Home / Environment
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
With California already facing huge deficits, they want to spend another $68 billion on a green project

With California already facing huge deficits, they want to spend another $68 billion on a green project

The problem is that if this railroad line made sense, the government wouldn't have to subsidize it.  Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin may have thought that they were saving taxpayers' money by turning down the Federal grants, but the money is simply going to go to other projects, such as the one in California.  From the Associated Press:
In a narrow 21-16 party-line vote that involved intense lobbying by the governor, legislative leaders and labor groups, the state Senate approved the measure marking the launch of California's ambitious bullet train, which has spent years in the planning stages. . . .
The bill authorizes the state to begin selling $4.5 billion in voter-approved bonds that includes $2.6 billion to build an initial 130-mile stretch of the high-speed rail line in the agriculturally rich Central Valley. That allows the state to draw another $3.2 billion in federal funding.

The first segment of the line will run from Madera to Bakersfield.

Senate Republicans blasted the decision, citing the state's ongoing budget problems. They said project would push California over a fiscal cliff. No GOP senators voted for the bill Friday.

The final cost of the completed project from Los Angeles to San Francisco is projected to be $68 billion.

"It's unfortunate that the majority would rather spend billions of dollars that we don't have for a train to nowhere than keep schools open and harmless from budget cuts," Sen. Tom Harman, R-Huntington Beach, said in a statement. . . .
Diminishing returns to increasing car MPG?

Diminishing returns to increasing car MPG?

The Eco adds apparently $1,600 to the price of the Malibu (with a sales tax of 7 percent that comes up to $1,712). Suppose that people spend about $2,900 on gas over the course of a year and that this 2 mpg increase represents a 7.7% increase (from 26 combined mpg to 28), it would take about 7.67 years to make up the $1,712 (and that assumes that the interest rate is zero).  A 3 percent interest rate will make it take about 10 years to pay this back.  Any repair costs would add to the number of years it would take before one breaks even.

From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

On the nonhybrid side, the poster car for conventional fuel-efficiency excellence is Chevrolet's own Cruze Eco, which returns a government-rated 28 m.p.g. in town and 42 on the highway without any electrical assistance. Instead, the Cruze Eco uses a small turbocharged engine, a manual transmission and old-fashioned tricks like lightweight forged wheels.
The Malibu Eco is a larger, more powerful car, but its mileage numbers are a long way off the nonhybrid Cruze, at 25 m.p.g. city and 37 m.p.g. highway. The Cruze Eco even has more trunk space than the Malibu Eco because there's no battery pack beneath the carpeting.
While the Environmental Protection Agency hasn't released final numbers for the new base Malibu, I can't imagine that the Eco will beat it by more than 2 m.p.g. For comparison, the old 4-cylinder Malibu netted a combined city-highway rating of 26 m.p.g., while the 2013 Eco returns 29 m.p.g. combined. The Camry Hybrid beats both Chevys with a combined rating of 41 m.p.g.
Even the 2013 Nissan Altima, with a conventional nonhybrid powertrain, improves on the Malibu Eco by 2 m.p.g., with a combined city-highway estimate of 31. . . . .
Despite huge government subsidies, the sales of electric cars are horrible

Despite huge government subsidies, the sales of electric cars are horrible

GM had predicted that there would be 45,000 sales of Volts this year.  Nissan had predicted sales of the leaf at 20,000.  Yet, during the first six months, only 8,817 were sold.  20 percent are being sold in California in part because of benefits such as being able to drive in the carpool lanes with only one person in the car.  But, even if the Volt sales are horrible, the Volt is outselling the all-electric Nissan Leaf by more than 3 to 1.


How to make the US much poorer: Military “green fuel” costs nearly seven times more than conventional fuel

How to make the US much poorer: Military “green fuel” costs nearly seven times more than conventional fuel

US military spends a lot on fuel.
Last year, the U.S. military spent approximately $15 billion on fuel for its operations . . .
OK, so the solution is to buy something that costs seven times more?  From Fox News.

The Navy is steaming ahead with an initiative to power ships with biofuel, despite criticism the so-called “green fuel” costs nearly seven times more than conventional fuel.
This month marks the first time the Navy is using biofuel in an operational setting -- sending five ships to a multi-nation exercise off the coast of Hawaii.
A Navy official told FoxNews.com on Monday that sailing the so-called “Great Green Fleet” this month on the 50-50 blend of alternative and conventional fuel is part of Navy Secretary Ray Mabus’ plan to have half the Navy fleet on alternative fuel by 2020.
The spokesman also confirmed the fuel -- which does not require engine modifications -- costs $26 a gallon compared to $3.60 a gallon for conventional fuel.
However, he pointed out the cost was for a one-day supply and that prices will drop when the Pentagon, among the country’s biggest fuel users, buys more.
Capitol Hill Republicans have been among the biggest critics of the plan -- questioning the fuel's cost and President Obama's alternative-energy initiatives as either not ready or too expensive for the marketplace.
They point to the government-funded Solyndra solar panel company going bankrupt as a cautionary tale.
"I don't believe it's the job of the Navy to be involved in building ... new technologies. I don't believe we can afford it," said Arizona Sen. John McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, according to Reuters. . . .
Sure there are concerns about oil supply reductions during a war, but the price of oil already incorporates that risk, or at least the part of that risk that isn't interfered with by the threat of government price controls.  The current price is the future expected price.  So that gives you an idea of what the costs of storing oil might be.  The cost of storing oil per barrel in 1985 was $1.3/barrel/year (p. 27).  In today's dollars, that is about $2.60/barrel/year.
The UK Guardian has the resource available here.  The three top countries in terms of emissions in order are China, US, and India.
Yet, how their emission levels per capita have change over time is pretty startling.  As far as I can tell, the US emissions per capita appears to have fallen the largest absolute amount, though it is still higher than a lot of other countries.  Personally, CO2 output doesn't concern me (see these links here).


Godfather of Global Warming sets environmentalists straight

Godfather of Global Warming sets environmentalists straight

SO much for the oft repeated claim of consensus on man-made Global warming being a real threat.  You have to read the Toronto Sun piece to see his discussion taking on the claim that "the science is settled."

Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly “alarmist” about climate change. . . .
Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia theory — that the Earth operates as a single, living organism — has had a profound impact on the development of global warming theory. . . .
Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century.
Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect. . . .
“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.” . . .
“so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.” . . .

Very cheap, energy efficient transportation, and the government wants to kill it

Personally, I don't care about "energy efficient" transportation per se.  I figure that the market will figure out the most efficient way to transport people and energy costs are no more important than other costs.  Yet, it seems more than a little hypocritical for the government to try making this type of transportation so difficult and costly.

Let's say you wanted to get from New York to DC this evening. You could take the government-supported train system - which would cost you $153 or more - or you could take a bus, which gets no government subsidies, for... $19. . . .
[These buses] are now, as CATO transportation expert Randal O'Toole puts it, "the nation's fastest growing transportation mode." He adds:
"They do so with almost no subsidies... Intercity buses are safe and environmentally friendly, suffering almost 80 percent fewer fatalities per passenger mile than Amtrak and using 60 percent less energy per passenger mile than Amtrak." . . .
I did a quick search and I found that for this coming Monday the average Megabus fare is $14.73.  The average Amtrak fare is $160.



If you want to see more on the efficiency of these buses, this is of some use.

So just how overpopulated is the world?

Suppose that the entire world population lived in one city and that city had the density of the following cities.  How large would those cities be?


More than twice the cost, able to travel a fraction of the distance: why not to buy electric cars

More than twice the cost, able to travel a fraction of the distance: why not to buy electric cars

Component costs alone are $38,462? Add in assembly, shipping, and inventory costs and I guess that the margin is actually lower on this electric car than the gas powered vehicle.  From Bloomberg:

Tesla Motors Inc. (TSLA), the electric-car company led by Elon Musk, fell to the lowest price in more than three months after Toyota Motor Corp. (7203) said its RAV4 sport- utility vehicle with batteries and motor from Tesla costs twice as much as a gasoline version. . . .
“The details of the RAV4 EV that Toyota gave out yesterday were a little disappointing,” said Ben Schuman, an analyst with Pacific Crest Securities in Portland, Oregon, . . . . The manufacturer’s suggested retail price “is a little bit high to make it appealing to a larger buyer group.”
Toyota said yesterday the electric RAV4 that goes 100 miles (161 kilometers) per charge will sell for $49,800 when it goes on sale this year in California. The Toyota City, Japan-based company, a Tesla investor, plans to deliver 2,600 units over the next three years, . . . .
The base price of a 2012 RAV4 with a 2.5-liter gasoline engine is $22,650 on Toyota’s website.
Toyota in July 2011 agreed to pay Tesla a total of $100 million to supply lithium-ion battery packs, motors, software and other parts for the RAV4 project, part of a three-year contract, according to a filing by Tesla with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Based on Toyota’s 2,600-unit sales goal for the model, it’s paying $38,462 for components per vehicle. . . .
Obama administration's view of oil companies: "Crucify them"

Obama administration's view of oil companies: "Crucify them"

No antibusiness feelings here. From CNS:
. . . Inhofe quoted a little-watched video from 2010 of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official, Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, admitting that EPA’s “general philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies. In the video, Administrator Armendariz says: “I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting, but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said: “It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them. “Then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.” “It’s a deterrent factor,” Armendariz said, explaining that the EPA is following the Romans’ philosophy for subjugating conquered villages. Soon after Armendariz touted the EPA’s “philosophy,” the EPA began smear campaigns against natural gas producers, Inhofe’s office noted in advance of today’s Senate speech: “Not long after Administrator Armendariz made these comments in 2010, EPA targeted US natural gas producers in Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming. “In all three of these cases, EPA initially made headline-grabbing statements either insinuating or proclaiming outright that the use of hydraulic fracturing by American energy producers was the cause of water contamination, but in each case their comments were premature at best – and despite their most valiant efforts, they have been unable to find any sound scientific evidence to make this link.” . . .
Climate models have done a horrible job predicting recent trends, but they can't even explain the past

Climate models have done a horrible job predicting recent trends, but they can't even explain the past

Predicting the future is much harder than simply running a regression that explains the past.  The whole point of a regression is to fit a line to data.  Presumably they must have used past data at some point to get their idea of what causes climate to change.  If they can't go back then and explain the changes, it probably means that their models deviated then from the results that they had previously gotten.  The whole thing is pretty troublesome.  From Watts Up with that:


One of the main points of criticism of the CO2-dominated climate models is that they fail to reproduce the temperature fluctuations over the last 10,000 years. This surprises no one as these models assign scant climate impact to major factors, i.e. the sun. As numerous IPCC-ignored studies show, the post-Ice Age temperature curve for the most part ran synchronously with solar activity fluctuations. The obvious discrepancy between modeled theory and measured reality has been brought up time and again.
The journal Climate of the Past Discussions has published a new paper written by a team led by Gerrit Lohmann of the Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) in Bremerhaven, Germany. The group compared geologically reconstructed ocean-temperature data over the last 6000 years to results from modeling. If the models were indeed reliable, as is often claimed, then there would be good agreement. Unfortunately in Lohmann’s case, agreement was non-existent.
Lohmann et al plotted the geologically reconstructed temperatures and compared them to modeled temperature curves from the ECHO-G Model. What did they find? The modeled trends underestimated the geologically reconstructed temperature trend by a factor of two to five. Other scientists have come up with similar results (e.g. Lorenz et al. 2006, Brewer et al. 2007, Schneider et al. 2010). . . .
Few people with hybrid cars buy another one

Few people with hybrid cars buy another one

So what do hybrid owners know about their cars?
Two out of three hybrid owners don’t buy another, according to a new report from automotive industry research firm Polk. Despite persistently high gasoline prices, only 35 percent of hybrid owners who purchased a new car in 2011 stuck with the segment, a figure that drops below 25 percent when owners of the market leading Toyota Prius are factored out of the equation. Even in traditionally “green” cities like Los Angeles and Seattle, the loyalty rate remained the same. Although sales of hybrids have spiked in early 2012, the gas-electric vehicles made up only 2.4 percent of the new car market last year, down from a record high of 2.9 percent in 2008. According to the Polk study, customers interested in hybrids diligently cross-shop them against conventionally-powered vehicles, which have seen great improvements in fuel economy in recent years. A survey from TrueCar.com released last week points out that, even a more than a decade after the first hybrid cars went on sale in the United States, it can take many years to recoup the high upfront costs in fuel savings. . . .

So how does this fit in with all the predictions?: "No global warming for 15 years"

From the Global Warming Policy Foundation:
The graph shows the global annual average temperature since 1997. No statistically significant trend can be discerned from the data. The only statistically acceptable conclusion to be drawn from the HadCRUT4 data is that between 1997 – 2011 it has remained constant, with a global temperature of 14.44 +/- 0.16 deg C (2 standard deviations.) . . .
I am sure that a lot of predictions can be pointed to.
In June 1986, Dr. James Hansen made a prediction to an AP newspaper reporter, which was carried in Oxnard, CA, of a 2 degree temperature rise by 2006. . . .
Temperatures did rise, but they rose by about 0.4 degrees.

My newest Fox News Piece: "If lead bullets are banned, it could compromise self-defense"

My piece starts this way:

Lead poisoning from bullets? Sounds scary, but the push by the Center for Biological Diversity in a petition to the EPA is nothing new. The claim has been brought up many times, and even the EPA during anti-gun Clinton administration dismissed the fears about traditional, lead ammunition.
The lead in ammunition has never been shown to produce any health hazards, but a ban would produce a real health hazard, making it much more difficult for people to use guns to defend themselves. . . .




The double standard on wind farms and the environment

The double standard on wind farms and the environment

Wind farms are incredibly costly to produce energy. Since they don't operate all the time, back up generating sources are required -- meaning that you have to spend building two generating facilities to produce energy. But there are costs that wind farms impose on the environment that they are also not required to bear, costs that would cause any other operation to be shutdown. From the WSJ:

Last June, the Los Angeles Times reported that about 70 golden eagles are being killed per year by the wind turbines at Altamont Pass, about 20 miles east of Oakland, Calif. A 2008 study funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency estimated that about 2,400 raptors, including burrowing owls, American kestrels, and red-tailed hawks—as well as about 7,500 other birds, nearly all of which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act—are being killed every year by the turbines at Altamont.

A pernicious double standard is at work here. And it riles Eric Glitzenstein, a Washington, D.C.-based lawyer who wrote the petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He told me, "It's absolutely clear that there's been a mandate from the top" echelons of the federal government not to prosecute the wind industry for violating wildlife laws. . . .

the deadly Pine Tree facility, which the Fish and Wildlife Service believes is killing 1,595 birds, or about 12 birds per megawatt of installed capacity, per year. . . . The Pennsylvania Game Commission estimates that wind turbines killed more than 10,000 bats in the state in 2010. . . .
Expensive Electric Cars Selling Very Poorly

Expensive Electric Cars Selling Very Poorly

From CNET:

In terms of price, the Focus Electric costs just under $40,000 before a $7,500 federal tax credit. The Nissan Leaf's price starts at $35,200. The electric Chevy Volt, which has a gas engine to extend the range, costs just under $40,000 and the low-end version of Toyota's 2012 Plug-in Prius is $32,000.
Next year, Ford intends to release the Fusion Energi plug-in hybrid, a mid-size sedan Ford expects to top 100 MPGe and the Fusion Hybrid sedan which Ford projects will get 47 MPG.
The introducing of the Focus Electric brings more competition to the electric car segment. At the same time, all electric cars which run on expensive batteries face competition from hybrids and more efficient gasoline powered vehicles.
In its first year, sales of GM's Chevy Volt fell short of the company's targets, having sold 7,671 in 2011 and 9,297 to date. Nissan, which is now making the Leaf available nation-wide, said in February that it sold 10,000 Leafs in North America.


Sales apparently even slowed further in January:

Sales of the Chevrolet Volt and Nissan Leaf dipped in January, with Volt sales apparently hit by a now-closed safety investigation.
The volume of these high-profile electric cars sold is closely watched as a barometer of consumer demand. Several more battery-electric and plug-in hybrid models from other automakers are expected to come out this year and next.
General Motors said yesterday it sold 603 Volts in January of this year, more than the 321 it sold in January last year. GM shipped 1,529 Volts in December last year, its best month since production, although the yearly total of 7,671 was less than it had hoped.
Nissan sold 676 all-electric Leaf sedans in January of this year, less than the 954 it sold in December last year. The company hit a volume of 10,000 in North America this month. . . .


UPDATE: "GM temporarily halts production of Volt"

General Motors has temporarily suspended production of its Volt electric car, the company announced Friday.

GM, which is based in Detroit, announced to employees at one of its facilities that it was halting production of the beleaguered electric car for five weeks and temporarily laying off 1,300 employees.

A GM spokesman told The Hill on Friday that production of the Volt would resume April 23.
"We needed to maintain proper inventory and make sure that we continued to meet market demand," GM spokesman Chris Lee said in a telephone interview. . . .


Blames media for the low sales.

"GM blamed the lack of sales in January on “exaggerated” media reports and the federal government's investigation into Volt batteries catching fire, which officially began in November and ended Jan. 21," . . .
Sixteen prominent scientists say "no need to panic about Global Warming"

Sixteen prominent scientists say "no need to panic about Global Warming"

From the WSJ:

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed. . . .
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)