Energy Policy for the United States....
Today's post: Wednesday, 5-25-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 3 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post:
Energy Policy for the United States....
An energy policy for the United States ideally needs to meet several goals. In decision making, Peter Drucker called them boundary conditions.
1. The policy needs to support economic growth or at least not harm it too much initially. But at the same time, it needs to prevent serious harm or collapse to our economy due to our current overdependence on fossil fuels, particularly oil and coal.
2. It needs to lower our dependence on imported fuels from near 60% to 10 % or less.
3. It needs to begin to reduce our net CO2 release. We should stop all of it but cannot now do so because of the dependence of our economy on fossil fuels. But we can lessen the disasters in the future by making a start and then speeding up the solutions.
And, related to that, the policy in this area needs to be informed by facts. The scientists who have studied the matter have established the facts. And, events are beginning to show they have their facts right.
4. It needs to find a way to allow the existing fossil fuel companies to move from making money from providing energy from burning fossil fuels to providing energy in other ways or making money from the fossil fuels in other ways than burning them. At the same time, it needs to find a way to stop or penalize the industry for using their profits to prevent action on the established facts and their risks to our economy.
So far, so far the Obama administration has had a less than perfect track record on improving the economy and adding jobs and on selling their policies to the American people.
But otherwise, the Obama administration’s actual policy and actions have done well on this list.
They’ve backed the production of electric cars and plug-in hybrids. They have backed solar companies with capital to do large projects. And they have backed companies with technologies to lower the cost of solar electricity.
This was in several recent news stories.:
“President Barack Obama has called for a one-third reduction in oil imports by 2025 and wants to put 1 million plug-in electric vehicles on the road by 2015.
In a related announcement, the White House formalized a directive Obama issued in March ordering the government to purchase only fuel-efficient cars and trucks by 2015.
A memorandum issued Tuesday directs federal agencies to develop practices to move toward the 2015 goal and come up with a plan to determine the best size of their vehicle fleet.
Under a separate executive order, Obama has called on the government to reduce gasoline usage by federal vehicles 30 percent by 2020.”
This is in addition to beginning to move the federal government’s fleet of cars to plug-in hybrids and all electric cars and build charging stations in key cities that was recently announced.
He also hired a capable scientist with energy knowledge and management experience to be his Secretary of Energy. And, Secretary Chu has also performed relatively well. At the very least he bases his decisions on scientific facts and not incorrect beliefs that are less scary.
So far, President Obama is well ahead of the energy policies or lack thereof of the candidates for President next time that the Republican party might run that are now considered to be leading.
Today, however, the San Francisco Chronicle had a story about a possible Republican candidate who may have the chops to follow up with a good energy policy.
“Republican Jon Huntsman Jr., the former U.S. ambassador to China, has a political profile that sets him apart from the pack of possible 2012 GOP presidential candidates. For starters, he starred in a 2004 advertisement with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger lobbying for congressional action on climate change.”
If he runs on that basis and finds a Vice Presidential candidate who supports good energy policy, that might work.
But, so far, it looks like the Republicans are likely to nominate much weaker candidates on energy in 2012.
If so, that leaves Obama as the best choice for President in 2012. His energy policy has actually been relatively good.
If he wins, and if his energy policy begins to add more jobs while gasoline and diesel prices continue to rise faster than new drilling could fix, maybe the Republicans will get some sense and nominate Jon Huntsman Jr for President in 2016.
That might work well.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Four clean energy good news reports....
Today's post: Wednesday, 5-18-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 3 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post:
Four clean energy good news reports....
1. LED bulbs that can be used in existing lamps and light fixtures now in homes are very important. They use 11 to 14 % of the energy when compared to incandescent bulbs.
Compact fluorescent bulbs use about 15%. But compact fluorescent bulbs cause environmental mercury pollution when discarded as most people likely still do and may harm you if you break one in your home because of the mercury and mercury vapor released. Some are better now but often still take a bit to come on to fully bright after you turn them on. And, compacts like all fluorescent lights, often have a harsh tint.
LED bulbs are the most efficient bulbs. They contain no mercury! They now come in warmer looking colors. And they are truly instant on as well. LED bulbs also are notably cooler in their temperature than fluorescents and incandescent bulbs. So they warm a room less in hot weather and are less of a potential fire hazard in some uses. They also really do last dramatically longer than incandescent bulbs and also longer than compact fluorescents have done in practice.
The problem has been their too large size physically and great expense and the very low availability in stores and the low light sizes they were coming in.
**I read that you can now go to Home Depot stores and buy Philips 60 watt LED bulbs for just $40!
I’ve not yet bought one yet or seen one. But the report is that they do fit most fixtures and lamps designed originally for incandescent bulbs.
At that price, they begin to be affordable enough to replace all the incandescent bulbs & compact fluorescents in people’s homes.
If you have room on your credit card or enough savings to buy enough for your whole house once you’ve bought one and tested it fits everywhere, that can work for you.
Or, you can simply buy one a month until you’ve replaced all your light bulbs with them.
It’s still pricey. But I’ve read they last over 10 years or maybe even 20. And once those who can afford them now do this, the price will come down and more people will buy them.
In addition, utilities may yet realize it will pay them to finance people to buy them. For some utilities, even buying them for customers or selling them to customers for an 80% discount may save money compared with adding a new plant to generate electricity.
So this is extremely good news indeed.
2. The quick to charge but low range Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrids ARE resulting in quite large reductions in the gasoline needed to drive according to actual owner experience as reported a couple of weeks ago yesterday by GM.
**Here’s part of their press release and my comments.
“2011-05-03 DETROIT – Chevrolet Volt owners made fewer trips to the gas station in March, going an average of 30 days – or nearly a month – between fill-ups.
“Volt owners drove an average of 800 miles between fill-ups since the Volt launched in December, and in March they averaged 1,000 miles,” said Cristi Landy, Volt marketing director.
Steve Wojtanek, a Volt buyer in Boca Raton, Fla. “I have made it my goal to drive as efficiently as possible and I am seeing the results, with more than 3,417 miles under my belt – of which 2,225 are EV miles.” A Volt owner since December, Wojtanek is averaging 122 miles per gallon and visiting the gas station about once a month.”
That means he is using only about 35% as much gas as he would in a comparable gasoline only car of the Volt’s size.
So, we are on our way now, I think, to having a third of the drivers have short range plug-in hybrids like the Volt, a third having longer range hybrids that cut gasoline buying and use by more like 90% , and one third all electrics that cut back gasoline by 100 %.
Once that happens, we will likely get to the point we no longer need to import oil. So this initial report is good news indeed. It will also cut back on the CO2 released by driving and truck transport now. And, it will do so even more as clean energy production of electricity comes online more and more.
It may take more like 30 years than the 5 years I’d prefer to see. But this report shows it is on its way!
3. Solar thermal generation of electricity is very important for several reasons.
The Southwest United States has enough solar thermal potential to supply the total electricity needs of the entire country.
(Since virtually all of Mexico has that potential – about three times that much – that is quite significant. If even some of that potential solar thermal is built, there will be enough new jobs in Mexico to stop worries about people their going to the United States for jobs.)
In addition, solar thermal energy can be stored very efficiently for several hours. That means that sunshine in the afternoon in California can produce electricity for Chicago or Dallas that night. It certainly can be used that night in San Diego!
The good news is that there are several big players in building solar thermal electricity generation. Many of them are making progress around the world.
**Here’s the recent good news in California.:
BrightSource Energy is about to raise $250 million in an initial public offering which will likely help achieve its goal to use solar-thermal technology across the southwest United States at generators with the equivalent capacity of 11 atomic plants.
They are planning to build solar thermal large scale electric generation plants “that could potentially earn $4 billion of revenue and produce 11 gigawatts on 110,000 acres in California and elsewhere in the southwest United States.”
"BrightSource Energy, Inc. designs, develops and sells solar thermal power systems that deliver reliable and cost-competitive clean energy to utilities and industrial companies." (http://www.brightsourceenergy.com )
4. Although there are many companies also building large scale photovoltaic plants to generate electricity as well, the very valuable potential of photovoltaic solar is to have it put on nearly every roof of every building and on canopies over most parking lots. Those may be smaller. But tens of thousands of them or more will add up!
(SunPower is one of the companies building the large scale power plants and Sun Edison is helping large businesses install photovoltaic systems.)
But until now, it has been very challenging to install solar for homeowners. They had to be able to finance and be willing to pay large dollars up front to install solar AND arrange one or more in-home appointments with estimators etc.
What if all homeowners could simply give their address and be willing to make a modest monthly payment and have the solar installed by next week?
That would certainly launch large increases all over the country of photovoltaic solar installations.
What has been a well kept secret is that this has already been possible for a while!
Sungevity here in the San Francisco Bay area does just exactly that!
By using satellite technology and their knowledge of solar, they can give homeowners an accurate quote to install solar with no need for an in-home visit. And, their financing makes the solar easy to finance.
See http://www.sungevity.com .
**Here’s the news.
Sungevity is about to get a huge boost for its sales efforts as they just signed a deal with the 1725 store Lowe's home improvement chain and company to market their solar quote and financing service.
As this news gets out, solar installations all over the country will go up. And it will happen in every state.
It’s still early in the process and far too late for my taste, but the net result of news like these four reports is that the clean energy economy is really beginning to pick up momentum and accelerate!
Today's post: Wednesday, 5-18-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 3 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post:
Four clean energy good news reports....
1. LED bulbs that can be used in existing lamps and light fixtures now in homes are very important. They use 11 to 14 % of the energy when compared to incandescent bulbs.
Compact fluorescent bulbs use about 15%. But compact fluorescent bulbs cause environmental mercury pollution when discarded as most people likely still do and may harm you if you break one in your home because of the mercury and mercury vapor released. Some are better now but often still take a bit to come on to fully bright after you turn them on. And, compacts like all fluorescent lights, often have a harsh tint.
LED bulbs are the most efficient bulbs. They contain no mercury! They now come in warmer looking colors. And they are truly instant on as well. LED bulbs also are notably cooler in their temperature than fluorescents and incandescent bulbs. So they warm a room less in hot weather and are less of a potential fire hazard in some uses. They also really do last dramatically longer than incandescent bulbs and also longer than compact fluorescents have done in practice.
The problem has been their too large size physically and great expense and the very low availability in stores and the low light sizes they were coming in.
**I read that you can now go to Home Depot stores and buy Philips 60 watt LED bulbs for just $40!
I’ve not yet bought one yet or seen one. But the report is that they do fit most fixtures and lamps designed originally for incandescent bulbs.
At that price, they begin to be affordable enough to replace all the incandescent bulbs & compact fluorescents in people’s homes.
If you have room on your credit card or enough savings to buy enough for your whole house once you’ve bought one and tested it fits everywhere, that can work for you.
Or, you can simply buy one a month until you’ve replaced all your light bulbs with them.
It’s still pricey. But I’ve read they last over 10 years or maybe even 20. And once those who can afford them now do this, the price will come down and more people will buy them.
In addition, utilities may yet realize it will pay them to finance people to buy them. For some utilities, even buying them for customers or selling them to customers for an 80% discount may save money compared with adding a new plant to generate electricity.
So this is extremely good news indeed.
2. The quick to charge but low range Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrids ARE resulting in quite large reductions in the gasoline needed to drive according to actual owner experience as reported a couple of weeks ago yesterday by GM.
**Here’s part of their press release and my comments.
“2011-05-03 DETROIT – Chevrolet Volt owners made fewer trips to the gas station in March, going an average of 30 days – or nearly a month – between fill-ups.
“Volt owners drove an average of 800 miles between fill-ups since the Volt launched in December, and in March they averaged 1,000 miles,” said Cristi Landy, Volt marketing director.
Steve Wojtanek, a Volt buyer in Boca Raton, Fla. “I have made it my goal to drive as efficiently as possible and I am seeing the results, with more than 3,417 miles under my belt – of which 2,225 are EV miles.” A Volt owner since December, Wojtanek is averaging 122 miles per gallon and visiting the gas station about once a month.”
That means he is using only about 35% as much gas as he would in a comparable gasoline only car of the Volt’s size.
So, we are on our way now, I think, to having a third of the drivers have short range plug-in hybrids like the Volt, a third having longer range hybrids that cut gasoline buying and use by more like 90% , and one third all electrics that cut back gasoline by 100 %.
Once that happens, we will likely get to the point we no longer need to import oil. So this initial report is good news indeed. It will also cut back on the CO2 released by driving and truck transport now. And, it will do so even more as clean energy production of electricity comes online more and more.
It may take more like 30 years than the 5 years I’d prefer to see. But this report shows it is on its way!
3. Solar thermal generation of electricity is very important for several reasons.
The Southwest United States has enough solar thermal potential to supply the total electricity needs of the entire country.
(Since virtually all of Mexico has that potential – about three times that much – that is quite significant. If even some of that potential solar thermal is built, there will be enough new jobs in Mexico to stop worries about people their going to the United States for jobs.)
In addition, solar thermal energy can be stored very efficiently for several hours. That means that sunshine in the afternoon in California can produce electricity for Chicago or Dallas that night. It certainly can be used that night in San Diego!
The good news is that there are several big players in building solar thermal electricity generation. Many of them are making progress around the world.
**Here’s the recent good news in California.:
BrightSource Energy is about to raise $250 million in an initial public offering which will likely help achieve its goal to use solar-thermal technology across the southwest United States at generators with the equivalent capacity of 11 atomic plants.
They are planning to build solar thermal large scale electric generation plants “that could potentially earn $4 billion of revenue and produce 11 gigawatts on 110,000 acres in California and elsewhere in the southwest United States.”
"BrightSource Energy, Inc. designs, develops and sells solar thermal power systems that deliver reliable and cost-competitive clean energy to utilities and industrial companies." (http://www.brightsourceenergy.com )
4. Although there are many companies also building large scale photovoltaic plants to generate electricity as well, the very valuable potential of photovoltaic solar is to have it put on nearly every roof of every building and on canopies over most parking lots. Those may be smaller. But tens of thousands of them or more will add up!
(SunPower is one of the companies building the large scale power plants and Sun Edison is helping large businesses install photovoltaic systems.)
But until now, it has been very challenging to install solar for homeowners. They had to be able to finance and be willing to pay large dollars up front to install solar AND arrange one or more in-home appointments with estimators etc.
What if all homeowners could simply give their address and be willing to make a modest monthly payment and have the solar installed by next week?
That would certainly launch large increases all over the country of photovoltaic solar installations.
What has been a well kept secret is that this has already been possible for a while!
Sungevity here in the San Francisco Bay area does just exactly that!
By using satellite technology and their knowledge of solar, they can give homeowners an accurate quote to install solar with no need for an in-home visit. And, their financing makes the solar easy to finance.
See http://www.sungevity.com .
**Here’s the news.
Sungevity is about to get a huge boost for its sales efforts as they just signed a deal with the 1725 store Lowe's home improvement chain and company to market their solar quote and financing service.
As this news gets out, solar installations all over the country will go up. And it will happen in every state.
It’s still early in the process and far too late for my taste, but the net result of news like these four reports is that the clean energy economy is really beginning to pick up momentum and accelerate!
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Why California should have an oil severance tax....
Today's post: Wednesday, 5-11-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 3 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post:
Why California should have an oil severance tax....
There are three reasons for this.
1. The most important reason is that in the current weakened economy, the State of California is planning to cut virtually every area of education spending.
Despite the fact that public education needs many other improvements besides more money, many parts of education do support both economic growth and a continuation of the economy we already have. And, severe cuts will make it work even less well than it has been.
Without adequate funding for education, more people will enter the workforce unable to read well enough or do a minimum of calculation to be employable for most jobs.
Without adequate funding for education, fewer people will get training at our community colleges for jobs that need those trained people.
Without adequate funding for education past high school, we will run short of people able to do many kinds of specialized work.
Clearly, if the money is short enough, this must be done. But it is extremely bad public policy. It will make California’s economy worse!
But California is the only oil producing state without a severance tax on oil. Even oil states such as Texas and Oklahoma have them. And, a comparable severance tax to theirs in California would make these added cuts to education unnecessary.
2. For the reasons we keep posting about, we need to begin to charge the oil companies for the true costs associated with using oil.
To avoid dramatic problems with price increases for oil caused by less of the cheap to extract sources and more energy demand by growing economies and populations, we need badly to begin to switch to other forms of energy to power transport. If oil begins to be charged for its consequences and to cost somewhat more in the short run, the alternatives will become economically competitive sooner.
To avoid making climate change worse, we need to use less burning of fossil fuels for energy. For this reason also, if oil begins to be charged for its consequences and to cost somewhat more in the short run, the alternatives will become economically competitive sooner.
A severance tax is one way to do this.
3. Many parts of California need somewhat more refined gasoline to avoid bad air pollution and many parts do better economically than many places in the United States. In those parts of the state, people pay more for gasoline since they can afford to do so.
So, gasoline costs more in California than elsewhere.
Meanwhile in those states where people pay less for gasoline, they get part of the money they spend back in taxes.
In California, we pay more for gasoline and get no money back. This is unfair and should be changed in my opinion.
Today's post: Wednesday, 5-11-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 3 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post:
Why California should have an oil severance tax....
There are three reasons for this.
1. The most important reason is that in the current weakened economy, the State of California is planning to cut virtually every area of education spending.
Despite the fact that public education needs many other improvements besides more money, many parts of education do support both economic growth and a continuation of the economy we already have. And, severe cuts will make it work even less well than it has been.
Without adequate funding for education, more people will enter the workforce unable to read well enough or do a minimum of calculation to be employable for most jobs.
Without adequate funding for education, fewer people will get training at our community colleges for jobs that need those trained people.
Without adequate funding for education past high school, we will run short of people able to do many kinds of specialized work.
Clearly, if the money is short enough, this must be done. But it is extremely bad public policy. It will make California’s economy worse!
But California is the only oil producing state without a severance tax on oil. Even oil states such as Texas and Oklahoma have them. And, a comparable severance tax to theirs in California would make these added cuts to education unnecessary.
2. For the reasons we keep posting about, we need to begin to charge the oil companies for the true costs associated with using oil.
To avoid dramatic problems with price increases for oil caused by less of the cheap to extract sources and more energy demand by growing economies and populations, we need badly to begin to switch to other forms of energy to power transport. If oil begins to be charged for its consequences and to cost somewhat more in the short run, the alternatives will become economically competitive sooner.
To avoid making climate change worse, we need to use less burning of fossil fuels for energy. For this reason also, if oil begins to be charged for its consequences and to cost somewhat more in the short run, the alternatives will become economically competitive sooner.
A severance tax is one way to do this.
3. Many parts of California need somewhat more refined gasoline to avoid bad air pollution and many parts do better economically than many places in the United States. In those parts of the state, people pay more for gasoline since they can afford to do so.
So, gasoline costs more in California than elsewhere.
Meanwhile in those states where people pay less for gasoline, they get part of the money they spend back in taxes.
In California, we pay more for gasoline and get no money back. This is unfair and should be changed in my opinion.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Oil company bills to drill more look to be ineffective and risky.....
Today's post: Wednesday, 5-4-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 3 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post:
Oil company bills to drill more look to be ineffective and risky.....
I just saw a story online that: “Congress considers West Coast oil drilling.”
May 4, 2011 by Susanne Rust Environment Reporter From: California Watch A Project of the Center for Investigative Reporting
“Nearly a year after a BP oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico and created one of the largest environmental catastrophes of all time, federal lawmakers are considering encouraging drilling off the West Coast, including the rich oil beds off Southern California.
Lawmakers say allowing the drilling would ease the burden of high oil prices and provide an alternative to foreign oil.”
“Critics say the bills (HR 1229, HR 1230 and HR 1231) set the stage for environmental disaster and will have little or no effect on oil prices.
“Not only will the bills expand drilling, they would leave oversight of offshore drilling weaker than it was before last year’s oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico,” said Bob Keefe, a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council.”
The article also notes: “…. a study conducted by the federal government's Energy Information Administration, which showed that new drilling off the country's coasts would only reduce gas prices by a few cents.
The bills passed the House Committee on Natural Resources in April, and two of the three bills are scheduled for a vote on Thursday. The third bill, which some call the most sweeping, will likely go to the floor next week, Charter said.
That third bill, HR 1231, or “Reversing President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act,” would require the federal government to lease at least 50 percent of available unleased acreage off the West Coast, Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico and much of the East Coast, every five years.”
“Under existing law, the government decides which areas to lease. This new law would effectively double the current level of offshore drilling.
And states, such as California, would have no say in the matter.
“Earlier versions of bills like this generally allowed a state to veto projects,” said Regan Nelson of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
“Californians have consistently made it clear that they oppose new offshore drilling off their coast," she said. “This bill is so out of sync of what people want. They’re willing to put oil production over all other considerations.”
Supporters of the bills say the need for more domestic oil is urgent.
"Gas prices in California’s Central Valley have skyrocketed to above $4 a gallon and remained above the national average for weeks," said Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Calif., one of the three local congressmen who voted for the bills.
"We can no longer afford to rely on energy supplies from unstable foreign sources. The time for inaction is over. We must expand domestic energy production to get Americans back to work, bring relief at the pump and create jobs,” he said.”
Here’s my take.:
These bills are likely to be ineffective in lowering gas prices and are likely to cause billions of dollars of damages to the coast of California.
But there are some amendments that could upgrade them enough they might make sense
1. China is very likely to begin importing as much or more oil than we are quite soon. So, it looks like having more oil from offshore drilling will likely only cut back gasoline from $8 a gallon or $9 a gallon that looks to be coming by ten cents a gallon.
If, for every dollar the oil industry spent for offshore drilling had to be matched with three times that much money in switching transport to other fuels than petroleum and in converting existing vehicles into plug-in hybrids AND installing a more efficient gasoline and diesel engine, then that combination might have an effect.
We can deal with double the price of gasoline and diesel if we also begin to only need half as much of these fuels to drive the same number of miles!
2. Since billions of dollars in potential damages are at stake and the oil very irresponsible impression of the safety competence of the oil companies is at stake.
These bills should ONLY be passed if the safety managers on these new offshore drilling rigs are NOT prevented by trying to save money cutting corners on safety.
If the chances are literally one in 10 million of one problematic spill that will be stopped with less than 5% of the oil released by the BP problem in the Gulf, why not allow it?
(This hurry up and drill program looks like a spill about once every ten years and just as big as the Gulf oftentimes will occur if these bills are passed!)
But, if those two provisions are not forceful enough or included, these bills won’t protect our economy from the doubling of gasoline and diesel nor will they make more than the damages they will likely cost.
So, in their present form, it is essential they not be passed!
With these two amendments though, they might make sense.
The one last point is that any state that remains unconvinced of the safety programs for this new drilling should be able to say no to it off the shores of that state.
So, the third amendment is to add that or leave it as is. If the safety procedures are good enough and work in practice other places, states will OK drilling for the new money they get. But they should have the right to say no if the data they see are unconvincing.
These bills in their current form do not make that confidence at all likely!
Today's post: Wednesday, 5-4-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 3 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post:
Oil company bills to drill more look to be ineffective and risky.....
I just saw a story online that: “Congress considers West Coast oil drilling.”
May 4, 2011 by Susanne Rust Environment Reporter From: California Watch A Project of the Center for Investigative Reporting
“Nearly a year after a BP oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico and created one of the largest environmental catastrophes of all time, federal lawmakers are considering encouraging drilling off the West Coast, including the rich oil beds off Southern California.
Lawmakers say allowing the drilling would ease the burden of high oil prices and provide an alternative to foreign oil.”
“Critics say the bills (HR 1229, HR 1230 and HR 1231) set the stage for environmental disaster and will have little or no effect on oil prices.
“Not only will the bills expand drilling, they would leave oversight of offshore drilling weaker than it was before last year’s oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico,” said Bob Keefe, a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council.”
The article also notes: “…. a study conducted by the federal government's Energy Information Administration, which showed that new drilling off the country's coasts would only reduce gas prices by a few cents.
The bills passed the House Committee on Natural Resources in April, and two of the three bills are scheduled for a vote on Thursday. The third bill, which some call the most sweeping, will likely go to the floor next week, Charter said.
That third bill, HR 1231, or “Reversing President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act,” would require the federal government to lease at least 50 percent of available unleased acreage off the West Coast, Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico and much of the East Coast, every five years.”
“Under existing law, the government decides which areas to lease. This new law would effectively double the current level of offshore drilling.
And states, such as California, would have no say in the matter.
“Earlier versions of bills like this generally allowed a state to veto projects,” said Regan Nelson of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
“Californians have consistently made it clear that they oppose new offshore drilling off their coast," she said. “This bill is so out of sync of what people want. They’re willing to put oil production over all other considerations.”
Supporters of the bills say the need for more domestic oil is urgent.
"Gas prices in California’s Central Valley have skyrocketed to above $4 a gallon and remained above the national average for weeks," said Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Calif., one of the three local congressmen who voted for the bills.
"We can no longer afford to rely on energy supplies from unstable foreign sources. The time for inaction is over. We must expand domestic energy production to get Americans back to work, bring relief at the pump and create jobs,” he said.”
Here’s my take.:
These bills are likely to be ineffective in lowering gas prices and are likely to cause billions of dollars of damages to the coast of California.
But there are some amendments that could upgrade them enough they might make sense
1. China is very likely to begin importing as much or more oil than we are quite soon. So, it looks like having more oil from offshore drilling will likely only cut back gasoline from $8 a gallon or $9 a gallon that looks to be coming by ten cents a gallon.
If, for every dollar the oil industry spent for offshore drilling had to be matched with three times that much money in switching transport to other fuels than petroleum and in converting existing vehicles into plug-in hybrids AND installing a more efficient gasoline and diesel engine, then that combination might have an effect.
We can deal with double the price of gasoline and diesel if we also begin to only need half as much of these fuels to drive the same number of miles!
2. Since billions of dollars in potential damages are at stake and the oil very irresponsible impression of the safety competence of the oil companies is at stake.
These bills should ONLY be passed if the safety managers on these new offshore drilling rigs are NOT prevented by trying to save money cutting corners on safety.
If the chances are literally one in 10 million of one problematic spill that will be stopped with less than 5% of the oil released by the BP problem in the Gulf, why not allow it?
(This hurry up and drill program looks like a spill about once every ten years and just as big as the Gulf oftentimes will occur if these bills are passed!)
But, if those two provisions are not forceful enough or included, these bills won’t protect our economy from the doubling of gasoline and diesel nor will they make more than the damages they will likely cost.
So, in their present form, it is essential they not be passed!
With these two amendments though, they might make sense.
The one last point is that any state that remains unconvinced of the safety programs for this new drilling should be able to say no to it off the shores of that state.
So, the third amendment is to add that or leave it as is. If the safety procedures are good enough and work in practice other places, states will OK drilling for the new money they get. But they should have the right to say no if the data they see are unconvincing.
These bills in their current form do not make that confidence at all likely!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)