Category Archives: energy conservation measures

Big Oil And The Gasoline Refiners Don’t Make Excess Profits? What a load of crap

Posted on by
1

Finally Dave Sykuta and the Illinois Petroleum Council have the nerve to tell us that they are making themselves rich at our expense. The Saudia’s, the Russian’s and the Venezuela’s are making billions, and the Oil Refiners are making 100s of millions of $$$ and he shuffles out the old “percentage of profit” arguement. Which any rich person does to make it look like they ain’t ripping you.

 ** The final factor in gasoline prices are earnings.  Major oil companies earned a little above the U.S. industrial average, 8.3 percent, on gasoline for 2007. No doubt, 8 percent earnings represent billions in profit. However, consider that oil companies are large due to their financial commitments, such as alternate fuels ($100 billion since 2000) and clean fuel technology ($65 billion since 1999). Moreover, between 33 percent and 37 percent of gross industry revenues are paid back to government in taxes. And while conspiracy theorists love to think dark thoughts about 8 percent earnings, the reality is that over 65 percent of oil industry assets are held by pension plans, IRAs and 401(k)s.  Industry executives hold less than 2 percent. When the “Who owns Big Oil?” question is raised, the answer is usually “You do!”

:}

When in fact the Oil Companies themselves were saying something different:

:}

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/17/business/rnrgoilcos.php

Despite record profits, oil companies find little comfort in high prices

By Christopher Knight

Published: February 17, 2008

PARIS: As crude oil prices topped $100 a barrel in January, some of the world’s major oil companies rang up annual profits that beat the bottom lines of any other company, in any other line of business. Yet, despite appearances, industry analysts are not rushing to pat the majors on the back.

Exxon Mobil, the largest oil company, reported at the start of this month a record 2007 profit of $40.6 billion, earnings that trounced any other company. Royal Dutch Shell reported the largest earnings of any company in Britain, at about $31 billion.

But amid rising consumer resistance to high prices of gasoline and other refined products, analysts and even some oil company executives have a hard time putting a positive spin on the future.

“As far as the outlook, it is pretty horrible,” said Peter Hitchens, an oil analyst at Seymour Pierce in London.

 :}

So why is Dave using the figure 8.2 %. Well because he knows that NO small business could get by on that. Heck not even a multi-state or a medium sized business could make it for long. So he knows that business men and women will cringe. But a for a world-wide international Corporation the size of Chevron or BP that is incredibly wrong. They made so much money that they don’t know what to do with it and it’s all coming out of MA and PA America. 

Then he has the gall to say that they pay taxes, when what he is actually counting are Taxes that you pay at the pump as their taxes. 

Finally he ends by claiming that WE the American People own the oil companies. While some long standing pension funds have oil stock. The price of Big OIL stocks has been out of the range of the middle class and modest investor for years. Only the supper rich trade those stocks now. For instance: 

query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0712FC3F5F13738DDDA90B94D1405B868DF1D3

  ROCKEFELLER GAINS $8,000,000 MORE; Yesterday’s Advance in Standard Oil Stocks Shows an Increase of $32,000,000. THEIR VALUE $2,027,516,000 Market Worth of All Subsidiaries at Close of Day Is Double the Debt of the United States. ROCKEFELLER GETS $8,028,000 IN DAY 

http://seekingalpha.com/article/24347-oil-vs-energy-stock-prices-something-s-gotta-give

  The charts below show the ratio between the price of the S&P 500 Energy stock sector and the price of crude oil per barrel. The ratio is clearly at its highest level in the past three years, meaning that oil stocks have not fallen as fast as the price of the actual commodity during the current decline. So either the stocks are due to play catch up, or the decline of oil is a bit overdone.  oilvsoilstocks.jpg

:}

:}

Big Oil Charges Us To Maintain Their Gas Stations – And blame Walmart and other retailers for the volitility

Posted on by
Reply

Who really believes this? Normally profits are used for maintaining merchandising outlets. These guys are so greedy that they don’t even do that. And note he admits (and kinda seems proud of the fact) that some gas station’s margins are so thin that they make more money off everything but gas. In other words, the Big Oil people have taken the profits for themselves and left independent gas station owners to get by on the sale of snacks. These guys remind me of profit vacuum cleaners. They suck up every penny they can get. Maybe we should put a plug in it.

 ** The fourth-biggest factor in prices is the cost to establish and maintain the retail outlet. There are more than 5,000 service stations in Illinois and most experts believe gasoline sales are often a “loss leader.” Springfield is increasingly affected by large general retail chains selling gasoline.  Most experts conclude these “new era” marketers sometimes offer lower prices, but cause significant price volatility. My experience tells me many consumers are more upset about volatility than the actual price. Unfortunately, I don’t see price volatility going away.

www.ethosnw.com

gas1.jpg

smartmortgageadvice.wordpress.com

gas2.jpg

www.flickr.com

gas3.jpg

www.flumesday.com

gas5.jpg

:}

You pays your money and youse take your chances.

:}

The Oil Markets ARE Being Manipulated – The only question is by whom and by how much

Posted on by
1

Since gasoline prices world wide range from 12$$ in Oslo to .36$$ in Venezuala then obviously the oil markets are being manipulated. For one thing oil sales prices are never ever challenged. Producers get to charge what ever they want to. But so do shippers and refiners. In one of the weirdest markets on the planet, liquid fuel markets in general get to charge more than the market can actually bear or is that bare. Geniuses like Dave Sykuta at the Illinois Petroleum Council try to turn this into a negative.

http://www.sj-r.com  April 17

** The third factor in gas prices is about making the fuel. Price-wise, Springfield is fortunate not to have to sell special low-polluting fuels as Chicago and St. Louis do. They’re the world’s cleanest fuels but much more expensive. We have too many special fuel requirements, a gridlocking 45 or so required nationwide in the summer.
Since the 1990s, the oil industry has increased refinery capacity about 15 percent. Numerous Illinois expansions are planned but move slowly through a rocky political process where the same politicians and others who demand infrastructure expansions on Monday and Tuesday, oppose them on Wednesday and Thursday. NIMBY and lately BANANA (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything) are factors in higher prices and uncertain supply. They’re self-imposed problems that reasonable people should be able to solve.


:}

And they have been shoveling this hoo haw for the past 20 years when in fact the Oil Companies have constrained capacity by at least 15% to increase profits. This naked price manipulation has never been challenged by regulators. Instead for the same 20 years politicians have consistently dragged Big Rich Oil Executives before a congressional committee as they did today and to DEMAND that prices come down. Heck they don’t even swear them in any more because they know they are lieing. This from 2001:

http://wyden.senate.gov/issues/wyden_oil_report.pdf

The Oil Industry, Gas Supply and Refinery Capacity: More Than Meets the Eye

An investigative report presented

by Senator Ron Wyden

June 14, 2001

“As observed over the last few years and as projected well into the future, the most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity.  The same situation exists for the entire U.S. refining industry. Supply significantly exceeds demand year-round. This results in very poor refinery margins, and very poor refinery financial results. Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or increasing the demand for gasoline. “

Internal Texaco document, March 7, 1996

“A senior energy analyst at the recent API (American Petroleum Institute) convention warned that if the U.S. petroleum industry doesn ‘t reduce its refining capacity, it will never see any substantial increase in refining margins…However, refining utilization has been rising, sustaining high levels of operations, thereby keeping prices low. “

Internal Chevron document, November 30, 1995

America is indeed facing an energy crunch. For much of the year, gas prices have soared and supply has trailed demand.

During the course of my ongoing investigation into potential anti-competitive and anti-consumer practices by the oil industry, I have obtained documents that raise serious questions about the circumstances leading to limited gas supply and high prices.

The oil industry and its allies would have the public believe that insufficient refining capacity, restrictive environmental standards, growing gasoline demand and OPEC production cutbacks are the primary reasons for the current oil and gas supply problem.

However, the record shows – supported by documents I have obtained – that there is more to the story. Specifically, the documents suggest that major oil companies pursued efforts to curtail refinery capacity as a strategy for improving profit margins; that competing oil companies worked together to subvert supply; that refinery closures inhibited supply; and that oil companies are reaping record profits, yet may benefit from a proposed national energy policy that would offer financial incentives to expand refinery capacity.

:}

If you think this is just liberal ideology blowing environmental smoke, read this from the National (frickin) Review:

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/taylor_van_doren200506030857.asp

June 03, 2005, 8:57 a.m.
High Pump-Price Fairy Tales
Blame global supply-and-demand realities — not the enviro-whackos.

By Jerry Taylor & Peter Van Doren

So what’s driving these high gasoline prices, which now average $2.22 across the country? Conservatives think it’s largely a function of the chickens coming home to roost. In short, bureaucratic red tape, anti-growth environmental extremists, and “not-in-my-back-yard” community activists have long prevented new oil refineries from coming online. This in turn has starved the market of the gasoline and — voila! — record prices are the logical result.

It’s a convenient story line for the Right. Unfortunately, the narrative is wrong.

How can that be, you might ask, when we’re constantly beaten around the head with the fact that no new oil-refining plants have been built in the U.S. since 1976? The reason that no new facilities have been built is partly because it costs far less to expand production capacity at existing plants than it does to expand capacity by building new plants. And because existing refineries are ideally situated near oil terminals and pipelines, it’s more convenient to increase capacity in those locations than to do so elsewhere.

But if that’s so, how do we explain the facility shutdowns that have characterized the industry? After all, there were 325 oil refineries in the U.S. in 1981, but only 149 remain today. The explanation resides in the fact that we had a lot of refineries back in 1981 not because of market forces or the lack of environmental regulations, but because the government subsidized the existence of small, inefficient refineries.

Here’s how it worked. Under the Mandatory Oil Import Quota Program (which was in effect from 1959 to 1973), low-cost crude oil imports were restricted to support the domestic crude price. Refineries got disproportionately more rights to import if they were small. The subsidies to small refineries continued under the price-control programs in place from 1973 through 1980. When the subsidies ended, a large number of inefficient small refineries bit the dust.

That helps explain why domestic refining capacity dropped from 18.6 million barrels of oil a day in 1976 to 16.8 million barrels of oil today. Dramatic improvements in the operational efficiency of oil refineries also contributed to that decline. Refineries now operate much closer to their capacity than 20 years ago. Accordingly, less “nameplate capacity” is necessary to meet demand.

The upshot is that even though domestic refineries have been shutting down and total refining capacity has been declining, domestic gasoline production has actually increased by 20 percent since the last oil refinery was built in 1976.

But even that figure only tells part of the story. Gasoline markets today are increasingly global rather than regional in nature. For example, European governments tax diesel fuels less than gasoline and European motorists have responded by using diesel. Accordingly, European refineries make more gasoline than they can use and it’s cheaper for us to import that gasoline than to produce it here at home.

The increase in gasoline imports since 1976 (from 2 percent of the market then, to 5.8 percent now) is often cited as evidence that “we have a problem.” Nonsense. International trade is a good thing. The more globalized the market, the more diversified our supply and the less vulnerable the U.S. market is to disruption. Moreover, the more global the market, the greater the competition. How much domestic refining capability we have is increasingly less important than the amount of international refining capacity we can access.

It is true that there is a little slack in production capacity at the moment. Why don’t we have more production capacity? Because profit margins in the refining business have traditionally been rather meager. The gasoline refining market is about as close to the model of “perfect competition” as you’re going to find outside of an economics textbook. Rents are competed away and little profit is left for producers, especially when compared to the profits available from investment in oil production.

Conservatives believe that environmental regulations have a lot to do with those low profits. They’re wrong. A large oil refinery costs $4 billion to $6 billion to build. The installation of “best available control technology” is a very small part of that figure.

Accordingly, President Bush’s proposals to provide low-cost real estate in the boonies and to somewhat reduce plant costs through regulatory improvements simply won’t result in any new refining capacity. We’d love to blame big government and enviro-whackos for today’s high gasoline prices (we do, after all, work for the Cato Institute). But telling fairy tales about the market does no one any favors. Prices are high because of global supply-and-demand factors, and Congress can do little about it.

— Jerry Taylor is director of natural-resource studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. Peter Van Doren is editor of Cato’s Regulation magazine.

:}

So why did the State Journal Register give this guy a Guest OP ED Piece. Lack of investigative reporting maybe?

Subsidies For The Oil Companies – The Big Pass Through

Posted on by
Reply

As CES’ continues to dissect the State Journal Register’s “guest” OP-ED piece by Dave Sykuta bear in mind that he is just one of at least 50 industry flacks that have probably published the SAME piece in one of their state’s newspapers probably in or near a state Capital near you. These guys coordinate their efforts and if you don’t think there is a global oil conspiracy…THINK again.

** Taxes are the second biggest factor in gasoline prices.  The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents and Illinois adds 19 cents.  Unfortunately, Illinois is one of only nine states that charge a sales tax on gasoline and the only one I know that allows additional local gas and sales taxes.These extra taxes are a massive self-inflicted price increase of almost 24 cents per gallon in Springfield and even more in Chicago, where an  85-cent total gas tax is the highest in the United States. And remember, gas prices include the tax! Consumers’ gas price perception would be different if the sign that says “$3.35 a gallon” said “$262.5 plus tax” as every other consumer item is priced.  According to AAA, the difference between Illinois, with the fifth-highest price, and Missouri, with the fourth-lowest price, is all taxes! Illinois politicians don’t like to talk about taxes. I wonder why.

:}

Well guess who else doesn’t like to talk about taxes:

http://zfacts.com/p/348.html

Oil Company Subisdies: $7 billion + 2.6 billion + …
Vague Law and Hard Lobbying Add Up to Billions for Big Oil
By Edmund L. Andrews, NY Times, March 27, 2006

But last month, the Bush administration confirmed that it expected the government to waive about $7 billion in royalties over the next five years, even though the industry incentive was expressly conceived of for times when energy prices were low. And that number could quadruple to more than $28 billion if a lawsuit filed last week challenging one of the program’s remaining restrictions proves successful.

”The big lie about this whole program is that it doesn’t cost anything,” said Representative Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who tried to block its expansion last July. ”Taxpayers are being asked to provide huge subsidies to oil companies to produce oil — it’s like subsidizing a fish to swim.”

But on Aug. 8, Mr. Bush signed a sweeping energy bill that contained $2.6 billion in new tax breaks for oil and gas drillers and a modest expansion of the 10-year-old ”royalty relief” program.

  
  Oil-Company Profits The price-at-the pump is the sum of all the input costs plus, perhaps, some additional markup because of market power. We can tell if there’s market power by checking the price increases.Because there are 42 gallons / barrel, when the price of oil goes up by $10, say from $55 to $65, the price of gas should go up by $10/42 = 24¢ (popNote). It’s actually gone up faster than this, so we know oil companies are exercising some market power and passing through a “markup,” not just their actual costs.

:}

And if you don’t think that BIG Evil Oil doesn’t coordinate their efforts everyday, then go to this website and see for yourself:

 http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/energy/afarg5.html

Does that sound like the editorial Sykuta “wrote” or should we say plagerized?

 Here are some of the programs you pay for:

http://media.cleantech.com/node/554

Greenpeace believes Europeans spend about $10 billion or so (USD equivalent) annually to subsidize fossil fuels. By contrast, it thinks the American oil and gas industry might receive anywhere between $15 billion and $35 billion a year in subsidies from taxpayers.

Why such a large margin of error? The exact number is slippery and hard to quantify, given the myriad of programs that can be broadly characterized as subsidies when it comes to fossil fuels. For instance, the U.S. government has generally propped the industry up with:

  • Construction bonds at low interest rates or tax-free
  • Research-and-development programs at low or no cost
  • Assuming the legal risks of exploration and development in a company’s stead
  • Below-cost loans with lenient repayment conditions
  • Income tax breaks, especially featuring obscure provisions in tax laws designed to receive little congressional oversight when they expire
  • Sales tax breaks – taxes on petroleum products are lower than average sales tax rates for other goods
  • Giving money to international financial institutions (the U.S. has given tens of billions of dollars to the World Bank and U.S. Export-Import Bank to encourage oil production internationally, according to Friends of the Earth)
  • The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve
  • Construction and protection of the nation’s highway system
  • Allowing the industry to pollute – what would oil cost if the industry had to pay to protect its shipments, and clean up its spills? If the environmental impact of burning petroleum were considered a cost? Or if it were held responsible for the particulate matter in people’s lungs, in liability similar to that being asserted in the tobacco industry?
  • Relaxing the amount of royalties to be paid (more below)

It’s easy to get bent out of shape that the petroleum industry “probably has larger tax incentives relative to its size than any other industry in the country”, according to Donald Lubick, the U.S. Department of Treasury’s former Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy.

:}

So remember, when the Politico’s says that your tax money is going to bridges and roads, think again! It’s really going to the Oil and Gas Companies.

:}

Why The Petroleum Industry Continues To Lie To The Public

Posted on by
Reply

I didn’t do it, nobody saw me do it, there’s no way you can prove anything! Bart Simpson 

Spokesmen like Sykuta want to act like they are the experts and they know it all. So when they shovel a bunch of BS the public is supposed to go, “OH ok”.  Accepting the BS as if it were the truth. Notice he is not talking about oil prices, he is talking about gasoline prices. The real shocker in this piece is how quickly tosses oil off.

** The biggest factor in gasoline prices, almost 58 percent, is the cost of crude oil. Crude oil prices are skyrocketing, but only recently at inflation adjusted highs. There are several reasons:

—  Domestic demand, especially for diesel.
—  Red-hot worldwide demand, especially in China and India.
—  The historically low value of the U.S. dollar.
—  Civil/political strife in major oil-producing countries such as Nigeria, Venezuela and Iran.

These factors have tightened worldwide supply significantly. Continued economic growth, which is directly tied to increased energy use, exerts further upward pressure on crude oil prices. Like it or not, local prices are directly tied to the world market and can’t be controlled by U.S. companies.  Exxon controls a miniscule .62 percent of worldwide reserves, and BP accounts for only 3.42 percent of oil production.

:}

So the first thing to say is he is going to make the falacious arguement that oil is only a small part of the gasoline prices, but then sites gasoline usage as a part of the problem…eg. increased domestic diesel usage what isn’t diesel gasoline? GOD

His second arguement is that The Petroleum Companies don’t own the oil we just buy it. Yah and you pay WHATEVER the sellers ask, no matter what and then pass the costs to us. What would happen to the oil market if one time just one time you guys said, “Thats too much. Sell it to someone else.” Instead they are clamboring for more 130$$ oil to be pumped into the ground in a salt dome in Louisiana (better know as the Strategic Reserve).

However his arguement essentially is if wasn’t for all the things that happen after we get a barrel of oil then prices would be cheaper. If you buy his original premise that oil is only 58% of the price of gas…then gas should go for under 2$$ a gallon. Think about how silly that is. Let’s see, when oil was 60$$ a barrel gas prices were 2$$ a gallon and now that oil is at 128$$ a barrel it’s 4$$. But the huge increase in oil prices which is largely due to speculaters in the Futures Market (or if you believe Peak Oil – because we are running out of oil) has nothing to do with it. Get real.

Ok, so what about increase in demand for domestic diesel. Everyone know that increases in price decreases consumption. This is true of truck drivers as well. They are slowing down and taking more direct routes. So we have to mark this one as UNTRUE.

 The “red hot” India and China Markets? Look, when a 1/4 of the world’s oil is tied up in the futures market everyone is fighting over oil but it has no direct relationship to India’s or China’s increase in imports. Even the Saudia’s who are known liars have said repeatedly that there is enough oil on the market. That oil isn’t making being made into gasoline. Add to that the fact that the refineries are reportedly running at 85% capacity. So we mark this one as UNTRUE. 

Next up the Weakened Dollar. Well well well, and who is responsible for that? Dare we say the Geniuses on Wall Street many of whom are oil company Executives. So much so that, again the Saudies and Dubai had to step in and supply billions of dollars in liquidity. And it still wasn’t enough. Top that off with the debt from a war started by an Oilman over Oil and  what exactly do they expect? Mark this one as UNTRUE.

Finally there is the world famous “unstable producers”. Whose fault is that? Oil companies cut deals with Dictators to get oil and they are suprised when “instabilities” occur. NO WAY.

More later:
:}

Nuclear Power – Daddy can I build a nuclear power plant?

Posted on by
Reply

Daddy can I build a nuclear power plant? Germany, China and Abu Dubai are.

Who?

Germany, China and Abu Dubai. They are cool kids at school. I want to be like them.

Well, I suppose….Did you ask your mother?

Yes I did.

Well I suppose…Wait – What did she say?

uhm atm eh duh

What did she say?

She said I cudnt?

You could not young man, speak up!

Well its not fair. She is always saying NO to me!

Why did she say no to you son?

She said it was dangerous and stuff. She always says that.

Yah and she is always right. Now go outside and play! You tried to con me and I don’t appreciate it!

Daaad..

Do not make me put this paper down young man…NOW go out side and play…

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0330-03.htm

Germany’s Greens Disappoint the Anti-Nuclear Movement

BERLIN – Since they joined the federal government, Germany’s Greens have proved a bitter disappointment to the country’s anti-nuclear movement from where it drew much of its original support.

Opposition to atomic power, widely regarded by ordinary people in Germany as an unacceptably dangerous and unsustainable form of energy, has been fundamental to the Greens’ political base.

This week’s huge confrontation between anti-nuclear militants and the forces of the state over a transport of highly radioactive waste across the country underlines the cleft which has now opened up between the Greens’ leadership and that base.

“Atomic state equals police state,” a common slogan of the militants read.

A central plank of the Greens’s coalition agreement with the Social Democrats of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder after the leftwing general election victory of 1998 was a commitment to negotiate a nuclear energy phase-out.

The turning point came last June when, after difficult negotiations, the government reached a compromise deal with the power companies for a phase-out which should see the last atomic plant closed around 2021.

The problem is that the phase-out is both vague and far in the future, as it is based on an average working life of Germany’s 19 atomic power stations of 32 years, and names no final date for the closure of the last of them.

The deal, negotiated by Environment Minister Juergen Trittin, also only provides for an end to the fiercely opposed cross-country convoys of nuclear waste from Germany’s power stations in 2005.

The disappointment with the Greens’ leaders goes beyond a section of the urban middle-class or the young hippie-like fringe from which many of the demonstrators against the “Castor” waste containers came.

It includes people of the Elbe valley region of Lower Saxony whose gentle, wooded countryside has been blighted by the establishment of the Gorleben dump for nuclear waste and the resultant repeated mass confrontations 

:}

And then there are these folks:

http://www.castor.de/12english.html

“Illegal” German nuclear funding challenged

(Translated by Diet Simon)German nuclear opponents criticise the continued government funding of nuclear energy although it is government policy to stop it.They allege that funding is channelled “through the back door” via the European Community, which is still putting billions of euros into helping the nuclear industry.Two groups fighting storage of nuclear waste in their areas say a congress on future energies in the Ruhr city of Essen on 19 February “made frighteningly clear the ambitious nuclear energy targets of the North-Rhine Westphalian government.“A forum on innovative developments in nuclear technology in North-Rhine Westphalia heard that nuclear energy promotion funding in the state flows to it via the detour of the European Community.”The most populous German state has a conservative government formed by the Christian Democratic Party (CDU) of federal chancellor, Angela Merkel.At national level there is an increasingly fractious coalition government between the CDU and Social Democrats. The Social Democrats brought into the coalition the decision to drop nuclear power made when they formed the previous government.The CDU, backed by most industries, has always resisted giving up nuclear power and is trying in various ways to keep it going.

North-Rhine Wesphalia contains many nuclear installations, including Germany’s only uranium enrichment plant at Gronau and a waste dump at Ahaus, both near the Dutch border and owned by power companies.

The Ahaus opponents and the opponents to dumping at the village of Gorleben in north Germany say in a joint statement that a Dr. Werner Lensa of Jülich Research Centre (near Cologne) told the conference about the development aims for future nuclear power stations.

:}

And they have a real cool anti-nuke sysmbol:

what-is-x.gif
:}

Nuclear Power Is The Ultimate Massive Boondoggle – Why would we do such a thing?

Posted on by
Reply

As Schmacher said in Small Is Beautiful, “Using uranium to boil water to generate steam to generate electricity is like using a firehose to spray an ant off a toilet seat. It is an inappropriate use of technology.” Which was a nice way to say that Nuclear Power Plants are stupid.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/nuclear

End the nuclear age

Nastya, from Belarus was only three years old when she was diagnosed with cancer of the uterus and lungs. According to local doctors the region has seen a huge increase in childhood cancer cases since the Chernobyl disaster.

Greenpeace has always fought – and will continue to fight – vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants.

We need an energy system that can fight climate change, based on renewable energy and energy efficiency. Nuclear power already delivers less energy globally than renewable energy, and the share will continue to decrease in the coming years.

Despite what the nuclear industry tells us, building enough nuclear power stations to make a meaningful reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would cost trillions of dollars, create tens of thousands of tons of lethal high-level radioactive waste, contribute to further proliferation of nuclear weapons materials, and result in a Chernobyl-scale accident once every decade. Perhaps most significantly, it will  squander the resources necessary to implement meaningful climate change solutions.  (Briefing: Climate change – Nuclear not the answer.)

“Nuclear power plants are, next to nuclear warheads themselves, the most dangerous devices that man has ever created. Their construction and proliferation is the most irresponsible, in fact the most criminal, act ever to have taken place on this planet.”
Patrick Moore, Assault on Future Generations, 1976

The Nuclear Age began in July 1945 when the US tested their first nuclear bomb near Alamogordo, New Mexico. A few years later, in 1953, President Eisenhower launched his “Atoms for Peace” Programme at the UN amid a wave of unbridled atomic optimism.

But as we know there is nothing “peaceful” about all things nuclear. More than half a century after Eisenhower’s speech the planet is left with the legacy of nuclear waste. This legacy is beginning to be recognised for what it truly is.

Things are moving slowly in the right direction. In November 2000 the world recognised nuclear power as a dirty, dangerous and unnecessary technology by refusing to give it greenhouse gas credits during the UN Climate Change talks in The Hague. Nuclear power was dealt a further blow when a UN Sustainable Development Conference refused to label nuclear a sustainable technology in April 2001.

:}

If you are bored now, you can watch this advertisement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOI-Va5aU3U

And then there are these folks who have been at it since the beginning of time:

http://www.nirs.org/

 generaltop.jpg

Welcome to Nuclear Information and Resource Service& World Information Service on Energy

NIRS/WISE is the information and networking center for people and organizations concerned about nuclear power, radioactive waste, radiation, and sustainable energy issues.

Stop Import of Radioactive Waste!

Activists in Utah held a rally at a local Italian restaurant to bring attention to EnergySolutions’ application to import 20,000 tons of radioactive waste from Italy to the U.S. The waste would come in through the ports of Charleston, SC and New Orleans, LA, be shipped to Tennessee for incineration, other “processing” and “recycling.” Some would be dumped in regular trash in Tennessee and some sent to Utah to be buried.

Tell the NRC to deny Energy Solutions application. Public comment period ends June 10, 2008.
For more information, click here.

  

 

“We do not support construction of new nuclear reactors as a means of addressing the climate crisis. Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power.”

7,381 signers. Add your name!
432 U.S. org. signers so far
153 intl. org. signers so far
 

 Note: NIRS relies on contributions from people who use and/or appreciate our services for 1/3 of our annual budget. Your support is crucial! You can donate online by clicking the “Donate” button, or you may mail your tax-deductible check to NIRS. We thank you for your support.  NIRS is located at 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 340, Takoma Park, MD 20912; 301-270-NIRS (301-270-6477); fax: 301-270-4291; E-mail NIRS. WISE-Amsterdam is at P.O. Box 59636, 1040 LC Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 31-20-6126368; fax: 31-20-6892179; E-mail WISE. Web: www.antenna.nl/wise. Our NIRS Southeast U.S. office is at P.O. Box 7586, Asheville, NC 28802; 828-675-1792, E-mail NIRS Southeast office. Worldwide NIRS/WISE relay offices. Photo captions on the page header

:}

A Human Powered Car – What a concept!

Posted on by
Reply

Unfortunately I found this out initially from a website that advertises fraud. They are very happy about all those “run your car on WATER Scams”, so happy that they pick the TOP 3 for you. These creeps should be in jail. Another sad thing is that they are WAY better than me at finding cool energy technology. For that reason alone I WILL not tell you their website, but I will post their text from last year.

The Human Powered Car

August 10th, 2007

Human Car Seattle company HumanCar®, founded by Charles S. Greenwood PE, has been developing human powered vehicles for over 30 years. Their showcase creation is the human car, a 4-wheel, 4-passenger vehicle that can achieve remarkable speeds of 60+ mph! Unfortunately the car is not available to the public, the orginal prototype cost $250,000. The stated goal of the project is to develop efficient transportation alternatives that inspire a “sense of an evolving socioeconomical model”. According to HumanCar®, “The time is drawing near when all of the elements – manufacturing, marketing, and product optimization – come together in a cost effective and aesthetically pleasing form.”

For the reel deal, you can go here though I left the link above hot too:

http://www.humancar.com/

 Normally I would post chucks of their website. But it’s all done in Adobe Flash and PDF advanced file types that I can not copy. Fortunately they have a press release so I hope to do something with that.

:}

OKOK due to technival difficulties which transcend the time I have spent on this…NONE of the Press materials came through unscarred. It was transmitted as a ZIP file. I can’t even give you a real address because there is no “contact us” thingy…Maybe these guys aren’t so bright after all…While you wait here are 2 You Tubes about it which are basically the same…one is longer than the other..

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=369463415941480101

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Xp-923G8i4

Finally something by the inventor himself:

Charles Greenwood P.E. Inventor and Engineer of HumanCar® Inc welcomes you to join us for the launch of the Imagine™ LMV HumanCar®.

The Imagine™ LMV is rocking the world. Get involved. Imagine™ Electric Hybrid Pre-Order Information – The HumanCar® Imagine™ features an exoskeletal safety cage chassis, dual electric motors, variable human power input, Body-Steering™ patented chassis and SyncGuideway™ compatibility as standard equipment. It retails for $15k base. Feel free to email us here for a free pre-order number.

First 100 vehicles “Launch Series” Pre-Orders accepted now. Limited production prototype models are currently in build cycles. We are 6 to 12 months out from scale delivery. (HumanCar Inc. makes three models- the FM4 “Troublemaker”, The Rod, a 10 second 189-mph hybrid race car and the Imagine™ the revolutionary electric/human hybrid)

 

HumanCar® Inc. developing international appeal and The Great Change.

HumanCar vehicles may be used to generate power or transport people.

Deep Forest OREGON, USA: The evolutionary HumanCar® LMV Imagine™ street-legal dual electric motor/human hybrid vehicle in production, ” represents the entry point to the great change” says Chuck Greenwood CEO of HumanCar Inc. ” people globally will be able to solve critical resource problems locally and create individual efforts to reduce and regenerate their own power.”
He goes on to say that SBS Communications of Seoul just shot a documentary at a HumanCar R/D Center. “They were interested in the spiritual aspect and understood when the inventor and engineer of the project, my father Charles Samuel Greenwood, described how pure chi energy is charged to the heart chakra, it was magical. Thus is the nature of the project. The concept that one four-passenger human power interface can generate well over 2k Watts, enough to power a home or help maintain a charge for transportation is magical. The fun part is, it’s a reality” Mr. Greenwood chimes “As a part of the release this February we wanted to supply a FAQ that will answer new followers to the project’s questions.”
An Interview with Mr. Charles Samuel Greenwood P.E. inventor of the HumanCar.
How many bicycles were used to make the FM-4?
 
No Bicycle parts are used in the FM-4.
Where are the pedals?
 

The TWASTA Patent (Team Work and Strength Training Apparatus) defines a mobile – or stationery – full body work out device, for multiple participants. There are no pedals.
How does it handle?
 
BodySteer utilizes more degrees of freedom than leaning – like riding a motorcycle. High speed handling is critical to the safe performance of any vehicle. Why make a 200 MPH chassis/suspension system? Why not? BodySteer is at least as effective as wheel steering – some would say much more effective.
Then why have both front occupants steer?
 
Part of the fun of teamwork is to share tasks. Think of it as Pilot and Co-Pilot. Either can control the vehicle, but there is an exotic sensory input when you feel the others sharing the activity. Dominant/Submissive arrangements work, and so does real-time cooperation.
Do you need a full team?
 
Three people works quite well. Of course, with one or two people you are probably going to want auxiliary power.
Can you tell who is slacking and who is jacking?
 
Instantly.
Why does the FM-4 prototype not have a motor on it?

(Don’t answer that question. Make them go to the site and see.)

We’re hot rod builders, dirt bike riders, bicycling enthusiasts, and we love all kind of sports, with or without machines, with or without electronics. We love healthy people. You and your family will power yourselves down to the store and back. Then watch for some real exciting radical hardware.
____________________XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX______________________
Contact:
HumanCar Inc.
206 280 4772 mobile
http://www.humancar.com/
thehumancar@gmail.com

:}


 

Are You Feeling Lucky, Punk? I had never tried the Feeling Lucky google search

Posted on by
Reply

It always felt kinda silly to me. But it’s a nice day out and I frankly wanted to go outside. So I thought I could get a quick post by typing in ENERGY CONSERVATION and click Feeling Lucky. You talk about a buzz kill.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_conservation

Energy conservation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about decreasing energy consumption. For the law of conservation of energy in physics, see Conservation of energy.

Globe icon

 The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

Energy conservation is the practice of decreasing the quantity of energy used. It may be achieved through efficient energy use, in which case energy use is decreased while achieving a similar outcome, or by reduced consumption of energy services. Energy conservation may result in increase of financial capital, environmental value, national security, personal security, and human comfort. Individuals and organizations that are direct consumers of energy may want to conserve energy in order to reduce energy costs and promote economic security. Industrial and commercial users may want to increase efficiency and thus maximize profit.

Energy conservation is an important element of energy policy. Energy conservation reduces the energy consumption and energy demand per capita, and thus offsets the growth in energy supply needed to keep up with population growth. This reduces the rise in energy costs, and can reduce the need for new power plants, and energy imports. The reduced energy demand can provide more flexibility in choosing the most preferred methods of energy production.

By reducing emissions, energy conservation is an important part of lessening climate change. Energy conservation facilitates the replacement of non-renewable resources with renewable energy. Energy conservation is often the most economical solution to energy shortages, and is a more environmentally benign alternative to increased energy production.

TALK ABOUT EXCITING WHEW!!!

One Of The Best Articles Ever On Green Automobiles – The ins and outs of biofuels and electric cars

Posted on by
2

US News is my hero:

http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/your-money/2008/01/11/the-pros-and-cons-of-8-green-fuels.html

The Pros and Cons of

8 Green Fuels

Our dossiers detail which fuels

are overrated—and which

could power your next car

By Rick Newman

Posted January 11, 2008


 

After years of talk, rising oil prices—combined with global-warming concerns and a disdain for foreign oil—have finally set the stage for breakthroughs in alternative fuels. To see how the hottest new technologies stack up, click on each fuel for a rundown of its attributes and flaws, or click on the topics on the left to see how various fuels compare:

  • What is it?
  • What’s good about it?
  • What’s bad about it?
  • Where would it be most useful?
  • How much will it cost?
  • When’s it coming?
  • What’s taking so long?
  • Who’s doing it?
  • Could it be a silver bullet?

What is it?

Corn Ethanol
A fuel derived from the sugars in corn and other plants. Pure ethanol is usually blended with gasoline. “E10″—10 percent ethanol—is common today. E85—85 percent ethanol—is the highest practical blend; some gas is still required for combustion in most climates.
Cellulosic Ethanol
A biofuel refined from cellulose, the fibrous material that makes up most of the plant matter in wheat, switch grass, corn stalks, rice straw, and even wood chips.
Biodiesel
A renewable fuel made from vegetable oil or animal fats, including soybeans, canola oil, and even used cooking oil. It’s sometimes mixed with conventional, petroleum-based diesel to help cut down on tailpipe emissions.
Clean Diesels
Diesel is refined from petroleum, like gasoline, but the pollution it produces is harder to control. “Clean diesel” vehicles burn the fuel more efficiently and trap pollutants better. New low-sulfur diesel fuel also pollutes less—much like unleaded gasoline, compared with leaded.
Hybrids
There are several kinds of hybrids. In general, today’s models have a battery-powered electric motor that drives the car at slower speeds and a gas engine that kicks in at higher speeds. The engine also helps recharge the battery, along with energy captured from the rotation of the wheels during deceleration.
Plug-In Hybrids
Same principle as for ordinary hybrids: There’s an electric motor and a gas engine, except that the battery powering the motor would be recharged from an electrical outlet, at home or someplace else. The motor would power the car until battery power waned. Then the gas engine or another secondary power source would kick in.
Electric Vehicles
Any car with a battery-powered motor—including every variety of hybrid—is an electric vehicle to some extent. A pure electric vehicle would be run entirely by the battery-powered motor.
Hydrogen/Fuel Cells
The concept is similar to hybrids: an electric motor would drive the car much of the time. In this case, the motor would be charged by something under the hood called a fuel-cell stack, which converts hydrogen and oxygen into electricity that flows to the battery. The on-board fuel would be hydrogen.

Top

Primary sources: Automotive News, Union of Concerned Scientists, dieselforum.org, Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, General Motors, Honda, Toyota, American Automobile Association, Renewable Fuels Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Biodiesel Board, Center for Automotive Research.

 

Please note, I did not include ALL of the article here but each link for the topic should take you to a longer article which takes you through each category list at the top of the article. For the attention challenged please click on the main US News link at the beginning of this post. Each category is laid out in linear bullet fashion. Either way its one hell of a piece.