#CLIMATE CHANGE: MORE TURBULENCE = HIGHER AIR FARES

Scientists from Reading University, UK, conclude that climate change is responsible for the increasing virulent turbulence over the North Atlantic that take its toll in comfort, in increased jet fuel consumption, and, ultimately, in higher air fares.

The researchers predict that commercial aircraft will experience progressively worse “clear-air” turbulence as atmospheric jet streams intensify.

Because clear-air turbulence can’t be detected by pilots, satellites or instruments, it’s a threat to the safety of passengers and to aircraft as well.

Researcher Dr Paul Williams said that a more turbulent air corridor would cause flights to divert to avoid dangerous wind speeds, thus lengthening flight times and using more fuel.

The study projects that clear-air turbulence would increase 10-40% in intensity with a 40-170% increase in the frequency of occurrence of moderate to greater turbulence.

Though the study suggests the effects of climate change would become a reality by mid-century, there is a body of evidence showing that winds are already blowing more strongly than in the past.

Moreover, the incidents of moderate to greater turbulence currently happening injure many hundreds of passengers and cost airlines tens of millions US dollars annually in fuel and structural damage to aircraft.

Source:  Smart Planet Daily, April 9, 2013    Study published in Nature Climate Change, April 5, 2013

OTTAWA TIGHTENS CANADIAN CAR EMISSION STANDARDS

Environment Minister Peter Kent proposed regulations that require vehicles (except light trucks) built between 2017 and 2025 to cut emissions by an average of 5% a year–every year.

Kent said the new standards should cut annual gasoline costs by about $900 Canadian per vehicle compared to today’s cost, and added, “We will see emissions at 50% of what they were in 2008.”

The regulations match US standards and will build on existing regulations covering models built between 2011 and 2016.  Canadian auto manufacturers welcomed Ottawa’s decision to consider North America as a single market and to set out clear expectations for the next decade.

“It’s fairly welcome that Canada will continue to follow the US administration’s ambitious lead on fuel efficiency, said PJ Partington, a climate policy analyst with the Pembina Institute.  “It’s great for drivers.  They’ll be saving a lot of money on gas.”

My Take on the new Canadian standards:  It’s not hard to admire a country that has enough self-confidence and global perspective that it doesn’t reject good ideas because they’re “Not-Invented-Here.”

Source:   Huffingtonpost.ca, November 28, 2012

OSU, PART II of III, ANAEROBICALLY DIGESTED GARBAGE: 40% CHEAPER THAN GASOLINE AT $3.90 PER GALLON

from The Ohio State University College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences, press release   March 28, 2012

According to AltFuelPrices.com, quasar currently sells its compressed natural gas (CNG) for @2.25 per gasoline gallon equivalent.  According to AAA, on March 27^th, the national average price for a gallon of gasoline.

Using the above figures, each of OSU’s bifuel cars, if run entirely on CNG, will save about $.065 in fuel costs per mile, which would save OARDC $975 per car per year, or $2925 total per year.  

Theoretically, there’d be a payback time of 11.8 years, or about 177,000 miles of driving per car—but the funding from Clean Fuels Ohio doesn’t have to be paid back.  The grant is meant to support real-world testing and demonstrations such as this one, according to Jim Currie, a leader of the project and director of a program to commercialize OSU’s research center.

At $5 per gallon of gasoline, the savings rise to $.11 cents per mile, $1650 per car per year and $4950 total per year, with the payback time falling to about 7 years, or about 105,000 miles per car.

At $6 (it could happen) per gallon, the savings increase to $.15 per mile, $2250 per car per year and $6750 total per year, with the payback time of 5.1 years, or about 76,000 miles per car.

John Ott, head of Facility Services department, says the expected fuel savings with CNG is based on the 25 MPG performance of a similar gasoline-only Fusion with combined city-highway mileage, driven 15,000 miles per year—typical use for the OSU cars being retrofitted to go bifuel.

According to the US Department of Energy (DOE) website, CNG and gasoline get about the same fuel economy.

Stay tuned for the environmental impact of OSU’s gas from garbage.

OSU, PART I of III, ANAEROBICALLY DIGESTED GARBAGE: FILL’ER UP AT $2.25 A GALLON

  Photo copyright K D Chamberlain   Jim Currie holds nozzle and hose used to dispense compressed natural gas (CNG)

from The Ohio State University College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences, press release   March 28, 2012

Last February I wrote about the collaboration of OSU and Cleveland-based quasar energy group to produce natural gas from local, renewable & plentiful organic waste:  chicken fat, rotten tomatoes, byproducts of making potato chips, yard trimmings and corn silage.

quasar built a facility in Zanesville to use OSU’s Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center’s (OARDC) patent-pending integrated anaerobic digestion system (iADs).  The unique feature of the technology adds a solid-state or “dry” biodigester, complementing quasar’s current liquid biodigester.  

It’s a great success story; you’ll find it at    http://mytakeontoday.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/osus-patent-pending-anaerobic-digestion-technology-jobs-and-green-energy-for-ohio/

Recently, Clean Fuels Ohio gave $46,000 in funding to OARDC to have three Ford Fusion sedans, expected to be running in April, and a Ford F150 pickup truck, expected to be running later this summer, turned into bifuel vehicles, running on either gasoline or compressed natural gas (CNG).

OARDC administrators will use the cars for regular travel between Wooster and OSU’s main campus in Columbus and to nine outlying research stations in Wood, Jackson as well as to Ashtabula counties.

The pickup will replace a truck wrecked by the 2010 Wooster tornado and will be used locally by the center’s Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering.

A requirement of the grant is that findings be reported to Clean Fuel Ohio.  Dave Benfield, an OARDC associate director and one of the project’s planners, says, “Whatever information we gather, we’ll share publicly.

“As a university research center, we feel like we should be looking at (fuel) alternatives—that we should be doing this experiment.  We’re doing it to see how well this alternative fuel works in what we call a road vehicle.”

Most of the CNG will be processed from an anaerobic digester that quasar energy group designed, built and operates on OARDC’s Wooster campus; some will come from a Columbus facility.

Not all of the CNG will be used for fueling vehicles.  Some of the CNG produced by quasar’s Wooster digester produces about 30% of the electricity used on the main part of OARDC’s campus.

Quasar refines a portion of the gas into a higher-value CNG dispensed from stations at its Wooster and Columbus facilities from pumps resembling regular gasoline pumps.

Jim Currie, a leader of the project and the director of OARDC’s program to commercialize the center’s research, says, “I enjoy the opportunities presented by working with new partners—partners from outside the university who benefit from the interaction with our scientists and who are bringing new products to market.  Not just new for the sake of new, but new for the sake of better.”

Regarding quasar and its biogas production, Currie said, “It’s gratifying to see their success.

“I find it fascinating and very cool that we can produce a portion of our energy from what is otherwise today a waste stream.  You don’t have to pump it out of the ground.  It’s not taken out of the food supply.  This (use to make fuel) is all after the fact.”

A university facilitating the processing of garbage into biogas to fuel bifuel vehicles?  Sounds like they’ve solved the alchemists’ ancient quest for the secret of turning dross into gold.

I’ll give you that, Jim—it’s truly fascinating and way cool.

Go, OSU!

Stay tuned for the facts and figures behind the $2.25/ gallon gas.

 

 

KEYSTONE XL (KXL) PIPELINE: STEEL NOT MANUFACTURED IN US

Russia

India

South Korea

I’ve copied & pasted these pages from the Cornell report—it’s difficult to compress the information without losing sight of the whole picture.  I chose to copy & paste also because I’m able to include footnotes (in italics) that back up Cornell’s statements.

Below is the report’s table of contents listing the page numbers of other topics you may want to read about.    Go to http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/Keystonexl.html

 Pipe Dreams?

Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost By The Construction Of Keystone XL

A Report By Cornell University Global Labor Institute

 Table Of Contents

1         Introduction

2         Main Findings

4         Transcanada Will Spend $3 To $4 Billion In The US, Not $7 Billion As Claimed

7         KXL Will Generate 2,500-4,650 Construction Jobs

8         Most Jobs Created Will Be Temporary And Non-Local

11         KXL Steel Manufactured Outside The United States

15         Construction Services: Engineering/ Design/Technical/Support

17         Perryman Study Deeply Flawed And Provides No Sound Basis For Jobs Claims

22         Total (Direct, Indirect, And Induced) Jobs From Keystone XL

27         KXL Will Have Minor Impact On Unemployment Levels

28         Four Ways Keystone XL Could Be A Job Killer

35         Conclusion: Employment Potential From KXL Is Little To None; Decision Should Be Based On Other Factors

 Technical assistance provided by Ian Goodman and Brigid Rowan, The Goodman Group, Ltd. http://www.thegoodman.com

Case #: HP09-001, August 24, 2009. http://www.puc.sd.gov/commission/dockets/ hydrocarbonpipeline/2009/hp09-001/091809aff.pdf

Cornell University GlobaL Labor institute         Pipe Dreams? Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost by the Construction of Keystone XL         9

© US department of State

KXL Steel Manufactured outside the United States

TransCanada claims that “the $7 billion KXL pipeline project is expected to directly create more than 20,000 high-wage manufacturing jobs and construction jobs in 2011- 2012 across the US, stimulating significant additional economic activity.”20 This claim is misleading and erroneous on a number of levels.

 First, as discussed above, the budget for KXL US that relates to incremental US employment is $3 to $4 billion and not the $7 billion claimed by the proponents. Second, TransCanada and other KXL proponents are giving the impression that KXL will create a high number of manufacturing jobs. This is simply not true. The main manufacturing activity related to pipeline construction is the manufacture of the steel pipe. The 36-inch steel pipe is the largest single materials input for KXL. This is literally the pipe in the pipeline. In general, pipeline construction is not a manufacturing-intensive activity even if the steel itself is also being manufactured onshore.

 This section will present strong evidence that:

(a) almost half (and perhaps more) of the primary material input for KXL—steel pipe—will not even be produced in the United States;

(b) based on the experience of Phases 1 and 2, the final processing work for KXL will probably be performed in the US with most of the steel and pipe sourced from outside of the US (notably India and South Korea).21

In making a case for the thousands of manufacturing jobs offered by KXL, TransCanada provides the assurances that “approximately 75% of the pipe for the US portion of the proposed Project would be purchased from North American pipe manufacturing facilities and that regardless of the country of origin, it would purchase pipe only from qualified pipe suppliers and trading houses.”22 However, there is strong evidence to suggest that almost half of the primary material input for KXL—steel pipe—will not even be produced in the United States. 

20         TransCanada’s website (viewed Sept. 19, 2011). http://www.transcanada.com/economic_benefits.html

21         Beyond the evidence discussed below regarding the off-shoring of the steel pipe manufacturing, we note that the Perryman study does not substantiate the claim that KXL will result in a high level of manufacturing jobs. This finding is consistent with other recent studies of employment impacts associated with major pipeline projects. The Perryman study estimates large employment impacts for KXL construction, but only a small portion of these added jobs are in manufacturing industries. Perryman Group, The Impact of Developing the Keystone XL Pipeline Project on Business Activity in the US, June 2010, pp. 44-51. http://www.transcanada.com/economic_benefits.html. A study projected that 4,000 manufacturing jobs will be created in Canada for a similar-sized pipeline construction project (the proposed Northern Gateway Project), assuming the steel is made in Canada. Enbridge Northern Gateway Project (Volume 6C: Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment (ES)-Human Environment, Section 4: Socio Economic Condition, pp.4-7, 4-12 to 4- 19. https://www.neb.gc.ca/ll-eng/livelink.exe/fetch/2000/90464/90552/384192/620327/624798/620129/ B3-16_-_Vol_6C_–_Gateway_Application_–_Human_Environment_ESA_(Part_1_of_3)_-_A1T0G6_. pdf?nodeid=620083&vernum=0

22         FEIS, op.cit. Volume 1, Project Description, Page 2-26. http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/ keystonexl.nsf?Open

CorneLL university GLobaL Labor institute         Pipe dreams? Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost by the ConstruCtion of Keystone XL         11

KXL will require over 800,000 tons of carbon steel pipe. TransCanada has contracted with an Indian multi-national company, the Mumbai-based Welspun Corp Limited, and a Russian company, Evraz, to manufacture steel pipe for KXL.  In fact, a significant portion of the $1.7 billion already invested in KXL by TransCanada has likely been used towards the manufacture and import of the pipe. Clearly, this is an investment that is for the most part generating economic activity and job creation outside of the US. TransCanada’s claims that US manufacturing would reap considerable benefits from the project need to be viewed in the light of these data.

 

THE FINAL WORD ABOUT WHY GAS PRICES ARE HIGH AND GETTING HIGHER

  

   From Discovery News, March 14, 2012 and About.com, March 10, 2012

According to the US Department Energy (USDE), the cost of crude oil accounted for nearly 70% of the cost of gasoline in 2010.   

And with 43% of the world’s crude produced by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, the USDE adds, “OPEC countries have essentially all of the world’s spare oil production capacity, and possess about two-thirds of the word’s estimated crude oil reserves.”  Apparently, possession is 9/10 of the right to raise prices when there’s a disruption or even threat of disruption of supply.

The quality of crude and the refining technology and methods also affect the cost, as does the cost of additives of ethanol or alcohol blended with the gasoline.

Consumers and the number of vehicles impact the price of fuel.  American motorist drive nearly 3,000,000,000,000 miles per year.  China and India are putting an increasing number of vehicles on the road, assuring that the price of gasoline will continue to increase in the future.

More recently, in February 2012, the possibility of the US and/or Israel taking military action against Iran boosted gas prices.  Also, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), some US refineries were closing.  And in anticipation of increased summer vacation driving, gas prices always rise in the spring. 

But it’s not something magical in the spring air that sends prices upward.  And it’s not necessarily supply and demand, because in the summer of 2008, though demand and supply were fairly constant, gasoline rose to $4 a gallon; oil prices zoomed up to $145 a barrel. 

Consider the recession in the summer of 2009.  The recession had decreased demand, yet the cost of gasoline at the pump increased.

How’d that happen?

Who done it?

Remember the .com bubble? 

The housing bubble? 

The asset bubble?  That’s the new bubble commodities traders are creating even as gas pumps are sucking our money out of our pockets. 

Supposedly, prices are affected by supply and demand—more on that later.     

Oil prices are affected by oil price futures, which are traded on the commodities futures exchange.  Oil prices fluctuate on a daily, even an hourly basis, not because of supply and demand but because of what investors guess the price of oil will be in the future.

And when the commodities traders think oil will be high, they bid it up even higher, causing gas prices to go higher.

So much for understanding supply and demand.  In fact the only time I’ve ever understood it was when Pat Paulson, 1968 Presidential candidate and regular on the Smothers Brothers Show, explained it. 

I give Paulson the final word.

He said, “When demand is high and supply is low, prices are high.    

“And when demand is low and supply is high, prices are high.”

Sigh.