Gun Control

I have developed this forum as a means to convey information on the subject of sustainability and being green.  Most view this subject matter to pertain to things that   effects the environment, either with positive or negative results.  But sustainability is also about people and what affects them.  Thus, the pertinence of this topic in this forum.

There is, and has been for many years, a lot of talk about gun control.  To me, gun control was what my father taught me when I was a young boy of around the age of ten.

Grip the pistol lightly with my right hand and just the tip of my index finger on the trigger.  Place the palm of my left hand on the pistol grip with those fingers wrapped around the top of the right hand fingers.  Stand with my feet shoulder width, left leg slightly forward and extend both hands forward.  Pull back slowly and evenly on the trigger.  And practice.

Today, all the rhetoric is not about how you control your gun, but instead about identifying and controlling the violence enacted by criminals and mentally disturbed people with their guns. Something that I think might be a losing battle until the time we are able to master the art of the Vulcan mind meld.

However, short of being able to control the minds of other people, we can control and allow the acquisition of guns by law abiding citizens (e.g. those who do not have a history of social violence, mental illness, or criminal activity).  Now obviously, there will be those that will slip through the system. Just as the saying goes, ‘there are two types of sailboat operators –those who have run aground and –those who about to run aground,’ there are and will be those gun owners who might fit the category of exclusion but have yet to flip the mental switch.

The solution that I speak of is the mandatory registration of all handguns.  (Notice that I said “handguns”). I say handguns because of the fact that those small weapons can be easily concealed and are used in many more crimes than rifles.

So what is the concern here?  Most of what I have been hearing is fear from U.S. citizens that if their gun is registered then the Federal Government will have the ability to come to your home and seize your guns.  Quite frankly, I find that whole concept paranoid and crazy.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 

This Amendment provides that all citizens (those who have not lost their Constitutional Rights through the Court System) the right to keep and bear arms and that that right cannot be taken away without an Amendment to the Constitution. And if you know anything about the process for amending the Constitution (see below for details), you would know that repealing the Second Amendment would be impossible.  The only other thing that the Federal Government could do would be to declare war on its citizens which I also do not see happening.

Therefore if you a legal, law abiding citizen –you have nothing to lose with stricter laws for the acquisition of a gun.  If you are a law abiding citizen –you have nothing to lose with the stricter tracking of guns.  And, if you are a law abiding citizen –you should have nothing to hide.

Now, let me state that I am not naive enough to think that just because a handgun is registered to someone that it will prevent them from doing bad thing with that weapon.  Not at all!  However, if we start now, by registering all handguns at the point of sale, it will significantly slow the proliferation of illegal (unregistered), handguns from getting onto the streets.  This process will not happen overnight and may in fact be a ten year process, but as more and more handguns are registered it will leave less and less unregistered handguns on the street until the supply is dwindled down to a more manageable number.  And, through this process, at the very least handguns will be traceable back to a person that legally purchased that gun and then either gave it or sold it to someone who in turn does bad things –like go on a shooting spree.  So in turn, the person that gave or sold that weapon to the “bad guy”, could be severely penalized for contributing to a crime or the death of another person.  With this penalty clause in effect, a registered (and legal), gun owner will think twice about selling his gun on the black market.

Is this some sort of euphoric dream?  I don’t think so.

The other day I was listening to an interview of a young man that grew up in the Watts neighborhood of L.A.  He like most of his friends was involved in gang activity even as a very young boy.  He told the interviewer that during times of heightened gang activity he would be given a gun by one of the older members of his gang and told to use it against rival members.  If the gun was used he would “ditch” that gun by literally throwing it away, because it is better not to be caught by the police with a gun and because unregistered guns were plentiful.

Again I say, if we start an aggressive registration program today, ten years from now we may have eliminated 90% of the illegal handguns that are on the street and used by gangs.

The trick is, how do we make it both convenient and affordable for conscientious, law abiding citizens to buy and register handguns.  The simple way would be to authorize licensed gun dealers to process the “legal” registration when they sell a handgun.  Things are so automated these days, with computers and such, that the $25.00 background check fee should include the issuing of a registration card as well.  Once you have one handgun registered, an additional $10.00 registration fee for additional handguns would be a reasonable price to pay to the retailer as a processing fee.  With this system in place, if I wanted to sell one of my registered guns to a friend or stranger, I could go to my local gun dealer, have him be the middle man in the transaction to assure that a proper background check was made and that the registration of that handgun was transferred from me to the new buyer, relieving me of all responsibility of that handgun.  Of course, this can still be done for free at the local police sub-station but for convenience sake, there are many more authorized gun dealers than police sub-stations.

Once we overcome the hurdle of limiting the amount of illegal guns that are on the streets, and have a handle on who owns handguns; we can then address the issue of mental stability/illness and how to record and report persons that appear to have, but not yet openly displayed, violent tendencies, without violating their personal rights.  This will be a much more tedious process and I am sure will include enough lawyers, politicians, and doctors to fill each and every hotel room in Las Vegas.

Craig A. Ruark

Conscientious Handgun Owner

Constitutional Amendments

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the makeup of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

• Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
• Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
• Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
• Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, or ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798]):

Green Energy and its Cost

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There have been of late, numerous articles and comments made about green energy, wind and solar in particular, and the viability of those energy sources to dominate the now prevalent natural gas and coal power generating plants.  Much of the concern is over the cost to generate equal amounts of green energy and the cost burden to the consumer.

According to the federal Energy Information Administration, the “levelized cost” of new wind power (including capital and operating costs) is 8.2 cents per kWh.  Advanced clean-coal plants cost about 11 cents per kWh, the same as nuclear. But advanced natural gas-burning plants come in at just 6.3 cents per kWh.

But a new report by George Taylor and Tom Tanton at the American Tradition Institute called “The Hidden Costs of Wind Electricity” asserts that the cost of wind power is significantly understated by the EIA’s numbers.

Taylor explains that he started with 8.2 cents per kWh, reflecting total installation costs of $2,000 per kw of capacity. Then backed out an assumed 30-year lifespan for the turbines, which increases the cost to 9.3 cents per kwh. Then after backing out the effect of subsidies (On January 1, 2013 the federal production tax credit on wind investments expired), allowing accelerated depreciation for wind investments you get 10.1 cents.  Next, add the costs of keeping gas-fired plants available, but running at reduced capacity, to balance the variable performance of wind — 1.7 cents. Extra fuel for those plants adds another 0.6 cents. Finally, tack on 2.7 cents for new transmission line investments needed to get new wind power to market. The whole shebang adds up to 15 cents per kwh.

Whether you stay with the costs offered by the Energy Information Administration or opt for the Taylor numbers, the bottom line is that it is still more expensive to develop green energy over the current natural gas natural gas technology.  That is, assuming that we continue to source enough natural gas to keep the cost as low as it is today.  As with anything else, the amount of supply –vs.- demand controls the price.

But, most people base their assumptions of the amount of available natural gas on the current demand rates and then use those numbers to predict the availability into the future, say 30 or 50 years.  What they don’t consider is population growth. It is predicted that by the year 2050 there will be over one billion persons living in the United States (possibly up to 5 billion if current legislation to lift immigration limits passes congress), and a total world population of ten billion.  That is a lot of people demanding a whole lot of energy.  Can the natural resources keep up –I don’t think so.

So how do you plan now for the future?  The obvious answer is green/renewable energy.  Large wind farms placed in the right areas (e.g. coastal areas and interior parts of the U.S. with natural thermal convection climates), can generate tremendous amounts of electricity.  But it is true that winds are not consistent so some sort of storage or back-up generation to augment wind generator inefficiency is needed. In addition, wind farms for the most part are in areas of sparse population so major infrastructure must be developed to move the electricity to populated areas.  With those pitfalls in mind, I ask; is the concept of generating electricity from a central power source and distributing it to the masses outdated?  Should we instead be concentrating on individual sources of electrical generation through the use of Photo Voltaic technology and placing systems on as many roofs as we possibly can in the next decade?  Perhaps a neighborhood or subdivision could co-op a system in the same way they pay homeowner fees for other amenities, and therefore eliminate long runs of distribution lines and the line-loss attributed. According to EIA data, national, annual electricity transmission and distribution losses average about 7% of the electricity that is transmitted in the United States.

No matter the solution, there is no doubt that there will be costs involved.  But, if we begin implementing changes now and continue to gradually increase the amount of green/renewable energy over time, the costs will be spread out and the pain to both the public utilities and the public will not be as great.  On the other hand, if one day twenty years from now you wake up and find that you are running out of natural gas and oil and must scramble to build new infrastructure, the costs will be nearly insurmountable.

Even if you begin using the current “inefficient” technology of today, you are miles ahead of the game then you would be to wait another ten years for technology to improve.  It is far easier to upgrade existing technology then it is to implement new technology and its accompanying infrastructure.

Part of the green energy debate also concerns government subsidy programs and many critics are against spending money on solar and wind projects or the associated research and manufacturing companies.  However, if you look back over time, the government has been the driving force behind many of the things that we take for granted today.  It was the Federal Government that funded the construction of the Trans Continental Rail Road. It was also the Federal Government that funded the construction of the interstate highway system and other minor highways that are used to deliver people and products from one area of the country to another. Take a look at all of the things developed by the government for military use or to explore space, that we now use every day as a matter of convenience (e.g. microwave cooking, cellular communications, GPS, high definition video, anything made of plastic, and so much more).  But all of this current technology and infrastructure took decades to become as affordable and efficient as they are today, and for the most part,the only reason these products did evolve is because their initial invention investment was either completely or partially funded by the government and then made available to the public.

It was our fathers and grandfathers and perhaps even our great grandfathers that we must thank, for it was those men who helped pay for and build the world that we live in today.

All in all, I find it very odd that we are in this day and age arguing about costs as opposed to how to move forward toward the future and advancing green technology.  But then again, it seems that today it is all about the “bottom line.”  Businesses today are making higher profits than they have ever posted in the past, but to get these profits they are eliminating or at least minimizing overhead costs to the detriment of the employees.  Companies are eliminating positions, as well as, paying lower wages (and in some cases eliminating benefits), to the existing workers to perform the same jobs.  And as we move toward the next decade there will be an even further decrease in available jobs as technology continues to advance beyond repetitive labor functions.  These company’s should start caring a little less about the bottom line and a little more about the future if they expect to continue doing business for another 50 or more years.

With all of that said, perhaps I should be asking myself; why should I really care if we start implementing green technology today?  In fact, perhaps it is good that you are not raising my electric bill to pay for wind or solar power.  I am 58 years old and I am still working but why should I be forced to pay for someone else’s future..  My wife and I do not have any children so why should it matter to us, what happens to this earth 40 or 50 years from now.

In reality it is hard to, in good conscious, to continue to focus a blind eye on the environment. Perhaps advocacy for sustainability will be my only legacy.

Related articles

• Cheap Wind Power Disrupting Brazilian Energy Market (cleantechnica.com)
• Offshore Wind Industry Will Become €130 Billion Annual Market By 2020 (cleantechnica.com)
• The province could soon top North America in electricity costs (windresistanceofmelancthon.com)

Spring Cleaning Tips

When you’re organizing your spring cleaning keep in mind that switching to green cleaning products will improve your health, lessen adverse environmental impacts and save money.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), of the 2,863 most commonly used chemicals only 7% have complete toxicity data and 43% have NO toxicity information available.

Here are a few green cleaning recipes:

OVENS:

• Sprinkle baking soda ¼ inch deep over the bottom of your oven. Spray with water until thoroughly damp, but not flooded. Let sit overnight, add water as necessary to maintain dampness. In the morning, the white baking soda residue left behind is easily wiped off, unlike commercial oven cleaner residue that is intensified the next time you use your oven.

GLASS CLEANER:

• Mix warm water with either white vinegar or lemon juice in a spray bottle. Reduce waste by using a soft cloth or newspaper instead of paper towels (and they leave a better finish).

FABRIC RINSE/SOFTENER:

• Add ¼ cup of white vinegar to the washing machine’s rinse cycle to remove detergent completely from clothes, eliminating that scratchy feel. This will not leave your clothes smelling like vinegar!

DETERGENT BOOSTER:

• To reduce the amount of laundry detergent you need to use, add baking soda or washing soda, which softens the water and increases the detergent’s power.

FURNITURE:

• Combine 2 teaspoons olive oil, 20 drops of pure essential lemon oil and ¼ cup white vinegar in a spray bottle. Mix well and apply using a soft cloth.

WOOD FLOORS:

• Apply a thin coat of equal parts oil and white vinegar and rub in well, or;
• Combine 1/8 cup liquid soap, ½ cup white vinegar or lemon juice, ½ cup fragrant herbal tea and 2 gallons warm water in a large bucket. Mop as usual.

AIR FRESHENERS:

• Set out cedar blocks, an open box of baking soda or sachets of dried flowers and herbs.
• Simmer whole spices like cinnamon sticks, cloves or allspice in water on the stove top.
• Diffuse essential plant oils like lemon verbena and lavender.

ALL-PURPOSE CLEANER:

• Dissolve 4 tablespoons of baking soda in 1 quart of warm water, or;
• Mix 1 part white vinegar to 3 parts water.

ALL-PURPOSE DISINFECTANT:

• Mix 2 teaspoons borax, 4 tablespoons white vinegar, ¼ teaspoons liquid castile soap (like Dr. Bronner’s) and 3 cups hot water.

TUB AND TILE:

• Mix 1 & 2/3 cups baking soda, ½ cup liquid castile soap and ½ cup water. Add 2 tablespoons white vinegar, or;
• Use half a lemon with a sprinkle of baking soda on it.

To clean your garbage disposal

• Make vinegar ice cubes. Just put 1 cup distilled white vinegar in an ice cube tray, fill the balance with water, and freeze. Once frozen, drop a couple down the disposal (or put in the snow cone machine) and run it. The vinegar helps disinfect and the ice helps remove any food stuck on the blades.

To clean your microwave

• Place some lemon slices in a microwave safe cup or bowl with 6 ounces or so of water. Heat on high for 3 minutes, let sit for 3 minutes (without opening the door), and then open and wipe clean. Crusted food should lift easily and your microwave will smell lemon fresh without hormone disrupting phthalates.

Soft Scrub Alternative

• Dr. Bronner’s Rose Liquid Castile Soap and baking soda. Use this combination as a soft scrub for sinks and counter tops, and also to clean your toilet. Just mix them until you get a consistency you like. Place them in a old squeeze bottle and stir with a chop stick. If you are cleaning your toilet, just squirt under the rim and let sit. After 5 minutes or so, follow up with some vinegar and let foam. Then flush.

Shopping Tips:

Look for products with the Green Seal. Green Seal, Inc. is the only organization that comprehensively evaluates non-toxic products.

READ LABELS. Companies are not required by law to list all product ingredients so only purchase brands that advertise full ingredient disclosure so you know what you’re bringing into your home.

Tree Facts

Redwood National Park (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

• 1 tree makes on average 16.67 reams of copy paper or 8,333 sheets
• The average U.S. office worker prints 10,000 pages per year
• In 2004 the United States used 8 million tons of office paper (3.2 billion reams). That’s the equivalent of 178 million trees!
• A single mature tree can release enough oxygen back into the atmosphere to support 2 human beings.
• Each person in the U.S. generates approximately 2.3 tons of CO₂ each year.
• Deforestation is one of the main causes of atmospheric carbon dioxide; burning and cutting millions of acres of trees each year, it is responsible for 20-25 per cent of all carbon emissions.
• A single tree will absorb one ton of carbon dioxide over its lifetime. Shade provided by trees can also reduce your air conditioning bill by 10 to 15 percent.
• It only takes 30 trees to offset the C0₂ produced by one car annually.
• An average American uses about 750 pounds of paper every year, and 95% of homes are built using wood. That means each person uses the equivalent of one 100 foot tall, 16 inch diameter, tree every year for their paper and wood product needs.
• There are about 20,000 tree species in the world. The United States has one of the largest tree treasuries second only to India.
• Three trees planted in the right place around buildings can cut air-conditioning costs up to 50 percent.
• Trees improve water quality by slowing and filtering rain water as well as protecting aquifers and watersheds.
• The Hyperion on Redwood national park is believed to be the world’s tallest living tree, standing a formidable, 376′ tall.

 

Related articles

• Net Climate Benefit: Trees and Carbon Dioxide (forestry.answers.com)
• A single tree will absorb one ton of carbon dioxide over its lifetime (greenreview.blogspot.com)

The Basics of oil pricing and the effect on the price of gas

Detailed analysis of changes in oil price from 1970-2007. The graph is based on the nominal, not real, price of oil. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There have been a lot of questions asked about why the President of the United States does not do something about the rising price of gasoline. It has also been speculated that by increasing the amount of oil drilling that we would greatly increase the amount of jobs available while reducing the price of oil.

The truth is that no president — whether Democrat or Republican, can do much of anything to affect the short-term price of gasoline. And increasing the amount of oil drilling will do very little to solve the unemployment problem. First let’s talk about the price of gasoline.

Crude oil accounts for about 75% of the cost of a gallon of gas (at current price levels, according to the Energy Information Administration.)

• taxes account for just 12%
• refining about 6%
• distribution and marketing about 6%

The United States consumes about 20 million barrels of oil products per day(bbl/d), according to the Department of Energy

. Of that, almost half is used for motor gasoline. The rest is used for distillate fuel oil, jet fuel, residual fuel and other oils.

Each barrel of oil contains 42 gallons, which yields 19 to 20 gallons of gasoline. So, in the United States, something like 178 million gallons of gasoline is consumed every day.

With those facts in mind, let us take a look at how the oil industry operates.

The overriding factor that determines the price of oil from day to day is the market principle of supply and demand

. It comes down to simple economics: When demand is greater than supplies, prices rise.

The actual price of a barrel of oil is constantly changing, since oil is a commodity that is traded on the futures market. Buying and selling oil futures is called speculating, because you’re making trades based on expectations of future supply and demand. And demand is increasing.

In 2003, 11,000 cars were added to the streets of China each day totaling over four million new cars in that one year alone.  That pace has continued each successive year and it is expected that by 2015, 150 million cars will be traveling on China’s streets.  That is in addition to the estimated 254.4 million registered passenger vehicles in the United States according to the latest 2007 U.S. Department of Transportation study.  With this, anticipated Chinese car ownership, oil consumption is projected to reach 80 million barrels of oil a day above the current world production.

People talk about “oil independence” thinking that if we drill enough oil in the U.S. that we will not have to import oil from other countries.  There are a number of problems with that theory:

1. All oil, whether domestic or foreign is sold on the open market. The global oil market is massively complex, as is the US’s role in it (for instance, we are both an importer AND an exporter), and it generally doesn’t matter where any particular barrel of oil ends up. All American oil is sold through the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME). The CME in turn, brings our oil, an American natural resource, onto the global market to be sold on behalf of the corporation that drilled it. In fact, America has been exporting millions of barrels a day. In 2008 the United States exported 1.7 million barrels, up from 1.048 million in 2004 according to Index Muni. Ultimately, prices and availability (“energy security”), are largely a function of global supply and demand. The oil flowing through a new pipeline would indeed increase global supply and in turn have a moderating influence on global prices and a positive impact on global availability. However, the demand for oil, mostly from China and developing countries that are increasing their use of automobiles and developing industries, is also increasing dramatically on a daily basis and it is that current and projected demand that is raising the price of oil.

2. Companies that are generally considered a major U.S. Oil Company (Shell, Exxon/Mobil, Chevron/Texaco), are actually multi-national companies with operations throughout the world.  They don’t extract oil and gas just from in the United States; they extract it from operations located around the word.  And the oil that they extract goes into a huge open market where it is sold.  Naturally, it doesn’t make since to physically move a lot of oil from one place to another if it is not necessary.  So in theory, whatever is drilled in the U.S. probably, for the most part, stays in the U.S. But its price is dictated by the total amount of world supply. So although these companies are so-called U.S. companies, all that they really care about is selling oil and they sell it indiscriminately worldwide.

3. In addition, the so called U.S. oil companies are not the only companies extracting “our” valuable crude. As you know, BP, a British company has a very large presence here along with a company you have probably never heard of…Statoil.   Statoil (a publicly traded company with 67% of its shares owned by the government of Norway) is the fifth-largest acreage holder in the Gulf and plans to drill three deepwater wells here in 2013. Statoil has more than $20 billion worth of oil and gas assets in the U.S. and has bet even more that drilling into America is the company’s best bet for growth. Since the government does not keep records as to the nationality of companies that hold oil and gas leases, it is unknown exactly how many foreign owned companies are extracting our precious resource, but those two are the largest.

So, it would be true to say that aggressive increases in U.S. oil production would bring the global supply a little closer to the demand for oil. Unfortunately, the U.S. is such a small player on the international oil scene — we control only 2 percent of the world’s known oil reserves — and even if we doubled our current production capacity today, we still wouldn’t make much of a dent. It would also take a number of years to assemble the drilling rigs, pipelines and manpower to make that type of production increase, meaning oil prices would be unaffected in the short-term.

The days of “cheap” oil are over. It is widely known that easy to reach oil reserves in the U.S. (and Canada), were drilled years ago. It is partly because of the fact that oil is selling for such a high dollar value today.  And it is because of oil’s high dollar value that companies can afford to go after harder to reach deposits such as those deep down in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and Arctic, as well as, shale deposits. If the price of one barrel of oil were to drop below $80, than those explorations would not be profitable.  So, as you can see it behooves the oil community to make sure that the commodity does not drop below that level. How do they make sure the price stays high; by continuing to pump less than the demand.

Jobs:

Even if the President were to open up vast acres of land for oil drilling the only rush that you would see from the oil companies would be their private corporate jets, full of lawyers and accountants flying into Washington D.C. to try to tie-up as much of that land as possible before the other guy gets there.

While companies may have identified areas of the country that are likely to have oil deposits, it takes hundreds of millions of dollars just to do the scientific research and drill exploratory wells to find exactly where the oil is located.  And when they do find a deposit, the oil companies are not going to move in overnight, put up a dozen drill rigs and start drilling; for two reasons.

1. As much as it costs to do the exploration for the oil, it costs ten times that amount to actually tap the oil, extract it, and transport it to be stored and refined. Even if the oil find was a “sure thing” and with as much money as oil companies make, none of them can afford to move into an area and start drilling with more than a few rigs at a time.  What the oil companies will do is explore the oil find, tap it, and then extract the resource over the term of a decade or two, getting the long term benefit of their investment.

2. Working in an oil field is not only extremely hard work; it is also very dangerous and takes a highly skilled worker to handle all of the jobs.  An oil company is not going to pull a bus up to the local unemployment office, or labor hall, and say “I’ll take the first one-hundred of you now,” and then carry them off to the desert to operate a drill rig.  Experienced oil workers are in high demand and there are very few if any out of work, even in these hard economic times.  It takes years of experience doing grunt work to become a journeyman on a drill rig or oil pipeline.

So, as far as jobs go, the only major employment increase might be in the local housing market to build homes, apartments or perhaps motels where the oil workers (and families), would live during the time they are drilling and building whatever infrastructure in needed.

So what is the answer to rising fuel costs? In reality, we have already started on that path but at the current pace it will take quite a few years before we see positive results.

In short the only true way to become “oil independent” is to reduce the amount of oil that is used in the United States.

Oil use in the U.S. is broken down into four main categories:

• Transportation 72% (with “Light-duty vehicles making up 45% and trucks/buses making up 17% of that number)
• Electric Utilities 1%
• Residential and Commercial 5%
• Industrial 22%

In response to the energy crisis of the 1970s, Congress passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. This legislation had two major objectives: 1) Reduce our overall consumption of petroleum and 2) reduce our dependence on foreign oil (meaning OPEC). The means to accomplish this was by Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE). Under CAFE automobile manufacturers are required to produce cars that averaged 18 miles per gallon. For light trucks the standard is 15.8 MPG. There is some flexibility. Every car (or truck) does not have to meet the standard. However, the average of all models (small, medium, and large) must meet or exceed the standard. Failure to do so would result in a fine of $55 per car for every MPG shortfall. CAFE initially took effect with the 1978 models. The standard was increased in 1985 to 27.5 MPG for cars and to 20.7 MPG for light trucks. The light-truck standard was again increased to 22.2 MPG in 2007.

But fuel economy standards did not stop there. Future standards were developed by DOT’s, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the EPA following an extensive engagement with automakers, the United Auto Workers, consumer groups, environmental and energy experts, states, and the public. And in 2011, thirteen major automakers (which together account for more than 90 percent of all vehicles sold in the United States), announced their support for the new standards.

In August of 2012 The Obama Administration finalized groundbreaking standards that will increase fuel economy to the equivalent of 54.5 mpg for cars and light-duty trucks by Model Year 2025.

In addition, major auto manufacturers are already developing advanced technologies that can significantly reduce fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions beyond the existing model year 2012-2016 standards. They are focusing on a wide range of technologies that are currently available for automakers to meet the new standards, including advanced gasoline engines and transmissions, vehicle weight reduction, lower tire rolling resistance, improvements in aerodynamics, diesel engines, more efficient accessories, and improvements in air conditioning systems. The program also includes targeted incentives to encourage early adoption and introduction into the marketplace of advanced technologies to dramatically improve vehicle performance, including:

• Incentives for electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and fuel cells vehicles;
• Incentives for hybrid technologies for large pickups and for other technologies that achieve high fuel economy levels on large pickups;
• Incentives for natural gas vehicles;
• Credits for technologies with potential to achieve real-world greenhouse gas reductions and fuel economy improvements that are not captured by the standards test procedures.

But as you can see from the categories above, trucks and automobiles are not the only users of oil.  While manufacturers, businesses, and residences do not have to go to the fuel pump to get the energy to run equipment, appliances, lights, air cooling/heating units, etc., they do use oil by way of the electricity they consume.  By cutting back on fossil fuel electric generation and turning to solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable sources of energy, we can cut about 6% of our oil use.  If residences and businesses across the country installed their own solar energy systems it would drive down the demand from public utilities and therefore drive down their use of oil.

So while more drilling for more oil may sound logical and make a great political stump speech, it is not the answer to either oil independence or lowering the price of gasoline.

For insight on how the Oil Sands project in Canada will impact the price of U.S. oil click on this link to The World:

http://www.theworld.org/2012/03/where-would-keystone-xls-canadian-oil-go-and-does-it-matter/

For more information about the current oil reserves I offer the following:

According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2012, proved oil reserves at the end of 2011 reached 1652.6 billion barrels, sufficient to meet 54.2 years of global production.  That is assuming that world consumption remains at 88 million barrels per day.

The U.S. controls 1.9% of the world’s oil with an estimated 30.9 million barrels of “proven reserves” (including both taped and untapped sources).  In addition, the U.S. produces 8.8% of the world’s oil at 7,841,000 barrels per day but consumes 20.5% of the world’s supply at 18,835,000 barrels of oil per day.

Assuming that BP’s claims are true, and there is 54.2 year of global production at present levels of use, we know that the growing economies of Asia are using more and more energy every day. Increased use will not change how much oil remains at this very moment but it will determine how long any such supply will last.

BP’s estimate is close to projections made by the Society of Petroleum Engineers who estimates that the remaining official world reserves represent 41.6 more years of oil.

A recent Scientific American article states that “A new analysis concludes that easily extracted oil peaked in 2005, suggesting that dirtier fossil fuels will be burned and energy prices will rise.”

In August 2012, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office issued a report on Potential Budgetary Effects of Immediately Opening Most Federal Lands to Oil and Gas Leasing.  It details the amount of land currently under lease, currently available for lease, and future lands that would be available if Congress were to allow said leases.

The Washington Post, on August 25, 2012, ran an article titled; Romney would open federal lands to drilling.  How much oil and gas is there?  The article is based on the report issued by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and “The basic takeaway here is that the vast majority of oil and gas on federal lands is already available for leasing, particularly in the waters off Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. There’s certainly room to open up further federal lands, but the additional resources appear to be fairly modest in comparison. For instance, opening up the rest of the Outer Continental Shelf to drilling would boost offshore oil and gas production in federal waters by just 3 percent in 2035.”

 

Is solar energy a bad investment?

solar panels (Photo credit: spanginator)

What would happen if nearly every home in America were equipped with solar panels to the point that they were nearly energy independent?  That is the question that power companies around the country are asking themselves today, and having to find answers for in order to prepare for in the future.

Perhaps you have heard about Silicon Energy, an American company located in Mt. Iron, MN, that manufactures Photo Voltaic (solar) panels.  It has been reported that they are yet another solar manufacturer that is in danger of going out of business.  However, the reason for their struggle is not what you might think.  They are not being undercut by the Chinese. Their CEO and Board of Directors are not running off with the corporate profits.  And, their product is not a bad product.

The problem…energy consumption is down.

There are many variables that cause the rise and fall of energy consumption and two of the biggest are weather (extreme heat and cold), and industry.  While it is true that this has been an extremely hot summer, causing more people to use their air-conditioning systems a little more, and causing “peak load” problems for power generators. But, when averaged out over the course of six to twelve months the actual amount of energy use across the country is down.  This is due partly because the economy is down and thus manufacturing output is down, as well as, a high number of businesses have closed.  The other reason that energy consumption is down is due to efficiency.

All across the country, people have been replacing old electric appliances, air conditioners, and other electrical equipment with units that are way more efficient then their predecessors.  Although these new energy efficient models are not a recent phenomenon, they started developing them five or more years ago and they are improving efficiency with each new model, it has simply taken this long for a significant amount of these energy efficient models to be put into the hands of enough consumers to begin noticing a difference.  So now we have a situation where we no longer need as much energy as we needed just ten years ago.  And as both buildings and products continue to become more energy efficient, we will need even less electricity.

That is a big problem for the companies that provide electricity.  It is a problem because most of the electric generating infrastructure has been around for upwards of fifty years or so and run on either coal or natural gas.  Electric generating companies have a lot of money invested in both power plants and the power lines that deliver electricity to your home or business.  And it costs a lot of money to maintain this generating and delivery infrastructure.  In addition, nearly all of the electric generating companies are either privately owned or part of a co-op with responsibility to their shareholders to distribute profits.

To respond to the flat energy consumption, electric generating companies all over the nation are requesting rate hikes in order to maintain the same profit levels they enjoyed ten years ago.  It was recently reported that three electric companies in Minnesota (where Silicon Energy is located), have requested rate increases:

• Xcel Energy requested and was approval for a $72.8 million hike – but had asked for even more;
• Alliance Energy, which also serves Minnesota customers, will get another $10.2 million.
• Roseau Electric Cooperative in extreme northern Minnesota will hike electricity prices by about 9%.

So how do solar panels effect electric generating companies? During the first five months of 2012, Xcel Energy had a solar panel program in place for the residents of their service area.  The program was so successful, so popular, and demand was so great, it quickly burned through this year’s total $5 million allotment in just those five months. Solar panels were going up left and right in Minnesota.  The beneficiaries of this project were the customers of Minnesota and Silicon Energy, who not only manufactured the Solar Panels but sold them to the residents in the program.  Individual consumers benefit by weaning themselves from the grid, getting free energy (after their equipment is paid for), more independence and less dependence on corporations, or government aid for power when times are tough – and not to mention reducing world instability caused by global competition or energy resources and a cleaner environment overall.

However, Xcel Energy like many energy companies are leery of too many solar panels because the proliferation solar panels means the demand for coal and gas energy will continue to “be flat” or even diminish.  And as I stated, energy generation and distribution (via coal and gas power plants and power lines), are how today’s energy companies make money.

Obviously, we are not going to cover the rooftops of every home in America or even come close in the next fifty years.  But as more and more homes and businesses become more energy efficient, the demand for mass power generation will become less and less.  Meaning, less customers to pay for the ageing infrastructure needed to continue to provide electricity to the remaining customer base.

Will there always be a need for mass power generation facilities?  I believe that there will.  We will need a reliable power source for infrastructure that is key to our life support (e.g. potable water treatment and delivery, sanitary sewer treatment, emergency services).

All of that said, there is one technology that stands to increase the need for electricity…electric automobiles.  Although the electric vehicle (EV), industry is in its infancy and struggling, it will not be long before they become more reliable as a source of transportation, and with their proliferation start placing an increased demand upon our electric infrastructure.

Just this last week Kohl’s Department Stores announced that they will expand its EV charging station initiative with 30 new stations across 15 additional Kohl’s locations by the end of fall 2012. This expansion spans two states new to the Kohl’s program — Illinois and Wisconsin —adds additional locations to the company’s Texas EV program, and will make a total of 101 charging stations at 52 Kohl’s locations across 14 states.

It is interesting to note that one of Kohl’s partners in this project is Duke Energy, a major generator of coal and natural gas electricity.

Kohl’s charging stations will add to the more than 4,350 public EV charging stations currently in the US, according to the US Department of Energy’s Alternative Fuels Data Center.  In addition, an August 2011 report from Pike Research forecasts that more than 1.5 million EV charging locations will be available in the US and 7.7 million locations worldwide by 2017.

Of course, electric vehicle charging stations too, can be operated on solar power.  It is time for electric generating power companies to begin changing their business models.  Oh, and by the way, you can still get incentives from various Government Agencies to install your own solar panels.

Related articles

• Solar panels are a sound investment for your home and the future (solarworld-usa.com)

Green Energy Subsidies

The largest photovoltaic solar power plant in the United States is becoming a reality at Nellis Air Force Base. When completed in December, the solar arrays will produce 15 megawatts of power (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There is a lot of talk about government subsidies and how bad they are for the country today.

Check the history books, encyclopedias and the internet; If it were not for government subsidies we would not have the rail road, highway, or canal systems that we have today.  The aviation and shipping industries both got their starts through government taxpayer subsidies.  Subsidies also contributed to the science and technological improvements that made it possible to build wastewater treatment facilities, sanitary collection systems, and water purification plants in nearly every city during the early part of the last century.  If it were not for the government subsidized WPA, many small towns would be without city halls, post offices, and libraries today.  Just look at all the power that is generated by government built hydro-electric dams.  Those were huge economic burdens to previous generations that we, some 150 years later, all take for granted.

From 2002 to 2008, according to the nonpartisan Environmental Law Institute, $72 billion in subsidies went to fossil fuels, while $12 billion went to non-polluting renewables – and that includes hydropower, which is not a new technology.

For example, the U.S. government offered enormous tax incentives, financing and government help to promote oil and natural gas exploration in the United States, Middle East and elsewhere after World War II. The investments were a fantastic success – but they have continued to the present day at between $3.5 billion and $4.3 billion per year, while these companies have become the most profitable and powerful on the planet. Roger Bezdek, a long-time energy CEO, economics professor and former research director for the U.S. Department of Energy, analyzed U.S. energy subsidies from 1950 to 2010. He estimates that oil received $369 billion in inflation-adjusted subsidies, natural gas got $121 billion and coal got $104 billion.

These figures do not include billions of dollars spent every year to keep the Persian Gulf open and global oil prices stable. This may be smart foreign policy, but it costs billions of dollars every year -paid in taxes funding the defense budget, instead of at the gas pump.

These fossil fuel subsidies also do not fully include pollution costs. For example, automobile exhaust accounts for 85 percent of air pollution in Las Vegas. We all pay the costs of asthma and other illnesses in health-care costs, not at the pump.

Admittedly, solar technology is quite expensive at this point in time.  However, the costs to manufacturer silicon based Photovoltaics (PV) have dropped dramatically in just the past four years.  Other types of solar energy generating facilities are also becoming less expensive to build and the amount of energy produced per square foot is increasing as technology improves.

Solar panels on the roofs of homes can save home owners a significant amount of money in energy costs over the long run.  The current pay back is approximately seven years.  As the number of homes utilizing solar power increases, the need for the amount of energy generated by power companies will decrease.  In the short term that means that for those without solar panels on their roofs will be paying more for power as the power companies try to make up for lost revenue.  However, in the long run, as power companies adjust their markets and begin to capitalize on new technologies (such as electric vehicle charging stations), and expand their own base of renewable energy generation facilities, their customer base will stabilize and costs will go down.

I find it very interesting that for as long as I have lived in Las Vegas, since 1975, politicians have been saying that we need to diversify our economy to avoid future economic problems.  Here we are some 37 years later and people are now asking why we did not diversify our economy years ago, and are now behind the proverbial eight ball trying to make it happen.  I foresee the same happening in another 40 years when people are running on fossil fumes and asking why we did not do something before things got so bad.  Just as America did in the last Century, forward thinking Americans can prepare for the future by improving our energy infrastructure now so that the next generations will benefit.

The following article gives a general overview of where the Solar Industry has come and where it is going. 
http://www.expansionsolutionsmagazine.com/070812_solar

This article gives a more in-depth look at the research taking place in the Solar Industry:
http://www.technologyreview.com/mitnews/410624/bright-days-for-solar/5/#