Group items tagged

The propane industry has set its sights on that symbol of American middle-class achievement: the lawn mower

Blame it in part on the natural-gas drilling boom, which has left distributors scrambling to find new ways to increase demand for propane

By promoting the benefits of propane lawn mowers—which have lower emissions, are cheaper to run and last longer—the group is betting it can grow to a 3% share of all commercial mowers sold in the U.S. by 2016 from 1% now. That would goose propane consumption by the machines to 23.8 million gallons by 2016 from about 7.9 million gallons this year.

How much the push into lawn mowers will help propane retailers remains to be seen.

In addition, the U.S. has become a net exporter of propane in recent years—supplying countries such as Mexico, Brazil, Ecuador and Chile with propane for residential heating and cooking

Energy costs keep Japan's focus on nuclear, despite risks and use of renewables

other plants remained closed for intensified safety checks

The issue is cost, and to a lesser extent, concern over a resurgence in climate-changing carbon emissions due to increased use of coal and oil to generate power. Clean energy still only accounts for 10 percent of total consumption — most of it hydropower. Much of the new capacity approved has yet to come online.

nuclear power remains essential, even with a surge in generation capacity from solar, wind and other renewable sources, and that the world's No. 3 economy cannot afford the mounting costs from importing gas and oil.

Japan has managed to avoid power rationing and blackouts. Industries have moved aggressively to avoid disruptions by installing backup generators and shifting to new sources, such as solar power.

households no

paying 30 percent more for electricity than before, with more rate hikes to come.

prompted a rethink of plans to raise nuclear capacity from one-third to over half of total demand.

Reliance on imported oil and gas has surged from about 60 percent of energy consumption to about 85 percent.

The recent weakening of the Japanese yen has added to the burden on the economy from oil and gas imports.

Abe and others in favor of resuming nuclear power contend that renewable energy is too expensive and unreliable — wind doesn't always blow, the sun doesn't always shine.

Apart from those issues, national security requires that Japan retain some self-sufficiency

Local communities are divided: many have relied heavily on nuclear plants for jobs and tax revenues, but worry over potential risks.

hat there's a huge opportunity in power

We're also seeing radical efficiency gains.

he disposal and security of nuclear waste are issues yet to be resolved.

For now, however, it appears any phase-out of nuclear power will be very gradual.

"In the long term if we can create new resources that are more efficient than the current oil-based system, then we can rely less on nuclear power, that's quite possible," Adachi said. "But it will take quite a long time."

In America, where shale deposits belong to landowners instead of to the state, royalties of 12-25% sweeten the deal. Glynn Williams of Epi-V, which invests in gas services, thinks Britain’s fracking firms will eventually improve their offer, but are unlikely to stump up as much as 5% of their haul.

Surprisingly, a carbon tax would operate much like a diamond tax, for reasons both of demand and supply.

Demand: The wealthy actually consume a disproportionate amount of carbon. Discussions of a carbon tax usually focus on the price of gasoline. One gallon of gas produces about 17 pounds of CO2. One metric ton is 2,204 pounds. So a $100 tax on a ton of CO2 comes to $0.77 per gallon -- a significant cost to low-income commuters and small truckers.

But the very poor don't drive or travel or occupy much space; the rich fly planes, including private jets; drive to low-density suburbs; occupy and heat multiple houses and hotels; and buy lots of stuff. Clearly the rich consume much more carbon per capita than the poor.

Demand elasticity for oil is low, about 0.5; so a 1 percent increase in oil price would cause a 0.5 percent decrease in consumption. That makes sense, since in the short run, it's hard for people to cut energy consumption, especially if they must drive to work. But, though numbers are hard to come by, elasticity of supply is much, much lower, for two reasons. First, oil production takes decades and billions in capital investment; producers cannot quickly increase or decrease supply. Second, oil producers form an international cartel, an organized mega-monopoly, which holds down production to drive up prices. Since they're already charging what the traffic will bear, they can't much raise prices to cover a tax.

As economists long ago figured out, buyers and sellers share a tax in inverse proportion to elasticity. Therefore, if supply elasticity of carbon is, say, 0.1, while demand elasticity is 0.5, the suppliers will pay five times as much of the tax as consumers. That reduces that $0.77 per gallon gas tax to only $0.13. Moreover, precisely because most of the tax falls on suppliers, it will generate plenty of revenue to help those unfortunate long-distance commuters and small truckers, to build more public transportation, to invest in renewable energy, and even to cut super-regressive taxes like the payroll tax.

According to Edward Wolff, in 2007, the top 1 percent in the U.S. owned 43 percent of non-home wealth, mostly securities, including of course energy company stocks and bonds. The top 10 percent of wealth holders owned 83 percent.

A May 2013 federal study of the Social Cost of Carbon estimated costs of additional CO2 emissions for 2010 to 2050 ranging from $27 to $221 per metric ton in 2050, depending on assumptions.

So we have good news and bad news. Good news: The cost of reducing carbon emissions will fall hardest on the 1 percent, who consume the most energy and own the energy companies. Bad news: Ditto. Expect a fight!

Higher inflation is a key aim of the economic policies of the country's prime minister, Shinzo Abe, who was elected in 2012

Japanese consumer prices are expected to keep showing steady headway towards the Bank of Japan's 2% inflation target. But the erosion of consumer spending power due to the sales tax increase – to 8% from 5% – underlines the need for long-stagnant wages to catch up with inflation to underpin consumption and help economic recovery.

The core consumer price index for Tokyo, available a month before the nationwide data, is likely to have increased 2.8% in April from a year earlier

The figures from the Overseas Development Institute suggest that Britain is now the world's fifth largest subsidiser of fossil fuels

For every $1 spent to support renewable energy, another $6 were spent on fossil fuel subsidies

In 2011, the latest year for which data is available, Britain gave tax breaks of £280m to oil and gas producers and reduced VAT on fossil fuels by several billion pounds

Rich countries have committed to phase out "inefficient" fossil fuel subsidies but the ODI figures, drawn from the International energy agency, OECD and other sources, suggest global subsidies to fossil fuel producers totalled $523bn a year in 2011 – dwarfing subsidies to renewable energies.

£2.6bn yearly incentive favours investment in carbon at the expense of green energy, says thinktank

In effect, each of the 11.6bn tonnes of carbon emitted from the top 11 developed countries comes with an average subsidy of $7 a tonne – around $112 for every adult

The figures have been released as ministers prepare to go to Poland for the deadlocked UN climate talks and as uncertainty surrounds the future of government-mandated levies on energy bills that support fuel poverty schemes and renewable energy.

G20 governments accepted in 2009 that fossil fuel subsidies encourage wasteful consumption, reduce energy security, and undermine efforts to deal with the threat of climate change.

The report said: "Investors are being sent the wrong signals on two fronts as carbon prices decline and fossil fuel subsidies increase."

The report argues that fossil fuel subsidies also fail in one of their core stated objectives, which is to to benefit the poorest.

"It takes a great deal of energy to supply water, and a great deal of water to supply energy. With water stress spreading and intensifying around the globe, it's critical that policymakers not promote water-intensive energy options."

Fellow

IEA sees coal-powered electricity driving the greatest demand for water now and in the future

Steam-driven coal plants always have required large amounts of water

The greater New York metro area may be home to an enormous share of the country’s 1 percenters, and it's certainly a magnet for exorbitant, plutocratic wealth. But in the city itself, the basic income curve isn’t that exceptional. In the entire U.S., according to the Census, about 22 percent of households earn six figures. In NYC, it’s about 25 percent.

Real estate here is expensive, and we don’t get much square footage for our buck. But as I wrote yesterday, the high rents in this city are balanced out somewhat by the low, low cost of commuting on the subway. (Not paying for a car, or gas, or car insurance is pretty financially sweet.)

Combine that with the fact that salaries are somewhat higher than average here, and New York is reasonably affordable compared with other large cities.

The upshot: If you’re rich by U.S. standards, you’re probably also rich by New York standards. Now, if you do want to see a city where incomes are crazily out of line with the national norm, check out San Francisco, where 39 percent of households make six figures—it really is becoming a city for the rich.

the US will maintain this new standing for the foreseeable future, according to official projections.

It should be no surprise, then, that in the past rising oil prices were associated with recessions and falling oil prices with booms. If the oil price carries on falling back towards $50 a barrel, and if history is any guide, the western economy should respond – to the good.

But although particular companies may lose out, the first-round effect of this fall should provide good news. High oil prices depress economic activity. They suck money from consumer spending and redirect it to oil-exporting countries, which typically hoard it in elephantine foreign exchange reserves or unspent  bank deposits. It is a tax by the few on the many.

With the US needing to buy less oil on international markets and China’s growth sinking to its lowest mark for 40 years, there is now, amazingly, the prospect of an oil glut. The oil price instantly nosedived to its lowest level for four years, around $70 a barrel – down more than a third in three months.

Suddenly, the balance of economic advantage with Russia, no less dependent on oil and gas exports, will flip. Russia’s 2014 budget was based on an oil price of $100 a barrel. At $70 a barrel, the economy will contract by at least 3% in 2015, the country will run a balance of payments deficit and the government’s finances will spin out of control.

The chances of Russia sustaining a surrogate war in Ukraine have suddenly been reduced. All good news.

But western governments cannot hope that economic benefits will arrive automatically. These are new times.

Uncertainty and fear abound. Interest rates in Britain alone have been pegged at 0.5% for more than five years. But still business is reluctant to invest, not knowing what technologies to back or not knowing how much demand there will be for new products and services. We live in an era of stagnation, “secular stagnation”

So falling oil prices offer the world economy a great opportunity. But if it is not leapt upon purposefully by aggressively expansionary economic policy, secular stagnation might worsen.