How To Make Gasoline from Tar Sands

In six simple steps.

gazzat/Flickr

Ever wonder about the future of energy? Will it be wind? Solar? Geothermal? No wait, I got it, tar sands! (Let's try that again - tar sands!) They've got everything oil does, but they're harder to get, crappier when you get them, and leave a much bigger mark on the climate. Sounds like a winner. Let's look a little closer, shall we?

First off, what are tar sands? Tar sands are deposits of about 90 percent sand or sandstone, water, and clay mixed with only about 10 percent high-sulfur bitumen, a viscous black petroleum sludge rich in hydrocarbons, also known as "natural asphalt."

To keep reading, click here.

http://climatedesk.org/2013/01/how-to-make-gasoline-from-tar-sands

Secretary Kerry's Solar Surge

On Monday PresidentObama made it crystal clear that his Administration "will respond to thethreat of climate change, knowing that the failureto do so would betray our children and future generations." But he alsomade clear taking action is much more than an obligation to posterity, it isalso an issue of American leadership:

"The path towards sustainable energysources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist thistransition; we must lead it."

Now, with SenatorKerry's nomination for Secretary of State, President Obama has a uniqueopportunity to make good on this rhetoric by leading a solar surge.

Solar power hasundergone a historic transition from expensive niche technology to a rapidlyexpanding cheap technology that is experiencing dramatic growth rates. The bestpart is that the technology is ideally suited for many developing countriesmaking it an integral part of any U.S. international clean energy strategy. Whetherit's reducing peak power deficits, replacing costly diesel, or providing energy access to the ruralpoor, solar power can deliver. As conventionalenergy costs soar, and solar's benefits are more widely understood, it isplaced to grow dramatically. But to truly take advantage of this historicopportunity the U.S. administration needs to lead a solar surge and no one isbetter placed than Secretary Kerry.

A solar surge requiresfour tactical moves that, taken together, would constitute big change:

1) Leverage cheapExport Import Bank (Ex-Im) Bank finance to spur solar development in emergingmarkets;

2) Expand OverseasPrivate Investment Corporation's (OPIC) renewable energy portfolio with a focuson increasing its off grid solar lending;

3) Work with the IFCto establish a $500 million solar PV funding facility for emerging markets; and

4) Push the World Bankto establish a $500 million off grid clean energy access fund (like the oneentrepreneurs demanded at Rio+20).

This may seem like alaundry list of asks but most of these pieces are already moving. All that isneeded is leadership -- just like the kind President Obama offered on Monday.

So here's howSecretary Kerry builds off Obama's leadership. The first step is to work withOPIC and Ex-Im Bank (the two agencies that contribute the majority of U.S.climate finance) to dramatically increase solar lending in emerging markets. Rightnow it's a tale of two agencies, OPIC is a clean energy champion and Ex-Imis a basket case. With Ex-Im's cheap finance to catalyze deployment, and strugglingdomestic U.S. solar manufacturers seeking new markets, this should be anobvious way to support and expand on previous stimulus package investments.

The next step is totake on the World Bank. The U.S. is one of the largest financial contributorsto this institution and much like President Obama, the Bank's president Dr. Kimhas made clear his desire to lead on climate change. Secretary Kerry can takeadvantage of this opportunity to work with him to establish a $500 million fundingfacility that will catalyze distributed solar investment in emerging markets by offering public funds that will leverageprivate capital. Think third-party finance for rooftop solar in the U.S., butin countries with hundreds of millions of roofs. Given how competitive solar istoday this should have already happened. Working with Dr. Kim to establish thisfund is an easy win for Kerry and the administration.

The final step will bethe toughest but most crucial. Solar and other distributed clean energytechnologies are the only way the vast majority of the rural poor will everreceive power -- at least according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). The World Bank has already helpedBangladesh install one million solar home systems so it's clear they can do this. But they alsorefused a call from the world's leading social entrepreneurs for a $500 millionoff grid clean energy access fund at the recent Rio+20 conference. The Bank says energy access andsustainability are a priority. Secretary Kerry needs to help them put theirmoney where their mouth is.

These relativelysimple steps will put concrete actions behind President Obama's words and setthe tone for Secretary Kerry's tenure. A tone defined by his embrace of cleanenergy and his conviction to take on climate change. Establishing thiscredibility will be critical because his much larger climate fight --eliminating coal and other international fossil fuel financing -- looms large. Startingwith a solar surge will rally the troops to his side and set the stage for theState Department to move from climate villain to climate hero and once and forall silence those who question the reality behind the rhetoric.

-- Justin Guay, Sierra Club International

http://sierraclub.typepad.com/compass/2013/01/secretary-kerrys-solar-s

Peak oil: the summit that dominates the horiz | Business | The Observer

Whistleblowers claimed the IEA figures were unreliable and subject to political manipulation – something the agency categorically denies. But the subject of oil reserves touches not just energy and climate change policy but the wider economic scene, because hydrocarbons still oil the wheels of international trade. Even the Paris-based IEA admits that the world still needs to find the equivalent of four new Saudi Arabias to feed increasing demand at a time when the depletion rate in old fields of the North Sea and other major producing areas is running at 7% year on year. The fields which are producing today are going to significantly decline. We are very worried about these trends," says Fatih Birol. Birol and the wider industry are certainly well aware that the days of "easy" oil are over.

Article Reference: 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/nov/29/peak-oil

Green Car Congress: Russia Turns the Natural Gas Screws on Ukraine, Europe Feels Effect

Green Car Congress has a report about a crisis in natural gas supply between Russia, Ukraine and the rest of Europe. Apparently Russia has jacked up Ukraine's prices, and the resulting dispute has interrupted natural gas supply to Ukraine. Russia Turns the Natural Gas Screws on Ukraine, Europe Feels Effect (Green Car Congress, 2 January 2006)

One of the comments on GCC is "Ukraine has to pay market price, so US can't object to capitalism. This is direct result of Ukraine's orange revolution." to which I say... your nuts. It isn't capitalism to jack up prices just because of a change in government. That's manipulation. Russia was on the losing side of the Orange Revolution event, and I suppose now they want to use the cold of winter to create a heating crisis and maybe anger the people of Ukraine enough to topple the government. That is not capitalism at work.

Some interesting factoids in the article -- Russia has the largest Natural Gas reserves in the world, followed by Iran. The three major fields, Urengoy, Yamburg, and Medvezh’ye, are in Siberia and the Russian Gas company, Gazprom, admits these fields are in decline and there will be "steep" declines in output between 2008-2020.

That makes part of this episode looking to the future of the peak for natural gas having been reached.

The "peak oil" effect also applies to other natural resources. The model is that there is a fixed amount of each resource on the planet. And humans have a given ability to tap those resources. Between usage of the resource, the resulting depletion of the resource, and the ease/difficulty of tapping the resource, a peak will be reached in production capacity. For example the U.S. reached its peak of oil production capacity in 1970. The world is projected to reach its peak of oil production capacity, well, any day now, if not already.

Try as you might, after the peak is reached you can't increase production because the resources are heading towards depletion.

The US and Iran: Is Washington Planning a Military Strike? - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

There's been a continuing confrontation between the U.S., the E.U. and Iran over Iran's nuclear power program. Iran has been building nuclear reactors, some of which weren't initially disclosed to the International Atomic Energy Commission, and whose designs could be used to build weapons grade nuclear material. They've promised up and down, those reactors were purely for "peaceful" purposes, but then why would they choose a nuclear reaction that produces weapons grade material if they had a peaceful purpose? Especially as they hid the existance of the reactors?

Coincidentally Iran's plan helps justify the neocon plan to rearrange the political map of the Middle East. So it shouldn't be surprising the Bush administration has been taking a hardline stance towards Iran. The neocon agenda is to create a war against Iran, and taking a hardline stance is the way to gaurantee a war. It worked in Iraq didn't it?

This has been developing for awhile, and as I've posted before it appears to be following the same pattern as was used to cook up justification to attack Iraq. Pressure has been kept hard on Iran, and the Bush Administration rhetoric has been that "all options are on the table" just as they said with Iraq.

In the case of the attack on Iraq, all the justifications given by the administration have been proven to be false. And it's clear that the administration knew the falsity of most of their statements while they were claiming up and down it was all true. In other words, they were lying. And lots of people around the world, including the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, have said the war in Iraq is illegal etc.

On the other hand the allegations against Iran are largely true. Iran itself has admitted to having this nuclear program. And it is a worry to have nuclear weapon capabilities proliferate beyond the set of countries that currently have that capability. So it's a puzzle where to stand. The Bush Administration has a very poor track record, and are obviously holding an agenda dating back to the mid-90's (or further) to destroy Iran's government.

In any case, right now there are some serious rumors being published in Germany saying the U.S. is clearly planning to launch an attack on Iran.

Here's some pointers to discussion:

The US and Iran: Is Washington Planning a Military Strike? (December 30, 2005, Der SPIEGEL ONLINE)

US planning strike against Iran (Dec. 31, 2005 19:33, By JPOST.COM STAFF)

Rumors Of War (January 01, 2006, Past Peak blog)

Attacking Iran (December 31, 2005, John Robb's weblog)

The source is an article in the Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel. I don't have a link to that article (and no doubt it's in German) but the Der Spiegel article is a good substitute:

In a report published on Wednesday, the Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel also cited NATO intelligence sources claiming that Washington's western allies had been informed that the United States is currently investigating all possibilities of bringing the mullah-led regime into line, including military options. Of course, Bush has publicly stated for months that he would not take the possibility of a military strike off the table. What's new here, however, is that Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack rather than merely implying the possibility as it has repeatedly done during the past year.

... According to DDP, during his trip to Turkey, CIA chief Goss reportedly handed over three dossiers to Turkish security officials that purportedly contained evidence that Tehran is cooperating with Islamic terror network al-Qaida. A further dossier is said to contain information about the current status of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. Sources in German security circles told the DDP reporter that Goss had ensured Ankara that the Turkish government would be informed of any possible air strikes against Iran a few hours before they happened. The Turkish government has also been given the "green light" to strike camps of the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Iran on the day in question.

... But the string of visits by high-profile US politicians to Turkey and surrounding reports are drawing new attention to the issue. In recent weeks, the number of American and NATO security officials heading to Ankara has increased dramatically. Within a matter of only days, the FBI chief, then the CIA chief and, most recently, NATO General Secretary Jaap De Hoop Scheffer visited the Turkish capital. During her visit to Europe earlier this month, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also traveled to Turkey after a stopover in Berlin.

Leading the chorus of speculation are Turkish newspapers, which have also sought to connect these visits to plans for an attack on Iran. But so far none of the speculation has been based on hard facts. Writing about the meeting between Porter Goss and Tayyip Erdogan, the left-nationalist newspaper Cumhuriyet wrote: "Now It's Iran's Turn." But the paper didn't offer any evidence to corroborate the claims.

So the Der Spiegel article is not claiming outright there's a war being prepared. But it points to evidence something is going on, even if it's being kept secret enough we aren't knowing what it's about. The Jerusalem Post article is, then, overhyping the truth for some reason. Perhaps the people in Israel are more alarmed by Iran, because the President of Iran has made repeated speeches recently calling for Israel to be wiped off the map, claiming the Holocaust was a hoax, etc.

Iran rejects Russia nuclear plan (Jan 1, 2006, BBC): Russia apparently proposed doing nuclear processing on their terroritory, so that Iran wouldn't be doing the processing. I think the worry is about the expansion of the number of countries who have nuclear weapons capability. In the Der Spiegel article it quoted some General saying that the time to act is "now" because if we wait too long Iran will have their nuclear capability and it will be too late. But Iran rejected the Russian plan.

Iran vows 'crushing response' to attack by U.S., Israel (Haaretz): Tough talk between Iran and Israel just proving they don't like each other. The article provides an interesting overview of the tensions.

US planning to strike Iran's nuke facilities: Report (January 01, 2006 19:36 IST, rediff.com): Describes the proposed attack on Iran as just to destroy the nuclear facilities, rather than an all-out war. I suppose they might be hoping for something like Israel's 80's attack on Iraq's nuclear facilities. But in todays Middle East I suspect it would only fan the flames further, seeing the U.S. as an occupying power.

A 2006 U.S. plan to attack Iran detailed (12/31/2005 10:20:00 PM GMT, aljazeera.com): Details the same story as above, but adds to it a statement by Cheney in Jan 2005. He made a vague statement to MSNBC that Israel might be doing the dirty work (bombing Iran's nuclear facilities) leaving the rest of the international community to clean up the consequences later. Hurm.