Cold Fusion getting hot with 10kw heater prepping for market

The popular conception is that Cold Fusion was faux science from the 1980's, but it would appear to be a real thing and that gizmos can be built to exploit the Cold Fusion effect.

At a press conference held in Bologna, Professor Sergio Focardi and Eng. Andrea A. Rossi, both of the University of Bologna, demonstrated a cold fusion device capable of producing more than 10 kilowatts of heat power while only consuming a fraction of that energy.  This means quite an energy gain from the cold fusion effect.

At it's peak it generated 15,000 watts of heat requiring only 400 watts of heat input.

It wasn't just a technology demonstration, but a promise that they would be going into production making these devices.  The first units are supposed to ship in three months, with mass production commencing by the end of 2011.

They claim the device is highly reliable and that modules can be combined in both series and parallel arrangements to reach any power level.  They've used some of the devices continuously for the last 2 years to heat their factory.

 

 

 

See: Cold Fusion getting hot with 10kw heater prepping for market

ASPO's open letter to Chu points out conflicting forecasts from DoE and DoD, and calls for Truth in Energy, point

Yesterday the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO) held a press conference outside the Department of Energy, and presented an open letter they delivered to Secretary Stephen Chu (see below).  Their message was one of concern about the reliability of government (Dept of Energy and Energy Information Administration) projections of future oil and gas supplies.  On the one hand the EIA/DoE claims we'll be able to continue "Business as Usual" energy usage trends for the foreseeable future, while the DoD is more realistically saying there will be declines in oil production as early as 2015.
A decline in fossil oil production is expected to be a seriously bad situation for modern society.  It's a serious national security problem which warrants more attention than its getting today.  But, today we have half of the country deluded with "Drill Baby Drill" memes into thinking it's just a matter of installing new oil platforms to get the oil.
ASPO presented a chart showing the production plateau we've had since 2005, many think the peak of production of fossil oil occurred in November 2008.  In the letter (below) they ask why fossil oil production has plateau'd, even though prices have been high.  Standard economics say that when price of a commodity goes high then the infinitely wise market will find new resources and increase supply to bring the price back down.  That's not what's happening, implying there is an underlying limitation that will limit the extent oil production can be increased.

Note that the chart shows oil production having risen from approximate 75 million barrels a day in 2002 up to 83 million or so a day in 2005, but since 2005 production levels have fluctuated within a 6% range that's essentially a plateau.
Peak Oil is a theoretical model based on observations of oil fields around the world.  Each oil field reaches a peak of production when about half of its oil has been extracted.  At that half-way point production of the field declines and gets more and more expensive to mine the fossil oil.  The Peak Oil model, when applied to the total oil fields on the planet, indicate the peak of oil production would be reached about now.  A chart like this may well be a symptom of having reached peak oil.
The worry over whether/when we reach peak oil is the fundamental role fossil oil plays in our society.  Fossil oil is the primary component in the fuels that drive the machines our society relies on every day.  When oil supply begins to diminish oil prices will rise, and rise, and rise .. everything will be more expensive .. etc .. there's a range of predictions one can make over in the Doom and Gloom end of the spectrum.  The Mad Max movie series had Peak Oil as its back story, for example.

http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2011/10/aspo-usa-press-conference/

October 26, 2011 - NEWS RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Who: The Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas-USA (ASPO-USA)
What: News Conference calling for “Truth in Energy”
When: October 26, 2011
Where: U.S. Department of Energy (1000 Independence Ave. SW)
Why: Exuberant Energy Forecasts Endanger U.S. Economy and National Security

DOE OIL & GAS SUPPLY FORECASTS DANGEROUSLY MISLEADING

Global Economy Threatened As World Oil Production Stalls For Seventh Year
WASHINGTON, October 26 – An array of energy experts gathered in front of the headquarters for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today to criticize the agency for what they called “dangerously unrealistic” oil and natural gas production forecasts. Calling for "truth in energy," they delivered a letter to Secretary of Energy Steven Chu seeking greater transparency in how the agency formulates its energy projections and urging development of a plan to address the growing possibility of near-term oil supply disruptions and persistent, long-term oil shortages.
“Despite rising demand and a large increase in oil prices, world oil supply has been on a plateau; it has stayed relatively constant since 2005,” said Robert L. Hirsch, co-author of The Impending World Energy Mess. “Simultaneously, production from existing world oil fields is declining at a high rate. Both of these developments are unprecedented, yet DOE and EIA [Energy Information Administration] have dismissed them as not being of major concern.”
Hirsch added, “Many oil production analysts believe that in a relatively few years, total world oil production will go into decline. That may sound like we have time to react, but our 2005 study for the DOE clearly demonstrated that we now have essentially no time to effectively react. This is because of the huge amount of oil consumed worldwide and the fact that a relatively few percent oil production decline will be difficult, expensive and time-consuming to make up.”
“The Department of Energy’s optimistic forecasts for future supply are dangerously unrealistic,” said Jim Baldauf, president and co-founder of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas-USA (ASPO-USA). “The risk/benefit ratio is out of balance. If these exuberant predictions are wrong, the consequences could be catastrophic. We need to be conservative in planning for the future. We can’t bet America’s economy and national security on Pollyanna predictions.” Baldauf added, “We are not running out of oil. But we appear to be running out of oil that we can afford.”


“We have documented and specified our concerns in a letter to Secretary Chu which we hand delivered to his office today,” said Jan Lars Mueller, ASPO’s executive director. “The letter includes seven key questions which we believe are critical for DOE and EIA to answer regarding their projections for future oil and gas supply. It also calls for DOE to lead the development of a national oil emergency response plan which would involve multiple federal and state agencies, industry, and the public in an effort to understand and confront the prospect of an impending decline in world oil production.”
With overall oil supplies constrained, competition among oil-importing countries for the available exports has become acute. Independent petroleum geologist Jeffrey J. Brown said in a written statement: “Global net oil exports are simply defined as domestic production of total petroleum liquids in oil exporting countries less domestic consumption, and global net exports have shown about a three million barrel per day decline from 2005 to 2010, with 21 of the top 33 net oil exporters showing lower net oil exports in 2010 versus 2005.”
Brown explained the possible consequences of this trend as follows: “At the current rate of increase in the ratio of China and India’s net imports to global net exports, the two countries would consume 100 percent of global net exports in about 20 years. Contrary to many optimistic predictions by many organizations and individuals, what the data show is that developed countries like the United States are currently being outbid by developing countries for access to a declining supply of global net exports.”
Tom Whipple, a former CIA analyst and chief editor of ASPO-USA’s Peak Oil Review, said, “There are literally dozens of reports and analyses appearing every week around the world pointing to the fact that the world is facing major challenges in maintaining, much less growing, the global supply of oil in next few years.” He added, “Our concern here today is the growing disconnect between the solid evidence of serious troubles ahead and the Department of Energy’s benign projections concerning the availability of fossil fuels in the next 30 years.”
All is not well with domestic natural gas supplies, either. Independent petroleum geologist Art Berman explained in a written statement that “[t]he National Petroleum Council that advises the Secretary of Energy is now being used by the captains of industry to market and promote their belief that shale gas will solve the nation's energy needs. Shale gas will not substitute for our dependence on imported liquid fuels for transportation.”
Regarding the plan to address constrained oil supplies, Lt. Col. Daniel Davis said in a written statement: “The heart of our request is the formation of a national oil emergency response plan. We are not demanding that the Department of Energy enact any specific policy change at this time, but rather set up a properly funded and sufficiently empowered commission to study the full range of potential consequences to the United States if we were to experience a near-term imbalance between global supply and demand of liquid fuels.” Davis is currently serving in Afghanistan.
Mueller said that “Americans rely on DOE and EIA to provide complete and reliable information to guide their decisions and plans for the future. However, we believe Americans are not getting the whole truth about the challenges facing future oil and gas supply, and we are unprepared for these growing threats and risks.”


ASPO-USA will hold its 7th annual Peak Oil Conference in Washington, D.C., November 2-5, at the Capitol Hill Hyatt. Experts from around the world will call for Truth in Energy and expand on issues discussed at this news conference.
CONTACT:
Jan Mueller (202) 997-7275 - Jim Baldauf (512) 517-2663 - Ray Long (240) 330-2325
THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE PROVIDED STATEMENTS FOR THIS NEWS CONFERENCE AND RELEASE:
Jim Baldauf - President and Co-founder, ASPO-USA - Email: jbaldauf1@austin.rr.com - Phone: 512-517-2663
Arthur E. Berman - Independent Petroleum Geologist - Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc. - Email: bermanae@gmail.com - Phone: 713-557-9076
Jeffrey J. Brown - Independent Petroleum Geologist - Email: westexas@aol.com - Phone: 972-588-8125
Lt. Col. Daniel Davis, U.S. Army - Email: daniel_l_davis@hotmail.com
Robert L. Hirsch - Co-author of "Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management," a 2005 report for the U.S. Department of Energy, and of a new book entitledThe Impending World Energy Mess - Email: rlhirsch@comcast.net - Phone: 703-462-4520
Jan Lars Mueller - Executive Director, ASPO-USA - Email: jmueller@aspousa.org - Phone: 202-997-7275
Tom Whipple - Former CIA Analyst - Chief Editor, ASPO-USA’s Peak Oil Review - Email: twhipple@erols.com - Phone: 703-407-1514





October 26, 2011

The Honorable Steven Chu
Secretary of Energy
1000 Independence Ave. SW
Washington, DC 20585
(via hand delivery)

Re: Misleading forecasts, helping Americans to understand the truth about world oil supply and U.S. gas supply


Dear Secretary Chu:

As concerned citizens, and representatives of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas USA (ASPO-USA), we the undersigned believe that the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Energy Information Administration (EIA) have failed to critically examineone of the most serious threats to our economy, national security, and environment—the prospect of an impending decline in world oil supply. DOE and EIA have also failed to examine factors that may constrain future domestic natural gas supply, despite the current exuberance regarding shale gas. In our view, these shortcomings to recognize and address supply limits for oil and gas are a major danger to America's economy and national security.

In sharp contrast to DOE, the Department of Defense has warned that “by 2012, surplus oil production capacity (in the world) could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day" (Joint Operating Environment, 2008, 2010). The 2007 Hard Truths About Energy report conducted by the National Petroleum Council also indicated that world oil supply faces serious challenges to meet rising global demand.

We believe that information and analysis provided by DOE and EIA has glossed over alarming trends regarding oil and gas supply, and fostered complacency about their potentially severe consequences. Without reliable information and a clear understanding of these monumental energy challenges, decisions and actions by the private and public sector are likely to be ill-founded and misguided.

The Department of Energy has a key responsibility to help the nation prepare for the growing possibility of an oil supply emergency and long-term oil shortages. We believe that America needs a National Oil Emergency Response Planand that the DOE should take a lead role in developing this plan.

To support DOE toward addressing this national challenge, we respectfully request your responses to the questions below:

• Global crude oil production has departed from its historical trajectory of steady growth and remained essentially flat since 2005, despite a substantial increase in oil prices. How does DOE explain this trend, and does the change signal an impending decline in world oil supply?

• The inflation-adjusted price of crude oil has increased far above its historic average and remains very high despite a worldwide economic slowdown. Again, does this development portend an impending a decline in world oil supply?

• The volume of crude oil exports available to oil-importing countries has been declining since 2005, as domestic demand has increased in many exporting countries. If this trend continues, what are the implications for future oil supply, particularly for importing countries such as the United States?

• In projecting future global supply and demand for oil and gas, EIA models appear to assume that supply will simply increase to match whatever level is demanded by projected economic activity? How can this assumption be justified in light of the physical, economic, and geopolitical challenges facing oil and gas supply?

• In projecting future U.S. natural gas supplies, including the growing share provided by shale gas, has DOE addressed the possibility that a large share of these gas resources may require much higher natural gas prices to sustain, let alone increase, production?

• Has DOE conducted a risk assessment of the consequences of EIA's oil and gas supply projections turning out to be overly optimistic?

• Unconventional oil and gas resources are providing an increasing share of total U.S. supply. Has DOE assessed the economic consequences of increasing production costs and declining net energy return associated with these resources?

We would like to request a meeting, at your earliest convenience, to discuss these concerns and share our perspectives on the development of a National Oil Emergency Response Plan. Also, as you may know, ASPO-USA will hold its seventh annual conference,Peak Oil, Energy and the Economy, in Washington DC, November 2-5. Energy experts from across North America and Europe will be in attendance. We cordially invite you and/or your staff to be our guests. If you or a member of your staff wish to speak at the conference, we would be pleased to accommodate you.


Sincerely,

James S. Baldauf President & Co-founder, ASPO-USA 512-250-8596 Partial Co-Signatories Tadeusz W. Patzek Chair, Department of Petroleum Engineering University of Texas William R. Catton Jr. Professor Emeritus, Department of Sociology Washington State University Seppo Korpela Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Ohio State University David Goodstein Professor, Department of Physics California Institute of Technology Arthur E. Berman Independent Geologist David C. Blittersdorf President, AllEarth Renewables Jeffrey J. Brown Independent Geologist Terrence E. Backer State Representative, 121stDistrict, Connecticut Ronald Swenson Principal, Swenson Solar

Jan Lars Mueller Executive Director, ASPO-USA 202- 997-7275 Albert A. Bartlett Professor Emeritus, Department of Physics University of Colorado Charles A. Hall Professor, Sch. of Environmental Science & Forestry State University of New York Robert L. Hirsch Senior Energy Advisor Management Information Services Inc. Deborah Cook President, Post-Carbon Institute Former Mayor, City of Huntington Beach, CA Roger H. Bezdek President, Management Information Services Inc. Richard Heinberg Senior Fellow, Post-Carbon Institute Thomas S. Whipple Retired CIA Analyst; Editor, Peak Oil Review Daniel L. Davis Lt. Colonel, U.S. Army Kenneth Zweibel Director, GW Solar Institute George Washington University

cc:
President Obama
Vice-President Biden
Senate Majority Leader Reid
Senate Minority Leader McConnell
House Speaker Boehner
House Minority Leader Pelosi
Congressional Peak Oil Caucus

October 26, 2011

NEWS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Who: The Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas-USA (ASPO-USA)

What: News Conference calling for “Truth in Energy”

When: October 26, 2011

Where: U.S. Department of Energy (1000 Independence Ave. SW)

Why: Exuberant Energy Forecasts Endanger U.S. Economy and National Security

DOE OIL & GAS SUPPLY FORECASTS DANGEROUSLY MISLEADING

Global Economy Threatened As World Oil Production Stalls For Seventh Year

WASHINGTON, October 26 – An array of energy experts gathered in front of the headquarters for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today to criticize the agency for what they called “dangerously unrealistic” oil and natural gas production forecasts. Calling for "truth in energy," they delivered a letter to Secretary of Energy Steven Chu seeking greater transparency in how the agency formulates its energy projections and urging development of a plan to address the growing possibility of near-term oil supply disruptions and persistent, long-term oil shortages.

“Despite rising demand and a large increase in oil prices, world oil supply has been on a plateau; it has stayed relatively constant since 2005,” said Robert L. Hirsch, co-author of The Impending World Energy Mess. “Simultaneously, production from existing world oil fields is declining at a high rate. Both of these developments are unprecedented, yet DOE and EIA [Energy Information Administration] have dismissed them as not being of major concern.”

Hirsch added, “Many oil production analysts believe that in a relatively few years, total world oil production will go into decline. That may sound like we have time to react, but our 2005 study for the DOE clearly demonstrated that we now have essentially no time to effectively react. This is because of the huge amount of oil consumed worldwide and the fact that a relatively few percent oil production decline will be difficult, expensive and time-consuming to make up.”

“The Department of Energy’s optimistic forecasts for future supply are dangerously unrealistic,” said Jim Baldauf, president and co-founder of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas-USA (ASPO-USA). “The risk/benefit ratio is out of balance. If these exuberant predictions are wrong, the consequences could be catastrophic. We need to be conservative in planning for the future. We can’t bet America’s economy and national security on Pollyanna predictions.” Baldauf added, “We are not running out of oil. But we appear to be running out of oil that we can afford.”

Russian nuclear industry wants to expand, despite Fukushima - Rosatom, ARMZ and Uranium One

The Fukushima nuclear meltdown and explosion were the worst nuclear disaster ever, worst than even Chernobyl.  So, the result should have been a lesson to all of us to phase out the use of Nuclear power and look for safer energy sources, that are also clean and renewable, right?  It seems that the Russians didn't get that memo, and instead are doubling down on pushing for nuclear "investments" at home and abroad.

The press release below is probably the tip of a nuclear iceberg looking to continue the buildout of nuclear plants in Russia and elsewhere.

It concerns a group of companies, one of whom has the ominous name 'ARMZ', and their plans to continue building nuclear power plants and uranium based fuels.  They say "Global demand for nuclear power and for Russian nuclear power plants (NPPs) has remained strong despite the Fukushima disaster" and so therefore business must keep doing business.

Rosatom has signed agreements with China and Slovakia to develop nuclear infrastructure, and signed a road map agreement with India over their civilian nuclear program.  Rosatom also purchased a majority stake in Uranium One, a Canadian Uranium producer with mining operations around the world.

From reading the press release you could think they're talking about any widget.  It's just a business of buying mines that produce resources, processing those resources, to generate a product from those resources, and people who are paying for that product.  It's just a business.

A business that deals in metals that produce death to all who touch the metal, metals that are known to blow up, cause fires, and are extremely poisonous.

 

Russia Nuclear Industry Optimistic - Despite Fukushima

LONDON, October 24, 2011/PRNewswire/ -- The global nuclear industry remains buoyant despite the Fukushima disaster, and Russia is looking to Western partners as it expands its nuclear investments both at home and abroad, Sergei Kirienko, the former Prime Minister of Russia and director general of Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom, told investors today in London.

"Our goal is to open up the sector to broad, free dialogue with the Western investment community," Mr Kirienko told an audience at The Savoy hotel at an event arranged by Canaccord, the investment bank. "We took a vital step towards this goal with our purchase of a majority stake in Uranium One (TSX:UUU)."

"We set out to win the trust of shareholders and show the global investment community that a Russian state company knows and can play by the 'rules of the game' for global public companies," Mr Kirienko said. "The past year and a half have shown that we are succeeding."

Mr Kirienko thanked Uranium One Chairman Ian Telfer for making the acquisition a success, with Uranium One shares outperforming peers since the acquisition and holding their value amid global market turbulence. "Personal dialogue and mutual trust between us and the board of directors of UraniumOne, and Ian Telfer personally, have been extremely important," he said.

Global demand for nuclear power and for Russian nuclear power plants (NPPs) has remained strong despite the Fukushima disaster in March. All six NPP construction contracts signed by Rosatom in 2010 and 2011 remain in place.  Rosatom has also signed agreements with China and Slovakia to develop existing nuclear infrastructure, and a "road map" with India for its civilian nuclear programme.  "The Fukushima factor has had almost no effecton global demand for nuclear power," Mr Kirienko said.  "Most countries do not plan to replace their current nuclear capacity with other types of generation in the foreseeable future," noting that nuclear is among the safest, greenest and most economical sources of power.

"Only a very few countries with small nuclear capacity can afford to reject nuclear plants in favour of energy from fossil fuels or alternative sources," Mr Kirienko said.

The uranium market has also remained relatively stable, Mr Kirienko said. But he said that prices, which have stabilised at around US$50 per pound after falling to $40 in the immediate aftermath of the disaster, need to rise to ensure that supply remains healthy:  "In our opinion, to ensure enough supply to satisfy growing demand over the next decade, the price needs to be stable at around US$70 or US$80."

Rosatom and ARMZ are now looking to strengthen their international presence further, using Uranium One as a spearhead. "The acquisition of Mantra Resources in Tanzania was the first significant step in diversifying Uranium One's production outside Kazakhstan," Mr Kirienko said. "In our opinion, southern Africa is a future growth 'hot spot' for the uranium sector, which is why the acquisition was extremely important for us."

Notes:

Rosatom acquired a 51% stake in Toronto-listed Uranium One in 2010through its 100%-owned subsidiary ARMZ Uranium Holding Co. (Atomredmetzoloto).

About Rosatom

The State Atomic Energy Corporation ROSATOM incorporates more than 250 enterprises and scientific institutions, including all civil nuclear companies of Russia, nuclear weapons facilities, research organizations and the world's only nuclear-propelled fleet. ROSATOM is the largest utility inRussia and produces more than 40 % of electricity in the country's European part. ROSATOM holds leading positions in the global nuclear technology market: 1st in the world simultaneous nuclear build abroad; 2nd in uranium reserves; 5th in uranium mining; 4th in nuclear electricity generation; while providing 40% of the world uranium enrichment services and 17% of the world nuclear fuel market.

ROSATOM is also tasked to fulfil Russia's international obligations in the field of the peaceful uses of atomic energy and the nuclear non-proliferation regime.

http://www.rosatom.ru/en

About ARMZ

ARMZ Uranium Holding Co. (JSC Atomredmetzoloto) is one of the leaders in the world uranium mining industry. It is among top five uranium mining companies by uranium output and ranks second by reserves (726,500 tons as of January 1, 2011). ARMZ is the primary supplier of uranium feedstock to the Russian nuclear industry and in 2010 it produced 5173.4 tons of uranium af tacilities in Russia and Kazakhstan.

JSC "Atomenergoprom" [http://www.atomenergoprom.ru/en ] controls 80.37 %of Atomredmetzoloto's shares.

ARMZ together with its affiliates and subsidiaries employs over 10,000 people.

Today, ARMZ Uranium Holding Co. is the successor to the world's largest uranium production complex built by the Soviet Union. In 2008, all uranium mining companies in Russia, as well as a number of uranium joint ventures inthe CIS and abroad, were brought together under ARMZ, after the restructuring of Russia's nuclear industry had been completed. In 2010, JSC Atomredmetzoloto acquired 51.4% of shares of Uranium One, Inc., a public Canadian uranium mining company.

http://www.armz.ru/eng

About Uranium One

Uranium One Inc. is a Canadian-based company and is one of the world's largest publicly traded uranium producers with a primary listing on theToronto Stock Exchange and a secondary listing on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. The Company has a globally diversified portfolio of assets located in Kazakhstan, the United States, Australia and is operator of the Mkuju River Project in Tanzania. With a 51% ownership stake, Uranium One's major shareholder is JSC Atomredmetzoloto (ARMZ) which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Rosatom, the Russian State Corporation for Nuclear Energy.

For further information please contact: Stuart Leasor   M:Communications   +44(0)20-7920-2317   leasor@mcomgroup.com

http://www.uranium1.com

Source: Rosatom

Clean Energy Pathways develops biofuels to displace coal in electric plants

Burning coal adds various unwanted materials to the environment, carbon, mercury, etc.  Clean Energy Pathways develops various renewable energy resources, including biomass based fuels that can be used in coal plants to displace the use of coal.  They describe their biofuel products as a means to comply with multiple directives from Federal and State governments.

Their biofuel is developed from sources such as waste vegetable oils, animal fats, yard wastes, and industrial wastes.

They also describe their biofuel as a means for companies to avoid "falling prey to the perceived need to place expensive reduction technologies at their facilities" and that instead their "quality" biofuel will keep them in compliance until 2050.

Clean Energy Pathways Develops New Custom Blended Biofuels as Btu-Substitute for Coal in Utility and Commercial Boilers

Fuels Meet RFS2 Mandate, ASTM Specs, and Qualify for the Renewable Electric Production and Carbon Tax Credits

DOTHAN, Ala., Oct. 24, 2011 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- A new line of custom-blended biofuels is being introduced by Clean Energy Pathways, Inc. (Pink Sheets:CPWY) for use as a Btu-substitute in coal-fired utility and commercial boilers, or for use in diesel-powered equipment. Available as B20, B100 or other custom blends, the new fuels substantially reduce SOx, CO2 and fly ash, as well as the efficiency-robbing buildup of slag and soot that forms on boiler tubes at startup. The fuels meet the EPA's RFS2 mandate for use of renewable fuel, and create carbon tax credits. They also qualify for the Renewable Electric Producer Tax Credit at 2.2 cents per kilowatt, or 22 cents per gallon based on 10 kilowatts per gallon. Tested as a coal substitute in a circulating fluidized bed boiler, the new fuel reduced coal consumption by 10 percent, in turn reducing the sulfur dioxide and CO2 emissions from coal by 10 percent.

"Emissions from burning the fuel are acceptable under current regulations because it is a renewable energy source," said Greg Clemons, CEO of Clean Energy Pathways. "The emission reduction also mitigates risk from lawsuits by neighboring states over cross-border air pollution."

"Our fuels utilize the highest quality feedstocks and meet all ASTM specifications," he added. "We can provide various blends to meet a wide range of applications on power plant sites."

The water-soluble B100 fuel is environmentally friendly and reduces the risk of costly hazardous-material cleanup. With 50 percent higher Btu content per cubic foot than PRB coal, the new biofuels are space-efficient for storage. Biofuels are also not prone to moisture in the fuel, as happens with outdoor storage of coal, so the Btu content is consistent.

For additional information on Clean Energy Pathways biofuels, contact Gregory Clemons at:gclemons@cepathways.com.

The Clean Energy Pathways, Inc. logo is available at http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/prs/?pkgid=9449

CONTACT: Gregory Clemons
         Clean Energy Pathways
         Tel:  906.370.8164 or 334-791-9418
         gclemons@cepathways.com

 

 

Peak Oil 101 - Presentation by Chris Martensen to a university group

Peak Oil is the point at which we reach a maximum rate in global conventional oil production. As we hit this limit to supply, prices will rise and production will shift to alternatives - but will these alternatives give us enough power to run our world? And at what environmental cost?

This "Peak Oil 101" presentation attempts to answer some of those questions. The presentation took place on September 23rd, 2011 and was hosted by Will Martin, the president of the energy club at the Johnson Graduate School of Management at Cornell University. Johnson alumnus and peak oil author Dr. Chris Martenson joined us by phone to answer questions.

Before the lecture, the energy club was primed by watching the following videos from Dr. Martenson's website:
http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-17a-peak-oil
http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-17b-energy-budgeting
http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-17c-energy-and-economy

Will Martin's Blog: http://www.peakoilproof.com/
Chris Martinson's Blog: http://www.chrismartenson.com

Peak Oil is about Price AND Supply

The Globe and Mail has run a piece by Jeff Rubin talking about how "the oil industry’s never ending ability to develop new extraction technologies and discover new sources of supply" has repeatedly confounded the Peak Oil community's ability to forecast the peak.  He goes on to suggest that the apparent peak of oil production is a matter of economics rather than actual fossil oil supply.  The article reads as if he's slamming the Peak Oil community, but I think he'd find most knowledgable Peak Oil people in agreement with what he suggests.  Additionally I think they'd say that it's a question of price AND supply, rather than simply a question of price.

As he says, the U.S. oil production (lower 48 states) peaked as predicted by M. King Hubbert in 1971ish.  One might suppose Hubbert made a lucky prediction, or one might suppose his theories were spot-on accurate.  I don't know enough to pronounce either way.  Rubin goes on to say

new sources of supply have been found in Alaska and under the Gulf of Mexico. And now oil sand production from Alberta and oil from the Bakken shale deposits may soon replace conventional oil in the mix of North American fuel.

Going further he references how the U.S. Energy Information Administration (and other energy information agencies) have stopped referring to fossil oil and instead have invented a new phrase, Energy Liquids, which

includes all kinds of energy sources we would not have previously called oil such as natural gas liquids, liquefied refinery gases, and even corn-based ethanol.

There are some slippery definitions here so let's be careful.

The phrase "Peak Oil" is generally defined in terms of fossil oil production.  As he points out there are various other sources of liquid fuels that are being developed.  We could have a peak of fossil oil production, and still have plenty of liquid fuels if there is development of enough production infrastructure for these other resources.

I've long felt the peak oil community was overly focused on fossil oil.  There's obviously a fixed size amount of fossil oil and of course there will be a peak of production from fossil oil resources.  When the doom and gloom end of the peak oil community declares that the peak of fossil production means "GAME OVER" and "IT'S MAD MAX TIME" they're saying they think other liquid fuel resources will not be able to replace the fossil oil resources we're accustomed to.

There's potential to replace fossil oil with other liquid fuel resources, but can we afford to do so?

To replace fossil oil production, new sources of liquid fuels must be developed.  That means infrastructure to extract fuels from various places.  Rubin mentions tar sands, shale oil, natural gas liquids, liquified methane, ethanol, and there are other potential sources.

Each requires investments of money and energy to extract liquid fuel.   An important concept is Energy Return on Investment - EROI - which is the energy content of a fuel, versus the energy content used to generate that fuel.  What was so attractive about fossil oil was that in its early days the EROI was 100:1, meaning 100 barrels of energy for each barrel of energy consumed in extracting that fuel.  The EROI on fossil oil has dropped considerably since the gusher days.  The closer EROI gets to 1:1 the less useful the energy resource is.

There's also the question of whether the money is available to pay for the machines and pipelines and whatnot that will be required to process, refine, extract, transport etc the fuels from these new resources.  As liquid fuels they might likely be transportable through oil pipelines, but other steps in the process require wholly new machines and factories to be built.  Where will the money come from in a time of global financial fracturing?

There's also the question of land use policies.  Some of the resources like ethanol or other biofuels will require land devoted to growing fuel crops rather than food crops.  Can we afford this?

For an interesting youtube presentation along these lines see: http://energy.7gen.com/2011/10/peak-oil-101-presentation-by-chris.html

 

Peak oil is about price, not supply

Hanwha SolarOne Unveils High Performance Solar PV Modules with Enphase Microinverters

DALLAS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Hanwha SolarOne Co., Ltd. ("Hanwha SolarOne”) (Nasdaq:HSOL), a global, end-to-end solar systems manufacturer, today announced its first AC Module (ACM) incorporating the world’s most efficient microinverter technology from Enphase Energy. The Enphase Energized™ AC Module is a combination of Hanwha SolarOne’s high performance solar modules with Enphase’s highly efficient third generation microinverters, allowing installers to sell the most advanced solar solutions to customers.

With vertically integrated manufacturing of silicon ingots, wafers, PV cells and modules, Hanwha SolarOne’s modules are crafted from the very first materials to be reliable and efficient. The combination of Hanwha SolarOne’s field-proven modules with Enphase microinverters allows the ACM to deliver maximum energy harvest for PV solar installations.

“By delivering innovative, cost-advantaged solar products with guaranteed performance, Hanwha SolarOne and partners like Enphase are charting a rapid course to a truly global solar economy,” said Sungsoo Lee, Chief Strategic Officer of Hanwha SolarOne. “The Enphase Energized™ AC Module will drive increased clean energy projects that maximize solar power for homes, businesses and utilities around the world.”

Enphase Energy’s third generation microinverters easily attach to the frame of a Hanwha SolarOne 60-cell module to generate grid-compliant alternating current (AC) power directly at the module-level. The ACM is guaranteed by a 25-year limited warranty for both the microinverter and module.

“The powerful combination of SolarOne’s modules with our Microinverter System creates a high performance, easy-to-install system that comes complete with integrated intelligence and a comprehensive warranty,” said Bill Rossi, chief marketing officer of Enphase Energy.

Hanwha SolarOne will be exhibiting at booth #3527 where it will feature an Enphase Energized AC Module.

About Hanwha SolarOne

Hanwha SolarOne Co., Ltd. (NASDAQ: HSOL) is a vertically integrated manufacturer of silicon ingots, wafers, PV cells and modules. Hanwha SolarOne offers high-quality, reliable products and services at competitive prices. Partnering with third party distributors, OEM manufacturers, and system integrators, Hanwha SolarOne serves the utility, commercial/government, and residential markets. The company maintains a strong worldwide presence with employees located throughout Europe, North America, and Asia and embraces environmental responsibility and sustainability with an active role in the voluntary photovoltaic recycling program. The Company benefits from its strategic partnership with its largest shareholder Hanwha Group who is active in solar project development and financing and plans to produce polysilicon in the future. For more information visit: www.hanwha-solarone.com.

About Enphase Energy

Enphase Energy delivers microinverter technology for the solar industry that increases energy production, simplifies design and installation, improves system uptime and reliability, reduces fire safety risk and provides a platform for intelligent energy management. Our semiconductor-based microinverter system converts energy at the individual solar module level and brings a systems-based, high technology approach to solar energy generation. www.enphase.com.

Contacts Edelman for Hanwha SolarOneJoey Marquart, 650-762-2987joey.marquart@edelman.com