Category Archives: Government Regulations

California’s Global Warming Solutions Act”—Part 2.

Posted on May 11, 2012 | Leave a comment

The Democratic polling firm of Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates at the request of the “Vote Solar Initiative” organization polled some 400 Los Angles residents and found according to an Aol Energy blog posting:

“The vast majority of Los Angeles residents are demanding more renewable energy, especially solar power, according to a new survey. Around 87 percent of voters want solar energy to generate more electricity and 79 percent welcome more wind power. Around three out of four voters (76 percent) say the solar power should be generated from rooftop panels.”

Aside from a pro-solar organization hiring a liberal Democrat polling organization to fashion a poll to get them the answers they wanted, the poll results show how far removed from reality are the LA citizens.  They are clamoring for more government intervention which is what has given California the 3rd highest unemployment rate in the country,  the 9th highest electricity rate and the 3rd highest gasoline cost. It’s the poorer people that are suffering the most.  This will be made even worse as the price of electricity continues its climb as they force in more uneconomical solar based production and drive out much lower cost fossil fuel production. This conclusion is also dawning on the Germans according to the Global Warming Policy Foundation: “The current funding of Germany’s green energy transition is anti-social, according to a new report by the Institute of the German Economy. The economic burden due to the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) is up to 10 times higher for low-income households than for high-income households.”

The preliminary 2012 Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) estimates for levelized costs per kilowatt-hour in 2017 are 15.7 cents for a photovoltaic solar plant and 25.1 cents for a thermal solar plant.  That is far more expensive than the 6.7 cents per kilowatt-hour for conventional combined cycle natural gas and the 10 cents per kilowatt-hour for conventional coal in those same EIA estimates.  Also,  the EIA inflates the cost of coal by the equivalent of $15 per metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted to represent the difficulty of obtaining financing for coal plants. Further, it does not appear that the EIA levelized cost for conventional combined cycle natural gas plant is getting credited for the lower price of natural gas resulting from fracking shale.

The survey also said that:

“Most voters believe Los Angeles should create 1,200 megawatts of power from the sun, which is LADWP’s percentage of the state goal of 12,000 megawatts of local clean power by 2020.”  

And they inform us that 1200megawatts is enough to power 260,000 homes.  The calculation for number of homes powered  is suspect as it is varies from solar power promoter to promoter.  Without power storage, some other source of electricity most likely from a fossil fuel powered source is necessary because the lights would go out on these homes at night when the sun is no longer shining.  So much for reducing carbon emissions.  I wonder if California Air Resources Board (CARB) has put that in their solar energy calculations?

More on Solar cell reliability, etc. in my next posting on this topic.

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, cap and trade, CO2, Domestic Energy, Environment, EPA, fossil fuels, Government Regulations, solar cells

California Law “Global Warming Solutions Act”—Is It A Black Hole?

Posted on May 6, 2012 | Leave a comment

The California environmentalists got Governor Schwarzenegger and the legislators to pass the “Global Warming Solutions Act” in 2006.   The law called “AB 32” is sweeping in its authority to regulate fossil fuels.  The stated objective of AB 32 is to implement a “transformative” standard that will reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.  In 2013, electric power and major industrial emitters of about 160million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) will be compelled to begin reductions. This will require fuel-switching, new lower-emitting plants and contracting for lower-carbon generated power form out of state. The program is essentially Cap and Trade.  In 2015, transportation, natural gas, smaller emitters, etc accounting for about 230MTCO2e will be required to begin reductions.   How this sector is to accomplish this is not clear and what ever it is, is expected to be expensive.   Off-sets seem to be one way but these are limited and further, no emitter can use more than 8% offsets to comply with the law.

AB32 has not gone unchallenged.  For one challenge, the Renewable Fuel Association (RFA), mainly representing ethanol producers say they will be ruled out of the California market.  The law is based on the study of total emission from “seed to wheel” and California Air Resources Board (CARB) sets a standard that the ethanol producers say makes compliance too expensive.  The RFA  got an injunction to stop implementation saying that the law was  unconstitutional because it violates the commerce clause which was intended to stop states from introducing laws that would discriminate against businesses located in other states.  But the US Court of Appeal (9th District) has now lifted the injunction.  The ruling on AB 32’s constitutionality is expected soon and the lifting of the injunction probably indicates they will say it is constitutional.

AB 32 was the product of Western Climate Initiative (WCI) that was formed in 2007.  The partners in the WCI were California, Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington and later expanded by the addition of Montana and Utah plus the Canadian Provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec 2008. Each State or Province would not bound by AB32; they would have to pass similar bills in their respective legislative bodies.

All the US states dropped out when AB 32 was passed obviously not on-board with the size and scope of the act and that it was unlikely to get passed in their respective states.  The four Canadian Provinces have remained and have issued AB 32 as guidelines.   It would seem that the tar sands oil in Canada would be negatively affected by these guidelines if they become law in the four Provinces.

The trend for California to get their electrical power from out of state will be affected by this law as well.  CARB wants to limit “leakage” where emissions drop only because the generation source is out of the state.  So any emissions that occur in the process of generating the imported electricity are to be accounted for.

So why the comment about a black hole?  The size of the California market is huge. In the years past,  if California made an environmental change, the nation often followed. The Federal Clean Air Act was pretty much a product of California. Before retirement I pushed a program to amend the Clean Air Act to permit the use of up to 5% methanol mixed with ethanol in gasoline.  It was necessary to work with CARB if you wanted to do business in California. At that time they wanted to use methanol but not as a low level blend but as the primary fuel.  I think CARB and California have become too zealous.  The fact that all the states dropped out of the WCI is pretty telling.   When the price of electricity, gasoline, and other fossil fuel associated products get way out of step with rest of the nation and more industries flee the cost burden to more friendly states, I hope California residents get the message.

Next posting will look at the Californian’s wanting more solar power.  I don’t believe they know how costly this will be.

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, cap and trade, CO2, Energy Development, Environment, fossil fuels, Government Regulations, Personal Automobiles

Pres. Obama– “Government By Regulation, Not Legislation”

Posted on April 26, 2012 | Leave a comment

This Administration has never made secrete its wish to put coal, oil and natural gas out of business.  Energy drives our economy and that energy comes from those fossil fuels.  And if the Administration is successful, the US will become a second-class nation with an impoverished citizenry.

They cannot achieve their wish legislatively, so they have employed Executive branch regulators to accomplish their goals.   The EPA is not the only part of the Administration employing “government by regulation not legislation”, but they are the major force.  Now we have a new insight on how the EPA goes about coercing business and local governments into doing their bidding.   The Foundry site posted these comments:

A video surfaced on Wednesday showing a regional administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency comparing his agency’s philosophy with respect to regulation of oil and gas companies to brutal tactics employed by the ancient Roman army to intimidate its foes into submission.

EPA’s “philosophy of enforcement,” said EPA’s Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, is “kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean: they’d go into little Turkish towns somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they’d run into, and they’d crucify them.”

“That town was really easy to manage for the next few years,” Armendariz added.

The Armendariz video can be seen by clicking here.

This destruction of our economy will not stop unless we can vote Obama out of office this coming November.

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, cap and trade, Energy Development, EPA, fossil fuels, Government Regulations

Only One In Three Hybrid Owners Buy Another Hybrid

Posted on April 26, 2012 | Leave a comment

Edmunds.com commissioned a survey that found that hybrid owners were not likely to buy another one.  Edmunds had R.L. Polk conduct the study that determined only 35% of hybrid car owners bought another electric/gas vehicle as a trade-in during 2011.  If the repurchase behavior among the high volume audience of Toyota Prius owners is not factored in, hybrid loyalty drops to under 25 percent.

It is thought that the increased availability of new high mileage gasoline-powered cars at lower prices is causing the shift away from the hybrid.  Edmunds reports that: “The 40-mpg category has risen from one vehicle in 2010 (the Smart ForTwo) to nine vehicles in 2012. “Even as gas prices soar, the economics of buying a hybrid vehicle don’t make much sense in many cases,” Edmunds.com Chief Economist Lacey Plache explained in a statement. “   To read more click here.

A previous posting on this site, “Evaluating The Cost Of Ownership—Electric v Gasoline Cars” provides the DOE program for comparing different makes and models of cars to determine the cost of ownership. 

cbdakota

 

 

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, CAFE Standards, Electric Vehicles, EPA, fossil fuels, Government Regulations, Green Jobs, Personal Automobiles

Bogus Mercury Scare Used To Shutdown Coal Electricity Generating Plants

Posted on April 1, 2012 | 2 comments

Before he was elected, President Obama said that he would bankrupt anyone who built a new coal-base power generation plant.  He planed to do this by enacting Cap and Trade legislation that would target coal-based facilities. Because coal-based plants emit more CO2 than do natural gas-based plant per kW of electricity, the CO2 tax levied on coal-based facilities would make them uneconomical to build and operate.  However a bill for his signature could not get out of Congress.  (A little discussion of the regulation of CO2 later.) The administration refocused their efforts to put coal out of business by issuing new regulations that reduced the amount of mercury and other air pollutants in coal plant emissions (CO2 was not included).   Mercury is clearly the poster child for these new regulations and that is obvious by the many press releases and stories in the media. According to the EPA, children exposed to the reduced mercury levels will be healthier and have higher IQs.

How solid is the contention that it will make our children healthier?   A posting by Willie Soon and Paul Driessen, titled “US: The myth of killer mercury” shows the EPA’s actions to not be based on good science:

According to the Centers for Disease Control’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which actively monitors mercury exposure, blood mercury counts for US women and children decreased steadily 1999-2008, placing today’s counts well below the already excessively “safe” level established by EPA.

A 17-year evaluation of mercury risk to babies and children, by the Seychelles Children Development Study, found “no measurable cognitive or behavioral effects” in children who eat five to twelve servings of ocean fish every week, far more than most Americans do.

The World Health Organization and US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry assessed these findings in setting mercury risk standards that are 2-3 times less restrictive than EPA’s. Even under WHO and ATSDR guidelines, no American children are even remotely at risk from mercury.

EPA ignored these findings. Instead, the agency based its “safe” mercury criteria on a study of Faroe Islanders, whose diet is far removed from our own. They eat few fruits and vegetables, but do feast on pilot whale meat and blubber that is high in mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) – but very low in selenium. The study is clearly irrelevant to this rulemaking.

Finally, EPA maintains that mercury deposition, its conversion to methylmercury, and MeHg accumulation in fish and humans is a simple process that can be controlled by curtailing emissions from US power plants. That is not correct. In fact, mercury emissions (from all sources) and raw mercury levels in fresh or ocean waters are only part of the story.

Complex, nonlinear interactions among at least 50 natural variables control the biological and chemical processes that govern elemental mercury conversion to methylmercury and MeHg accumulation in fish. Those variables, and selenium levels in fish tissue, are beyond anyone’s ability to control.

So clearly the EPA has grossly exaggerated the threat of mercury.

Another question that needs to be asked is how much mercury is released each year and how much of that comes from US coal-based plants.

Mercury Emissions – Natural and Man-Made

Source Emission Quantity, Mg/Year % of Total
Natural 5207 69
Manmade 2320 31
            TOTAL 7527 100
North American Coal Plants 65 0.9

 Data From “Global mercury emissions to the atmosphere from anthropogenic and natural sources” Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 5951–5964, 2010 by N. Pirrone, S. Cinnirella, X. Feng, et al.

The mercury emissions total from the North American coal-based plants are less than one per cent of global emissions!!  So the effect on the health of people in the US through reduction of some fraction of the coal-based plants mercury emissions is essentially too small to measure.  However the effect of the increased cost of electricity will directly affect the health of the people in the US and especially the poorest among us.

See this posting by the Institute for Energy Research to get a sense of the loss of generating capacity that this EPA regulation will cause.

Willis Eshenbach developed two charts for his posting “The EPA’s Mecurial Madness” on the WUWT website.   They visually illustrate the futility of the EPA action to make any difference in mercury levels.

The EPA has more “kill coal-based power generation capacity” arrows in its quiver, and I plan to post on this soon.  As a preview, they are proposing a standard that will not permit the installation of new coal-based plants.

cbdakota

2 Comments

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, cap and trade, CO2, Domestic Energy, Energy Development, Environment, EPA, fossil fuels, Government Regulations

Evaluating The Cost of Ownership–Electric v Gasoline Cars.

Posted on March 27, 2012 | 5 comments

The New York Times posts an essay titled “The Electric Car, Unplugged” by John Broder, 25 March 2012.  The Hockey Schtick summarized the NYT article this way:

An article in tomorrow’s New York Times proclaims, “The state of the electric car is dismal, the victim of hyped expectations, technological flops, high costs and a hostile political climate.” In typical NYT fashion, the article concludes with the implication that the failure of electric cars is the fault of the fossil-fuel industry.

Because The Hockey Schtick said it so well, you don’t need to read the NYT article, but if you choose to, click here.

I imagine it is hard for some people to put themselves in the shoes of the car buyer.  Most of us are confined within certain boundaries such as amount of money that can be spent on an automobile and what we need to be able to do with that auto.  Gas prices enter the picture but they are not the sole consideration.

My belief is that the people most hurt by higher gasoline prices are typically those having to drive a lot of miles.  Now, while that doesn’t seem like a particularly profound insight, it probably is better than assuming that a person driving a lot of miles would be disposed to buying an EV or a hybrid.  EVs are really not for the high mileage drivers.  The hybrid might seem to be competitive but it’s advantage goes away after just a few miles.

The DOE has a program for comparing different makes and models of cars to determine the cost of ownership.  Using the DOE calculator, the Chevy Cruze is a better buy than the Volt. The DOE program considers operating cost plus initial investment, expected depreciation and cost of maintenance at today’s prices.   The Volt does beat the Cruze when calculating only the cost of fuel.  The DOE uses a 2011 purchase price for the Volt at $40,280 and the Cruze at $18,125.  To use the DOE program to make your own comparisons, click here.

Now some examples: Imputing $4 per gallon gasoline, and 30,000 annual miles into the DOE program, the Honda Fit gives better cost of ownership than the Prius until the 11the year of ownership.  Hardly any autos are still around at the 300,000 miles so data after ten years seems to be of little value.  The Fit cost of ownership advantage gets better at less than 30.000 miles per year.

So where does that leave the EVs and the hybrids?   Seems to me that those go to the people that have a lot of money.  Most of them don’t really worry too much about the price of gasoline anyway.  If you only drive 10 miles to work and 10 back each day, the EV will serve you nicely but the cost of ownership would be very high due to the initial cost and very little to do with the price of gasoline.  If you use the DOE program to compare the Fit versus the Leaf at 20 mile daily commute and 7000 annual miles total with gasoline at $4 per gallon, the Fit is much lower cost of ownership than the Leaf according to the DOE program.

Another factor that is not necessarily rational but has been experienced often in the last 30 years is that gasoline price peaks and then retreats.  New lows may exceed previous lows but at the lower price, the Honda Fit, for example reaffirms the decision to avoid the costly EVs and hybrids.

The reason that EVs and hybrids are not setting sales records is not some nefarious BIG OIL plot, but rather it is rational decision making on the part of the buyer.

cbdakota

5 Comments

Posted in Alternative Energy, CAFE Standards, Electric Vehicles, Energy Development, fossil fuels, Government Regulations, Personal Automobiles, Uncategorized

Fisker’s Quality SWAT Team?

Posted on March 27, 2012 | Leave a comment

A recall of up to 600+ Fisker Karmas is underway to replace faulty battery packs.  The batteries are manufactured by A123 Systems.  The problem that the Consumer Reports had with the Karma that failed in testing is believed to be the issue with the batteries to be recalled. The Consumer Reports were told by the Karma dealership that the failure was a:  “…fault was found in the battery and inverter cable. Both were replaced as a unit.”

A123 Systems at its Livonia, Michigan facility, said that the problem could result in “battery underperformance and decreased durability.” Fisker  said that the problem was discovered by Fisker’s “Quality SWAT Team.”

One blog has several postings from owners. It seems that besides the power train,  there are some systems problems.   Several quotes:

“I’ve had zero powertrain/drive issues but certainly did have some software glitches involving infotainment/navigation.”

“The car has some rough edges; there have been some software glitches and quirks that lead to erroneous indicator lights and some challenges with the entertainment/nav/climate command center. Many of these have already been addressed by Fisker in software updates, and I’m confident that the remaining issues will likewise ultimately be resolved.”

It seems that the Quality SWAT Team is behind the curve.

According to the Wilmington (De) News Journal:“….. in October, Fisker pushed back its production schedule for the Karma and the Nina, saying it would not begin high-volume production of its second line of hybrids in Delaware until mid- 2013. Production had been expected to get under way this year. “

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in Alternative Energy, CAFE Standards, Domestic Energy, Electric Vehicles, Energy Development, Government Regulations, Green Jobs, Personal Automobiles

Is This A Prelude To Nationalization Of The US Energy Companies?

Posted on March 22, 2012 | Leave a comment

On the 16th of March President Obama signed a new Executive Order allowing the President complete control over all US Resources. Click to read the detail.  The rising price of gasoline is considered to be one of the major threats to the reelection of Obama.  He is trying to dodge the blame by pretending that he really wanted the XL pipeline with his sham endorsement today in Oklahoma of the lower portion.   His approval is not needed for this section of the pipeline.  His approval is only required for pipelines that cross the US borders.  He has rejected the upper section of the XL pipeline, which brings in the oil from Canada, because his environmentist campaign fund donors oppose it. His sham of caring about our energy security  is trumped by his need for campaign monies.

So if these tricks don’t fool the public, what is his next act? Read my July 13 2011 posting titled OBAMA PLANS TO NATIONALIZE THE ENERGY COMPANIES.  He will say he is just doing this for our own good.  That he must step in and stop these out-of-control corporate robbers.  His action will be cheered by the media.

If Big Oil is driving up the prices how do they do it?  The American Petroleum Institute (API) listed the 20 Largest Oil and Gas Companies based upon their 2009 oil reserves.  It shows that 72% of the world’s oil reserves are owned by nations (not privately owned companies) such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Libya.  The biggest US Company to make the list was Exxon-Mobil at #17.   The Exxon-Mobil reserves as a percent of the world reserves are 0.68%.  Think about this situation where the OPEC type state owned companies have reserves 100 times greater than Exxon-Mobil.  Do you really believe that Exxon-Mobil is able to dictates the price of crude to OPEC?   Of course they can’t do that.

h/t to Steve Glaser

cbdakota

/

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, Domestic Energy, Energy Development, fossil fuels, Government Regulations, Oil and Gas Exploration

What Makes Up The Price Of Gasoline?

Posted on March 21, 2012 | Leave a comment

Given the interest in the “whys and wherefores” of US gasoline price,  this site welcomes the work done by the Institute For Energy Research (IER).    Their full analysis can be found by clicking here,   but the following is a summary of that analysis:

IER’s analysis provides the following facts about gas prices:

  • 76 percent of the price of gasoline is determined by the price of crude oil.
  • 12 percent of the price of gasoline is determined by federal, state, and local taxes.
  • The federal tax on gasoline accounts for 18.4 cents per gallon, while the volume-weighted average state and local tax is 30.4 cents per gallon.
  • Refining costs account for 6 percent of the price of gasoline.
  • Retail dealer’s costs and profits account for a combined 6 percent of the price of gasoline.
  • Less than 5 percent of gas stations are owned by major oil companies.
  • 60 percent of U.S. oil demand is imported from foreign countries.
  • The world consumed 87.9 million barrels of crude and liquid fuels every day in 2011, the highest consumption rate in history.
  • China is now the world’s second-largest consumer of oil behind the United States.  In 2011, Chinese crude imports were up 8.2 percent over 2010 levels.
  • The U.S. produced an average of 5.67 million barrels of crude oil every day in 2011.
  • Production in the Gulf of Mexico is expected to fall by 90,000 barrels per day due to production declines in existing fields, permitting delays, and the Obama moratorium.
  • Crude oil production in Alaska is projected to fall by 20,000 barrels per day both in 2012 and 2013.
  • When President George W. Bush lifted the executive moratorium on offshore drilling, there was an immediate price decrease in the cost of oil.
  • About 25 percent of U.S. supply of oil comes from OPEC countries, which have agreed to a production ceiling of 30 million barrels per day including Iraq’s production and some overproduction by member countries.

U.S. monetary policy — particularly increases in the money supply through quantitative easing — have coincided with a surge in oil prices.  Recent signals from the Federal Reserve that interest rates would remain at near-zero through 2014 have created a ripe environment for hedge funds that bet on commodity plays.

Leave a comment

Posted in Alternative Energy, CAFE Standards, Domestic Energy, Environment, Government Regulations, Government Revenues, Off Shore Resources, Oil and Gas Exploration, Personal Automobiles

Obama Administration Is Not Helping The Gasoline User

Posted on March 20, 2012 | Leave a comment

The Obama administration current 5-year offshore drilling proposal will further block access to drilling on Federal lands.  Lets look available and blocked offshore drilling sites under Bush and under Obama.

OFFSHORE UNDER BUSH

OFFSHORE UNDER OBAMA

Maps and history of the Bush and Obama Administrations regarding offshore oil and gas can be read in more detail here.

Raising Onshore Oil Production Costs

In addition to restrictions, Bureau of Land Management Director Bob Abbey said last week at a Senate Appropriations Committee on Interior hearing that federal regulations applied to oil and gas development simply make it more expensive than producing on state or private land according to a posting on Institute for Energy Research website. Then he remarked that the Administration is currently considering raising onshore production royalty rates from 12.5% to the 18.75% that  is charged for offshore oil; in fact, he said that the Department of Interior’s upcoming budget depends on an assumed 50 percent increase in royalty rates.

More blocking of access and higher rates.  How is this helping the US consumer?

Leave a comment

Posted in Alternative Energy, Domestic Energy, Energy Development, Government Regulations, Government Revenues, Off Shore Resources, Oil and Gas Exploration