Emissions Standards Set for Large U.S. Ships

The Environmental Protection Agency has released regulations that set emissions and clean fuel standards for U.S.-flagged ships.

The standards apply to new marine diesel engines with per-cylinder displacements of 30 or more liters. Under the new rules, stronger standards for nitrogen oxide (NO_x) emissions will begin in 2011 and new sulfur content specifications for diesel fuel will be introduced in 2012, for ships traveling within 200 nautical miles of the U.S. and Canadian coastlines. This zone has been designated as an emission control area.

The rules will go far in curbing air pollution from large ships and helping improve the health of residents of coastal and neighboring inland states. Because of the regulations, ultimately, releases of NO_x, particulate matter and sulfur oxides will be reduced 80%–95%.

These regulations have been in the works for a while. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says air pollution from large ships, such as oil tankers and cargo ships, is expected to grow rapidly as port traffic increases.

Carbon Emissions of G-20 Nations From 1950 to 2006

The Washington Post has a cool interactive map that shows how the amount of carbon emissions from fossil fuels of G-20 and other nations changed from 1950 to 2006.

Moving a slider on the map allows you to see how the emissions grew year over year. Check it out!

Washing Machines to Be Subject to Energy-Efficiency Standards in California

Photo credit: celila.

Given that clothes washing machines use several resources, like water, electricity and (sometimes) natural gas, it's kind of surprising that no government agency has tried to set standards for their energy efficiency.

Until now.

The Los Angeles Times reports that the California Energy Commission has prevailed in a lengthy lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Energy enabling the commission to set efficiency standards for washing machines. The new standard could go into effect in 2013.

According to the L.A. Times, the average washing machine uses 39.2 gallons of water per wash. The proposed standard would reduce that average to 21.1 gallons per wash.

The California Energy Commission estimates that 12 to 15 years after the new standard takes effect, the state could save 66.7 billion gallons of water. That's enough water to supply a city the size of San Diego every year, the L.A. Times says.

Energy savings would follow, too. California would need 50 million fewer therms of natural gas and 500 fewer gigawatt-hours of electricity to heat and move water around in the new clothes washers.

The Electric Car Should Be Permanently Parked

Here's a Reuters blogger's view of the electric car and whether it really presages the end of gasoline as a fuel.

No it doesn't, he says. And it's all because of the electric car's battery. It's nowhere near being able to deliver the same amount of power per volume as gasoline or diesel. Plus, it takes too long to get charged.

And then there's the issue of all the rare earth metals in the battery. China produces 93% of all the rare earths in the world, and over 99% of the rare earths dysprosium and terbium. The country recently announced it would tighten its control over exports of these elements.

While the world may not run out of rare earths, Reuters says, it will have to pay more for them. Another strike against the electric car.

I agree with the Reuters post to some extent. I don't think the electric car will displace the gasoline car. For a while we'll have different technologies powering our motors, until one of them proves to be the most efficient and least polluting. Then the market will converge on that technology, as it did on the gasoline-powered engine.

(Photo: An electric police wagon in Switzerland.)

Fossil-Fuel Subsidies Will Be Phased Out, Say G-20 Leaders

Leaders of the G-20 nations, who met in Pittsburgh last week, pledged on Friday to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels in the "medium term."

It's a small step, outlined in vague language, but it indicates a desire to cut dependence on fossil fuels over time.

The G-20 agreement protects aid from rich nations that help developing countries pay for conventional energy, subsidize renewable energy and combat the effects of climate change.

Environmentalists welcomed the pledge. They look forward to more concrete language on financial aid in the next round of G-20 climate talks in Copenhagen in November, when a climate-change treaty will be negotiated.

Oil and natural gas industry executives in the U.S. said reducing subsidies would raise costs on consumers.

Decisions by the G-20 countries carry much weight, as the council represents economies that account for 85% of the world's GDP and 66% of its population. G-20 nations are:

• Argentina
• Australia
• Brazil
• Canada
• China
• France
• Germany
• India
• Indonesia
• Italy
• Japan
• Mexico
• Russia
• Saudi Arabia
• South Africa
• South Korea
• Turkey
• United Kingdom
• United States
• European Union, represented by the rotating Council presidency and the European Central Bank.

The G-20 will replace the G-8 as the world's leading economic council.

New DOT and EPA Program Criticized by Environmental Groups

Remember that proposed fuel economy program from the DOT and the EPA? Remember how it promised to curb greenhouse gas emissions and put a dent in our foreign-oil purchases?

Well, according to Time magazine, some environmentalists aren't too happy about loopholes in the program that weren't publicized in the press release.

Loopholes like:

• Electric car makers will get credits that apply to their overall pollution targets. But the electricity that powers the car comes from power plants that emit carbon dioxide, and this CO₂ is not factored into greenhouse gas calculations for such vehicles.
  
  
• The flex-fuel credit still stands, allowing carmakers to build gas guzzlers provided the guzzlers can run on E85 (a mixture of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline). This credit reduces the corporate average fuel economy target for manufacturers of these cars by 1.2 mpg.
  
  What makes this credit pointless, says Time magazine, is that only 1% of the gas stations in the country sell E85, and that number isn't expected to go up soon.
  
  
• Carmakers will get carbon credits for selling their most fuel-efficient vehicles in California and other states that had adopted separate standards before the program was proposed. If a manufacturer had already been prepared to sell in California even without the credit, it now stands to earn a credit just for doing so.
  
  There's something inherently wrong with that. Not because the carmakers will benefit from fortunate timing, but because California's standard should be the nation's standard. Meeting it shouldn't earn anyone an extra gold star.
  
  
• Manufacturers that sell less than 400,000 vehicles a year will have to live up to a lower EPA standard.

More loopholes -- and benefits -- will surely emerge as the plan gets closer to implementation.

New Fuel Economy Program for Vehicles Proposed by DOT and EPA

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on Sept. 15 jointly proposed a national program for improving automotive fuel economy and reducing greenhouse gases.

The program covers model years 2012 through 2016. It allows carmakers to build a single, light-duty national fleet that would satisfy all federal requirements and the standards of California and other states.

And it replaces rules set under 3 standards (DOT, EPA, and a state standard) by a single set of clearer rules -- something that automakers will probably welcome.

Some specifics:

Fuel economy of a corporate light-duty vehicle fleet would increase by about 5% every year, to 35.5 mpg in model year 2016. The current law requires an average fuel economy of 35 mpg in 2020.

Greenhouse gas emissions: The proposed rules introduce the nation’s first national greenhouse gas standards. They cover vehicles that produce almost 60% of all transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions.

Model year 2016 vehicles would have to emit no more than 250 grams of carbon dioxide per mile. CO₂ emissions would be cut by about 21% in 2030 over the level that would occur had there been no new greenhouse gas or fuel economy standards.

The program is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 950 million metric tons, equivalent to the emissions of 42 million cars.

Lower costs for consumers: According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the EPA, if you buy, not lease, a new 2016 car, you would save more than $3,000 in fuel costs over the lifetime of the car. In the first 3 years, you would save enough to offset the increase in the price of the car.

Fewer oil imports: The program is projected to conserve 1.8 billion barrels of oil -- or twice the amount of oil imported in 2008 from Persian Gulf countries.

How will the car industry meet these standards? By improving engine efficiency, transmissions and tires, and air conditioning systems, and by increasing the use of start-stop technology. Hybrid vehicles and clean diesel engines would also probably get a boost in sales.

Chevrolet Volt to Get 230 Miles Per Gallon in City Driving, GM Says

In a news release dated today, General Motors said it expects the Chevrolet Volt will achieve 230 miles per gallon in city driving.

The Volt is powered by a 16 kWh lithium-ion battery pack and a small gasoline engine that takes over when the battery charge drops to a certain minimum. The engine generates electricity and also muscles the car -- with assistance from the battery -- through lead-foot acceleration or steep inclines.

GM expects the Volt to consume just 25 kWh per 100 miles in city driving. (That is the new EPA standard to measure the fuel efficiency of plug-in electric vehicles, by the way: the number of kWh used per 100 miles. We may as well get used to it.)

As a gauge of fuel efficiency, the 230-mpg number is largely conceptual, because:

1. 80% of drivers commute less than 40 miles per day, according to U.S. Department of Transportation data cited by GM;
   
   
2. In development tests of prototypes, the Volt ran 40 miles on electricity alone, without gasoline, in EPA city and highway test cycles; and
   
   
3. GM CEO Fritz Henderson says many Volt drivers will be able to get through their day without using the gasoline engine at all.

So what the 230-mpg figure really tells us is: You know how you can find your way to your neighborhood gas station with your eyes shut? In a few years, you'll be visiting it so seldom you'll need directions.

U.S. Energy Use Dropped Over 2% in 2008; 57.5% of Energy "Rejected"

Americans used 99.2 quadrillion BTUs (known as “quads”) of energy in 2008, according to a report from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. In 2007, we used 101.5 quads, which means our 2008 use fell by about 2.3%.

(A BTU or British Thermal Unit is a unit of measurement of energy, and is the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one Fahrenheit degree. Click here for a longer definition.)

We consumed more energy derived from natural gas and renewable sources in 2008 than in 2007, while use of energy from coal and petroleum fell. Energy used for industrial and transportation purposes fell, which the Laboratory attributes to the rise in oil prices in 2008. Both these sectors depend heavily on petroleum.

Did that "rejected energy" mentioned in the headline pique your curiosity? A.J. Simon, an energy systems analyst at the Laboratory, explains the concept below. Simon creates the annual flowchart that shows the amount of energy generated by various sources and its distribution to different sectors.

Energy services, he says, refers to "the energy that makes your car move and that comes out of your light bulb.” That's "good" energy.

The remainder is rejected energy. “For example, some rejected energy shows up as waste heat from power plants,” Simon says.

The ratio of energy services to total energy is the country's energy efficiency. Ours stands at 42.48%. Put another way, we reject more than 57.5% of the energy we use.

Another reason to improve our collective energy efficiency.

Update on 7/30/2009:
Anne Stark, Public Information Officer at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, provided a flowchart summarizing the 2007 estimated energy use in the U.S. It shows that last year, we rejected 58.47 quads or 57.6% of the energy used.

Which tells us that the nation's energy-efficiency improvement from 2007 to 2008 was less than 0.1 percentage point.

It's small, but we'll take what we can get.

Raise Gasoline Taxes, Says U.S. Chamber of Commerce

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will try to get lawmakers in Washington D.C. to raise the federal gasoline tax from 18.4 cents per gallon to about 28.4 cents per gallon.

The Chamber says the revenue from the gasoline tax increase would help pay for repairs to our nation's infrastructure. Pending legislation in the House of Representatives calls for spending $500 billion on transportation projects over the next 6 years. Congress isn't sure where to get the money from.

Why is the Chamber pushing a gasoline tax increase in the middle of a recession? Because repairing roads, bridges and rail systems brings jobs and increases mobility. According to the Alliance for American Manufacturing, 18,000 jobs are created for every $1 billion in new infrastructure spending.

While a federal gasoline tax increase will create infrastructure jobs, it will also have other effects on our finances and the environment.

Operating costs for businesses and households will rise. Those of us who miss the fuel surcharges that airlines and package delivery companies imposed in 2008 will welcome their return.

But higher gasoline prices in 2008 had a net beneficial effect on the environment. We bought more fuel-efficient cars. We drove fewer miles and took public transportation more often, resulting in a lower greenhouse gas emissions. The number of vehicle crashes declined. We learned the pleasures of living in downtown areas close to our workplaces. And our collective actions brought down the price of oil.

So if the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's push succeeds, it may bring benefits on several fronts.

EPA Lists 44 Sites With High Coal Ash Hazard

The EPA calls it Coal Combustion Residues (CCR), but laypeople call it coal ash - the residue from coal-fired power plants that is kept in slurry form in containment ponds. CCRs consist of more than just ash, however, and include coal slag and flue gas desulfurization (FGD) residue. They also contain low concentrations of metals like arsenic, selenium, cadmium, lead and mercury.

The EPA recently released a list of 427 coal ash containment sites throughout the country. Of these, it rated 44 as having a "high hazard potential."

According to the EPA, "A high hazard potential rating indicates that a failure will probably cause loss of human life."

The 44 sites are in 26 facilities in 10 states, mostly in the Midwest, South and West. The EPA has conducted on-site assessments at 11 of these facilities, and the rest have had state inspections within the past 12 months. All these assessments and inspections will be reviewed by the EPA, which will issue a public report on the results.

Aerogels Super-Efficient at Absorbing Oil

Every year, Americans pour 200 million gallons of used oil down sewers, streams and backyards, according to a story in Science Daily. This results in wastewater contaminated with oil that is hard to remove.

The same story reports that scientists in Arizona and New Jersey have found that minuscule beads of hydrophobic silica aerogel make excellent oil sponges. Aerogels are a porous, super-lightweight solid sometimes called "frozen smoke." They are 99.8% air.

In an experiment, a column of aerogel beads placed in flowing water that contained soybean oil absorbed seven times its weight. It extracted the oil from the water at a "high efficiency."

Expected uses for the aerogel beads: to pluck out oil from wastewater and clean up oil spills in the environment.

(Photo of aerogel in hand, courtesy NASA.)

Batteries are Big

I've written about batteries and energy storage a few times on this blog. Batteries are key to ensuring the future of renewable energy. Without reliable high-capacity batteries, wind and solar energy will always be adjuncts to electricity derived from fossil fuels.

It seems Warren Buffet believes in the importance of batteries, too. At his urging, MidAmerican Energy Holdings, a utility holding company that Berkshire Hathaway owns 80% of, recently invested in BYD. BYD is a Chinese company that makes batteries and electric cars.

Not just any batteries. Batteries that can store 2 MW. And if they test well, they could lead to systems that can store 100 to 200 MW.

That's utility scale, and a game-changer.

Oil Prices Gush Higher in 2009

Don't know if you've noticed, but the price of oil has been on a tear lately:

(Source of chart data: Energy Information Administration.)

Here's a chart from the Energy Information Administration with a longer time frame. It shows the price of West Texas Intermediate since 1986.

That 2009 uptick looks mighty steep, no?

It doesn't look too good for the future. China's manufacturing output is rising. The dollar is weakening. And last year's favorite culprits, the speculators, have nothing to stop them from repeating their performance.

Think we'll be seeing hundred-dollar oil soon?

World Energy Consumption to Increase 44% From 2006 to 2030, Says EIA

World energy use will rise about 44% from 472 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) in 2006 to 678 quadrillion Btu in 2030, according to the International Energy Outlook 2009 report issued yesterday by the Energy Information Administration (EIA).

These growth estimates assume current laws and policies will remain unchanged until 2030.

To put that in the context of population growth: the United Nations World Population Prospects 2008 Revision, posted March 11, 2009, estimates world population will reach 8.163 billion by 2028 (pdf). Given a 2008 figure of 6.709 billion people worldwide, that works out to a 22% increase over 20 years.

Yes, I know the energy and population statistics come from different sources and cover different periods, so they're not strictly comparable. But they still help show the general trend. Which is that we're going to consume energy at roughly twice the rate at which we'll grow in numbers.

The surge in energy usage will be much faster in non-OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries -- 73%, vs. just 15% in the OECD countries. Click here for a list of the 30 countries in the OECD.

The report contains some good news about renewable energy prospects, though not much.

It states that renewable energy will be the fastest-growing source of world electricity generation, advancing by an average of 2.9% per year from 2006 to 2030. But the renewable share of world electricity generation will rise by only 2 percentage points over the same period, from 19% to 21%.

For the foreseeable future, like it or not, the world will be relying heavily on fossil fuels.

Green Energy Does Not Bode Well for All Sectors of the Economy

From the Dallas Morning News, a story about how Texas will fare as green energy sources assume more prominence in our nation's grid.

The short answer: Not well.

Texas's dominance in wind power notwithstanding, the state relies heavily on fossil-fuel jobs. According to the story (emphasis mine):

In 2008, the oil and gas industry contributed 16.5 percent of Texas' gross state product and employed 367,967 people, or 3.52 percent of the state's nonfarm jobs, according to the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. The renewable industry, according to data from 2007, employed about 18,427 people.

OK, so the jobs relationship isn't quite valid, because it compares 2008 numbers to 2007. And renewable-energy employment grew like crazy in 2008, especially in wind energy, where jobs rose 70%.

So let's be generous and say Texas renewable-energy jobs grew 100% in 2008. That would put the employment number at 36,854 instead of 18,427. That's still just 10% of oil and gas jobs.

It's going to be a long time before all those fossil-fuel jobs get replaced by ones in renewable energy. If they ever do.

Also, let's not forget cap-and-trade, which would force sources of greenhouse gases to buy carbon credits. Texas ranks number 1 for greenhouse gas emissions.

The outlook isn't too rosy right now. But new technologies and policies usually hurt some while helping others. It's the price of progress. In the long term, on a macro scale, everyone mostly benefits.

Why Oil Prices Affect Renewable-Energy Stock Prices: Semantics

Renewable energy is used to generate electricity, while oil ends up as fuel. Only 1.7% of America's electricity comes from petroleum-fired power plants.

So one would think the price of oil would have no effect on the stock prices of renewable-energy companies.

But as this blog post in the New York Times points out:

...when oil prices go up, , nine times out of 10, clean-energy shares rise too, according to data from Bloomberg. It’s a long-standing correlation that has been something of a curiosity to analysts...

The post goes on to suggest a number of plausible reasons why this disconnect might occur. But here's one they missed:

It's all in the language.

We use "energy" as an umbrella term that covers oil and electricity. Investors think if one form of energy is becoming more expensive, then prospects for alternative sources must improve.

Which leads them to bid solar and wind company shares up.

Electronic Gadgets Proliferate, Threatening Energy Savings

If you have a utility bill from, say, 20 years ago, pull it out and look at your kWh usage. Then compare it to today's.

(Who has a utility bill from 20 years ago, you say? Ah, you underestimate our nation's pack rats.)

If your household is like most, your per capita electrical consumption has ballooned over the past 2 decades.

That pattern will continue, says a new report from the International Energy Agency. The reason: unabated growth in the number of cell phones, computers, PDAs, TVs and other electronic devices the average household buys.

By 2030, the IEA says, energy use by households for such devices could triple.

Which means no matter how much renewable energy we pump out, it will keep struggling to meet demand. To generate 3 times the current amount of electricity, we'll have to rely on fossil fuels.

But all is not lost, the IEA says. We can hold energy consumption at today's levels if we just get smarter about efficiency.

To do this, the IEA recommends that:

• Governments consider these new devices when drawing up energy-efficiency legislation
• Consumers make smarter choices about the appliances they buy.

Solar and wind need fossil-fuel backup, say noted authors

Wind and solar power are available only part of the time, and hence need 100% backup by other forms of generation to ensure against blackouts. So say James Schlesinger and Robert L. Hirsch in a recent article in the Washington Post.

In today's world, the authors write, a 100% backup can only come from fossil fuels. Then they reason that this means consumers will have to pay a premium for wind and solar -- once for the renewable energy, and a second time for the conventional power plant that must be kept on standby at all times.

The article makes other points, but that's the crux of its argument.

While their case sounds convincing, it ignores the larger picture.

Our capabilities in wind and solar power generation, and electricity storage (pdf), are still evolving. At present, renewable energy is an adjunct to conventionally-derived power.

But it is nibbling into the demand for fossil fuels. In the long term, those nibbles will grow into bites. When those bites cause the need for oil and natural gas to drop by double digits, fossil fuel prices will plummet.

If we abandon renewable energy now, we will always be dependent on hydrocarbon fuels.

World oil production, according to several estimates, will peak between 2010 and 2020. Say we stop investing in wind, solar, biofuels, geothermal, and other renewable energy sources. What happens in 2030? 2050?

OK, that may sound overly pessimistic. Predictions of doom have a way of not panning out.

But here's the key: they don't pan out because because we are blessed with people who see beyond the horizon and take action. They're the ones who prevent doomsdays.

Doomsdays like running out of oil and sitting in the dark.

The authors of the Washington Post article conclude by saying, "Some serious realism in energy planning is needed, preferably from analysts who are not backing one horse or another."

Done.