Sunday, September 30, 2007

Yet another reason why a renewable fuel alternative is necessary

In my mind, renewables are the energy equivalent of a fixed interest rate and by that same token, fossil fuels are variable interest rates. With renewables, you can lock in at a rate that might be higher than fossil fuels, but will stay the same.

Take solar power: you purchase all of the hardware upfront, but after that, you only have to worry about some minor upkeeping costs (except if you use batteries...and you have to switch out your inverter eventually).

On the other hand, with fossil fuels, you have to ride the highs and lows, which is just stressful. I remember when I started driving (back in 2001ish) and gas prices were under $1/gallon. No one was thinking about alternative fuels then. But now that prices have almost tripled since then, everyone's stressed out about impending oil and gas shortages. Maybe in 5 or so years we'll dip down to those levels again (doubtful), but the price will just rise again. Personally, I'd rather just pay more upfront for sound energy and sound mind.

Anyway, this article reminds me of Amory and Hunter Lovins' Brittle Power, which I haven't read completely.


From the NY Times

September 30, 2007
From Nairobi to Tehran

Costly Fuel Is Never Far From a Match

THERE are deep roots to Myanmar’s current unrest, pitting its repressive regime against Buddhist monks, but the immediate spark was the junta’s unexpected decision in August to double fuel prices. Overnight, diesel prices skyrocketed, and compressed natural gas rose fivefold.

In this respect, Myanmar is not an isolated case. Rising oil prices in recent years have created all kinds of headaches as they have rippled across the world. Many governments, especially in the developing world, have had to choose between raising domestic subsidies to offset the increases or letting the people bear the brunt.

Neither choice — higher government spending or the risk of popular discontent — has great appeal.

In oil-rich Iran, civil unrest spread through Tehran this summer after the government rationed gasoline in an effort to curb the country’s addiction to cheap fuel; gasoline in Iran, imported because the country lacks refining capacity, is heavily subsidized and cost about 40 cents a gallon at the time. After two days of upheaval, the Islamic theocracy restored order and kept the policy.

In Nigeria, the outcome was different. Striking oil workers in June threatened to shut down the country’s oil production if fuel subsidies were dropped. Faced with the threat of losing its biggest source of revenue, the government quickly backed down.

Fuel prices go to the heart of people’s ability to move, stay warm or feed themselves. So it is no surprise that governments around the world have tried to blunt the effects of oil prices that have tripled in the past four years.

But interfering with energy markets can be a risky and costly game. Prices kept high by market forces and taxes dampen expectations of cheap fuel. Fuel subsidies do the opposite, and countries that rely on them play with fire.

“Some countries are hiding the reality of high fuel prices to keep political peace,” said David L. Goldwyn, an assistant secretary of energy during the Clinton administration. “Nigeria caved, but it’s not a sustainable strategy. The more they do it, the more they pump up demand with cheap energy.”

The problem is that fuel subsidies can quickly add up — especially when oil prices keep rising as they have since 2003. It has been estimated that Yemen, for example, devotes 9 percent of its gross domestic product to holding down energy prices.

Only a handful of countries provide very high subsidies on their retail fuel sales. These include Venezuela, Turkmenistan, Syria, Algeria, Angola and Malaysia, and, unsurprisingly, most of them are oil producers.

In fact, most countries have allowed domestic prices to creep up. Drivers in Tunisia, Honduras and Pakistan all paid more for their gasoline than Americans did last year, according to a survey of fuel prices compiled by GTZ, a German consulting firm. The survey found only 20 countries where the price of gasoline was below $2 a gallon, that is, lower than the cost of refining it.

In most European countries, the opposite is true. Governments slap on high taxes — sometimes as high as 80 percent of the cost — in part to discourage consumption. In the Netherlands, gasoline cost $6.40 a gallon last year.

In the United States, where taxes represent about 20 percent of gasoline prices, regular gas averaged about $2.35 a gallon last year. It’s up to $2.80 these days. Still, the mere mention of raising gasoline taxes remains almost tantamount to political suicide.

When it comes to energy policy, the most closely watched country is China, whose surge in demand has helped propel oil prices upward. China needs to finely balance its need for growth while trying to keep a lid on energy use, both to control pollution and to keep prices from skyrocketing.

Though pollution has taken a toll on China’s environment, the restive demands of the rural have-nots left far behind by the urban haves cannot be ignored. Last year, there were 90,000 protests against local governments, according to Michael Green, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

In most cases, fuel prices were not the cause of these protests, Mr. Green said, but they point to the risk of upheaval China faces: Each year, 20 million people move to big cities from the countryside in search of work.

“The mandate of the Communist Party is economic development,” Mr. Green said. “This is why it is so hard for them to ration energy demand. It’s very difficult for the leadership in Beijing to develop a harmonious society if they cap energy demand.”

Still, the Chinese leadership has been gradually allowing fuel prices to increase, although its domestic state-run refineries still sell gasoline at a loss.

Indonesia illustrates the risk for authoritarian regimes. In 1998, large-scale student riots sparked by higher energy prices led to the fall of the autocratic president, Suharto. But in recent years, the Indonesian government has managed to cut back its subsidies without sparking dangerous riots.

“The more authoritarian the regime, the more vulnerable it is to mobilized dissent when they try to raise energy prices,” Mr. Green said. “When democratic institutions are stronger, governments have been better able to manage energy demands. That’s the lesson from Indonesia.”

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

Ugh, utterly disgusting and atrocious

This post is in response to Rule to expand mountaintop coal mining in U.S.
by John M. Broder

Ugh. Try as I might, I can't even be open-minded or unbiased about this. For those of you that don't know, Mountaintop Coal Mining (often "affectionately" deemed "Mountaintop removal, Valley fill") is the process of (literally) blowing off the top of mountains (sometimes up to 1000 ft.) to remove rock and dirt above the underlying coal seam. (Oh, don't worry, the trees are sold as timber and the top soil is saved for reclamation... And well, screw everything that might have been living there...) This rock and dirt (called "overburden") is shoveled away into local valleys, effectively "smoothing" the landscape, polluting the water system, and flat out destroying rivers and streams. Coal is then mined (ripped out, more like it) by huge dragline excavators, that can remove hundreds of tons in a single cycle.

And after the coal's been pulled out, the companies throw the topsoil back on and plant non-native, fast growing grass (as per regulations by the Office of Surface Mining). Problem is, these grasses don't allow native trees to take root, and effectively render these "restored/reclaimed" areas all but useless. In fact, the most popular uses for these areas tend to be shopping centers, golf courses (where the execs of mining companies can circle-jerk with all of the politicians they're in bed with--sorry, I told you I couldn't be objective), and amazingly enough, small airports...

Basically, the people of Appalachia (where Mountaintop Removal occurs) are getting fucked. There's no lighter way of putting it--their homes are destroyed by the shock of the blast, their water systems are being polluted, and even worse, they're not even able to capitalize on the alleged economic benefits because the industry is screwing them out of jobs. From 1990 to 1997, when Mountaintop Removal caught on, 10,000 mining jobs were lost in Appalachia. The poorest region in America got a whole lot poorer.

So what's all this mini-hoo-ha now? Well basically, the Bush administration is trying to "clarify" the Office of Surface Mining's (OSM) regulations. You can be sure their "clarity" isn't exactly going to be very stringent on mining companies. At the center of this debate is where mining waste goes. In 2002, the a district judge stopped new permits on Mountaintop Removal because dumping the fills near streams were in violation of the Clean Water Act, but the decision was overturned by the Appeals Court in 2003. This debate is similar, in that language that prevented the removal of waste within a certain proximity of streams is being softened to "limiting the amount of waste" or some such bullshit. That's as far as I can make of it, though it is 3 a.m. so feel free to correct me. Basically, it'll make mining easier and cheaper, while completely disregarding the environment.

What pisses me off the most are statements like: "A spokesman for the National Mining Association, Luke Popovich, said that unless mine owners were allowed to dump mine waste in streams and valleys it would be impossible to operate in mountainous regions like West Virginia that hold some of the richest low-sulfur coal seams" as if screwing up our environment is doing our nation a SERVICE. Honestly, where do these people get off? Uh, how exactly did you operate BEFORE moutaintop removal? Oh, that's right, you actually employed thousands of workers. But boo-hoo, if you can't throw your shit (literally feces of mining) into our water and ecosystem, you can't enjoy the lucrative profits you're now experiencing. Note that I'm not advocating coal mining, but look, if we can't switch completely to clean forms of energy, let's at least control the impact we have on our environment.

Basically, I'm pissed off because rich, profiteering fucks hold the nation's impoverished at gun point, and while they're busy pickpocketing the poor, they're blaming the rest of America for forcing them to pull the trigger.

P.S. What can we do? Eh, at this point, maybe not much. One step is to send in a comment to the Office of Surface Mining (http://www.osmre.gov/news/082407.pdf ) and they'll include your comment on their final (bloated) report. hooray.

A better alternative is to write to your congressman. There's a bill floating around (HR 2169) that promises to strengthen the Clean Water Act by preventing Valley Fill. (Here's one link to support it: http://www.ilovemountains.org/action/write_your_rep/).

Or just shoot a coal mining exec or an OSM lackey. I mean...

Further Reading (feel free to suggest others):
"Mountain Madness" by Ted Williams
http://magazine.audubon.org/incite/incite0105.html