The New York Times
$5 billion U.S. effort to help hot states save on air-conditioning questioned
Video: Environment
Colorado town overrun by elk
June 5: The majestic creatures roam by the thousands near the Continental Divide, and every year, many take up residence in the small town of Estes Park, wandering the streets and mingling with townsfolk and tourists. NBC's Jack Chesnutt reports.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miranda Kerr goes nude for koalas
Eagles return to Canadian park
Turning America Green
Florida's newest artificial reef created
Calif. farm areas drying up
California’s farming areas aren’t dust bowls, at least not yet, but a three-year drought and water restrictions have slashed crops and jobs, undermining rural communities.
By Michael Cooper
updated 7:41 a.m. ET, Mon., June 8, 2009
CRAWFORDVILLE, Fla. - The federal government is spending $5 billion in stimulus money to weatherize homes across the country. That is almost as much as it has spent on weatherization since the program was created in the 1970s to cut heating bills and conserve oil for low-income people.
But this year, there is a twist.
An unusually large share of the money will be spent not on keeping cold air out but on keeping cold air in. As a result of a political compromise with Sun Belt lawmakers last decade, the enormous expansion of the weatherization program will invoke a rarely used formula that will devote 31 percent of the money, nearly double the old share of 16 percent, to help states in hot climates, like Florida, save on air-conditioning.
Many environmentalists say cutting electricity use for cooling is just as worthwhile as reducing the use of oil or gas for heating. But there are substantial questions about whether it is the most efficient way to save energy.
The nation spends twice as much on heating as on cooling, according to the federal Energy Information Administration, and it consumes more energy heating homes than cooling them. When it comes to emissions of heat-trapping gases, the department found, home heating is responsible for emitting twice as much carbon dioxide as home cooling. And a 2005 survey of home energy use by the agency found that the average household in New England spent $1,188 a year on heating, while the average household in Florida spent $597 on air-conditioning.
Effectiveness questioned
Repeated questions have been raised about the effectiveness of weatherization in hot-climate states. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, which evaluates the program for the Energy Department, released a study last year questioning the program’s results in Texas, which will get $327 million in weatherization money from the stimulus law. The laboratory found that insulating homes did not save a significant amount of money on cooling, a finding it said was consistent with previous studies.
More U.S. news from NYTimes.com
Radio Show Offers Advice and More to Mexico’s Poorest Immigrants
Justices Tell Judges Not to Rule on Major Backers
Obama Promises Job Creation in Plan
Closed Clinic Leaves Abortion Protesters at a Loss
Stimulus Funds Spent to Keep Sun Belt Cool
Steven Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, a nonprofit group that favors weatherization, said the spending formula reflected the tension in balancing national goals with regional interests. “If you were doing it on a national basis,” Mr. Nadel said, “you’d do the most cost-effective jobs first, which would mean doing a lot in places like the Dakotas and Minnesota.”
Gil Sperling, the program manager at the Office of Weatherization and Intergovernmental Affairs at the Energy Department, said more studies of weatherization in hot climates were needed to take into account recent technological advances.
“While the Department of Energy is gathering the latest data about the savings in cold-weather and warm-weather states,” Mr. Sperling said, “this program has a proven track record of saving money, saving energy and creating jobs across the country.”
The stimulus money is being divided according to a formula devised in 1995 after members of Congress from the hot states complained that they received too little money through the weatherization program. The formula has been used just twice, since it is invoked only in the rare years that the program financing exceeds a threshold, now set at $233 million.
J. Bennett Johnston, a former Democratic senator from Louisiana who pushed for the new formula at the time, said more people were dying from extreme heat than extreme cold. “This was not so much an energy saving proposal; it was more of an equity proposal, one that gave attention to public health,” Mr. Johnston said, adding that it would save energy.
Cold states' share reduced
Now, the formula favoring hot states is being used just as the government makes its biggest investment in weatherization.
So while all states will get more money for weatherization than ever before, and cold states will still get a majority of the money, the share going to cold states will be smaller than usual. In the past, cold states received two-thirds of the weatherization money; now they will take just over half.
This is one of several examples where the stimulus law relies on existing Congressional formulas to divide billions of dollars. Doing so made it hard to direct the spending but avoided messy fights in Congress over how to divide the money.
My thoughts on this are, if you are too hot in Fla you can jump in the ocean, pool, or water hose. If you are freezing to death, you have few options, so take care of the colder area first and better. Its a great program and long overdue, as long as the scammers and crooks dont steal all the money before it gets to the people who need it. Oversight is the key.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Good vs Bad Debt
The myth of ‘good’ debt
Posted Jun 05 2009, 08:24 AM by Karen Datko Rating: Filed under: debt, The Dough Roller, mortgage, credit cards, debt reduction
This post comes from partner blog The Dough Roller.
You've probably heard of "good" debt and "bad" debt. Good debt is when we borrow to buy something that generally goes up in value, like a home. Bad debt is when we borrow for anything else, like a car, a boat, a meal, a dress, a cruise, a wedding and so on.
Many teach that good debt is fine, while bad debt is not. The theory goes that good debt makes us wealthy as the value of our purchased assets goes up, while bad debt makes us poor as we struggle to pay debts for which we have little to show. In fact, it's a philosophy I've followed my entire adult life.
And it's flawed.
Not all debt is created equal, to be sure. A debt backed by an appreciating asset is far better than debt used to fund a lifestyle we can't afford. Why? If for no other reason, we can always sell an asset to pay off good debt. With bad debt, all we have is the debt.
But the problem with good-debt versus bad-debt thinking is that it makes good debt seem more appealing than it really is. And there are two reasons for this.
First, debt, whether good or bad, takes away some level of our freedom. In my case, I'm 42 with enough good debt for two families. If I were debt-free, I could quit my day job and run this site full time. I'd really enjoy that, along with a few other business ventures I'd undertake. As it stands, my good debt is requiring me to keep my 9-to-5 job. Thus, good debt is preventing me from living the life I'd like to live.
Second, selling the assets that underlie good debt is not always practical. For most of us, good debt is our mortgage, and that's true for us. We have a mortgage and a home-equity line of credit used to renovate our home several years ago. We could sell our home, even in the current market, and pay off all of our good debt. We would have enough money left over to pay cash for a home in many areas of the country, but not where we currently live outside of Washington, D.C.
It's certainly a choice we could make. We would uproot our two high school children, sever all of our friendships, and leave many of our family members behind. We've chosen not to do that, and that's the right choice for us. But that just brings me back to all of our good debt.
Borrowing to buy a house is a perfectly rational decision. In our case, perhaps we purchased more home than we needed, although we do enjoy where we live. But the fact remains that good debt, at least for individuals, is a myth.
Instead of good debt and bad debt, maybe we should just think of it as debt and bad debt.
Related reading at The Dough Roller:
How to avoid a mutual fund's minimum investment
30 things I learned in my first 30 days of blogging
10 Web sites to look up the value of your home
Um....How it is a myth was not explained.
Bobby (Posted 06.05.09 10:15 AM ) Report Abuse
Maybe two equally valid classifications of debt could be: rational and irrational.
I agree that it makes sense to go into debt to buy a home (because 99% of us can't just pay in full) because you will eventually own that house and land and it beats shelling out rent that you'll never see again.
It makes sense to go into debt for a car, most of us need one to get to a job to buy the rest of our crap. But lets be reasonable about what we can afford. Maybe instead of an Escalade with rims you could put a down payment on a home.
It does not make sense however to spend money on a night out (or many other good, services and entertaining things) that may cost you fifty bucks on this one beautiful night that you'll end up paying two hundred for years and years down the road.
Rational and Irrational; Smart and Stupid.
Frank (Posted 06.05.09 10:29 AM ) Report Abuse
yep, the title is misleading.
good debt is borrowing to buy house wasn't the case this time, isn't it?
nate (Posted 06.05.09 10:44 AM ) Report Abuse
For those who follow the Good debt v bad debt philosophy- the writer's example of a home mortgage and equity line is actually bad debt. The home is not an asset if you can't sell it for whatever reason. Don't live in your assets, make them work for you.
Will (Posted 06.05.09 11:01 AM ) Report Abuse
No no no...U all are retarded...We own nothing, we are indebted to everything, so it is not whether to have good/bad debt debt/bad debt... You should have no debt. If you cannot buy your house with the cash you earned or earn than you have not earned it...There you go, earn/not earned is more like it. America has been raised to get things first and pay later and that is what has ruined our country. I propose that you start teaching your kids to stir away from debt all together and start thinking of ways to make positive changes for material equivalents. Ideas are the pools of dreams and if you have not noticed yet, making money is like breathing now a days, so anyone that says they cannot afford it is because they did not earn it :)
Corey Lambert (Posted 06.05.09 11:13 AM ) Report Abuse
Actually, I think the definitions of good and bad debt are wrong in this article. Bad debt is any debt we take on that we cannot afford. This does restrict one's choices or options because it negatively affect household cash flow and, thus, can negatively affect one's quality of life. Good debt should be defined as "using someone else's money instead of our own". When you buy something cash, you tie up your money into that item. What if you could borrow to buy that item, and instead, keep your money invested, even in a relatively low yielding money market account, and make more money investing this money than you pay interest on your borrowed money? You have "made" money while taking on debt. This is a good debt. Don't think it's possible? I offer this option every day to people who are looking to pay cash for a car.
car loan guy (Posted 06.05.09 11:21 AM ) Report Abuse
I have to say I was one of those who followed the rule of "good debt/bad debt" HOWEVER I feel differently now because in my opinion the rules changed.I think everyone has to look at their situation to figure out what they can do for instance house mortgage -if you loose your job and can't make the payment or sell the house and break even.Education use to be in my good debt category no longer it's debt you have to pay back and no guarentee of a job non the less if you get one that it pays decent.My point is the rules changed and we have to keep up.I am 55 ys old house paid for now for 5yrs, college educated no loans,drive cars for 12plus yrs,have 401K and 403b and intend to keep working.Oh yeah I am a nurse and for 30yrs always could get a job, actually have worked 3 jobs now down to 2 but I hear new grads do not have that luxury.My own personal money rule has been to keep as much of our dollars at home which meant the hubby and I worked opposite shifts-no child care costs,we shared vehicles drove them long and took care of all our stuff, did all our own work aka lawn,a simple but perfect life for us.It is all how you look at it.
Pam (Posted 06.05.09 12:38 PM ) Report Abuse
Jessica, never, ever convert unsecured debt and secured debt. If you can't pay your credit card debt you won't lose your house, but if you can't pay your mortage you will. So now instead of buckling down and paying off your cc debt in a year or two, you've just stretched your payments out over what 15, 30 years? Yeah, that's a good financial plan.
bad dog (Posted 06.05.09 3:20 PM ) Report Abuse
This post confuses me.
Point 1: The writer has enough home equity to pay cash for a house in most parts of the country. Sounds like good - make that great - debt to me!
Point 2: The Dough Roller chooses to stay in the DC area for reasons completely unrelated to finances (family and friends).
Conclusion: The mortgage is preventing the Dough Roller from "living the life I'd like to live".
Say what?????
I thought living in DC close to family and friends was the life the Dough Roller wanted to live. If this person is strapped on the mortgage, why not sell the house and rent in the same area? Could it possibly be that all that accumulated home equity is actually a GOOD thing? No sympathy for the Dough Roller here - he/she made the right financial moves and is just going to have to live with the consequences!
Posted Jun 05 2009, 08:24 AM by Karen Datko Rating: Filed under: debt, The Dough Roller, mortgage, credit cards, debt reduction
This post comes from partner blog The Dough Roller.
You've probably heard of "good" debt and "bad" debt. Good debt is when we borrow to buy something that generally goes up in value, like a home. Bad debt is when we borrow for anything else, like a car, a boat, a meal, a dress, a cruise, a wedding and so on.
Many teach that good debt is fine, while bad debt is not. The theory goes that good debt makes us wealthy as the value of our purchased assets goes up, while bad debt makes us poor as we struggle to pay debts for which we have little to show. In fact, it's a philosophy I've followed my entire adult life.
And it's flawed.
Not all debt is created equal, to be sure. A debt backed by an appreciating asset is far better than debt used to fund a lifestyle we can't afford. Why? If for no other reason, we can always sell an asset to pay off good debt. With bad debt, all we have is the debt.
But the problem with good-debt versus bad-debt thinking is that it makes good debt seem more appealing than it really is. And there are two reasons for this.
First, debt, whether good or bad, takes away some level of our freedom. In my case, I'm 42 with enough good debt for two families. If I were debt-free, I could quit my day job and run this site full time. I'd really enjoy that, along with a few other business ventures I'd undertake. As it stands, my good debt is requiring me to keep my 9-to-5 job. Thus, good debt is preventing me from living the life I'd like to live.
Second, selling the assets that underlie good debt is not always practical. For most of us, good debt is our mortgage, and that's true for us. We have a mortgage and a home-equity line of credit used to renovate our home several years ago. We could sell our home, even in the current market, and pay off all of our good debt. We would have enough money left over to pay cash for a home in many areas of the country, but not where we currently live outside of Washington, D.C.
It's certainly a choice we could make. We would uproot our two high school children, sever all of our friendships, and leave many of our family members behind. We've chosen not to do that, and that's the right choice for us. But that just brings me back to all of our good debt.
Borrowing to buy a house is a perfectly rational decision. In our case, perhaps we purchased more home than we needed, although we do enjoy where we live. But the fact remains that good debt, at least for individuals, is a myth.
Instead of good debt and bad debt, maybe we should just think of it as debt and bad debt.
Related reading at The Dough Roller:
How to avoid a mutual fund's minimum investment
30 things I learned in my first 30 days of blogging
10 Web sites to look up the value of your home
Um....How it is a myth was not explained.
Bobby (Posted 06.05.09 10:15 AM ) Report Abuse
Maybe two equally valid classifications of debt could be: rational and irrational.
I agree that it makes sense to go into debt to buy a home (because 99% of us can't just pay in full) because you will eventually own that house and land and it beats shelling out rent that you'll never see again.
It makes sense to go into debt for a car, most of us need one to get to a job to buy the rest of our crap. But lets be reasonable about what we can afford. Maybe instead of an Escalade with rims you could put a down payment on a home.
It does not make sense however to spend money on a night out (or many other good, services and entertaining things) that may cost you fifty bucks on this one beautiful night that you'll end up paying two hundred for years and years down the road.
Rational and Irrational; Smart and Stupid.
Frank (Posted 06.05.09 10:29 AM ) Report Abuse
yep, the title is misleading.
good debt is borrowing to buy house wasn't the case this time, isn't it?
nate (Posted 06.05.09 10:44 AM ) Report Abuse
For those who follow the Good debt v bad debt philosophy- the writer's example of a home mortgage and equity line is actually bad debt. The home is not an asset if you can't sell it for whatever reason. Don't live in your assets, make them work for you.
Will (Posted 06.05.09 11:01 AM ) Report Abuse
No no no...U all are retarded...We own nothing, we are indebted to everything, so it is not whether to have good/bad debt debt/bad debt... You should have no debt. If you cannot buy your house with the cash you earned or earn than you have not earned it...There you go, earn/not earned is more like it. America has been raised to get things first and pay later and that is what has ruined our country. I propose that you start teaching your kids to stir away from debt all together and start thinking of ways to make positive changes for material equivalents. Ideas are the pools of dreams and if you have not noticed yet, making money is like breathing now a days, so anyone that says they cannot afford it is because they did not earn it :)
Corey Lambert (Posted 06.05.09 11:13 AM ) Report Abuse
Actually, I think the definitions of good and bad debt are wrong in this article. Bad debt is any debt we take on that we cannot afford. This does restrict one's choices or options because it negatively affect household cash flow and, thus, can negatively affect one's quality of life. Good debt should be defined as "using someone else's money instead of our own". When you buy something cash, you tie up your money into that item. What if you could borrow to buy that item, and instead, keep your money invested, even in a relatively low yielding money market account, and make more money investing this money than you pay interest on your borrowed money? You have "made" money while taking on debt. This is a good debt. Don't think it's possible? I offer this option every day to people who are looking to pay cash for a car.
car loan guy (Posted 06.05.09 11:21 AM ) Report Abuse
I have to say I was one of those who followed the rule of "good debt/bad debt" HOWEVER I feel differently now because in my opinion the rules changed.I think everyone has to look at their situation to figure out what they can do for instance house mortgage -if you loose your job and can't make the payment or sell the house and break even.Education use to be in my good debt category no longer it's debt you have to pay back and no guarentee of a job non the less if you get one that it pays decent.My point is the rules changed and we have to keep up.I am 55 ys old house paid for now for 5yrs, college educated no loans,drive cars for 12plus yrs,have 401K and 403b and intend to keep working.Oh yeah I am a nurse and for 30yrs always could get a job, actually have worked 3 jobs now down to 2 but I hear new grads do not have that luxury.My own personal money rule has been to keep as much of our dollars at home which meant the hubby and I worked opposite shifts-no child care costs,we shared vehicles drove them long and took care of all our stuff, did all our own work aka lawn,a simple but perfect life for us.It is all how you look at it.
Pam (Posted 06.05.09 12:38 PM ) Report Abuse
Jessica, never, ever convert unsecured debt and secured debt. If you can't pay your credit card debt you won't lose your house, but if you can't pay your mortage you will. So now instead of buckling down and paying off your cc debt in a year or two, you've just stretched your payments out over what 15, 30 years? Yeah, that's a good financial plan.
bad dog (Posted 06.05.09 3:20 PM ) Report Abuse
This post confuses me.
Point 1: The writer has enough home equity to pay cash for a house in most parts of the country. Sounds like good - make that great - debt to me!
Point 2: The Dough Roller chooses to stay in the DC area for reasons completely unrelated to finances (family and friends).
Conclusion: The mortgage is preventing the Dough Roller from "living the life I'd like to live".
Say what?????
I thought living in DC close to family and friends was the life the Dough Roller wanted to live. If this person is strapped on the mortgage, why not sell the house and rent in the same area? Could it possibly be that all that accumulated home equity is actually a GOOD thing? No sympathy for the Dough Roller here - he/she made the right financial moves and is just going to have to live with the consequences!
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Refining Innovations
Refining Innovations
Oil Refinery
A brief tour of an oil refinery. More >>
Related Audio
ETR 23 Refinery Expansion
March 4, 2008 - Join API's Jane Van Ryan as she interviews Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow for the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), about the challenges in expanding refinery capacity in the United States. More >>
API: Refining
With the significant increases in energy demand in recent years, U.S. refineries have been running at nearly full capacity. Many refineries are using technological advances to get more out of each barrel of oil processed.
•Refinery automation is integrating process and energy system controls to boost operating efficiency and product yields
•New refinery emissions monitoring technology uses infrared lasers with advanced imaging systems to minimize releases
•Solvent-extraction systems reduce waste using one-third the energy it takes to refine lubricating oil from crude oil
•New process, equipment and catalyst technology advances are being used to meet new regulations requiring very low sulfur levels in gasoline and diesel fuel
•Efficiency improvements at refineries are converting crude oil residue into low-sulfur diesel and jet engine fuel and squeezing extra gallons from every barrel
•Low-sulfur gasoline produced by refineries generates up to 97 percent less emissions in one of today's new cars than in a 1970s vehicle
•Ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel being produced today is making great strides in reducing particulate matter (soot) from diesel exhaust
•Co-generation is helping refineries capture waste heat and use it to produce electricity, which can minimize the need to purchase power and help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. See how the co-generation process works
Oil Refinery
A brief tour of an oil refinery. More >>
Related Audio
ETR 23 Refinery Expansion
March 4, 2008 - Join API's Jane Van Ryan as she interviews Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow for the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), about the challenges in expanding refinery capacity in the United States. More >>
API: Refining
With the significant increases in energy demand in recent years, U.S. refineries have been running at nearly full capacity. Many refineries are using technological advances to get more out of each barrel of oil processed.
•Refinery automation is integrating process and energy system controls to boost operating efficiency and product yields
•New refinery emissions monitoring technology uses infrared lasers with advanced imaging systems to minimize releases
•Solvent-extraction systems reduce waste using one-third the energy it takes to refine lubricating oil from crude oil
•New process, equipment and catalyst technology advances are being used to meet new regulations requiring very low sulfur levels in gasoline and diesel fuel
•Efficiency improvements at refineries are converting crude oil residue into low-sulfur diesel and jet engine fuel and squeezing extra gallons from every barrel
•Low-sulfur gasoline produced by refineries generates up to 97 percent less emissions in one of today's new cars than in a 1970s vehicle
•Ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel being produced today is making great strides in reducing particulate matter (soot) from diesel exhaust
•Co-generation is helping refineries capture waste heat and use it to produce electricity, which can minimize the need to purchase power and help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. See how the co-generation process works
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency
Related Video
Closed Loop Drilling
"Closed loop drilling" is a pilot program at the San Juan Business Unit. Natural gas that would normally be flared or vented is now recycled and resold - saving resources and protecting the environment from greenhouse gases. More >>
ETR 19 Rebuilding Together: Energy Efficient Homes
Feb. 5, 2008 - Join API's Jane Van Ryan and Rebecca Dobbins, as well as Cynthia Woodruff of Rebuilding Together, as they discuss API's Energy Efficient Homes Initiative with Rebuilding Together. More >>
Roadtrip: API Energy Arcade
The greatest “new” energy source available to use is the reduced demand brought about by greater energy efficiency and conservation. Significant progress has been made in the past and more is expected in the future.
We use about half as much energy today for every dollar of Gross Domestic Product as we did back in 1980. Looking forward, our nation must take energy efficiency more seriously. Our industry is doing its part. Through such technologies as combined heat and power, also known as cogeneration—the re-use of excess heat from refinery processes to produce additional energy—refiners are becoming more efficient, reducing both energy use and emissions.
The oil and natural gas industry has pledged to improve energy efficiency by 10 percent at refineries between 2002 and 2012, and we are making progress in meeting that goal. In fact, in 2006 alone, U.S. refiners saved the energy equivalent of taking 528,000 cars off the road.
To learn more about how U.S. energy providers support energy efficiency, click here (.pdf).
Related Video
Closed Loop Drilling
"Closed loop drilling" is a pilot program at the San Juan Business Unit. Natural gas that would normally be flared or vented is now recycled and resold - saving resources and protecting the environment from greenhouse gases. More >>
ETR 19 Rebuilding Together: Energy Efficient Homes
Feb. 5, 2008 - Join API's Jane Van Ryan and Rebecca Dobbins, as well as Cynthia Woodruff of Rebuilding Together, as they discuss API's Energy Efficient Homes Initiative with Rebuilding Together. More >>
Roadtrip: API Energy Arcade
The greatest “new” energy source available to use is the reduced demand brought about by greater energy efficiency and conservation. Significant progress has been made in the past and more is expected in the future.
We use about half as much energy today for every dollar of Gross Domestic Product as we did back in 1980. Looking forward, our nation must take energy efficiency more seriously. Our industry is doing its part. Through such technologies as combined heat and power, also known as cogeneration—the re-use of excess heat from refinery processes to produce additional energy—refiners are becoming more efficient, reducing both energy use and emissions.
The oil and natural gas industry has pledged to improve energy efficiency by 10 percent at refineries between 2002 and 2012, and we are making progress in meeting that goal. In fact, in 2006 alone, U.S. refiners saved the energy equivalent of taking 528,000 cars off the road.
To learn more about how U.S. energy providers support energy efficiency, click here (.pdf).
energy tomorrow
http://www.energytomorrow.org/Energy_Efficiency.aspx
This is the article this information was taken from.
This is the article this information was taken from.
Future Fuels
Future Fuels
ETR 66 Future Fuels and Plug-
in Cars
Dec. 30, 2008: Jane Vane Ryan talks with Tony Markel, senior engineer at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Colorado, about research being done on the next generation of cars and trucks.
EIA: 2008 Energy Outlook
Clean Diesel Alliance
API: Other Fuel Sources
The oil and natural gas industry believes that we will need all energy resources – wind, solar, biofuels and others – to meet the world’s growing demand for energy supplies. The world needs a portfolio of resources, as well as advanced research into future sources and technologies.
Energy companies are conducting or funding a significant amount of research into alternative energy sources. They also have partnered with the federal government and the U.S. auto industry to examine and advance the research needed to develop technologies necessary to develop a full range of fuel efficient and affordable cars and light trucks.
There are several conventional and unconventional fuel sources that have the potential to provide future benefits:
Conventional sources – billions of dollars in research have helped and scientists develop cleaner, more efficient, and better performing fuels from crude oil:
•Reformulated gasoline has led to significant reductions in ozone precursors and toxic emissions
•The introduction of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel is enabling the use of cleaner-technology diesel engines and vehicles resulting in significantly improved air quality
•Some refineries are converting heavier, sour crude oil into low-sulfur gasoline, diesel and jet engine fuel and squeezing extra gallons from every barrel
•Upgrading inferior oil sources (i.e. tar and oil sands) into refinery feedstocks shows promise
•Turning waste and residue hydrocarbons into high-value products through gasification is yet another approach being considered
Frontier sources – research is also leading the way toward the development of new sources of energy:
•Biofuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, are being produced from corn, oil seeds, animal fats, and waste oils
•Processes to convert woody biomass and other cellulosic feedstocks into transportation fuels are being actively investigated
•Hydrogen, created by using natural gas, is being considered as a transportation fuel
•Fuel cells that convert hydrogen and oxygen into water, and in the process produce electricity could be used for heating and cooling, as well as for transportation, in the future
•Methane hydrates – methane gas frozen in ice crystals – could produce clean-burning energy for 1,000 years
•Coal gasification produces liquids that show promise as transportation fuels
•Processes that turn natural gas into a liquid fuel also can help to meet transportation demands. Even landfill gas is being converted into liquid fuel
Government money should not be diverted from R & D to look for more oil. Let the oil companies do that with the record profits they are making. Government grants and investments should go toward longer-term solutions, not subsidies for the oil companies.
ETR 66 Future Fuels and Plug-
in Cars
Dec. 30, 2008: Jane Vane Ryan talks with Tony Markel, senior engineer at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Colorado, about research being done on the next generation of cars and trucks.
EIA: 2008 Energy Outlook
Clean Diesel Alliance
API: Other Fuel Sources
The oil and natural gas industry believes that we will need all energy resources – wind, solar, biofuels and others – to meet the world’s growing demand for energy supplies. The world needs a portfolio of resources, as well as advanced research into future sources and technologies.
Energy companies are conducting or funding a significant amount of research into alternative energy sources. They also have partnered with the federal government and the U.S. auto industry to examine and advance the research needed to develop technologies necessary to develop a full range of fuel efficient and affordable cars and light trucks.
There are several conventional and unconventional fuel sources that have the potential to provide future benefits:
Conventional sources – billions of dollars in research have helped and scientists develop cleaner, more efficient, and better performing fuels from crude oil:
•Reformulated gasoline has led to significant reductions in ozone precursors and toxic emissions
•The introduction of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel is enabling the use of cleaner-technology diesel engines and vehicles resulting in significantly improved air quality
•Some refineries are converting heavier, sour crude oil into low-sulfur gasoline, diesel and jet engine fuel and squeezing extra gallons from every barrel
•Upgrading inferior oil sources (i.e. tar and oil sands) into refinery feedstocks shows promise
•Turning waste and residue hydrocarbons into high-value products through gasification is yet another approach being considered
Frontier sources – research is also leading the way toward the development of new sources of energy:
•Biofuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, are being produced from corn, oil seeds, animal fats, and waste oils
•Processes to convert woody biomass and other cellulosic feedstocks into transportation fuels are being actively investigated
•Hydrogen, created by using natural gas, is being considered as a transportation fuel
•Fuel cells that convert hydrogen and oxygen into water, and in the process produce electricity could be used for heating and cooling, as well as for transportation, in the future
•Methane hydrates – methane gas frozen in ice crystals – could produce clean-burning energy for 1,000 years
•Coal gasification produces liquids that show promise as transportation fuels
•Processes that turn natural gas into a liquid fuel also can help to meet transportation demands. Even landfill gas is being converted into liquid fuel
Government money should not be diverted from R & D to look for more oil. Let the oil companies do that with the record profits they are making. Government grants and investments should go toward longer-term solutions, not subsidies for the oil companies.
Powering the Future
Powering the Future
Future Energy
Demand for energy is rising around the world, according to the Department of Energy and the International Energy Agency. Learn more. More >>
ETR 14 Energy Outlook: Forecasting for the Future
Dec. 18, 2007 - This episode of EnergyTomorrow Radio features API's Jane Van Ryan and Rayola Dougher, joined by Guy Caruso of the Energy Information Administration. They discuss the global energy outlook in both the long and short term. More >>
Alternative sources of energy will grow dramatically over the next 20 years, but they alone cannot meet all of our needs. We need to embrace all forms of energy – including the oil and natural gas this country depends on for business and personal mobility.
Solar, wind, geothermal, and fuel cell technologies are among the numerous energy solutions that have garnered considerable interest in recent years. The oil and natural gas industry believes that each one has an important role to play in America's energy supply.
Solar, wind and geothermal technologies are producing electricity for homes and businesses. And it's believed that hydrogen to power fuel cell vehicles, could become a viable energy source in the future.
Those fuels are undoubtedly a viable part of tomorrow’s energy mix, but they do not represent the entire answer. In the year 2030, renewable ‘fuels of the future’ will only comprise nine percent of consumer demand. More than 60 percent of demand will continue to be fulfilled by oil and natural gas.
Someday technology might introduce a new source of energy to the marketplace that is even more efficient, cleaner and cheaper than oil and natural gas. In the meantime, we all need to work together to use existing energy resources wisely, that means continuing to invest in ways to make the exploration, production and use of oil and natural gas more efficient.
This is an ad by an oil company. I do believe that oil IS in our future but dont believe it should be the focus. We cant drill our way out of this situation. OPEC and hostile and unstable governments who punish us with high oil prices on a whim make it impossible.
Future Energy
Demand for energy is rising around the world, according to the Department of Energy and the International Energy Agency. Learn more. More >>
ETR 14 Energy Outlook: Forecasting for the Future
Dec. 18, 2007 - This episode of EnergyTomorrow Radio features API's Jane Van Ryan and Rayola Dougher, joined by Guy Caruso of the Energy Information Administration. They discuss the global energy outlook in both the long and short term. More >>
Alternative sources of energy will grow dramatically over the next 20 years, but they alone cannot meet all of our needs. We need to embrace all forms of energy – including the oil and natural gas this country depends on for business and personal mobility.
Solar, wind, geothermal, and fuel cell technologies are among the numerous energy solutions that have garnered considerable interest in recent years. The oil and natural gas industry believes that each one has an important role to play in America's energy supply.
Solar, wind and geothermal technologies are producing electricity for homes and businesses. And it's believed that hydrogen to power fuel cell vehicles, could become a viable energy source in the future.
Those fuels are undoubtedly a viable part of tomorrow’s energy mix, but they do not represent the entire answer. In the year 2030, renewable ‘fuels of the future’ will only comprise nine percent of consumer demand. More than 60 percent of demand will continue to be fulfilled by oil and natural gas.
Someday technology might introduce a new source of energy to the marketplace that is even more efficient, cleaner and cheaper than oil and natural gas. In the meantime, we all need to work together to use existing energy resources wisely, that means continuing to invest in ways to make the exploration, production and use of oil and natural gas more efficient.
This is an ad by an oil company. I do believe that oil IS in our future but dont believe it should be the focus. We cant drill our way out of this situation. OPEC and hostile and unstable governments who punish us with high oil prices on a whim make it impossible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)