Ethanol stations coming online as gas prices sit well below E85
By the end of February, there will be 29 new E85 ethanol stations open near Sacramento, CA. These stations are part of a $3.5 million project by the state to make the relatively scarce alternative fuel more available to drivers. The intent of the plan was to create an “ethanol island” where enough E85 would be regionally available to encourage drivers to use flex-fuel cars and fill up with E85.
However, now that these E85 pumps are opening, the price of gas has plummeted below ethanol and station owners are concerned that drivers will opt for the less expensive choice. With ethanol nearly twice as expensive as gas right now, it is unlikely drivers will choose to fill their flex-fuel cars with E85.
The original intent of the government program was to help reduce greenhouse gases and dependency on foreign oil. Of course, even under ideal price conditions, the former is debatable and the latter is unrealistic– since it is unclear whether ethanol is actually good for the environment, and without advancements in cellulosic techniques, we’re replacing one unsustainable situation with another.
California to sue EPA over ship, jet and farm equipment emissions
California announced yesterday that it intends to lead a number of states in filing a lawsuit against the EPA for its failure to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from ships, planes and farm equipment. The announcement, made by Attorney General Jerry Brown, comes on the heels of a series of environmental disputes between California and the federal government. This is also not the first dispute between the parties dealing with the EPA’s stance towards greenhouse gas emissions.
An EPA spokesman responded to Jerry Brown’s announcement by stating, this “is certainly typical of the attorney general of California. If they don’t like how we make a decision on something, they sue and hope the courts will mandate toward their position. It works sometimes, and sometimes it doesn’t work.”
Apparently, greenhouse gas emissions from the sources in dispute here (ships, off-road engines and jets), are greater than those released by every registered vehicle in the United States. This is clearly an important issue for state governments, and could just be the beginning of these state vs. federal government disputes, depending on the results of the presidential election.
Gore addresses criticisms of his personal lifestyle
Following up on our post from yesterday about Al Gore’s appearance on Meet the Press, we wanted to look at one other issue that Tom Brokaw questioned Gore about, and that is the criticisms that have been levied at him about his own personal energy use. Since we’ve looked at this issue previously (and argued that while it may not be fair, his personal lifestyle is inevitably held to a higher standard because of his role as the leading environmental activist), we wanted to highlight Gore’s response to these criticisms.
In response to a question from Brokaw about the size of the Gore family residence in Tennessee, Gore asserted:
Well, there–I don’t claim to be perfect, and all of us who care about this issue are, are trying to do our part, but I, I will say this. We buy green energy. The issue is carbon. The issue is carbon, and we have, essentially, a carbon-free home. We buy from wind energy and solar energy. Our roof is covered with solar electric panels, a geothermal system with all these deep wells, and we cut our natural gas bill by 90 percent, and I’m, I’m–we’re, we’re walking the walk and not just talking the talk. There are always people who are going to try to aim at the messenger if they don’t like the message, and I don’t claim to be perfect, but we are walking the walk.
And regarding the question as to whether he uses private jets, Gore stated:
I’ve–much more frequently on public transportation. I’m flying on Southwest Airlines again today. But sometimes the schedule requires that, and sometimes I do that.
Gore also indicated that it would be a good idea to impose a surcharge on jet fuel for private aviation, since it has a disproportionably large carbon footprint.
Al Gore on Meet the Press
Appearing on Meet the Press on Sunday, Al Gore discussed dozens of wide-ranging topics including his recent energy proposal, T. Boone Pickens, the proposed gas tax holiday and Bush’s recent proposal to end the ban on offshore drilling.
Not surprisingly, Gore is opposed to the gas tax holiday, as being misguided, and he opposes the lifting of the ban on offshore drilling, as being merely a “drop in the bucket.” We were also interested to hear Gore speak positively about the Pickens Plan, but he felt that instead of shifting our vehicles to natural gas, as Pickens proposes, that we should instead focus on moving towards all electric cars.
Regarding his own proposal, Gore indicated that his intention and hope is that “when we have the political will to act, there’s a concrete plan in place to really shift over to renewable energy.” He said recent technological developments in renewable energy generation and transmission, as well as the steep prices resulting from increasing world demand for coal and oil, have finally created a situation where widespread renewable energy generation is not only possible, but economically competitive.
One of the main themes of this blog is the idea that our country is desperately in need of public and private leadership that is committed to forcing change in the unsustainable status quo. Gore, through his efforts to educate the public about climate change and to motivate positive change through his leadership, clearly meets these criteria.
A closer look at the Pickens Plan
We have spent a lot of time lionizing T. Boone Pickens over the past week for his proposed Pickens Plan. Now we want to dig a little deeper into this plan to see what types of problems it might contain. The most common critique we’ve seen is related to the part of the proposal that would shift natural gas use from electricity generation to powering automobiles. Although Pickens recognizes that the shift to natural gas in automobiles is not going to be a permanent solution, there do seem to be some other legitimate criticisms. Mainly, these criticisms have to do with the problem of greenhouse gas emissions rather than dependency on foreign oil.
Specifically, while natural gas vehicles have fewer emissions than those that burn petroleum, this savings may be overshadowed by the fact that natural gas is a relatively clean and efficient means of generating electricity. Additionally, natural gas is a very reliable source of energy, while winds can be fleeting. By removing natural gas from the grid, some of these valuable benefits will be lost. As a result, some have argued that instead of using wind power to replace natural gas on the grid, maybe it would make more sense to only implement the part of the Pickens Plan that calls for massive wind power development and disregard the proposed shift to natural gas vehicles. This would allow us to use the new wind energy to replace dirty coal instead of relatively clean natural gas.
Of course, this would leave unsolved the question of what to do about our vehicles. However, as some companies are trying to demonstrate, if cars can instead be shifted to electric power, focusing on how we generate power for the grid may be the right path. Since electric cars are fueled by plugging into the grid, where that electricity comes from and how it was generated is a major component of what determines that car’s emissions efficiency. By focusing on how to make our grid power as clean and efficient as possible (i.e., through a massive wind energy development), we could be indirectly creating the conditions necessary to shift our cars off of petroleum and on to a cleaner source.
Regardless, whether the Pickens Plan should be implemented in full, or just in parts, it is clear that there is enormous value in him merely providing a concrete proposal. By articulating a specific plan, Pickens has given policy makers and the public something concrete to debate and analyze. Just framing the proposed strategy in specific terms now allows us to better discuss the proposed path and consequently, move us much closer to actual action.
Al Gore calls for abandonment of fossil fuels in 10 years
Speaking at an energy conference in Washington today, Al Gore declared that the U.S. should abandon the use of fossil fuels for the generation of electricity within the next 10 years. Gore argued that the confluence of climate change and geo-political dangers stemming from our excessive consumption and reliance on fossil fuels has created an unsustainable situation that must be addressed immediately. Gore’s main policy proposal is centered around the imposition of a broad carbon tax on emissions. Gore also criticized the current political leadership by calling them “defenders of the status quo.”
More information about his specific proposals can be found at WeCanSolveIt.org, a website run by The Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan environmental action group led by Gore. According to the Alliance, the costs of moving from fossil fuels to clean energy generation would be between $1.5 trillion to $3 trillion over 30 years. (It is unclear what the costs would be under his 10 year proposal.)
Our only criticism would be: we need more specifics! Unlike the Pickens Plan, which is very clear in its proposed course of action (shift current natural gas use in electricity generation to transportation and replace it with wind power), Gore’s proposals are more broad based and are not as much of a specific call to action. Maybe this is due to the fact that Gore is a politician and Pickens is a businessman?
Process allows landfills to produce energy and reduce greenhouse effects
Unbeknownst to many people (ourselves included), garbage dumps can be a meaningful source of alternative energy production. As the waste that is piled up in a landfill breaks down, it releases copious amounts of methane gas (whose greenhouse effect is 20 times worse than CO2). Consequently, landfill operators have begun to install pipe systems that capture these gasses in order to use them in energy production. Once captured, the methane (aka “biogas”) is burned in a traditional power generation process. Although the burning of methane releases CO2, this is substantially less harmful to the environment than the methane in its original state.
The recent surge in waste-to-energy projects stems from federal tax incentives and state laws requiring the use of certain percentages of clean energy. However, opponents complain that biogas is not actually a renewable energy source since it is derived from human excess (trash). While these critics are literally correct since human waste is not created by Mother Earth, it seems silly to denigrate attempts to turn a negative (human garbage and excess) into a positive (an energy source that reduces the greenhouse effect).
As with most forms of alternative energy production, we were not surprised to learn that this waste-to-energy process is most developed in Europe. We can only hope that the next administration and Congress will implement policies that will encourage alternative energy development. Maybe then, hearing about innovative processes like turning waste-to-energy will no longer be such a surprise to us and our readers.
GM increases its investment in ethanol
Last week GM announced that they were investing in a second company that develops technology for ethanol production. Apparently this is an attempt by GM to hedge its bets on how to most efficiently produce non-grain based ethanol. This type of biofuel, known as cellulose, requires a complicated final process to convert the material’s sugar into alcohol, which can be burned by engines. The company that GM invested in uses a process different than that which GM has previously pursued. This alternative process requires no use of chemicals, and instead relies on heat and mechanical action to convert the material to alcohol.
It is unclear to us whether this process releases fewer greenhouse gasses during the manufacturing process, an issue which has been of great concern lately. While it is encouraging to see GM invest in a technology that is forward thinking, it is unclear whether this process will ultimately help the environment, or if it is instead, an attempt to fulfill the mandates of the federal government on biofuel usage. [Note, this link is to an organization that “speaks for the petrochemical and refining industries on issues important to their business.”]
Small cars make a comeback due to high gas prices
In the late 1990’s, during the peak of America’s S.U.V. craze, only one in every eight vehicles sold was a compact or subcompact car. Today, in the United States, that number has increased to around one in five. Additionally, four-cylinder engines recently surpassed gas guzzling six-cylinder engines in popularity.
This trend towards smaller and more fuel efficient cars is not surprisingly attributed to the high cost of gasoline. This is bad news for the big American car makers, who have enjoyed larger profits from the sales of pick-up trucks and S.U.V.s than from smaller cars. Naturally, the increased demand for small cars has also resulted in a decrease in S.U.V. sales, which have gone down by 25% this year. The automaker most hurt by these trends is, of course, G.M.
While a healthy American car industry would be a good thing for our country, decreasing our massive consumption of oil would be even better. The trick will be to see if our domestic car manufacturers can adjust to these changing market conditions to take advantage of the consumers’ shifting demands (the way a capitalist system should work), or if they are just too big and bloated to make the necessary changes.
Oil demand continues to rise while supply stagnates
Historically, when gas prices have increased, so has oil production. This is not currently the case. The New York Times has an article looking at this unique situation, where oil prices have recently skyrocketed, but an increase in supply has not followed, thereby leading to even higher oil prices.
The article quotes Fatih Birol, the chief economist at the International Energy Agency, who states, “According to normal economic theory, and the history of oil, rising prices have two major effects. They reduce demand and they induce oil supplies. Not this time.”
Other than OPEC, there is no explicit agreement between oil producers to artificially restrict supply. According to the article, some of the presumed causes for the failure to increase supply stem from issues such as higher drilling costs, nationalistic policies that restrict foreign investments, high petroleum taxes, costly licensing agreements, scarce manpower, and political wrangling and violence.
The article states that according to Jeff Rubin, an analyst at CIBC World Markets, by 2012, gas prices in the United States could potentially reach $7 per gallon.
LA is top three! (In CO2 emissions)
A study conducted by a research team at Purdue University ranked U.S. cities based upon their aggregate carbon emissions. According to this article, the calculations were based upon CO2 outputs from the burning of fossil fuels from sources including factories, power plants, roads, etc.
An assistant professor involved with the study stated, “It’s interesting that the top county, Harris, Texas, is on the list because of industrial emissions, but the second highest CO2 emitting county, Los Angeles, California, is on the list because of automobile emissions. So it’s not just cars, and it’s not just factories, that are emitting the carbon dioxide, but a combination of different things.”
This project was funded by the federal government and involved Purdue University, Colorado State University and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
The numbers next to the city names are for millions of tons of carbon emitted per year.
1. Harris, Texas (Houston), 18.625 million tons of carbon per year
2. Los Angeles, Calif. (Los Angeles), 18.595
3. Cook, Ill. (Chicago), 13.209
4. Cuyahoga, Ohio (Cleveland), 11.144
5. Wayne, Mich. (Detroit), 8.270
6. San Juan, N.M. (Farmington), 8.245
7. Santa Clara, Calif. (San Jose), 7.995
8. Jefferson, Ala. (Birmingham), 7.951
9. Wilcox, Ala. (Camden), 7.615
10. East Baton Rouge, La. (Baton Rouge), 7.322
11. Titus, Texas (Mt. Pleasant), 7.244
12. Carbon, Pa. (Jim Thorpe), 6.534
13. Porter, Ind. (Valparaiso), 6.331
14. Jefferson, Ohio (Steubenville), 6.278
15. Indiana, Pa. (Indiana), 6.224
16. Middlesex, Mass. (Boston metro area), 6.198
17. Bexar, Texas (San Antonio), 6.141
18. Hillsborough, Fla. (Tampa), 6.037
19. Suffolk, N.Y. (New York metro area), 6.030
20. Clark, Nev. (Las Vegas) 5.955
Hat tip to MetroRiderLA.com
Wall Street anticipates future carbon regulations.
The New York Times had an article about the anticipated effects of impending federal carbon emission regulations on big energy companies. Since all three remaining presidential candidates support emission regulations, such controls are assumed to be inevitable. Consequently, Wall Street has begun compiling data on which power companies are likely to excel and which are likely to fail under this regulatory scheme.
Interestingly, nuclear power plants are expected to benefit greatly from these controls, since their primary waste is solid instead of gaseous. Additionally, since natural gas plants emit 40% less carbon dioxide than coal, they too will likely benefit.
According to the article, the consulting firm Innovest rates the following energy companies as the most likely to succeed under a carbon regulatory regime: FPL Group, PG&E, and Con-Ed. The least likely to succeed, due to their minimal attempts to reduce emissions, are: Allegheny Energy, the Southern Company, the Ameren Corporation and the Scana Corporation.
IMF study says global economy can grow while curbing emissions.
The International Monetary Fund released a study [subscription required] examining the effects of drastic greenhouse gas reductions on the global economy. The study looked forward to the year 2040 and worked from the assumption that greenhouse gas emissions would need to be cut to levels 60% of that released in 2002.
The study concluded that while the global economy, in that time period, should more than double in size, the burden of reducing greenhouse gasses through, carbon taxes or cap-and-trade systems, would cause the global economy to be only 2.6% smaller than it would otherwise. Therefore, according to the study, drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions will still permit dramatic increases in the size of the global economy.
Naturally, the study noted that all countries in the world must abide by these cuts, in order to make them effective. As we all know, if China and India grow without concern for their own emissions, any reductions made elsewhere in the world would be more than canceled out. Hopefully this study will not only help convince developing countries that it is possible to have substantial economic growth while significantly reducing emissions, but it may also convince American leaders resistant to emission curbs that this is possible.
An overview of the arguments against biofuels.
An op-ed at SFGate.com looked at a topic we’ve touched on a few times here—whether ethanol production is reducing or exacerbating the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. We’re interested by this topic because it deals with the potential dangers of reflexive governmental mandates. Whether ethanol is actually worse for the environment than petroleum, we’re not sure, but this opinion piece does a nice job of identifying the major criticisms of biofuels and their negative effects on the environment and society in general.
Those criticisms are as follows:
-Increased demand for corn (and other biofuel crops) causes the price of those crops, and consequently food, to increase.
-Increased crop prices make it more expensive for farmers to feed their livestock, thereby increasing the price of meat and dairy products.
-Biofuel production requires extreme amounts of water—in fact, one gallon of ethanol requires four gallons of water to produce.
-The increased demand for biofuel crops leads to deforestation and destruction of wetlands and grasslands, to make space for the planting of those crops. Both the process of clearing these lands, as well as the loss of their carbon consuming foliage, lead to increased greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
And towards the end of the op-ed piece, the author basically throws in the kitchen sink, with the following paragraph:
Scientists predict that the Gulf of Mexico, already polluted by agricultural runoff from the United States, will only get worse as demand for ethanol, and therefore corn, increases. Meanwhile, rain forests throughout Central and South America are being razed to make way for land to grow biofuel components. Tortilla shortages in Mexico, rising flour prices in Pakistan, Indonesian and Malaysian forests being cut down and burned to make palm oil, and encroachments upon the Amazon rainforest due to Brazilian sugar cane production — all these developments indicate that biofuels are turning out to be more destructive than helpful.
While complete scientific consensus has not yet been reached on this topic, these arguments that biofuels are a bad thing for the planet sure seem compelling as more information about their consequences comes to light.
What could have been in LA (and still may).
Just reading this post over at metroriderla.com made us realize what could have been in LA, had public rail developed continued to develop here like it did in other cities, such as New York (or even the Bay Area). The post links to an amazing looking map of a proposed LA rail system by the year 2030, by transit planner Steve Boland.
Given our recent post on the proposed California high speed rail system, which Boland also has a map of, as well as our common theme and interest in mass transit, we found this map fascinating. However, as exciting as it is to think of the prospect of living in a city like LA, where easy and clean train rides would replace excruciatingly slow and dirty traffic jams, we are still pessimistic. Everyone agrees that there is a problem, but without leadership that can direct the population’s dissatisfaction towards a common goal, there is unlikely to be a comprehensive solution. Things work just well enough here that an alternative is only highly desired, instead of absolutely necessary. Until, and unless, there is no other choice, effective leadership will be our only hope.
