy’s Global Climate and Energy Project. ExxonMobil hopes Stanford will provide some breakthroughs.

(Hat tip: Energybulletin.net)

AFP/JOHN THYS

Newsweek Enterprise focuses on energy this week, with contributions from Al Gore and Fareed Zakaria. The premise of Daniel Yergin's cover story is that sustained high oil prices will lead to a renewable energy bonanza that "could rival the Internet boom." (Which raises the question: what's the Pets.com of this new craze?) 

The similarities between the two eras go deeper than just spiraling stock prices, if Gore's analysis is right. Long (incorrectly) ridiculed for claiming he "invented the Internet," Gore compares our energy future to our online past:

Taking a page from the early development of ARPANET (the Pentagon's Advanced Research Projects Agency Network)—which ultimately became the Internet—we will rely on new kinds of distribution networks for electricity and liquid fuels. We will be less dependent on large, centralized coal-generating plants and massive oil refineries. Societies of the future will rely on small, diversified and renewable sources of energy, ranging from windmills and solar photovoltaics to second-generation ethanol-and biodiesel-production facilities. Widely dispersed throughout the countryside, these streamlined facilities will make the industrialized world more secure and less dependent on unstable and threatening oil-producing nations. Off-grid applications of renewable power sources can provide energy for the 3 billion people now stuck in poverty.

They don't have bodies, but they do leave footprints.

It was only a matter of time before someone took the avatar world to task for their environmental impact. (In case you think an avatar is a new model of Hyundai, here's a brief primer. Avatars are computer-generated, physical representations of people in virtual online games or social worlds. Think Second Life, Sims, World of Warcraft, etc.)

The virtual world of Second Life, which hit one million residents back in October, is one of the most popular online games of its kind. To even call it a game is perhaps inaccurate. It's a full-fledged virtual world, complete with crime, sex, commodities, and real-world advertising. (Don't miss BusinessWeek's journey into Second Life or its great "Old Fogey's Guide to the Online Universe.") It goes way beyond the traditional online games of old: These days, politicians like former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner hold town meetings and musicians use music streaming to stage "live" concerts in Second Life in order to be heard.

So, it's fascinating to see blogger Nick Carr (also a former exec editor at Harvard Business Review) calculate whether avatars consume more energy than their human counterparts. He found that the thousands of avatars "living" in Second Life at any given moment, given the servers and computers needed to run the virtual world, use about the same amount of electricity as a comparable number of real-life Brazilians. So, here's my question: Has anyone done any research on whether avatars are much more wasteful than their human counterparts? Say, in terms of energy: Do avatars not bother to turn off the lights? Email us.

There's an interesting Bloomberg story on the oil outlook for 2007. One Lehman Brothers analyst predicts the per-barrel price to rise to $72 next year. Another analyst, T. Rowe Price Group's Tim Parker, tells Bloomberg that he thinks oil prices will stay around today's level for about a year, thanks to more output from non-OPEC countries, and then begin to rise. By the end of next year, he says, $60 crude will "feel more like a floor than a ceiling [...] It'll be difficult for non-OPEC supply to consistently meet demand growth."

And, of course, no oil-price-prediction story is complete without Boone Pickens, the oil billionaire and hedge fund manager (who has apparently signed on to support Rudy Giuliani's '08 bid). He thinks the price of oil has bottomed out: "I keep thinking we're right at the bottom on oil [...] I don't see why the run is over if the global economy continues to grow."

Though some argue that Pickens is pumping up his own investments, he's been correct about prices before, and his statements alone can't account for the price increases we've seen over the last three years.  

It seems like years ago that legislators in Washington were tripping over themselves trying to quell public dissatisfaction with high prices at the pump. And even after gasoline prices fell and stabilized, the national conversation about energy continued, with debates on drilling in Congress, and a proposition in California on renewables. It'll be interesting to watch the debate heat up again when (or if) gasoline prices rise in 2007.

Yesterday, I put up a post urging Microsoft to force computers worldwide into a higher power savings mode in order to reduce CO2 emissions. The article was featured on Slashdot.org, and the discussion over there is very lively. We've received several great comments on the piece, so we're highlighting a few here. 

Ric L., who writes from a Microsoft.com email address, notes, as I did in my post, that Microsoft Vista runs efficiently right out of the box.

This means hundreds of millions of computers will blissfully sleep their unused hours away every day…"

Again, I applaud Microsoft for including this software in their next update, but it will be many years before hundreds of millions of computers are upgraded to Microsoft Vista. More power could be saved by updating today's machines."

Sean F., who develops software for air-traffic controllers, assures me that those systems don't run on Microsoft Windows:

You mentioned that critical systems shouldn't have this hibernation mode go into effect. I thought I'd mention for clarity, that most critical systems do not use Microsoft software. I personally like MS, I'm not bashing the company or its products. I use them all the time, including right now. But they are very buggy, and most critical systems require more reliable software and hardware.

I don't run any Unix or Unix-variant software at home, but that is what most critical systems run on. I should know, I develop software for the FAA for air traffic control centers, your prime example of a system that shouldn't go into hibernation. Just a friendly email to give you some information. I completely support your idea for MS to do some code changes, just wanted you to have more accurate data. 

Read more after the BREAK. 

Jerry Beilinson reports for Popular Mechanics on his visit to a General Electric plant in NY state. It's a nice little update on what's going on:

...Nuclear energy is doggedly making an image comeback. And returning to the stage are wind power, solar, conservation, and gasification of coal and other fuels. All of these have been energy darlings during one era or another (gasification goes back to the 18th century, and in its modern form to World War II) and all of them received attention yesterday as a group of reporters and academics were led around the labs in Niskayuna.

It's a bit ironic, but the dirtiest of these technologies could have the biggest impact. Gasification is the process of taking one fuel—coal, often—and turning it into a gas (syngas) that can be burned, plus a bunch of other chemicals. An "integrated gasification combined cycle" (IGCC) system burns the syngas in one turbine, as though it were natural gas, and uses excess heat to boil water for a steam turbine.

While windmills look like glowing harbingers of a clean utopia, a gasification plant looks like a cross between an oil refinery and a coal-burning plant. Oh, well—let's not be squeamish. IGCC plants are very efficient. The other advantage is that you get to capture most of the pollutants that would go up a smokestack if you were simply burning the coal. And it doesn't have to be coal. You can gasify grass clippings, cattle slaughtered after a mad-cow-disease scare, old tires—nearly anything.

An excellent post earlier today by my colleague Travis Daub highlighted China's ventures into the Iraqi oil market. But the IHT article that Travis linked to seems overly alarmist in predicting that China will rely on illiberal regimes to feed its insatiable demand for energy. The reality is likely to be far more mundane.

If you look at China's crude imports by region, what you see right now is rather impressive source diversity. Here's a breakdown using 2005 data:

• Middle East: 47.2%
• Africa: 30.2%
• Europe/Latin America/Other: 14.9%
• Asia-Pacific: 7.6%

That picture, of course, will soon change as China's demand grows. But, at least according to one leading expert with whom I spoke recently, it's unlikely that obscure, anti-Western, illiberal regimes in the remote corners of the world will have reserves large enough to feed China's demand. Rather, their primary source is likely to be a very familiar one: the Middle East. In fact, one recent analysis I saw suggested that by 2015, nearly 65% of China's crude imports will come from the Middle East.

That's hardly oil adventurism. China and the United States may compete for reserves, but such competition is unlikely to be taking place in the "backwaters of the world." And the real question prompted by these numbers isn't whether China is on a crash course with America. Rather, it is how long China's leadership can continue to pretend that events in other parts of the world have no impact on its own financial and political future?

Chevron and two of its partners reported yesterday that they may have stumbled upon a deep reserve of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. The well test, which drills five miles down into the ocean floor, was so successful that some believe it might contain more crude than Alaska's Prudhoe Bay reserve, which was discovered 40 years ago. The LA Times reported that the finding could boost U.S. petroleum reserves by up to 50 percent. Chevron's announcement came just a day after President Bush made a speech warning about U.S. dependence on foreign oil. To quote the Church Lady, "How conveeeeeenient!"

Seriously, though, if this oil discovery turns out to fulfill its promise, it could have a large impact on oil prices, which tumbled by $1.10 today to close at $67.50. Last month, FP reported on the shrinking oil reserves around the world. It sure would be nice to add an oil field to the list that is actually growing in production, instead of falling off. 

Graham Lees over at World Politics Watch thinks so. He's been tracking the high-stakes poker game that the country's ruling military junta has been playing with its 10 trillion cubic foot natural gas reserve (probably the largest in Southeast Asia). If you're not up to speed, China and India both want the gas in order to feed their insatiable energy appetites. And Burma is playing one off the other, which is throwing a wrench in the Year of India-China Friendship. Whichever country wins out, it's sad to watch democracies such as India coddle illiberal regimes in order to gain access to their resources. Of course, that's one democratic tradition that's hardly new.

The fact that the Bush administration acknowledged yesterday that they'd known about Pakistan's efforts to build another large nuclear reactor - which could produce enough plutonium for 50 bombs each year - and failed to tell Congress about it would be unfortunate on any day. That this news comes just ahead of a vote in the House on the U.S.-India nuclear deal - an agreement Bush has strenuously supported - should make everyone a little suspicious. Congress shouldn't have learned about the new reactor from independent analysts who just happened to spot the construction on satellite photos.

The reactor has been under construction for awhile (that's a different plant in Pakistan pictured above) so the special treatment Pakistan's neighbor is receiving from the U.S. hasn't pushed it to break new ground. But the last thing anyone wants is a renewed South Asian arms race. Pakistan upping its weapons production is certainly something that India will pay close attention to, and something that should be considered carefully by Congress before voting on the U.S.-India deal, which allows the US to sell nuclear materials and technology to India, in exchange for safeguards on civilian nuclear facilities in India. But there's a lot of concern among experts about the continued lack of oversight over India's weapons program. In a new ForeignPolicy.com exclusive, nonproliferation experts Thomas Graham, Leonor Tomero, and Leonard Weiss debunk the so-called benefits of the deal and argue that giving India special nuclear treatment will just complicate efforts to get Iran, North Korea, and others to avoid the nuke route.

Last summer, Cuba's Fidel Castro found himself in a bit of a pinch. Demand for electricity peaks on the island in the heat of summer, when Cubans turn on the AC in an attempt to escape the sweltering, tropical heat. The trouble is, Cuba relies largely on seven old oil-fired power plants for electricity. At full capacity, the plants should be able to generate about 2,700 megawatts. But, in reality, they only generate about 60 percent of that amount. Since the demise of the Soviet Union, the plants have run on local, high-sulfur oil that wreaks havoc on the plants. As a result, breakdowns, clogs, and maintenance problems cause daily blackouts. Last summer, the blackouts led to small-time political upheavals.

So this summer, Castro has a plan. With the help of Venezuela and China, he's spent some $1 billion on linking hundreds of generators to the power grid and has replaced millions of aging, inefficient home appliances with newer Chinese ones. Castro is calling the new plan an "energy revolution." But it sounds more like a finger in the dam.