The US Legislative History of Ethanol Fuel

For my energy and society, I did my presentation on the laws that have been passed to encourage ethanol fuel use. I plan to add to this post if I find any intersting articles. If anyone finds anything cool, feel free to post as well! Here are the graphs I used in my presentation.

Brazil vs. America Ethanol Production
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil

US Ethanol Production
http://people.moreheadstate.edu/students/rabloo02/images/Ethanol%20Graph.png

Yucca Mountain

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jun/01/yucca-license-application-next-round-20-year-battl/

This is a really interesting article about the progress (or lack thereof) of storing spent fuel at Yucca Mountain.

As of now, there is an application being presented to the government in order to proceed with the plans for storing nuclear waste in this mountain.

This article deals with what Barack, Clinton and McCain would do about this issue if they were president. Both Barack and Clinton would deny this application, and more specifically, Clinton's spokesperson said that Clinton would cut funding. McCain on the other hand is for this nuclear waste site, but he "still hopes waste could one day be sent overseas." The issue with nuclear waste is that it is radioactive and many people here in the United States are against storing it at Yucca Mountain because they are afraid of the radioactive effects on the population. However, I personally do not think the answer is to send it overseas so it can harm other people.

Here are some questions to consider:

- Is storing the nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain a good or bad idea?
- What do you think about McCain's desire to send our nuclear waste elsewhere?
- If you lived in Nevada, near Yucca Mountain, would you feel differently about this issue or would you have the same opinion no matter where you lived?

Local Foods And CSA's

For local CSA locations in NYC- http://justfood.org/csa/locations/

For the Red Hook Community Farm - www.added-value.org

NYC farmers markets- Greenmarkets- http://www.cenyc.org/greenmarket
map of locations- http://www.cenyc.org/files/gmkt/map.pdf

For organic farms across the Northeast- www.nofa.org

Greensburg

On the Discovery Channel, there is this new show called Greensburg.

Here is the little caption it gives on the Discovery Channel website:
http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-schedules/series.html?paid=1.15366.123163.35449.1

On May 4, 2007, the small town of Greensburg, Kansas, was annihilated by an F5 tornado. With a clean slate the town decides to rebuild the entire community energy efficient and as green as possible. But not everyone is sold on the idea.

The show airs on June 13th at 8:00 pm and again Junie 14th at 12:00 am.

I know it's kind of in a long time, but I think we should all try to watch it somehow, or at least read about what the show is about.

Movie- May 30- Energy Crossroads

Friday, May 30th, 7pm

Movie: “Energy Crossroads,” Future Visions movie and discussion series

Where:6th Street Community Center638 East 6th Street, Manhattan(between Avenues B and C)suggested donation $5

This 54-minute award-winning documentary exposes the problems associated with our energy consumption. It also offers concrete solutions for those who want to educate themselves and be part of the solutions in this decisive era. The film features passionate individuals, entrepreneurs, experts and scientists at the forefront of their field bringing legitimacy and expertise to the core message of the piece. www.energyxroads.com/about.html

[From Sierra Club NYC Group http://www.nyc.sierraclub.org/ ]

This is a great film and I highly recommend seeing it.- m adams

Time Magazine- Corn for people vs corn for SUV fill up

In April Time Magazine ran an article that made the claim that the corn required to feed a person for a year equals the corn needed to fill an SUV.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html

This dos not seem to be accurate at all.

Figuring output of 150 bushels/ year for corn/ acre and 22,204 calories/ bushel means an acre of corm produces 3,33 million calories, feeding 3.6 people for a year at 2,500 calories a day.

Food- 1 person needs 0.27 acres to get teh necessary calories from corn.

Using the same output of 150 bushels, ethanol output in gallons per acre are abot 354 gallons/ acre/ per year. www.gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/2/7/12145/81957

Figuring a 20 gallon fill up, we get 18 fillups from an acre each year.
Figuring a 30 gallon fill up, we get 12 fillups from an acre each year.

Fuel- 1 fillup needs 0.05 acres (20 gallons) or 0.83 acres(30 gallons)

This seems to be not even close to what time reports. 0.08 does not equal 0.27. That is a factor or 350% error.

Whay would Time Magazine be so inaccurate?

World Oil- National Geographic- June 2008

The media is shifting. National Geographic published this article this month.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2008/06/world-oil/roberts-text

They do not directly state there is a crisis but indicate that "A peak or plateau in oil production will also mean that, with rising population, the amount of gasoline, kerosene, and diesel available for each person on the planet may be significantly less than it is today. And if that's bad news for energy-intensive economies, such as the United States, it could be disastrous for the developing world, which relies on petroleum fuels not just for transport but also for cooking, lighting, and irrigation."

The Myth of Thanksgiving

Mike Ely wrote an intersting essay regarding what became known as Thanksgiving.

It can be viewed here:
http://rwor.org/a/firstvol/883/thank.htm

Article: "Why Gas in the U.S. Is So Cheap?"

http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/104996/Why-Gas-in-the-U.S.-Is-So-Cheap

This article is very interesting, it is worth taking a look at.

This table is especially interesting. Many people in the United States are freaking out about how expensive gas costs. The fact that we are in 111th place and we think $3.45 is a big deal just shows our luxurious standard of living. We are used to buying things so cheap that we aren't really aware of how much the things we buy are actually worth. I heard that McCain and Hillary are thinking of having a"gas tax holiday" from Memorial day to Labor day where they won't tax gas for a short term relief

(http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Energy/Analysis/2008/05/02/analysis_gasoline_policy_blues/1776/).

I am very opposed to this idea. How can Hillary speak to the citizens of the United States and say that we need to become less dependent on oil by moving towards cleaner, renewable sources, and then make it easier for people to use oil? Rising gas prices is a chance to step in and say, this isn't going to stop, so lets put more money towards other resources. This Summer plan was described to be a short term relief. This is exactly our problem, this whole short term thing. Sometimes it is more beneficial to do what's better for you in the long run than to do what is better for you in the short run.

Table:

Bogged Down
Most expensive places to buy gas
Rank	Country	Price/gal
1.	Bosnia-Herzegovina	$10.86
2.	Eritrea	$9.58
3.	Norway	$8.73
4.	United Kingdom	$8.38
5.	Netherlands	$8.37
6.	Monaco	$8.31
7.	Iceland	$8.28
8.	Belgium	$8.22
9.	France	$8.07
10.	Germany	$7.86
111.	United States	$3.45
Source: AIRINC

compromise? I don't know about that one...

For my Energy and Society Final Project, I want to study the Amazon Jungle in Brazil. This jungle is undergoing major physical changes in order to provide more ethanol energy. While this is a great step in the alternative energy direction, what will ultimately be the price of this change? I'm hoping this is topic (which is similar to Caroline's "2.5 Million" post) can sustain a full class period and still be compelling and interesting at the end of the 40 minutes. So if anyone can post similar situations or ideas, please let me know!

Carbon Sequestration

I have decided to write my essay on carbon seqestration. I want to describe the idea behind it as well as evaluate its potential as an alternative energy source, analayzing the potential benefits and costs of the process, and by addressing some of the controversy that surrounds it. If you find any information on it, any interesting articles or anything else, please post it as a response to this post; I need all the help I can get! Thanks!

Why So Pessimistic?

I have noticed lately that with my increasing exposure to commentary on the current energy situation that many people greet the issue with pessimism, doubt, and sheer cynicism. I myself often fall victim to this attitude; I am skeptical about the potential we have for change, and about the likelihood of our successful escape from the crisis. I can't help but wonder, however, how heavily this pessimism is playing into our lack of success. If people were less overwhelmed by the direty of the situation, less hopeless about our future, and more aware of the possibilities for change, would there be more of an incentive to make one? If people knew that there really is still hope, that it isn't over yet, would they feel more compelled to act?

After reading the first portion of The End of Fossil Energy, I was blown away by Howe's cynicism and lack of hope. Howe seems authoritatively jaded on the subject of alternative energy; he certainly seems to be knowledgeable on the subject and well aware of our situation. However, I thought his book was meant to encourage people to act, and to enlighten people to how crucial acting really is in this situation. But after reading just the beginning of this book, I already feel overwhelmed and clueless. All he has done so far is list all of the mistakes we have made as a society, and how impossible it is going to be to rectifiy the problems we have created for ourselves. One portion of the text that really struck me was in Howe's discussion of the potential ethanol energy holds:
"Some think tanks like ILSR... argue that with modern methods, and if it's done just right, the energy output of ethanol and co-products is greater than the input. On the contrary, the recognized expert on the subject, Cornell University professor David Pimentel...has been teaching and writing for years that growing biomass for transportation fuel is absolutely faulty thinking."
In this example, Howe presents a possibility for hope, and then immediately shoots it down without any further acknowledgement. He chooses to believe and support the pessimistic view on things, without even acknowledging why the other view is impossible or less credible.
While I whole-heartedly understand and respect Howe's desire to educate the masses and get people involved in energy conservation, and I am amazed by his efforts to do so, I don't think that approaching the issue with a pessimistic attitude is necessarily the way to go. I understand that people need to know the facts, and that giving them false hope is just stupid, but I don't think overdramatizing the situation is ok either. I think people should be given the facts, but I don't think we need to be constantly reprimanded and beaten down for the mistakes that have already been made. If we have acknowledged that we messed up, and are already suffering enough from the consequences of our actions, what good is constantly badgering ourselves about them going to do? Once we know the situation, and understand its causes, we need encouragement and optimism to make a difference. People need to be given hope that there is potential for change, or nobody is going to try. If we don't think that we can make a difference, there's no incentive to make an effort. I think we have done the job of promoting the idea that we have failed at creating a sustainable environment, and now it is time to move on and actually make a change. Words are only so powerful; now we need to act.

2.5 Million People

I was thinking today about The Three Gorges conversation we were having on Friday. Mr. Adams pointed out that although this dam may help hydroelectric advances, but it displaced a lot of people. According to: http://internationalrivers.org/en/china/three-gorges-dam, the dam displaced at least 1.3 million people. Although this number is 1 million less than the other, the amount of people is still very significant.

Once Mr. Adams brought this up, I accused everyone all over the world, basically, of always "nit-picking." I basically said that nothing is ever good enough for anyone and when someone tries to fix one issue, another person finds something wrong with it. Then, pretty much the rest of the class said to me, "well, 2.5 million people isn't exactly nit-picking." Then, I said okay fine may it isn't but. . . and then I used another example.

I regret that I took back my statement that the dam situation is nit-picking. Although it is really unfortunate that so many people got displaced, someone needs to stand up and make those tough decisions. Is it more important to become less oil dependent by creating a source of hydroelectric power, or are the at least 1.3 million people more important. Perhaps I would make a terrible politician and I would never be elected, because I do not think those 1.3 million people are always the most important.

Yell at me for saying that and say I have no heart or what not, but hear me out first. The reason why we are in this oil predicament, if you will, is that no one said 50-100 years ago, "We need to stop making our lives SO EASY and we need to stop using oil so much because it will be detrimental to our society and the WORLD in the next 100 years." No one got up and said that. No one dared to defy the growing oil companies and the profiting governments. No one dared to defy the people that were now getting the chance to have energy easily available to them. No one dared to put the men that led various oil companies out of business. Can you imagine if you lived in that time period and some one said to you: ehh let's drop this amazing source of fuel we found and stop using it so much just because it will benefit people we won't even know ONE HUNDRED years from now?

The reason why you probably can't imagine this is because everyone is about the present. It is basic human instinct to fend for yourself and your loved ones. It is basic instinct to live in the now. However, like I said before, this is what lead us to the oil problem we're in now.

Now, we have ANOTHER chance to try and make things better by expanding other source of energy. But if people cannot prioritize then it will never happen. Some bold person out there needs to say the future is more important.

Perhaps that is impossible to say, because is it philosophically or psychologically whatever possible to value something that is not attainable and has not happened yet?

Either way, I wrote this post because sometimes 2.5 million people is nit-picking. Come to me in 100 years (although that is not highly unlikely) and tell me that. I know that I am not part of that 2.5 million people so I don't know what it's like. But me and everyone in the world needs to realize that it's not just about us. I am guilty of fending for myself and I am not trying to say I am better than anyone, it is just the first step to realize that what I have just said is true.

NSTA Conference in Boston: Energy Education

Over this past weekend, I attended the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) Conference in Boston. The conference is meant to expose science teachers all over the country to innovative teaching methods, curriculum and textbook aids, and to promote the study of science in schools. Though the conference is mostly based in advocating for the teaching of the basics in the natural sciences of biology, chemistry, and physics, I found that there was a lot of information about incorporating energy education into science curriculums.

Many of the booths I visited and one of the workshop lectures I attended focused on the importance of educating students about the dangers of pollution and global warming and the importance of energy efficiency. Most of the booths that addressed energy education discussed the importance of preparing the students of today for running the country tomorrow; we will be responsible for the choices made today, and for that reason, educating students about the current energy situation is crucial. The lecture I attended on energy conservation discussed the same things we have been addressing in class--the importance of alternative energy, the detriments of energy inefficiency, etc.

I brought back some pamphlets from the trip that I will bring to class on Friday or next week; some topics covered by the pamphlets include:
- water pollution (regulations, what to do to stop it, etc.)
- renewable energy
- global warming and CO2 emissions
- nuclear energy
- fuel cells

I found it very interesting that promoting "green" education has become so popular in the realm of education. I never thought of targeting the issue from this angle up until now, but I think it holds a lot of promise and certainly has the potential to affect great change. Some things you may want to comment on include: Do you think this policy will be effective in affecting change? Do you think it is important to educate the children even though they aren't the ones going out and making legislations on the issue? To what extent do you think energy education is already incorporated in science curicula, and is this enough?

Business Sees Green in Going Green

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/12/14/environment/index.html

This article discusses how companies now are slowly changing their vehicles from being environmentally harmful to environmentally safe. Other big industries are changing their methods to suit up to the "going green" idea for economic profits also. They have realized by "going green", they not only do it for the society, but also because they save money also.

Some interesting statements in this article are:
"The return on the company's investment appears to be high: Last year, GE's "Ecomagination" line of products generated $10 billion in revenues in 2005, and is on track to eclipse $20 billion by 2010."

"Companies are increasingly considering their environmental costs as a way to bolster their brand name and consumer confidence in their product."

"Paying attention to the environment saves money."

""The positive impact we see with our employees is eye-opening -- they are engaged, excited and generating real ideas on new technologies in areas we can improve (greenhouse gas emissions) and energy consumption," he says."

I find it interesting how in support of Daphnee's idea that "green" is becoming popular, that it is also becoming a win-win situation for companies. Not only do they get to help the environment, but they are also saving a lot of money also. But I have to wonder that if it was actually not a money-saving technique, would they have gone the environment-friendly path?

Additionally, this has become an example of the domino effect. As one company starts to acknowledge the importance of greenhouse gases and pollution and the effects of peak oil, other companies begin to operate the same way.

Also, I find it amazing how much effect the media has on the world's beliefs. Through magazines, newspapers, reports, and news stories on their television shows, now "green" has become an essential part of the time period we live in. Through the media "green" has become a part of our popular culture.

The New York Academy of Science

The other day me and my good friend Mathias Rabinovitch went to a presentation at the New York Academy of Science. There were 2 speakers each with their own little presentation.
The first speaker was an economist and spoke about the "McKinsey Report" which is a report that basically gives instructions on how our government can change us to a very green country with the little price of $3 trillion without having to change our lifestyle. This presentation examined how the government would only have to spend 3 trillion instead of 6 trillion dollars if they did this slow, incremental switch to a whole bunch of green energy producing techniques. The presentator used the term "we won't find a silver bullet" very often to describe how we were going to need to get our energy from a wide variety of sources. The presentations sometimes got complicated by going into economic intricacies but thats pretty much the main gist of the first presentation.
The second speaker was a scientist from Columbia University and he described his discoveries and this machine he made that made CO2 into something valuable. This presentation involved a whole lot of big words and chemistry terms that I was unfamiliar with so it was very difficult to follow, but what i got out of it was very interesting. This man found a way to take CO2 and turn it into a valuable substance. not only that but he was able to make this machine of his to convert the CO2 self sustainable. So he explained the process by which he did this with a bunch of charts and graphs and pictures. I am not sure how useful this invention of his is in terms of the product what it can be used for, but it was very interesting.
Me and Matt then went to the food gathering afterwards and after a little while of social awkwardness, people started talking to us and we got into some interesting discussions with people, that always ended up going to politics, but it was on overall a great experience and the building was absolutely amazing with a beautiful view of NYC.

http://www.nyas.org/events/eventDetail.asp?eventID=10429&date=3/19/2008%206:00:00%20PM

I posted a link with info about the presentation, I didn't read the website yet but it seems to sum up pretty much what was happening.Also if you want some like in depth notes talk to Matt because he copied some diagrams and took some really good notes of what was going on.

Vogue Magazine - The Green Issue May 2007

For my project, I recently decided to do it on how people are going "green" in the media. There is a big spotlight on going green now from go green bags to hybrid cars that are better for the environment. I found a whole issue on this on the vogue magazine website that was published spring of last year.

THE LINKS:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/green/

and an interesting article called "A Convenient Untruth" by Michael Shnayerson

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/05/skeptic200705

Another interesting thing that I found in Fortune Magazine was a list of major coporate companies that are trying to go green.

THE LINK:

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/fortune/0703/gallery.green_giants.fortune/index.html

Car Companies: On the race for the greenest car

I went the auto show the other day with my good friend Mathias Rabinovitch. One of the major things we could not help but notice was how every single car company was trying to prove how green they were and most of all how they were the greenest. It was almost like a competition, each car vendor trying to sell their "green"car, even Hummer tried to have a green car. When I saw this I was very happy, for this was showing that the public was interested in greener cars. I just think that this is interesting because it really shows us how car companies are now drastically improving their mileage, and engines, and even not using oil at all, I saw a car with written "plug in" in huge so i imagined that it was an electric car and there was a huge crowd around it. I think that this is showing us that in fact the oil companies might not have that much power over car companies anymore because i think demand is now overpowering the "bribes" oil companies have going towards car companies. So lets just hope that things continue this way and that car companies in the end might not be as bad as we thought.

Oil price's influence on economics is my most interesting topic

(The rally in energy prices gained momentum Friday, with retail gas prices rising further into record territory and diesel and heating oil futures setting records of their own amid concerns about strong global demand and tight supplies.At the pump, gas prices set records for the fourth straight day, rising 1.3 cents Friday to a national average price of $3.28 a gallon, according to AAA and the Oil Price Information Service. Average prices are nearing $4 in some parts of Hawaii.Light, sweet crude for April delivery fell 12 cents to settle at $110.21 on the Nymex Friday after rising earlier to within pennies of its latest trading record of $111, set Thursday.)
Recently, the oil price is increasing dramatically. It's almost $110 per barrel. The increasing of the oil price is my most interesting topic in the energy course cuz it's has huge impact on ecnomics and people's daily life. I really want to learn more about what are the major reason caused it and how to prevent it from increasing way to fast. When is it gonna stop? As time flew, isn't it possible for the price to reach $200 per barrel? I think oil is the most precious thing in our life besides water. After reading the article "how's life without oil", I am shocked to think about it and i am looking forward to learning more from you guys.

World Oil Production Statistics

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t14.xls

Today we discussed the WSJ article and current oil production levels. Here is a source, the Energy Information Administration, and their stats on world oil production. You may note that the world seemed to peak in May 2005, but it appears that if estimates are correct we actually surpassed that near the end of 2007.

These are estimates now, as BP has not yet relesaed the 2007 Energy Review.
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2007/STAGING/local_assets/downloads/spreadsheets/statistical_review_full_report_workbook_2007.xls

We should remeber that as prices climb, producers will be incentivized to produce more. With the climbing prices of oil, we may only see a drop in production only once they can no longer maintain current levels.

The World Has Plenty of Oil- Wall Street Journal Opinion piece

from march 4, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120459389654809159.html


Points to consider:
Who does/did Nannsen G. Saleri work for?
What figures does he use that we have other sources for?
What are his sources?

Should we draft a letter to the WSJ or Mr. Saleri himself for any reason?

What Will We Eat as the Oil Runs Out?

online at: http://globalpublicmedia.com/richard_heinbergs_museletter_what_will_we_eat_as_the_oil_runs_out

The article we had to read for tomorrow, written by Richard Heinberg, presents a variety of problems with fossil fuel dependency. He points out many things - some more obvious than others. Some things that are affected by our dependency are: climate, higher oil prices, increased demand for biofuels and the loss of fresh water supplies.

Although biofuel crops may seem to fix the problem of oil dependency, Heinberg points out that farmers are becoming more interested in growing crops to provide energy, rather than food - this does not help the inevitable situation of our growing population and increase demand for food.

His answer to this situation is generally organic farming. However, this requires the government to take initiative in helping people become first interested, then educated on this type of farming.

A few things to think about are:

1. "The U.S. is responsible for 70 percent of world maize exports, and countries such as Mexico, Japan, and Egypt that depend on American corn farmers use maize both as food for people and feed for animals." -- This quote is interesting because the U.S. is notorious for taking rather than giving. However, the one of the few things they give is being scrutinized for "impacting food availability in other nations both directly and indirectly, raising the price for tortillas in Mexico and disrupting the livestock and poultry industries in Europe and Africa."

2. What do you think about his scrutiny of biofuels?
Something to think about: Then, the writer goes on to say that global warming affects farmers a lot because it creates a climate chaos that can sometimes ruin a years worth of crops. To me, this would seem as a perfect opportunity to pump up the use of biofuels. Then he goes on to say that "soil erosion undermines food and water availability, as well as producing 30 percent of climate-changing greenhouse gases." Although this refutes my point, it is unclear where he got this information (there is no citation like in previous sections) and to what extent the percentage of climate-changing greenhouse gases is so easily measured. On the other hand, then why not focus more on improving farming techniques?

3. He points out that in order to improve the situation, more education in organic farming is needed. To what extent do you think the government is responsible in promoting organic farming? Are there any laws in effect or proposed within this article that you agree or disagree with?

4. The author then goes as far to say that "food policy must include population policy. We must encourage smaller families by means of economic incentives. . ." Who do you think he means by "we"? Do you agree with this quote? Why or why not.

Proven, Probable and Possible Oil Reserves

3 Types of oil reserves


Proven, probable and possible reserves are the three most common categories of reserves used in the oil industry. They are intended to represent the probability that a reserve exists based on the geologic and engineering data and interpretation for a given location, though many governments refuse to disclose verifying data to support their claims.


Proven Reserves - defined as oil and gas "Reasonably Certain" to be producible using current technology at current prices, with current commercial terms and government consent, also known in the industry as 1P. Some industry specialists refer to this as P90, i.e., ideally having a 90% certainty of being produced. Proven reserves are further subdivided into "Proven Developed" (PD) and "Proven Undeveloped" (PUD). PD reserves are reserves that can be produced with existing wells and perforations, or from additional reservoirs where minimal additional investment (operating expense) is required. PUD reserves require additional capital investment (drilling new wells, installing gas compression, etc.) to bring the oil and gas to the surface.


Probable Reserves - defined as oil and gas "Reasonably Probable" of being produced using current or likely technology at current prices, with current commercial terms and government consent. Some Industry specialists refer to this as P50, i.e., ideally having a 50% certainty of being produced. This is also known in the industry as 2P or Proven plus probable.


Possible Reserves - i.e., "having a chance of being developed under favourable circumstances". Some industry specialists refer to this as P10, i.e., ideally having a 10% certainty of being produced in the foreseeable future. This is also known in the industry as 3P or Proven plus probable plus possible.



Concerns over stated reserves

“ [World] reserves are confused and in fact inflated. Many of the so called reserves are in fact resources. They’re not delineated, they’re not accessible, they’re not available for production ”

------------------------------------------------------------------------
— Sadad Al-Husseini, former VP of Aramco, Oct. 2007; by Al-Husseini's estimate 300 billion of the world’s 1200 billion barrels of proved reserves should be recategorized as speculative resources.


One difficulty in forecasting the date of peak oil is the opacity surrounding the oil reserves classified as 'proven'. Many worrying signs concerning the depletion of 'proven reserves' have emerged in recent years.



This was best exemplified by the 2004 scandal surrounding the 'evaporation' of 20% of Shell's reserves.


For the most part, 'proven reserves' are stated by the oil companies, the producer states and the consumer states. All three have reasons to overstate their proven reserves:
-Oil companies may look to increase their potential worth.
-Producer countries are bestowed a stronger international stature
-Governments of consumer countries may seek a means to foster sentiments of security and stability within their economies and among consumers.


The Energy Watch Group (EWG) 2007 report shows total world Proved (P95) plus Probable (P50) reserves to be between 854 and 1255 Gb (30 to 40 years of supply if demand growth were to stop immediately). Major discrepancies arise from accuracy issues with OPEC's self-reported numbers. Besides the possibility that these nations have overstated their reserves for political reasons (during periods of no substantial discoveries), over 70 nations also follow a practice of not reducing their reserves to account for yearly production. 1255 Gb is therefore a best-case scenario. Analysts have suggested that each of the OPEC member nations also has economic incentives to exaggerate their reserves, due to the OPEC quota system, which allows greater output for countries with greater reserves.


The following chart shows suspicious jumps in stated reserves without associated discoveries, as well as the lack of depletion despite yearly production:





Kuwait, for example, was reported by a January 2006 issue of Petroleum Intelligence Weekly to have only 48 Gb in reserve, of which only 24 are "fully proven." This report was based on "leaks of confidential documents" from Kuwait, and has not been formally denied by the Kuwaiti authorities. Additionally, the reported 1.5 Gb of oil burned off by Iraqi soldiers in the first Gulf War are conspicuously missing from Kuwait's figures.

Daylight Savings

We discussed daylight savings time briefly in class last week and I know some of us were interested in learning more about it. This website provides a very thorough tutorial on the history of daylight savings, countries that participate, its purpose, and the effects it has had on energy consumption thus far. I found the history of each country's daylight savings policies the most interesting.

The tutorial is clear and concise, and raises some interesting questions about efforts being made to reduce energy consumption. Some questions I had after reading through the website are:
-How effective is daylight savings in practice? How much daylight are we really saving, and how does this translate into decreased power consumption?
-Is there more potential to conserve daylight in different regions of the globe? If so, how have those regions responded through enacting legislature dealing with daylight savings time policies?

Another interesting paradox I thought of when reading through the website was this: why was daylight savings enacted in the U.S. as early as it was when we had no real way to capture the power of the sun? How did daylight savings help conserve energy when we didn't have solar panels to capture the energy in the first place?

The website is kind of long, but you can jump around the pages to find the interesting parts. I strongly recommend it; it has some really cool information about the history of energy policy and daylight savings around the world.

The link to the website is:
http://webexhibits.org/daylightsaving/index.html

Who Killed The Electric Car?

The movie entitled Who killed The Electric Car describes the life of the electric car in America and more specifically in California.

The film starts off with a description of the Ford EV1, a revolutionary electric car that caught the attention of many consumers. Then out of no where, the company General Motors decides to get rid of all the EV1s in California (the car was originally started in California). General Motors would seize all the cars and destroy them. The reason for this was unknown. The movie goes on an investigation of who or what killed the electric car, taking into account a whole bunch of different factors some of which include Batteries, the consumers, the government, oil companies, car companies and the competition of Hydrogen cars. This movie ends up by detailing who they think killed the electric car and why.

It is a very interesting movie that really shows us how corrupt some of these corporations are and refuse to make progress for the sake of making money. I strongly recommended watching it.

Some questions to think about are why people are doing this and what interest are they gaining. This issue of the electric car can also be related to the more overarching problem of how those in power seem to have more of a priority for their own personal benefits than the benefits of society.

Solar Power - 1

A solar cell is a kind of semiconductor device that takes advantage of the photo-voltaic effect, in which electricity is produced when the semiconductor's PN junction is irradiated. When light strikes a solar cell, part of it is reflected, part of it is absorbed, and part of it passes through the cell.

The absorbed light excites the bound electrons into a higher energy state, making them free electrons. These free electrons move about in all directions within the crystal, leaving holes where the electrons used to be, and the holes also shift around the crystal. The electrons (-) collect in the N-layer, the holes (+) in the P-layer. When the outside circuit is closed, electricity flows.

Solar photovoltaic(Solar electrical panels) -

Advantages-
Sustainable It is a well proven technology. Well suited to providing power in home or single building applications. Meets peak demand.

Disadvantages-
While the panels are environmentally benign once they are built, the manufacturing process requires large amounts of energy.

One less common, expensive, but highly efficient type of solar panel, gallium arsenide, contains toxins that need to be disposed of carefully at the end of the life of the panel.

Solar energy is spread relatively thinly. If a photovoltaic generator is to produce much electricity it has to cover a large area. However, in the case of home electrical supplies the roof provides sufficient available space.

Does not produce much power when the sun isn't shining, and negligible power at night. An alternative power supply is needed for these periods.

Electricity generated by solar panels is quite expensive.

A solar photovoltaic panel must operate for a considerable time before it produces more power than was required in its manufacture. The US National Renewable Energy Labaratory states on its energy payback page that "Paybacks for multicrystalline modules are 4 years for systems using recent technology and 2 years for anticipated technology. For thin-film modules, paybacks are 3 years using recent technology, and just 1 year for anticipated thin-film technology".

Can be combined with small-scale wind-generated electricity or with mains power. Alternatively, batteries can be charged when more electricity is being generated than is being consumed. Excess electricity can be sold to the grid in some cases.

In the past photovoltaic panels have predominantly been based on silicon. It is possible that in future a larger proportion will use alternatives such as gallium arsenide (GaAs) or copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS). While these elements are much rarer than silicon, they can be used as a thin film; this makes the cost competative. One wonders if there pollution implications in their eventual disposal.

http://www.geocities.com/daveclarkecb/ElecGenProsCons.html#Solar%20photovoltaic


Maybe someone can post some stats on the cost or the growth of the solar industry and electric genration over the past 40 years.

AC Electric Generation

A system showing a fuel buring to heat water, causing the steam produced to turn the turbine, which connected to a generator creates usable energy in the form of AC- alternating current- electric.

Below is a close up of the generator itself. The steam turn the turbine connected to a coiled wire cylinder by a rod, the coils surrounded by magnets to create the electro magnetic field, which is send down the wire(or path of least resistance) to the electric grid.

It should be noted that all turbine production of electricity is in the form of AC. All household appliances and everything you plug into a regular outlet runs on AC power.

However, things that use batteries- cameras, phones, iPods, etc, will convert the AC power coming from the wall into DC power in order to charge the batteries.

There are only two methods to create DC- direct current- electric- from batteries and from solar PV(photovoltaic) panels. Please feel free to comment on the limits of either of those below.

Global Warming???

There is a conference happening in NYC this weekend about the validity of Global Warming.
http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.cfm

This is pricey and I don't expect anyone to attend- also it runs from sunday to tuesday. But i wanted to show the other side and let you review their information, if you like, and comment on it. This is their site for the facts: http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/

from the site-
Global Warming: Crisis or Scam?

The debate over whether human activity is responsible for some or all of the modern warming, and then what to do if our presence on Earth is indeed affecting the global climate, has enormous consequences for everyone in virtually all parts of the globe. Proposals to drive down human greenhouse gas emissions by raising energy costs or imposing draconian caps could dramatically affect the quality of life of people in developed countries, and, due to globalization, the lives of people in less-developed countries too.

The global warming debate that the public and policymakers usually see is one-sided, dominated by government scientists and government organizations agenda-driven to find data that suggest a human impact on climate and to call for immediate government action, if only to fund their own continued research, but often to achieve political agendas entirely unrelated to the science of climate change. There is another side, but in recent years it has been denied a platform from which to speak.

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change promises to be an exciting event and the point of departure for future conferences, publications, and educational campaigns to present both sides of this important topic.

BP Statistical Review- 2006

http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=6848&contentId=7033471

This site has a link to an excel file that has everything with regards to energy- production, consumption, reserves, discoveries.

the excel sheet directly- http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2007/STAGING/local_assets/downloads/spreadsheets/statistical_review_full_report_workbook_2007.xls

Sorted by region, fuel type, year- this allows us to look at the raw data- or as best we can get it. We can examine the numbers ourselves- draw our own conclusions- as our own questions.

Some questions will be posted later that reference this document.

Hirsch Report- Risk Management

http://globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/615- audio discussion with Robert Hirsch- 34 minutes



http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/The_Hirsch_Report_Proj_Cens.pdf - pdf of report



http://www.acus.org/docs/051007-Hirsch_World_Oil_Production.pdf - 10 page summary



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_report - wiki on hirsch report



-------------------------------------------------------------------



Robert Hirsch talks of "Risk Management". Specifically he speaks of how when the potential for risk is very high, taking actions to mitigate the risk becomes more important. He states that the US does not historically use risk management for its policy- citing as an example the warnings that came prior to Pearl Harbor.

Now we have additional warnings- many credible sources have made strong claims, including the US Dept of Energy's Hirsch Report, that bring to light the possiblilty of grave circumstances if we do not take action prior to the peaking of oil production.


Why, at the national level, do we not include many elements of risk managment in our decisions.



Or, if you feel otherwise, how you think our policies as a nation are taking into account risk management with regards to oil depletion.

Hirsch Report

http://globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/615- audio discussion with Robert Hirsch- 34 minutes

http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/The_Hirsch_Report_Proj_Cens.pdf - pdf of report

http://www.acus.org/docs/051007-Hirsch_World_Oil_Production.pdf - 10 page summary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_report - wiki on hirsch report

The Hirsch report, the commonly referred to name for the report Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management, was created by request for the US Department of Energy and published in February 2005. It examined the likelihood of the occurrence of peak oil, the necessary mitigating actions, and the likely impacts based on the timeliness of those actions.

This is a long report but the brief summary does a good job of giving an overview. Also, the audio interview is quite informative as well.

Question- Assuming that this report has valid conclusions, when do actions need to begin to be taken to mitigate the effects of the peaking of oil?

What are they most pressing issues, in your opinion and based on this report, for we individually, as a nation, or as a world in the years leading up to and immediately after the peaking of oil production.

What reactions do you have to reading or listening to Robert Hirsch's words?

Oil Prices

Above are a 15 year price history and a 150 price history for oil.

Comment on any trends you see.

Note that only once in the past 130 years was oil more costly than it is now.

Ask someone who was alive then how the high price of oil affected them, their jobs, or their decisions.

Ask if they knew why the price went back down then, if they think it will go back down now.

clicking on the image shows it full screen.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

Story of Stuff - 2

http://www.storyofstuff.com/

Annie Leonard discusses how the $4.99 she paid for her radio can not possibly cover the costs that go into making the radio.

The other costs are 'external costs'.

Describe your understanding of 'external costs'. Rewatch that segment or use another resource if needed to help your understanding of this concept.

Can you think of any other items that we can buy that seem to be priced way below what they should be priced?

Story Of Stuff

http://www.storyofstuff.com/

Annie Leonard makes a lot of good points in 'the story of stuff'.

One in particular is regarding the value, or lack thereof, of those who do not buy anything and those who do not own anything. They do not contribute to the golden arrow of consumption.

Who is it that places value?

Bolo Bolo 2

The point of view presented in bolo bolo says that the “machine” has brought destruction and despair to the world by consuming time and resources. Consider an alternative view to the one discussed in the article of the “machine.”

What good, in your opinion, has the “planetary work machine” brought to human civilization?

What are your thoughts on the “planetary work machine?”

bolo bolo can be found at http://www.spunk.org/texts/misc/sp000137.txt

Bolo Bolo 1

“Then somebody must have started playing around with seeds and plants and invented agriculture. It must have seemed a good idea, for we didn't have to walk far to get enough food. But life became more complicated and toilsome. Wehad to stay in the same place for at least several months to store the seeds for the next crop and to plan and organize work on the fields. Fields and harvest also had to be defended from our nomadic gatherer hunter cousins who kept thinking that everything belonged to everybody. Conflicts between farmers, hunters and cattle breeders arose. We had to explain to others that we "worked" to accumulate our provisions--and they didn't even have a word for "work".

What does work mean to you?

bolo bolo can be found at http://www.spunk.org/texts/misc/sp000137.txt