Replace 137 Oil Refineries with Wind and Solar? You’re Joking?24 Sep

SBIR Consultant – Market Analysis: There are many issues of importance to be stressed in writing a competitive SBIR proposal. One of these is market analysis: urgent need for your innovation, your competition, showstopper issues, cost, and policy/legal impediments. The blog below is an example of a snapshot market analysis where oil holds a firmly established market position and is not fading any time soon, no matter how noble the cause (e.g., saving the planet from global warming). Does your innovation face this type of problem?

How will renewable technologies replace 137 oil refineries? What is the plan? is building a global climate movement…The number 350 means climate safety: to preserve a livable planet, scientists tell us we must reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from its current level of 400 parts per million to below 350 ppm… We believe that a global grassroots movement can hold our leaders accountable to the realities of science and the principles of justice.”

A technique employed by involves fossil fuel stock divestment by individuals and organizations. Getting people to sell their fossil fuel stock may force that industry to ‘retool’ and pursue renewable energy technologies to sustain their revenue stream. However, a reduction in the U.S. dependency on oil is a herculean problem. There are 137 operating refineries in the U.S located in the map below. Do you really expect fossil fuel companies to abandon these refineries in favor of renewable energy technologies?


Tags: , , , ,

2 Responses to “Replace 137 Oil Refineries with Wind and Solar? You’re Joking?”

  1. Replacing Oil with Renewables? During Next Generation? | Enjeux énergies et environnement Reply

    […] […]

  2. John Weber Reply

    Electrical constraint and inequality

    Solar and wind energy collecting devices are extensions of the fossil fuel supply system and the global industrial infrastructure. These devices will not be made without these inputs unless someone has a magic wand. (see: I am proposing that solar and wind energy collecting devices are business as usual, if we do not impose constraints on all energy and other natural resource use.

    In addition, without constraints on electrical usage (toys and tools) then the gross energy inequality globally will continue with solar and wind energy underwriting it. (below find Excel spread sheet info) Without constraints on energy use solar and wind devices and their auxiliary accessories are elitist equipment of the entitled.

    There are two critical questions of the energy/electricity that we are requiring. How do we bring more equitable distribution of energy resources? Is this imbalance and the consequent strife our destiny and our demise?

    Secondly, what do we need the energy for? This must be one of the mantras for survival now and tomorrow. Imagine beginning at the earth resources –the mine and the well- and the subsequent flow of these products. This creates a tremendous picture in motion of “energy” and resources flowing around the world. It is a Catch 22; we can’t live with it and can’t live presently without it.

    I took the table from this site:

    I copied it to an Excel spread sheet. I rank ordered the least energy use to the most and then did an accumulation of population from least energy use to most. I could then look at what 50% or 80% of the world’s population used compared to the US of A.

    Caveat: these figures are approximate however, realistic.

    Caveat: These per capita figures are misleading
    because the wealthy get the “lion’s share.”

    Approximately 50% of the population (approximately 3.5 billion people) use 3.53 kilowatts a day or less. That is 0.0006% of the total used globally.

    Approximately 80% of the population (approximately 5.6 billion people) use 11 kilowatts a day or less. That is 0.0018% of the total globally.

    The USA uses 40.42 kilowatts a day. That is 4.5% of the global population. We are part of the 1% in global electrical energy use. Even that is misleading, because all the products made elsewhere and shipped to the USA add to the electrical (and total energy) available for our consumption.

    See more at:

Leave a Reply

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.

About Dr. Everson

Prior to forming this SBIR consultant practice, Dr. Jeffrey Everson was director of business development for QinetiQ North America’s Technology Solutions Group (previously Foster-Miller, Inc.).

Dr. Everson has won and been the principal investigator for several SBIR programs, including a Phase I program for NASA, a Phase I project for the U.S. Air Force, and Phase I and II contracts from the U.S. Department of Transportation. For the Phase II program, he received a Tibbetts Award for exemplifying the best in SBIR achievement.

Previously Dr. Everson held senior scientist positions at Battelle Memorial Institute, The Analytic Sciences Corporation (TASC), Honeywell Electro Optics Systems Division, and Itek Optical Systems Division.

He holds a PhD in physics from Boston College and a MS/BS in physics from Northeastern University.


For more information about how JHEverson Consulting can help your company with its SBIR and STTR proposals, please contact Jeff Everson.

JHEverson Consulting is based in the Boston area but consults for clients throughout North America. It also is supported by affiliated consultants.