WCI #7: Delivering the US from oil

According to December's Scientific American "Plug-in Hybrid Trucks are improving the long view of the short haul."

The ubiquitous cargo trucks that haul everything from mail to produce use about 40 percent of the fuel consumed in the US every year. Many are looking to use vehicles with better fuel efficiency, but a major technological opportunity is being overlooked by most.

"The fuel use of even a small truck is equal to many, many car," says Bill Van (heh) Amberg, senior VP of Calstart, a clean transportation technology nonprofit and director of the Hybrid Truck Users Forum. "A utility truck as a hybrid would reduce more petroleum than nine Priuses."

The article states: "Some 1,300 commercial hybrids on the toad today get up to twice the fuel efficiency of their conventional counterparts. But these traditional hybrids are inherently limited. They make more efficient use of petroleum-based fuel by capturing some of the energy lost during braking.

"Plug-in hybrids, on the other hand, draw energy from the grid. They can drive for miles - in many cases, an entire day's route - without using any fossil fuel at all. This shifts energy demand away from petroleum and toward grid-based sources."

This still leads to carbon usage, as many electrical plants are still coal burners, but last year 30 percent of electric power was supplied by nuclear and other zero-carbon renewables and with more and more responsible companies shifting their paradigm, this number is sure to grow.

Using plug-in hybrid technology for such vehicles just makes common sense in many ways.

"A cargo truck runs a short daily route that includes many stops to aid in regenerative braking. Most of the US Postal Service's 200,000-plus mail trucks, for example, travel fewer than 20 miles a day. In addition, fleet vehicles return nightly to storage lots that have ready access to the 120- or 240-volt outlets required to charge them."

The Department of Energy has recently launched a massive, $45.4 million project to put near ly 400 medium-duty plug-in hybrid trucks on the road in 50 municipalities and utilities. They are working with Ford using the auto-makers F-550 chassis. They will be running in 2011.

Start-up Bright Automotive is going even further, planning to replace 50,000 conventional trucks by 2014. Their prototype, called IDEA, travels 40 miles on battery power, then switches to a four-cylinder engine that manages an eco-friendly 40 mpg. The truck is streamlined and more aerodynamic than most on the road today and only weighs as much as a mid-sized sedan.

Even with the appeal of carbon savings, the vehicles offer a far more practical benefit. Once battery technology improves the price will make it almost idiotic to not have one.

It won't take long for the vehicles to become the economic choice.

As David Lauzman, Brights VP of product development projects, people will soon be saying, "I have to have them because it saves me money."

WCI #2: Affordable solar energy equipment

Yes, we all receive light and heat from the sun free of charge, but the cost of converting that energy into electricity that can run our televisions, computers and video game systems as well as charging all of our on-the-go devices has up to now been almost prohibitively expensive.

According to the Scientific American article "The No-Money-Down Solar Plan," "Installing a rooftop array of solar panels large enough to to produce all the energy required by a building is the equivalent of prepaying an electric bill for the next seven to 10 years - and that's after federal and state incentives."

Some companies have come up with a solution: provide the panels free of charge, then bill the customer for power as it is used. Even though the consumer still has a monthly fee, solar power would be cheaper by the kilowatt-hour than grid-provided electricity as well as offering a negligible carbon footprint.

As SolarCity co-founder Peter Rive puts it, " This is a way to get solar without putting any money down and to start saving money from day one. That's a first."

SolarCity is the largest installer of household solar panels to undertake the system. They lease the panels to customers but there is no charge for the power produced. The overall effect is a highly reduced monthly bill because when the sun isn't out, customers still need utility-provided electricity. The total of the monthly lease and power bill is lower than a pre-panel power bill alone.

Berkeley and Boulder have taken similar strides. Using municipal bonds, they give out loans to residents who want to buy and install solar panels and the city is paid back over the course of 20 years via the homeowners property tax bill. This, again, still winds up costing less than a traditional utility bill.

Using Berkeley as a model, 10 states have already adopted similar programs even though the example is only two years old. And with the Waxman-Markey climate bill passing, the option for cities to do so would become federal law.

Although to current cost of solar panels is still high, it is dropping and forecasters predict grid parity within the next decade (meaning creating enough solar panels to energize the same amount of homes and businesses would cost the same as systems still in place).

But with fossil fuels increasing 3 to 5 percent a year over the last decade and the cost of solar panels falling by 20 percent each time its insulation base doubles, it seems it's only a matter of time before even the most conservative of homeowners will see the advantage of solar.

If you can't make them care about the environment, hit them in the spot they most certainly do care about: their wallet.

Houston petroleum plant sued for emissions

The Sierra Club and Environment Texas are taking the Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. to federal court in order to force it to reduce harmful emissions at its Cedar Bayou chemical plant in Baytown, according to the Houston Chronicle.

It's not unprecedented. In 2003, the groups sued Shell Oil and its Deerpark refinery and petrochemical complex. The company agreed to reduce emissions and paid $6 million for past violations of the Clean Air Act.

A spokesman for Chevron Phillips said that "the company is committed to complying with laws and has reduced emissions."

The violations primarily arise from events called "upsets." Upsets occur "during startup and shutdown, equipment malfunctions, unscheduled maintenance and other unforeseen events." According to the environmental groups, this has occurred hundreds of times over the last six years.

The groups say most of these upsets are preventable if measures are taken and proper technology is installed.

To be fair, this is probably not entirely true.

Situated on the Gulf Coast, the plant has often fallen victim to damage and power outages caused by hurricanes and other phenomena that are beyond the company's capability to control.

Part of the problem, says a representative of Environment Texas, is that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is not doing enough. They want the state to take a harder line.

The TCEQ has fined the company $250,000 since 2003.

The plaintiffs want to see them further penalized and forced to upgrade.

Unfortunately, tying up the courts seems to be the only way to address the issue, especially since Governor Rick Perry, in his infinite and greedy wisdom, has given the leadership of the TCEQ to Bryan W. Shaw, an industry stoolie who doubts the human contribution to climate change.

Gotta keep the oil lobbyists happy, right Goodhair?

Federal courts, however, are less easily bought and will probably fine Chevron Phillips, hopefully reducing the emission-causing upsets.

Houston workers rallying against climate change legislation

Today, thousands of workers in the energy industry are gathering at the Verizon Wireless Theater downtown at 12:30.

Story here.

These are not necessarily denialists; the organizers believe that the proposed emissions trading bill will negatively affect the economy by eliminating jobs in the fossil fuel industry. They are not, however, taking into account jobs that will be created by ramping up research and development in alternative energy fields.

Granted, the money required to do so is somewhat daunting, but once it is there, jobs will abound.

They also want to see nuclear pushed harder. I agree.

Another argument is that CO2 emissions won't be affected because developing countries are contributing far more to the output and any cutbacks the US makes will be negligible.

Well then, why not make it a cool, hip, American thing to be green? Asians delight in Coco-Cola, Levi's, McDonald's and whatever other ridiculous pop (and often unhealthy) fad we as Americans come up with, so why not set an example in the environmental category as well?

Europeans are kicking our butt in alternative energy but they also enjoy our fast food chains.

Between the EU and the US, leading by example may be the best way to get countries like India and China to literally clean up their acts.

What have we got to lose but industrial stagnation and dirty air?

Green jobs floundering, will recovery help?

Speculation is that hiring in the alternative energy industry will increase in the next 12 months but probably won't become a bigger part of the US job market. This is according to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis in an Associated Press story from the second National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas.

What is lacking is investment, which supporters hope to see increase over the next year. This will only happen, however, if people get back to work and pique interest in expanding. Sound like a Catch-22? Solis hopes not.

"There'll be more, hopefully, credit available for this expansion because there will be more confidence because that's what we're lacking right now - that investment and confidence in the market."

That's a big "hopefully."

Former veep Al Gore put in his two cents (of course) by saying: "The economic crisis, the security crisis and the climate crisis are all intertwined, and the common thread running through them is our absurd and dangerous overdependence on carbon-based fuels."

I have no problem with, nay I very much enjoyed and agree with An Inconvenient Truth, but such rhetoric is doing more to alienate potential supporters than it is winning them over.

But despite the above statement, venture capitalists increased investments by 73 percent in the last three months over the previous three (see the KBR blog below) according to Ernst & Young. However, this is far below investments from just a year ago.

Before government initiatives were announced last year, investments were at a record high. That was well before the recession's full impact was felt.

The big downside has been the loss of jobs in wind, solar and other alternative energy companies. Projects were scuttled when credit markets froze and venture capital dried up.

Investments have been slow in coming as those with money conduct research to make the "wisest possible investments."

Union leaders are calling for large federal public works projects due to the fact that commercial and new housing projects are virtually non-existent.

Time will tell, but with the economy in dire need of stimulation and increasing proof of human involvement in global warming, such projects are beyond needed.

That said, give me a job!

The 2009 Millenium Report

A rundown courtesy of ENN:

Millennium Project Report Issued on the Future of the World

A major report issued by the United Nations Millenium Project has just been released. It finds that half the world appears vulnerable to social instability and violence due to increasing and potentially prolonged unemployment from the recession as well as several longer-term issues: decreasing water, food, and energy supplies

per person; the cumulative effects of climate change; and increasing migrations due to political, environmental, and economic conditions. It also finds some good in the global financial crisis, which may be helping humanity to move from its often selfish, self-centered adolescence to a more globally responsible adulthood.

After 13 years of the Millennium Project’s global futures research, it is increasingly clear that the world has the resources to address its challenges. Coherence and direction has been lacking. But recent meetings of the U.S. and China, as well as of NATO and Russia, and the birth of the G-20 plus the continued work of the G-8 promise to improve global strategic collaboration. It remains to be seen if this spirit of cooperation can continue and if decisions will be made on the scale necessary to really address the global challenges discussed in this report.

Major Findings include:

• The vast majority of the world is living in peace, conflicts actually decreased over the past decade, cross-cultural dialogues are flourishing, and intra-state conflicts are increasingly being settled by international interventions.

• The world is beginning to wake up to the enormity of the threat of transnational organized crime.

• Freedom House’s 2009 survey found that democracy and freedom have declined for the third year in a row, and press freedoms declined for the seventh year in a row. It estimates that only 17% of the world’s population lives in 70 countries with a free press, while 42% lives in 64 countries that have no free press.

• Although government and business leaders are beginning to respond more seriously to the global environmental situation, it continues to get worse. Each day, the oceans absorb 30 million tons of CO2, increasing their acidity. The number of dead zones—areas with too little oxygen to support life—has doubled every decade since the 1960s. The oceans are warming about 50% faster than the IPCC reported in 2007. The amount of ice flowing out of Greenland during the summer of 2008 was nearly three times more than that lost during the previous year. Arctic summer ice could be gone by 2030, as could many of the major Himalayan, European, and Andean glaciers. Over 36 million hectares of primary forest are lost every year. Human consumption is 30% larger than nature’s capacity to regenerate, and demand on the planet has more than doubled over the past 45 years. This growth continues as, for example, more cars are expected to be produced in China in 2009 than in the U.S. or Japan.

• World energy demand could nearly double by 2030, with China and India accounting for over half of the increase. China uses more coal than the U.S., EU, and Japan combined, but it now has a policy to close an old coal plant
  
  for each new cleaner burning plant that turns coal into a gas before burning it. Without major policy and technological changes, fossil fuels will meet 80% of primary energy demand by 2030. If so, then large-scale carbon capture, storage, and/or reuse should become a top priority to reduce global climate change.

• In March 2009 an asteroid missed Earth by 77,000 kilometers, 80% closer to the planet than our moon is. If it had hit Earth, it would have wiped out all life on 800 square kilometers. No one knew it was coming. The time between its discovery and close approach was very short.

• Nearly 25% of humanity is connected to the Internet. There are more people using the Internet in China than the total population of the U.S. Mobile phones are becoming handheld computers. Humanity, the built environment, and ubiquitous computing seem destined to become so interconnected that collective intelligences with “just-in-time knowledge”� will emerge for improving civilization. With an increasingly educated world and the majority of humanity connected to the Internet over the next 20 years, new forms of political power may emerge, growing beyond the control of traditional hierarchical structures.

• The world’s population is 6.8 billion. It is expected to grow to 9.2 billion by 2050, but it could shrink by 2100, creating a world with many elderly people. Nearly all the population increases will be in developing countries; hence, today’s first world will be tomorrow’s elderly world.

• Infectious diseases are the second leading cause of death worldwide. About half the people in the world are at risk of several endemic diseases. More than 42 million people are living with HIV/AIDS, and 74% of these infected people live in sub-Saharan Africa. For the first time in 40 years, WHO declared a pandemic: the H1N1 influenza (swine flu) rapidly infected 60,000 people in nearly half the countries of the world, resulting in 263 deaths between April and June 2009.

The Millennium Project also explored future possible outcomes using its Real-Time Delphi online software. The RTD is a relatively new and efficient method for collecting and synthesizing expert opinions. According to the report, the value of futures research is less in forecasting accuracy than in focusing attention, planning, and opening minds to consider new possibilities and in changing the policy agenda. The goal is not to know the future precisely (how could that be possible?) but to understand a range of possibilities that lead to better decisions.

For More on this important report: http://www.millennium-project.org/millennium/sof2009.html

Cash for Clunker Kerfluffle

The idea is sound, but the execution seems lacking.

From Yahoo!News:

By KEN THOMAS, Associated Press Writer Ken Thomas, Associated Press Writer – Fri Jul 31, 4:15 pm ET

WASHINGTON – The House has voted to rush an additional $2 billion into the popular but financially strapped "cash for clunkers" car purchase program.

The bill was approved on a vote of 316-109. House members acted within hours of learning from Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood that the program was running out of money.

Called the Car Allowance Rebate System, or CARS, the program is designed to help the economy and the environment by spurring new car sales. Car owners can receive federal subsidies of up to $4,500 for trading in their old cars for new ones that achieve significantly higher gas mileage.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said the new money for the program would come from funds approved earlier in the year as part of an economic stimulus bill.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House rushed Friday to pump $2 billion into a popular cash-for-clunkers program running near empty, with a leading Democrat saying "consumers have spoken with their wallets."

A floor vote was under way at midday on the bill to refuel the car-purchase program. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer had said earlier that the additional money would come from funds Congress approved earlier in the year as part of a $787 billion economic stimulus bill.

Hoyer, D-Md., said that at the request of House Republicans — whose approval was required for swift passage — the bill would include provisions for government auditors to make sure the money was being spent as intended.

Republicans argued that Democrats were trying to jam the legislation through.

House Minority Leader John Boehner said it was unclear how many Republicans would support on the plan.

"There are a lot of questions about how the administration administered this program. If they can't handle something as simple as this, how would we handle health care?" the Ohio Republican told The Associated Press.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the cars purchased under the program were much more fuel-efficient than what the bill requires.

But some lawmakers complained that many dealers were left to contend with a chaotic government-run program.

"The federal government can't process a simple rebate. I've got dealers who have submitted the paperwork three times and have gotten three rejections," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich. "What is a dealer supposed to do?"

There had been a $1 billion budget for rebates for new car sales in the program that was officially launched last week and has been heavily publicized by automakers and dealers.

Called the Car Allowance Rebate System, or CARS, the program offers owners of old cars and trucks $3,500 or $4,500 toward a new, more fuel-efficient vehicle, in exchange for scrapping their old vehicle. Congress last month approved the plan to boost auto sales and remove some inefficient cars and trucks from the roads.

The Senate was not scheduled to vote on Friday but lawmakers hoped to win approval for additional funding next week.

Senate action is likely next week, making sure the program would not be affected by the sudden shortage of cash.

"Consumers have spoken with their wallets and they've said they like this program," said Rep. David Obey, D-Wis.

House members acted within hours of learning from Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood that the program — designed to help the economy as well as the environment — was out of funds. Under the program, car owners can receive federal subsidies of as much as $4,500 if they trade in their old car for a new one that achieves significantly higher gas mileage.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said the administration assured lawmakers that "deals will be honored until otherwise noted by the White House." But he suggested that "people ought to get in and buy their cars."

At the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs sought to assure consumers that the program is still running and will be alive "this weekend. If you were planning on going to buy a car this weekend, using this program, this program continues to run."

Gibbs would not commit to any timeframe beyond that.

It was unclear how many cars had been sold under the program.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., said about 40,000 vehicle sales had been completed through the program but dealers estimated they were trying to complete transactions on another 200,000 vehicles, putting the amount of remaining funding in doubt.

John McEleney, chairman of the National Automobile Dealers Association, said many dealers have been confused about whether the program will be extended and for how long. Many had stopped offering the deals Thursday after word came out that the funds available for the refunds had been exhausted.

The clunkers program was set up to boost U.S. auto sales and help struggling automakers through the worst sales slump in more than a quarter-century. Sales for the first half of the year were down 35 percent from the same period in 2008, and analysts are predicting only a modest recovery during the second half of the year.

With so much uncertainty surrounding the program, North Palm Beach, Fla., dealer Earl Stewart said he planned to continue to sell cars under the program but would delay delivering the new vehicles and scrapping the trade-ins.

"It's been a total panic with my customers and my sales staff. We are running in one direction and then we are running in another direction," he said.

AP Business Writer Stephen Manning in Washington contributed to this report.

Worse, a lot of the cars that are eco-unfriendly are classics that would be better refurbished and made more fuel efficient than just destroyed. How about cash for conversion?

EU, US take measures to protect ecomonies from threats of non-emission stadard bearing developing countries

From Environmental News:

European nations are wary about a perceived trend in France and the United States to use international competition as a reason to back off on Carbon reduction pledges. They are concerned that carbon tariffs could be used to fend off competition from countries which have not committed to reducing emissions, in effect triggering a green trade war.

So far, France has been the only European Union member state to openly rally for the introduction of border measures to secure the competitiveness of European industry against emerging economies. It put the measure on the table in 2008 when the EU was immersed in discussions on a revision of its emissions trading scheme (EU ETS).

Since agreement was reached on the EU revised directive in December 2008, carbon tariffs largely disappeared from debates until the US floated the idea in a draft climate bill. In the EU, meanwhile, France is having difficulty finding allies to rally around the cause.

The EU is dealing with the competitiveness issue differently. It is granting free emissions "permits" to industries which might be tempted to relocate to areas with less stringent regulations, an effect dubbed 'carbon leakage'.

In a measure opposed by President Obama, the US House of Representatives inserted a provision in its draft climate bill that allows the US to impose a 'border adjustment' after 2020 on certain products from countries which do not limit their global warming emissions. The move was seen as a pre-emptive measure to tackle American firms' loss of competitiveness in the face of cheaper products flooding from countries without a carbon premium.

Obama has said: "At a time when the economy worldwide is still deep in recession and we've seen a significant drop in global trade, I think we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals".

Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), also criticised the draft legislation, warning that it would allow developing countries to tax US exports in return.

As EU environment ministers met informally last week to discuss Europe's position for international negotiations, the Swedish EU Presidency warned that hints of protective measures would block progress towards a global deal, which it said was already too slow.

Economy and environment: a boiled frog?

Paul Krugman uses the boiled frog analogy to comment on the economic and environmental policies that are not doing enough in his most recent column:

Is America on its way to becoming a boiled frog?

I’m referring, of course, to the proverbial frog that, placed in a pot of cold water that is gradually heated, never realizes the danger it’s in and is boiled alive. Real frogs will, in fact, jump out of the pot — but never mind. The hypothetical boiled frog is a useful metaphor for a very real problem: the difficulty of responding to disasters that creep up on you a bit at a time.

And creeping disasters are what we mostly face these days.

I started thinking about boiled frogs recently as I watched the depressing state of debate over both economic and environmental policy. These are both areas in which there is a substantial lag before policy actions have their full effect — a year or more in the case of the economy, decades in the case of the planet — yet in which it’s very hard to get people to do what it takes to head off a catastrophe foretold.

And right now, both the economic and the environmental frogs are sitting still while the water gets hotter.

Start with economics: last winter the economy was in acute crisis, with a replay of the Great Depression seeming all too possible. And there was a fairly strong policy response in the form of the Obama stimulus plan, even if that plan wasn’t as strong as some of us thought it should have been.

At this point, however, the acute crisis has given way to a much more insidious threat. Most economic forecasters now expect gross domestic product to start growing soon, if it hasn’t already. But all the signs point to a “jobless recovery”: on average, forecasters surveyed by The Wall Street Journal believe that the unemployment rate will keep rising into next year, and that it will be as high at the end of 2010 as it is now.

Now, it’s bad enough to be jobless for a few weeks; it’s much worse being unemployed for months or years. Yet that’s exactly what will happen to millions of Americans if the average forecast is right — which means that many of the unemployed will lose their savings, their homes and more.

To head off this outcome — and remember, this isn’t what economic Cassandras are saying; it’s the forecasting consensus — we’d need to get another round of fiscal stimulus under way very soon. But neither Congress nor, alas, the Obama administration is showing any inclination to act. Now that the free fall is over, all sense of urgency seems to have vanished.

This will probably change once the reality of the jobless recovery becomes all too apparent. But by then it will be too late to avoid a slow-motion human and social disaster.

Still, the boiled-frog problem on the economy is nothing compared with the problem of getting action on climate change.

Put it this way: if the consensus of the economic experts is grim, the consensus of the climate experts is utterly terrifying. At this point, the central forecast of leading climate models — not the worst-case scenario but the most likely outcome — is utter catastrophe, a rise in temperatures that will totally disrupt life as we know it, if we continue along our present path. How to head off that catastrophe should be the dominant policy issue of our time.

But it isn’t, because climate change is a creeping threat rather than an attention-grabbing crisis. The full dimensions of the catastrophe won’t be apparent for decades, perhaps generations. In fact, it will probably be many years before the upward trend in temperatures is so obvious to casual observers that it silences the skeptics. Unfortunately, if we wait to act until the climate crisis is that obvious, catastrophe will already have become inevitable.

And while a major environmental bill has passed the House, which was an amazing and inspiring political achievement, the bill fell well short of what the planet really needs — and despite this faces steep odds in the Senate.

What makes the apparent paralysis of policy especially alarming is that so little is happening when the political situation seems, on the surface, to be so favorable to action.

After all, supply-siders and climate-change-deniers no longer control the White House and key Congressional committees. Democrats have a popular president to lead them, a large majority in the House of Representatives and 60 votes in the Senate. And this isn’t the old Democratic majority, which was an awkward coalition between Northern liberals and Southern conservatives; this is, by historical standards, a relatively solid progressive bloc.

And let’s be clear: both the president and the party’s Congressional leadership understand the economic and environmental issues perfectly well. So if we can’t get action to head off disaster now, what would it take?

I don’t know the answer. And that’s why I keep thinking about boiling frogs.

UT Austin works toward energy independence for the state and the nation

UT Austin has established The Energy Institute, drawing together "researchers whose interests range from social policy to carbon sequestration," according to an article in today's Houston Chronicle.

Building upon its $100 million portfolio in energy research, the University of Texas at Austin is launching an ambitious initiative to promote energy independence in Texas and the rest of the country.

The Energy Institute, headed by Raymond Orbach, former undersecretary for science at the U.S. Department of Energy, will draw together researchers whose interests range from social policy to carbon sequestration.

“Texas is very rich in its energy resources and has lived off them beautifully for over a century,” Orbach said. “I wanted to see if we could assist the state in terms of its energy future … and the major issues facing the energy companies.”

Steven Leslie, provost and executive vice president at UT, said the institute — launched a few weeks ago and to be officially announced today — was the brainchild of faculty and department heads who wanted to pull together the sprawling range of energy interests on campus.

Orbach, who served at the Department of Energy from 2002 until January, officially starts work Aug. 1. His previous experience includes stints at several schools in the University of California system.

At UT, he will work with researchers from nearly every corner of the campus, including the law school, business school, liberal arts, architecture, engineering and science.

Gregory Fenves, dean of engineering at UT, said the timing is right, thanks to stimulus funding and federal initiatives to promote sustainable energy. “The theme is, how do we make this transition work for the United States and the world?” he said. “The transition is going to be decades long.”

But the prescription for energy independence will take more than new technology, Fenves said. “There is not going to be a technology silver bullet that will solve all our problems. Every approach has consequences. There are legal issues. Business model issues. Social issues.”

The oil companies and other major energy players also will be involved, Orbach said.

“These are very smart people, and they are well aware of what the future holds,” he said of increasing pressure to limit greenhouse gases and other industrial byproducts.

While the Institute is not solely dedicated to alternative energy, it is closely looking at ways to limit emissions and free us from petroleum dependence.

It's more than just a start.

It's a huge stride, especially in Texas, where the current governor seems only concerned with lining his own pocket and that of his cronies.

Exxon Mobil has found a way to get to heretofore unreachable natural gas

From the Houston Chronicle:

Going deep in the Rockies

At one time, even nuclear bombs couldn’t loosen ‘tight gas’ trapped in sandstone. Now Exxon Mobil says it has a way.

By KRISTEN HAYS
Copyright 2009 Houston Chonicle

July 11, 2009, 10:08PM

1 2 3

Johnny Hanson Chronicle

In search of natural gas in Colorado's Piceance Basin, Matt Harrington, with drilling contractor Helmerich & Payne, climbs a drill on the western slope of the Rocky Mountains last month.

Resources

RIFLE, Colo. — Oil and gas producers have known for decades that a massive bounty of natural gas lies beneath western Colorado's mountains. Getting at it, however, can be costly and complicated.

With a potential gain of 1 billion cubic feet per day of output from its leased land in the deepest part of the gas-rich Piceance Basin — which would be about 2 percent of all U.S. gas production — Exxon Mobil Corp. spent the last decade perfecting a way to drill less for more gas.

Now, the Irving-based behemoth is ramping up its Piceance project with more drilling and with new, largely automated gas gathering, treatment and monitoring facilities.

Armed with the financial heft to shrug off low natural gas prices that have prompted other Piceance producers to move out or slow down, Exxon Mobil is running seven rigs, five more than two years ago.

“Now that we have this level of rigs, we can drive down costs,” said Jim Branch, Exxon Mobil's Piceance Project executive.

The Piceance is a bowl-shaped underground basin that covers 6,000 square miles in five counties on both sides of the Colorado River.

Its allure isn't new. Southern Union Gas drilled the first well there in the mid-1950s.

The federal government exploded nuclear bombs underground there in the late 1960s and early 1970s, hoping to unleash natural gas and to demonstrate the bombs had peacetime uses. The explosions yielded no gas other than some of the radioactive kind, and public opposition squelched the blasts. So, Piceance activity was light until recent years, when technological advances caught up with the challenges of getting at so-called “tight gas” trapped in pockets of concrete-like sandstone in remote mountain areas.

Despite natural gas prices that have fallen below $3.50 per million British thermal units from last year's highs of $13, Exxon Mobil is banking on the Piceance for years to come. The company has leased about 300,000 acres of mostly federal land that Exxon Mobil says could contain 45 trillion cubic feet of gas. That's about twice the amount of gas consumed in the U.S. each year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

“That potential is huge,” said Fadel Gheit, an analyst with Oppenheimer & Co. “They are doing it in the methodical Exxon way. Exxon is very bullish on natural gas globally, not only in the U.S., and they are putting their money where their mouth is.”

‘Elegant ballet'

Exxon Mobil spent a decade tinkering with technology used to extract gas elsewhere to adapt it to the Piceance. The company came up with a way to drill deep, then blast holes in the pipe next to pockets of gas. A mixture of chemicals and water shoot into the well at high pressure to crack open the rock, while sand that's mixed in holds the fissure open so gas can flow.

The process involves repeated fractures in up to 50 zones that contain gas pockets on the way back up the well, like opening an elevator door on various floors, to maximize gas flowing from each well.

“We use the term ‘elegant ballet' because we can actually do multiple wells now,” Branch said. “The key to improving the cost is to keep this equipment working constantly.”

That process, combined with directional drilling that deviates from a straight vertical line, means Exxon Mobil can drill up to 20 wells per site. That translates to fewer rigs sharing space with the basin's mountains, pinyon pines, sagebrush and grazing cattle.

The company says the method dramatically cuts operational costs. Exxon Mobil won't disclose the Piceance project costs, except to say that it's part of the company's plan to spend $125 billion on projects over five years, including $29 billion this year.

Exxon Mobil is among many producers in the Piceance. Others include EnCana, Williams, XTO Energy and Chevron.

Williams tried Exxon Mobil's technology in 2006 but found no cost benefits above what the company was already doing, spokesman Jeff Pounds said.

Exxon Mobil began increasing its Piceance presence two years ago. At the peak of construction, 600 workers were on the payroll. Now, about 60 employees run the operations, mostly from a control center, while contractors do the heavy lifting with drilling and seismic imaging.

Falling gas prices

Work in the area has slowed since natural gas prices dropped.

“We had 105 rigs in the basin last year; now, there are 25,” said Shawn Brennan, manager of Houston-based Enterprise Products Partners' new gas treating plant in the basin.

Besides moving gas, Brennan said, the company's Piceance operations extract up to 70,000 barrels a day of natural gas liquids, such as propane, butane and ethane, which can be sold outright or used in processing at refineries and chemical plants.

“That's a lot of diversity to weather the markets as they are now,” he said.

Exxon Mobil faced some lingering ill will when establishing its gas operations. In the early 1980s, the company had a major oil shale operation in the Piceance. That decade's oil bust prompted an abrupt pullout, throwing the Rifle-area economy into a tailspin for years.

To make itself more welcome, the company donated $500,000 to help pay for a new helicopter ambulance pad at a hospital in Grand Junction.

Co-existing

Other community service outreach efforts include an academy for math and science teachers in area public schools and an annual sheepdog championship competition.

“We were certainly mindful of that history,” Branch said. “I know there is some legacy there, but it has not complicated our work here.”

For the ranchers in the Piceance, it's sometimes a challenge to co-exist.

Exxon Mobil and some other producers try to limit traffic by busing workers in to work and having them live on site for 14 days, like offshore crews. The companies replant grass and trees after clearing right of way for pipelines, and cattle guards prevent free-roaming livestock from wandering too close to plants.

Larry Robinson, 63, a third-generation rancher, said he sees evidence of environmental sensitivity, but there's no way to pretend the producers aren't there.

“The solitude's gone, and we're getting more and more wells and more and more pipelines, more and more compressors,” Robinson said. “It isn't like it used to be for us, and I don't think it will ever be the same.”

Thomas Friedman on E.T. China

On Independence Day, Thomas Friedman explained why the U.S. needs to up research into E.T. (that's energy technology, not the cute little guy that phoned home).

In his column, he states, "this energy thing isn't just about global warming. In a world that is adding one billion people every 15 years or so — more and more of whom will be able to live high-energy-consuming lifestyles — the demands for energy and natural resources are going to go through the roof. Therefore, E.T. — energy technologies that produce clean power and energy efficiency — is going to be the next great global industry, and China needs to be on board. Well, China has gotten on board — big-time. Now I am worried that China will, dare I say, “clean our clock” in E.T."

Although China was once (and in many ways, still is) one of the dirtiest countries in the world environmentally speaking, "[it] is increasingly finding that it has to go green out of necessity because in too many places, its people can’t breathe, fish, swim, drive or even see because of pollution and climate change."

In preparation for the 2008 Olympics, Beijing required an enormous overhaul because the air was worse then L.A. on a bad smog day and countries were worried about the health of their athletes and the long-term effects the atmosphere of the city may have had on them.

But China is working it and working it hard. In a list compiled by the investment bank Lazard, China is third in alternative energy manufacturing and production behind #1 Japan and #2 Europe. The U.S. places fourth.

So what, one might say. Obama has put the energy bill on the back burner and focused most the administration's energy on health care. While this is an important subject and one that has been a major issue in elections and administrations throughout this century and the last, Friedman says that the energy bill needs more attention and needs it now.

"If we do not impose on ourselves the necessity to drive innovation in clean-technology — by imposing the right prices on carbon emissions and the right regulations to promote energy efficiency — we will be laggards in the next great global industry," he states.

But he is not poo-pooing the need for health care reform.

He puts it in no uncertain terms:

"Health care and the energy/climate bill go together. We need both now. Imagine how poor we would be today if U.S. firms did not dominate the top 10 Internet companies. Well, if we don’t dominate the top 10 E.T. rankings, there is no way we are going to be able to afford decent health care for every American. No way."

Makes sense, no?

Skyscrapers and historical buildings going Green

While I have often admonished greed in this blog, sometimes financial motivation can lead to Green improvements.

Many iconic American buildings, including the Empire State Building, the Sears Tower in Chicago and the Christman Building in Lansing, Mich. (an 81-year-old Elizabethan Revival office that's listed on the National Register of Historic Places) have all modified their energy consumption.

This is primarily due to the fact that "Many high-profile tenants won't even consider moving into a property without the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification, said Allan Skodowski with Transwestern management group. They may not even know what the certification means, he said, but they demand it nonetheless," according to an article in today's Yahoo! News.

The renovations include:

- The Empire State Building has "blanket[ed] its towering facade this year with thousands of insulating windows."

- Many older buildings are plugging porous walls, adding high tech water systems and using recycled material in carpets and tile.

- Making use of long-life, high-efficiency light bulbs.

- At the Christman Building, the limestone exterior was repaired and unique details like the mica light fixtures were preserved, but "the building owners spent $8.5 million to add water-efficient plumbing and increased the amount of natural light. They also capped the building with a reflective "cool" roof."

- And "Chicago's Sears Tower announced late last month that it will embark on a five-year, $350 million green renovation. The 110-story, staggered skyscraper, which turned 36 this year, will crown its rooftops with solar panels, wind turbines and up to 35,000 square feet of sunlight-absorbing gardens."

While the motivation may be to lure tenants to the dozens of empty offices in these buildings, the outcome is energy saving and relies less on municipal energy, much of which is furnished by dirty coal power plants.

Who says capitalism and environmentalism can't scratch each others' backs?

Toyota Center goes green thanks to Rice student

Carin Giga, a Rice MBA grad student, is interning at the Toyota Center this summer as part of the Environmental Defense Fund's 10-week Climate Corps program. Not only is this good for the environment but for the companies as well, saving $40,000 per 50,000 square feet of office space annually.

The Houston Chronicle ran an interview with Ms. Giga Saturday.

Among some of the strategies:

- Reuse water for mechanical equipment that uses it or use it for irrigation

- Encourage employees to turn off computers and lights when leaving for the day.

- Make use of daylight rather than artificial illumination.

- Make use of occupancy sensors so lights are only on when someone is present and turn themselves off immediately upon exit.

- Kick the thermostat up a mere one or two degrees (or down in colder weather).

- Turn climate control off in unoccupied areas.

Much of this seems like common sense but apparently it takes an MBA candidate to implement such policies.

What does the climate bill mean?

The Associated Press' Dina Cappiello and Eric Carvin have given readers a brief overview of what cap-and-trade, offsets and pollution credits actually mean. Rather than re-word it here, I direct you to the Houston Chronicle's site:

Questions and answers about the US climate bill

Tomorrow, a rundown of a New Yorker article about James Hanson, NASA's climate expert and a scientist that predicted the current warming trends over 30 years ago, starting when he working on his Ph.D. in physics at the University of Iowa. His dissertation? The atmosphere of Venus. (Hint: it's primarily CO2 and HOT! - even hotter than its proximity to the sun would explain and a prime example of the greenhouse effect.)

It's a couple years old now....

but I wrote this for a UT Libertarian magazine in 2007. It was in the wake of Molly Ivins' death and was meant to capture her spirit but it addresses the theme of this blog:

He actually said it.

During January’s State of the Union address, the current president of the United States [George H.W. Bush] actually admitted that the doomsayers, dirty stinking hippies and celebrity pundits may just be right about this whole crazy global warming thing. After years of denying statistics, the administration is finally opening its eyes to the signs of climate change.

The [then] president stated goals that included cutting oil consumption by a fifth by 2017, which would reduce our independence on foreign oil by a projected 75%. The math seems a little wonky to me, but I ain’t no economist, so I’ll take it at face value.

Ignoring ambiguity, the proclamation does make sense. After all, most major oil companies have begun extensive research into alternative energy, so as the titular head of both the country and the oil community, the [then] current president of the United States was sure to follow.

Such was not always the case, however. In a [not so] recent report to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, it was alleged that pressure had been placed on scientists to avoid apparently loaded phrases like “global warming” and “climate change” when reporting findings.

Democratic Party Chairman, Howard “Scrappy” Dean, went so far as to accuse the current administration of “bullying scientists” on CNN’s “Situation Room”.

So, until [not so] recently, the administration wanted, sometimes forced, scientists to lie to Americans and the world. Over 150 countries have signed the Kyoto Protocol, a United Nations sponsored agreement designed to reduce fossil fuel emissions to their pre-1990 levels. The US signed the accord, but did not ratify it.

The worst part of it is, the decision to fly in the face of facts had nothing to do with public safety - it wasn’t a safeguard against mass hysteria. They just wanted America to keep consuming.

This isn’t the first time a scientist’s findings have been suppressed by the arrogant and power-mad to protect their power. Nicolaus Copernicus was branded a heretic in the 16th century for making the blasphemous assertion that the Earth was not the center of the known universe.

Such hubris was not unheard of; he wasn’t the first person to make this claim. Normally one who did so would be punished forthwith and severely, but Copernicus came from a good enough family that he was somewhat protected and even enjoyed readership by Catholic luminaries until it caused dissension.

He died, disgraced among students and friends before seeing the final edition of his works published.

Even though the Church recognized the validity of Copernicus’s claims, to make them public would mean admitting it was wrong. How, after hundreds of years, could the Pontiff approach the flock and say, “Well, actually, we were wrong about being the center of the universe, but everything else we say is right on”?

However, the Church knew that sooner or later someone with one of those new-fangled telescopes would wise up, so it changed its tune.

Fortunately, the only real crisis the Church was facing then was one of pride.

Unfortunately, the crisis we are facing now is more material than that.

In March 2002, a chunk of ice the size of Rhode Island broke off the Thwaite Glacier in Antarctica and melted into the sea. Since there were no reports of mass amounts of whiskey introduced to the aquatic segment of the ecosphere, I would assume heat was the cause. Yet nothing was done to minimize consumption.

Granted, Antarctica is far from a vacation spot and barely qualifies for extended research visits, so one may be tempted to ask, “Who cares?”

Well, probable penguin protesters aside, what about Greenland? Earth’s northernmost independent landmass worth mention is shedding its icy shield like gran’ma and her panties under the spell of Wayne Newton. That must be heat, ‘cuz there ain’t no Caesar’s in Greenland.

Not yet.

I don’t think.

Although I hold the secret hypothesis that an ice castle in Greenland belonging to a major player in the current administration melted and ruined all her fun [that would be Condee], the fact of the matter is that oil reserves are dwindling. That, I’m sure, was the big wake up call for the current executive branch.

Just as the Catholic church was forced to change its dogma in the face of advancing scientific knowledge in order to save its mug from blistering in the shifting winds of public opinion and an increasingly hostile Mother Nature, this [then] administration had no choice but to call for a decrease in fossil fuel consumption.

It may a case of too little, too late, however. Even if all the accords of the Kyoto Protocol are met and Americans begin walking to the corner store today, scientists estimate that sea levels will rise 7-23 inches by the end of this century.

Well, it’s about time you woke up, sleepyheads. Sorry, the coffee is cold and stale. Me, I’m going out to buy some beachfront property just south of College Station.

[Unfortunately, nothing was ever really done by said administration and this one seems flummoxed by political wrangling.]

It's begun

The House of Representatives narrowly passed an energy and climate change bill designed to revamp the nation's industrial economy.

But it barely passed by a vote of 219-212, which does not bode well for the fate of the bill in the senate where it is expected to undergo changes and rewrites. Even with Democrats holding the majority vote, 44 of them voted against the bill, although only three Texas dems voted against it.

Going back to what I said about pawns of the petroleum industry, Texas Republicans called the bill a "'monstrosity' that would result in 'epic job losses' and 'largest tax increase in history'," according to an article in the June 27th Houston Chronicle. To those and their ilk, I refer them to yesterday's column about cap-and-trade that distinguishes between cost and price.

Rep. Gene Green, D-Houston, on the other hand stated that the result "is a reasonable first step to protecting our energy infrasructure and keeping good-paying jobs here at home." This seems more consistent with the projections of non-partisan experts.

Only time, of course, will tell. But here's to hoping the Democrats and the experts are right.

Grassoline

Now this is pretty @#*!ing cool.

In the July 2009 issue of Scientific American, the cover story explores the already-tested practice of using second generation bio-fuels (ethanol would be considered first generation) made from the inedible parts of plants like corn stalks, scrap wood (including sawdust) and plants like switchgrass (which grows in sandy, low water areas that are not suited to agriculture) to create viable bio-fuels.

By using heat or chemical processes to break down cellulose, the plant waste can be converted into fuels such as bio-diesel, reducing our dependence on foreign (and declining domestic) oil without reducing the amount of biomass for food (a problem with ethanol, which is primarily made from corn).

This "scrap" biomass has the potential to produce more than 100 billion gallons of grassoline per annum - "about half the current annual consumption of gasoline and diesel in the U.S."

In addition this biomass can be converted into a vast array of fuel - "ethanol, ordinary gasoline, diesel, even jet fuel."

As a bonus, some plants "such as the short-rotation willow coppice, will decontaminate soil that has been polluted with wastewater or heavy meatals as it grows." This means that not only will carbon emissions be reduced (bio-fuels burn cleaner than petroleum based propellents), but damaged land can eventually be restored to an agriculturally sound state.

And while one of the by-products of the rendering process is CO2, the emissions are negligible in comparison to the burning of fossil fuels. Plus, agriculture jobs could be created in areas of the country where they did not exist before.

Win, win, win, win and WIN again.

Cap and trade

In a June 26th column in the Houston Chronicle, Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund and Andrew M. Liveris, CEO and Chairman of the Board of the Dow Chemical Company lay out the benefits of such a policy.

Cap-and-trade is a free market way of ensuring environmentally and economically sound ways of reducing our dependence on carbon-emitting fuels while allowing companies to continue their business almost as usual. Companies are given carbon credits.

The column explains it thus:

"Companies that are under their emission targets can sell their allowances on a new carbon market. Companies that cannot meet their targets can buy extra allowances from the same carbon market. Cap-and-trade uses the efficiency of the marketplace to drive innovation, creating new carbon-reducing technologies at the lowest possible cost."

When acid rain became a true menace in the '80s, the Clean Air Act was instituted and "the cap-and-trade approach reduced emissions faster, and more cheaply, than anyone predicted. Under cap and trade, government doesn’t pick winners and losers — private markets do that job."

The tag team columnists go on to say, "This is how it should be."

For those who argue that this could be crippling to the economy, especially in its current state, the pair clarify:

"Opponents claim that this bill will result in higher energy costs. They are confusing price with cost. Although this legislation will lead to modestly higher energy prices, this, in turn, will lead to greater energy efficiency and new, cleaner energy technologies. This will, in all likelihood, result in lower overall energy costs. A true win, win, win — lower energy costs, greater energy security and fewer carbon emissions!"

Not only that, but the policy has the potential of creating new jobs in the lagging manufacturing industry.

"A single wind turbine, for example, contains 250 tons of steel and 8,000 parts, from ball bearings and electronic controls to gearboxes. Jobs manufacturing those parts can be created right here in America, especially in our manufacturing heartland, the Midwest. Ohio has lost more than 213,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000. For Michigan, the figure is almost 497,000 jobs lost. One way to jump-start our economy is with a cap-and-trade bill."

Another win, making it a win, win, win, WIN situation.

And keep in mind, one of the co-authors is the head of Dow Chemical, a company not exactly renowned for its environmental and social responsibility.

Wake up, America!

Thomas Friedman has it right on (almost)

In his June 24th column, three time Pulitzer winner Thomas Friedman of the New York Times suggests that the "Green Revolution" in Iran could be best supported by a Green Revolution in the western world, particularly the US.

His column, titled The Green Revolution(s), states simply and directly that the student- and reformer-led revolution in the divided country would have the best support from the west if we would only lessen our dependence on foreign oil.

Despite our protestations of the treatment of his people, Jews, foreigners and anyone else not falling into the conservative Islamic line, the theologically backed Ahmadinejad's arrogant anti-western stance is only fueled by the fact that we need Iranian oil more than the Iranians need anything from us.

He proposes a $1 "Freedom Tax" on gasoline (with "rebates for the poor and elderly") that would have a three-fold effect:

"It would stimulate more investment in renewable energy now; it would stimulate more consumer demand for the energy-efficient vehicles that the reborn General Motors and Chrysler are supposed to make; and, it would reduce our oil imports in a way that would surely affect the global price and weaken every petro-dictator," he writes.

This is all well and good but there is one Leviathan-sized caveat that I can see: the current economy.

If Obama - who, in my humble opinion is doing the best he can with the huge pile of dinosaur dung that the Bush administration left him - even so much as proposed such a tax, the lynch mobs in front of the White House would not be far behind.

Some auto manufacturers are offering incentives and deals on hybrids and fuel effiecient vehicles (as well as not so efficient) and at this point, that's really all they can do.

While I agree with Friedman's assessment that reducing our dependency on foreign oil would pull the rug out from under said "petro-dictators", such a proposed tax is utterly unfeasible in this beleaguered economy.

Not everyone makes the kind of money a prize-winning NYT columnist pulls down.

It's like I've always said:

Idealism is great but usually falls only within the demesne of the weak and the rich. Those living paycheck to paycheck, the un- and underemployed simply cannot afford such lofty Utopian goals. Not now. But they (we as I'm among the jobless currently) CAN do something: use public transportation, walk to the corner store, use our bikes for short trips and do anything else to reduce our carbon footprint.

That said, Ahmadinejad is the truly evil one and, to quote Cpl. Maxwell Klinger of M*A*S*H, may the fleas of a thousand camels nest in his armpits.

And may the ghost of Neda Agha-Soltan haunt him in both this life and the next.