Thorium the Green Nuke Fuel

This months Wired has an interesting story on Thorium as a "green" replacement for uranium as a nuclear fuel.

Given the future of the world will be lowCO2 with no emmissions if possible Nuclear power is going to have to be a good portion of our energy portfolio. Anything that helps with this debate is good.

I'm curious to see if shortly politicians start using the word "thorium" to sound smart similarly as they would use "clean coal" a decade ago.

So a Friend Asked: When will we have sustainable biofuels?

Sustainable biofuels depends on your definition of sustainable.

If you define sustainable as net-energy positive (more energy in than out) than we are there with even basic corn ethanol. The majority of corn ethanol plants produce more liquid ethanol btu's of energy than they cost all the way back to the farm (meaning every drop of energy from the farmers tractor on). When ethanol is considered a net energy loser is when they don't consider the other products made along side corn (brewers mash, corn oil, and other products sold after ethanol is produced). Also sometimes the cost of transporting ethanol to market by truck will make it a little bit of an energy loser.

For the most part corn ethanol is seeing a 20 to 40% increase in btu's of energy created. This is never talked about though as in the late 70's it was an energy loser and the same old expert from the 70's (a guy named Pimitel) still pimps the old out of date methodology that has been disproven. The national news always interviews this dude as the counter-opinion of the biofuels industry.

Beyond corn ethanol on net energy return you've got a whole host of other sustainable definitions. Is the corn a genetically modified organism? Is it a permaculture or monoculture farming style? How much water does the farming deplete fromt the natural aquifer below the farm? What about fertilizer and pesticide wash off of the field? These are the sticky wickets that cause a debate.

And then beyond this technical jargon filled debate is the Climate Change debate. Namely the CO2 reduction opportunity of a biofuel. If the biofuel can't substantially reduce CO2 emmission in the lifecycle of the fuel some don't consider it "sustainable" though it would be renewable and cleaner than petroleum.

Beyond corn ethanol though there are a slough of other biofuel products. Biodiesel in particular is extremely sustainable under any metric or debate. The only issue is that environmentalists hate soy bean farms (but somehow hippys love soy). But regardless if its soy, canola, or waste fryer grease biodiesel is 70% less CO2 (for its whole lifecycle) and has no real concerning emmissions issues. This metric being the goal post set by California recently in their "Low Carbon Fuels Standard" set to combat green house gases in their state.

I would go into cellulosic ethanol or some of the other advanced biofuels like "gas to liquid diesel" but it might be a little to much for you. It will make you sorry you asked.

Unless of course you want to hear more. Then my wife will thank you for distracting me enough to stop boring the crud out of her with this stuff.

Mark

(NOTE: This was an answer to a Facebook question asked in my profile)

This is a good paper. I wish I had time to read the whole thing.

Calfornia Low Carbon Fuels Standard Technical Analysis.

California Low Carbon Fuels

So I'm doing simple research on RINs and a potential financial business model. I am looking the world over for a CO2 off-set value for biodiesel and can't find a thing.

Look up the California Low Carbon Fuels Standard though I found some really interesting charts. Though worthless to my project today I felt they were worth posting for posterity.

Below is a chart showing weight and btus. A handy one stop chart.

What is Fischer-Tropsch?

I had time to browse around for white papers on Google. I came across one with a really succinct description of Fischer-Tropsch. I thought it might be worth capturing for future reference.

Thanks to a group focusing on "Improved Fischer-Tropsch Economics Enabled
by Microchannel Technology"


Fischer-Tropsch Process and Products

The FT process was first developed by Franz Fischer and Hanz Tropsch in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s. The chemistry is based on making longer chain hydrocarbons from a mixture of carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2), referred to as “synthesis gas”, at an elevated pressure and temperature and in the presence of a catalyst.

The excess heat generated from the reaction has typically been removed by inserting boiler tubes that carry water. In theory, any source of carbon can be used to generate the synthesis gas. The majority of the products from FT synthesis are paraffinic waxes based on the following chemical equation.


nCO + (2n+1)H2 → CnH2n+2 + H2O (1)

Typical byproducts are liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and naphtha. After the FT process, heavier hydrocarbons can be hydrocracked to produce distillate products, notably diesel and jet fuels.[

FT derived transportation fuels are typically referred to as synthetic fuels. During the 20th
century, these fuels were derived from coal in situations where petroleum was not readily available, such as Germany in WWII and South Africa during Apartheid.


The white paper of course goes on to describe why its relevant now. Regardless I love how simply this captured the subject. It is also worth note that the paper's focus on micro-channels ain't half bad neither. Oregon State University has some reasonable research going on around micro-channels and its supposed to have a huge potential. Though the promises of a micro-channel biodiesel technology never really materialized as promised five years ago (being it was five years out five years ago).

150 Years of Progress.... Now Time for the Next Paradigm

Yesterday marked the 150 birthday of the commercial petroleum industry. With Edwin Drake's discovery of oil in Pennsylvania the future of western civilization was moved forward at a speed unpredictable and mind bending. Ironically (a little trivia history) the day Drake struck oil was the day he received word from his backers to pull out and stop drilling.

Wired Magazine and Fastcompany both have tribute mentions on their website.

Usually presented as a force for evil or sinister change the benefits of petroleum have been spectacular. The immediate ability of humanity to harvest the btu's and calories of another geological dynasty has been good to those of us in the U.S.. Bending hydrogen and carbon molecules to our own needs has given us wealth and lifestyles beyond the imagination of any human alive in the 19th century. At the time of the American revolution in fact the wealth and lifestyle of today's American middle class would impress the great monarchs of Europe. From food and entertainment options the wealth cheap power provides is mind boggling when you consider it.

That brings us to what next? I would like to state simply (in honor of the 150th anniversery of petroleum) a hypothesis. That the prominence of petroleum at the center of our civilization is because of two items. One the cost of extraction is so cheap that the product is nearly free in comparison to most other products. Two, the amount of research and development reinvested by the petroleum industry have turned this nearly free btu rich product into the center piece it is to our civilization.

In short, as petroleum costs rise there is no reason other products will not take petroleum's place. In fact the harvesting of biomass and recapture of garbage can provide 100% of our energy in a closed carbon neutral loop. It only takes two things. A little market share for these new synthetic crude technologies as well as 150 years of experiments to bring them along to where petroleum is.

Look them up. Fast pyrolisis, Fischer-Tropsch, thermal depolymerization, and similar variant technologies. All simulating the Earth's geological process that created crude oil by heat, pressure and a oxygen poor environment. Reforming biological materials commonly seen around us magically into a source product for everything we take for granted in the modern world.

Business Model Conept and Thoughts

Recently with the new Renewable Fuel Standard being promulgated by the EPA and Obama administration (commonly referred to as the "RFS2") a change has taken place. Specifically the creation of carve outs for certain biofuel technologies. Next generation biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol, gas to liquids, and other type technologies are being given set aside market share.

The RFS2 proposes to that the existing Renewable Industry Numbers ("RINs") system and set aside requirements for petroleum refiners and importers to buy a specific amount of cellulosic ethanol and waste to ethanol in their biofuel requirements. With this there is new value attached to cellulosic ethanol. This is coupled with a renewed funding effort by the US DOE, USDA and others to get cellulosic ethanol plants off the ground.

Close to home Trillium Fiber Fuels just pulled a $750,000 grant to build a cellulosic ethanol plant (this after a sizable grant to experiment with various feedstocks about a year ago). But as I look at it I'm seeing some serious bring to market issues with smaller cellulosic plants. Namely that it doesn't make sense to build a host of small commercial scale ethanol plants in regions where there are already idle corn ethanol plants.

The issue I see is the cost of capital, the need to return an investment to this capital, and the fact that if the cellulosic technology is proven it will likely be licensed and integrated right back into the already existing corn ethanol plant. These corn ethanol plants also already have two really important things for a cellulosic ethanol plant. Namely expertise making ethanol to ASTM specification and the ability to place this product in the stream of commerce (no small feat for a sub-5 million gallon plant with no experience).

So here is my thought (and a regulatory question as well). Being on the west coast we need to import our corn and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Why not focus on making cellulosic carbohydrate instead of ethanol, Then run the carbohydrate through the already existing corn based ethanol process. Qualify this product as a next generation fuel by carbohydrate volume placed in the process with the corn.

It makes logical sense. This being the method preferred for counting electron when generating green power from solar or wind projects. The real issue is does the EPA trust ethanol producers enough to do so given that there might be a full $1 a gallon additional value in a cellulosic gallon of ethanol.

This raises two questions to be feasible. One is the cost of freight and creation of the cellulosic sugar something that I believe can be managed. Second, will the RFS2 allow a measurement of this product placed in a batch with corn ethanol. Essentially we would create the same debate that exists with ConocoPhillips and their Renewable Diesel process where they add fats into the crude oil pre-distillation at the refinery.

Just some thoughts.

Quote of the day

"You know a problem has not been solved when there are ten different ways to deal with it."
Chris of
Trillium Fiber Fuels
(speaking on the subject of pretreating feedstocks in cellulosic ethanol production)

Clean Coal Is Back on the Drawing Board

I suspected coal fired power would be a dead-end over the next four years. According to Wired.com not so much. In fact the Bush Administration's start towards "clean coal" via Carbon Sequestration is being continued with a future-gen CO2 capture project.

Just to get my enviro-street-cred 'I told you so' in as early as possible. How much you want to bet there is a major MTBE type problem with Carbon Sequestration that the brilliant engineers, chemists, and policy wonks failed to see? I just see deep well injection of anything and expect either sci-fi style earth quakes or Green Peace fundraising aquifers being effected.

I don't have any scientific basis for this. Just experience and a gut feeling. Critics please remember that I'm usually on the other side of this tech debate. Regardless, something about CO2 Sequestration just doesn't fit right.

Scientific America has a good article which does a great job of explaining the subject simply and in depth. What separates this deep injection method is the capture and mineralization (note: I don't know if that's even a real word) of the CO2 with surrounding geology.

A snippet from the article that gets right to the point:

The storage seems to be long term as well; the sequestered gas doesn’t just sit in the rock waiting for a chance to escape. Over decades it dissolves into the brine that shares the pore space or, over longer time spans, forms carbonate minerals with the surrounding rock, Hovorka notes. In fact, when she tried to pump CO₂ out of her test site using natural gas extraction techniques, the attempts failed completely.

It's is an interesting science. But I see the more promising technologies being an approach to use the CO2 productively as a resource. I don't see dumping CO2 underground ever surviving as a long term strategy.

The activists and policy people I've met would fight this approach as hard and long as any other industry approach to simplify a reduction in pollution. Capture or dilution rarely are acceptable to true environmentalists. The only solution they accept (and the only one usually settled upon) is ultimately less pollution period.

This is a short term approach that no-doubt will work for petroleum and natural gas producers. Beyond those with capital experience in drilling deep holes though I don't see this as anything close to an acceptable solution for CO2 reduction by 2050 (the target year I hear policy wonks pointing to).

Trolling bout Biodiesel

I saw a new press event for Propel Biofuels on the Biobased News site.

It seems like its been years since I've heard about Propel. I remember a few years ago they were poised to move forward boldly. Infused with V.C. cash and processing something more than that (a company chalked full of people filled with ability). They also had an awesome grasp of where to take the biofuel market to and therefore a compelling pitch to go with their business.

But after spending several hundred's of thousands of dollars building the best biodiesel infrastructure around Seattle their expectations didn't materialize. Of course nobody's expectations in the field did either. Now they are back pulling earned media and I like what I see.

Why do I like it? One self indulgent reason. Its the same argument and effort that I am making in Portland. I think they are correct except they are failing to see the real value in their business and intellectual property (which I will keep to myself). Its good to see your own logic and marketing packaging elsewhere.

Sunday thoughts about Automakers BK

As GM crawls towards what others describe as unavoidable bankruptcy I am drawn to the historic figures of US auto industry founders. How would Henry Ford or Billy Durant have handled this crisis.

The more I speculate the more sure I become of the answer. Their actions would be like that of the tech Mavens of today.  They boldly would stand up and demand more of every member of their team, their supply chain, and ultimately move the entire industry forward surfing the wake of crisis. They would have stepped forward welcoming competition, harsh medicine of the downturn, and would have cast their lot with the American consumers needs.  Their solution would be simple: Progress!

Progress in my definition is simple.  More for less.  Less cost, less impact, and in turn the creation of more value.  

What is the need of the American auto consumer. It is a simple three prong test: Stylish function, bottom of the market cost, and reliable utility.  

That is the secret formula used first by the Oldsmobile as it built market share at the dawn of the automobile.  Again it was the secret strategy of Henry Ford in his quest to displace the horse with his ever less expensive Model-T.  As well it was the come to market strategy of all other car makers gobbling up GM's lunch since Billy Durant launched his own come to market coup with the Chevrolet.  Again, ironically the comeback of Chrysler was marked by this same strategy in the 90's and is why Kia is still a safe bet for dealers who picked up the brand as they pursue it today.

Unbelievably the pundits blame it on fuel economy and the lack of demand for their cars. Though it isn't demand that's dried up in the world. Its credit, income, and of course crude oil's availability.   Who doesn't want a H2?  Only the social sensibilities and excess pull back this shinny toy of the wasteful urbanite.

I can't help but notice that Toyota, Honda, and Nissan manufacture huge SUV's and full size toy-hauling pick-ups.  The difference is their market share make up not their Environmental credentials.  Again we come back to affordable, stylish, and reliable.  

Look at the markets.  When you buy American and inexpensive your purchase reminds you of your income. Your options smack of cost cutting.  The upgrade also is substantially different as well.  Japanese designers on the other hand provide a consistency with value.  

The Japanese hold their consistent come-to-market units true to their roots.  They offer a middle ground to their consumers.  

EV Car Event in Portland

If you are a friend or customer let me know if you want to attend. I've bought a table for this event.

Mark

Please mark your calendar. 

 

The Future is Electric

The Electric Vehicles Revolution. 

The Potential and Possibility of the Emerging Electric Vehicle Technology.

YPOP Breakfast of Champions

7:30 AM

June 16th, 2009

University of Oregon in Portland

70 NW Couch Portland, OR 97209

 

 

Look at your cell phone.  If we could scale the amount of power and efficiency possessed by your phone’s battery into a Prius it would triple the fuel economy of this existing car technology immediately.  That is the potential of Electric Vehicles and why they are the talk of policy wonks and politicians everywhere.

Profound moves and big personalities are at work to establish Oregon as an international leader in the emerging industry of Electric Vehicles.  Though Oregon has been hit hard by the recession, it is still an exciting time to do business in Oregon and this industry is one of the brighter spots in the economic outlook.  Find out why.

This event will showcase the potential and possibility Electric Vehicles hold in the near future.  From new technology companies emerging in Oregon, to those innovators who plan to manufacture the parts and pieces the industry will need, and of course Oregon State’s effort to build a network of rapid vehicle charging stations throughout our state in the next two years.   

Our speaker Chris Bakken is a leader in the field of electric vehicle recharging stations and battery technology development.  As the President and Chief Strategy Officer for SynkroMotive he will share with us the profound potential of electric vehicle technologies from his perspective within the industry.

Space is limited so please RSVP through YPOP.  If you want to guarantee a seat, table sponsorships are available for $100 and come with seven reservations at your table.  A continental breakfast will be provided thanks to our generous sponsors.

Thursday Morning Thoughts

I have worked hundreds of trade shows, events, and other public outreach efforts. I've also spoken at dozens of conference and before trade associations as well. All pushing forward the largest obstacle to biofuels. A lack of awareness that an alternative to petroleum existed.

The common first question from some one actually driving a truck for a living was always the same. "Is it cheaper?"

To which I always answered "No, it's worth to much to sell cheaper than diesel."

The low price falacy.

Price. This being the common question and qualifier of the opportunity for any fuel. Whether it was always, everyday, consistently cheaper than petroleum. Other than on a small scale, this will never happen though. Because as we add biofuels into the on-road gas and diesel market a wonderous thing happens. It applies a further downward pressure on petroleum prices (MORE ON THIS LATER).

In fact I've had hundreds of conversations around this subject. The consistent critics who claim there is no market for anything if it is more expensive. That premise of course conflicts with everything around us. Most of all energy.

Every time you pull into your neighborhood gas station there is almost always someplace cheaper within a reasonable distance. Every time you pull into a gas station you are presented with regular, midgrade, and premium gasoline. If cheaper is a requirement to exist in the market how does premium gasoline exist? This argument always throws the "experts" and academics for a loop.

I realized the above argument off the cuff once when having lunch with a college professor who was supposedly an expert on algea and therefore biodiesel. Right from the begining he started pontificating about the fact that there was no future for biodiesel or ethanol unless it was substantially cheaper than petroleum. That without algea production we never could be cheaper than petroleum. And given that algea technology was "five years out" our market development efforts were a waste of time until algea came on line.

You should have seen the look on his face (and the smirks on the rest of the table) when I pointed out the fuel market already respected premium products.

But this price argument is made often and everywhere. Its an odd argument you see most forcefully in technology circles. That the next great paradigm shift is only "five years out" and all efforts today are a waste of time. But of course most of these technologies have been five years out since the Carter Administration.

Probably the biggest place the energy curmundgeons get away with false price examples is utility scale electrical power. In the beautiful land of the Pacific Northwest hydro electric power delivers the cheapest high quality, low carbon, power to the entire west coast. In Portland a retail consumer is paying under $.10 a kw with all taxes.

This price tag is often cited as why diversifying to "clean-tech" options is doomed to fail. Given the fact that the depreciated cost of solar and wind power cost as much as $.30 a kw. But this is false math failing to see the reality of this market.

Hydro power is a battery. We can spill water through a turbine at any time and realize that power at will. Hydropower in essence is the long establish, paid for, holy-grail of energy. Readily available, when we want it, no additional impact, and low CO2. Every drop of this cheap power is worth a thousand times the price tag.

The true price of power floats on a market. In the summer when Los Angeles and San Diego are sucking power for air conditioning this hydro electric power is worth much more on the open market than $.10 a kw. In fact its worth more than $.30 a kw. Therefore the water saved by wind and solar power is a cheap buy as it allows low carbon hydro electric on demand for no additional cost to the system. No sudden opportunity cost.

The same argument holds for areas reliant on natural gas or coal fired power plants. Every additional kilowatt flowing through the system, if operated efficiently, is that much less capacity for the power plant. That much bargaining and gaming opportunity for them to manage their cost of fuel. To save it for when the market truely recognizes its highest and best use.

Also worth mention again is the compound flaw in the low price falacy. The fact that biofuels are more expensive than the dirtier mainstays of our economy does not mean they don't make sense on a price basis.

By diversifying beyond just coal and petroleum we do something very critical. We push a downward pressure on these CO2 intensive fuels. We in turn lower their price when they are their most expensive. The few stretches of time a year that natural gas or coal fired electricity is stretched to its limits these renewables maintain a cheap addition to the power mix.

There is a word for this behavior. A commonly accepted strategy in all things but the energy debate. Diversification. The balancing of a portfolio in order to reduce volitility and therefore maintain stable, predictable and therefore a better result.

OPIS Newsflash on Land Use Impacts of Biofuels

Well its a better argument than the one's we faced with Food vs. Fuel. Its logical and seems to be more results oriented. Hopefully this is a fair debate that moves us beyond the bullet-statement and bumper sticker arguments around ethanol.


From OPISnet.com

BIOFUEL GROUPS CONTINUE TO OPPOSE INDIRECT LAND USE INCLUSION IN RFS

Industry sources continued this afternoon to sift through the voluminous 1,004-page notice of proposed rulemaking for the expanded renewable fuels standard (RFS) that U.S. EPA issued this morning, but it appears as though while biofuel advocates appreciate the establishment of the Biofuels Interagency Working Group, they still oppose EPA's inclusion of indirect land use (ILUC) in the agency's establishment of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions.

As passed under the 2007 energy bill, the 36-billion gal/yr RFS is broken into four segments: a capped corn-based ethanol requirement of 15 billion gallons by 2015; 21 billion gallons of the overall mandate contains "advanced biofuels" by 2022, with 16 billion gallons of that amount, under the same timeframe, from cellulosic biofuel. For the fourth carve-out, up to 1 billion gallons by 2012 is required to be from biomass-based diesel.

Meanwhile, conventional biofuels would be required to emit 20% fewer lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) compared to gasoline, while "advanced biofuels" would be required to emit 50% fewer lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions and cellulosic biofuel would be required to emit 60% fewer emissions.

In this morning's notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA included emissions from ILUC in its lifecycle requirements, much to the chagrin of the biofuels industry. Biofuel groups, agricultural academics and some lawmakers had asked EPA to delay the ILUC requirements until there was a generally accepted method for determining the regulation.

"If you look at the direct impact of ethanol, from the production of the grain to transportation to the facility to the process of making the ethanol to transporting that to market, there are significant benefits to ethanol over petroleum," about 61% lower than petroleum fuels on average, said Renewable Fuels Association President Bob Dinneen, speaking on a conference call with reporters earlier today. However, "there is so much uncertainty" when trying to factor indirect effects, he said.

Additionally, the proposed ILUC requirements are not being uniformly applied, since there is no similar provision for petroleum production, Dinneen noted. "You'll see no international indirect effect of petroleum applied. EPA should've looked at this when they were creating the baseline. They are willing to count the number of angels on the head of pin for biofuels, [and] they ought to give more than just a cursory look at petroleum production," he said.

But Dinneen said he was pleased EPA would specifically be soliciting scientific feedback and peer review on the ILUC proposal.

Similar comment came from other biofuel groups, including Growth Energy, POET, the American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE), Biotechnology Industry Association and Brazilian sugarcane trade association UNICA.

"As evidenced by the recent debate over the low carbon fuel standard in California, biofuels are greatly penalized by these preliminary calculations,"
said UNICA Chief Representative in North America Joel Velasco. "We know sugarcane ethanol has the lowest carbon emissions of any liquid biofuel produced today. California recognized as much in its low carbon fuel standard.

We are certain that when the EPA considers the best available data and research, these indirect land use effects from sugarcane cultivation in Brazil will be marginal at best," he added.

Meanwhile, the National Biodiesel Board said that a final EPA rule on indirect land use changes "that is based on questionable science and is structured in a manner that restricts the role of sustainable vegetable oils in the program will make it nearly impossible to meet the Advanced Biofuels goals established by statute," according to NBB Vice President of Federal Affairs Manning Feraci. "Hopefully, common sense will prevail in this process and the EPA will issue a workable final rule that is based on sound science and allows the U.S. biodiesel industry to make a positive contribution to the RFS2 program," he added.

Brian Jennings, executive vice president of ACE, said he was pleased that USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack will be co-chairing the Biofuels Interagency Working Group along with the heads of DOE and EPA. "I think this means ethanol remains at the table for the president's energy policies moving forward, despite the political desire of some to box ethanol out. I think the working group will ensure that fossil fuels are finally examined along with biofuels in these LCA [land use change] assessments," he added.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), meanwhile, is pleased with the inclusion of the indirect land use provision. "We must develop biofuels the smart way, and we are encouraged that EPA Administrator Jackson has offered a science-based proposal to get this done," said NRDC's Nathanael Greene. "The opportunity to review EPA's proposal will help ensure that developing biofuels won't mean using our most fragile forests for fuel and that biofuels provide real benefits. We plan to submit comments on what EPA has gotten right and what must be improved to make sure the outcome serves our environmental and energy needs," he added.

While both the American Petroleum Institute and the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association were still reviewing the proposal, they are concerned with the availability of biofuels that will be needed under the RFS. "While NPRA looks forward to commenting more specifically on the proposed guidelines, the questions of commercial viability, product liability and the lack of adequate scientific review with regard to mandated increased quantities of ethanol remain unresolved," said NPRA President Charles Drevna. The association said it trusts "that EPA will seriously and transparently consider the concerns raised by fuel, public health, environmental, and engine manufacturing interests as it proceeds toward finalizing guidelines for RFS implementation."

Similarly, API spokesman Karen Matusic said it is "surprised and disappointed" that EPA, in relying on industry information, believes there are sufficient plans underway to build plants capable of producing 100 million gal of cellulosic ethanol in 2010 and are therefore not proposing to waive the requirement for next year. "The waiver criteria is not 'plans to build,' but is 'projected volumes of cellulosic biofuels production," she noted. "Information readily available to the government clearly shows that very little cellulosic biofuels will be produced in 2010," she added.

Meanwhile, anticipating that ILUC would, in fact, be included in EPA's proposed rule, U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) introduced legislation last week that would direct EPA to only focus on the direct lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions in its regulation. Speaking on the conference call this morning, Dinneen said these and other congressional efforts are separate from EPA's peer review efforts and aren't likely to be withdrawn.

Once EPA's proposal is published in the Federal Register, the agency will begin to accept public comments for 60 days. Meanwhile, EPA plans to hold a workshop on June 10-11 at the Dupont Hotel in Washington, D.C., to present details of the lifecycle GHG analysis included in the proposal.

For more information on the proposal, visit:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/index.htm#regulations.
--Robert Gough, OPISnet
--Rachel Gantz, OPISnet

Monday Morning Thoughts

Power; what is it?

Whether its political, physical, or electrical. Power is the ability to drive some result. It is a stored ability to take nature into the logical hands of humanity.

It is also the ability to bring the inanimate to life. To turn hot into cold, cold into hot, and move water up hill. Power is magic. It is the march of civilization forward. Power is energy.

Push your car down the freeway at 75 mph for 15 miles and tell me its not worth $2.50 gallon. The wealth of our world, your standard of living, the hope for a brighter future are all tied to petroleum. And therefore all power be it financial, political, or industrial is founded on the btu's of energy contained in a barrel of crude. The power of the future will be whatever source the next btu we burn is harvested from.

The power represented by petroleum though is by default. Its for lack of a competing option. This lack of a discernible 'silver-bullet' substitute gives rise to a real conundrum of those looking ahead.

Enter the logic of Peak Oil. The well quantifiable reality that there may not be any more oil to tap. That we have peaked (or will soon peak) the world's oil reserves and though demand will continue to grow the resource to extract will become further and further from our ability to harvest it.

This shouldn't be scary. It shouldn't be something to worry. We have developed, built, and invented our way out of scarcity before. Why is it now that it seems like there is no route to more?

Part of my motivation to write this is in response to the Peak Oil arguments of doom. The fact that the future is a dynamic opportunity for human improvement. The reality that in the past the only time that the most talented among us couldn't move beyond an obstacle was when institutions conspired to maintain the obstacle. Usually not on purpose, but none the less well meaning assumptions influenced rules, laws, and direction away from innovation..

For those of you who are familiar with Peak Oil I place before you an unfamiliar argument. That its not a big deal as it relates to our standard of living. That with cheap oil gone our standard of living will not be effected and though petroleum costs will rise I am confident that the American standard of living will not be substantially eroded in the short term. The rapid need for communal gardens, composting toilets, and the 'End of Suburbia' will not drop suddenly on the world's doorstep.

Instead I offer a competing view. That we will sacrifice quality of life and needlessly develop petroleum resources that in the future will be worth far more than the btu's they represent today. That western agriculture, industry and lifestyles will hit these higher prices like a speed bump. Unless we embrace a more dynamic and wider reason for diversifying beyond petroleum instead of a bleak future it will just be less bright than it needs to be.

If Peak Oil is a reality it will not be the end of western civilization. The full weight and creativity of the western Capitalist system will move rapidly to maintain the value and market position of its invested capital. Not to mention the well established standards for fuel, energy, and infrastructure regulated by government with petroleum products in mind.