I don’t do much on this site any more…
October 13, 2011
Sorry to have abandoned this site. Most of my time has been spent over on www.TheMarinForum.com.
FedUpEditor
Ozone standard
August 11, 2011
our elected officials on Capitol Hill are still fighting with one another. Needless to say, the news has been dominated by the debt crisis, but there’s another serious financial issue that deserves attention. It’s EPA’s proposed ozone (smog) air quality standard, and it could be issued this week.
As you might recall, in 2008 EPA set an ozone standard of 75 ppb (parts per billion). Federal guidelines require EPA to revisit the ozone standard every five years, but last year EPA initiated a reconsideration of that standard and proposed tightening it to 70 to 60 ppb. In places where naturally occurring ozone levels can exceed the standard, including Yellowstone National Park, EPA can’t explain how to meet the new requirements.
A new study by NERA Economic Consulting shows the EPA’s health benefit assumptions are greatly exaggerated:
- EPA’s assumed causal relationship between ozone and mortality has not been supported by EPA’s science advisors;
- The health benefits EPA attributes to the tighter ozone standard should are due to a slight reduction in particulate matter (dust), which already is regulated separately by EPA; and
- The EPA’s own data show that the benefits of the proposed ozone standard will not outweigh the costs.
A study by Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI estimates that strengthening the ozone standard to 60 ppb could cost the U.S. economy more than $1 trillion per year between 2020 and 2030, and destroy 7.3 million jobs.
Air quality has and will continue to improve as the nation works to meet the existing standards. There is no reason to change the standards now.
- API
Another study details the benefits of Gulf drilling
July 21, 2011
Another economic analysis shows that stepping up the pace of oil and natural gas development in the Gulf of Mexico could give the U.S. economy a much-needed boost. The study examines the “activity gap” between energy development and the current pace of Gulf permit approvals. Compared to historical trends, pending exploration plans are up by nearly 90%, approvals are down by 85%, and the approval process has slowed from an average of 36 to 131 days.
Written by IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates and IHS Global Insight, the study shows that increasing the pace of permitting in the Gulf would boost employment opportunities in almost every state, enhance tax and royalty revenues, and help stabilize America’s energy security.
Specifically, the study shows that aligning the permitting process with the industry’s production capacity could result in:
• 230,000 American jobs;
• More than $44 billion in US gross domestic product;
• Nearly $12 billion in tax and royalty revenues for state and federal treasuries; and
• $15 million reduction in the amount the US sends to foreign governments.
And that’s by the end of 2012.
Jane Van Ryan
American Petroleum Institute (API)
New pipeline and domestic drilling are key to US liquid fuel supplies
June 11, 2011
API economists have examined U.S. government data and a few studies, and they’ve discovered that with the pipeline and expanded access to domestic energy supplies the United States and Canada could provide 92% of America’s liquid fuel needs by 2030 – decreasing the nation’s projected dependency on the rest of the world by 22%.
API has produced a new video illustrating those numbers. Please feel free to use it. Additionally, more information is available on the access page at EnergyTomorrow.org, where API has posted the benefits of opening up areas that are currently off-limits to exploration and production.
The State Department, by the way, has issued a statement saying that it will make a decision on the Keystone pipeline by the end of this year.
API economists have examined U.S. government data and a few studies, and they’ve discovered that with the pipeline and expanded access to domestic energy supplies the United States and Canada could provide 92% of America’s liquid fuel needs by 2030 – decreasing the nation’s projected dependency on the rest of the world by 22%.
API has produced a new video illustrating those numbers. Please feel free to use it. Additionally, more information is available on the access page at EnergyTomorrow.org, where API has posted the benefits of opening up areas that are currently off-limits to exploration and production.
The State Department, by the way, has issued a statement saying that it will make a decision on the Keystone pipeline by the end of this year.
More on NY-26
May 27, 2011
On Wednesday, hour 2 of the Rush Limbaugh show, the host apologized to his audience for not knowing about the New York 26 election BEFORE it happened. As I pointed out when I forwarded Karl Rove’s erroneous piece yesterday, Conservatism did not lose that race, the lack of knowledge that the “Tea Party” candidate was actually a Democrat did.
Let this serve as a warning to all who think we need a third party. If it happens, it will surely give the majority back to the Democrats. Third party voters are essentially Conservative and take votes away from Republicans not the Democrats. In a close race it means the liberal will win without having the majority, and this could well be the Democrats grand strategy for 2012. After all, when the country is in a deep recession (regardless of what the media is reporting) and your message is, “Everything is fine. We will just keep printing money, and all will be well,” the only way to win is by trickery.
This dynamic was illustrated when Perot got into the race which helped get Bill Clinton elected over George H. W. Bush. Now it has been proven again with the election in NY-26. Had there been any light shed on the fact that the “Tea Party” candidate, Davis, was “a liberal Democrat with a history of supporting higher taxes, Obamacare, cap-and-trade legislation, contributing many thousands of dollars to far-left Democrat candidates, as well as endorsing Barack Obama for president”, the Republican candidate would probably have won.
However, reports from people who actually live in that district say the Republican candidate did not articulate conservative principles while the Tea Party candidate did. So in a sense, the Conservative message won. Together the Republican and Tea Party votes would have easily beaten the Democrat.
Harry Reid made one of the most ignorant statements when he said something to the effect that this vote was a clear message from the people of America that they are against making changes to Medicare as we know it. The actual fact was nobody knew about this race outside of NY-26, so how can this be a mandate from anyone on anything?
I guess that’s what you have to say when you were pummeled in 2010 at the polls and want to fool yourself, but it may be seen another way. What this election says is Republicans better get their message out loud and clear what they stand for and what they are against. It is no longer enough to just be not-Democrat. Conservatism had better be front and center in 2012.
The majority of people understand we are in trouble with our social programs; the money has run out. People are becoming aware of the problems with government union wages and benefits which are unsustainable. With tax revenue down, it is magnifying the problem, and about time. Medicare has been broke for years, but the problem has been disguised as a liberal government (of both parties) has propped up the failing system. For years people on both sides have predicted is was insolvent and would eventually collapse. The story that Congress raided the trust fund a long time ago is enough to do another series of articles, but let me leave you with this.
If Republicans think NY-26 is a mandate on anything and run from the tough issues because Harry Reid and the press say it was, it could spell trouble in 2012. What it shows is that Republicans need to step up and address the issues head on. Be the adults in the room. After all, if conservatism wins, the country wins. If liberalism wins, we all lose.
FedUpEditor
New Lending Rules Coming Soon
March 3, 2011
Beginning Oct. 1, new rules adopted by the Federal Reserve will go into effect, requiring greater diligence on the part of mortgage lenders and brokers who issue high-cost loans for borrowers with less than favorable credit. The interest rates on these loans are at least 1.5 percentage points greater than the average prime mortgage rate. The regulations, which were finalized in July 2008, prohibit lenders from making a high-cost mortgage without verifying that a borrower could repay the loan in the conventional way, and not through a foreclosure sale.
During the height of the market, subprime lenders often would offer loans without requiring borrowers to provide proof that they could make the monthly payments. In some cases, borrowers used stated income loans, which allowed some borrowers to fabricate annual income figures and buy homes without down payments.
Although many believe the Federal Reserve’s new rules represent one of the more substantial efforts on the part of the federal government to combat such lending practices, some consumer advocates are concerned. According to a policy associate at the Center for Responsible Lending, the new regulations do not cover option ARMs, which enable borrowers to choose from several monthly payment options during the loan’s early years.
To read the full story, please click here.
California Association of Realtors
For Oil Exec, an Electric Car Can Wait
March 3, 2011
New York Times:
There sure is a lot of excitement percolating around plug-in hybrid and electric cars these days. Chevrolet’s Volt and Nissan’s Leaf are the talk of the car world, city governments are installing battery chargers, and the Obama administration has promoted them. Even the TV commercials for the battery chargers are cool.
There are some skeptics, however. And on Thursday I caught up with one of them, William M. Colton, ExxonMobil’s vice president for corporate strategic planning, who is definitely not a fan. A reverse skeptic could say, sure, why would ExxonMobil say nice things about a car that would displace gasoline? That’s certainly true, although Exxon Mobil is getting more and more invested in natural gas, which would indirectly help fuel electric and hybrid cars because it is an important fuel stock for the electric utilities that ultimately charge the car batteries.
For Mr. Colton, the argument against the electric car is purely economic. “One word tells you the whole picture, and its starts with the letter B: batteries are not ready for prime time,” he said, noting that the last time he looked, the battery in the Leaf cost $17,000.
By his calculation, batteries cost $800 to $1,000 per kilowatt-hour, and that has to be reduced to $300 to $500 for electric cars to make sense. And the comparison with the internal combustion engine is a no-brainer, at least for him.
“A conventional car uses only about 100 pounds of gasoline to go 400 miles,” he said. “You go 60 miles an hour, 400 miles. You can run the air conditioner and the radio, and refuel in five minutes. Compare that with a battery, a very heavy and very expensive battery that will only take you 100 miles on a good day and it takes 12 hours or 8 hours to refuel. It’s a very problematic purchase.”
What is needed is a breakthrough in battery technology, he said, but he does not see that happening in the next 10 years at least.
So what alternative does Mr. Colton offer to reduce emissions, especially carbon dioxide, which is linked to climate change?
He says that a lot can be done to improve existing technology in transmissions, engines and electronics to improve the internal combustion engine’s performance. He says hybrids like the Prius will make more sense in the future as technologies improve. And there are other more cost-effective ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, he says.
“When you look at mitigation costs for CO2 in electric vehicles, you are talking about hundreds of dollars per ton of CO2. Its very, very expensive because the batteries are so expensive,” he said. “So we say instead of doing that, if you take natural gas and just displace coal at an electric power plant, you can do it for just $20 a ton. Why wouldn’t you do that first?
Since ExxonMobil is the No. 1 natural gas producer in the country, company shareholders would probably agree with him.
Editor’s Note: So how long before we see all the Prius cars in California being turned in for the Cash for Clunkers program? The only people who want them and can afford electric status symbols are rich liberals.
Volt Gets Chilly Review!
March 3, 2011
Detroit Free Press - The Chevrolet Volt will grace the cover of April’s Consumer Reports, but don’t expect to read another car-of-the-year writeup.
“It seems that owning a Volt is an expensive way to be green,” the magazine says after its first few days with the Volt. In cold weather, battery-only mileage was low enough and the Volt’s electric heater weak enough to make reviewers think twice about whether the Volt is worth its $41,000 suggested starting price tag, less tax credits and plus any dealer markup, such as the $5,000 extra Consumer Reports paid.
The magazine’s team got between 23 and 28 miles in battery-only range because of the cold weather. (General Motors says the Volt can go 25 to 50 miles on its battery.) After that, the gasoline generator got about 30 m.p.g., compared to the Environmental Protection Agency rating of 37 m.p.g.
All in all, Consumer Reports figured the Volt would cost about 5.7 cents per mile to run in battery mode and 10 cents per mile using the gas generator, assuming gas is only $3 a gallon. The magazine says the Toyota Prius hybrid costs 6.8 cents per mile to operate, and a 2011 model costs only about $25,000.
The magazine promised it would still conduct a full road test of the Volt, whose awards have included North American Car of the Year and Motor Trend Car of the Year. It also wrote up a couple-week trial of the Nissan Leaf pure electric car, which it said had a better heater than the Volt. Still, the cold made Consumer Reports’ Leaf average about 65 miles of battery range, compared with the Leaf’s 70-mile EPA rating and the up to 100 miles Nissan says some drivers will get on one charge.
“Our initial take is that the Leaf is a fun urban car that works best as a second or third vehicle in a temperate climate,” the magazine said.
The Leaf does not have a built-in generator like the Volt’s, and its pricing starts at $32,780, less tax credits.
Contact Chrissie Thompson: 313-222-8784 or cthompson@freepress.com
Here’s The Only Chart You Need To See To Understand Why The US Is Screwed
March 2, 2011
Business Insider
By Henry Blodget
We’re still working our way through Kleiner Perkins’ partner Mary Meeker’s excellent analysis of the financial condition of the United States.
We’ll be breaking out some key sections in the next few days. In the meantime, here’s the one chart you need to see to understand why the US is screwed.
This is the “income statement” of the United States in 2010. “Revenue” is on the left. “Expenses” are on the right.
Note a few things…
First, “Revenue” is tiny relative to “Expenses.”
Second, most of the expense is entitlement programs, not defense, education, or any of the other line items that most budget crusaders normally howl about.
Third, as horrifying as these charts are, they don’t even show the trends of these two pies: The “expense” pie is growing like gangbusters, driven by the explosive growth of the entitlement programs that no one in government even has the balls to talk about. “Revenue” is barely growing at all.
As we’ll illustrate with more of Mary’s charts next week, the US cannot grow its way out of this problem. It needs to cut spending, specifically entitlement spending. We hereby announce that we’ll give a special gold star to the first “leader” with the guts to say that publicly.
Here’s the chart. Click for larger version. SEE ALSO: Your Short Course On Why The US Is Screwed
Can Electric Vehicles Change the Game?
March 1, 2011
February 22, 2011 – National Journal
Tom Kuhn
President of Edison Electric Institute
We face numerous energy policy challenges as a nation, but perhaps none looms larger right now than energy security. The recent and ongoing instability in the Middle East is yet another reminder that the United States remains heavily dependent on foreign nations–not all of them friendly–to meet much of our energy needs. In my view, energy security, along with the move towards cleaner energy, is the number one policy challenge facing the United States.
Can we “kick the oil habit?” That’s been a popular topic in Washington, as well as an elusive goal, for many years. In reality, oil will continue to have an important place in our energy mix. But we do need to dramatically expand efforts to harness our domestic energy resources. The transformation of the nation’s transportation fleet to one fueled in large part by domestically-produced electricity can gradually help wean the United States from its dependence on foreign energy sources.
As one of 15 Consumer Advisory Board members for the Chevy Volt, I’ve had the good fortune to test out one of the cars that will change the way America drives–and where it gets its fuel. The first wave of PEVs already is hitting major US markets, as car manufacturers join utilities in embracing electricity as a significant transportation fuel.
So, what happens next? There is bipartisan support for EVs in Congress, as well as support from the national security community. President Obama has set a goal of 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. How close can we get? What are the biggest hurdles, and what do you see as the biggest potential benefits?
Editor’s Note: I am a citizen not being paid by anyone except those who hire me for IT consulting. The comments section of this article found at: http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2011/02/can-electric-vehicles-change-t.php?comments=expandall#comments are all officers of corporations or organizations to promote electric vehicles. Where will the energy come from? If we can’t burn coal, dam up rivers, build nuclear plants or drill for natural gas and oil how the hell are we supposed to fuel our energy lives? Do I sound mad? You’re damn right I am. While all these people are getting fat on government grants from my tax dollars, I am struggling to make enough money to pay my electric bill. And I can’t even leave this post on their website because I haven’t paid to become a member!!!
