energy

Never Seen This Coming



I would have never imagined this, and wouldn't have known were it not for my sidebar hydrofracking New York news alerts. In an effort to dispose of the salty 'brine' dredged up from the depths of hydro-fracking, energy companies are pitching to counties and municipalities the availability (no doubt for free) of their hard to dispose of, radioactive, chemical-laden, salt water waste product for use on roadways as a de-icing agent.

Can you imagine? And what did one county that has chosen not to prohibit this use give as the reason?

"...they weren't convinced there was a scientific justification for banning brine spreading or did not have sufficient information on the topic to move to prohibit its application." 


You see, this is the difference between us -when I do not have sufficient information, I say I cannot justify the risk, yet they prefer to use the stuff, despite not having sufficient information. In other words, it sounds to me like those municipalities are being forced to drink their own fruit punch, lest they admit to it's poison.




Confidence Inspiring...


From a BP senior vice president:

"The first chance to choke off the flow for good should come in about a week. Engineers plan to shoot heavy mud into the crippled blowout preventer on top of the well, then permanently entomb the leak in concrete. If that doesn't work, crews also can shoot golf balls and knotted rope into the nooks and crannies of the device to plug it, Wells said."


That's the plan?


I can imagine the casual friday meeting, maybe on a yacht:


VP: So, uh, what's our course of action in a blowout?


Manager: Well, our first course of action is definitely the large metal cap. If that doesn't work, maybe another kind of metal cap -just smaller.


VP: And if the caps don't work?


Manager: After that, well, mud has shown some promise.


VP: Well, what we really need here is a hole-in-one.


Manager: You know, you may have something there. We could try shooting golf balls into the well!


Nearby Sailor: Aye, matey -don't forget the knotted ropes, nutin plugs a hole like the knotted ropes!

See the whole article here.

How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love The Energy Business



A few days ago I emailed letters filled with my thoughts on the expansion of gas drilling in NYS to all my NYS elected representatives (find links to yours here). So far I have had an email exchange with Assemblyman James Brennan, who sponsored this bill in the NYS legislature. The summary:


"Establishes a moratorium on the issuance of permits for the drilling of wells and prohibits drilling within five miles of the New York city water supply infrastructure."

A good start, hoping that "water supply infrastructure" means the entire watershed and then another 5 mile radius out. This bill has been introduced, but not passed.

I have not heard from Gov. Paterson's office, nor the DEC commissioner, nor from my state senator, Eric Adams. But I suppose I can wait a little longer to hear their positions on this issue.

The New York Times published this article on April 21 (Thanks Marie!) suggesting that the newly adopted New York State DEC regulations (which permit drilling) would not apply within the watershed, suggesting that within the NYC watershed, there will be no drilling. Starting to get confused?

Here's a way to clear it up -NYC has power, money, and influence and we're saying not in our back yard. But, what we should be saying is, not in NYS. Because if the risk of pollution is too high for NYC folks, then it should be the standard for all our citizens. If the risk is too high for one Manhattan, Bronx, Queens, or Brooklyn resident, then it is too high for one resident of Chenango, Broome, Tioga, Allegheny, Delaware or any other of our counties. I'm setting the bar high here folks.


Post Script:
I spoke to a resident of upstate NY who said he was rather in favor of drilling, because he would like the opportunity to make some money on his acreage. Fair enough, its been hard times for many upstaters for decades. Problem is this: once you have your 100K, what will it do for you? New truck, fix the roof, cruise? Can you drink or bathe in it? He says, "well -if the land or water becomes polluted, I will sell and move away." But who will want to buy in? After all, many people looking at acreage do so for farming, animal husbandry, or in some instances, just the beauties of a clean, healthy natural environment.

It's a deal with the devil, this "economic benefit." It has little to no long term benefits. In fact, it might even hurt in the long run. Of course, there are the tax gains for the state and local coffers in the short term, and the niche economic benefits for the operations and support business that revolve around gas extraction and delivery. At least until the wells are all used up. Then what? So, really -how many jobs are we talking about for upstaters? Give me a number and make sure those are not positions to be filled by those coming from other states where these practices and skill sets are more common.

Of course, read Rita McConnell, spokesperson for the industry. She'll tell you a different story. I discovered and suffered her misdirection on one NY Times article comment board. In her post Money, Its a Gas she tells us why NYers and Philadelphians are against Marcellus Shale gas drilling expansion. Incidentally her blog name, "Flowback," is an oilfield term: "The process of allowing fluids to flow from the well following a treatment, either in preparation for a subsequent phase of treatment or in preparation for cleanup and returning the well to production." Dangerously close to "Blowback," which of course means unintended negative consequences.

Here is a highly polished website, called EnergyInDepth, that Ms. McConnell often quotes from in her twittering (yep, twittering about gas). Oy.

And now, in this continual flow of google searches, Times arcticles, and thoughts, I have one more to add: If I were an upstate county landholder and I chose not to sign leases with the gas companies, yet any one or all of my neighbors did, then where would me and my freedom be? Surrounded by gas wells where soil, air, and water care little for our funny geo-political boundaries. Stuck in a gas field, maybe not able to sell or move -slave to the dollar that everyone is capable of being bought with. Including me, so one must be strong and convincing.




I Just Got My Car Greenwashed



I went to press day at the NY International Auto Show with my brother, who gets the passes as part of his business, which is cars. He stores classics, exotics, and just plain expensive at Bridgehampton Motoring Club and brokers these cars at SpecialtyCarSource. He and I have been arging about cars since we were boys sharing a room. I liked exotics, he liked muscle. Then we grew up. Now he likes all things expensive, sexy, powerful and I must admit to being more utilitarian in my car choices. The great thing about a show like this is, if you are looking to buy a car, you can sit in almost every make and model in one place. The sad thing about a show like this is that you can see in one swoop how our dedication to the over-powered, gas guzzling automobile has not changed at all.

I would say that there were two major themes at this year's presentation of the latest offerings by a world of automobile manufacturers: green lip service and nostalgia to the future.

I have to hand it to Chrysler (or whatever they are calling themselves since Fiat purchased the ailing company), they just put it right out there. Case in point is the Eco Style car -an ordinary Chrysler 300, but styled with cork, bamboo, and jute in natural colors! It still sports a 5.7 liter HEMI engine. We all know there's not much style in fuel efficiency. So top award goes to Chrysler for just calling it like it is -all style, no substance.
Put it on the plate baby.

You can see here the natural colors and, uh, cork trimmed door pocket.

I will give them props for their nostalgia car, the Dodge Challenger. Of the three American muscle cars, the Challenger seemed roomy, everyday drivable and I love the color -magenta sparkle.

Never before have I seen so many windmills, trees, flowers and blue sky backing up the image of the car manufacturers.

Nature has always been the backdrop of our automotive advertising: freedom, escape, the open road leads you to paradise and from the chaos of the wilderness. But this goes past that into greenwashing your psyche, boldly telling the customer that what they are buying is the clean, green future- not the same old gas burner on four wheels, but it really just is.


Almost every company was touting their hybrids, although most did not go as far as listing the mpg of their hybrid cars. That's because many of the new hybrids are designed to appeal to the conscience of the wealthy, not the average person's wallet or any sense of efficiency. Take the BMW 750i Active Hybrid, for example. Active is right at 455 hp, but nowhere is its fuel efficiency -the essence of a hybrid, listed.
I don't mean to single out BMW, because they all were doing it. In fact, when I did find mpg numbers for V8 powered cars, they were often higher than in previous years. This is because they are trying to raise their CAFE numbers, and why not up their averages by raising the low end. So we see Ford F150s getting 18/24 instead of 14/18 and large Mercedes getting the same.

The dash of a large Mercedes hybrid. Nostalgia to the Future -the classic look of 50's auto interior with the conscience clearing 'hybrid' applied front and center dash.

As for the little cars, they seem to be eking out all they can. I handily recall Honda CRXs getting 50 mpg in the late 80s, but there appears to be a new Civic hybrid coming that gets 42 mpg! Fiat had two new tiny cars that were plastered with eco this and that badges, but no mention of actual mpg anywhere. Not far away were the tiny two-seat SMART cars, getting what you won't believe -only 33/41! Criminy, I can get 37 highway in a four seat Corolla.

I think Toyota is right to call all this the "darker side of green." Although I could barely parse what this really meant in relation to their new Lexus hybrid, the CT300h.

They say it delivers extraordinary fuel efficiency, so why not tell us what that is? Nimble, yes.

Many of the car companies had 'zero emissions' concept cars, little more than husks of real cars that claim to run solely on batteries or with hydrogen fuel cells. They tend to look very similar to current small hatchbacks but with some futuristic looking touches to let us know that's where we're headed despite the overall bland package.

Nissan went as far as calling their concept 'Leaf,' as in turning over a new one, I suppose, because I cannot imagine that their car produces oxygen while consuming CO2 -now there's a concept.


I think this Mercedes summed up the Auto Show. Its 50% engine compartment, 25% passenger, 25% luggage. It has gullwing style doors like their mid-century models. It's sexy, cool, retro, and has little redeeming value.

I feel with some certainty that we have reached peak car design. Cars have essentially been the same for 20 years, with little design shifts this way or that. Some companies are looking back for their inspiration, but this just reinforces the sense that they do not know where to go, that the functionality of the personal automobile has not changed enough to allow the form to change in any significant way. Much of the efforts in car design over the last 20 years have been in increased horsepower and to some degree, safety from that same horsepower.

Millions, maybe billions of people depend on automobiles as an everyday tool to accomplish whatever needs to be accomplished. The image of the automobile has sunken so deep into our psyche that we barely notice its pure functionality, depending instead on its image to serve our ego. I, for one, am still waiting for the better designed tool for everyday use. I don't think I am alone in this.

What would an electric-powered, Apple car look like for city dwellers? The iCar. Couldn't VW make a small pick-up or van with a diesel-electric hybrid so that I could have a work vehicle that's using less instead of more? I think they could.






Infernal Wind

This is the season of wind -a constant blowing, or even nor-easter gale. I believe it is true that wind can make a person mad. I hate its constancy, its always in my face. It gives me head colds.

I don't want the wind, don't wish for wind. We were formed in the windless environment of the forest canopy or before that, under the sea. It is unnatural for us primates. Accept it only when it blows our sails, turns our turbines, or blows toward our backs.


Life Without the Fridge?

It seems some folks out there are going gangbusters. They're chucking the fridge. Even for those of us who live in the city, within seconds or minutes of dozens of groceries or eating establishments, I don't see this catching on. I work evenings/nights. I make four nights dinners on Monday morning and in the fridge they go till the day they are to be eaten. But why take my example as a reason to keep the ol' Frigidaire. The Times article that covers this story did a decent job of telling it like it is.

But of course we previously lived without the fridge. We had root cellars and other storage for food, no? Imagine dairy cellars and meat cellars. I worked in Maine where there was an old farmhouse that had a white-washed dairy cellar underneath that was "see your breath" cool in the depths of summer. Meats were dried, smoked, and salted. But rodents, insects, and mold were always a problem before the electric fridge. It was a big job keeping the family fed and thats largely what certain members of the family did. Life without the fridge? The fridge is liberation, baby. Or will some new technology liberate us from the fridge?

"FOR the last two years, Rachel Muston, a 32-year-old information-technology worker for the Canadian government in Ottawa, has been taking steps to reduce her carbon footprint — composting, line-drying clothes, installing an efficient furnace in her three-story house downtown." She tossed the fridge.

The writer really didn't have to mention the three story house, did he? Not unless he wanted to point to a larger "footprint" concern without making it too obvious. Her-three-story-house. Of course multiple story houses are more efficient than say, one level ranch types. So she's got that going for her.

Some kind of footprint arms race going on these days. Homes with angel wings.


If You Were At All Thinking of BioFuels...

I've long held negative opinions about the "biofuel" boom. The only answer to our energy problems is efficiency, not changing "forms" from one fuel to another. Some forms are more efficient, yes -but what we really need to tackle is how much we use. This, in my opinion, is the only place we can make real progress. Taking energy from one form and converting it to another on a large scale always creates unwelcome by-products . We need to focus on using less energy, or on creating tools (cars, appliances, trains) that require less energy and do more. This is the one sure way of reducing pollution. I often think of the old farmstead with its water-pumping windmill. What of locally-produced electricity? If our home-systems required less energy to do the same work, we could generate locally with much greater success.

Check out this post from the Organic Consumer Association on the Ethanol Scam. It can't possibly say it all, but its a nudge.

Winter Corn Harvest

The U.S. Congress recently passed a new energy bill. Its said to be historic, but dare I doubt some of its provisions. For one thing, 35 mpg by 2020 is not laudable. I would buy a car that gets 50-60 mpg on diesel fuel and this is nearly possible today. The ethanol provisions are more bothersome. Corn makes a less efficient fuel than gasoline. Think of all the fuel that goes into the process of growing corn, then figure the fuel going into making corn-based fuel, and then figure in the 30% drop in fuel efficiency of corn ethanol over gasoline. And in the end, we're still burning fuels. Bush says he will sign.

For about 10 years I had a 1977 Ford F250 with a 2 bbl, 400 c.i. big block engine. The bed was full size with a plastic liner. With 1500 pounds of steaming compost in the bed of that truck, I got 10 miles per gallon. I got 10 mpg even when it was empty.  


I loved that truck, but every passing year with it in NYC became more absurd and finally, I had to let it go. I sold to a young man moving to Vermont. They don't build them like that anymore, all steel inside and out. That truck had a lot less horsepower than most family cars do today.

The following letter about fuel efficient automobile technology is an open letter to the U.S. Congress from Tom and Ray Magliozzi -- of the National Public Radio show Car Talk.

Tom and Ray Magliozzi
Box 3500 Harvard Square
Cambridge MA 02238

Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming
United States House of Representatives
Washington DC 20515

October 25, 2007

To Chairman Ed Markey and Members of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming:

You are about to make a crucial decision that may be a turning point for our country. As you consider how high to raise our nation's CAFE standards, you are undoubtedly coming under a barrage of lobbying from various parties. Including us! The obvious question is, who do you believe?

On the one hand, you have people like Ed Markey, who's been trying to increase fuel economy for as long as we can remember. Admittedly, he's from Massachusetts. And yes, we've seen his haircut.

On the other hand, you have the automotive industry (i.e. car salesmen), whose ratings for honesty are below even those of Congress in public opinion surveys. Let's remember why:

In 1972, Ford President Lee Iacocca told you that if the "EPA does not suspend the catalytic converter rule, it will cause Ford to shut down." Hm. That wasn't exactly right on the money, was it?

A couple of years later, car makers were back in front of you guys, squealing over proposed new fuel economy standards. Chrysler Vice President of Engineering, Alan Loofborrow, predicted that imposing fuel economy standards might "outlaw a number of engine lines and car models including most full-size sedans and station wagons. It would restrict the industry to producing subcompact size cars-or even smaller ones-within five years." That thing got a Hemi, Alan?

As the industry triple-teamed Congress to keep America from improving fuel economy, a Ford Executive let fly this whopper: If CAFE became law, the move could result "in a Ford product line consisting either of all sub-Pinto sized vehicles..." Ask the man who drives an Expedition if that ever came to pass.

The onslaught of "we can't... it'll ruin us... you're denying Americans a choice of vehicles" begins every time we the people--through our elected representatives-try to bring the auto industry, kicking and screaming into the modern era. And every time, their predictions of motorized-skateboard futures have failed to materialize. Let us repeat that, because the historical record bears it out to a tee. Every single time they've resisted safety, environmental, or fuel economy regulations, auto industry predictions have turned out, in retrospect, to be fear-mongering bull-feathers.

Isn't it time we (you?) stop falling for this 50 year-long line of baloney?

The truth is, significantly higher average fuel economy can be achieved. In fact it's already being achieved. And if we don't push our own auto industry to set world class standards, they'll be beaten again by the Japanese, the Koreans, and, maybe even the Chinese, who will do it with or without U.S. Congressional action.

There are technologies aplenty that already exist that could be used to meet much higher CAFE standards.

* Hybrid-electric vehicles. Hybrids offer, in many cases, a 50% increase in mileage over gasoline versions of the same vehicles. GM just introduced a hybrid Chevy Tahoe, that reportedly gets better city mileage than a Toyota Camry.

* Clean diesel engines. With new, clean diesel fuel now mandated in America, expect a surge of clean diesel engines in the next three to five years that get 25% better fuel economy than their gasoline counterparts.

* Diesel-electric hybrids. Combine the advantages of hybrids with more efficient diesel engines.

* Turbo chargers and super chargers. These force additional air into cylinders to wring more power out of available fuel.

* Cylinder deactivation. Cylinders that are not needed at any given moment, are deactivated, and instantaneously reactivated as soon as the driver demands additional power. Widely available now.

* Plug-in, series hybrids. Now on the drawing boards, plug-in hybrids allow drivers to charge up overnight, when the electric grid is underused, and they'll handle most commutes without ever firing up their internal combustion engines.

* Automatic stop-start technology. At least one energy analyst we spoke to believes that this simple technology, in and of itself, could result in a 10% decrease in fuel use. It's already used in hybrid vehicles, foreign and domestic, and is on its way in more vehicles in the next couple of years.

* Higher voltage electrical systems. These save fuel by allowing energy draining systems, such as power steering, and air conditioning, to be run electrically, instead of by draining power from the engine and using fuel.

* Regenerative braking. Captures energy otherwise lost when the car slows down to give a further boost to on-board battery systems.

* Safe, lightweight materials. Lightweight steel, aluminum and carbon fiber panels reduce weight, allowing a smaller, more efficient engine to propel a car just as fast on less fuel.

* Better transmissions. Six speed automatic transmissions, widely available now from Ford and others, increase fuel economy by 5% and offer smoother acceleration. Mercedes has seven speeds. Lexus has eight. Nissan has CVTs Ð continuously variable transmissions. All of these improve mileage AND performance.

* Common rail fuel injection. Now standard on modern diesels, this same high pressure fuel delivery technology is beginning to be used to increase fuel economy in gasoline engines, too.

* All wheel drive systems that use electric motors at the non-driven wheels, like on the Lexus RX350 hybrid, eliminate heavy, gas-wasting differentials and drive train components on cars designed to go in the snow.

* More appropriately sized and weighted cars. When we're facing a future of global oil wars and economy-killing gasoline prices, perhaps having single commuters drive 5,000 pound SUVs is something we'll just have to learn to live without. And modern computer electronics, such as stability control, can now ameliorate any driving dynamic issues that result from lack of mass.

* More appropriately powered cars. In 1964, the most powerful, over-the-top Mustang muscle car you could buy came with an optional, four-barrel, 271 horsepower engine. Today, that's what comes standard on the highest rated minivans. 275 horsepower. To take your kid to nursery school? What does this say about our national priorities? Do we really want to send our kids to fight and die in the desert so that we can go 0-60 in eight seconds instead of ten seconds?

The truth is, we could achieve a CAFE standard of 35 miles per gallon in five years if we made it a priority. Every one of the above technologies is either available now or is well along in the pipeline. There's nothing "pie in the sky" here that hasn't been thought of or invented yet.

Look what American industry did in World War II. Look what we did with the space program. It's time to make energy independence just as high a priority. And it starts with you guys (and gals), our representatives. Don't buy the "can't do" bull this time.

Not only can it be done, but by increasing CAFE standards dramatically, you'll be helping the American automotive industry compete-by forcing them to synchronize their priorities with those of the American people, and the populations of other countries where they will be increasingly marketing their cars.

It's the job of private enterprise to design and sell products. But it's the job of Congress to set our national priorities. Trust us, the car companies won't go out of business because America insists that they build the world's best, most efficient cars. We urge you to set the bar high for American ingenuity. We have no doubt our car industry will make the grade-to the benefit of all Americans.

Sincerely,

Tom and Ray Magliozzi