Energy Literacy Advocates Newsroom

There has been a lot of talk lately about the environmental impact of biofuel production from a food and water supply standpoint, not to mention the impacts of changing over land use patterns to accommodate biofuel crops. All points are worthy of serious discussion, and while biofuels will likely play a role in our future energy mix it must be implemented carefully to ensure the environmental impact is positive. For the US a good example of this would be growing cellulosic crops on otherwise unused arid land in the great plains region. This could be done without irrigation and with little or no fertilizer used. The catch - how to transport either the biomass or the processed fuel to consumers.

Read the article here.

Labels: biofuels, environment

While this article covers several topics, the fact that 69% of Americans believe that the president has control over gasoline prices is significant. This actually may be true over the long term - good public policy could reduce demand for gasoline, and therefore it's price. However have no delusions, any demand abatement would have to be taken on by CONSUMERS, regardless of whether the cause is a shift in public policy. I doubt the 69% cited understand thoroughly that oil (and therefore gasoline) is a fungible commodity traded the world over, so direct control of pricing by the president in our free market system is impossible.

Read the article here.

Labels: energy policy, oil price

While short and sweet, and probably little noticed, there was a recent article in the Economist about Christophe de Margerie - Chief Executive of French oil company Total. It was significant because in it Mr. de Margerie declared that 100 million barrels per day of worldwide production would be difficult to achieve, much less the 120 million barrels per day the world is projected to need. This is definitely the first time the CEO of a major oil company has acknowledged that oil production increases are and will be increasingly difficult to achieve - a milestone to be noted.

Read the article here.

Labels: oil supply, peak oil

This opinion editorial by the Denver Post does a nice job of addressing what so few are willing to: the fact that demand side solutions to our economic oil equation are rarely addressed.

Read the article here...

Labels: energy policy, oil supply/demand

Countless economists have noted that an increase in the federal gasoline tax will have the effect of decreasing gasoline use, thus lowering demand for oil and at the least stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions.

This article proposes such an increase, the funds of which are to be used for infrastructure enhancements. Others have argued for a gas tax increase with the funds going towards oil conservation efforts directly.

Labels: economy, energy policy

OK - I admit I am a little late on this post! The Energy Independence and Security Act was signed into law by President Bush on December 19th, 2007. The bill includes provisions for increasing the automobile CAFE standards, increasing the renewable fuels standard, implementing new energy efficiency equipment standards (e.g. refridgerators, freezers, lamps, etc.), and repeals a very modest amount of oil and gas industry tax incentives in order to pay for the CAFE standard increase. While a step in the right direction, our work is far from done.

A good summary of the bill is available here.

Labels: energy policy

This article, recently published in the MIT Technology Review magazine, provides a balanced perspective on the biofuels boom. It includes possibilities for future development and is fairly accurate - containing and commenting only on credible information.

Access the article here (you will need to register for free to view this article - but its worth it!)

Labels: biofuels, economy, energy policy

This article about the potential of oil shale brings the reader up to speed on the latest technology advances in the difficult field of oil shale recovery. Oil shale may play an important role as a fossil fuel source in the future, with reserves located in the US that are three times that of Saudi Arabia. However there are limitations and drawbacks, including an extraction process that is far more intensive than conventional oil, leading to environmental concerns. A more intensive process also means fewer barrels can be easily extracted per day (witness the Canadian tar sands, who have worked for 30 years to reach the current level of production). In short oil shale, as with all other energy sources, is by no means a silver bullet.

Read the article here...

Labels: economy, energy policy, energy sources

In this recent Fortune magazine article the author sites several individuals who believe the American economy can withstand $100/barrel oil. We have certainly become less energy intensive per unit of GDP (a gauge of economic activity) and have been able to weather the storm of rising oil prices so far. However this article does not address the fact that the increase in oil price was both gradual and demand (rather than supply) driven - two factors we have no historical precendent with.

Read the article...

Labels: economy, oil price

While not in the same fancy table format as in the magazine (subscribers see page 124 of the November 12th edition of Time Magazine), here is a roundup of the environmental positions of the presidential candidates as provided by Time (view the original article here):


Friday, Nov. 02, 2007
The Eco Vote
By Jeffrey Kluger
The most remarkable thing about the environmental debates taking place in this year's presidential campaign is that they're occurring at all. Once the stuff of a few hug-the-planet bromides in green states like Vermont and Oregon, the environment is one of the hot topics of the 2008 campaign. Yes, there are some candidates who haven't gotten the message (witness Fred Thompson's loopy joke that global warming is taking place on Mars and Jupiter too). But for voters shopping for a green Prez, it's all at once a buyer's market. Here's how the Big Six candidates shape up.

[Energy Literacy note - Each candidate provides their views on each of the following categories, in this order: 1)Carbon Caps, 2)Energy Efficiency, 3)Mileage, 4)Nuclear Energy, 5)Drilling]

HILLARY CLINTON
1) Supports cap-and-trade, allowing businesses to swap carbon credits. Seeks an 80% carbon cut by 2050
2) Seeks a 10% reduction in national energy use by 2020. Wants new federal buildings to be “zero emission” by 2030
3) Calls for raising gas-mileage (CAFE) standards to 35 m.p.g. within 10 years. Will use administrative power if Congress declines to act
4) Has not taken a strong position on nuclear power; calls herself “agnostic” on the topic
5) Has opposed drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and in the Atlantic

JOHN EDWARDS
1) Supports cap-and-trade beginning in 2010 and 80% reduction in carbon output by 2050
2) Wants 15% cut in energy use by 2018. Seeks efficiency standards for federal buildings and vehicles
3) Wants 40-m.p.g. national average to be achieved by 2016. Proposes $1 billion per year fund to stimulate innovations in fuel efficiency
4) Opposes expanded use of nuclear power. Worries about safety
5) Opposes drilling in ANWR and offshore. Voted against both while in the Senate

RUDY GIULIANI
1) Acknowledges global warming but rejects cap-and-trade. Has not proposed any specific carbon-reduction targets
2) Broadly approves of alternative-energy sources and improved efficiency, but has no specific proposals
3) Hasn’t called for specific changes in auto-mileage requirements. Not seen as likely to do so
4) Supports increased use of nuclear energy. His private firm has conducted security work for the nuclear industry
5) Supports drilling in the Gulf of Mexico as well as in ANWR. Has received heavy campaign contributions from oil and gas industries

JOHN MCCAIN
1) Co-sponsor of Senate cap-and-trade bill; seen as a bipartisan leader on the issue. Wants 65% reduction in carbon by 2050
2) Generally supports increased energy efficiency but has not announced specific targets
3) Calls generally for raising CAFE standards. In past has advocated 35 m.p.g.
4) Supports expanded use of nuclear energy. Advocates including it as part of a broad mix of nonpetroleum power sources
5) Opposes drilling in ANWR. Has consistently voted against it despite party pressure favoring expanded exploration

MITT ROMNEY
1) Would consider cap-and-trade only if part of a larger global plan
2) Generally supports improved efficiency but does not address the issue regularly and offers no targets
3) Would not support mileage goals as a stand-alone measure. Would consider them only if they were part of a comprehensive energy plan
4) Supports more use of nuclear power as part of energy mix
5) Supports drilling in ANWR and offshore and stresses the point in video on his campaign website

BARACK OBAMA
1) Supports cap-and-trade legislation and calls for an 80% carbon reduction by 2050
2) Stresses innovation as a means to improve efficiency. Calls for a 50% improvement by 2030
3) Has alternately called for 50 m.p.g. within 18 years or 1-m.p.g.-improvement per year rule. To ease transition, wants tax credits for automakers
4) Is willing to explore expanded use of nuclear power. Not an enthusiast
5) Opposes ANWR drilling. Missed 2007 Senate vote on drilling off the coast of Virginia

Conclusion
So who's the greenest in this red-blue scrum? For the GOP, it's McCain. For the Dems, a toss-up. But beyond the Big Six, there's a surprise seventh: Bill Richardson. The New Mexico Guv sets higher targets than the rest: a 90% cut in carbon by 2050; 50 m.p.g. by 2020. He would also slash oil imports 85% by 2025. Being a second-tier candidate may free him to take chances. Among green voters, that's a way to make it to the top tier.

Labels: election 2008, environment

While simplistic, this overview by CNN provides a primer on each candidate's stance on popular energy policy topics.

Click here to view this interactive piece.

Labels: election 2008, energy policy

This article highlights the historically high price of oil reached today, and attempts to identify some of the causes, noting that higher prices may be here to stay...


Oil kicks off year by hitting $100
By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer
January 2 2008: 4:23 PM EST
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Oil prices kicked off 2008 by hitting $100 a barrel for the first time Wednesday, with violence in oil-rich Nigeria, the prospect of more interest rate cuts, a halt in Mexican imports and talk of yet another drop in U.S. crude supplies contributing to the milestone.
U.S. crude for February delivery hit $100 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange just after noon ET. It slipped to settle up $3.64 at $99.62, a new end-of-day record. The previous trading record was $99.29, set Nov. 20, while the previous settlement record was $98.18, set Nov. 23.
Oil prices ended 2007 by gaining nearly 60 percent for the year, the largest jump this decade.
"This market is really gonna fly," Ira Eckstein, president of Area International Trading Corp, said from the NYMEX floor.
The White House ruled out opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to temporarily relieve prices, and instead called for more domestic production.
In Nigeria, bands of armed men on Tuesday invaded Port Harcourt, the center of the oil industry, attacking two police stations and raiding the lobby of a major hotel, The Associated Press reported. Four policemen, three civilians and six attackers were killed. The Niger Delta Vigilante Movement claimed responsibility for the attack.
At 2.1 million barrels per day, Nigeria was the world's eighth-largest oil exporter in 2006, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency.
A surprise fall in manufacturing activity sparked fears of yet another interest rate cut from the Federal Reserve. Interest rate cuts generally cause the dollar to fall - and oil prices to rise - as investors bail out of U.S. stocks and bonds and into commodities.
"The perception is that as the U.S. economy continues to weaken, the Fed will cut interest rates one more time," said Nauman Barakat, an energy trader at Macquarie Futures, the trading arm of Macquarie investment bank.
The Associated Press reported that several Mexican ports were closed due to rough weather.
PEMEX, the Mexican state oil company, could not be immediately reached for comment, but reports indicated the ports should be open by Thursday with minimal disruption to crude shipments.
At 1.7 million barrels per day, Mexico is the world's 10th largest exporter of crude and the second largest exporter to the United States behind Canada.
Analysts are expecting the latest government inventory report - set for release Thursday, to show a 1.8 million barrel decline in crude supplies, according to a Dow Jones poll. It would mark the seventh straight week U.S. crude stocks have dropped.
Oil has been on a tear over the last few months - rising from under $70 in August - as OPEC cuts from earlier this year began to eat into inventories in developed counties.
A falling dollar and reports pointing to tightening supplies as strong demand from developing countries swallows up new production gains have also pushed prices higher, as well as attracted a slew of investment money.
Crude has risen over five-fold since the start of 2002, largely for the same reasons.
Adjusted for inflation, oil is at or near the prices of the early 1980s. At that time, following the Iranian revolution and the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq war, oil traded in the high $30-a-barrel range, the equivalent of between $92 and around $103 a barrel in current prices, depending on the contract cited and the inflation calculation used.
Retail gasoline prices have not risen as fast as oil prices over the last few months, largely due to weak demand.
But with oil prices so high, gasoline is beginning to catch up. The national average price for a gallon of regular Wednesday was about $3.05 a gallon, a penny less than last month but about 30 percent higher than the same time last year, according to the motorist organization AAA.
"Unfortunately, we also continue to believe that new record high prices will be paid by consumers for gasoline in the year ahead," AAA spokesman Geoff Sundstrom said in a statement.

Original Article Link

Labels: economy, oil price