North America: The New Energy Kingdom

Some good information links on the energy debate

The push to have expensive renewable or green energy like wind and solar.   Too much good old fashioned oil and gas around

 

> Subject: North America: The New Energy Kingdom
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  <http://www.thegwpf.org> newsletter-head-2010
>
>
>
>
> CCNet – 8 December 2010
>
> The Climate Policy Network
>
>
>
> North America: The New Energy Kingdom
>
>
>
> Within a decade or so, North America will almost certainly emerge as the
> world's biggest supplier – and exporter – of reasonably cheap energy.-- Neil
> Reynolds, The Globe and Mail, 8 December 2010
>
>
>
> The UK comes a step closer to using a brand new energy source after
> "substantial" flows of shale gas are found just a few miles inland from
> Blackpool Pleasure Beach. Cuadrilla had previously said the amount of shale
> gas in the Bowland site could meet as much as 5 to 10 per cent of Britain's
> energy resources. Now, after the first samples have been analysed, the
> suspicion is that the Lancashire fields could hold a lot more. --Siobhan
> Kennedy, Channel 4 News, 7 December 2010
>
>
>
> Powerful green (and Luddite) lobbies believe that a source of clean and
> abundant energy would be an unmitigated disaster to their cause (and their
> livelihood). That is one reason that the Obama administration is trying so
> hard to bankrupt coal before clean technologies can gain a foodhold, and to
> prohibit shale gas and oil sands through backdoor faux environmental
> regulations. Abundant, clean energy would be a boon to the private sector of
> the economy and to economic growth. Greens and Luddites hate nothing more
> than a prosperous, growing private sector.—Al Fin, 3 December 2010
>
>
>
> Billions in federal subsidies for manufacturers of solar panels and wind-
> and solar-power facilities will end Jan. 1, 2011, unless lawmakers who
> negotiated a deal to extend tax cuts back down from their positions. The
> clean-energy incentives were created by 2009 economic stimulus legislation.
> Republicans are taking a firm stand that they aren't part of a deal reached
> with the White House, and shouldn't be a part of broader legislation to
> extend tax cuts for individuals and businesses, according to GOP aides. --
> Martin Vaughan, The Wall Street Journal, 7 December 2010
>
>
>
> The U.S. is seeing a major benefit from its natural-gas glut as winter
> approaches, paying half as much for the heating fuel than much of Europe is.
> --Matt Day, Dow Jones, 7 December 2010
>
>
>
> 1) North America: The New Energy Kingdom -
> <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/neil-reynolds/north-america-the-new-energy-kingdom/article1828896/>
> The Globe and Mail, 8 December 2010
>
> 2) Shale Gas Revolution Hits Britain -
> <http://www.channel4.com/news/shale-gas-striking-gold-in-blackpool> Channel
> 4 News, 7 December 2010
>
> 3) Argentina announces huge shale gas find -
> <http://www.theage.com.au/business/world-business/argentina-announces-huge-shale-gas-find-20101208-18one.html>
> Associated Press, 8 December 2010
>
> 4) Shale Gas Revolution Threatening Nuclear 'Renaissance' -
> <http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/nuclear-renaissance-is-short-on-largess/>
> The New York Times, 7 December 2010
>
> 5) U.S. Consumers Enjoy Economic Benefits of the Shale Gas Revolution -
> <http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20101207-709280.html> The Wall Street
> Journal, 7 December 2010
>
> 6) U.S. Republicans Go After Green Opponents By Cutting Off Their Funding -
> <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703296604576005813229168204.html?mod=googlenews_wsj>
> The Wall Street Journal, 7 December 2010
>
> 7) Al Fin: Why Do Greens Hate and Fear Abundant Energy? -
> <http://alfin2300.blogspot.com/2010/12/why-do-greens-hate-and-fear-abundant.html>
> Al Fin Energy Blog, 3 December 2010
>
> 8) Nicolas Loris: Reject All Energy Mandates: It's Just Another Subsidy -
> <http://blog.heritage.org/?p=47861> The Heritage Foundation, 7 December 2010
>
> 9) Deloitte's Oil & Gas Reality Check: Fossil Fuels will remain world's
> primary energy supply for next 25 years -
> <http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_GX/global/press/global-press-releases-en/77ab6ee311b5c210VgnVCM2000001b56f00aRCRD.htm>
> Deloitte, 6 December 2010
>
> 10) And Finally: The Economist's Eco-Astrologer -
> <http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/more-whether-weather-climate> The
> Rational Optimist, 6 December 2010
>
>
>
>
>
> 1) North America: The New Energy Kingdom
>
> <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/neil-reynolds/north-america-the-new-energy-kingdom/article1828896/>
> The Globe and Mail, 8 December 2010
>
> Neil Reynolds
>
> The American Petroleum Institute reports that the United States produced
> more crude oil in October than it has ever produced in a single month, "peak
> oil" or not.
>
> This reversal of trend helps explain why U.S. domestic production for the
> year will be 140,000 barrels a day higher than last year (which was 410,000
> barrels a day higher than 2008). Although the U.S. Energy Information
> Administration (EIA) says U.S. production will decline next year, who knows?
>
> Could these numbers reflect the beginning of the end for U.S. dependence on
> Mideast oil? Well, in fact, they could be. As Forbes magazine publisher
> Steve Forbes optimistically asserted the other day, the whole world is
> "awash in energy."
>
> Mr. Forbes isn't the only one to notice. As an article last month in The New
> York Times observed: "Just as it seemed that the world was running on fumes,
> giant oil fields were discovered off the coasts of Brazil and Africa, and
> Canadian oil sands projects expanded so fast, they now provide North America
> with more oil than Saudi Arabia. In addition, the United States has
> increased domestic oil production for the first time in a generation."
> Further still: "Another wave of natural gas drilling has taken off in shale
> rock fields across the United States, and more shale gas drilling is just
> beginning in Europe and Asia."
>
> Mr. Forbes was explaining why CNOOC, China's principal state-owned oil
> company, was paying Chesapeake Energy $1.08-billion (U.S.) in cash for a
> one-third interest in the company's next shale gas play in Texas – and
> paying 75 per cent of the cost of developing it.
>
> Yes, China was investing in drilling technology: China itself has abundant
> shale gas reserves. But China had another objective. "Within a decade," Mr.
> Forbes said, "the U.S. will be a major natural gas exporter." And China will
> be a major importer.
>
> The two countries signed an accord (the U.S.-China Shale Gas Resource
> Initiative) last year to reflect this coming U.S. energy reversal. "The
> United States," the accord notes, "is a world leader in shale gas
> technology." The accord commits the U.S. to deliver this technology to China
> – and, by implication, requires China to open further its oil and gas
> industry to Western companies.
>
> With rising production from shale fields, the U.S. surpassed Russia last
> year to become the world's largest supplier of natural gas. Shale now
> accounts for 10 per cent of the country's natural gas production – up from 2
> per cent in 1990. Chesapeake's production from its next Texas project,
> expected by the end of 2012, will by itself supply the energy equivalent of
> 500,000 barrels of oil a day.
>
> For new oil, the U.S. has the huge Green River play that overlaps Colorado
> and Utah, one of the largest shale oil fields in the world. The EIA reports
> that the country's proven reserves of crude rose last year by 9 per cent to
> 22.3 billion barrels.
>
> For natural gas, the U.S. has the four largest fields in the world: the
> Haynesville field in Louisiana (with production up by 77 per cent in 2009);
> the Fayetteville field in Arkansas and the Marcellus field in Pennsylvania
> (both with production up by 50 per cent); and the Barnett field in Texas and
> Oklahoma (with production up by double-digit increases). The EIA reports
> that proven U.S. reserves of natural gas increased last year by 11 per cent
> to 284 trillion cubic feet – the highest level since 1971.
>
> Beyond shale oil and shale gas, there's the awesome energy promise of
> methane hydrates, frozen crystals of water and gas that lie beneath the
> northern permafrost and beneath oceans floors around the world in quantities
> that boggle the imagination.
>
> "Assuming 1 per cent recovery," the U.S. Geological Survey says, "these
> deposits [in U.S. territory] could meet the natural gas needs of the country
> (at current rates of consumption) for 100 years."
>
> The UN Environment Program describes methane hydrates as "the most abundant
> form of organic carbon on Earth." The agency says field testing, in which
> Canada has been a leader, will be finished by 2015; and that commercial
> exploitation will be under way by 2020 or 2025. Within a decade or so, North
> America will almost certainly emerge as the world's biggest supplier – and
> exporter – of reasonably cheap energy.
>
>
>
> 2) Shale Gas Revolution Hits Britain
>
>  <http://www.channel4.com/news/shale-gas-striking-gold-in-blackpool> Channel
> 4 News, 7 December 2010
>
> Siobhan Kennedy
>
> The UK comes a step closer to using a brand new energy source after
> "substantial" flows of shale gas are found just a few miles inland from
> Blackpool Pleasure Beach, writes Siobhan Kennedy.
>
> Shale gas is a form of natural gas that is trapped in tiny cracks of rocks
> buried thousands of feet beneath the surface of the earth.
>
> A small company called Cuadrilla Resources back in July became the first in
> Europe to start drilling for the gas, which has already revolutionised the
> energy market in America. Channel 4 News was given exclusive access at the
> time, and reported on this potential new energy source for Britain.
>
> Now, after drilling down more than 4,000 feet into a rock formation known as
> the Bowland shale, the company has struck gold (well, gas).
>
> "We now know it's all there," Chris Cornelius, co-founder of Cuadrilla
> Resources told Channel 4 News. "It validates the science, the next question
> is can we produce any of it?"
>
> One of Cuadrilla's investors, Lucas Group, said in a statement: "Initial
> indications are that Press Hall #1 (the exploration site) confirms and
> possibly exceeds the original expectations of management as to the
> prospectivity of the Bowland shale."
>
> 'Hydraulic fracturing'
>
> The process Cuadrilla is using to access the gas is known as "hydraulic
> fracturing", which means the rocks are gently agitated back and forth, and
> then water is pumped down, which releases the gas trapped inside the cracks.
> The gas then travels up a pipe to the surface and is captured and stored.
>
> The big question now is whether or not the fracturing process will release
> the gas held within these Lancashire rocks. Mr Cornelius said it was one
> thing to find the gas but another to be able to release it, although he said
> he was hopeful that they could because the rock was brittle and therefore
> easier to agitate.
>
> "There's lots of places around the world where you can find gas, but the
> question is can you get it out?"
>
> The technology being used by Cuadrilla and his team has already changed the
> dynamics of America's gas market, taking the country from growing reliance
> on imports to a position of near self-sufficiency.
>
> Mr Cornelius said Cuadrilla would begin the extraction process in early
> January and would hope to have its first flare - gas burning at the surface
> - by early February.
>
> If successful, the find would be extremely significant given Britain's
> dwindling energy resources and our increasing reliance on imported gas.
> Cuadrilla had previously said the amount of shale gas in the Bowland site
> could meet as much as 5 to 10 per cent of Britain's energy resources.
>
> Now, after the first samples have been analysed, the suspicion is that the
> Lancashire fields could hold a lot more.
>
>  <http://www.channel4.com/news/shale-gas-striking-gold-in-blackpool> Full
> story
>
>
>
> 3) Argentina announces huge shale gas find
>
> <http://www.theage.com.au/business/world-business/argentina-announces-huge-shale-gas-find-20101208-18one.html>
> Associated Press, 8 December 2010
>
> Argentina has reportedly found a huge natural gas supply in Patagonia,
> enough to potentially free the economy from the limits of imported gas for
> years to come.
>
> Argentina's President Cristina Fernandez is preparing a news conference to
> formally announce the shale gas find by the Spanish-Argentine energy company
> Repsol-YPF.
>
> Mining ministry undersecretary Hector Mendiberry tells Radio Mitre that
> studies suggest the deposits hold up to 257 trillion cubic feet of shale
> gas.
>
> The deposits still aren't proven and will be more expensive to extract than
> conventional natural gas.
>
> But state news agency Telam says there could be enough gas there to supply
> Argentina for 50 years.
>
>
>
> 4) Shale Gas Revolution Threatening Nuclear 'Renaissance'
>
> <http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/nuclear-renaissance-is-short-on-largess/>
> The New York Times, 7 December 2010
>
> MATTHEW L. WALD
>
> The federal aid now in place for new nuclear plants is far from sufficient
> for the so-called "nuclear renaissance" that backers are seeking, a panel
> made up of members of Congress, high-ranking federal officials and leaders
> of major nuclear companies agreed on Tuesday.
>
> Ground has been broken on only two new nuclear plants with a total of four
> reactors, and some companies have withdrawn their applications for licenses
> to build. "We can't make the numbers work,'' said Chip Pardee, chief nuclear
> officer of Exelon, the nation's largest operator of civilian nuclear
> reactors, who sat on a panel of 25 at a conference organized by the Idaho
> National Laboratory of the Energy Department and a private group called the
> Third Way.
>
> Another member, Steven Chu, energy secretary, said that while new reactors
> were likely to be important industrial assets for 60 or 70 years, the market
> was focused on the short term. Low prices for natural gas, a competing fuel,
> and the collapse of efforts to impose a price on carbon dioxide emissions
> make the economic climate for new reactors quite unfavorable at the moment,
> he added.
>
> The administration is seeking the expansion of a loan guarantee program but
> has so far been unable to commit all of the loan guarantee money already
> approved by Congress. "In addition to loan guarantees, you need an
> environment that's right, that makes it look like a good investment,'' Dr.
> Chu said.
>
> But many of those factors, including the price of natural gas, are obviously
> beyond federal control, raising substantial doubts about how much the
> government could do to encourage new nuclear construction. Carol Browner,
> the president's adviser on energy and climate, quoted President Obama as
> saying that while nuclear power was highly important to the nation's energy
> supply, even some factors that the government does control through
> legislation may not go the way the nuclear industry wants.
>
> "A price on carbon would be hugely beneficial to this industry,'' she said.
> But Congress has failed to approve a cap on carbon, she said, and "that may
> not be possible in the near term.''
>
> The Environmental Protection Agency is developing a rule to limit carbon
> dioxide emissions but could be blocked by the new Congress. "If it isn't
> possible, what are the alternatives?'' she said.
>
> In recent years, the utilities have shown an interest in about 30 new
> reactors, but the number with any serious prospect of being built is now
> down to about a dozen. Of the 104 plants now operating, ground was broken on
> all of them in 1974 or earlier.
>
> Not everyone on the panel was convinced that the demise of the nuclear
> renaissance was bad. Peter Bradford, a former member of the Nuclear
> Regulatory Commission and a former chairman of the public service
> commissions of both New York and Maine, said the technology was probably
> just too expensive. One challenge for the industry is to build reactors on
> budget and on schedule.
>
> "On budget isn't going to do it if on budget means it's going to sell
> 12-cent-a-kilowatt-hour power in a 5- cent-a-kilowatt-hour market," he
> reflected.
>
> <http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/nuclear-renaissance-is-short-on-largess/>
> Full story
>
>
>
> 5) U.S. Consumers Enjoy Economic Benefits of the Shale Gas Revolution
>
>  <http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20101207-709280.html> The Wall Street
> Journal, 7 December 2010
>
> Matt Day, Dow Jones
>
> The U.S. is seeing a major benefit from its natural-gas glut as winter
> approaches, paying half as much for the heating fuel than much of Europe is.
>
> Gas prices have surged this fall in Northern Europe, but have barely budged
> in the U.S., even though both regions have seen temperatures plunge. Natural
> gas now costs more than twice as much at the National Balancing Point in the
> U.K., a European benchmark, than at the Henry Hub in Louisiana. The U.S. gas
> benchmark for January delivery costs $4.488 a million British thermal units
> on the New York Mercantile Exchange. A year ago, the two cost roughly the
> same.
>
> The yawning gap has a simple explanation--the U.S. is in the middle of a gas
> glut driven by booming production from newly developed shale rock
> formations. European Union countries import almost two-thirds of their gas,
> and inventories can cover fewer days of demand than in North America. And
> because there is no way to export the extra supplies, U.S. prices will
> likely stay artificially low compared with what would be the case if the
> country were integrated into the global market.
>
> The disconnect is good news for U.S. consumers, where cheap gas helps
> manufacturers in gas-heavy industries like steelmaking and lowers the cost
> of heating and cooling homes and businesses. Producers are having a tougher
> time, relying on oil production or raising sale volume to keep up profits.
>
> If the U.S. were swimming in oil instead, producers could easily hire
> tankers to ship the extra crude to where it was needed. Gas is more
> difficult and expensive to transport long distances, leaving the U.S.
> isolated, even with record inventories and strong demand overseas.
>
> The U.S. link to foreign gas supplies comes from terminals, mostly in New
> England and the Gulf Coast, that import--but cannot export--chilled
> liquefied natural gas. But shale gas has left those ties to the global
> market hanging by a thread, with facilities expected to operate below the
> 11% of capacity used in 2009, said Damien Gaul, an economist with the
> federal Energy Information Administration.
>
> "The U.S. has been referred to as the [LNG] market of last resort," Gaul
> said. "The world market is offering higher prices elsewhere."
>
> LNG shippers this year have even resorted to re-exporting cargoes that were
> originally meant for import. Shippers dock the vessels at North American
> terminals to meet the terms of long-term supply contracts before turning the
> ships around to Asia, South America and Europe. But the amount of
> re-exported LNG isn't large enough to correct the supply imbalance in the
> U.S. or Europe, analysts say.
>
> Trans-Atlantic prices would have to shift significantly before the U.S.
> becomes a consistently profitable target for LNG shippers, said James
> Crandell, an analyst with Barclays Capital.
>
> "You'd need to see U.S. prices come within $1 of [the U.K.'s National
> Balancing Point] before you start to see some of the cargoes" reach the
> U.S., Crandell said.
>
> Some analysts see European prices remaining high, as competition for LNG
> shipments increases amid rising demand from emerging economies. Meanwhile,
> the U.S. market will likely continue to sag under the weight of the
> shale-gas revolution, disconnected from global markets until LNG export
> facilities are built.
>
> Analysts with Goldman Sachs last week said U.S. gas prices will average
> $4/MMBtu in 2011, while prices in the U.K. are seen averaging $7/MMBtu.
>
>  <http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20101207-709280.html> Full story
>
>
>
> 6) U.S. Republicans Go After Green Opponents By Cutting Off Their Funding
>
> <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703296604576005813229168204.html?mod=googlenews_wsj>
> The Wall Street Journal, 7 December 2010
>
> Martin Vaughan
>
> Billions in federal subsidies for manufacturers of solar panels and wind-
> and solar-power facilities will end Jan. 1, 2011, unless lawmakers who
> negotiated a deal to extend tax cuts back down from their positions.
>
> The clean-energy incentives were created by 2009 economic stimulus
> legislation. Republicans are taking a firm stand that they aren't part of a
> deal reached with the White House, and shouldn't be a part of broader
> legislation to extend tax cuts for individuals and businesses, according to
> GOP aides.
>
> Democrats have sought to extend the programs, most recently in legislation
> from Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.) that failed in the Senate last week.
>
> Republican leaders Tuesday said the deal they reached with the White House
> is final, and only some specifics of the provisions that were part of the
> deal need to be ironed out.
>
> Congressional staff of both parties began that process Tuesday, meeting
> behind closed doors for several hours with White House officials to began
> putting legislation together.
>
> Ultimately some decisions about what to include will be subject to
> negotiations by GOP and Democratic lawmakers. One open question is an
> extension of Build America Bonds for state and local infrastructure
> projects. Democratic staff in Tuesday's meeting pressed for those bonds to
> be extended as part of the tax package, participants said.
>
> On the energy-tax breaks, solar- and wind-power facilities for the past two
> years have been able to get federal grants equal to 30% of the cost of
> installing new facilities. Tax credits have long been available for those
> costs, but the stimulus act removed the need for new solar and wind
> operators to tap the tax credit market for financing.
>
> The American Wind Energy Association warned in a Tuesday press release that
> a refusal to extend the grant program could jeopardize 15,000 jobs in the
> sector. "We are risking those jobs by not sending a clear signal that
> America remains open for business in wind energy," said CEO Denise Bode.
>
> A one-year extension of the program sought by Mr. Baucus would have provided
> $3 billion in federal grants in 2011, according to congressional tax
> estimators.
>
> A 30% tax credit for builders of plants that manufacture solar panels or
> other clean-energy components also appears set to be phased out, according
> to Republican aides. That provision, also created as part of the stimulus
> law, could have provided $2.5 billion in tax credits under the Baucus
> proposal.
>
> <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703296604576005813229168204.html?mod=googlenews_wsj>
> The Wall Street Journal, 7 December 2010
>
>
>
> 7) Al Fin: Why Do Greens Hate and Fear Abundant Energy?
>
> <http://alfin2300.blogspot.com/2010/12/why-do-greens-hate-and-fear-abundant.html>
> Al Fin Energy Blog, 3 December 2010
>
> New Republic recently admitted that, "Utopian environmentalism...is a form
> of escapism and disengagement from reality." The extremists scoff at science
> and would apparently prefer scarcity so that bureaucratic rationing will
> enforce a change in American lifestyles.
>
> Instead of producing more of the cheap, abundant energy that fueled
> America's dynamic growth, the extremists who support and surround Obama
> dream of drastically cutting American consumption. _
> <http://reason.com/archives/2009/05/13/obama-and-the-alternative-ener>
> ReasonMag
>
> Powerful green (and Luddite) lobbies believe that a source of clean and
> abundant energy would be an unmitigated disaster to their cause (and their
> livelihood). That is one reason that the Obama administration is trying so
> hard to bankrupt coal before clean technologies can gain a foodhold, and to
> prohibit shale gas and oil sands through backdoor faux environmental
> regulations. Abundant, clean energy would be a boon to the private sector of
> the economy and to economic growth. Greens and Luddites hate nothing more
> than a prosperous, growing private sector.
>
> Geoffrey Styles confronted the energy starvationists on a recent webinar,
> where the fanatical zeal of energy starvationists and dieoff.orgiasts was on
> full display.
>
> Yesterday I participated in a webinar on The Energy Collective examining the
> sustainability aspects of the shale gas revolution. The online audience
> asked good, probing questions, and if there was a theme to them, it seemed
> to be that somehow the sudden abundance of natural gas resulting from a
> novel combination of shale-exploitation technologies--as well as the
> technologies themselves--must at a minimum be considered a mixed blessing,
> if not actually too bitter a pill to swallow, because of its perceived
> shortcomings and the potential threat it poses to other, favored energy
> technologies.
>
> The biggest uncertainties associated with shale gas don't concern the size
> of the resource or our ability to extract it safely, but whether we will
> decide to allow this to be done on a scale that would make a meaningful
> difference in our energy and emissions balances, or under such tight
> restrictions that we will forgo its game-changing potential. Like anything,
> shale gas drilling and fracking must be done responsibly, in accordance with
> state and local regulations and to industry standards that are constantly
> improving. Post-Deepwater Horizon, that's a much tougher sell, but it
> doesn't make it any less important. Shale gas isn't perfect energy, not
> because of any unique imperfections, but because there is no perfect energy
> source. It requires mature, reasonable assessments of its risks that don't
> assume that there is. _
> <http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/5978/Is-Shale-Gas-Too-Good-to-Be-True>
> GeoffreyStyles
>
> Greens and Luddites want nothing more than to starve the developed nations
> down to a much smaller size. Their motives are mixed, being based on both
> political biases and faux environmental premises. The end result -- if
> Salazar, Holdren, Obama, Boxer, etc. are allowed to succeed -- is an
> industrial collapse in the west due to "voluntary" energy starvation.
>
> The rest of the world will survive in better condition, because China,
> Russia, India, Brazil, and other nations are not so foolish as to destroy
> their own nations' industrial and commercial capacity via energy starvation.
> Unfortunately, the EU and the Anglosphere may be too invested in carbon
> hysteria and faux environmentalism to reverse course before running aground
> on its own idiocy.
>
>
>
> 8) Nicolas Loris: Reject All Energy Mandates: It's Just Another Subsidy
>
>  <http://blog.heritage.org/?p=47861> The Heritage Foundation, 7 December
> 2010
>
> With cap and trade out of the realm of possibilities, Members of Congress
> have turned their attention to mandating so-called clean energy.
>
> Some Members hoped for a lame duck vote on a renewable electricity standard
> (RES), which would require that a certain percentage of our nation's
> electricity production come from wind, solar, biomass, and other
> government-picked renewable energies. With that looking less likely,
> Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu mentioned a clean energy standard
> that includes other carbon-free sources of energy as a possible compromise
> between Democrats and Republicans next year. The Hill
> <http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/132355-doe-chief-floats-bipartisan-talks-on-clean-power-standard-that-includes-nuclear>
> reports:
>
> With climate legislation that would price carbon in a deep freeze for now,
> Chu called for talks about other policies that could help provide a market
> signal powerful enough to help spur construction of new multibillion dollar
> reactors.
>
> "I hope we can discuss policies that can do that," Chu said at a nuclear
> energy summit hosted by the think tank Third Way and the Idaho National
> Laboratory. "A clean energy portfolio standard is one example of a potential
> policy that the administration and Congress should discuss."
>
> A narrower renewable-electricity standard—which would require utilities to
> provide growing amounts of power in coming years from wind, solar and other
> renewables—has long been a pillar of Democratic energy proposals, and White
> House press secretary Robert Gibbs
> <http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/127741-gibbs-plugs-renewable-electricity-standard>
> plugged the idea as recently as last month.
>
> But some Republicans—notably Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) of late—have
> floated a wider "clean" standard that would give credit to nuclear energy,
> coal plants if they trap and store carbon, and perhaps other non-renewable
> sources. The renewables-only idea faces big hurdles despite a limited amount
> of GOP buy-in. But giving credit to nuclear power, or coal with carbon
> capture (a technology not yet commercialized), would in turn face opposition
> from green groups and some key Democrats.
>
> Chu proposed mandate for utilities to use 25 percent clean energy by 2025
> and 50 percent by 2050. While a more flexible clean energy standard is less
> onerous than a specified renewable one, it's still a subsidy that carves out
> a guaranteed share of the market for certain energy industries. The
> aforementioned signal that Chu speaks of is not a good one. It signals to
> the government-selected industries that they do not have to worry about
> lowering costs.
>
> The mandate may reward certain energy producers in the short term but will
> hurt both producers and consumers in the long run because it eliminates
> competition, drives prices higher, and encourages government
> dependence—hence the reason we continually see pushes for extensions of
> direct subsidies, capital subsidies, mandates, insurance subsidies, and
> specialized tax credits.
>
> Furthermore, a clean energy standard wouldn't significantly reduce
> emissions. The Energy Information Administration estimated that mandating
> that 25 percent of our energy come from renewables would reduce emissions by
> only 4.9 percent by 2030. To put this in perspective, the cap-and-trade
> target was to reduce carbon 80 percent by 2050. To put that number in
> perspective,
> <http://www.masterresource.org/2009/05/part-i-a-climate-analysis-of-the-waxman-markey-climate-bill%e2%80%94the-impacts-of-us-actions-alone/>
> climatologist Paul C. Knappenberger says that an 80 percent reduction would
> moderate temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more
> than two-tenths of a degree by the end of the century.
>
> Nor would it improve our energy security. Since electricity comes almost
> entirely from secure domestic sources and petroleum provides only about 1
> percent of our electricity needs, an RES would do almost nothing to decrease
> our use of foreign energy.
>
> This is not the right direction for America's energy policy, nor should it
> be an acceptable alternative to cap and trade or a narrower RES.
>
>
>
> 9) Deloitte's Oil & Gas Reality Check: Fossil Fuels will remain world's
> primary energy supply for next 25 years
>
> <http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_GX/global/press/global-press-releases-en/77ab6ee311b5c210VgnVCM2000001b56f00aRCRD.htm>
> Deloitte, 6 December 2010
>
> New York, 6 December 2010—Oil is viewed as a global, unified measure of the
> economic recovery—and while economic indicators have been bearish of late,
> oil prices are still trending upward. The
> <http://www.deloitte.com/oilandgasrealitycheck2011> 2011 Oil & Gas Reality
> Check report, issued by Deloitte's Global Energy & Resources group, analyzes
> the oil and gas trends and issues for the year ahead—the future of deepwater
> drilling, where the next alternative energy source will be found, and the
> growing influence of Asia on the industry.
>
> Key findings:
>
> Oil and gas will continue to constitute the majority of the world's energy
> supply over the next 25 years. Despite significant progress in developing
> renewable and other alternative energy sources, as well as the staggering
> US$35 billion liability that the Deepwater Horizon spill caused, deepwater
> drilling continues. However, oil and gas producers around the globe are now
> re-examining their safety policies.
>
> Recent discoveries of unconventional gas in North America will demand new
> markets.According to the report, shale gas in particular is swiftly becoming
> a game-changer for the U.S. and Canada.
>
> Oil and gas companies continue to invest in the North Sea. A record 356
> exploration licenses for the North Sea were granted in the most recent round
> of approvals, with no sign of a slowdown in interest in that area.
>
> Asia has become a hotbed of oil & gas activity. Asian national oil companies
> have adopted increasingly aggressive tactics in pursuing upstream
> acquisitions. In particular, China's domestic unconventional gas production
> is set to skyrocket. China's GDP growth, when combined with the Republic's
> determination to diversify its fuel supplies and to create a low-emissions
> environment, bodes particularly well for the future of liquefied natural gas
> markets. Russia is also increasingly focused on exporting more oil and gas
> to Asia.
>
> Access the full  <http://www.deloitte.com/oilandgasrealitycheck2011> 2011
> Oil & Gas Reality Check report on Deloitte.com
>
>
>
> 10) And Finally: The Economist's Eco-Astrologer
>
>  <http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/more-whether-weather-climate> The
> Rational Optimist, 6 December 2010
>
> Matt Ridley
>
> Here's a letter I sent to the editor of The Economist:
>
> Sir,
>
> Last winter, we were told by scientists that it was `stupid' to take the
> cold weather as evidence against global warming. Yet this winter you are
> quite happy to speculate, entirely against the consensus view, that the cold
> weather is evidence for global warming (`
> <http://www.economist.com/node/17627251?story_id=17627251> A Cold Warming',
> Dec 4th). In support of this fancy, you cite `some' evidence that summer
> heat `may' induce shifts in atmospheric circulation that `might' encourage
> seasonal patterns that would `probably' mean more cold winters in Britain.
> Spare us the astrology, please.
>
> Matt Ridley
>
> Northumberland
>
> The article contains the following paragraph:
>
> Europe's cold winters and the warmth of the planet as a whole might even be
> linked. There is some evidence that the summer heat stored in the newly
> ice-free seas north of Siberia may induce shifts in the atmosphere's
> circulation, when the heat is given up to the air in subsequent autumns and
> winters. Those shifts might in turn encourage seasonal patterns in which the
> Arctic is warm and the continents below it cold, as in early 2010. Since the
> sea-ice area looks likely to go on shrinking, such a link, if indeed it
> exists, would probably mean more cold winters in Britain and much of Europe.
>
> There is a more serious point at issue here. Without man-made global warming
> Britain experienced terrible winters like that of 1947 and 1963. If the
> Economist is right and it can still experience such winters despite (or even
> because of) global warming, then where exactly is the problem? How are we to
> distinguish the effect of climate from weather?
>
> Observe the following chart, from
> <http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/29/24055/> Willis Eschenbach, showing
> the temperature record in Armagh, Northern Ireland. The dark blue line is
> climate change (with a healthy helping urban heat island effect). The pale
> blue fuzz is weather.
>
>
>
>
> <http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/armagh_actual_temperature1.jpg?w=594&h=625>
>
>
>
>
> The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 1 Carlton House, London SW1Y 5DB
>
>
> Director: Dr Benny Peiser
>
> http://www.thegwpf.org
>
>
> Your Subscription:
>
> <http://thegwpf.org/index.php?option=com_jnewsletter&Itemid=999&act=change&subscriber=7222&cle=d7512a596f9795fc02526c0975df7c81&listid=4>
> Change your subscription
>
>
> <http://thegwpf.org/index.php?option=com_jnewsletter&Itemid=999&act=unsubscribe&subscriber=7222&cle=d7512a596f9795fc02526c0975df7c81&listid=4>
> Unsubscribe
>  <http://www.ijoobi.com>
>
>
>
>  <http://www.ijoobi.com> Powered by Joobi
>
>
> <http://thegwpf.org/index.php?option=com_jnewsletter&Itemid=999&act=log&listid=4&mailingid=274&subscriber=7222>
>
>   _____
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3303 - Release Date: 12/07/10
>
>


--
Hollecrest & Associates
Inc<http://www.ic.gc.ca/ccc/search/cp?l=eng&e=123456239975>
-"Turnaround Consultants"  .

Sunridge Lodge <http://sites.google.com/site/sunridgelodge>  "Back to Eden"
quality 24/7 care
261 Oakhill Drive, Brantford  backtoeden.ontario@gmail.com
"Building elder peer communities that are cozy,caring and comfortable" -

Brant Positive Action Group <https://sites.google.com/site/bpagsiegholle> -a
positive community affirmative action group that promotes goodwill and
timely cost effective creative solutions to enhance the competitive well
being of Brant Brantford and Six Nations

---

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3304 - Release Date: 12/08/10

--

Hollecrest & Associates Inc   -"Turnaround Consultants"  .

Sunridge Lodge  "Back to Eden" quality 24/7 care
261 Oakhill Drive, Brantford  backtoeden.ontario@gmail.com
"Building elder peer communities that are cozy,caring and comfortable" -

 

Brant Positive Action Group -a positive community affirmative action group that promotes goodwill and timely cost effective creative solutions to enhance the competitive well being of Brant Brantford and Six Nations