WASHINGTON, DC — Today U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (CO-1) joined her colleagues, Reps. Henry A. Waxman and Edward J. Markey, in releasing a new report that provides the first comprehensive national inventory of chemicals used by hydraulic fracturing companies during the drilling process. The report revealed extraordinarily high levels of carcinogens being injected into the ground on fracking projects all across the country, with Colorado having some of the highest levels in the nation..."
"Reinventing Fire: Bold Business Solutions for the New Energy Era offers market-based, actionable solutions integrating transportation, buildings, industry, and electricity. Built on Rocky Mountain Institute's 30 years of research and collaboration in all four sectors, Reinventing Fire maps pathways for running a 158%-bigger U.S. economy in 2050 but needing no oil, no coal, no nuclear energy, one-third less natural gas, and no new inventions. This would cost $5 trillion less than business-as-usual—in addition to the value of avoiding fossil fuels' huge but uncounted external costs.
"This is the video to watch for everybody worried about Electric Cars "sucking all the electricity" out of the grid. There is the way forward - there are ways to produce, distribute and conserve energy more efficiently. Reinventing Fire - lets spread this out."
Video below is from 2010 - we are moving there, but the pace is so slow - nothing even close to the urgency like Manhattan Project - which could reflect the real magnitude of the problem to solve.
"We are talking a lot about the economic benefits of electric cars here, and that they will be the only economically viable solution for our personal mobility after the Oil Crunch. Unfortunately, there is another side of the oil - nobody is talking enough about, oil kills and not only on the battle fields far away during the "liberation" military occupations, but literally on the streets every day. If this price was seriously accounted among the other considerations about electric cars, we think, that our tipping point for the mass market for electric cars would be already here.
We all have the right for the Clean Air, but why not on the streets? We do not think that the air quality in Los Angeles is any better than it is in London - all mega cities in the world are killing thousands of their residents by allowing to drive ICE cars slowly day by day."
"China has the money, political will and the technology to leapfrog into the post carbon world. Oil is the geopolitical issue already and it will define the sharp edge between the state of War and Peace in the nearest future. As one very wise and honest person has put it: "How to stop wars and terrorism? - Stop using Oil." We will paraphrase it here: How to Survive? - Stop using Oil - at least for transportation."
"Over 7 million U.S. workers are currently employed by transportation-related industries affected by Reinventing Fire. This employment would shift in five ways. First, the shift away from oil reduces jobs in oil exploration and production; however, some of those jobs may be retained to make feedstocks and lubricants (not addressed in Reinventing Fire, which analyzes only combustive uses of fossil fuels). Second, more productive use of vehicles reduces vehicle miles traveled by nominally 50%, reducing jobs in auto manufacturing, parts, and repair. Third, consumer adoption of autos with higher prices and efficiencies leads to a slight increase in jobs due to higher revenue per auto. Fourth, using biofuels and hydrogen to power heavy trucks, airplanes, and some autos increases jobs in hydrogen and biofuels production. And fifth, more-efficient vehicles, used more productively, create financial savings that induce jobs in the wider economy.
The net effect on jobs of these changes is relatively small, and our analysis suggests that job shifting will be more prevalent than heavy job loss or gain in the sector. Not included, but potentially significant, is job-shifting between the United States and other countries as foreign automakers lose or gain market share, depending on whether U.S. automakers lead or lag the transition and hence gain or lose share in the domestic market (and potentially export markets).
Digging up and burning the deposits of ancient sunlight stored eons ago in primeval swamps has transformed human existence and made industrial and urban civilization possible. However, those roughly four cubic miles of fossil fuels every year are no longer the only, best, or even cheapest way to sustain and expand the global economy—whether or not we count fossil fuels’ hidden costs.
Those “external” costs, paid not at the fuel pump or electric meter but in our taxes, wealth, and health, are not counted in the Reinventing Fire analysis, but are disturbingly large. Tens of billions of taxpayer dollars each year subsidize America’s fossil fuels, and even more flow to the systems that burn those fuels, distorting market choices by making the fuels look far cheaper than they really are. But the biggest hidden costs are economic and military.
America’s seemingly two-billion-dollar-a-day oil habit actually costs upwards of three times that much—six billion dollars a day, or a sixth of GDP. That’s due to three kinds of hidden costs, each about a half-trillion dollars per year: the macro economic costs of oil dependence, the microeconomic costs of oil-price volatility, and the military costs of forces whose primary mission is intervention in the Persian Gulf. Those military costs are about ten times what we pay to buy oil from the Persian Gulf, and rival total defense spending at the height of the Cold War.
Any costs to health, safety, environment, security of energy supply, world stability and peace, or national independence or reputation are extra. Coal, too, has hidden costs, chiefly to health, of about $180–530 billion per year, and natural gas had lesser but nontrivial externalities even before shale-gas “fracking” emerged.
All fossil fuels, to varying degrees, also incur climate risks that society’s leading professional risk managers—reinsurers and the military—warn will cost us dearly. And even if fossil fuels had no hidden costs, they are all finite, with extraction peaking typically in this generation. Yet “peak oil” is now emerging in demand before supply. Thus industrialized countries’ total oil use peaked in 2005, U.S. gasoline use in 2007. Even U.S. coal use peaked in 2005, and in 2005–10, coal lost 12% of its share of U.S. electrical services (95% of its market) to natural gas, efficiency, and renewables. This is not because these fuels’ hidden costs have been properly internalized yet into their market prices, but rather because those market prices today are too high and volatile to sustain sales against rising competition.
Making a dollar of U.S. GDP in 2009 took 60% less oil, 50% less energy, 63% less directly burned natural gas, and 20% less electricity than it did in 1975, because more efficient use and alternative supplies have become cheaper and better than the fossil fuels they’ve displaced. Yet wringing far more work from our energy is only getting started, and is becoming an ever bigger and cheaper resource, because its technologies, designs, and delivery methods are improving faster than they’re so far being adopted.
Many other countries have lately pulled ahead of the United States in capturing the burgeoning potential for greater energy productivity and more durable and benign supplies. During 1980–2009, for example, the Danish economy grew by two-thirds, while energy use returned to its 1980 level and carbon emissions fell 21%. Now the conservative Danish government has adopted a virtually self-financing strategy to get completely off fossil fuels by 2050 by further boosting efficiency and switching to renewables (already 36% of electric generation, which is the most reliable and among the cheapest pretax in Europe). Why? To strengthen Denmark’s economy and national security. Europe as a whole is going in the same direction, led by Germany, and now Japan and China are moving that way. What could the U.S. do?
In 2010, the United States (excluding non-combustion uses as raw materials) used 93 quadrillion BTU of primary energy, four-fifths of it fossil fuels. Official projections show this growing to 117 quads in 2050. But delivering those same services with less energy, more productively used, could shrink 2050 usage to 71 quads, eliminate the need for oil, coal, nuclear energy, and one-third of the natural gas, and save $5 trillion in net-present-valued cost. As a better-than-free byproduct of efficient use and a continued shift to renewable supplies, fossil carbon emissions would also shrink by 82–86% below their 2000 levels despite the assumed 2.58-fold bigger economy than in 2010.
Natural gas saved through more-efficient buildings and factories could be reallocated to cleaner, cheaper, and more efficient combined-heat-and-power in industry (though we conservatively assume none in buildings), to displacing oil and coal in buildings and factories, and optionally to fueling trucks. America’s energy supply in 2050 would end up roughly three-fourths renewable and one-fourth natural gas (the same fraction as in 2010, but of a smaller total—one-fourth less primary energy and one-third less delivered energy). The remaining gas use, which is probably conservatively high, could phase out over a few decades after 2050. Meanwhile, the United States could take advantage of new shale-gas resources if their many uncertainties turned out well, but not be caught short if they didn’t. Biomass would supply about six times more energy in 2050 than in 2010—two-thirds from waste streams (chiefly in industry) and one-third from cellulosic and algal feedstocks whose production wouldn’t interfere with food production nor harm soil or climate. Liquid biofuels needed for transportation would be equivalent to less than one-sixth today’s total U.S. oil consumption.
To shrink U.S. energy use while GDP grows 158% is not a fantasy; in nine of the 36 years through 2009, the U.S. economy actually did raise energy productivity faster than GDP grew. Chapters 2–5 show how to do that every year, with major competi tive, security, health, and environmental advantages, simply by using energy in a way that saves money, modulating demand unobtrusively over time to match en ergy’s real-time value, and optimizing supply from the cheapest, least risky sour ces. This transition won’t be easy, but will be easier than not doing it. It is already underway, driven inexorably by innovation, competition, and customer preferences. Just as whale-oil suppliers ran out of customers in the 1850s before they ran out of whales, oil and coal are becoming uncompetitive even at low prices before they be come unavailable even at high prices. It’s about $5 trillion cheaper, and smarter in other ways, not to keep on burning them, even if their hidden costs were worth zero.
Realizing this potential does not require business to take a hit or suffer a loss. On the contrary, Reinventing Fire applies normal rate-of-return requirements in each sector, so each proposed change must earn at least a 12%/y real return in industry, 7% in buildings, and 5.7% in electricity, and new autos must repay any higher price within three years. Actually, the suggested investment portfolio considerably outperforms these hurdle rates: the Reinventing Fire strategy would achieve Internal Rates of Return averaging 33% in buildings, 21% in industry, 17% in transportation, and 14% across all sectors—including making the entire electricity system clean, secure, reliable, resilient, flexible, and at least 80% renewable. These are among the highest and least risky returns in the whole economy.
Overall, a $4.5-trillion extra investment would save $9.5 trillion, for a 2010-net-present-valued saving of $5 trillion during 2010–2050, and many key risks to individual business sectors, the whole economy, and national security would be mitigated or altogether abated. Counting the important hidden benefits and costs (to health, productivity, security, etc.) not included in these figures would make the economic case even stronger. And this economic analysis doesn’t count the perhaps decisive gains to be won from more competitive business sectors (such as automak ing), healthier people, and a safer, fairer, richer world. The notion that U.S. competi tive ness depends on cheap, or cheap-appearing, energy wastefully used is a myth, contradicted by both economic theory and global observation. This misconception grievously shortchanges today’s unique opportunity to harness American innovation and reassert national leadership, aspirations, reputation, and influence.
The net effect of the Reinventing Fire transition on jobs would be at worst neutral and probably significantly positive, again without counting potentially dominant gains in competitive advantage that could stabilize or reverse the decline of some major U.S. industries. Net-job analyses in transportation, buildings, industry, and electricity reveal much uncertainty and complexity, but clearly, getting off oil and coal would harm neither the economy nor employment, and would probably benefit both very substantially. This fits the latest data in the marketplace: more Americans now work in renewable energy installation or in energy efficiency installation than in the entire coal industry, for example. Those new jobs, too, are widely distributed by occupation and location, are durable, and can’t be moved offshore. Countries with more coherent transitional policies are already further ahead. Denmark’s relative economic health is substantially driven by its world-class energy-technology exports (chiefly windpower) and its lower energy imports and costs. Germany, which has staked its energy future on an efficiency-and-renewables transition, already has fuller employment than it did before the Great Recession. In essence, Germany pays its own engineers, manufacturers, and installers rather than buying natural gas from Russia, and that investment shift is already paying off.
Failure to shift to efficiency and renewables also gravely harms national security—by spreading rather than limiting nuclear weapons, creating rather than removing attractive terrorist targets, exacerbating rather than relieving global poverty and inequity, fueling rather than soothing global tensions and instabilities, and sending military forces on more and riskier missions rather than fewer and safer.
Incumbent industries that extract, supply, and use fossil fuels are a major force. They must adapt to these new conditions and requirements just as they always have to many kinds of change. But change need not harm their strategic prospects. Hydro carbons are generally worth more as a source of hydrogen and organic molecules than as a fuel. Hydrocarbon and electricity companies have important assets, capabilities, and skills whose judicious deployment will be vital to a successful energy transition. Moving beyond oil and coal can harness those advan tages in ways that sustain profits, diversify options, and manage risks. The firms that do this first should beat the laggards. This is not merely a matter of normal domestic industrial evolution but of global revolution, because extraordinary competition from abroad—most of all from China and Europe, but rapidly spreading around the globe—leaves American industries little choice. They can catch up and pull ahead or they can fall behind, losing the greatest business opportunity in this and perhaps any age, and locking in long-term dependence on key foreign technologies—many first developed in the United States—the same sort of debilitating economic hemor rhage that America’s oil dependence creates today. But encouragingly, much of the innovation and rapid scale-up now occurring worldwide is coming from the global South, driving economic development that can help make people everywhere healthier, happier, richer, and more peaceful.
The key barrier to success is not inadequate technologies but tardy adoption. The rate of implementation required to reach Reinventing Fire’s ambitious goals is challenging but manageable—just as it was in 1977–85, when the U.S. cut its oil intensity at an average rate of 5.2%/y. Our analysis assumes that on average, the entire United States will ramp up over decades to the rates of efficiency and renew ables adoption that the most attentive states have already achieved. Whatever exists is possible. What’s needed is a coherent and compelling vision, leadership at all levels (but not necessarily from Congress, whose action is not actually required for Reinventing Fire), and the courage to capture the opportunities now before each of us. Their value, feasibility, and practical uptake can thrive in our immensely diverse and politically fractious society if we focus on outcomes, not motives—if we simply do what makes sense and makes money, without having to agree on why it’s important. In a nation tired of gridlock, this transideological attractiveness and practicality is good news. Whether we most care about economy, security, or health and environment, Reinventing Fire is spherically sensible—it makes sense no matter which way around you view it."
Competition for Oilis heating up and aggressive move by China into Electric Cars leaves no other options for US than to follow. In order to keep power China needs gradually improve standard of living, it will bring upside pressure on labor cost. Electrification will not only provide Energy Security to China, but will significantly reduce the cost of its transportation element and provide another opportunity to stay among low cost producers. Situation is completely different to U.S. - they have capital to invest in Electric Mobility CAPEX now and rip the rewards of lower cash cost on transportation side later. We will refer you to the Economics of Electric Cars.
PRINCETON, N.J., May 17, 2010 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Seifi Ghasemi, chairman and chief executive officer of Rockwood Holdings, Inc. /quotes/comstock/13*!roc/quotes/nls/roc (ROC 27.70, -0.18, -0.65%) ,speaking at an alternative energy conference in Washington D.C., urged policymakers and others to recognize that "electrification of our transportation system is essential for the future ." Mr. Ghasemi made his comments at a panel, "Vehicle Electrification, Laying the Groundwork for Mass Adoption," at the Deutsche Bank Alternative Energy Conference, which included other members of that Coalition. Following is the text of his opening statement: "The first point I want to make is why we are convinced electrification of our transportation system is essential for the future," Mr. Ghasemi said. "Our current way of life, and to some extent, our day-to-day existence is totally dependent on a transportation system which is powered by the internal combustion engine. To maintain this means of transportation, we are dependent on imported oil. This dependence, especially in the last 40 years, has created three significant problems for the United States and the western world in general. They are: -- national security -- economic security -- "environmental sustainability." Mr. Ghasemi's went on to explain, "On the national security front, we are dependent on oil from very unstable and hostile regions of the world. Therefore, to secure the flow of oil, we are spending billions of dollars to have a military presence in the Persian Gulf and other strategic parts of the world to ensure security of supply. To fuel our current transportation system based on the internal combustion engine, we are paying in treasure and blood. This cannot go on forever. "Second, on the issue of economic security, the United States alone spends close to $300-400 billion a year on imported oil to fuel our transportation system. This is a gigantic transfer of wealth to other, mostly hostile regions of the world. Considering our current national debt, this cannot continue for much longer either. "The third issue of environmental sustainability is obvious. Gasoline driven cars do pollute," Mr. Ghasemi said. He concluded, "We believe, strongly, that electrification of our transportation system is the only logical solution to the above problems. Nuclear energy, wind power or solar energy alone will not make us free of imported oil. As long as our transportation system is based on the internal combustion engine we will be dependant on imported oil. That is why we think electrification of the transportation system is the right way to move forward. Thus, we are very supportive of the actions taken, and policy proposals put forth by the Electrification Coalition. "As a leading producer of lithium, we at Rockwood will do our best to ensure an adequate and secure supply of lithium to power the lithium ion batteries for electric cars of the future." Rockwood Holdings is a global producer of specialty chemicals and advanced materials and the largest producer of lithium and lithium compounds. The company is also a founding member of the Electrification Coalition, a nonpartisan group of business leaders committed to promoting policies and actions that facilitate the deployment of electric vehicles on a mass scale in the United States. Rockwood Holdings, Inc. is a leading global specialty chemicals and advanced materials company. Rockwood has a worldwide employee base of approximately 9,500 people and annual net sales of approximately $3 billion. The company focuses on global niche segments of the specialty chemicals, pigments and additives and advanced materials markets. For more information on Rockwood, please visit http://www.rocksp.com/. The information set forth in this press release contains certain "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 concerning the business, operations and financial condition of Rockwood Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates ("Rockwood"). Words such as "anticipates," "believes," "estimates," "expects," "forecasts," "predicts" and variations of such words or expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Although Rockwood believes the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are based upon reasonable assumptions, there can be no assurance that its expectations will be realized. "Forward-looking statements" consist of all non-historical information, including any statements referring to the prospects and future performance of Rockwood. Actual results could differ materially from those projected in Rockwood's forward-looking statements due to numerous known and unknown risks and uncertainties, including, among other things, the "Risk Factors" described in Rockwood's 2009 Form 10-K on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Rockwood does not undertake any obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statement to reflect events or circumstances after the date on which any such statement is made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events. SOURCE: Rockwood Holdings, Inc.
If you were busy watching the crash in US Dollar this week and were trying to comprehend meaning of Quantitative Easing, we have another news for you: there is no cheap oil left and will never be. Gold, Silver, Copper and Oil has shown us direction of trend this week with debasing of US Dollar. Oil became a matter of strategic reserves and will be priced prohibitive for any amusement purposes like driving an SUV and paying less then 2 USD per gallon. If you are still in doubt buy a ticket and go to Europe or even better to England: you will be able to question people in almost native language why they are not on a barricades yet with petrol prices at 1.3 USD per liter?
Have a glance on the chart, while all Wall Street and paid Talking Heads on Bubble Vision are convincing you that normal "Wall Street professional" can not even wake up in the morning for less then 1 mil per year, somebody is buying Oil. 75 mark is not as far as you would think in the future and when Oil gets be there things will get hot again.
Lithium could become a hot commodity which will preserve the right for mobility in the future. You can hardly fight the war with heavy armored vehicles on Lithium-ion batteries or assure Chinese that your IOU are perfectly fine for them to keep with couple of inflatables. You need tanks, fighters and battle ships - you need Oil.
In order to understand the future we should look at Japan: they do not have any Oil already and are importing the precious staff. Technology and economy are advanced, as well as population culture, in order to understand that they will not survive as a nation with housewives driving kids with Oil at 150 dollars per barrel.
"The nation that leads on energy will be the nation that leads the world in the 21st century. That’s why, around the world, nations are racing to lead in these industries of the future. Germany is leading the world in solar power. Spain generates almost 30 percent of its power by harnessing the wind, while we manage less than one percent. And Japan is producing the batteries that currently power American hybrid car"
In our hungry and entertaining quest for the land spot where Ben's helicopters will unload all those Trillions, we have a strong feeling that a new trend in solid things and Hard Assets is emerging. We are not so close connected to get taxpayers money or any smart to make a better bet on a particular start up as John Doerr, so our pasture as usual: rocks, mud and precious staff in it. We will be happy to dig it out once necessary and price will make us wake up in the morning.
If Tim and Ben are so generous with money we are happy to share too:
We are still thinking that there is more life in the world than just counting effects of Budget Deficits and Quantitative Easing complications for sovereign currencies. After all our Gold and Silver plays are so far from close to our heart drive and energy of new and coming - it is almost like slipping into Dark Ages when the main drive is survival, are we all gonna end with miserable army trucks moving our gold bars? Is there any life at all after Obama Stimulus? What Chinese are gonna be driving for that matter? We are looking for new drives, new ideas, once we move into Inflation stage of recovery from second Great Depression - what will be hot? Gold and silver will preserve value and maybe even will become Reserve Currency - we are in this field already. What is next? Energy security? Peak oil? As financial system became totally unsustainable because of cheap credit, corrupted Agency relations and pure Greed, so the basis of modern life based on cheap energy consumption is becoming the next bubble to burst. Will it lead to downsize when oil will be used mostly for Military Applications? You can not fight the war with batteries so far, only oil can drive tanks, fighter jets and aircraft careers. With all rock style accessories without any substance so far Obama is keen on one thing: energy security - he is ready to debase the currency US Dollar, to cut Medicare, to tax "rich", but he is pushing on alternative energy and energy efficiency. He must be known something that we do not believe so far: cheap oil is gone and even stronger - oil is gone for ordinary consumer within next twenty years.
