Energy

Once upon a time, I wished that a balanced budget amendment would include a provision reading:

Congress shall make no law which embraces more than one subject, that subject to be expressed in the title. All acts which repeal, revive or amend former laws, shall recite in their caption, or otherwise, the title or substance of the law repealed, revived or amended.

In fairness, I should note that the text actually is borrowed from the Tennessee state constitution, where framers were concerned about the shenanigans that can occur when legislators start hiding things in bills.

For example, consider this article on a draft climate-change bill, published by the Washington Post:

The running joke in Washington is that nobody has read the 900-plus-page energy bill sponsored by Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), which the House will consider in coming weeks. What you hear from its backers is that its cap-and-trade provisions would create a market-based program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — which should mean that a simple, systemwide incentive encourages polluters to make the easiest reductions in greenhouse gases first, keeping the costs of fighting global warming to a minimum. In fact, the bill also contains regulations on everything from light bulb standards to the specs on hot tubs, and it will reshape America’s economy in dozens of ways that many don’t realize.

Here is just one: The bill would give the federal government power over local building codes. It requires that by 2012 codes must require that new buildings be 30 percent more efficient than they would have been under current regulations. By 2016, that figure rises to 50 percent, with increases scheduled for years after that. With those targets in mind, the bill expects organizations that develop model codes for states and localities to fill in the details, creating a national code. If they don’t, the bill commands the Energy Department to draft a national code itself.

I could agree that more could be done in the nation’s building codes to promote conservation and energy efficiency.  A little goading isn’t a bad thing.

However, surely I’m not the only person who gets concerned about concentrating power in Washington, regardless of which party holds the reins.

And because it’s a passage buried in a bigger bill, there probably won’t be that much public debate on the subject.

It also makes you wonder what else is hidden in the 900 pages of legalese.

For the past few years, I’ve expressed frustration over my fears that global warming hype would damage popular will to embrace conservation and clean energy.

(Short version: Much of the weather weirdness of the first part of the decade is likely more attributable to random noise and shorter-term cycles.  “Global warming”, which is probably real, is also subtle enough to be difficult to distinguish from that noise and shorter-term cycles.  Thus I’ve been concerned that when those cycles/noise reverse, political will will evaporate, even though there are very good reasons over-and-above climate change to embrace clean tech and conservation.)

Well, it seems that the economy may be making my fears moot.   From the New York Times:

From Italy to China, the threat to jobs, profits and government tax revenues posed by the financial crisis has cast doubt on commitments to cap emissions or phase out polluting factories.

Automakers, especially Detroit’s Big Three, face collapsing sales, threatening their plans to invest heavily in more fuel-efficient cars. And with gas prices now around $2 a gallon in the United States, struggling consumers may be less inclined than they once were to trade in their gas-guzzling models in any case.

From a New York Times op-ed:

Recently, however, we were able to conduct a study in Indiana, where daylight time was instituted statewide only in 2006. […]

We found that daylight time caused a 1 percent overall increase in residential electricity use, though the effect varied from month to month. The greatest increase occurred in late summer and early fall, when electricity use rose by 2 percent to 4 percent.

Daylight time costs Indiana households an average of $3.29 a year in higher electricity bills, or about $9 million for the whole state. We also calculated the health and other social costs of increased pollution emissions at $1.7 million to $5.5 million per year.

What explains this unexpected result? While daylight time reduces demand for household lighting, it increases demand for heating in the early spring and late fall (in the mornings) and, even more important, for cooling on summer evenings. Benjamin Franklin was right about candles, in other words, but he did not consider air-conditioners.

And of course, it’s been in the past couple of years that we’ve extended DST to take greater advantage of the perceived “savings”.

In fairness to DST proponents, I wonder if there is some measurable benefit to society from having sunset occurring at a time perceived to be “later”, due to increased outdoor activity, etc.   But, perhaps it’s time to kill the myth that “DST saves energy”?

I don’t mind daylight saving time, mind you; I do like having an extra hour of daylight after my official work hours in spring, summer, and fall.  I like it enough that, if we abolished DST, I’d likely adjust my official work hours to take advantage of the situation.

My beef is with changing between Standard and Daylight time; I wish we’d pick one and stick with it.   If folks are really concerned about “children waiting for busses in the dark” or truly value the “extra” hour of daylight, schedules will be adjusted, without need of  the silliness of the time changes.

I just got back from a quick business trip to San Antonio.  While there, I got to see gas selling for $1.999/gallon.

It’s been a long time since I’ve seen gas below $2/gallon.

Remember the days when western governments pressured OPEC to boost production, to keep oil prices below $100 per barrel?

Seen at the Wall Street Journal (subscriber link):

Meeting for the first time since March, OPEC ministers on Tuesday will face a quandary: With the world economy still on the ropes, do they really want to be seen slashing oil production in an effort to keep prices above $100 a barrel?[…]

[Saudi King Abdullah] said he would like to see prices fall below $100 a barrel, while others suggest that the kingdom wouldn’t object if crude edged into the mid-$80s range — about where it was for the earlier part of this year. Saudi officials declined to talk about their thinking ahead of the Vienna summit.

Others within OPEC, though, will surely gripe if prices tumble that far. Traditional price hawks Iran and Venezuela have been vocal in saying they want the cartel to begin slashing production now, arguing that the world is oversupplied and that the once-outlandish price of $100 a barrel should become the new benchmark. Plummeting prices could cause distress within months in Venezuela and Iran, whose leaders rely heavily on windfall oil profits to maintain their political positions.[…]

But there are risks for OPEC pursuing such a high oil-price policy. Prices of more than $100 a barrel keeps consumers firmly on the prowl for ways to cut oil consumption. It also helps pay for the pursuit of alternative energy sources, like crop-based biofuels and hard-to-extract heavy oil in places such as Canada, that compete head-to-head with OPEC oil.

Consumers in wealthy nations are employing a variety of tools to escape high oil prices, from abandoning gas-guzzling sport-utility vehicles in the U.S. to using more public transport in Japan, and the impact keeps adding up.

I suppose that it would be naïve of me to point out that if the free market were allowed to operate, a natural equilibrium would be found for both price and production.

I’m working through my reading pile.  This story from the newswires caught my eye a couple of days ago:

Households worried about the high cost of keeping warm this winter will draw little comfort from the Farmers’ Almanac, which predicts below-average temperatures for most of the U.S.

"Numb’s the word," says the 192-year-old publication, which claims an accuracy rate of 80 to 85 percent for its forecasts that are prepared two years in advance.

The almanac’s 2009 edition, which goes on sale Tuesday, says at least two-thirds of the country can expect colder than average temperatures, with only the Far West and Southeast in line for near-normal readings.

I’m not sure that I buy the claimed accuracy rate…so perhaps my wife and I won’t start putting valuables into hock to boost the heating oil budget.

However, we did a few days ago get our pre-season fill-up of heating oil.  Two hundred gallons of oil was never cheap.  But these days….ouch!

Seen at GreenUpgrader:

On Friday, the Governor M. Jodi Rell, unveiled the Connecticut Solar Lease Program.  The program is run by the Connecticut Clean Energy Fund (CCEF), and it is the first of its kind here in the US.  By pulling together a number of rebates and tax credits, the CCEF is able to lease solar energy systems to CT residence for a relatively low fixed monthly rate. 

To qualify for the program, Connecticut residents must pass a credit check, be below 150% of the areas median income, and install it on a 1-4 family owner occupied structure.   Depending on your homes energy needs and the installation needs, some systems can be as little as $50 a month while others could run over $200.  They estimate that for a typical home with a 15 year lease will pay about $120 a month. 

The website for the program is at ctsolarlease.com, where one can find income eligibility caps and an online application.

I could quibble with the eligibility criteria (e.g., the cap is higher in Fairfield County than in Hartford County), and I notice a certain lack of information on who might be funding any subsidies or guarantees for the program…but really this is a cool idea: getting longer-term, sustainable energy options into the hands of folks who probably could use extra help in doing so.

Dang, I’ve accumulated quite a bit of material worth commenting on during the craziness of the past few weeks.   Some of the more interesting articles include:

• Redstate referenced an article in the Telegraph entitled “The Great Oil Bubble Has Burst”.  While Redstate seems inclined to play up the influence of off-shore drilling expectations in the recent rationalization of oil prices, the more complete story seems to be the free market coming back into balance.  Yes, the markets seem to reflect expectation of new supplies, and global economic slowing is shifting expectations of demand, and these shifts in turn seem to end the incentive to dance the contango. 
     
  However, I do notice that both articles also fail to touch on expectations of the US Dollar strengthening / Euro weakening impacting dollar-denominated oil futures contracts, as well as China presumably ending its massive stockpiling of diesel fuel for Olympics power-generation.

  It’ll be interesting to see where  the new oil/fuel price equilibrium emerges.  It’s a little odd that I’d ever be happy over gas and heating oil prices locally dropping below $3.90 – a year ago that would have been an unsettling price to think about.  Hopefully planners and venture capitalists will continue to see the market potential of alternative power sources (wind, solar, non-food-based-ethanol) enough to justify further development of such technology.
   

• You may have heard that the Olympics are on. NBC apparently racked up record ratings, which annoys me since it will only support that network’s practice of tainting the games (and its ceremonies) with inane, fluffy chatter.   You’d think that with the advent of digital multicasting, there would at least be some move to provide a commentator-less soundtrack, as well as additional coverage of some of the less-popular (but more interesting) sports.
   
• Tyson Foods drew some flack in Nashville media for one provision in its recently announced 5-year contract at a Shelbyville processing plant – workers will no longer receive Labor Day as a paid day off, instead picking up Eid al-Fitr, the end of the month of Ramadan.  The fuss seems to be focused around the appearance of sacrificing an American holiday for an Islamic one.  
   
  However, not much seems to be made of approximately 60% of staff at the plant being Somali (and presumably Muslim)…and that not much work would be done that day anyway.  It seems like a rather practical approach to maximize plant efficiency while being sensitive to workers’ wishes.   It’s similar to how even the most secular institutions in the U.S. observe Christmas Day.
   
• The Dems reportedly have reached the necessary compromises to draft a platform for the ’08 election season.  I’m hoping to have time to look through it more carefully later, but I can observe now that quickly searching for the word “insurance” and skimming through the results makes me feel oh-so-loved, and causes me to wonder if I should be searching for “bread and circus” as well.
   
• And finally, while I might feel unloved by the Dems due to my association with the “evil” insurance industry, I still can’t help but compliment the Obama camp for seemingly almost mastering the art of media hype.   The current example of this is was the invitation broadcast far and wide for a text message alert when Barack’s veep choice (presumably Bayh) is announced (presumably in the next day or two).

Whew!  And now, it’s time for me to head back into the salt mine….

Before I head back to the “perfect storm” of quarter-end work, the processing of 7/1 business, and other “fun”, I can’t help but pass along the following quote:

We demand more energy and complain about high prices, but we restrict energy exploration and production. We embrace the promise of energy efficiency, but we are slow to make adjustments in our energy-intensive lifestyles.

That comes from an open letter that the AP reports has been sent to various leaders and political candidates by a group of “elder statesmen” including Henry Kissinger and Colin Powell, calling for something to actually be done about the emerging energy crunch, rather than the impotent energy-themed bickering currently taking place in political circles.

I like the statement I’ve quoted above.  The “energy problem” isn’t one that can be solved just by tracking down new sources of existing forms of energy, or developing new “alternative”  energy sources and infrastructure.  At some point, Americans will be obliged – by fiscal realities at least, if not by prudent foresight – to realize that the lifestyle some (many?) feel entitled to is unsustainable.

Political grandstanding isn’t going to fix the problem.  People resisting being inconvenienced while publicly wishing that others would change their behavior also isn’t going to change anything.

The answer is going to involve reaching a public consensus on what should be done, and then acting upon that consensus.  Part of what’s involved in that consensus will not please some groups, while other parts of that consensus will displease others.  But at least corrective action would be taken, which is appreciably better than the status quo of talking about the problem without making changes until those changes are forced upon us.

The article mentions that the open letter includes about a dozen recommendations of action that should be taken sooner rather than later.  Unfortunately, a quick bit of googling didn’t turn up an actual copy of the letter.  I’d be interested in seeing what those recommendations actually are.

Of course, my quick web-search did turn up a web forum where a couple of posters quickly alleged bias in the letter due to the political affiliations of the sponsoring group and some of the elder statesmen…and where others quickly responded with vehemently opposing political thoughts.

Typical.

Maybe I should dust off an old Thomas Jefferson quote:

I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.

I think having record-high fuel prices at a traditional vacation week has really focused the media attention on national energy policy (or the lack thereof).   Many of the interesting articles I

have encountered in the past few days have been energy-themed.   Consider:

WSJ.com’s Deal Journal:

[JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon] On oil, which recently hit a record $143 a barrel: We almost deserve $4 gas. We knew in 1974 that we had a serious issue but we don’t have the political fortitude to do anything about it. That’s the issue, not Russia.

New York Times article, “Asleep at the Spigot”:

Over the last 25 years, opportunities to head off the current crisis were ignored, missed or deliberately blocked, according to analysts, politicians and veterans of the oil and automobile industries. What’s more, for all the surprise at just how high oil prices have climbed, and fears for the future, this is one crisis we were warned about. Ever since the oil shortages of the 1970s, one report after another has cautioned against America’s oil addiction. […]

“Much of what we’re seeing today could have been prevented or ameliorated had we chosen to act differently,” says Pete V. Domenici, the ranking Republican member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and a 36-year veteran of the Senate. “It was a bipartisan failure to act.”

CNN:

Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia, asked Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman to look into what speed limit would provide optimum gasoline efficiency given current technology. He said he wants to know if the administration might support efforts in Congress to require a lower speed limit.

(Haven’t we tried the national speed limit before?  And, wasn’t it so poorly enforced and blind to local circumstances as to foster an entire culture of disregarding traffic laws?  You’d think that improving enforcement of existing traffic laws and improving education on optimal speed:efficiency ratios would be more effective.)

Wall Street Journal on GM’s plans to bring a mini-car intended for foreign markets to the U.S. (subscriber link):

General Motors Corp. said it is giving a higher priority to deciding whether it will bring the next-generation Chevrolet Beat mini car — a vehicle it sells overseas — to the U.S. market in the 2012 timeframe.[…]

GM is conducting major surgery on the product plans it had set for the next decade, scrambling to react to falling demand for vehicles that consume a relatively large amount of gasoline. The next generation of GM mini cars, on which the Beat is based, is slated to debut in several global markets in coming years and should be capable of at least 40 miles per gallon.

And meanwhile, regarding the ethanol kool-aid, from The Guardian:

Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% – far more than previously estimated – according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian. […]

The figure emphatically contradicts the US government’s claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. It will add to pressure on governments in Washington and across Europe, which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil.

OK, now that the media…and presumably the American public… is aware of some of the issues of our addiction to petroleum, one wonders if political leaders and the public have the stomach to make some of the more difficult changes that will be called for.

This should be interesting to witness.

And now, I’ll go back to my weekend project of improving my “summer office” (the basement) for telecommuting.