Group items tagged

"President Barack Obama has vowed the Gulf of Mexico spill would speed the end of US dependence on fossil fuels, but experts doubt reality can match his rhetoric. "The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now," Obama said in a primetime televised address from the Oval Office. Amid the worst environmental disaster in US history, supporters of renewable energy had hoped images of sullied coasts and dramatic engineering failings would spark just such a revolution: the beginning of the end for fossil fuels."

"As part of the Obama Administration's ongoing commitment to transparency surrounding the response to the BP oil spill, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced today that Department is providing online access to schematics, pressure tests, diagnostic results and other data about the malfunctioning blowout preventer. Secretary Chu insisted on making the data widely available to ensure the public is as informed as possible, and to ensure that outside experts making recommendations have access to the same information that BP and the government have. The site will be updated with additional data soon. "Transparency is not only in the public interest, it is part of the scientific process," said Secretary Chu. "We want to make sure that independent scientists, engineers and other experts have every opportunity to review this information and make their own conclusions." The information is posted at energy.gov/oilspilldata. It includes detailed raw data on the pressure readings within the blowout preventer, as well as rates and amounts of hydrocarbons captured by the top hat and by the riser insertion tube. There is also a timeline of key events and detailed summaries of the Deepwater well configuration, the blowout preventer stack tubes, and the containment system."

How the world is fed and fueled will in large part define development in the 21st century as one that is increasingly sustainable or a dead end for billions of people. A new and hard-hitting report concludes that dramatically reforming, re-thinking and redesigning two sectors -- energy and agriculture -- could generate significant environmental, social and economic returns. Current patterns of production and consumption of both fossil fuels and food are draining freshwater supplies; triggering losses of economically-important ecosystems such as forests; intensifying disease and death rates and raising levels of pollution to unsustainable levels."

What a wonderful presentation from a company that really knows how to deliver a product!

"Stuart at Early Warning has a post on a study of the impact of rising fuel prices on different geographical regions in the US (which looks similar to a comparable study done in Australia a few years ago - The Impact Of Rising Oil Prices On Sydney Suburbs) - Peak Oil Stress Map. The map [below] is a first rough cut at where the stress of peak oil (or any oil shock) is likely to be greatest. It comes from taking county level data from the Census Quick Facts and extracting two variables: the average travel time to work (from the 2000 census), and the median household income (from 2008 data). The idea is that if average travel time is long, that probably indicates that people in that county need a lot of oil to run their cars. On the other hand, if income is low, they are probably going to have more trouble paying for that oil. So I divided the travel time by median income, and then rescaled that index by its own average and standard deviation to produce a map of where the problems are likely to be greatest. "

"The ongoing Gulf of Mexico oil disaster is bringing the mainstream media a little closer to the peak oil debate. It's been out there on the business pages for a while, but it is beginning to make its way into news pages - via comment columns, and in a roundabout way, of course. It's still at the flirtatious stage, but its beginning. It's a hot topic, and few mainstream writers are actually throwing their weight behind the concept of Hubbert's peak (M King Hubbert, left). Right now, they are mentioning peak oil to deny it, but doing so with words that clearly agree with the concepts behind the issue. Perhaps it's a coded way of informing people in the know that the writer is in on the bigger picture, but can't actually come out and say it. Or at least not right away."

"As the Deepwater Horizon rig disaster continues to unfold, the peak oil community has a "teachable moment" in which it can illuminate the reality of our energy plight. The public has had a crash course in the challenges of offshore oil, and learned a whole new vocabulary. They are more aware than ever that the days of cheap and easy oil are gone. What they do not yet grasp are the challenges in transitioning from fossil fuels to renewables. The Greens (anti-fossil fuel agitators) want to end offshore drilling, but don't realize that their alternatives are in the wrong scale or the wrong time frame to make a difference. The Browns (the fossil fuel industry) are in full damage-control mode while rapidly losing the public trust. Meanwhile, the politicians are focused on who's to blame and who will pay, while skirting the fundamental problem of our addiction to oil."

An interesting map overlay of the BP oil spill. click on the site and it will bring up a google map with the oil spill on top of where you live.

This is a major multi-part report on the growing crisis coming between the growing use of energy and water demand.

"In a fight that showed the flaws in California's ballot initiative process and the sheer nerve of PG&E, the state's largest utility, clean energy and local control has won. Proposition 16, which would have change California's constitution to force cities and counties to get the approval of two-thirds of their voters before using public money to invest in local energy projects or utilities. PG&E spent over $46 million on the effort, which would have ensured its monopoly. Prop 16 stems from a 2002 state law, that allowed "community choice aggregation," which allows counties or cities to purchase electricity while utilities continue to offer the infrastructure for power delivery--the power lines, distribution equipment, supply natural, and even billing. "

"Democrats are trying to take control of public anger over the BP spill, and that means moving the debate to energy legislation. Harry Reid is now urging chairmen to pass cap and trade out of committee by July, and to include a strong section regulation offshore drilling and associated liabilities. Remember when the compromise to get the bill passed was going to be moreoffshore drilling? "

"Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Saturday called for a global fund to fight ecological catastrophes like the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, as he sought to burnish his credentials as a green leader. Admitting that Russia itself was lagging behind other countries in its standards of environmental protection, he also said Russians should feel free to protest against the authorities on environmental issues. Medvedev said that the oil spill from the BP-leased Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico -- the worst in US history -- had showed that the world had been unable to imagine the scale of such catastrophes."

"Massachusetts has a law mandating a portfolio of renewable energy, including energy derived from wind, solar, and biomass. But a new study says that replacing coal power with biomass will actually increase the amount of CO2 emitted, throwing a wrench in the state's plan and casting some doubt over the utility of using biomass on national scale and the inclusion of biomass titles in the energy bills now being negotiated in Congress. The study from the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences finds that the replacing coal power generation with that from biomass would result in 3 percent greater emissions by 2050."

"A quick update on the slow motion oil spill that is the Alberta Tar Sands and how the death of birds is just one of the huge environmental problems here: The Winnipeg Free Press reports that the long-running trial of Syncrude over the death of some 1,600 ducks in one of its toxic tailing ponds has concluded, with Syncrude found guilty. Syncrude Failed to Deploy Duck Deterrent Systems in Snow Storm Judge Ken Tjosvold: It should have been obvious to Syncrude that deterrence should have been in place in the spring as soon as reasonably possible. Syncrude dud not deploy deterrence early enough or quickly enough. I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Syncrude could have acted lawfully by using due diligence to deter birds from the basin...and it did not do so. The crux of the case was whether or not Syncrude deployed noise-producing duck deterrent systems early enough in the season. Defending its actions, Syncrude maintained that a snowstorm had delayed their deployment. In the snowstorm, with no other place to land, other bodies of water being ice-covered, the birds landed in the toxic tailing pond. There, soaked with toxic sludge, they became unable to fly and either were eaten by ravens or sank to the bottom dead. "

"I hear that PV really costs about 40 c/kWh, at least that's what so many people who have their 2 cents to add to the energy debate have to say about it. And then all of Chicago cringes, and with them, the Obama administration. I would quit if PV cost 40 c/kWh. After 30 years of working in PV, I would quit. It's true that it's hard to understand what PV costs, since we don't know what dollars per watt means in cents per kWh, and we don't know what it means in different locations. Put simply, there are some locations where PV costs 40 c/kWh; and there are some where it costs a third of that. There is no one price for PV, because sunlight varies, and system costs vary with size and design. Large systems are cheaper than small ones. So some nudnik from the oil or coal industries can stand up and say, PV is 40 c/kWh and not be lying. And I can say it is 13 c/kWh and not be lying, and all without a cent of incentives, not even traditional depreciation."

"Sea Ice Volume is calculated using the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) developed at APL/PSC by Dr. J. Zhang and collaborators. Anomalies for each day are calculated relative to the average over the 1979 -2009 period for that day to remove the annual cycle. The model mean seasonal cycle of sea ice volume ranges from 28,600 km^3 in April to 14,400 km^3 in September. The blue line represents the trend calculated from January 1 1979 to the most recent date indicated on the figure. Total Arctic Ice Volume for March 2010 is 20,300 km^3, the lowest over the 1979-2010 period and 38% below the 1979 maximum. PIOMAS calculates that the monthly average Arctic Sea Ice Volume for May 2010 was 19,000 km^3, the lowest May volume over the 1979-2010 period, 42% below the 1979 maximum and 32% below the 1979-2009 May average. September Ice Volume was lowest in 2009 at 5,800 km^3 or 67% below its 1979 maximum. Shaded areas represent one and two standard deviations of the anomaly from the trend. Updates will be generated at approximately two-weekly intervals."

"Late last year we reported that the US Federal Trade Commission proposed a new label for compact fluorescent lightbulbs that would show vital statistics like mercury content and the light output in terms of lumens rather than watts, which would make the brightness of CFLs, LEDs and other lighting technology more comparable among consumers. Well word has just hit that the new system has been approved and we'll soon see nutrition-facts-style labels on our lights. EarthTechling gave us a heads up about the new label, pointing us to the announcement from the FTC. The FTC states, "Under direction from Congress to re-examine the current labels, the FTC is announcing a final rule that will require the new labels on light bulb packages. For the first time, the label on the front of the package will emphasize the bulbs' brightness as measured in lumens, rather than a measurement of watts. The new front-of-package labels also will include the estimated yearly energy cost for the particular type of bulb.""

NASA's 2010 map of temperature anomalies...

Natural gas will provide an increasing share of America's energy needs over the next several decades, doubling its share of the energy market to 40 percent, from 20 percent, according to a report to be released Friday by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The increase, the report concluded, will come largely at the expense of coal and will be driven both by abundant supplies of natural gas - made more available by shale drilling - and by measures to restrict the carbon dioxide emissions that are linked to climate change. In the long term, however, the future may be dimmer for natural gas if stricter regulations are put in place to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 - a goal set by President Obama. Although lower in carbon than coal, natural gas is still too carbon-intensive to be used under such a target absent some method of carbon capture, the authors of the report concluded.

In the elusive search for the reliable energy source of the future, the prospect of clean coal is creating a lot of buzz. But while the concept-to scrub coal clean before burning, then capture and store harmful gases deep underground-may seem promising, a coalition of environment and climate groups argue in a new media campaign that the technology simply doesn't exist. The Alliance for Climate Protection and several other prominent organizations-including the Sierra Club and National Resources Defense Council-launched a multipronged campaign to "debrand" the clean part of clean coal, pointing out that there's no conclusive evidence to confirm the entire process would work the way it's being marketed. In the campaign's TV ad, a technician sarcastically enters the door of a clean coal production plant, only to find there's nothing on the other side. "Take a good long look," he says, standing in a barren desert, "this is today's clean coal technology."