Wired
July 1, 2006
This weekend we begin to celebrate our independence from Britain, but we won't be celebrating independence from Iran, Iraq, or Saudi Arabia anytime soon.
While President Bush said his goal was to cut dependence on foreign oil by 75 percent by 2025, a Department of Energy agency says that his goal is about as attainable as my goal of playing centerfield for the Oakland A's.
The Energy Information Administration says oil consumption in North America (mostly from the U.S.) will increase by 38 percent between 2003 and 2030, while the global demand for oil (due in large part to China and India) will increase by 47 percent to 118 million barrels per day.
The country expected to provide the most of the additional supply will be (say it with me) Iran!
The report, which is revised every year, says global consumption of renewable fuels will nearly double by 2030, but considering U.S. production of ethanol and biodiesel increases that much every year, that's not saying much, and would only decrease the ration of crude-renewable fuel used from 5 to 1 to 4 to 1.
Whomever estimated the oil prices for the coming decades had their heads (say it with me) in the sand. The "reference case" (see graphic) estimates that oil prices will be lower in 25 years than they are now, a nice trick considering no dinosaurs have died in millennia to increase supply and most estimates are that we've already sucked half of the oil that there ever was out of the ground (Google Hubbert's Peak if you don't believe me).
More depressing facts from the report:
Worldwide marketed energy consumption is projected to grow by 71 percent between 2003 and
2030.
The report projects an increase in OPEC supply of only 11.8 million barrel per day over the same period (so I hope we stay friends with Venezuela and Canada, since that's 27 million barrels short of what the world will need).
Oil could be has high as $96 a barrel by 2030, or one-third more than today.
IF we are serious about addressing oil dependence, it would take a magnitude higher amount of research dollars into alternative fuels, mass transit system, and energy efficiency devices, and not some simple feel good rhetoric.
So go take the family out for a nice long drive to celebrate the 4th. You may not get many more opportunities.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Saturday, July 01, 2006
White House Offers $170 Million for Solar Research
ABC News
July 1, 2006
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration said on Wednesday it would offer $170 million to public and private partnerships to make solar energy more competitive with conventional electricity sources by 2015.
The funding would be for three years, beginning in fiscal-year 2007. It would require industry-led teams to match each dollar the government gives them toward the project, which could generate an additional $170 million.
The U.S. Energy Department said projects would need to focus on improving so-called photovoltaic cell technology which produces energy when exposed to light.
"We will be asking the winning partnerships to focus their work on new manufacturing techniques as well as new component designs that will allow us to bring down the cost of producing photovoltaic fuel cells as quickly as possible," said U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman.
U.S. Energy Department said the projects are part of the administration's Solar America Initiative which seeks in part to reduce photovoltaic costs from 13-22 cents per kilowatt to 9-18 cents per kilowatt by 2010.
The $170 million contribution by the administration is subject to funding from Congress.
July 1, 2006
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration said on Wednesday it would offer $170 million to public and private partnerships to make solar energy more competitive with conventional electricity sources by 2015.
The funding would be for three years, beginning in fiscal-year 2007. It would require industry-led teams to match each dollar the government gives them toward the project, which could generate an additional $170 million.
The U.S. Energy Department said projects would need to focus on improving so-called photovoltaic cell technology which produces energy when exposed to light.
"We will be asking the winning partnerships to focus their work on new manufacturing techniques as well as new component designs that will allow us to bring down the cost of producing photovoltaic fuel cells as quickly as possible," said U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman.
U.S. Energy Department said the projects are part of the administration's Solar America Initiative which seeks in part to reduce photovoltaic costs from 13-22 cents per kilowatt to 9-18 cents per kilowatt by 2010.
The $170 million contribution by the administration is subject to funding from Congress.
Toyota Looking For Maximum Mileage from Electric RAV4s
Toyota
July 1, 2006
Toyota has a policy to keep RAV4 EVs in service for as long as they are sustainable. As a full electric zero-emission battery-powered vehicle, RAV4 EV played an important role in the lineup of Toyota’s environmentally-advanced vehicles. From 1998 to 2003, RAV4 EV served as a rolling laboratory, contributing technologies that have been incorporated into Toyota’s hybrid vehicles which have gained wide accepted by consumers. It featured advanced nickel-metal hydride batteries, a reliable electric drivetrain, an early form of energy-saving regenerative braking, and a computerized power management system. Toyota is committed to keeping environmentally-advanced vehicles on the road as long as they are safe and it is practical to do so.
Highlights of Toyota’s policy:
• RAV4 EVs are not being removed from service based solely on age or lease expiration.
• Retail lessees may renew their leases up to 60 months, then purchase their vehicles, or return them, at their option. Fleet lessees may extend their leases in renewable 12-month terms for as long as they are sustainable.
• RAV4 EVs that are returned to Toyota and are determined to be supportable and safe to operate are redeployed. They may be leased to a new fleet customer, loaned to community groups, including national and state parks, or placed in the Toyota company fleet.
• Determination of the usability of returned RAV4 EVs will be based on overall operational condition and exterior and interior condition.
• RAV4 EVs that are taken out of service are used to ensure a supply of unique electronic used salvaged parts to assist our customers with their long term parts needs. This includes battery packs and modules as well as other high-cost components that are unique to the EV. Toyota has enlisted a third party to administer this long term parts salvage program.
• After salvaging electronic parts, RAV4 EVs will undergo a thorough recycling process to maximize recovery of materials.
July 1, 2006
Toyota has a policy to keep RAV4 EVs in service for as long as they are sustainable. As a full electric zero-emission battery-powered vehicle, RAV4 EV played an important role in the lineup of Toyota’s environmentally-advanced vehicles. From 1998 to 2003, RAV4 EV served as a rolling laboratory, contributing technologies that have been incorporated into Toyota’s hybrid vehicles which have gained wide accepted by consumers. It featured advanced nickel-metal hydride batteries, a reliable electric drivetrain, an early form of energy-saving regenerative braking, and a computerized power management system. Toyota is committed to keeping environmentally-advanced vehicles on the road as long as they are safe and it is practical to do so.
Highlights of Toyota’s policy:
• RAV4 EVs are not being removed from service based solely on age or lease expiration.
• Retail lessees may renew their leases up to 60 months, then purchase their vehicles, or return them, at their option. Fleet lessees may extend their leases in renewable 12-month terms for as long as they are sustainable.
• RAV4 EVs that are returned to Toyota and are determined to be supportable and safe to operate are redeployed. They may be leased to a new fleet customer, loaned to community groups, including national and state parks, or placed in the Toyota company fleet.
• Determination of the usability of returned RAV4 EVs will be based on overall operational condition and exterior and interior condition.
• RAV4 EVs that are taken out of service are used to ensure a supply of unique electronic used salvaged parts to assist our customers with their long term parts needs. This includes battery packs and modules as well as other high-cost components that are unique to the EV. Toyota has enlisted a third party to administer this long term parts salvage program.
• After salvaging electronic parts, RAV4 EVs will undergo a thorough recycling process to maximize recovery of materials.
Canada's Tories Taking Wrong Tack on Climate Change
Whistler Question/Canada
July 1, 2006
In the past few years, Canadian industry have trotted out a series of skeptics who either expressed doubts about whether climate change was happening or that government-imposed mandatory targets for industry were the answer.
And true enough, Canada's record on greenhouse-gas-emissions reductions under the former Liberal government in Ottawa was abysmal — not even measuring up to the record of the United States, which wasn't then and isn't now a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol.
These days, as Canadians get ready to celebrate the country's 139th birthday, the debate rages across the country over what's the best approach to reducing the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. But it seems nobody in government —not Prime Minister Stephen Harper nor Environment Minister Rona Ambrose — denies the evidence showing that climate change is happening, and that the human inhabitants of Planet Earth can act to slow or even reverse its effects.
What's most unfortunate is that, as all this hot air is being emitted by those involved in the debate, climate change appears to be accelerating.
As mentioned above, the record shows that the Liberals' approach to meeting Canada's Kyoto targets wasn't showing much in the way of results, so a “new” approach in Ottawa is required.
However, we need to remember that although we've come nowhere close to meeting targets in the past, it's still possible to do worse. And in our view, the current Tory approach — scrapping both mandatory industry targets and programs aimed at engaging ordinary citizens in the fight against climate change — is likely to lead Canada further downward into the abyss.
This week, the federal Liberals issued a “reality check” that slammed the Tory government for its plan to scrap the One-Tonne Challenge and EnerGuide programs in spite of advice from departmental officials that the programs were “engaging citizens” and were as “fundamental” to addressing climate change as were measures taken against large industrial polluters.
In our view, the Harper government's approach to these programs is analogous to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. We understand the desire to review and try to fix what's wrong, but why reinvent the wheel just because it happens to have been created by your predecessors? True enough, as Dr. David Suzuki points out, some of those who took advantage of the EnerGuide program — which provided tax breaks to those who purchased energy-efficient appliances —would have purchased those appliances anyway, with or without the financial incentive. But scrapping such a program sends the message that it's OK to buy energy-sapping models as long as you can afford the added cost. It's a step in the wrong direction.
On the industrial front, does Ms. Ambrose really believe voluntary targets for industry will result in greenhouse-gas reductions? Sure, the Liberals' approach wasn't working — but mostly because it wasn't tough enough on polluters. Again, some adjustments to Canada's approach are in order, but don't scrap the whole thing just because it isn't the Tory way.
Last week, the Government of Quebec released its own climate-change plan, and it's a far cry from the laissez-fair approach being taken by the Feds. It includes a target to reduce emissions by 1.5 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. It also includes a new, mandatory building code that is expected to improve energy efficiency in buildings by 25 per cent. Most notably, it requires that all vehicles sold in Quebec meet the fuel-efficiency requirements of those sold in California, which has the toughest emissions and fuel-efficiency standards in North America.
Canada's energy- and fuel-efficiency standards need to be strengthened, and the approach being taken by Quebec is a laudable one. It's certainly far more progressive than the approach being taken by Mr. Charest's Tory buddies in Ottawa.
July 1, 2006
In the past few years, Canadian industry have trotted out a series of skeptics who either expressed doubts about whether climate change was happening or that government-imposed mandatory targets for industry were the answer.
And true enough, Canada's record on greenhouse-gas-emissions reductions under the former Liberal government in Ottawa was abysmal — not even measuring up to the record of the United States, which wasn't then and isn't now a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol.
These days, as Canadians get ready to celebrate the country's 139th birthday, the debate rages across the country over what's the best approach to reducing the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. But it seems nobody in government —not Prime Minister Stephen Harper nor Environment Minister Rona Ambrose — denies the evidence showing that climate change is happening, and that the human inhabitants of Planet Earth can act to slow or even reverse its effects.
What's most unfortunate is that, as all this hot air is being emitted by those involved in the debate, climate change appears to be accelerating.
As mentioned above, the record shows that the Liberals' approach to meeting Canada's Kyoto targets wasn't showing much in the way of results, so a “new” approach in Ottawa is required.
However, we need to remember that although we've come nowhere close to meeting targets in the past, it's still possible to do worse. And in our view, the current Tory approach — scrapping both mandatory industry targets and programs aimed at engaging ordinary citizens in the fight against climate change — is likely to lead Canada further downward into the abyss.
This week, the federal Liberals issued a “reality check” that slammed the Tory government for its plan to scrap the One-Tonne Challenge and EnerGuide programs in spite of advice from departmental officials that the programs were “engaging citizens” and were as “fundamental” to addressing climate change as were measures taken against large industrial polluters.
In our view, the Harper government's approach to these programs is analogous to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. We understand the desire to review and try to fix what's wrong, but why reinvent the wheel just because it happens to have been created by your predecessors? True enough, as Dr. David Suzuki points out, some of those who took advantage of the EnerGuide program — which provided tax breaks to those who purchased energy-efficient appliances —would have purchased those appliances anyway, with or without the financial incentive. But scrapping such a program sends the message that it's OK to buy energy-sapping models as long as you can afford the added cost. It's a step in the wrong direction.
On the industrial front, does Ms. Ambrose really believe voluntary targets for industry will result in greenhouse-gas reductions? Sure, the Liberals' approach wasn't working — but mostly because it wasn't tough enough on polluters. Again, some adjustments to Canada's approach are in order, but don't scrap the whole thing just because it isn't the Tory way.
Last week, the Government of Quebec released its own climate-change plan, and it's a far cry from the laissez-fair approach being taken by the Feds. It includes a target to reduce emissions by 1.5 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. It also includes a new, mandatory building code that is expected to improve energy efficiency in buildings by 25 per cent. Most notably, it requires that all vehicles sold in Quebec meet the fuel-efficiency requirements of those sold in California, which has the toughest emissions and fuel-efficiency standards in North America.
Canada's energy- and fuel-efficiency standards need to be strengthened, and the approach being taken by Quebec is a laudable one. It's certainly far more progressive than the approach being taken by Mr. Charest's Tory buddies in Ottawa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
