Enviroman No. 92

Monday, April 21, 2008

It's Spring Out There. At least in the city the trees are in bloom and the spring weather is getting really nice. Spring is such an amazing time of year after so much time of mud, muck, ice, and snow.

Right now it's not really spring up in the mountains. But that time will come soon and things will start looking like the banner up and above. Fields will go green, and finally burn bans will be repealed, and animals will be grazing on fresh grass.

I can see the first cutting of hay being not so far away. Spring is coming, and it will be great. P'Link

A Big Block of High Pressure. It's going to continue being quite warm in the Albany area and sunny through out the week. Very nice weather, and green down here. Hopefully it will green up in the mountains soon.

Enjoy the nice weather out there!

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

It's Earth Day. I know I rode my bike to work and dressed in green. It's not only earth day, but the continuation of the nice weather.

A pause at the beautiful green and blue planet that sustains us all.

Enjoy the nice weather. P'Link

New Fleet Standard: 32 MPG By 2015. That's what the Detriot Free Press is reporting this afternoon.

Automakers will have to meet a fuel economy standard of 31.6 miles per gallon for cars and trucks by 2015 under a proposal to be unveiled today by federal regulators.

Under the plan, the fleet of new vehicles will be required to achieve 27.8 mpg by 2011, with passenger cars achieving 31.2 mpg and pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles and vans reaching 25 mpg by that year. By 2015, the efficiency of cars will be required to meet 35.7 mpg while the fleet of trucks would need to achieve 28.6 mpg.

The standards for vehicles built between 2011 and 2015 are more aggressive than some observers expected, and raise the possibility that the government could require U.S. automakers to meet the 35 m.p.g. target they agreed to last year ahead of the 2020 deadline.

Under the proposal, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will raise fuel economy rules to 35.7 m.p.g. for passenger cars and 28.6 m.p.g. for light trucks.

That's a big step up from our current fleet, which currently exists at 31.3 MPG for cars and 23.1 MPG for trucks. The law only requires at this time 27.5 and 22.5 MPG, so we are exceeding the current standards.

It looks like as with the previous system, trucks will continue to tightened up their belts further and sooner then cars. Cars won't have to get any more efficient until at least Model Year 2015 (at which time they will have to be 18% more efficient then the current fleet), but the light truck fleet will have to improve by 8% by MY 2011, and 23% more efficient by MY 2013.

Model Year 2011, means those cars will be available for purchase during the summer of 2010, or approximately 2 years from now. That's not too far from now, and it a bit concerning for those of who think it could limit the sales of full-size pickup trucks and the alike. People might instead just buy exempt trucks, such as Heavy Duty Models like the Ford F-250, if smaller trucks can no longer be made due to the difficulties of reaching the standard.

A more fair standard would require cars to get an average of 33 MPG in MY 2011, and trucks get 24.2 MPG, and average of 5% over both trucks and cars. That would bring the fleet up to the same 27.8 MPG that the government's MY 2011 proposal suggests, without dis-proportionally forcing trucks to become more fuel economy.

Everybody, even the automakers, begrudgingly, agree that we need to make our cars more efficient and that the 35 MPG standard is the future. Fears over global warming and the high cost of fuel will ensure we get there. When we get there, quite possibly before 2020, cars will use on average 40% less fuel then they currently do.

That's assuming the state greenhouse gas standards don't stand, and force car manufacturers to make cars that pollute less, and in doing so, reduce their fuel consumption. It seems likely that state standards may stick, after further judicial review, particularly after the Bush administration leaves office.

The proposal benefits consumers according to government figures:

The plan is expected to save $54.7 billion gallons of oil over the life of the new vehicles built between 2011-2015. It will add an average cost of $650 per passenger car and $979 per truck by 2015, the official said.

Democrats have said the fuel economy requirements will save motorists $700 to $1,000 a year in fuel costs and reduce oil demand by 1.1 million barrels a day when the more fuel-efficient vehicles are in wide use on the road.

Read New rules: 32 m.p.g. by 2015 in the Detroit Free Press and Government to release proposed fuel economy rules in the Associated Press. P'Link

New Fleet Standard: 32 MPG By 2015. That's what the Detriot Free Press is reporting this afternoon.

Automakers will have to meet a fuel economy standard of 31.6 miles per gallon for cars and trucks by 2015 under a proposal to be unveiled today by federal regulators.

Under the plan, the fleet of new vehicles will be required to achieve 27.8 mpg by 2011, with passenger cars achieving 31.2 mpg and pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles and vans reaching 25 mpg by that year. By 2015, the efficiency of cars will be required to meet 35.7 mpg while the fleet of trucks would need to achieve 28.6 mpg.

The standards for vehicles built between 2011 and 2015 are more aggressive than some observers expected, and raise the possibility that the government could require U.S. automakers to meet the 35 m.p.g. target they agreed to last year ahead of the 2020 deadline.

Under the proposal, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will raise fuel economy rules to 35.7 m.p.g. for passenger cars and 28.6 m.p.g. for light trucks.

That's a big step up from our current flee, which currently exists at 31.3 MPG for cars and 23.1 MPG for trucks. The law only requires at this time 27.5 and 22.5 MPG, so we are exceeding the current standards.

It looks like as with the previous system, trucks will continue to tightened up their belts further and sooner then cars. Cars won't have to get any more efficient until at least Model Year 2015 (at which time they will have to be 18% more efficient then the current fleet), but the light truck fleet will have to improve by 8% by MY 2011, and 23% more efficient by MY 2013.

Model Year 2011, means those cars will be available for purchase during the summer of 2010, or approximately 2 years from now. That's not too far from now, and it a bit concerning for those of who think it could limit the sales of full-size pickup trucks and the alike. People might instead just buy exempt trucks, such as Heavy Duty Models like the Ford F-250, if smaller trucks can no longer be made due to the difficulties of reaching the standard.

A more fair standard would require cars to get an average of 33 MPG in MY 2011, and trucks get 24.2 MPG, and average of 5% over both trucks and cars. That would bring the fleet up to the same 27.8 MPG that the government's MY 2011 proposal suggests, without dis-proportionally forcing trucks to become more fuel economy.

Everybody, even the automakers, begrudgingly, agree that we need to make our cars more efficient and that the 35 MPG standard is the future. Fears over global warming and the high cost of fuel will ensure we get there. When we get there, quite possibly before 2020, cars will use on average 40% less fuel then they currently do.

That's assuming the state greenhouse gas standards don't stand, and force car manufacturers to make cars that pollute less, and in doing so, reduce their fuel consumption. It seems likely that state standards may stick, after further judicial review, particularly after the Bush administration leaves office.

Read New rules: 32 m.p.g. by 2015 in the Detroit Free Press and Government to release proposed fuel economy rules in the Associated Press. P'Link

New Fleet Standard: 32 MPG By 2015. That's what the Detriot Free Press is reporting this afternoon.

Automakers will have to meet a fuel economy standard of 31.6 miles per gallon for cars and trucks by 2015 under a proposal to be unveiled today by federal regulators.

Under the plan, the fleet of new vehicles will be required to achieve 27.8 mpg by 2011, with passenger cars achieving 31.2 mpg and pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles and vans reaching 25 mpg by that year. By 2015, the efficiency of cars will be required to meet 35.7 mpg while the fleet of trucks would need to achieve 28.6 mpg.

The standards for vehicles built between 2011 and 2015 are more aggressive than some observers expected, and raise the possibility that the government could require U.S. automakers to meet the 35 m.p.g. target they agreed to last year ahead of the 2020 deadline.

Under the proposal, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will raise fuel economy rules to 35.7 m.p.g. for passenger cars and 28.6 m.p.g. for light trucks.

That's a big step up from our current fleet, which currently exists at 31.3 MPG for cars and 23.1 MPG for trucks. The law only requires at this time 27.5 and 22.5 MPG, so we are exceeding the current standards.

It looks like as with the previous system, trucks will continue to tightened up their belts further and sooner then cars. Cars won't have to get any more efficient until at least Model Year 2015 (at which time they will have to be 18% more efficient then the current fleet), but the light truck fleet will have to improve by 8% by MY 2011, and 23% more efficient by MY 2013.

Model Year 2011, means those cars will be available for purchase during the summer of 2010, or approximately 2 years from now. That's not too far from now, and it a bit concerning for those of who think it could limit the sales of full-size pickup trucks and the alike. People might instead just buy exempt trucks, such as Heavy Duty Models like the Ford F-250, if smaller trucks can no longer be made due to the difficulties of reaching the standard.

A more fair standard would require cars to get an average of 33 MPG in MY 2011, and trucks get 24.2 MPG, and average of 5% over both trucks and cars. That would bring the fleet up to the same 27.8 MPG that the government's MY 2011 proposal suggests, without disproportionally forcing trucks to become more fuel efficient.

Everybody, even the automakers, begrudgingly, agree that we need to make our cars more efficient and that the 35 MPG standard is the future. Fears over global warming and the high cost of fuel will ensure we get there. When we get there, quite possibly before 2020, cars will use on average 40% less fuel then they currently do.

That's assuming the state greenhouse gas standards don't stand, and force car manufacturers to make cars that pollute less, and in doing so, reduce their fuel consumption. It seems likely that state standards may stick, after further judicial review, particularly after the Bush administration leaves office.

The proposal benefits consumers according to government figures:

The plan is expected to save $54.7 billion gallons of oil over the life of the new vehicles built between 2011-2015. It will add an average cost of $650 per passenger car and $979 per truck by 2015, the official said.

Democrats have said the fuel economy requirements will save motorists $700 to $1,000 a year in fuel costs and reduce oil demand by 1.1 million barrels a day when the more fuel-efficient vehicles are in wide use on the road.

Read New rules: 32 m.p.g. by 2015 in the Detroit Free Press and Government to release proposed fuel economy rules in the Associated Press. P'Link

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Locals Upset With State Over Minnewaska State Park. They say that state forest officials were rude and abusive to local firefighters, and that rarely did controlled burns to keep the brush in check in this fire-dependent ego-system.

Prior to the fire the park was in serious disrepair. While no significant infrastructure was destroyed in the fire, citizens are calling for the park to clean up it's act and not be such a mess with garbage and debris lining the ground and unmaintained infrastructure.

P'Link

High Energy Prices Got You Down? Blame the mob and other organized crime organizations that are suppostly rigging the markets for their own benefits.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - International organized crime groups control "significant positions" in global energy and strategic materials and are expanding holdings in the U.S. materials sector, the U.S. Justice Department said on Wednesday.

A strategy on fighting organized crime released by the department also says such groups manipulate securities exchanges and conduct financial fraud to steal billions of dollars. It says they systematically corrupt public officials, use computer networks to target victims, and provide logistical support to terrorists and foreign intelligence services.

"The activities of transnational and national organized criminal enterprises are increasing in scope and magnitude as these groups continue to strengthen their networking with each other to expand their operations," said FBI Deputy Director John S. Pistole

Read Organized crime penetrates energy sector in Reuters. P'Link

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Europe's New Coal Plants. The New York Times has an interesting article on several new coal power plants that will be going online in the next few years. These plants will replace older, dirtier, and more to run expensive oil power plants.

Some environmentalists (and the New York Times) doesn't like it because they say it will increase carbon dioxide emissions over the old plants, as coal is a more carbon heavy fuel then oil. They are right—the DOE estimates oil plants 2.117 lb CO2 per kilowatt hour, versus 1.915 lbs CO2 per kilowatt hour.

That's approximately 10% more carbon dioxide generated by burning coal rather then oil in a power plant. Assuming the oil plants weren't burning at peak efficiency anymore, and the difference between a modern and efficient coal plant and the old oil plant probably is under 5% increase in net emissions of carbon dioxide. Not exactly a big increase it.

But that ignores the big impact of replacing the old oil plants. Air pollution will probably drop—the real kind that kills and make people like sulfur dioxide (acid rain) and nitrous oxides (smog). Sulfur dioxide tends to be a real problem with old oil plants, as the fuel oil they burn tends to be heavy in sulfur. Old plants tend not to have the desulfurization equipment that modern coal plants would have.

Not to mention coal is a lot cheaper to burn then oil.

Enel and many other electricity companies say they have little choice but to build coal plants to replace aging infrastructure, particularly in countries like Italy and Germany that have banned the building of nuclear power plants. Fuel costs have risen 151 percent since 1996, and Italians pay the highest electricity costs in Europe.

In terms of cost and energy security, coal has all the advantages, its proponents argue. Coal reserves will last for 200 years, rather than 50 years for gas and oil. Coal is relatively cheap compared with oil and natural gas, although coal prices have tripled in the past few years. More important, hundreds of countries export coal — there is not a coal cartel — so there is more room to negotiate prices.

“In order to get over oil, which is getting more and more expensive, our plan is to convert all oil plants to coal using clean-coal technologies,” said Gianfilippo Mancini, Enel’s chief of generation and energy management. “This will be the cleanest coal plant in Europe. We are hoping to prove that it will be possible to make sustainable and environmentally friendly use of coal.”

“Clean coal” is a term coined by the industry decades ago, referring to its efforts to reduce local pollution. Using new technology, clean coal plants sharply reduced the number of sooty particles spewed into the air, as well as gases like sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide. The technology has minimal effect on carbon emissions.

Honestly, I think carbon sequestration is a waste of money and energy. We'd be better off trying to figure out how to burn coal more efficiently, and to extract it better from the ground with lower impacts, and find better ways to dispose of the massive amount of coal waste.

The article does not say if the new plant will use Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle technology, that promises to burn coal even more efficiently with even less emissions, although it does mention that the plant will use waste steam to help heat a nearby massive fish farm.

It would be better if the steam was used to provide heat/cooling to the nearby town. But it's better then just wasting the heat in massive cooling towers as so many American power plants do. Con Edison, in it's cogeneration plants are a perfect example where the future of power generation needs to be.

Environmentalists have too much of a focus on the trendy pollutant of the day, carbon dioxide, and not the real threats to our environment by hazardous and toxic chemicals. While we can't rush and build every coal plant we want to feed our insatiable demand for energy, coal is a good technology, that can be quite clean, with modern technologies. P'Link