Energy Stew

More voices for 'Geo-Engineering'

blutarsky — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:07:00 +0000

There seems to be an ever-growing interest in climate engineering or 'geo-engineering' to combat global warming, such as here.

See also this previous post.

I don't know, but I get nervous when academics who have alternatively warned of global cooling and warming four different times over the last century, talk of intetionally toying with the climate. Do we REALLY have that much faith in our understanding the mechanisms and dynamics of our world's climatic system?

U.S. Competitiveness Seen On The Decline

blutarsky — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:48:00 +0000

From this in Chemical & Engineering News, some evidence of the anticipated drain on our economy because of energy policy driven by politics, and not reason.

Leonard noted that congressional and presidential moratoriums on offshore
drilling have put 85% of U.S coastal waters off-limits to energy development,
while utilities have been switching from coal to cleaner burning natural gas for
power generation to meet air quality regulations.

Admittedly, recent legislation will help somewhat, but [Correction: Congress recessed without reaching a compromise on legislation to open up more of the federal offshore to oil and natural gas leasing, so...] we're now playing a bit of catchup to regain competitive edges we might have enjoyed in the past.

Will Reason Prevail?

blutarsky — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:53:00 +0000

There was some great news last week as reason prevailed and the World Health Organization dropped its opposition to the use of DDT for indoor residual spraying. This will result in an almost immediate drop in the malaria rate (as African nations are now free to use international health funds), and the saving of millions of lives that would previously have been forfeit due to the arrogance of the environmentalist extremist community.

This raises the question: Is it possible someday that logic might win out in the realm of global warming alarmism? There are today billions of dollars in resourses being diverted from programs that could have real life-saving benefits to millions in poverty-stricken regions. By increasing the industrial base and infrastructure, and hence the standard of living, poverty can be decreased and lives preserved, with the added benefit of greater environmental sensitivities that invariably accompany improved economic conditions. So, how many lives are lost, and what is the true impact to the environment, with the diversion of limited resourses to government mandated (Kyoto, or otherwise) initiatives that are virtually certain to have no net positive impact?

How many will die before reason once again prevails?

IAEA commissioner falls into water tank at Czech nuclear plant

blutarsky — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 01:14:00 +0000

From CTK Czech News Agency

For those who say the IAEA is ALL WET...

A US commissioner from the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) emerged unharmed after falling into a water tank at the Dukovany nuclear power plant on Friday.The daily Mlada fronta Dnes reported Friday that commissioners training at the facility were moving around the plant in a group. One of them, however, left the group and fell into the tank. The water in the tank was not radioactive.
A spokesman for the plant told MfD that the commissioner admitted he had made a mistake. "The rules say that no one is allowed to leave the group," the spokesman said.
The water tank is used in the process of loading and unloading nuclear fuel. Although the water was not in contact with any nuclear fuel during the training, the commissioner was examined to make sure he was not contaminated with radioactivity.

OPEC considers drop in output

blutarsky — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 05:20:00 +0000

[update] According to this, OPEC is ruling out any emergency talks related to output reductions. I think this is an acknowledgement of the real market forces at work, which would prove very resistant to the OPEC manipulations.

Original article...

Oil exporting countries may consider a cut in output after crude prices fell below $60 a barrel on Monday for the first time in six months.

The decline came as global demand fell back from its mid-year peak and tensions over Iran eased.

Ministers from the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries are understood to be concerned about the drop in oil prices, which are down almost a quarter from their recent peaks.

It will be interesting to see what kind of power the cartel can muster, in the face of speculators and hedge fund investors. Will the price of crude continue to drop? See the article here, and compare with this earlier posting.

Renewable energy taking off in Xinjiang

blutarsky — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 21:26:00 +0000

See article here about the use of solar and wind energy in remote areas of China. Not an artificially induced program, but REAL progress, driven by a REAL desire for a REAL increase in living standards:

Four years ago, 22-year-old Roukeyamu was doing her homework by candlelight. "Now I own a television with two channels that broadcasts international news and Korean soap operas translated into her own dialect," she said.

Here is a very simple and practical example of the market at work, showing potential for greater development with minimal government involvement.

This Week In Petroleum

blutarsky — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 06:02:00 +0000

This Week in Petroleum
eia.doe.gov

This week's report shows a continued fall in oil prices, but a bit of a leveling off, and perhaps a rise toward the end of the year...

Oil Prices Continue to Drop
With Labor Day and the unofficial end of summer behind us, the thought of roller coasters may not be something that immediately leaps to mind. But the path of retail gasoline prices since 2005, as shown below, certainly does resemble one. Of course, just as roller coaster enthusiasts love the sharp drops in pitch, many consumers are wondering how much more gasoline prices will drop. While this is unknown, one thing that is fairly certain, given recent history, is that gasoline prices are likely to continue their up and down pattern over the next year or so.

According to EIA�s most recent Short-Term Energy Outlook released yesterday, EIA expects the price of WTI crude oil during the fourth quarter of 2006 to average around $70 per barrel, gasoline prices to average below $2.60 per gallon, and diesel prices to approach $2.80 per gallon by the end of the year. EIA is expecting the recent price decline to slow, with prices then leveling off and possibly increasing later this year. This outlook reflects our analysis of the factors driving the current price decline.

For crude oil markets, the global situation is about as rosy as has been the case in the last several months. Almost every concern that existed in crude oil markets this summer is much more benign now. Concerns about a possible oil disruption from Iran have faded, as the diplomatic push to get Iran to halt enrichment of nuclear material has not yet led to sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council, and Iran has stated recently its willingness to continue negotiations with the United Nations. Mid-September has arrived without a single hurricane affecting oil facilities in the Gulf of Mexico and with no storms likely to arrive within at least the next week. Nigeria, where significant disruptions have occurred with some frequency over the past several years, has been quiet. The oil situation in Iraq is as positive as it has been in nearly 2 years, with EIA estimating Iraqi crude oil production in July and August at its highest levels since the fall of 2004. Even the one disruption that did make news recently, the BP pipeline leak in Alaska, now appears to be much less of a problem than originally thought. Initially, concerns were raised that Prudhoe Bay production might be stopped altogether, but it was soon determined that only a part of production would have to be taken offline for an extended period. According to the State of Alaska, Prudhoe Bay production for the month of August averaged 189 thousand barrels per day, which is about half of its August 2005 level. BP recently announced plans to begin to bring more production online soon and hopes to have full production restored by the end of October.

For gasoline markets, the price drop that normally arrives after Labor Day and usually extends through the end of the year began a few weeks early, as the market entered the last few weeks of August with no hurricanes threatening petroleum infrastructure, such as refineries or pipelines, and with enough supplies on hand to get through Labor Day. As a result, the sell-off started before Labor Day, as along with the expected seasonal demand drop, rising refinery runs, and high import levels, markets perceived an improving supply/demand balance, pushing down prices. Currently, the near-month futures price of a barrel of gasoline is only $1 to $2 above that of a barrel of crude oil, an unusually low margin that is likely to increase over the coming months. Diesel prices have not dropped as much as gasoline, mostly because diesel demand tends to be strong in the fall with agricultural use of diesel increasing as crops are harvested, and the similarity of diesel to heating oil often causes diesel prices to rise in conjunction with heating oil as the winter approaches. Thus, declines in diesel prices have been limited to those caused by the decline in crude oil prices.

Unless the U.S. economy starts showing signs of a significant slowdown, which would slow oil demand growth, or an unusually warm winter in the northern hemisphere that depresses heating-related demand, the opportunity for further improvement in crude oil markets appears to be limited. The global balance is expected to remain relatively tight as long as global demand continues to increase at a faster pace than non-OPEC supply, limiting gains in global spare production capacity, which implies that the downward trend in prices is likely to stop or reverse if one of the many potential sources of supply trouble flares up or if product pressures from heating fuels pulls up crude oil prices once cold weather begins in earnest. Regardless of what the future holds, U.S. consumers can take some comfort from the fact that U.S. average regular gasoline prices have dropped sharply over the last five weeks, and that crude oil prices are as low as they have been in several months.

U.S. Average Retail Gasoline Price Falls Almost 11 Cents
The U.S. average retail price for regular gasoline dropped 10.9 cents last week to hit 261.8 cents per gallon as of September 11, which is 33.7 cents lower than last year. Prices fell for the fifth week in a row, reaching the lowest national average price since April 3, 2006. East Coast prices fell 9.9 cents to 265.4 cents per gallon, while the Midwest saw the largest regional price decrease of 15.0 cents to 244.8 cents per gallon. West Coast prices were still the highest in the nation after falling 6.0 cents to 290.6 cents per gallon, the lowest price in that region since April 17. California prices were 6.1 cents lower at 294.9 cents per gallon, also the first time the state average has been below the $3 mark since April 17.

Retail diesel fuel prices fell by 11.0 cents to reach 285.7 cents per gallon as of September 11, still 1.0 cent higher than last year. This is the fourth week in a row that prices have fallen. Prices were down throughout the country, with the Midwest seeing the largest regional decrease of 15.0 cents to 278.7 cents per gallon. The Rocky Mountains, which retains the highest regional price in the country, saw a decrease of 8.2 cents to 323.6 cents per gallon. West Coast prices fell 6.20 cents to 313.7 cents per gallon.

Propane Build Posts Sharp Rise
In contrast to typically modest stockbuilds this time of year, U.S. propane inventories posted a surprisingly sharp rise last week, up 1.9 million barrels to an estimated 65.7 million barrels as of September 8, 2006. Last week also saw the continuation of the recent trend in strong imports seen over the past three weeks, with imports finally working their way into primary inventories, a development that was not apparent during prior weeks. This was particularly true in the Gulf Coast, where the lack of a significant build in primary inventories in recent weeks was surprising given the strong level of imports. Gulf Coast inventories posted the largest weekly gain last week with 0.8 million barrels, moving the region closer to the middle of the average range for this time of year. Other regions also posted strong gains last week, with East Coast inventories up 0.4 million barrels, while inventories in the Midwest were higher by 0.5 million barrels during this same time. The combined Rocky Mountain/West Coast regions posted a 0.2-million-barrel gain last week. Propylene non-fuel use inventories continued to account for a smaller share of total propane/propylene inventories with a weekly decline that measured 0.2 million barrels, accounting for a 4.2 percent share compared with the prior week�s 4.7 percent share.

Carbonfund.org - Is it for real?

blutarsky — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:00:00 +0000

I recently started looking at CarbonFund.org. Although I like the concept behind the market-based initiatives, I started to get suspicious when I saw ethanol in the mix of their supposed 'carbon offset' projects (who will offset the ethanol production?). Also, a first glance, the costs just don't seem right.

I agree with this from Climate Science

What I don�??t understand is why entrepreneurs don�??t invest in carbon reduction certificates, like carbonfund.org does, but rather than retire the certificates, sell them in the carbon emissions market. The going rate for emissions permits in the market is on the order of $20-30 per ton, while carbonfund.org claims to reduce carbon emissions for about $5 per ton. Seems like one could make a killing. I guess that's the whole point of emissions trading. But the discrepancy in prices makes me a bit suspicious.

I'll probably be looking into this more. I'm interested in seeing if there's really anything here...

Analyst predicts plunge in gas prices

blutarsky — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:33:00 +0000

As a consumer, I must say...I like the sound of this. As I've said before, there's no need to panic folks...just trust the markets.

The recent sharp drop in the global price of crude oil could mark the start of a massive sell-off that returns gasoline prices to lows not seen since the late 1990s �?? perhaps as low as $1.15 a gallon.

Recent speculation that pushed up the market prices of oil, as well as fear of disruptions due to war or weather, led suppliers to stockpile oil, fearing even higher prices. Now, with inventories approaching 1990 levels, along with an easing of fears and leveling of demand, we're seeing the market turn increasingly bearish on oil.

Should oil traders fear that this downward price spiral will get worse and run for the exits by selling off their futures contracts, Verleger said, it's not unthinkable that oil prices could return to $15 or less a barrel, at least temporarily. That could mean gasoline prices as low as $1.15 per gallon.

Also: See this earlier post.

DOE Funds Six New Projects Aimed at Alternate Hydrogen Production and Utilization

blutarsky — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:25:00 +0000

The Department of Energy recently announced six new projects as part of the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. Disappointingly, although not surprisingly, three of the six focus on an ethanol fuel end-product. For R&D such as this, can anyone tell me what sense this makes? Well...I already know the answer - none!

It's politics, pure and simple. Hey, I'm a Nebraska boy, and as such, should be all over this ethanol. But, I have to go with the physics...

California Retro

blutarsky — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 13:48:00 +0000

Nice article over at the American Spectator by Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute. His final paragraph sums it up well:

Basing policies on hysterical exaggerations is a sure recipe for failure, particularly when the policies will do nothing but sour people on carbon dioxide emission restrictions. So much for Californian leadership. Sounds much more like politics as usual: full of sound and fury, accomplishing nothing. How retro.

My sentiments exactly.

Saudi: Just 18 pct. of world oil tapped

blutarsky — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:45:00 +0000

According to the head of the state-owned Saudi Arabian Oil Co., the world has used only 18% of total reserves, and that at current consumption levels, there is enough to power the globe for 140 years. See article here.

Jum'ah challenged oil ministers and petroleum executives at an OPEC conference in Vienna to step up exploration "and leave the minimum amount of oil in the ground."

"The world has only consumed about 18 percent of its conventional potential," Jum'ah said, contending that should lay to rest fears that the world is in danger of being tapped out within a few decades.

Of course, the first question that comes to mind is, "How far can one trust this guy?" The "peak oilers", in particular, claim that all the OPEC countries pump up their reserve estimates. Still, this is in line with other reputable research numbers, I would say.

My message is: Let's all take a breath, and not sit on our hands, but know we have some time to invest in a rational course of action. Ahem...this would NOT include corn-based ethanol fuel as a panic measure...

More from the article:

"When prices are high, passions can run high," Tillerson [chairman of Exxon Mobil] said. "Economic nationalism may gain in popularity" at the expense of developing global markets and the world economy, he said.

"The new era we face, like all of the previous ones, is not an era of easy oil - nor will it be an era of easy answers. But it can be an era of continued economic advancement," he said.

Jum�??ah challenged explorationists to find enough new oil resources to add 1 trillion barrels to world reserves over the next 25 years, saying new technology and higher recovery rates would make it possible to hit that target.

Already, he noted, drilling is now going on as deep as 10,000 feet below the Gulf of Mexico and 7,000 to 8,000 feet elsewhere. Experts say a newly discovered petroleum pool beneath the Gulf of Mexico eventually could yield anywhere from 3 billion to 15 billion barrels.

Technorati Profile

blutarsky — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 06:15:00 +0000

Technorati Profile

Aussie Researchers Experimenting with Synthetic Chlorophyll

blutarsky — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 21:10:00 +0000

From this post on sustainablog:

According to ABC Australia's News in Science, a molecular electronics group at the University of Sydney is attempting to create synthetic chlorophyll, with the aim of creating solar panels that reach much higher efficiencies than those currently available...If it works, this will be a major achievement: leaves convert solar energy at a 30-40% efficiency rate, compared to 12% for the average silicon-based solar cell.

This is perhaps one version of what the future might look like as we move away from petroleum. I could see, in addition to using this material on the surface of vehicles to convert energy for direct storage, just about any large surface becoming an energy input to a universal power grid!

Rather than throwing money into corn ethonol fuel (where energy is lost through many steps in the process, and a large fraction of of the energy must be used just to carry the stuff around), this is the kind of research that should be financed.

This Week In Petroleum

blutarsky — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 19:47:00 +0000

This Week in Petroleum
eia.doe.gov

A Roller Coaster Year

With Labor Day and the unofficial end of summer behind us, the thought of roller coasters may not be something that immediately leaps to mind. But the path of retail gasoline prices since 2005, as shown below, certainly does resemble one. Of course, just as roller coaster enthusiasts love the sharp drops in pitch, many consumers are wondering how much more gasoline prices will drop. While this is unknown, one thing that is fairly certain, given recent history, is that gasoline prices are likely to continue their up and down pattern over the next year or so.

In 2005, retail gasoline prices were generally rising through the first 8 months of the year, with August 2005 prices rising sharply. Then, with Hurricane Katrina at the very end of August knocking out oil production platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, refineries along the Gulf Coast, and electricity for pipelines, gasoline prices saw the largest one-week rise ever recorded on EIA�??s pump price survey on September 5, 2005. But as crude oil and gasoline flows were partially restored, retail prices began to fall, only to witness another run-up, as Hurricane Rita came ashore in late September 2005. By early December, pump prices had fallen as low as $2.15 per gallon, as by then, oil infrastructure conditions had improved significantly in the face of much lower off-season gasoline demand. However, by later in December 2005, gasoline prices began another long upward trend through much of 2006, although not without occasional interruptions stemming from temporary market softness. More recently, consumers saw retail prices turn downward several weeks early this year, well before the Labor Day end of summer, as the market determined that more than enough supply remained on hand to satisfy demand through the peak season. The average U.S. retail gasoline price for regular gasoline has dropped 31 cents per gallon over the last 4 weeks, from $3.04 per gallon to $2.73 per gallon as of September 4, 2006. Several states already have average gasoline prices below $2.50 per gallon, and some retail stations in Ohio are now selling regular gasoline for under $2.20 per gallon, according to Gasbuddy.com.

Based on spot prices of gasoline, it looks like the retail drop will likely continue, at least for the next few weeks, in most regions of the country. But how much further they drop and for how long, will be determined by many factors yet to play out. While the price for West Texas Intermediate crude oil has recently dropped below $68 per barrel, future price developments are highly uncertain. Many of the factors that caused crude oil prices to reach $70 per barrel (lack of spare production capacity, strong global demand growth, concerns about supply disruptions) remain, although some, such as worry over oil infrastructure damage from hurricanes, have been pushed aside, at least temporarily. While consumers can expect that retail gasoline prices will continue to drop over the near-term, prices will rise again somewhere further down the track if the recent roller coaster pattern of gasoline prices continues.

U.S. Average Retail Gasoline Price Drops 12 Cents

The U.S. average retail price for regular gasoline fell 11.8 cents last week to hit 272.7 cents per gallon as of September 4, which is 34.2 cents lower than last year. The price differential between the current year and last year reflects the peak weekly price that occurred after Hurricane Katrina. Prices fell for the fourth week in a row, reaching the lowest national average price since April 10, 2006. East Coast prices fell 10.4 cents to 275.3 cents per gallon, while the Midwest saw the largest regional price decrease of 16.5 cents to 259.8 cents per gallon. West Coast prices were still the highest in the nation after falling 7.5 cents to 296.6 cents per gallon. California prices were 8.8 cents lower at 301.0 cents per gallon.

Retail diesel fuel prices fell by 6.0 cents to reach 296.7 cents per gallon as of September 4, still 6.9 cents higher than last year. This is the first time in five weeks that prices have been below the $3 mark. Prices were down throughout the country, with the Midwest seeing the largest regional decrease of 8.9 cents to 293.7 cents per gallon. The Rocky Mountains, which has the highest regional price in the country, saw a decrease of 2.8 cents to 331.8 cents per gallon. West Coast prices fell 3.0 cents to 319.9 cents per gallon.

August Build for Propane above Average

Propane stockholders added about 5.6 million barrels to U.S. inventories during August, a level that was about 10 percent above the most recent 5-year average. With last week�??s gain of 0.5 million barrels, U.S. inventories stood at an estimated 63.8 million barrels as of September 1, 2006, a level that remains well within the middle range of average inventories for this time of year. U.S. inventories were boosted by an unexpected strong gain in the combined Rocky Mountain/West Coast region that totaled 0.4 million barrels, the largest of any region last week. Only modest inventory gains were reported in the other major regions last week, with Midwest inventories up only 0.1 million barrels, while Gulf Coast inventories recorded a 0.1-million-barrel increase during this same time. East Coast inventories inched lower by 0.1 million barrels last week, while non-fuel use inventories gained 0.2 million barrels. With last week�??s gain in non-fuel use inventories, their share rose to 4.7 percent of total propane inventories from the prior week�??s 4.4 percent share.

New York Law Prohibits Shutout of Alternative Fuels

blutarsky — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 19:41:00 +0000

from EERE News

A new law in New York will make alternative fuels such as biodiesel and E85 (a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline) more readily available to consumers. New York Governor George Pataki on July 31st signed a law prohibiting the "exclusivity" contracts between fuel distributors and gas stations. These contracts limit service stations from purchasing or selling fuels from sources other than the main distributor. Because most major petroleum fuel distributors do not sell E85 or other alternative fuels in New York, service stations bound by these contracts were unable to offer renewable fuels to customers. The fuels covered under the new law include E85, biodiesel, hydrogen, and compressed natural gas.

The law should help remove access barriers for the owners of the roughly 200,000 flex-fuel vehicles in New York State. Flex-fuel vehicles can run on either E85 or gasoline, but only a few stations in New York currently offer E85. To further improve access, the New York State Thruway Authority will install renewable fuel pumps at its 27 Thruway travel plazas, the first of which should be operating this fall. See the press releases from Governor Pataki on the exclusivity law and the Thruway plaza pump groundbreaking.

Commentary: Market Forces Are the Only Cure for High Oil Prices

blutarsky — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 17:29:00 +0000

by Robert L. Bradley, Jr.
Environment News

Little has changed in the 75 years since Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset wrote, "In disturbances caused by scarcity of food, the mob goes in search of bread, and the means it employs is generally to wreck the bakeries."

Revised for the crisis du jour, that sentence would read, "Whenever the price of oil jumps, the first thing the people's congressmen do is demonize and punish Big Oil."

Markets Cure Price Spikes

Because worldwide demand for oil is rising and a quarter of the world's oil is being produced by saber-rattling socialist/nationalistic governments, the price of crude has more than doubled from its historic average.

Fortunately, with higher prices comes increased economic incentives to find, produce, refine, and market oil, all of which thereafter bring prices down. The cure for high prices is high prices--if market forces are allowed to turn today's problem into tomorrow's solution.

Congress Impeding Markets

Of course, Congress doesn't see it that way. Instead, trying to reverse cause and effect, lawmakers assert high prices--not uncertain supply in the face of increasing demand--are the problem.

One "solution," therefore, is to impose back-door price controls via laws against "price gouging." But trying to address increased oil scarcity by forcing prices down is like trying to cure a fever by adjusting the thermometer. It eliminates the feedback that prices provide to consumers and suppliers.

With artificially low prices for gasoline, consumers use more of the limited supply than they otherwise would, while suppliers (including gasoline importers) do not receive the economic signal to bring in a greater supply. Soon, the artificially cheap commodity runs short. People begin wasting time in gasoline lines--and burning fuel while they wait.

Another popular "solution" is to impose a "windfall" profits tax. But why, in times of acute scarcity, should money be taken from those who can alleviate the abnormal scarcity and given to politicians?

Congress is not going to drill wells, but redistribute tax dollars. Increasing taxes gives a congressman only the appearance of "doing something about this crisis" during an election year. With any luck on his part, by the time the crisis has passed and his "something" has clearly made the problem worse, he will have been safely re-elected.

Energy Resources Not Scarce

Today's petroleum problem is not a shortage of energy resources but a surplus of government. Oil is not the problem; government control of oil is. America is not "addicted" to oil; too many oil-rich countries are addicted to socialism and nationalism, which hamper or criminalize problem-solving entrepreneurship.

The solution is not to stop using petroleum--a physically impossible, economically ruinous response. The solution is to start the educational and political reform needed to promote free-market institutions in the impoverished, resource-rich areas of the world.

A capitalistic transformation would assign private property titles to the subsoil. Such a privatization would promote greater supply and efficiency and would demote politicians, who are the enemies of oil consumers the world over. Ordinary citizens, having become royalty owners, would be the ones to obtain wealth as oil and gas are found and produced.

And these individuals--let there be many thousands of them--would rise from poverty to become part of the investor class, and even philanthropists to their fellow man. Witness the work of oil- and gas-endowed foundations in the United States, for example.

Repressive Regimes Control

Effecting this transformation will take a lot of hard work. Counting Iraq, a country with a history of repression, three-quarters of the world's proven oil reserves are controlled by countries The Heritage Foundation rates as "repressed" (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, and Venezuela) or "mostly unfree" (e.g., Algeria, Brazil, China, Kazakhstan, Qatar, and Russia).

In all of these lands, the specter of Karl Marx must be replaced with the spirit of great market economists such as Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, and Hernando De Soto. The Hugo Chavezes of the world must be replaced with leaders who know socialism is a dry hole and market capitalism empowers citizens, promotes savings, increases investment, and produces wealth that redounds to the masses.

U.S. Can Lead

The United States has a government energy problem too: Witness our folly in mandating quotas for inferior energies and blocking access to government-owned hydrocarbon-rich areas offshore and in Alaska.

Yet there is a silver lining to this folly, for it means our government can lead the world by example, ending energy subsidies across the board and privatizing public resource holdings.

To blaze a path away from oil statism, our government's leaders must let our domestic oil industry invest the capital it has earned and thereby increase infrastructure. And they must tell the world why they are doing so: Because they have learned that the solution to a bread shortage lies in building more bakeries, not in wrecking them.

Examining the 'Hockey Stick' Controversy

blutarsky — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 16:26:00 +0000

A recent paper by Jay Gulledge of the Pew Center on Global Science Change examines, once again, global warming and the controversy surrounding the Mann-Bradley-Hughes reconstruction of northern hemispheric surface temperatures (MBH) over the last millinium, commonly known as the Mann 'hockey stick'.

Gulledge takes a poke at those critics (McIntyre, et al) who discount the validity of MBH because it ignores the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) of the 9th to 14th centuries.

The writer contends that 1) the MWP was not global in nature, 2) MBH is nevertheless valid, and 3) even without the Mann 'hockey stick', man-made global warming is self-evident.

Is this good science, or does he present a biased and flawed arguement? Read it here for yourself.

Albedo modification and climatic engineering

blutarsky — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:41:00 +0000

A paper published on The Heartland Institute website discusses the interesting prospect of large-scale climate modification to combat the greenhouse effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Essentially, the engineered injection of sulphur compounds, particulates, even reflective nanoparticles into the upper stratosphere can theoretically be used to increase the albedo (ratio of scattered to incidental radiation), which is known to have a significant cooling effect.

If such a scheme were to be made practical, a climatic response would likely be seen within the first year (think the Mt. Pinatubo eruption). Hence, this is seen as a possible escape route in the event of 'runaway' global warming.

Of course, there are many potentially negative consequences, and these would have to be carefully weighed by policy makers before embarking on such an extreme course of action.

Not mentioned in the paper, but perhaps of most concern, are possible catastrophic consequences resulting from attempting to manipulate a dynamic system that is really only vaguely understood.

[Update] See this article.

BP and EMG Hydrogen Power Project

blutarsky — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 05:30:00 +0000

A $1 billion hydrogen power project in Carson, CA will be the subject of a presentation in the upcoming 2006 Gasification Technologies Conference, to be held Oct 1-4 in Washington, D.C.

Announced last February, the project is a joint venture between BP and Edison Mission Group (EMG), a subsidiary of Edison International. The project will involve a number of technologies, such as petcoke gassification, as well as carbon capture and sequestration, to capture energy from previously unrecoverable oil reserves.

As announced in July, this project is part of a collaboration between BP and GE, and is a key component of BP's recent push into alternative energies.

David Calhoun of GE claims these initiatives will prove to be economically feasable:

Tomorrow�??s energy mix will include hydrogen �?? and GE and BP are taking the lead in ensuring progress begins today. This initiative will demonstrate that our companies�?? leading-edge technologies can make hydrogen production efficient, reliable, and economical for large-scale, commercial power production. Our financial strength will ensure it happens now globally, changing the way we envision our energy future.

However, these economics will likely depend on a helping hand from Uncle Sam. BP's own press release states:

The costs of hydrogen power are higher than those of traditional power plant fuels. As a result, the project will depend, in part, on incentives provided in the Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 for advanced gasification technologies.

It will be interesting to follow this project and see how the financials fall out. Look for an update after the Gassification Technologies Conference.

Mandating Physics

blutarsky — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 06:00:00 +0000

Article by William Tucker
The American Spectator

Reprinted here in its entirety. I agree with most of what he says here. One of the best paths toward a meaningful decrease in carbon emissions is a concerted national push back into nuclear...this time using standardized technology to lower costs, speed construction, and simplify the regulatory process...

...

Last week California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger continued his leftward lurch by mandating that California will reduce its greenhouse gases 25 percent by the year 2020. In other words, the state will adopt its own little Kyoto Protocols.

Conservatives are upset, as usual, arguing that any attempt to impose draconic requirements will send the state's economy into a tailspin. That may be true, but so what? California is only one state and it won't hurt the country that much. Besides, if the regulations really start causing havoc, somebody will call off the effort or they'll create loopholes on top of loopholes that make the program meaningless.

On the contrary, I think it's going to be fun to see what happens. The reason is that environmentalists will quickly discover they're never going to get anywhere in reducing carbon emissions without embracing nuclear power.

First let me emphasize one point -- I believe global warming is a serious problem that demands immediate action. I know this goes against conservative doctrine but we've reached the point where politics has to give way to science. The evidence that something unprecedented is happening in the world's climate is becoming overwhelming. The carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has grown steadily to 350 parts per million, far outside the range of 150-to-270 ppm where it has been over the last few thousands years. (We have very good records from the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps.) At the same time, the earth's temperature is rising significantly. Eight of the ten hottest years on record have occurred in the last decade.

Science is about prediction. Environmentalists have been talking about global warming since 1988 -- well before any significant rise in temperature began. Their argument is not tailored to fit the facts. Events are unfolding pretty much as they predicted. Sure you can argue that there are flaws in the model somewhere or that perhaps some unrecognized solar cycle is behind increasing temperatures. Or you can take the attitude of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and say that global warming will be a great experience. Who cares if Washington adopts the climate of Baghdad? We can all run around in burnooses.

I would prefer to face facts, however, and admit that carbon emissions are having a measurable impact on climate. It isn't all that surprising. Coal -- the prime culprit -- is a 19th century technology that we should have abandoned thirty years ago. Instead, Jimmy Carter the nuclear engineer who was afraid of his shadow decided that nuclear was too scary. (This all happened before Three Mile Island.) In his energy speech of 1977, given three months after taking office, Carter said we should double our coal consumption and that's exactly what we've done. We burned 500 million tons of coal a year in 1977. Today we consume over a billion. Every ton of carbon in coal produces three tons of carbon dioxide. Is it so surprising that this should be having an impact on the earth's atmosphere? Why are Republicans so wed to carrying out Carter's mistaken policy?

Having said this, it must also be acknowledged that environmentalists have their heads in the clouds when it comes to discovering a solution to the problem. I just finished reading Big Coal by Jeff Goodell, a reporter for Rolling Stone and the New York Times Magazine. Goodell has spent the last three years exploring all the sordid aspects of coal -- the 100,000 miners who died in the 20th century, the mountaintops now being decapitated in West Virginia, the mile-long trains backed up trying to bring coal out of the Powder River Basin, the dozens of coal plants around the country that were built to 1974 standards and still spew sulfur dioxide, particulates, mercury, nitrous oxides and all manner of air pollution, plus the dozens of coal plants now on the drawing boards that will quickly wipe out any gains from the Kyoto Protocols -- if those improvements are ever made, which they probably won't be.

Yet what Goodell propose to do about replacing coal plants? In his entire 250-page book there is only one sentence about nuclear power. Here it is:

[W]hatever coal's environmental problems are, at least coal plants are not goingto melt down in some radioactive nightmare or increase the risk that some Middle Eastern terrorist will get his hands on a few ounces of uranium. [Page 100.]

Just for the record, you could probably go out in your backyard this afternoon and dig up a few ounces of uranium. It is as common as tin. Perhaps Goodell means plutonium, a manmade element produced in reactors that can be used to make nuclear weapons. In either case, our use of nuclear power has absolutely no bearing on what happens in the Middle East. As Iran is proving, they can develop their own technology.

And while we're on the subject, exactly what did happen during the nuclear meltdown at Three Mile Island? Was anybody hurt? Did the multiple layers of protection systems fail? More people are killed by coal trains at railroad crossings every year than have ever died from nuclear power.

Yet Goodell doesn't have to deal with this because as far as environmentalists are concerned, nuclear power doesn't exist. Al Gore pulled the same trick in An Inconvenient Truth when he borrowed the work of Robert Socolow, head of the Carbon Mitigation Initiative at Princeton. Socolow argues we need seven "wedges" to stabilize atmospheric carbon. He proposes: fuel switching, improved efficiency, energy conservation, alternate energies, reforestation, carbon sequestration, and nuclear power. He offers several other possibilities but nuclear is the only technology that can provide two wedges. Yet when Socolow's work is recited in Gore's movie, nuclear has disappeared.

It isn't as if environmentalists have to argue against nuclear power. On the contrary, they pride themselves in their ignorance about it. Nuclear simply isn't a subject for polite company.

All this will change, however, once California starts cutting back on carbon. The Northeast Coalition -- New York, New Jersey, and the New England states -- have already discovered this. When they pledged to reduce greenhouse gases two years ago, there was widespread talk about closing down Westchester County's Indian Point, New Jersey's Oyster Creek, and just about every other nuclear plant in sight. Now things have become strangely quiet.

Even some of the most dedicated environmentalists are starting to realize they're never going to get anywhere in cutting carbon emissions without nuclear. That's why it's going to be fun to see what happens in California.

Promising New Oil Find in Gulf of Mexico

blutarsky — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 14:03:00 +0000

by Brad Foss
AP Business Writer

Tests of a deep-water well in the Gulf of Mexico could indicate a significant oil discovery, three companies announced Tuesday, in the first project to tap into a region that reportedly could boost U.S. oil and gas reserves by as much as 50 percent.

The Jack 2 well was drilled by U.S. oil company Chevron Corp., with partners Statoil ASA of Norway and Devon Energy Corp. of Oklahoma City.

"Test results are very encouraging and may indicate a significant discovery. The full magnitude of the field's potential is still being defined," Statoil said in a statement.

During the test, the Jack 2 well sustained a flow rate of more than 6,000 barrels of oil per day, Statoil said.

The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that the region where the well is located could become the nation's biggest new domestic source of oil since the discovery of Alaska's North Slope more than a generation ago.

The Journal said Chevron and Devon officials estimate that recent discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico's lower-tertiary formations hold up to 15 billion barrels' worth of oil and gas reserves, a total that would boost the nation's current reserves by 50 percent.

The well was drilled in the Walker Ridge area of the Gulf, about 270 miles southwest of New Orleans and 175 miles off the coast. It followed up a discovery made by Chevron in 2004.

"This area is one of the new and promising deep-water areas in the Gulf of Mexico," said Oivind Reinertsen, senior vice president of Statoil's Gulf of Mexico assets in Houston.

"The Jack 2 well test data are encouraging and may form the basis of future development projects in Walker Ridge," he said.

In a separate statement, San Ramon, Calif.-based Chevron said the well set a variety of records, including the deepest well successfully tested in the Gulf of Mexico. Chevron said it was drilled to a total depth of 28,175 feet in waters that are 7,000 feet deep.

Chevron has a 50 percent stake in the field, while Statoil and Devon own 25 percent each.

Science tempers fears on climate change

blutarsky — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 15:10:00 +0000

by Matthew Warren
The Austrailian

THE world's top climate scientists have cut their worst-case forecast for global warming over the next 100 years. A draft report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, obtained exclusively by The Weekend Australian, offers a more certain projection of climate change than the body's forecasts five years ago.

For the first time, scientists are confident enough to project a 3C rise on the average global daily temperature by the end of this century if no action is taken to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The Draft Fourth Assessment Report says the temperature increase could be contained to 2C by 2100 if greenhouse gas emissions are held at current levels.

In 2001, the scientists predicted temperature rises of between 1.4C and 5.8C on current levels by 2100, but better science has led them to adjust this to a narrower band of between 2C and 4.5C.

The new projections put paid to some of the more alarmist scenarios raised by previous modelling, which have suggested that sea levels could rise by almost 1m over the same period.

The report projects a rise in sea levels by century's end of between 14cm and 43cm, with further rises expected in following centuries caused by melting polar ice.

The new projections forecast damage by global warming, such as stronger cyclones, modest sea-level rises and further shrinking of the arctic sea ice.

CSIRO research predicts the biggest impact of sea-level changes of this scale would be to increase the effect of storm surges, particularly on Australia's tropical northern coastline.

The forecast temperature rises would also result in lower rainfall over most of the Australian mainland and exacerbate the threat to the survival of coral reefs and shellfish by increasing the risk of bleaching and increasing the acidity of the ocean.

Australian Conservation Foundation energy program manager Erwin Jackson said theprojections required an urgent and immediate response from the federal Government to drive accelerated investment in low-emissions technology in Australia.

"Every day we delay taking action, the problem gets worse," Mr Jackson said.

"The Government keeps throwing up the costs of action but totally ignores the costs of inaction.

"No one ever said that saving the planet would cost nothing - that's the bottom line."

A recent Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics report on the cost of cutting greenhouse gas emissions estimated Australians would incur a fall in real wages of about 20 per cent if the nation was to unilaterally cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050.

John Howard this week said that sort of scenario would have an "enormously damaging" effect on the economy. "I accept that climate change is a challenge," the Prime Minister said. "I accept the broad theory about global warming. I am sceptical about a lot of the more gloomy predictions.

"I also recognise that a country like Australia has got to balance a concern for greenhouse gas emissions with a concern for the enormous burden to be carried by consumers ... of what you might call an anti-greenhouse policy. It's a question of balance."

Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell said the draft IPCC report was still undergoing a thorough review process before its approval by the panel next year.

"It highlights the need for an effective global response to climate change as Australia alone cannot alter the pattern of world emissions," Senator Campbell said. "We are taking a leading role internationally to achieve effective engagement by all major greenhouse gas-emitting countries."

The new projections are based on the results of 23 climate models, developed by government climate scientists from IPCC member countries.

According to current climate change models, stabilising global greenhouse gas levels to 400parts per million offers a good chance of avoiding 2C global temperature increases.

This would require global emissions to be 50 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050.

CSIRO recently concluded that the goal of 60 per cent reductions might be considered the minimum needed to avoid dangerous climate change.

Any further reductions in global temperatures would require cuts in emissions of about 80-90 per cent in industrialised countries by 2050, which would require a faster transition to near-zero emissions technologies.

The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement for developed countries to meet greenhouse gas emissions targets by 2012.

Australia and the US have refused to sign the protocol, instead proposing a global climate pact that focuses on working with developing countries such as China and India to reduce their greenhouse emissions.

Mr Jackson said the IPCC draft report highlighted the inadequacy of Australia's policy response to the threat of climate change.

"If these projections become a reality, our children face living in an Australia with no Barrier Reef, no Kakadu wetlands and a Murray River reduced to a trickle."

Emissions Trading Deal Set For China

blutarsky — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 14:30:00 +0000

by David Hanson
Chemical & Engineering News

A major World Bank agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in China went into effect last week as participants placed $1.02 billion into the bank's Umbrella Carbon Facility to finance the deal. The money will allow the participants to purchase credits for carbon emissions reductions to be made by two industrial gas operations in southern China and to support future sustainable development programs there.

The government and private organizations buying the carbon credits from China can use them to meet national pollution targets agreed to under the Kyoto protocol.

Greenhouse reductions will come from spending a portion of the money to cut HFC-23 (trifluoromethane) emissions at two Chinese chemical companies, Jiangsu Meilan Chemical and Changshu 3F Zhonghao New Chemicals Material Co., which produce the compound as a by-product of refrigerant HCFC-22 production. The HFC-23 will be destroyed by high-efficiency incineration, which could begin in late October, according to the bank.

HFC-23, one of the greenhouse gases specified in the Kyoto protocol, has 11,700 times the global warming potential of CO2, and the projected annual reductions will be the equivalent of 19 million tons of CO2.

The Umbrella Carbon Facility is a mechanism set up by the World Bank to handle large greenhouse gas reduction purchases under the flexible mechanisms of the Kyoto protocol. Joelle Chassard, manager of the Carbon Finance Unit at the bank, says opening up this mechanism has helped bring liquidity to the growing carbon market. "And the Umbrella Carbon Facility is producing a double dividend, with the government of China receiving 65% of the proceeds for sustainable development through their newly established Clean Development Fund," Chassard says.
China's Clean Development Fund is expected to finance climate mitigation projects in sectors such as energy efficiency, renewable energy, and coal mine methane recovery.

Ethanol Industry Boosts Capacity

blutarsky — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 14:11:00 +0000

by Glenn Hess
Chemical & Engineering News

The ethanol industry continued its rapid expansion last week as BioEnergy International and Alternative Energy Sources (AES) announced plans to construct new facilities that will add more than 200 million gal of annual capacity.

BioEnergy International and Lukoil Americas plan to build a 108 million-gal-per-year plant in Clearfield County, Pa. The companies are evaluating several potential sites, with commercial start-up tentatively scheduled for late 2008.

Norwell, Mass.-based BioEnergy says the facility will initially use corn as the feedstock. Over time, the corn will be replaced by organic wastes. East Meadow, N.Y.-based Lukoil Americas' downstream subsidiary has agreed to purchase all of the plant's output and will market gasoline blended with ethanol throughout its network that spans 13 states in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic regions.

On Aug. 17, Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell presented BioEnergy with $17.4 million of state investments to support the project and a pilot plant to assist in the development and commercialization of BioEnergy's technology.

"The state's support represents a fundamental building block that will allow us to bring a major economic contribution to the region," says Stephen J. Gatto, chairman and CEO of BioEnergy. "Long-term access to biomass materials was a key factor in selecting Clearfield County for our second project."

BioEnergy is also building a 108 million-gal-per-year ethanol plant in Lake Providence, La. That project is currently in the site-preparation phase. Construction is expected to start in the fourth quarter of 2006.

Company officials say the two facilities, over time, will utilize its proprietary technologies to produce high-value specialty chemicals and renewable fuels.
Meanwhile, Kansas City, Mo.-based Alternative Energy Sources plans to build a 110 million-gal-per-year ethanol plant in Kankakee, Ill., adjacent to the Canadian National/Illinois Central main railroad line, which links the Gulf states with Canada and intersects with rail lines crossing the Midwest.

"With both rail and truck shipping capabilities readily available, we will be able to serve national markets as well as neighboring communities in northeastern Illinois and northwestern Indiana," says AES President and CEO Mark Beemer. The plant is scheduled to be in operation by fall 2008.

On Aug. 15, AES announced plans to build its first ethanol plant, also a 110 million-gal facility, in Boone County, Iowa. The company also plans to construct additional facilities in the Midwest as well as the first cellulosic ethanol facility in the eastern U.S.

Beemer, a former vice president of Archer Daniels Midland's Grain Division, the nation's largest ethanol producer, notes that U.S. automakers are producing more vehicles that run on a fuel mix of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline, known as "E85," and that gas stations are continually gaining customers at their E85 pumps.

According to the Renewable Fuels Association, 101 ethanol plants currently operate in the U.S., with a combined annual production capacity of more than 4.8 billion gal. In addition, 39 new facilities and seven expansion projects now under construction will increase the industry�??s capacity by 2.5 billion gal when complete.