AHA! EUROPEAN GOVERNMENTS GIVE UP ON ENERGY TARGETS

They seem to have lost their mojo. Is it the defeat of their constitutional referendum or the reality that they are not meeting various targets anyway? Or is it Tony Blair's new realism?

Just days after the Commission suggested ambitious EU energy savings plans, national governments scrapped every binding element of a related earlier proposal aimed at increasing energy savings on the retail side. The proposed directive for energy end-use efficiency and energy services was tabled as part of the Commission's energy package in December 2003. It is aimed at increasing savings when energy is sold to end-users - whether private households or the public sector. Energy services covered would range from electricity supply, to fuel heating to the petrol sold at the station. The draft is part of EU initiatives to reduce CO2 emissions under the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

Binding targets to increase energy savings when gas, electricity or petrol is sold to customers at retail points were entirely stripped out of a Commission proposal on 28 June as the bill was submitted for approval to national energy ministers from the EU. The vote comes as a serious blow to the Commission just days after it put forward an ambitious energy efficiency proposal that it claimed could save Europe some 20% energy consumption by 2020. Earlier this month, MEPs had backed the proposal and even tightened up the Commission draft by setting higher energy saving targets for both the public sector and for private users. Under the draft voted on by Parliament, energy consumption by private and public end users was to be cut by an overall 11.5% between 2006 and 2015. The Commission had initially proposed a 9% overall cut by 2015 (1% per year on average).

But according to a press statement from the Luxembourg Presidency, the ministers rejected the proposals and replaced them with indicative targets only. In some way though, member states would be "obliged to take measures" to achieve a 6% reduction in energy consumption over a six-year period starting at an undisclosed date. Moreover, ministers also scrapped the Commission's suggestion to set higher targets for the public sector - at 1.5% per year - and replaced it with an assertion that governments ensure the public sector plays an exemplary role in fulfilling the directive's requirements.

A leaked version of the political agreement - seen by EurActiv - states: "Even though Member States commit themselves to make an effort to achieve the target, the national savings target is indicative in nature and entails no legally enforceable obligation for Member States to achieve the target figure of 6%." Luxembourg's Economy Minister Jeannot Krecké, whose country holds down the rotating EU presidency until the end of June, could only partly hide his disappointment: "All of us have commitments in the context of Kyoto and in terms of supply safety and improvements in competitiveness. All of us must make a firm commitment in the same direction."

Source




The latest nonsense from the "modellers": "Fossil records show that around every 26m years, a mass extinction occurs on Earth, wiping out millions of species and leaving only a few hardy survivors. Many scientists have blamed these regular catastrophic culls on meteorite bombardments. But now a paper in Physical Review E suggests that the cause could lie much closer to home. Adam Lipowski, a physicist from the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poland, has developed a computer model which shows that periodic mass extinctions could be caused by the evolution of a "super-predator". Most of the time, the model is populated by medium efficiency predators, but every so often genetic mutations lead to the evolution of a highly efficient beast. "This super-predator is a fast-consuming species and it quickly decimates the population of preys, which in turn leads to its own decline," he explains. Any creatures that survive this destruction gradually mutate to fill the new ecological niches and the cycle starts afresh. So are humans the latest super-predator? "It is the feeling that we have, but our model is too abstract to say this for sure," says Lipowski".




DANGEROUS NEW ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

Still reeling from the Supreme Court decision Kelo v. City of New London, property rights advocates are bracing themselves for another betrayal of private property rights - this time from the GOP-controlled Congress - according to The National Center for Public Policy Research.

In its June 23rd decision, the Court ruled as Justice Sandra Day O'Connor noted in her dissenting opinion that, "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party... The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations..."

Business interests may again benefit at the expense of small property owners through Endangered Species Act reform, if leaked draft language obtained by The National Center from a journalist is any indication.

One of the purported provisions calls for compensation when ESA regulations diminish the value of a person's property - but only if it is devalued by at least 50 percent.

"There are a lot of folks who have a problem with letting government take 49.9 percent of their property - a civil right - before anybody cares," said David Ridenour, Vice President of The National Center for Public Policy Research. "Those with large landholdings may be able to afford this, but the little guy just can't. If you're a small property owner, I don't know how you can look at this as anything but a betrayal."

It is doubtful that even this modest level of compensation would end up in a final bill. Even if it does, compensation may still be out of reach for many property owners - including those whose property diminishes in value by more than half -- because they simply can't afford the costs of all the bureaucratic hoops they must jump through in order to file a successful claim.

Another purported provision would vastly expand the scope of the ESA to regulate so-called "invasive species." If true, this would represent a major assault on private property rights.

Invasive species are species that have expanded beyond their normal distribution. Under this definition, almost anything could qualify for regulation. Tall fescue, for example, a grass commonly used by homeowners for their lawns, could qualify.

Any regulation of invasive species - never before regulated under the Endangered Species Act - would be a step toward the government telling Americans what they can use for their lawns, what flowers they can have in their flowerbeds and what vegetables they can plant in their gardens.

R.J. Smith, a noted conservation expert, says this will extend the reach of the ESA to draconian lengths, giving almost unlimited power to regulate land, since almost all private and public land in America contains non-native species.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, businesses frequently advocate more regulation, rather than less. Sometimes they do so to gain advantage over their competitors. Sometimes they do so to eliminate uncertainty: If they have clearly defined regulations for which they can calculate costs, they can simply pass on those costs to their customers.

"It's clear why corporate special interests like this provision. It permits them to better calculate their costs of doing business. And once they do so, they can simply build these costs into the price of their products," said David Ridenour. "Those of modest means would be the biggest losers as they have to eat the entire costs themselves."

Source





The Brazilian experiment with ethanol (industrial alcohol) as fuel for cars

Below is an extract from a huge article in Wikipedia that tells you all you never wanted to know about ethanol. The excerpt gives some real-life facts on how gasoline could over time be replaced by ethanol with little disruption and with a number of beneficial side-effects. If the price of crude oil goes much higher and stays there, this could be happening all around the world soon. I have highlighted some of the advantages in red and added a few comments in italics to indicate some ways in which the Brazilian experience is not universal

In Brazil, ethanol is produced from sugar cane which is a more efficient source of fermentable carbohydrates than corn as well as much easier to grow and process. Brazil has the largest sugarcane crop in the world, which, besides ethanol, also yields sugar, electricity, and industrial heating. Sugar cane growing requires little labor, and government tax and pricing policies have made ethanol production a very lucrative business for big farms. As a consequence, over the last 25 years sugarcane has become one of the main crops grown in the country.

Sugarcane is harvested manually or mechanically and shipped to the distillery (usina) in huge specially built trucks. There are several hundred distilleries throughout the country; they are typically owned and run by big farms or farm consortia and located near the producing fields. At the mill the cane is roller-pressed to extract the juice (garapa), leaving behind a fibrous residue (bagasse). The juice is fermented by yeasts which break down the sucrose into CO2 and ethanol. The resulting "wine" is distilled, yielding hydrated ethanol (5% water by volume) and "fusel oil". The acidic residue of the distillation (vinhoto) is neutralized with lime and sold as fertilizer. The hydrated ethanol may be sold as is (for ethanol cars) or be dehydrated and used as a gasoline additive (for gasohol cars). In either case, the bulk product was sold until 1996 at regulated prices to the state oil company (Petrobras). Today it is no longer regulated.

One ton (1,000 kg) of harvested sugarcane, as shipped to the processing plant, contains about 145 kg of dry fiber (bagasse) and 138 kg of sucrose. Of that, 112 kg can be extracted as sugar, leaving 23 kg in low-valued molasses. If the cane is processed for alcohol, all the sucrose is used, yielding 72 liters of ethanol. Burning the bagasse produces heat for distillation and drying, and (through low-pressure boilers and turbines) about 288 MJ of electricity, of which 180 MJ is used by the plant itself and 108 MJ sold to utilities.

The average cost of production, including farming, transportation and distribution, is US$0.63 per US gallon (US$0.17/L); gasoline prices in the world market is about US$ 1.05 per US gallon (US$0.28/L). The alcohol industry, entirely private, was invested heavily in crop improvement and agricultural techniques. As a result, average yearly ethanol yield increased steadily from 300 to 550 m3/kmý between 1978 and 2000, or about 3.5% per year.

Sucrose accounts for little more than 30% of the chemical energy stored in the mature plant; 35% is in the leaves and stem tips, which are left in the fields during harvest, and 35% are in the fibrous material (bagasse) left over from pressing.

Part of the bagasse is currently burned at the mill to provide heat for distillation and electricity to run the machinery. This allows ethanol plants to be energy self-sufficient and even sell surplus electricity to utilities; current production is 600 MW for self-use and 100 MW for sale. This secondary activity is expected to boom now that utilities have been convinced to pay fair price (about US$10/GJ) for 10 year contracts. The energy is especially valuable to utilities because it is produced mainly in the dry season when hydroelectric dams are running low. Estimates of potential power generation from bagasse range from 1,000 to 9,000 MW, depending on technology. Higher estimates assume gasification of biomass, replacement of current low-pressure steam boilers and turbines by high-pressure ones, and use of harvest trash currently left behind in the fields. For comparison, Brazil's Angra I nuclear plant generates 600 MW (and it is often off line).

Presently, it is economically viable to extract about 288 MJ of electricity from the residues of one ton of sugarcane, of which about 180 MJ are used in the plant itself. Thus a medium-size distillery processing 1 million tons of sugarcane per year could sell about 5 MW of surplus electricity. At current prices, it would earn US$ 18 million from sugar and ethanol sales, and about US$ 1 million from surplus electricity sales. With advanced boiler and turbine technology, the electricity yield could be increased to 648 MJ per ton of sugarcane, but current electricity prices do not justify the necessary investment. (According to one report, the World bank would only finance investments in bagasse power generation if the price were at least US$19/GJ.)

Bagasse burning is environmentally friendly compared to other fuels like oil and coal. Its ash content is only 2.5% (against 30-50% of coal), and it contains no sulfur. Since it burns at relatively low temperatures, it produces little nitrous oxides. Moreover, bagasse is being sold for use as a fuel (replacing heavy fuel oil) in various industries, including citrus juice concentrate, vegetable oil, ceramics, and tyre recycling. The state of Sao Paulo alone used 2 million tons, saving about US$ 35 million in fuel oil imports.

Most cars in Brazil run either on alcohol or on gasohol; only recently dual-fuel ("Flex Fuel") engines have become available. Most gas stations sell both fuels. The market share of the two car types has varied a lot over the last decades, in response to fuel price changes. Ethanol-only cars were sold in Brazil in significant numbers between 1980 and 1995; between 1983 and 1988, they accounted for over 90% of the sales. They have been available again since 2001, but still account for only a few percent of the total sales.

Ethanol-fuelled small planes for farm use have been developed by giant Embraer and by a small Brazilian firm (Aero lcool), and are currently undergoing certification.

Domestic demand for alcohol grew between 1982 and 1998 from 11,000 to 33,000 cubic metres per day, and has remained roughly constant since then. In 1989 more than 90% of the production was used by ethanol-only cars; today that has reduced to about 40%, the remaining 60% being used with gasoline in gasohol-only cars. Both the total consumption of ethanol and the ethanol/gasohol ratio are expected to increase again with deployment of dual-fuel cars.

Presently the use of ethanol as fuel by Brazilian cars - as pure ethanol and in gasohol - replaces gasoline at the rate of about 27,000 cubic metres per day, or about 40% of the fuel that would be needed to run the fleet on gasoline alone. However, the effect on the country's oil consumption was much smaller than that. Although Brazil is a major oil producer and now exports gasoline (19,000 m3/day), it still must import oil because of internal demand for other oil byproducts, chiefly diesel fuel (which cannot be easily replaced by ethanol).

The improvement in air quality in big cities in the 1980s, following the widespread use of ethanol as car fuel, was evident to everyone; as was the degradation that followed the partial return to gasoline in the 1990s.

However, the ethanol program also brought a host of environmental and social problems of its own. Sugarcane fields are traditionally burned just before harvest [only in the Third World, not in Australia or anywhere else where mechanical harvesters are used] , in order to remove the leaves and kill snakes. Therefore, in sugarcane-growing parts of the country, the smoke from burning fields turns the sky gray throughout the harvesting season. As winds carry the smoke into nearby towns, air pollution goes critical and respiratory problems soar. Thus, the air pollution which was removed from big cities was merely transferred to the rural areas (and multiplied). This practice has been decreasing of late, due to pressure from the public and health authorities. In Brazil, a recent law has been created in order to ban the burnings of sugarcane fields, and machines will be used to harvest the cane instead of people. This not only solves the problem of pollution from burning fields, but such machines have a higher productivity than people. [Australian cane-farmers use mechanical harvesting almost exclusively now]

The ethanol program also led to widespread replacement of small farms and varied agriculture by vast seas of sugarcane monoculture. This led to a decrease in biodiversity and further shrinkage of the residual native forests (not only from deforestation but also through fires caused by the burning of adjoining fields). The replacement of food crops by the more lucrative sugarcane has also led to a sharp increase in food prices over the last decade. [All agriculture is monoculture. We should be used to that fact by now]

Since sugarcane only requires hand labor at harvest time, this shift also created a large population of destitute migrant workers who can only find temporary employment as cane cutters (at about US$3 to 5 per day) for one or two months every year. This huge social problem has contributed to political unrest and violence in rural areas, which are now plagued by recurrent farm invasions, vandalism, armed confrontations, and assassinations. [Australian cane-farmers use mechanical harvesting almost exclusively so such problems do not arise in developed countries]


I should add to the above that sugar production (and hence ethanol production) could be ramped up very quickly. Most sugar-producing countries are so restrained by EU, U.S. and Japanese import policy that they are producing way below capacity. Australia, for instance, could double its production within a year just by being allowed to. The crushing mills are so under-used these days that a lot have shut up shop. And there is a huge area in Western Australia (the Ord) that is suitable for cane that could be brought into production as soon as mills were built. It takes only one year for a cane crop to go from planting to maturity. So the Greenie scare about running out of oil is nothing like the problem they pretend. If American cars were kept going by tankers of ethanol from Australia rather than tankers of oil from the Middle East, what's the problem? You would have a lot more price stability that way too.

***************************************

Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.

Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that "liberals" will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists

Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

*****************************************