Happy Earth Day!

This reminds me of a scene from “The Inconvenient Truth” where Gore points to a 90′s poster that has the earth on one scale of the balance and gold bullions on the other. China now gets the pick, and if any of them have at least half an ounce gray matter up there, they will chose a policy unlike that of our beloved Bush’s administration!

His argument below:

It is mathematically impossible that peak oil will solve climate change.

Although oil is the biggest single source of energy-related greenhouse gases, coal and gas combined are bigger still, and the expected growth in their emissions would overwhelm any reduction from oil.

As I demonstrate in The Last Oil Shock using the International Energy Agency’s “business-as-usual” forecast, even if oil production peaks in 2010 and immediately starts to fall at 3% a year, total emissions would still rise by 25%, reaching 32 billion tonnes in 2030.

Yet by that time, we need to be well on the way to at least a 60% cut in emissions.

In fact peak oil could even make emissions worse if it drives us to exploit the wrong kinds of fuel.

Burning rainforest and peatlands to create palm oil plantations for biofuels releases vast amounts of CO2, and has already made Indonesia, according to some ways of calculating it, the world’s third biggest emitter after the US and China.

Synthetic transport fuels made from natural gas using the Fischer-Tropsch process emit even more carbon on a well-to-wheels basis than conventional crude; and when the feedstock is coal, the emissions double.

None of these alternatives are likely to fill the gap left by conventional crude – at least, not in time.

But because they are so much more carbon intensive, it is quite easy to conjure scenarios in which we still suffer fuel shortages while emitting even more CO2 than in the current business-as-usual forecast – the worst of all possible worlds.

One common sense solution left out of his equation is the use of electricity, which is not all the time, generated using coal or Uranium. Solar, wind and tidal conversion if implemented can and should be able to generate the required capacity to power our planet. If only we are able to overcome our resistance to change and the relentless pursuit of bigger and more polluting lifestyle.

SCOTT JAGOW: In the State of the Union, President Bush said he wanted to mandate the use of certain gasoline alternatives like ethanol and force higher fuel economy standards for cars. I called up our economics correspondent Chris Farrell to get his thoughts on the Bush energy plan. In a nutshell, good intentions but the wrong approach.

CHRIS FARRELL: Do you really think that the government is in the best position to determine that ethanol is the right alternative fuel? What I would much rather see, what I would have really liked to have seen, now it would have been a moment, but if the President had said, ‘you know what, I’m going to join the Pigou Club. . .’

JAGOW: Come again? The Pigou Club?

FARRELL: The Pigou Club. Now this was started by Greg Mankiw and he was the former head of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Bush. He’s an economist at Harvard University. Pigouvian taxes are taxes that you impose when there’s a market failure. So the classic example are sin taxes, a tax on cigarettes as a way of discouraging people from smoking. Well he started the Pigou Club. A lot of economists have joined it. And all it says is ‘look, let’s just raise the gas tax and then let the market decide.’ If Scott wants to drive a fuel-efficient car and you raise the gas tax, there’s gonna be a lot of fuel-efficient cars out there. If Chris wants to drive a gas-guzzler, hey guess what, there’ll be gas-guzzlers available, I’m just gonna have to pay for it.

JAGOW: Wait, so Chris you’re telling me mandating certain things like ethanol use is a bad thing, but imposing a gas tax is a good thing? What’s the difference?

FARRELL: Only thing the government’s doing is saying, ‘there are some really bad effects from our lack of energy independence and our dependence on foreign oil.’ If you impose a broad-based tax, so you raise the cost, and then you unleash the wisdom of the market. You unleash the entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley. You know, they’re finding all kinds of new technologies. We don’t know if it’s ethanol, biomass, let’s just raise the price. It’s really, what’s the best way to encourage innovation. That’s really the issue.

JAGOW: OK let’s say you’re right and that a gas tax is the way to go . . .

FARRELL: A little skepticism there but OK, I’ll take it.

JAGOW: Just a healthy skepticism. Now just saying the word “tax,” if you’re running for President or if you are President or I mean who’s gonna buy this?

FARRELL: You’re absolutely right. What I would argue, if you package a gas tax, not only as part of energy security but part of attacking global warming and leading toward a more sustainable environment, there are ways that you can manipulate this situation so that the word “tax” doesn’t quite have the negative connotations which you have rightly raised. And it’s more like environmentally-conscious, attacking global warming . . .

JAGOW: OK Chris, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

FARRELL: Thanks a lot Scott.

JAGOW: Chris Farrell is the Marketplace economics correspondent.

Visit: Pigou Club

This is not just a great concept but something I personally urge everyone try, this in a way is the democratic back channel process that not only predicts potential outcome, but also help those in policy making steer key legislation to make it favorable to the collective for a change.

When a gallon of gas was at $3, viable alternatives was the buzz word, from Venture Capitalists to wannabe inventors, everyone wanted a piece of the fuel pie. Technologies that are long been ignored got some well-deserved attention, not anymore though. Gas it at $2 a gallon and sounds like a bargain to those painfully paid over $50 to fill their tanks.

So how does it make the oil companies winners, for one, they made record profits this past year. And by simply dropping the price of gasoline to a point where consumer feel more comfortable filling up, they have managed to curb much needed research funding to investigate alternative fuels.

If this sounds like a note from a conspiracy theory channel, here are some facts.

1) The increase in price although unreasonable can not be considered illegal as it happened in a non-emergency situation (post-Katrina)

2) Here’s the cost profile for the past year and half:

• A barrel of crude was around $24 prior to Kartina, a gallon of gas cost around $1.60.
• A barrel of crude post-Katrina soared up to $70, and cost per gallon shot up to $3.07. Although the big oil blamed this squarely on OPEC, it does not explain the supply-demand aspects completely. The OPEC claims that China and India are burdening the demands, which in the ideal world would result in less than normal available gasoline (supply), supply being inversely proportional to demand, which is the one of two reason why gasoline could cost more. Americans consumed the same or more gasoline this year as compared to the same period last year, meaning, there was no short supply. Alternatively, the demand was met with increased production, in which case the cost of per-barrel is explained, but not point 3 below.
• Now a barrel of crude costs around $60, and gasoline costs around $2/gallon. So either the production of gasoline has gone up (in which case the cost should drop significantly, bringing the costs below pre-Katrina levels) or the demand has dropped (in spite of approaching what is to be a cold winter)

And of course,

3) Exxon Mobil recorded $340 billion with a “B” profits this past year, Chevron made $190 billion, ConocoPhillips $166 billion.

If $3 is the price we pay to pave the path for a cleaner and more sustainable energy source, we should embrace it and as you fill up realize that your money might be fattening the pockets of big oil, at the same time opening up doors for cash inflow to alternative technologies. Ah, I miss the $3 gas.

 

Heard this on Radio. Nevada is going high tech with renewable energy. Read/listen to the story here. 

Read the story >>

Ethanol Turned Into Food-Grade Alcohol

August 29, 2006 — By Amy Lorentzen, Associated Press

AMES, Iowa — Now that ethanol has become common in gas tanks, two Iowa State University professors are working to get it into martini glasses.

The professors are researching how to easily, and cheaply, turn fuel ethanol into food-grade alcohol to be used in beverages, pharmaceuticals and personal care products.

“We will be taking relatively abundant and cheap fuel ethanol, and for a very small amount (of money) adding a lot of value to it,” said Jacek Koziel, an assistant professor of agricultural and biosystems engineering.

He said the research is focused on perfecting technologies that purify fuel ethanol, a grain alcohol most often made from corn and used as a gasoline additive. Like beverage alcohol, fuel ethanol is yeast-fermented and then distilled. However, it has many more impurities that must be removed, Koziel said.

“We are trying to fine tune, so to speak, the process of alcohol purification,” he said.

Why find another use for ethanol at a time when demand for the fuel has skyrocketed?

Because while the demand for fuel ethanol could wane if the automotive industry embraces other technology, “the demand for liquor and mouthwashes and cough syrups will always be there,” said Hans van Leeuwen, a civil, construction and environmental engineering professor who is working with Koziel on the project

“We’re really just looking at a process improvement here that will save a lot of money,” said van Leeuwen, who also serves as vice president of Cedar Rapids-based MellO3z, a company that has created a process for purifying alcoholic beverages.

Monte Shaw, a spokesman for the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, said the future of food-grade alcohol produced from fuel ethanol depends on its profitability. Right now, ethanol used in gasoline blends is in demand, but as more plants are built and production climbs, producers could take advantage of extra capacity and turn food-grade ethanol into a premium business, he said.

“So today that interest probably isn’t as high, but we’ve got a lot of production coming on line,” Shaw said Thursday as he drove to a groundbreaking of a new ethanol plant in St. Ansgar, Iowa. “It’s not unreasonable to assume some time in the future that something like this might be very attractive.”

Preliminary work on the effort began last year, and the 1 1/2-year project — which uses ozone gas and a carbon filtration process — was recently launched. Funding comes from a $79,900 grant from the state’s Grow Iowa Values Fund, with matching dollars and materials from industry sponsors and experts.

Iowa, the nation’s top corn grower, has become a leader in the ethanol industry with 25 plants producing about 1.6 billion gallons this year and another eight plants under construction or expansion, according to the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association.

The key to the effort is price.

Van Leeuwen said the multiple distillations needed to make food-grade alcohol raise production costs by about 50 cents per gallon more than it costs to make ethanol. The system the ISU team is working on aims to put purifying costs at less than a penny per gallon, he said, adding that retrofitting the purification process would cost little for ethanol plants.

“It’s the type of thing that will pay for itself over and over within a year,” van Leeuwen said.

Koziel said there are many potential applications for the product.

“It’s not just necessarily the consumer of liquor-type alcohol” who benefits, he said. “It could be used for all sorts of other consumer products … everywhere where food-grade alcohol could be put to use.”

But for those who like their liquor, van Leeuwen said the food-grade ethanol “tastes just like vodka,” although the 190-proof product must be diluted. He said he’s hosted one tasting panel with positive results, and plans another after further research.

The ISU scientists are using two purification technologies for their system. The first part involves bubbling ozone gas through the fuel ethanol to remove impurities and to form new compounds, which are then filtered through granular-activated carbon to absorb remaining impurities.

A patent for the process is pending.

Van Leeuwen said he’s used the process to treat wastewater with success, and expects fine results for food-grade alcohol.

“I have little doubt that it will work,” he said.

Source: ENN

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) during the Clinton administration tried closing this loophole by enforcing a long-ignored provision of the act, that requires plants to install advanced pollution controls if they modify or expand their plant. But changes on such large-scale does not happen overnight and plants across America to this day, continue to pollute the air with sulfur dioxide (over 70 percent of all coal-fired plants lacking sulfur reducing scrubbers), nitrogen oxide (over 90 percent of them lack equipment to contain nitrogen oxide) and suspended particulate matter (practically all plants lack suspended particulate removal capability), resulting in tens of thousands dying early due to lung and heart ailment and thousands more suffer from asthma.

This severe lack of regulation and foresight is indicative of the administration in office, although the US EPA claims to be an autonomous body, they are heavily politicized and influenced by the Whitehouse. During President Bush’s first term, the administration tried to lax regulations in favor of the industry and to this day refuses to ratify (other) significant anti-pollution initiatives like the Kyoto Protocol to curb (carbon dioxide) emission.

The regulation as it stands poses a challenge to our fundamental rights to access clean air. Unless the Clean Air Act cleans up it’s act, we are headed for a painfully long and smoggy future.

Picture Courtesy: alexvisani.com

Prime Minister Blair met with California Terminator Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), and signed a pact that makes the United Kingdom and the state of California partners in the battle against global warming. The agreement among other things will include sharing of research resources and technologies.

Shortly after the signing, Prime Minister Blair said “We are at least on our way to putting in place the framework that will resolve this problem,” he continued, “We know that the answers to this [climate change] will come in the end by the development of the right science and technology.”

California is the 12th largest emitter of carbon in the world despite leading the nation in energy efficiency standards and lead role in protecting its environment. According to a press release on CA.gov, California‘s climate change initiative will include:

1) Evaluate and implement market-based mechanisms that spur innovation that will better enable the carbon market(s) to accelerate the transition to a low carbon economy.

2) Deepen understanding of the economics of climate change.

3) Collaborate on technology research.

4) Enhance linkages between scientific communities in the UK and California.

Speaking at the signing, Gov. Schwarzenegger said, “California will not wait for our federal government to take strong action on global warming.”

If nothing, this change in the attitude of Schwarzenegger is evident that individual state governments can differ from partisan politics and emphasize the value of our environment. Hope this sets precedence for other states to follow.

Source: http://gov.ca.gov/

Originally posted on http://www.headsetoptions.org/

 

Tags: News, Global Warming, Activism, Conserve, Carbon, weather, Environment, Economics, politics, greenhouse, Air Pollution, Energy, Blair, Schwarzenegger, California