Category Archives: Environment

Chemicals Manufacturing Looks For Booming Business–Only Obama Can Put This Good News Down.

Posted on November 5, 2012 | Leave a comment

The price of natural gas has plummeted and chemical manufacturing firms are going to take advantage of the low cost feedstock.   A Forbes posting by Agustino Fontevecchia leads with this:

The $3.5 trillion chemicals industry provides a good vantage point from which to observe the state of the global economy, as many of its products stand at the beginning of the supply chain. From consumers to construction, the chemicals industry is set to boom in the U.S. given the explosion of shale plays and the cheap price of natural gas compared to the rest of the world, according to Anton Ticktin, a partner at chemical industry focused M&A advisory investment bank Valence.

“Chemicals go into everything, they are the part of the first step into the creation of so many different products,” explained Ticktin, “the gives you insight into the state of so many industries and sectors” such as the consumer, through plastic bag volumes for example, and construction, through sales of paints and coatings.

The low priced natural gas will result in many industries improving their balance sheet.  Ticktin adds:

And investors can get a cut of the action. Years ago, major chemical companies like Du Pont and Dow Chemical began to move their operations overseas. But today, companies with access to feed stocks that are associated with the production of natural gas, such as propane and ethane, will see a boost in their performance. Major oil and gas companies like Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and Royal Dutch Shell are well positioned to benefit.

Companies in the coatings and paints business will also do well, according to Ticktin. Sherwin-Williams and PPG, for example, are trading near their 52-week highs, while Du Pont and Dow Chemical are on their way back.

The bottom line is that through the lens that is the chemicals industry, Ticktin is seeing the U.S. recovery strengthening vis-à-vis the rest of the world. While GDP is still lagging, the rise in volume and sales seen in the chemical industry should be a good omen for the broader economy.

Team Obama wants to kill fracking.  The EPA is moving forward with a study to determine the safety of Fracking.  The EPA has chosen not to select, as members of this committee, anyone from industry.  To say it another way, if you know anything about fracking and how safe it is and how it can continue to be that way, they DON’T want you.  API Executive Vice President Marty Durbin makes the case regarding the Science Advisory Board (SAB) being assembled by the EPA:

It’s a perspective the SAB panel needs as it delves into hydraulic fracturing issues. Unfortunately, EPA has declined such expertise in the past. Durbin:

“From our perspective, critical opportunities to leverage the tremendous knowledge and experience base offered by industry have been repeatedly missed.”

For example, no industry experts were selected for SAB’s hydraulic review panel announced in January 2011. Instead, while members were technical experts in their respective fields, most had virtually no relevant knowledge or understanding of oil and natural gas operations in general and hydraulic fracturing in particular related to their respective areas of expertise. Durbin:

“API, therefore, strongly recommends that the ad hoc Panel members have direct experience working in the modern oil and natural gas industry. … We note that industry representatives have a long record of valuable, unbiased participation in many other SAB Communities and Panels. It is those very individuals, with extensive field experience and first-hand knowledge of the techniques used in drilling and completions, who are critical to the examination of the very specialized processes and the research addressing those processes.”

See more from this  posting by clicking here.

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, Domestic Energy, Energy Development, Environment, EPA, fossil fuels, Fracking/Shale Gas

That 97% Solution, Again–Reboot

Posted on October 31, 2012 | Leave a comment

There are many—mostly non-scientists—that like to tell the public that 97% of the world’s climate scientists believe in the catastrophic man-made global warming theory.  If you disagree with their theory,  you are said to be one of the 3% who are “deniers”.  They also tell you that the “deniers” are heavily funded by the fossil fuel industry which makes them not only wrong on science but morally wrong for carrying the water for those evil oil and gas companies. In fact Oil and Gas provide more funds for alternative energy studies than funds provided to the skeptics. Most  skeptics are not funded at all. The winners of the funding wars are the believers of the man-made global warming theory. They get the large cash awards from Governments and Environmental organizations worldwide as long as they produce work that supports the man-made global warming theory. 
 
I set out to post the facts to demonstrate that the 97% claim is bogus.  I ran across the following National Post posting “That 97% Solution, Again”  by Larry Solomon and concluded I could not come up with anything that would surpass Solomon’s arguments on this topic.  So here is what he wrote:
 
That 97% Solution,Again.
Source:  National Post (Canada)
by Larry Solomon
 
How do we know there’s a scientific consensus on climate change? Pundits and the press tell us so. And how do the pundits and the press know? Until recently, they typically pointed to the number 2500 – that’s the number of scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those 2500, the pundits and the press believed, had endorsed the IPCC position.
To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered that they were mistaken – those 2500 scientists hadn’t endorsed the IPCC’s conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCC’s conclusions, sometimes vehemently.
The upshot? The punditry looked for and recently found an alternate number to tout — “97% of the world’s climate scientists” accept the consensus, articles in the Washington Post and elsewhere have begun to claim.
This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change.  The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.
The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth – out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers. That left the 10,257 scientists in disciplines like geology, oceanography, paleontology, and geochemistry that were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided that scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer – those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor – about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma.
To encourage a high participation among these remaining disciplines, the two researchers decided on a quickie survey that would take less than two minutes to complete, and would be done online, saving the respondents the hassle of mailing a reply. Nevertheless, most didn’t consider the quickie survey worthy of response –just 3146, or 30.7%, answered the two questions on the survey:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
The questions were actually non-questions. From my discussions with literally hundreds of skeptical scientists over the past few years, I know of none who claims that the planet hasn’t warmed since the 1700s, and almost none who think that humans haven’t contributed in some way to the recent warming – quite apart from carbon dioxide emissions, few would doubt that the creation of cities and the clearing of forests for agricultural lands have affected the climate. When pressed for a figure, global warming skeptics might say that human are responsible for 10% or 15% of the warming; some skeptics place the upper bound of man’s contribution at 35%. The skeptics only deny that humans played a dominant role in Earth’s warming.
Surprisingly, just 90% of those who responded to the first question believed that temperatures had risen – I would have expected a figure closer to 100%, since Earth was in the Little Ice Age in the centuries immediately preceding 1800. But perhaps some of the responders interpreted the question to include the past 1000 years, when Earth was in the Medieval Warm Period, generally thought to be warmer than today.
As for the second question, 82% of the earth scientists replied that that human activity had significantly contributed to the warming. Here the vagueness of the question comes into play. Since skeptics believe that human activity been a contributing factor, their answer would have turned on whether they consider a 10% or 15% or 35% increase to be a significant contributing factor. Some would, some wouldn’t.
In any case, the two researchers must have feared that an 82% figure would fall short of a convincing consensus – almost one in five wasn’t blaming humans for global warming — so they looked for subsets that would yield a higher percentage.  They found it – almost — in those whose recent published peer-reviewed research fell primarily in the climate change field. But the percentage still fell short of the researchers’ ideal. So they made another cut, allowing only the research conducted by those earth scientists who identified themselves as climate scientists.
Once all these cuts were made, 75 out of 77 scientists of unknown qualifications were left endorsing the global warming orthodoxy. The two researchers were then satisfied with their findings. Are you?
LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com
cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Climate Models, CO2, Environment, fossil fuels, Global Temperatures, IPCC, Oil and Gas Exploration, sun and climate

Hurricane Sandy-Does It Prove Man-Made Global Warming?

Posted on October 28, 2012 | Leave a comment

Sunday afternoon,  28 October 2012

We are directly in the line of the forecasted hurricane Sandy landfall, albeit about 6 miles away from the Delaware Bay.  For most of this day, there has been no wind and very little rain.  I guess that this is the often cited “calm before the storm”.   It is almost 5 pm EDT and the rain is picking up but there is still not much wind.   My concern is wind speed.  Homes in the Northeastern part of the US, excepting those on the beach, are not built for hurricane force winds.   We hope our roof stays on.

I expect that the media will go full-out on this hurricane calling it proof that man-made global warming caused it and that it is just the first of a deluge of more such storms.   They know this because their climate models told them.

Actual data suggests that this is not the case.  The measure of hurricane ( often called “cyclones” so as to include typhoons that occur in the Pacific) intensity takes into account the number of such storms and how powerful they are.  And it measures those that don’t make landfall too.  Wikipedia defines hurricane intensity as follows:

Accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) is a measure used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to express the activity of individual tropical cyclones and entire tropical cyclone seasons, particularly the North Atlantic hurricane season. It uses an approximation of the energy used by a tropical system over its lifetime and is calculated every six-hour period. The ACE of a season is the sum of the ACEs for each storm and takes into account the number, strength, and duration of all the tropical storms in the season.[1]

The chart below is a measure of intensity.  Observe that actual data shows that hurricane intensity does not correlate with atmospheric CO2 volume.  And that  overall intensities of hurricanes have fallen in recent years.  (click on the chart to improve clarity.)

Ryan Maue produced this chart and he describes as follows:

Last 4-decades of Global and Northern Hemisphere Accumulated Cyclone Energy: 24 month running sums. Note that the year indicated represents the value of ACE through the previous 24-months for the Northern Hemisphere (bottom line/gray boxes) and the entire global (top line/blue boxes). The area in between represents the Southern Hemisphere total ACE.

 But this is actual data and how could it possibly be correct if the models provide different predictions.(sarc)

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Climate Models, CO2, Environment, Storms/hurricanes

Matt Damon’s Anti-US Oil Companies Film Financed by Abu Dhabi

Posted on September 29, 2012 | 2 comments

The documentary film “Gasland” had set the tone. The town of Dimock, Pa had been featured in a scene where fire was blasting out of the sink faucets –all because the natural gas companies were using hydraulic fracturing (fracking) of the subsurface shale to release the trapped natural gas. The presumption was that somehow this fracturing was resulting in leakage of natural gas into the subsurface water from which the locals drew their drinking water.

It seemed like a good idea for a movie script, especially when it would bash those thieving rascals that run those evil oil and natural gas companies.  So, Matt Damon andJohn Krasinski said they would make the movie and it would be about “American identity . . . and what defines us as a country.” Whatever that means.  They planned to title the movie, “Promised Land”.  According to the NY Post, the story line was to have Damon, the big oil and natural gas company representative, exposed by an environmentalist.  The environmentalist would reveal the Damon’s (oil company’s) plan to “exploit, pollute and leave” the small community. 

The wheels began to come off the movie story-line when tests by the State of Pennsylvania and the EPA found that the Dimock water was not contaminated. In addition several other stories were reported further ruining the narrative that Damon, et al had chosen. Again, from the Post:

“There was Wolf Eagle Environmental Engineers in Texas, a group that produced a frightening video of a flaming house water pipe and claimed a gas company had polluted the water. But a judge just found that the tape was an outright fraud — Wolf Eagle connected the house gas pipe to a hose and lit the water.   Other “pollution” cases collapsed in Wyoming and Colorado. Even Josh Fox, who with his Oscar-nominated documentary “Gasland” first raised concerns about flammable water, has had to admit he withheld evidence that fracking was not responsible.”

Surely, the Hollywood crowd will come up with something and you want to know why?  Because Abu Dhabi, one of the oil rich United Arab Emirates, is providing part the financing for this movie.   

Do you suppose that Abu Dhabi has an interest in slowing or stopping fracking altogether? Fracking is propelling the United States to a condition of oil and natural gas self-sufficiency.   The consequence will probably be to cause crude oil prices to drop. Because the Emirates’ economic life is predicated on sales of crude oil, this is a logical conclusion. 

But Damon is smart enough to make that connection.  Yet he is smearing US OIL AND GAS COMPANIES in order to stop fracking.  Liberals, seesh.

Click on the link below to read the entire NY Post story:

www.nypost.com/f/print/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/for_his_next_escape_x46uFSONrAaCey67ZzZV0I

To read more of the Foundry Posting on Abu Dhabi financing the Damon picture  click here: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/28/matt-damons-anti-fracking-movie-financed-by-oil-rich-arab-nation/

 

cbdakota

2 Comments

Posted in AGW, Domestic Energy, Energy Development, Environment, EPA, fossil fuels, Fracking/Shale Gas, Oil and Gas Exploration

Electric Cars and Battery Systems are a Bust

Posted on September 27, 2012 | 2 comments

Despite President Obama’s boast that HE was going to bring about the era of the electric car, it isn’t happening.  Yes, he did what he could.  He hoped that by not allowing the use of the most of our Federal lands, he could short the supply of crude oil and thus drive the price of gasoline up to a point where people would have to buy electric cars. It did not work because he could not stop the States and Private owners from developing their lands.  It is now routine to see new supplies of natural gas and crude oil being brought on-line.  He tried to do it by massive infusion of tax payer’s money into electric vehicle and battery production.  But the cars being produced just aren‘t cutting it with the buying public.  The prices are too high. Limited vehicle range coupled with long recharge times are not helping win them over either.  A lot of the EV problems can be attributed to their batteries which are too big and heavy, cost too much and have questionable reliability.

Toyota sees the writing on the wall and has announced that it is getting out of the EV business for now.  They will continue to produce and sell their popular Pris hybrid.

EV sales versus Obama’s goal   

The President’s said that he wanted 1 million EVs and hybrids on the road by 2015.  The Department of Energy released their analysis in 2011 that said 1 million was achievable.  However, sales of the hybrid Volt are a little over 20,000 since introduction in late 2010.  Sales of the EV Nissan Leaf are even smaller. See here ( https://cbdakota.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/president-obamas-pants-on-fire-acceptance-speech/)for additional discussion of 1 million cars goal from President Obama’s acceptance speech at the Democrat Convention.  Analysts from all over are saying it is time to back off this goal.

Hysteria from the Environmentalists

The documentary “Who killed the Electric Car?” was winning awards for its”brilliant detective work” demonstrating how the”evil” corporations did the 1990ty’s EVs in.  The awards were meted out by the same folks that still think the widely discredited “An Inconvenient Truth” is gospel.  It is going to be much tougher to invent a story for this round of EVs and hybrids, when the truth is that the consumers really don’t want these vehicles.  Sure, a small group wants them and they are the ones that go to the Sundance Film Festival.  They can buy a $110,000 Tesla and can afford to not make practical choices for their transportation.

Let’s see now, GM has put up $1.2 billion developing the Volt.  The Feds give a tax rebate of $7,500 to the buyer of a Volt—and they are talking about upping that figure. The dealers have been discounting the Volt to get them off their lots.  This year the factory producing the Volt has twice stopped production when the unsold inventory reached 85 days. And depending on how one does the calculation, GM loses about $50,000 on each Volt sold according to Reuters.

A new factory is being built in Tennessee to manufacture Nissan Leafs.  Nissan got a $1.5 billion low interest rate loan from the Feds for the construction. Nissan says the factory can produce 150,000 Leafs each year.  Sales of the Leaf through August this year are 4,228.  One has to wonder if Nissan Management isn’t concerned that they overbuilt this factory or perhaps even built it at all. 

And the battery maker story is even worse, in my opinion.  A123 got loans of $250 million from the Feds.  A123 was facing bankruptcy when the Wanxiang Group, one of China’s biggest auto suppliers purchased 80% ownership in the company.   Ener1 got $118 million in pledges from the Feds and another $80 million in State and local pledges.  It was declaring bankruptcy when Boris Zingarevich, a Russian businessman with ties to former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, bought them out. A123 and Ener1 are suppliers to our military as well as to the EV and hybrid manufacturers. The battery technology developed (paid for by us taxpayers) is now in the hands of the Russians and the Chinese. 

So, large amounts of money have been spent developing EVs and hybrids.  GM and probably Nissan are losing substantial amounts of money every day as they continue to produce the Volt and the Leaf.  The gasoline price is much higher than it was in the 90tys when that generation of EVs failed.  It will be very hard to generate a believable story line for a new documentary on what” killed the electric car” this time  unless they say  the customers did not want them.  Obviously that was the reason back in the 90tys, too.

Will there ever be a time for EVs?  Probably.   But it is not now.

cbdakota

2 Comments

Posted in Alternative Energy, Batteries, Electric Vehicles, Energy Development, Environment, fossil fuels, Green Jobs, Off Shore Resources, Oil and Gas Exploration, Personal Automobiles, US Auto Manufacturers

Contrasting The Keystone Pipeline And Solyndra

Posted on September 14, 2012 | 1 comment

Rep. Fred Upton(R- Michigan) illustrates the huge divide between the Obama view and that of Congressional Republicans when he contrasts the difference between the Solyndra and the Keystone Pipeline energy projects. Upton says:

 “These two energy projects tell a dramatic yet revealing story, one that explains our slow economic recovery, our burgeoning federal debt, and our over reliance on Middle Eastern oil.   Solyndra – a bankrupt, federally subsidized solar project – and the proposed  Keystone pipeline carrying oil from Canada – are really symbols of a larger narrative, serving as examples of two distinct economic and governing philosophies. The Keystone approach supports free markets, encourages private investment and relies on technology instead of regulatory mandates to produce energy. The Solyndra model advocates prescriptive and detailed Washington planning, massive federal spending, and recasts energy bureaucrats as venture capitalists.”

 President Obama stymied attempts to authorize the Keystone pipeline saying that it was environmentally problematic because it would be built, in part, over a  major mid-American aquifer.  The pipeline’s proposed path was rerouted but still Obama would not give it the go-ahead.  It is widely understood that his in-action was taken to appease extreme environmentalist groups that are major campaign contributors.  Keystone would have the near term effect of employing thousands of people to build the line. It would have added to the Nation’s crude oil reserve and be supplied from a friendly country- Canada.  However, his inaction has resulted in the Canadians signing an oil sales agreement with China to be supplied from this same resource.  And get this— build a pipeline to the Pacific coast where the crude can be shipped by tanker to China.

Instead, Obama has been picking “renewable energy projects” to fund.  Solyndra is just one example of the many companies that his Administration has picked that have gone bankrupt.  Solyndra was given over $500 billion of taxpayer monies and those are all lost.  In Obama’s Presidential Nomination acceptance speech at the Democrat Convention, he promised to do more of this.  UGH!!

Upton sums up his case here:

“It’s time to start looking forward on energy policy and embrace the possibility of North American energy independence. Given the slow pace of Washington’s bureaucracy, policymakers are often busy solving yesterday’s problems. This rearview mirror approach afflicts Mr. Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress. They lack the vision to realize the energy world has changed dramatically even since the president took office. We now have the opportunity to significantly expand our North American energy supply – not through new regulations or federal subsidies, but by simply making commonsense policy decisions. We need to seize these new opportunities and adapt, not continue to support old policies conceived in a world when energy scarcity was in vogue.”

To read the full posting by Representative Upton click here.

cbdakota

1 Comment

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, Domestic Energy, Energy Development, Environment, fossil fuels, Oil and Gas Exploration, Uncategorized

Global Temperature Anomaly Up in August

Posted on September 7, 2012 | Leave a comment

The UAH satellite measurement of the global temperature anomaly for the month of August was up slightly from July +0.28  to August +0.34C.   The running average since satellite temperature measurements began,  is about +0.2C.

cbd   

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Climate Models, CO2, Environment, Global Temperatures, UAH Satellite Temps

Fracked Natural Gas Changing The US Economy

Posted on August 25, 2012 | 2 comments

According to a recent report issued(12/2011) by IHC  Global Insight**, shale gas (fracked natural gas) has changed the US energy outlook and the economy.   In 2010, shale gas provided 27% of the US natural gas (NG).  IHC forecasts that by 2035, shale gas will provide 60% of the US NG production.  Without the shale gas, a NG supply shortage would have necessitated the importation of liquefied natural gas(LNG). Today’s price of somewhere around $3 to $4 per million BTUs would likely be in the range of $10 to $12 per million Btus if importation had been necessary.  Longer term,  IHC forecasts 2035 NG price at $7.90 per million Btus (All values in their report are in constant 2010 dollars.) thanks to shale gas.

 The job creation due to shale gas has been outstanding and IHC forecasts continued increases in jobs.   IHC reports that shale gas, by 2010, had supported over 600,000 jobs.  They forecast jobs to grow to 1.6 million by 2035.   

There are other benefits as well.  In 2010 the industry contributed $18.6 billion in governmental tax revenues and royalty payments.  By 2035 the cumulative contribution of taxes and royalties are forecast to be $933 billion.   Additionally,  the capital expenditures made between 2010 and 2035 are forecast at $1.9 trillion.

In the future, electricity prices are forecast to drop by 10%  and parts of the chemical industry will be revived.  Our domestic industries will become more competitive because of the lower cost of natural gas as feedstock and NG’s impact on electrical cost.

Although there will be some redundancy relative to the preceding discussion,  the Key Findings page for IHCs report “The Economic and Employment Contributions of Shale Gas in the United States” is an excellent summary.  It follows:

• By 2010, shale gas had grown to 27% of total US natural gas production, and by September 2011,it had reached 34%.

• By 2015, that share will grow to 43% and will more than double, reaching 60%, by 2035.

• Nearly $1.9 trillion in shale gas capital investments are expected between 2010 and 2035.

• Capital expenditures are especially strong in the near future, growing from $33 billion in 2010 to $48 billion by 2015.

• In 2010, the shale gas industry supported 600,000 jobs; this will grow to nearly 870,000 in 2015 and to over 1.6 million by 2035.

Growth in the shale gas industry will make significant contributions to the broader economy in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and tax revenues:

• The shale gas contribution to GDP was more than $76 billion in 2010. This will increase to $118 billion by 2015 and will triple to $231 billion in 2035.

• In 2010 shale gas production contributed $18.6 billion in federal, state and local government tax and federal royalty revenues. By 2035, these receipts will more than triple to just over $57 billion. On a cumulative basis, the shale industry will generate more than $933 billion in federal, state, and local tax and royalty revenues over the next 25 years.

• The extent of job and GDP contributions reflect the capital intensity of the shale gas industry, the ability to source inputs from within the United States, the nature of the supply chain, and the quality of the jobs created.

The growth of shale gas is leading to lower natural gas and electric power prices and increased productivity:

• The full-cycle cost of shale gas produced from wells drilled in 2011 is 40-50% less than the cost of gas from conventional wells drilled in 2011.

• Without shale gas production, reliance on high levels of liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports would influence US natural gas prices, causing them to increase by at least 100%.

• The lower natural gas prices achieved with shale gas production will result in an average reduction of 10% in electricity costs nationwide over the forecast period.

• By 2017, lower prices will result in an initial impact of 2.9% higher industrial production. By 2035, industrial production will be 4.7% higher.

• Chemicals production in particular stands to benefit from an extended period of low natural gas prices, as it uses natural gas as a fuel source and feedstock. Chemicals producers have already signaled their intentions to increase US capacity.

• Savings from lower gas prices will add an annual average of $926 per year in disposable household income between 2012 and 2015. In 2035, this would increase to just over $2,000 per household.

 

 It is well worth your reading the full report which can be accessed by clicking here. It is intended that the next posting reviews the IHC report on unconv entional gas’s c ontributions by State.  That posting is to be followed by a look at a similar report by the Bookings Institute on Green Jobs.

cbdakota

**IHS  Global Insight is one of the world’s leading economic analysis and forecasting firms.

 

 

 

 

 

2 Comments

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, Domestic Energy, Energy Development, Environment, fossil fuels, Green Jobs, Oil and Gas Exploration, US Companies Manufacturing, US Manufacturing Companies

Gasoline Price and Vehicle Fuel Economy Correlate

Posted on August 3, 2012 | Leave a comment

The WardsAuto Fuel Economy Index compares the cost of gasoline opposite the average fuel-economy (miles per gallon—mpg) of new vehicles sold each month.   The new vehicle fuel economy peaked in March at 24.1mpg.  It fell to 23.6 mpg in June, the last data point available.  This drop corresponds to the drop in gasoline prices over the past three months.  The chart shown below shows a strong correlation of fuel price and t the fuel economy the car buyers are settling for.

Wards cautions to not assume that the car buyer’s are fickle but it is hard not to draw that conclusion.  Wards cites fleet purchases of Toyota vehicles in March as Toyota was trying to catch up on the losses they encountered in 2011 when the tsunami shutdown a lot of Japanese industry.

Wards notes that the vehicles fuel economy by region looked this way in June: Overall, Asian auto makers combined for a 26 mpg (9.0 L/100 km) rating, followed by the European brands’ 22.8 mpg (10.3 L/100 km) and the Detroit Three’s 21.2 mpg (11.1 L/100 km).

The Detroit Big Three do move a lot of pickup trucks so that may explain the differences in fuel economy.

To read more click here.

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, CAFE Standards, Domestic Energy, Electric Vehicles, Environment, EPA, fossil fuels, Government Regulations, Personal Automobiles, US Auto Manufacturers

July Global Temperature Anomaly Update

Posted on August 3, 2012 | Leave a comment

The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for July (+0.28 °C) was down from June 2012 (+0.37 °C).  The anomaly stood at +0.37C July 2012. (Click on chart for clarity.)  Data and chart from Dr Roy Spencer.

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, CO2, Environment, Global Temperatures, IPCC, NASA/GISS