Category Archives: over population

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.

:}

Nuclear Power – The ultimate anti nuclear groups

Posted on by
Reply

Grandpa can I build a nuclear powerplant?

What son?

Oh never mind….

:} 

It does not get more antinuclear than this:

http://www.gensuikin.org/english/index.html

gen1.jpg

. About GENSUIKIN — Its Organization and Activities —

The official name of GENSUIKIN is The Japan Congress Against A- and H-Bombs. Established in 1965, we are one of Japan’s largest anti-nuclear and peace movement organizations. We have chapters in 47 prefectures and include 32 nationwide labor unions and youth groups in our membership (as of March 1997). Our activities are undertaken in collaboration with radiation victims’ groups, labor unions, and political parties. We sponsor two major annual events. A public rally held in March, “3-1 Bikini Day,” commemorates the crew of the fishing boat Daigo Fukuryu-Maru (Lucky Dragon), which was exposed to fallout from nuclear testing at Bikini in 1954. The World Congress Against A- and H-Bombs is held in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August, the month when atomic bombs were dropped on those cities. Our core activities include efforts to foster solidarity with anti-nuclear activists around the world; anti-nuclear pro-peace campaigns; various initiatives toward a nuclear-free society; and activities in support of radiation victims

 gen2.jpg

 But because the nuclear industry is so inept in Japan the anti nuclear power sentiment has grown.

1999 – Two workers killed in explosion at Tokaimura plant

2003 – 17 Tepco plants shut down over falsified safety records

2004 – Five workers killed by steam from corroded pipe at Mihama

2007 – Damage inflicted on Kashiwazaki plant from earthquake

 The Japanese operate an incredible 55 nuclear reactors. One of the largest and newest anti nuke groups there is

Stop Rokkasho – which represents opposition to a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant.

http://stop-rokkasho.org/

Which is led by musicians and I wish I could show you more of the site. But, it’s all Adobe Flash presentations and music downloads which I can’t copy. So you will just have to go look for yourself.

But this is their petition:

Prime Minister of Japan

I, the undersigned, am deeply concerned about the opening on March 31st, 2006 of the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant. It is not only an issue for Japan but for the whole world. If operation continues and the plant keeps emitting radioactive waste into the air and the ocean, it would seriously damage the natural environment of the whole region, thereby threatening the health and welfare of innumerable human residents for many generations to come.

I also believe the hyper-toxic plutonium produced in reprocessing will present a grave security risk for an earthquake-prone country like Japan, will make the nation more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, and jeopardize the process of worldwide nuclear disarmament.

I, as one of the concerned citizens of the world, respectfully ask the Japanese government to courageously reconsider the approval of the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant, thereby contributing to environmental protection, regional security and world peace. I am confident that Japan, with its excellent technological capacity, can show good leadership in the world by shifting its energy policy away from nuclear power and towards renewable energy. I believe this is the only path towards a sustainable world.

Dear Prime Minister, please lead your government in stopping the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant.

The undersigned.

:}

A more conventional Japanese anti nuke site is:

http://cnic.jp/english/

We demand that the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant be closed

The Group of Concerned Scientists and Engineers Calling for the Closure of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant (KK Scientists) was formed shortly after the Chuetsu-oki earthquake. It was started by four people who, on 21 August 2007, issued an appeal. To date over 200 scientists and engineers have endorsed this appeal. They are actively demanding that objective scientific and technical investigations be carried out “keeping in mind the possibility of permanent closure of the plant”.

The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) has established the “Subcommittee for Investigation and Response to the Nuclear Facilities affected by Chuetsu-oki earthquake”, chaired by Haruki Madarame, a professor of Tokyo University, and ordered Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) to check equipment and carry out seismic response analysis. However, these investigations are clearly being carried out based on the premise that the plant will be restarted in the near future. It would therefore be difficult to call them objective scientific and technical investigations. In addition, the nuclear industry is trying to lend authority to these investigations being carried out by the government and TEPCO by holding an international symposium in February this year in Kashiwazaki City*2.

As scientists and engineers, we believe that it is necessary to condemn and highlight the problems of this type of biased investigation, which is being carried out by the regulatory authorities and TEPCO without the participation of residents. We have prepared this document for this purpose and welcome comments on its contents.

Our key arguments are as follows:

  • Kashiwazaki-Kariwa was never a place to build a nuclear power plant.
  • Sloppy safety examination overlooked an over 40 km-long submarine active fault.
  • This time was a miraculously lucky escape.
  • The danger of another large earthquake remains. The government is violating its own seismic design rules.
  • Important safety equipment may have been seriously damaged.
  • TEPCO’s equipment checks are not capable of identifying all the damage.
  • TEPCO’s seismic response analysis fails to identify the true situation.
  • Struck by the double blow of aging and an earthquake, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa should not be restarted

:}

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

:}

Cars That Kill – How the gasoline powered car has destroyed the planet.

Posted on by
8

Most people when considering the Automobile as an environmental plague think mainly of oil and its various impacts. While it’s true that the vast network of oil drilling platforms, the refineries and the gasoline spewed by billions of internal combustion engines from D13 Catepillars to Leaf Blowers has befouled the world. But lets not forget that the refining of oil led to the creation of plastics which now bob up and down all over our oceans. The creation of Rubber Tires led to the enslavement of huge tropical regions of the world. The energy consumed just to make the damn things is incredible. But what about the impact of the world’s population commuting to work?

Suburbs and Bedroom communities have been called the single largest misallocation of resources since the Pyramids and the Great Wall of China. We all know what happened to those folks…..

http://www.howestreet.com/articles/index.php?article_id=6219

In preparation for doing a post on the locals that are competeing in the Progressive Automotice XPriz here is another look at the world ending car:

Originally published here:

http://www.whiskeyandgunpowder.com/

By:

Whiskey and Gunpowder is your source for up to date financial editorial and insight into the effect finance has over the world of commodities.

Together, with Jim Amrhein (personal liberties), Byron King (economics with historic and geologic intertwinings), Dan Amoss (macroeconomic trends and institutional analysis), Adrian Ash and Ed Bugos (gold markets), and Jamie Ellis who covers everything in between. Plus a rotating cast of characters that keep up the standard of excellence in both content and delivery that Whiskey & Gunpowder insists on providing its readers.

Featuring insightful articles that explore a range of topics including commodities, politics, technology, nature, history and anything else our writers could possibly dream up, Whiskey & Gunpowder offers the kind of analysis that the mainstream media will never give

:}

Turn the Curve”By Byron King
April 16, 2008

Every automobile on the roads of the world reflects a long and complex chain of industrial production and energy usage. Yet we live in a world where many of the highest quality resources and energy supplies have already been exploited. And lower quality resources are more expensive to extract and exploit, if they are even available. So the world’s automobile industry is in the midst of a revolution in both resource availability and energy consumption.

Thinking about Basic Materials and Energy

Today the automobile business is vast. It is a global industry that has evolved by leaps and bounds in the 100 years since Henry Ford made his famous remark in 1908 about building “a car for the great multitude.” The worldwide customer base includes at least a billion people — spread over six continents — who have income sufficient to buy a car or small truck. According to figures assembled at the MIT Sloan Automotive Laboratory, there are about 700 million automobiles and light trucks in the world. About 30 percent of those vehicles are in North America.

Every car requires steel, aluminum, copper and lead. Each car requires rubber, plastic, and myriad of other petroleum and natural gas by-products. And there is much else in the long industrial ladder of automobile production. Just think in terms of the energy that goes into processing materials, fabricating parts, building components, assembling a finished product, and all the transportation along the way. In addition to the basic energy and material resources that go into manufacturing an automobile, the sheer number of vehicles reflects a lot of fuel tanks to fill with gasoline and diesel. And this does not even touch on the energy and resources that go into building road systems.

While America dwaddled,

There has been even more progress in the fuel efficiency of diesel engines over the past 25 years. Diesel power trains are no longer the sooty, “knock-knock” devices that they were back in the days of disco. Most cars sold today in the European Union (EU), for example, are powered with clean-burning, fuel efficient, smoothly running diesel engines. In fact, the demand for diesel fuel in Europe is such that EU refineries routinely ship surplus gasoline to sell into the North American market. And in North America the relatively low prices for gasoline throughout the 1980s and 1990s discouraged the use of diesel engines.

So there have been significant improvements in automobile power train efficiencies over the past couple of decades. But have these improvements translated into any overall reduction in demand for fuel? No. In 2007 motor fuel consumption in the U.S. was high as it has ever been. (Although according to the American Petroleum Institute, demand for motor fuel may be at a plateau due to price increases at the pump in 2006 and 2007.) In the past 25 years we’ve seen more people driving more cars for more miles. But compounding the fuel issue, the cars that people are buying and driving tend to weigh more and offer higher performance.

The Future of the Automobile

(sad but true even these folks think there is one)

It helps to view the age of the automobile — and its future — as a systemic whole. And some social critics are out in front of the broad discussion, with a sharp focus on the automobile and what it has brought us as a society. James Kunstler, for example, author of highly regarded books such as The Geography of Nowhere and The Long Emergency, believes that the car-dependent suburban build-out of the U.S. may be “the greatest misallocation of resources in all of human history.” That is, in an era of expensive energy and scarce resources, a car-dependent culture has no real future and is in fact a hindrance to progress in other directions. That is quite a viewpoint, well-presented by Kunstler in his writing. It’s depressing, but it sure gets your attention.

And criticism of the automobile culture is not confined just to social commentators like Kunstler. Another remarkable indictment comes from no less an automotive insider than Prof. John Heywood, the director of the MIT Sloan Automotive Laboratory. He has stated that “cars may prove to be the worst commodity of all.” According to Prof. Heywood, cars are “responsible for a steady degradation of the ecosystem, from greenhouse emissions to biodiversity loss. What’s worse, even if we improve vehicle efficiency, turn to fuel hybrids or make rapid advances in hydrogen-based fuel technologies, the scale for slowing down the degradation may run to the decades. Turning the curve won’t be easy.”

You can agree or disagree with the broad themes of Jim Kunstler or John Heywood. But there’s no argument with one of Prof. Heywood’s points. Wherever we are going, it will not be easy to “turn the curve.” Looking forward, the oil just is not there to fuel cars in the future in the way that we did it in the past. So a lot of people are going to have to do things differently.

Worldwide, the automobile industry has seen the handwriting on the wall. Fuel is expensive, and is getting more so with each passing year. So the industry has invested tens of billions of dollars in improving engine and power train efficiency. In addition, auto designers are coming up with new ways to eliminate weight and drag. (At higher speeds, up to 70 percent of the energy used to turn the wheels on a car goes just to push the air out of the way of the chassis.) The auto industry is looking towards different sorts of fuels, and moving towards what is called fuel-flexibility.

Hopefully this will lead us to a great new investment in the car of the future.

Until we meet again…
Byron King

:}

:}

Weird Bird Friday – TGI(WB)F

Posted on by
Reply

Yes its time for our weekly tribute to the birds in our lives. This weeks image comes from San Francisco’s own John

Mitchell:

http://www.jungle-life.com/?query=john+mitchell&amount=0&blogid=1

strange.jpg

Being a print by John Mitchell it’s important to take a closer look where you may notice the flowers giving birth to these strange birds through their delicate vaginas.

Strange Birds by John Mitchell

:}

Dedicated to Pa Martin and Ma Kay, 6th generation farmers who saved this bloggers life by warning him about the impending earthquake that hit Illinois last night. They called me up and said, “The cattle was a acting funny.” So I slept in my car last night. Thanks guys. 

McCain’s Gas Tax Proposal – So the time for us has just about ran out

Posted on by
Reply

John McCain like every other Republican in America wants to avoid what their 30 years of dereliction of duty has wraught. Nixon, Regan and Bush (my version of lions and tigers and bears, oh my!) all increased our dependence on oil and easy Chinese money. Bush in particular ushered us to the brink of a world depression. Grover Norquist, who wants to take us back to the 1930s is about to succeed:

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_norquist.html

BILL MOYERS: If states refuse to raise taxes to fix some of those problems we’ve just seen, that certainly won’t bother my next guest. He’s a sworn opponent of all taxes. He’s also the most powerful man in Washington not to hold a public office.

Officially, Grover Norquist heads an organization called Americans for Tax Reform where for almost 20 years now he has crusaded for lower taxes and less government. Unofficially he’s been the linchpin in Washington for the conservative revolution that now controls the government. His weekly meetings of activists became the politburo of strategy where all stripes of conservatives bear their differences in order to bury their hatchet in Democrats. From the Christian coalition to log cabin Republicans to the National Rifle Association on whose board he sits, this Harvard graduate keeps the troops on mission and on message. His success prompted Senator Hillary Clinton to muse aloud, if only Democrats had a Grover Norquist. Welcome to NOW.

GROVER NORQUIST: Glad to be with you.

BILL MOYERS: Well, you do have it all. You have the White House, the Congress, the regulatory agencies, the courts more or less. The last time Democrats, liberal Democrats, held that kind of power, they made some mistakes like the war in Vietnam that they couldn’t sustain the support of at home, emphasized parochial interests at the expense of the sort of bedrock universal values of American society. What are the errors you think conservatives running everything could make?

GROVER NORQUIST: I think it’s very important to always make sure that you’re talking to the entire coalition and to as many Americans as possible; not to go chasing after one little group or another. The Democrats would bring new groups into their party and not notice that larger groups are going out the back door. And so what I try and do whenever I work on an issue or work with political leaders is make sure that when you’re talking about a new approach, how does that…how does the entire coalition view that new approach? Is there a better or different way to do it that irritates fewer people and that satisfies a larger constituency?

BILL MOYERS: And that’s what you did at your Wednesday morning meetings? Those meetings became famous, for all kinds of conservatives being in there hammering things out.

GROVER NORQUIST: And we now have 27 versions of that at the state capital level, including one in New York City. So we’re taking the model of the “leave us alone” coalition from the national level to the state level as well.

BILL MOYERS: “Leave us alone?”

GROVER NORQUIST: Um-hmm. Look, the center right coalition in American politics today is best understood as a coalition of groups and individuals that on the issue that brings them to politics what they want from the government is to be left alone. Taxpayers, don’t raise my taxes. Property owners, don’t restrict or limit my property. Home schoolers, let me educate my own kids. Gun owners, don’t restrict my Second Amendment rights. All communities of faith, Evangelical Christians, conservative Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, people want to practice their own religion and be left alone to raise their own kids.

BILL MOYERS: Do you have any sympathy for those states we just saw a few moments ago? Under the president’s plan, those states do not expect any direct aid from Uncle Sam. Do you have any advice for them?

GROVER NORQUIST: Sure, two things. The most important thing for President Bush and the federal government to do is to create a pro-growth economic policy because its economic growth that brings in more revenue for states and local governments. At the state level what they really have to do is take a long run view and limit the growth of spending, put limits on how much you spend. And then California, the state owns a whole bunch of land and other things that it could sell off it doesn’t need, and it needs to figure out which of those government jobs need to be in government, and what can be privatized or contracted out.

BILL MOYERS: You’re on record as saying, my goal is to cut government in half in 25 years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bath tub. Is that a true statement?

And the Holy Satanic trilogy of George Mason University, Southern Methodist University and the University of Chicago have supplied all the intellectual fire power. SMU is where George Bush, jr. will try to lock up his presidential papers and avoid jail,

:}

Oh but I digress…One of the finest posters at The Oil Drum JoulesBurn who Blogs at:

http://satelliteoerthedesert.blogspot.com/

Had this little cutey today:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3855#more

McCain’s Gas Pains: Gas “Tax Holidays” A Good Idea?

Posted by JoulesBurn on April 15, 2008 – 7:45pm
Topic: Policy/Politics
Tags: gas prices, John McCain, politics (list all tags)

For immediate release from John McCain’s campaign:

John McCain, who just hours earlier proposed a “tax holiday” in which the 18 cent federal tax on gasoline would be suspended during the summer driving season, has reconsidered and has instead proposed that the U.S. gallon be redefined to be equal in volume to the current U.S. quart. “This will immediately lower the price at the pump by 75%, providing visible relief to millions of Americans”, quipped McCain. “I rejected the idea of setting it equal to the liter, for obvious reasons”.When questioners suggested that this move wouldn’t actually change how much consumers spend to fill their tanks, McCain responded “Well, neither would my previous proposal”.

In unrelated election news, the McCain campaign announced that P.T. Barnum has been posthumously appointed as their policy director. Also, Hillary Clinton has proposed a suspension of the law of gravity, at least during the summer flying season, to help the beleaguered airline industry. Barack Obama reportedly had no comment on these suggestions, other than to say that Americans are definitely “atwitter” about gas prices.

We interrupt this vacation from reality with the following observations…(under the fold…)

  • As gasoline is a commodity for which prices are determined by supply and demand, lowering the price without increasing the supply will likely increase demand (usage). Prices will rise again to compensate.
  • The 18.4 cents per gallon that is now flowing into the US treasury, and which is then spent building roads, bridges, and mass transit, will instead flow to oil companies — particularly those in foreign countries, since the US imports over half of its oil.
  • Targeting the current gasoline tax instead for the development of alternative transportation and ways of using energy more efficiently will provide more lasting solutions to the current energy and economic crises than short-term attempts to fix the problem.

For Better Or Worse – it is true, someone should take my scanner away

Posted on by
Reply

:}Its true. Our children should be worried. Our grand children? They shoul be very afraid.
 better-or-worse.jpg

:}

Oh to see more: http://www.fborfw.com/strip_fix/

The Love Of MY Life…Marylee Orr

Posted on by
Reply

Oh well I guess I just caused her to blush…and in a way it is actually true…

Come to the Public Hearing
Vicksburg Convention Center
Thursday April 17 at 7:00 p.m.

MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARDLocated about 40 miles northwest of Jackson, MS and encompassing a sprawling 925,000 acres, the Yazoo Pumps project threatens the health and economy of the entire Mississippi Delta, including the habitat of the endangered Louisiana Black Bear – the original Teddy Bear.

For the first time in nearly 20 years, the Environmental Protection Agency is using its ‘veto authority’ to stop the project, and needs our support at the public hearing to complete the veto.

Vetoing the pumps will save 200,000 acres of wetlands, preserve the best hunting and fishing habitat in the Mississippi River Flyway, keep wildlife refuges healthy, and save taxpayers more than $220 million!

COME TO THE PUBLC HEARINGWhen: Thursday April 17 at 7 PM Central Time

Where: Vicksburg Convention Center
1600 Mulberry Street
Vicksburg, MS 39180

“Over the course of my 24 years at the EPA, I never reviewed a proposal that would do more damage to the environment than the Yazoo Pumps project in the Mississippi Delta.”– John Meagher, the retired director of the EPA’s Wetlands Division,
New York Times Letter to the Editor, Nov. 7, 2007

Transportation to the hearing from Baton Rouge and New Orleans is available!

Please RSVP to Mike Murphy (504) 865-5787 so that National Wildlife Federation may reserve a coach-style bus or a van (depending on the demand) from both Baton Rouge and New Orleans.

Each bus or van will depart early in the afternoon of April 17 in order to meet at the Vicksburg Convention Center by 6 pm (where NWF has reserved a room to gather for refreshments prior to the hearing). We expect to be at the hearing from 7 pm to 10 pm then get back on the bus/van for the trip home (no overnight stay).

There is no charge for the transportation and some refreshments will be provided in Vicksburg, all compliments of NWF.

Please contact Mike Murphy ASAP if you would like to take advantage of this offer.

Contact:

Mike Murphy

Community Outreach Director

Tulane Environmental Law Clinic

(504) 865-5787

Forward email
Safe UnsubscribeThis email was sent to dougnic55@yahoo.com, by paul@lmrk.orgUpdate Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy.

Email Marketing by

Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper | P.O. Box 66323 | Baton Rouge | LA | 70809

       

Weird Bird Friday – Man I feel like I just came out of warp drive or something

Posted on by
1

After spending nearly 15 days discussing the environment and religion I feel like I need a work out or something…Its like being in the clouds and then landing. Your ears pop all the way down. Terra firma feels so good. Time to get back to the manly world of drilling for oil, digging for coal, and sailing the oceans loaded with Liquid Natural Gas. Oh sorry I mean hoisting Solar Water Preheat panels, riveting Wind Turbine towers and pioneering the Noncarbon Based Economy. HAHA

Thank God it is Weird Bird Friday TGI(WB)F!

So much local stuff has gone by while I was watching my navel. Wind Farms in Christian County…Some guys are building an alternative fuel car in Auburn (of All places) to compete in the XPrize Races…But here is a story I have wanted to cover for awhile. People have complained about the pigeon poop downtown for years. So 2 years ago the Mayor and the City Council of Springfield hired a guy from Decatur with a 164,000$$$ nobid contract. This guy is known locally as the “Bird Whisperer” because of his magical and secret methods….that he refuses to disclose because they are proprietary.

28324-birdman1.jpg

In reality he is a sad old man who uses pellet guns and poison to get the birds at night when they sleep and terrorizes them during the day with fire crackers…which cause the birds to move to another part of the downtown.

http://www.sj-r.com/News/stories/28324.asp

or maybe he uses more fire power than that:

Bird whisperer’ could lose contract
Accused of firing rifle in downtown parking garage

By CHRIS WETTERICH
STAFF WRITER

Published Wednesday, April 09, 2008

The “bird whisperer’s” $164,000 no-bid contract with the city of Springfield is in jeopardy after Police Chief Ralph Caldwell said Tuesday that James Soules had probably broken the law by firing a .22-caliber rifle in a parking garage.
WEB EXTRA: Archive video of the ‘bird whisperer’ Caldwell told aldermen that an investigation had found probable cause to believe that Soules or one of his employees had fired inside the parking garage for the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum.

“You just can’t shoot a firearm in downtown Springfield,” Caldwell said.

In a telephone interview, Soules, of Decatur, said later Tuesday that he does not even own a .22-caliber rifle. He said he had shot a sick pigeon inside the garage with an air rifle.

“I probably had 20 people say, ‘Why don’t you get those birds because they crap all over our cars?’” he said.
 

Soules said he does have a .22-caliber pistol but did not use it in the garage. Such a weapon would be useful only at close range, he said.

The Illinois State Police, the lead agency because the alleged offense occurred on state property, has turned its report over to Sangamon County State’s Attorney John Schmidt, who is reviewing it, Caldwell said. Soules could be charged with misdemeanor unlawful use of a weapon.

Told of the findings at a meeting Tuesday, aldermen on the Springfield City Council’s finance committee unanimously forwarded an ordinance by Ward 8 Ald. Kris Theilen revoking Soules’ contract to the full city council for a vote April 15.

:}

Instead of doing the obvious. That is banning the feeding of wild life and enforcing it:

pigeons1.jpg

pigeons2.jpg

Not to be confused with the real Bird Whisperer, Ken Globus:

http://www.thebirdwhisperer.com/

Internationally known as The Bird Whisperer, Ken Globus has been taming “difficult” birds for more than twenty five years.  From handling literally thousands of birds, many of them terrified, extremely aggressive and considered “un-handleable,” Ken developed the kinds of hands-on bird taming techniques that have enabled him to do what few others can do: calm down even the wildest birds.          If a bird bites, flees, threatens or quakes with fear.  If it’s insecure in new surroundings or with new people.  If it prefers one gender over the other.  If it’s timid and unhappy. If it’s cage territorial, dominant or just plain aggressive.   If other approaches have failed to get you results, Ken can help.

   ken.jpg

Believe it or not the bird belongs to Steven Spielberg and Cate Capshaw…wow I knew I’d get a bird picture in there. AWW cute budgie.

:}