Fuelcell-energy Yahoo group news:
There are 24 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Fuel cells for stationary power
From: "janson2997"
2. ‘Crystal sponge’ a hydrogen breakthrough?
From: "janson2997"
3. Utilities, onn.State Strike A Deal
From: "janson2997"
4. NEW LIPA's List of Public Events
From: "janson2997"
5. The atom bombshell that is splitting opinion<
From: "janson2997"
6. Bering Sea is warming, and wildlife is at risk
From: "janson2997"
7. The Economics of Gas to Liquids Compared to Liquefied Natural Gas
From: "janson2997"
8. U.S. Energy/Environmental Policy yahoo group
From: "oilfreeusa"
9. Re: The atom bombshell that is splitting opinion<
From: "gram_toquer"
10. crystal sponge hydrogen breakthrough
From: "tallex2002"
11. The Coming Resource Wars
From: "janson2997"
12. Nature's calendar springing forward
From: "janson2997"
13. Earth Year 2006 — March
From: "janson2997"
14. Young Edisons and Einsteins
From: "janson2997"
15. The Future of American Military Strategy a Conference Report
From: "janson2997"
16. Tester offers energy plan for U.S.
From: "janson2997"
17. >>>Littleton midget developing giant technology<<<
From: "janson2997"
18. Super-Hot Particles Give Science Its Sizzle ; Experiment is Step Toward Fusion P
From: "janson2997"
19. ENERGY SECURITY & EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
From: "janson2997"
20. Green Paper on EU energy policy
From: "janson2997"
21. A fistful of petrodollars - a trigger to change roles in the capitalist world
From: "janson2997"
22. James E. McWilliams: Politics & Prose
From: "janson2997"
23. Green group petitions US, Aussies
From: "janson2997"
24. In Phoenix, Even Cactuses Wilt in Clutches of Record Drought
From: "janson2997"
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:39:43 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Fuel cells for stationary power
Fuel cells for stationary power
Fuel cell-based power generation technologies are expected to receive
a huge boost due to current transmission networks' inability to
handle excess demand, issues of transmission losses and the costs
incurred thereby as well as the concern about power quality at the
end points.
The domestic requirement of additional electric power is likely to
touch 1.7 trillion kilowatt hour (kWh) in 2020. This is three times
the requirement during 1980 to 2000. It will be a significant
challenge for any power utility to accommodate such a large
incremental load using only its existing transmission and
distribution network.
The reluctance of power companies to invest in newer power plants
because of lack of returns and the widening gap between the demand
and supply of power are expected to motivate the distributed power
generation.
"Enhancing or building new power plants could cause power utilities'
reserve margins to exceed peak demand," says Frost & Sullivan
Research Analyst Viswanathan Krishnan. "This scenario can drive the
distributed power generation sector, for which the fuel cell
technologies are considered the most appropriate for its various
benefits such as high energy conversion efficiency and its potential
to offer reliable and quality power."
Nevertheless, the development of these fuel cell technologies has
been restrained largely due to high costs, complex designs and fuel
problems. The industry is optimistic about resolving these issues
with researchers and companies enthusiastically developing innovative
solutions for the inherent problems in the application of fuel cells
in stationary power.
For fuel cell technology to be effective commercially, technology
developers have to devise strategies to reduce the costs of fuel cell
systems. In stationary fuel cell systems' stacks, costs are lowered
by minimising the use of expensive materials.
While one method is to enhance fuel cell units' cost-competitiveness
is to produce them in large volumes, technology developers also need
to focus on inventive and economical ways to obtain hydrogen from
hydrocarbons or from other sources to increase the use of fuel cell-
based systems.
Researchers have already developed a direct fuel cell-based
technology that uses potassium lithium carbonate as the electrolyte,
operates at 1200 deg C, and provides 250 kilowatt (kW) to 3 megawatt
(MW) power. This technology can help generate electricity directly
from hydrocarbon fuels such as natural gas and wastewater treatment
gas.
This one-step energy conversion process offers significant cost
benefits over competing technologies such as phosphoric acid fuel
cells (PAFCs) and proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs), which
use complex reforming techniques.
In another cost-related issue, technology developers will have to
ensure the availability of hydrogen-rich natural gas to facilitate
distributed generation applications as well as to stabilise prices to
drive greater uptake of the technology.
An important factor that is driving the industry further is the
growing concern for environment and fossil fuels, which has motivated
participants to look for various alternate power generation
technologies. Leading research institutions and companies prefer fuel
cell-based power generation, as the electrochemical conversion of
chemical energy to electricity in a fuel cell is a 'green process'.
"The elegant emission profile - emitting trace sulphur and nitrogen -
makes these technologies an ideal choice for stationary power
applications," notes Mr Krishnan.
For more information, visit http://ti.frost.com
http://www.engineerlive.com/oil-and-gas-news/14416/fuel-cells-for-
stationary-power.thtml
http://tinyurl.com/aazmp
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:48:37 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: ‘Crystal sponge’ a hydrogen breakthrough?
`Crystal sponge' a hydrogen breakthrough?
Researchers say it nearly triples storage capacity
MSNBC
Updated: 11:31 a.m. ET March 10, 2006
In what could be a breakthrough on the road to a pollution-free
hydrogen economy, researchers say they have developed a "crystal
sponge" material that can store nearly three times more hydrogen than
any other known substance.
Obstacles to mass market vehicles that some day run on hydrogen
include storage capacity. Test cars that use hydrogen in fuel cells
to create an electric propulsion system now get just 150 miles or so
on a tank the same size as those in gasoline cars, which can travel
300 or 400 miles on a tank.
Chemists at UCLA and the University of Michigan claim their material
is the first to achieve the kind of storage capacities required to
make hydrogen fuel practical. They are publishing their findings in
late March in the Journal of the American Chemical Society.
The material was developed by UCLA chemist Omar Yaghi, who described
it as just one in a large class of compounds he invented in the early
1990s.
MOFs at work
The compounds are known as as metal-organic frameworks, or MOFs. A
press release from the National Science Foundation, which helped fund
the research, said the compounds "have a crystal structure that
resembles a scaffold made of linked rods — a structure that gives
them a multitude of nanoscale pores, and a correspondingly huge
internal surface area where gas molecules can attach."
What's more, only minute amounts of MOFs are needed. "A pinch of a
MOF," the NSF added, "has roughly the surface area of a football
field."
And MOFs can be made inexpensively from chemicals like zinc oxide, a
common ingredient in sunscreen, and terephthalate, which is found in
plastic soda bottles.
Yaghi said the structures can be tailored easily, and that his lab
has made more than 500 different MOFs in recent years.
"We have a class of materials in which we can change the components
nearly at will," he said in the press release. "There is no other
class of materials where one can do that."
`No limit to the applications'
The material might also be applicable to laptop computers, cell
phones, digital cameras and other electronic devices.
"MOFs will have many applications," Yaghi said. "Molecules can go in
and out of them unobstructed. We can make polymers inside the pores
with well-defined and predictable properties. There is no limit to
what structures we can get, and thus no limit to the applications."
But the material is not quite ready for market: The high storage
densities are so far possible only at -321 degrees Fahrenheit. Yaghi
said he was optimistic that is only temporary given that so many MOF
variations are possible and have yet to be tested.
No commercial plans have been announced but two other research
funders are major players: the U.S. Department of Energy and chemical
giant BASF.
Other obstacles to vehicles powered by hydrogen, which emits no
pollutants, include the costs of extracting hydrogen from other
compounds, the lack of a fueling infrastructure and the costs of fuel
cell stacks, which are coming down but are still much more expensive
than internal combustion engines.
© 2006 MSNBC Interactive
© 2006 MSNBC.com
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11761455/
http://tinyurl.com/zeswc
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:57:00 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Utilities, onn.State Strike A Deal
Utilities, State Strike A Deal
Higher Power Bills Would Be Result
By PAUL MARKS
Courant Staff Writer
March 7 2006
Connecticut utility regulators and the state's two largest electric
companies announced an agreement Monday designed to prompt expansion
of the regional power system while avoiding a federal proposal that
would have added $9 to monthly power bills.
The painful reality, though, is that the new plan still carries an
increase estimated at $4.50 a month for Connecticut ratepayers, most
of whom have already been socked with a 22.4 percent rate increase
this year.
The plan, which requires federal approval, is intended to stimulate
badly needed development of new power generating plants by offering
more profit to companies that build them.It also calls for the
nonprofit group that manages New England's regional power grid to
organize annual auctions at which power generators will compete for
the right to sell power to the region. Sales would be negotiated
three years in advance, giving generators time to construct new
plants to meet the region's growing demand.
Donald Downes, chairman of the state Department of Public Utility
Control, said the plan replaces one fashioned last year by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that would have cost Connecticut
ratepayers $3.6 billion over five years. The new plan's net cost to
Connecticut over four years is estimated at $800 million, he said.
However, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal says the
plan gives too much money to power companies, and regulatory agencies
in Maine and Massachusetts also oppose the plan.
Agreed on after four months of negotiations among state regulatory
agencies, consumer advocates, power companies and electric
generators, "this settlement provides more reliability for the power
system at far less cost to Connecticut ratepayers," Downes said. He
said the new plan would be half as expensive as the one the FERC
proposed.
It will also eliminate plans to carve the state into two service
zones, with higher electric rates charged in about 50 towns in
southwestern Connecticut, the area most in need of additional
generating capacity.
Power company officials, who joined Downes at a press conference at
the state Legislative Office Building on Monday, conceded that
consumers will not thrill to the news of higher utility costs.
"It's hard to explain to people we have this great settlement, and
it's going to add to your bill," said Lisa Thibdaue, vice president
for regulatory and government affairs at Northeast Utilities. "But
it's not as bad as it could have been."
NU owns Connecticut Light & Power, whose rates rose dramatically
under a December DPUC ruling. The monthly bill for a typical
household, roughly $102 last year, rose to $120 on Jan. 1 and will go
to $125 on April 1. Adding $4.50 would bring it to $129.50.
CL&P serves almost 1.2 million customers in Connecticut, about 80
percent of the state's electricity users.
If the FERC approves the plan, the extra burden will show up in
consumers' bills sometime after Dec. 1, when the first incentive
payments will begin flowing to companies that run generating plants
serving Connecticut and five other New England states. Such payments
would be based on the "capacity" value of plants that stand by to
meet peak demand when needed.
After fielding comments on the plan, the FERC is expected to vote on
it by June.
Blumenthal, who is pushing for a windfall profits tax on power
generation companies and a state-owned power authority to manage
electric power purchases, has opposed the negotiated settlement. On
Monday, he called it "simply unacceptable for Connecticut's consumers
and economy" because electric rates have risen by 70 percent during
the past three years.
"Our citizens simply cannot afford to pay this settlement's
additional hundreds of millions of dollars a year in federal
charges," Blumenthal said. He said the "transition payments" to power
generators, which would begin in December, "are simply a bribe to big
energy - huge and unwarranted windfalls to generators without any
return obligation or benefit to ratepayers."
Anticipating the attorney general's position, Downes said the only
realistic options are the agreed-on settlement or the FERC plan known
as "locational installed capacity," which would cost consumers far
more.
"Our choice is between the LICAP decision that FERC has already made
and this settlement," he said. "There is no other choice."
State Consumer Counsel Mary Healey, echoing that view, said that by
drawing the support of all but nine of the more than 100 parties in
the negotiations, the new proposal "is truly historic in the positive
impact it will have."
The auction system and cash incentives to companies that build new
power plants will ensure the region's generating capacity expands to
keep pace with growing demand, Healey said.
The head of ISO New England Inc., operator of the regional power
system, praised the negotiated settlement.
"This agreement is a critical step forward in the development of a
reliable, efficient power system for the region," said Gordon van
Welie, president and CEO. "It addresses one of the most significant
challenges we face: ensuring there are enough resources to meet New
England's growing demand for electricity." Welie also said
conservation and methods of reining in demand must play a role.
The agreement requires ISO New England to project the needs of the
power system three years in advance and hold an annual auction to
purchase power for needs three years ahead of time. The first such
auction is expected to be held as early as December 2007 for power
needs projected to 2010.
Copyright 2006, Hartford Courant
http://www.courant.com/business/hc-
fercrule0307.artmar07,0,3100068,print.story?coll=hc-headlines-business
http://tinyurl.com/zoq6u
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 18:47:05 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: NEW LIPA's List of Public Events
March 8 LIPA BOARD MEETING
4:00 p.m. OMNI Teleconference Center
Uniondale
March 15 FPPCA Surcharge Public Hearing 10:00 a.m. Huntington
Hilton
March 15 FPPCA Surcharge Public Hearing 2:00 p.m. LIPA Offices
2nd Floor Assembly Center
March 23 LIPA BOARD MEETING> Cancelled < 11:00 a.m. OMNI
Teleconference Center
Uniondale
March 24 Spring Home Improvement and Remodeling Expo 10:30 a.m. -
9:30 p.m. Nassau Coliseum
March 25 Spring Home Improvement and Remodeling Expo 10:30 a.m. -
9:30 p.m. Nassau Coliseum
March 26 Spring Home Improvement and Remodeling Expo 10:30 a.m. -
6:00 p.m. Nassau Coliseum
April 27 LIPA BOARD MEETING 11:00 a.m. TBA
April 30 Massapequa Street Festival TBA Massapequa Train Station
May 24 LIPA BOARD MEETING 11:00 a.m. OMNI Teleconference Center
Uniondale
June 22 LIPA BOARD MEETING TBA TBA- Suffolk
http://www.lipower.org/newscenter/events/events06.html
http://tinyurl.com/luxz3
j2997
Back to News Center
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 20:41:52 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: The atom bombshell that is splitting opinion<
The atom bombshell that is splitting opinion
By Robert Matthews
Published: March 9 2006 18:41 | Last updated: March 9 2006 18:41
Psychologists call it cognitive dissonance: the mental torment that
comes from being confronted by two fundamentally opposed
propositions. Deciding between them often provokes powerful emotions –
just ask Dr Randell Mills, whose claims have a habit of triggering
severe bouts of cognitive dissonance among otherwise perfectly
rational people.
And no wonder: this medical student turned physicist claims to have
debunked the textbook account of how atoms are put together – and in
the process discovered a new source of clean, cheap energy.
By itself, that would provoke little more than eye-rolling boredom
from scientists all too familiar with the grand pronouncements of
cranks. The trouble is that not many cranks have had their radical
new theories about atoms published in dozens of peer-reviewed papers
in serious research journals, and the implications replicated in
independent laboratories. And fewer still have won the support of big
hitters from A-list corporations and hefty financial backing to match.
So which is it: is Dr Mills a crank or a genius? Faced with making up
their minds, many scientists have shown the classic symptom of
cognitive dissonance: spluttering rage (it is a safe bet that some
are even now tapping out letters of complaint to this newspaper).
They simply refuse point-blank to believe that Dr Mills could have
found a form of atomic energy missed by the likes of Albert Einstein
and Ernest Rutherford.
But – again in line with psychological theory – those with rather
less investment in the current scientific paradigm tend to have fewer
problems countenancing the other possibility: that Dr Mills really is
a genius. Some have even gone as far as investing a total of $50m in
his New Jersey-based company, Blacklight Power, whose board members
include Neil Moskowitz, the chief financial officer of Credit Suisse,
and Michael Jordan, chairman of Electronic Data Systems.
Not that Dr Mills cares about what mainstream scientists think about
his theory: he is too busy extracting ever more insights from it –
most recently, formulas describing the properties of molecules,
something that has proved beyond the powers of quantum mechanics, the
most successful scientific theory ever devised.
But then Dr Mills regards quantum mechanics as fundamentally flawed.
Devised around a century ago in response to some baffling discoveries
about heat, light and atoms, quantum mechanics is notorious for its
counter-intuitive implications, such as the inherent fuzziness of
atoms and the ability of energy to appear out of nowhere.
Dr Mills first came across quantum mechanics after graduating in
medicine from Harvard and taking up post-graduate studies in
electrical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Struck by the weirdness of the theory, he set about devising a
radically different account of the sub-atomic world, based on ideas
from Victorian physics.
In a series of papers published in academic journals, he argues for a
new picture of the hydrogen atom, with the lone electron whizzing
around a central proton replaced with a spherical shell of electric
charge.
According to Dr Mills, this simple modification utterly transforms
the physics of the atom. While all the successes of conventional
quantum mechanics are kept, a whole raft of solutions to previously
insoluble problems emerge – such as the predictions of the properties
of molecules.
But most excitement – and controversy – surrounds Dr Mills'
prediction of a whole new source of atomic energy lurking within
hydrogen. According to his theory, if atoms of hydrogen are heated
and mixed with other elements, they can be persuaded to release over
100 times more energy than would be generated by combustion alone.
The implications are astonishing. For if Dr Mills is right, the water
covering 70 per cent of the world could become a virtually limitless
source of cheap, clean energy. Not surprisingly, many scientists are
deeply sceptical, pointing to all-too-similar claims made for so-
called "cold fusion", another supposedly miraculous energy source
whose existence was revealed by this newspaper in 1989, but which has
failed to deliver on its promise.
Yet most of Dr Mills' critics have probably never bothered to read
any of his research papers. Some have, however, and have gone on to
attempt the acid test of any scientific claim: replication by
independent researchers. Among those to test Dr Mills' ideas is a
team led by Professor Gerrit Kroesen at the University of Technology
in Eindhoven, the Netherlands. So far their results have confirmed
that hydrogen atoms do indeed behave strangely in the presence of
certain elements, in line with Dr Mills' theory, and they plan to
test the key claim of net energy output later this year.
While many scientists express doubts off the record, the fact remains
that no one has published a knock-out argument against Dr Mills'
basic theory (though some claim it is so silly it is not worth a
rebuttal).
Whether his theory is right is ultimately irrelevant, however. What
really matters is whether hot hydrogen can be persuaded to give out
more energy than it takes in, making it a viable power source.
The whole controversy will be resolved one way or the other by
independent researchers either confirming or refuting Dr Mills'
claims. Or at least, that is what most scientists believe. In
practice, things are not always so clear-cut. During the 1960s, many
scientists claimed to have confirmed reports of the existence
of "polywater", a new form of H2O, which everyone now agrees does not
exist.
On the other hand, many genuine breakthroughs have initially prompted
outraged scepticism from experts.
What Dr Mills has already proved beyond doubt is that outsiders who
threaten long-held beliefs can expect a rough ride – no matter how
great the potential pay-off.
The writer is visiting reader in science at Aston University,
Birmingham
THE ONES THE EXPERTS THOUGHT WOULD NEVER GET OFF THE GROUND... BUT DID
Some of the biggest technological breakthroughs were ignored or
ridiculed by the scientific establishment when they first appeared:
■ When two American bicycle repairmen claimed to have built the
world's first aircraft in 1903, they were dismissed as cranks.
Newspapers refused to send reporters or photographers to witness any
of the flights. More than two years later, Scientific American
magazine was still insisting that the story was a hoax. By that time,
the Wright brothers had completed a half-hour flight covering 24
miles.
■ The claim of Irish engineer Charles Parsons to have developed a
radically new form of marine propulsion was scorned by the Admiralty,
until his steam turbine vessel made an unauthorised appearance at the
1897 Spithead naval review going at 37 knots – faster than any other
vessel in the fleet.
■ The idea that atoms could be a source of energy millions of times
more potent than coal or oil was dismissed by the Nobel Prize-winning
physicist Ernest Rutherford as "moonshine". Even Albert Einstein
struggled to accept the technological potential of his famous
equation E=mc2.
■ During the 1950s, self-taught American physicist Stanford
Ovshinsky found a way of creating materials lacking a regular crystal
structure – an achievement dismissed as impossible by scientists.
They are now standard components in devices ranging from flat-panel
displays to solar cells.
■ While developing the technology behind the laser, American
physicist Charles Townes was approached by two Nobel-Prize-winning
colleagues who told him he was wasting his time and threatening their
funding. Even after the first laser was built in 1960, it was
described as "a solution looking for a problem".
■ The Scanning Tunnelling Microscope (STM), invented by scientists
at IBM in Zurich in the early 1980s, now plays a key role in fields
ranging from biology to nanotechnology. But many scientists remained
deeply suspicious of the claims made for the STM until its inventors
won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1986.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/4b933f8a-af94-11da-b417-0000779e2340.html
http://tinyurl.com/p7l8b
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 20:45:38 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Bering Sea is warming, and wildlife is at risk
Bering Sea is warming, and wildlife is at risk
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Published: 10 March 2006
Rising temperatures in the Bering Sea are causing long-term changes
in the ecology of the local wildlife, scientists have found.
The northern part of the Bering Sea is now becoming vulnerable to
invasion by species from warmer, southern seas which could severely
affect local wildlife.
American and Canadian scientists have said that the northern Bering
Sea's sea ducks, gray whales, bearded seals and walruses is
critically dependent on bottom-dwelling organisms that thrive in cold
temperatures.
A change from Arctic to sub-Arctic conditions is under way which is
producing the sort of temperatures and conditions that favour more
southerly species.
"We're seeing that a change in the physical conditions is driving a
change in the ecosystems," said Jackie Grebmeier, a researcher at the
University of Tennessee and one of the co-authors of the study
published in the journal Science. "What we are seeing is a change in
the boundary between the sub-Arctic and the Arctic ecosystem. The
potential is real for an ecosystem shift that will be felt father
north," he said.
James Overland, an oceanographer at the Pacific Marine Environmental
Laboratory in Seattle, said the changesare tied to the nature of the
sea ice, which is melting.Shifts in fish populations have also been
observed, including the appearance farther north of juvenile pink
salmon in rivers that drain into the Arctic Ocean.
Rising temperatures in the Bering Sea are causing long-term changes
in the ecology of the local wildlife, scientists have found.
The northern part of the Bering Sea is now becoming vulnerable to
invasion by species from warmer, southern seas which could severely
affect local wildlife.
American and Canadian scientists have said that the northern Bering
Sea's sea ducks, gray whales, bearded seals and walruses is
critically dependent on bottom-dwelling organisms that thrive in cold
temperatures.
A change from Arctic to sub-Arctic conditions is under way which is
producing the sort of temperatures and conditions that favour more
southerly species.
"We're seeing that a change in the physical conditions is driving a
change in the ecosystems," said Jackie Grebmeier, a researcher at the
University of Tennessee and one of the co-authors of the study
published in the journal Science. "What we are seeing is a change in
the boundary between the sub-Arctic and the Arctic ecosystem. The
potential is real for an ecosystem shift that will be felt father
north," he said.
James Overland, an oceanographer at the Pacific Marine Environmental
Laboratory in Seattle, said the changesare tied to the nature of the
sea ice, which is melting.Shifts in fish populations have also been
observed, including the appearance farther north of juvenile pink
salmon in rivers that drain into the Arctic Ocean.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article350361.ece
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 20:55:40 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: The Economics of Gas to Liquids Compared to Liquefied Natural Gas
The Economics of Gas to Liquids Compared to Liquefied Natural Gas
by Michael J. Economides
Professor
University of Houston
Editor's note: This article is a summary of a more extensive report
supervised by Professor Economides and co-authored by Michael
Aguirre, Adrian Morales, Susmito Naha, Hakeem Tijani and Leonardo
Vargas.
Because natural gas is rapidly emerging as the premier fuel of the
world economy, its transportation from sources to markets has become
an important issue. The current price of oil is only one factor in
this complicated equation. You must also factor in the far larger
diversity of natural gas resources and, finally, the transition to
natural gas and the implicit decarbonization. All these factors carry
considerable environmental, economic and political capital.
The way liquefied natural gas (LNG) or compressed natural gas (CNG)
is transported becomes important when considering the volume of gas
to be transported and the distance it must travel. These
considerations further affect the attractiveness of natural gas
reserves, often labeled as "stranded," and their monetization. The
size of individual resources is important in the selection of the
transportation mode. For relatively short distances (such as 2,000
km) and relatively small loads (such as 500 MMCF), CNG may be
preferable to LNG. The latter is the indicated mode otherwise,
subjected to individual project economics.
The conversion of natural gas to liquid (GTL) at or near the source
represents another way to monetize stranded natural gas. The consumer
market that this process is intended to compete in is not the market
for natural gas (currently used almost exclusively in power
generation). Instead, it is intended to play a role in
transportation, namely as a replacement for gasoline, diesel and jet
fuel.
What follows is an economic comparison between LNG and GTL from the
vantage point of the natural gas producer. The study takes into
account the technology and costs of conversion (liquefaction and
regasification in the case of LNG; reaction and processing in the
case of GTL) and respective transportation.
As an initial conclusion, the distance of transport is important. For
a reasonable distance, such as Nigeria to the U.S. Gulf Coast, at a
price of oil equal to $30 per barrel, a natural gas price of $4 per
MCF or higher would render LNG more attractive; a lower price of gas
would make GTL more attractive. At $50 per barrel, this breakdown is
$6 per MCF. Conversely, if the price of natural gas is maintained
below $3 per MCF, then any price of oil above $20 would render GTL
more attractive.
Liquefied Natural Gas
For long-distance travel, LNG is an effective method of transporting
large volumes of natural gas. Following some initial processing, the
gas undergoes a liquefaction process using some variation of a
cascade cycle. The gas liquefies at a temperature of approximately -
256ûF (-160ûC) and is converted to LNG. Converting natural gas to LNG
reduces the gas volume to one six-hundredth of its volume at standard
conditions.
Specialized LNG tanker ships can then transport it over long
distances. A typical modern LNG tanker is slated to transport about 3
billion cubic feet (BCF) of gas. Storage and regasification
facilities are required to reconvert the liquid back to a gas that
can then be fed into the gas distribution system.
During 2004, about 27 percent of the global natural gas trade
underwent the LNG process. This trade constitutes roughly 7 percent
of total world production. A large portion of the current LNG
transaction occurs from Asia to Japan. The Japanese realized the
immense potential of natural gas in their energy mix early on and
began construction of LNG facilities in the 1970s. Today Japan
imports 47 percent of the world's LNG production.
Because of rapidly increasing demand, the United States is poised to
increase its natural gas import capacity – and Canada, thus far the
main source of imported gas, can no longer satisfy the emerging
demand. Because of this, LNG terminals are becoming an increasingly
viable alternative to the United States.
Capital-intensive, highly specialized equipment is involved in the
processing and transportation of liquefied natural gas:
• At almost 50 percent of the total investment, the liquefaction
plant is the most expensive unit of LNG production.
• Offloading of the LNG requires a regasification terminal. Such
facilities cost $500-700 million depending upon terminal capacity.
• And project-specific LNG tankers are complex and expensive.
Shipping of LNG is a function of distance of transport and the
discount factors. Assuming LNG transporting ships are newly built,
the unit cost of shipping ranges from $0.41 to 1.5 per MMBTU for
distances from 500 to 5000 miles.
Overall, the total investment can range from $1.5 to $2.5 billion,
depending on the market needs and number of ships required.
Worldwide, about 17 LNG liquefaction plants and 40 regasification
plants are operating today, and several new plants are under
construction.
Gas to Liquid
The Fisher-Tropsch GTL (FT-GTL) process, illustrated in Figure 1, is
by far the most popular technology for production of synthetic fuels.
Beyond the technology, the economics of the GTL process remains the
major element in the application of this process. The major factors
affecting the economics of the GTL process are the gas price and the
capital cost.
An analysis by Hart Energy's World Refining magazine suggests that FT-
GTL will provide about 600,000 barrels per day (bbl/day) of diesel
product by 2015, or somewhere around 3 percent of global diesel
demand. More important, fuel produced from the FT-GTL process is
practically free of sulfur and aromatics, making GTL fuels a
significant player in the "clean" fuels market as the cost to meet
future quality requirements of crude oil processing continue to
escalate. Ultimately, GTL diesel product will represent about 7
percent of the North American and European ultra-low-sulfur diesel
market.
Using GTL fuels is also carbon efficient. A study co-sponsored by
ConocoPhillips and the U.S. Department of Energy shows that the
carbon dioxide advantages of diesel vehicles burning gas-to-liquids
(GTL) diesel fuel overcomes most of the CO2 "greenhouse gas"
penalties of GTL plants, compared to crude-based ultra-low-sulfur
diesel.
Economics for GTL plants
To examine the economics of GTL operations we consider the operation
of a world-class (65,000 bbl/day) FT-GTL plant at three different
prospective geographic locations: Trinidad, Nigeria and Qatar. Each
location intends to ship to the United States.
Feedstock. A 65,000 bbl/day GTL plant will consume around 5 TCF of
gas during a 20-year life cycle. Availability of large volumes of low-
priced natural gas feedstock is critical to the economics of GTL
plants. Feedstock prices can vary greatly based on actual production
costs and the financial structure of the project. For the purpose of
this analysis we will consider natural gas feedstock prices at $0.5,
$1.0 and $1.5 per MCF.
• Qatar, with estimated reserves of 900 TCF, holds the world's second
largest reserves of gas (after Russia). It has already invested in
large LNG facilities. Thus, the marginal cost of gas production in
Qatar is very low. Freight on board (FOB) LNG prices of $2.5/MCF
indicate feedstock prices of around $1.5/MCF in Qatar.
• Nigeria has fewer reserves of 125 trillion cubic feet but flares 75
per cent of the associated gas produced with its oil, which amounts
to an estimated 1.5 BCF per day. Because of new government edicts to
stop the practice, flared gas may be available for nearly free in
Nigeria, but drilling for natural gas will produce gas at
significantly higher prices.
• Trinidad and Tobago has been aggressively developing its natural
gas resources. It has the advantage of close proximity to U.S.
markets.
Capital costs and operating expenses. A capital cost of $25,000/daily
barrel is assumed for this study. For a 65,000 bbl/day plant, this
translates into a capital cost of $1.625 billion. This represents a
conservative value for a large-scale GTL plant today. Operating costs
(excluding feedstock and transportation) is assumed to be $5/bbl.
Transportation costs. The shipping cost for the products of the GTL
plants (LNG, diesel and naphtha) is assumed to be the same as for
tankers that transport crude oil. Shipping costs in our study are
determined from various sources that highlight the high case scenario
of transportation from one region to another. The use of high-
transportation cost scenarios may have influenced the economic
calculations, but due to GTL competing with crude oil for tanker
ships, this economic model may account for a competitive atmosphere
in the shipping industry. Shipping costs and distances are shown in
the following table:
Route $M/day $/bbl $MM/journey Distance (km)
West Africa to U.S.
140 1.20 2.33 10,400
Middle East to Asia
162 1.61 3.14 12,000
Persian Gulf to U.S. Gulf Coast
216 3.32 6.47 18,700
Persian Gulf to Japan (high)
135 1.34 2.61 12,000
Persian Gulf to Japan (low)
70 0.69 1.35 12,000
We used a floor cost of $0.50/bbl for a shipping distance shorter
than 9,000 km to account for smaller ships used from countries
geographically located near the United States and large tankers used
when crossing the Atlantic Ocean. This assumption is based on the
production capabilities of current GTL plants and the carrying
capacity of a tanker ship.
Because of the large cargo capacity of the tankers, which hold some 2
million barrels, the time required to produce this volume with a
70,000-barrels-a-day GTL plant would be roughly 28 days or one month.
Product distribution and prices. The GTL plant is assumed to produce
the following products:
• Diesel oil: 44,000 bbl/day
• Naphtha: 17,000 bbl/day
• LPG: 4,000 bbl/day
This product distribution is typical of a middle-distillate process.
GTL products are assumed to be sold at the U.S. Gulf Coast. Product
prices in this analysis are a differential based on New York
Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) light sweet crude prices. The diesel
price differential is assumed to be similar to that of unleaded
gasoline. The price differential between light, sweet crude and
unleaded gasoline is about $5/bbl. We assume a $1/bbl price premium
for superior quality GTL diesel. Hence, diesel price = crude price +
$6/bbl.
The three-year average differential of Gulf Coast naphtha prices vs.
West Texas intermediate (WTI) is about $3/bbl. WTI prices are
generally $4/bbl below NYMEX light sweet. Assuming a $1/bbl price
premium for quality, we can assume naphtha prices as the same as
NYMEX light sweet crude prices. Similarly, no differential is assumed
for LPG prices. Product prices are maintained as constant throughout
the project.
Results of Economic Analysis
For our analysis, the net present value, or NPV, was calculated for
plants at different locations. The feedstock cost and crude oil
prices (and hence product prices) varied. The discount factor for NPV
analysis and product transportation costs varied by country:
• Nigeria: 35 percent
• Qatar: 25 percent
• Trinidad: 15 percent
The results for $1/MCF of feedstock price are summarized in Figure 2.
At crude oil prices greater than $22/bbl, a positive NPV can be
obtained even at a discount factor of 35 percent. For a feedstock
price of $1.5/MCF, the required crude price is $25/bbl; for low
feedstock prices ($0.5/MCF) a GTL project may be viable at crude oil
prices as low as $20/bbl.
LNG vs GTL
Liquefied natural gas is an alternative means to gas-to-liquid for
gas monetization from a producer's vantage point. For example, a
great advantage of GTL is the ease of product transportation. Hence
the economic viability of GTL plants will be most attractive when
compared with LNG projects for gas supply over long distances. We
consider here the relative economics of LNG versus a GTL plant in
Qatar supplying the Gulf Coast.
LNG cost basis. A world-scale LNG plant produces about 4 million
metric tons per annum (MMTPA) and consumes approximately the same
amount of gas as the 65,000 barrel-per-day GTL plant (650 MMCF/day).
For a long-haul GTL plant, such as the Qatar-to-United States route
of 18,000 km, 10 LNG carriers will be required at a capital cost of
$1.4 billion. The liquefaction plant is estimated to cost $800
million and the regasification plant $240 million, representing a
total capital outlay of $2.44 billion.
Feedstock gas price is assumed to be $1.0/MCF. Operating costs for a
4 MMTPA LNG plant are:
• Liquefaction plant $1.0/MCF of gas processed
• Regasification $0.3/MCF
• Shipping costs $1.0/MCF due to the larger number of ships required
for transporting over long distances and the corresponding higher
operating expense
Analysis results
The results of the LNG versus GTL comparison are shown in Figure 3.
The analysis provides a useful tool to compare relative returns from
the two projects. For example, for an NPV of $2.0 billion, a gas
price of $4.7/MCF or a crude oil price of $35/bbl are required. A
more interesting way to compare the results is shown in Figure 4,
where the line represents the relative ratio at crude and gas prices
at which two projects have the same NPV. Hence, above this line LNG
projects are more attractive, and below the line GTL projects are
more attractive.
At crude oil prices of ~$50/bbl and current gas prices of ~$6/MCF,
the LNG and GTL projects seem to offer equal economic returns. Lower
oil prices may render LNG more attractive, and higher gas prices may
do the opposite. What we've observed in the last year makes the
dilemma rather painful.
Michael J. Economides is one of the most instantly recognizable names
in the petroleum and chemical engineering professions and the energy
industry.
He is a professor at the Cullen College of Engineering, University of
Houston, and the chief technology officer of the Texas Energy Center.
Previously, he was the Samuel R. Noble Professor of Petroleum
Engineering at Texas A&M University and served as chief scientist of
the Global Petroleum Research Institute (GPRI). Prior to joining the
faculty at Texas A&M University, Dr. Economides was the director of
the Institute of Drilling and Production at the Leoben Mining
University in Austria. Before that, Dr. Economides worked in a
variety of senior technical and managerial positions with a major
petroleum services company.
Dr. Economides has written or cowritten 11 professional textbooks and
books, including The Color Of Oil, and almost 200 journal papers and
articles. Dr. Economides does a wide range of industrial consulting,
including major retainers by national oil companies at the country
level and by Fortune 500 companies. He has had professional
activities in more than 70 countries. He also has written extensively
in wide-circulation media on a broad range of issues associated with
energy, energy economics and geopolitics. He appears regularly as a
guest and an expert commentator on national and international
television programs.
http://www.worldenergysource.com/articles%2Ftext%2Feconomides%5FWE%
5Fv8n1%2Ecfm
http://tinyurl.com/b3gpz
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 21:56:22 -0000
From: "oilfreeusa"
Subject: U.S. Energy/Environmental Policy yahoo group
I wanted to spread awareness about the New American Independent -
Energy/Environmental Policy group and invite anyone interested.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewAmericanIndependent_energy-environment
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 00:09:15 -0000
From: "gram_toquer"
Subject: Re: The atom bombshell that is splitting opinion<
That "Hydrino" theory came out shortly after Fleischmann and Pons first
announced cold fusion, and the physicists have hated it ever since. My
own theory is that F&P actually stumbled on a way to tap energy from
solar neutrinos. I published an article about it in Infinite Energy
Magazine in 1997, and I have a framed letter on my wall about it from
Arthur C. Clarke.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 04:07:03 -0000
From: "tallex2002"
Subject: crystal sponge hydrogen breakthrough
`Crystal sponge' a hydrogen breakthrough? -
Researchers say it nearly triples storage capacity
<>
In what could be a breakthrough on the road
to a pollution-free hydrogen economy, researchers
say they have developed a "crystal sponge"
material that can store nearly three times
more hydrogen than any other known substance.
Obstacles to mass market vehicles that some day
run on hydrogen include storage capacity. Test
cars that use hydrogen in fuel cells to create
an electric propulsion system now get just 150
miles or so on a tank the same size as those in
gasoline cars, which can travel 300 or 400 miles on a tank.
Chemists at UCLA and the University of Michigan
claim their material is the first to achieve
the kind of storage capacities required to
make hydrogen fuel practical. They are publishing
their findings in late March in the Journal of
the American Chemical Society.
The material was developed by UCLA chemist Omar Yaghi,
who described it as just one in a large class of
compounds he invented in the early 1990s
<>
Get your daily alternative energy news
Alternate Energy Resource Network
1000+ news sources-resources
updated daily
http://www.alternate-energy.net
Next Generation Grid
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/next_generation_grid/
Tomorrow-energy
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tomorrow-energy/
Alternative Energy Politics
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Alternative_Energy_Politics/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 08:23:18 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: The Coming Resource Wars
The Coming Resource Wars
By Michael Klare, TomPaine.com. Posted March 11, 2006.
America's closest ally has announced that climate change has ushered
in an era of violent conflict over energy, water and arable land
It's official: the era of resource wars is upon us. In a major London
address, British Defense Secretary John Reid warned that global
climate change and dwindling natural resources are combining to
increase the likelihood of violent conflict over land, water and
energy. Climate change, he indicated, "will make scarce resources,
clean water, viable agricultural land even scarcer" -- and this
will "make the emergence of violent conflict more rather than less
likely."
Although not unprecedented, Reid's prediction of an upsurge in
resource conflict is significant both because of his senior rank and
the vehemence of his remarks. "The blunt truth is that the lack of
water and agricultural land is a significant contributory factor to
the tragic conflict we see unfolding in Darfur," he declared. "We
should see this as a warning sign."
Resource conflicts of this type are most likely to arise in the
developing world, Reid indicated, but the more advanced and affluent
countries are not likely to be spared the damaging and destabilizing
effects of global climate change. With sea levels rising, water and
energy becoming increasingly scarce and prime agricultural lands
turning into deserts, internecine warfare over access to vital
resources will become a global phenomenon.
Reid's speech, delivered at the prestigious Chatham House in London
(Britain's equivalent of the Council on Foreign Relations), is but
the most recent expression of a growing trend in strategic circles to
view environmental and resource effects -- rather than political
orientation and ideology -- as the most potent source of armed
conflict in the decades to come. With the world population rising,
global consumption rates soaring, energy supplies rapidly
disappearing and climate change eradicating valuable farmland, the
stage is being set for persistent and worldwide struggles over vital
resources. Religious and political strife will not disappear in this
scenario, but rather will be channeled into contests over valuable
sources of water, food and energy.
Prior to Reid's address, the most significant expression of this
outlook was a report prepared for the U.S. Department of Defense by a
California-based consulting firm in October 2003. Entitled "An Abrupt
Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States
National Security," the report warned that global climate change is
more likely to result in sudden, cataclysmic environmental events
than a gradual (and therefore manageable) rise in average
temperatures. Such events could include a substantial increase in
global sea levels, intense storms and hurricanes and continent-
wide "dust bowl" effects. This would trigger pitched battles between
the survivors of these effects for access to food, water, habitable
land and energy supplies.
"Violence and disruption stemming from the stresses created by abrupt
changes in the climate pose a different type of threat to national
security than we are accustomed to today," the 2003 report
noted. "Military confrontation may be triggered by a desperate need
for natural resources such as energy, food and water rather than by
conflicts over ideology, religion or national honor."
Until now, this mode of analysis has failed to command the attention
of top American and British policymakers. For the most part, they
insist that ideological and religious differences -- notably, the
clash between values of tolerance and democracy on one hand and
extremist forms of Islam on the other -- remain the main drivers of
international conflict. But Reid's speech at Chatham House suggests
that a major shift in strategic thinking may be under way.
Environmental perils may soon dominate the world security agenda.
This shift is due in part to the growing weight of evidence pointing
to a significant human role in altering the planet's basic climate
systems. Recent studies showing the rapid shrinkage of the polar ice
caps, the accelerated melting of North American glaciers, the
increased frequency of severe hurricanes and a number of other such
effects all suggest that dramatic and potentially harmful changes to
the global climate have begun to occur. More importantly, they
conclude that human behavior -- most importantly, the burning of
fossil fuels in factories, power plants, and motor vehicles -- is the
most likely cause of these changes. This assessment may not have yet
penetrated the White House and other bastions of head-in-the-sand
thinking, but it is clearly gaining ground among scientists and
thoughtful analysts around the world.
For the most part, public discussion of global climate change has
tended to describe its effects as an environmental problem -- as a
threat to safe water, arable soil, temperate forests, certain species
and so on. And, of course, climate change is a potent threat to the
environment; in fact, the greatest threat imaginable. But viewing
climate change as an environmental problem fails to do justice to the
magnitude of the peril it poses. As Reid's speech and the 2003
Pentagon study make clear, the greatest danger posed by global
climate change is not the degradation of ecosystems per se, but
rather the disintegration of entire human societies, producing
wholesale starvation, mass migrations and recurring conflict over
resources.
"As famine, disease, and weather-related disasters strike due to
abrupt climate change," the Pentagon report notes, "many countries'
needs will exceed their carrying capacity" -- that is, their ability
to provide the minimum requirements for human survival. This "will
create a sense of desperation, which is likely to lead to offensive
aggression" against countries with a greater stock of vital
resources. "Imagine eastern European countries, struggling to feed
their populations with a falling supply of food, water, and energy,
eyeing Russia, whose population is already in decline, for access to
its grain, minerals, and energy supply."
Similar scenarios will be replicated all across the planet, as those
without the means to survival invade or migrate to those with greater
abundance -- producing endless struggles between resource "haves"
and "have-nots."
It is this prospect, more than anything, that worries John Reid. In
particular, he expressed concern over the inadequate capacity of poor
and unstable countries to cope with the effects of climate change,
and the resulting risk of state collapse, civil war and mass
migration. "More than 300 million people in Africa currently lack
access to safe water," he observed, and "climate change will worsen
this dire situation" -- provoking more wars like Darfur. And even if
these social disasters will occur primarily in the developing world,
the wealthier countries will also be caught up in them, whether by
participating in peacekeeping and humanitarian aid operations, by
fending off unwanted migrants or by fighting for access to overseas
supplies of food, oil, and minerals.
When reading of these nightmarish scenarios, it is easy to conjure up
images of desperate, starving people killing one another with knives,
staves and clubs -- as was certainly often the case in the past, and
could easily prove to be so again. But these scenarios also envision
the use of more deadly weapons. "In this world of warring states,"
the 2003 Pentagon report predicted, "nuclear arms proliferation is
inevitable." As oil and natural gas disappears, more and more
countries will rely on nuclear power to meet their energy needs --
and this "will accelerate nuclear proliferation as countries develop
enrichment and reprocessing capabilities to ensure their national
security."
Although speculative, these reports make one thing clear: when
thinking about the calamitous effects of global climate change, we
must emphasize its social and political consequences as much as its
purely environmental effects. Drought, flooding and storms can kill
us, and surely will -- but so will wars among the survivors of these
catastrophes over what remains of food, water and shelter. As Reid's
comments indicate, no society, however affluent, will escape
involvement in these forms of conflict.
We can respond to these predictions in one of two ways: by relying on
fortifications and military force to provide some degree of advantage
in the global struggle over resources, or by taking meaningful steps
to reduce the risk of cataclysmic climate change.
No doubt there will be many politicians and pundits -- especially in
this country -- who will tout the superiority of the military option,
emphasizing America's preponderance of strength. By fortifying our
borders and sea-shores to keep out unwanted migrants and by fighting
around the world for needed oil supplies, it will be argued, we can
maintain our privileged standard of living for longer than other
countries that are less well endowed with instruments of power. Maybe
so. But the grueling, inconclusive war in Iraq and the failed
national response to Hurricane Katrina show just how ineffectual such
instruments can be when confronted with the harsh realities of an
unforgiving world. And as the 2003 Pentagon report reminds
us, "constant battles over diminishing resources" will "further
reduce [resources] even beyond the climatic effects."
Military superiority may provide an illusion of advantage in the
coming struggles over vital resources, but it cannot protect us
against the ravages of global climate change. Although we may be
somewhat better off than the people in Haiti and Mexico, we, too,
will suffer from storms, drought and flooding. As our overseas
trading partners descend into chaos, our vital imports of food, raw
materials and energy will disappear as well. True, we could establish
military outposts in some of these places to ensure the continued
flow of critical materials -- but the ever-increasing price in blood
and treasure required to pay for this will eventually exceed our
means and destroy us. Ultimately, our only hope of a safe and secure
future lies in substantially reducing our emissions of greenhouse
gases and working with the rest of the world to slow the pace of
global climate change.
Michael Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at
Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass., and the author of Blood and Oil:
The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Petroleum
Dependency.
http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/33243/
http://tinyurl.com/ej3aq
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 10:51:54 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Nature's calendar springing forward
Nature's calendar springing forward
Whiff of warmth, early buds point to stronger and stronger trend
Misty Edgecomb
Staff writer
The budding trees on Rochester streets are a testament to this
extraordinarily warm winter.
But earlier springs have been a reality for the past 30 years as the
climate began to change, according to data collected across New
England and discussed by researchers during a telephone conference
Friday.
"Stronger and stronger evidence of climate change is upon us," said
David Wolf of Cornell University. "Nature's calendar is responding to
the warming."
The impact is reflected in temperatures, ice cover on lakes and snow
cover as well as in less obvious indicators such as the timing of
blooms.
Temperatures in the Northeast during January and February are
averaging 4.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than in the 1970s, a shift
equivalent to the climatic difference between Boston and
Philadelphia, said Cameron Wake of the University of New Hampshire.
No single year can be taken as evidence of long-term climate change,
but with temperatures in the 50s, far above Rochester's normal March
temperature of 33.9, Friday lived up to the trend.
In Rochester, the average January-February temperature for the 1970s
was about 22 degrees; the average temperature for the same time
period for 2000-2006 was a little over 25 degrees, according to
National Weather Service data.
Western New York has been a major site of research into biological
indicators of climate change, Wolf said.
In the case of grapes in the Finger Lakes region, there has likely
been a benefit. Most varieties grown for wine can't stand
temperatures below minus 12 degrees, and temperatures that low have
become increasingly rare in recent decades.
Apples, however, seem to be struggling. Yields are consistently lower
in years when earlier springs expose blooms to frost damage, he said.
All the researchers at Friday's conference believe, as do many of the
world's scientists, that the world's climate is warming and that
human activities — from burning fossil fuels to cutting down forests —
are playing a major role in the shift.
MEDGECOM@DemocratandChronicle.com
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
AID=/20060311/NEWS01/603110333/1002/NEWS&template=printart
http://tinyurl.com/ldcec
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 10:54:49 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Earth Year 2006 — March
Earth Year 2006 — March
By Maureen Beezhold
Sweden has announced plans to have an oil-free economy by 2020.
According to the BBC, Sweden intends to "replace all fossil fuels
with renewables before climate change damages economies and growing
oil scarcity leads to price rises."
Corvallis has the opportunity to set a similar example through the
Renewable Energy Challenge, now through Earth Day. The Corvallis City
Council passed a resolution in October challenging city residents and
businesses to support renewable energy through their local utility.
The city is partnering with the Renewable Energy Northwest Project,
Pacific Corp., and Consumers Power to increase the purchase of
renewable energy by bringing the rate up from the current 9.5 percent
to 15 percent by Earth Day, April 22.
Corvallis can receive national recognition through the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Green Power Community Program.
Supporting the use of renewable energy reduces carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere and supports the regional economy through the new industry
of renewable power. If Corvallis used 15 percent of its power through
renewable energy it would be the equivalent of removing 2,000 tons of
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, planting 862 acres of trees, or
removing 4,500 cars from the road.
To learn more, contact Theresa at Renewable Energy Northwest at 929-
4882 or Theresa@rnp.org.
Events
Positioning Oregon as an International Leader in the Clean Energy
Industry, March 20-21, Seventh Mountain Resort in Bend. This summit
will bring together stakeholders from all over the state to assess
current trends, identify opportunities, confront challenges and
unveil bold new measures for advancing Oregon as an international
leader in clean energy. Cost is $100 for one day, $150 for two days.
Call 541-617-9013 or write to info@3EStrategies.org for more
information. Sponsored by 3EStrategies, Energy Trust, Oregon Economic
and Community Development Department, Central Oregon
Intergovernmental Council.
An Armchair Safari of the Parks: Wildlife and Landscapes of East
Africa, 7 p.m. March 22, Corvallis-Benton County Public Library, 645
N.W. Monroe Ave. Speaker Claire Puchy will discuss little-known and
seldom-visited spots such as the Selous Game Reserve in remote
southeastern Tanzania. Free. Sponsored by the Marys Peak GroupnSierra
Club.
Avery House Nature Center in-service programs, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Cost
is $29, and scholarships are available. After- and pre-care available
for $3 per hour. Fifteen percent off if you register for more than
two days. To register, stop by the Corvallis Environmental Center,
214 S.W. Monroe Ave. or call 758-6198 or see
www.corvallisenvironmentalcenter.org.
• Spring Break at the Beach, March 27-29. Ages 8-11. Learn all about
ocean life. Visit the coast and take a boat trip with Marine
Discovery Tours. Extra fee of $14 per student for the boat trip.
• Spring Break at the Beach, March 30-31. Ages 5-7. All about ocean
life. Take a trip to the Hatfield Marine Center and the Yaquina Head
Lighthouse.
Stories for Salmon Nation, 7 to 8 p.m. March 30, Loucks Auditorium,
Salem Public Library, 585 Liberty St. S.E. Storyteller and performer
Peter Donaldsen will present a one act play that explores the
connections between watersheds, salmon and humans. Part of the Straub
Environmental Learning Lecture Series. Free.
Your Money or Your Life workshop, 5:30 to 7 p.m. April 4, Umpqua
Bank, 415 N.W. Third St. Brenda Vandevelder and Maureen Beezhold will
lead this free workshop that explores your relationship with money
and how to turn money into a more fulfilling tool. For more
information or to register, call 752-3517. Sponsored by Northwest
Earth Institute and Umpqua Bank.
Globalization and Its Critics, 7 to 8:30 p.m. Nine-week course
beginning April 5. This Northwest Earth Institute discussion course
will help you understand the institutions, processes and effects of
globalization and how your choices affect globalization. Corvallis
High School, room H1, 1400 N.W. Buchanan Ave.; $15 materials fee
payable at first meeting. Register at the Benton Center, 757 N.W.
Polk Ave., or at sis.linnbenton.edu., or at first meeting.
Audubon Society of Corvallis
• Endangered Species recovery efforts in Brazil, 7:30 p.m. March 16,
First Presbyterian Church, upstairs meeting hall, 118 S.W. Eighth St.
The featured speaker is Carlos Bianchi from Oregon State University's
department of fish and wildlife. Social period with refreshments
begins at 7 p.m.
• Field trip schedule, March 11 and April 8, local birding, meet at
Avery Park Rose Garden parking area at 7:30 a.m. Good for beginners
and birders new to the area. Contact Paula Vanderheul for information
at 752-0470 or vanderp@peak.org.
• Spring weekend birding, Contact Fred Ramsey at 753-3677 or
flramsey@earthlink.net. March 17-19 — Bandon Coast (trip full —
waiting list open); April 21-23 — Klamath Basin (two openings
available); May 18-21 — Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (trip full —
waiting list open)
• Birding classes, for each two-week course the cost is $8. Register
by calling Avery House at 758-6198 or write to www.peak.org/~ecenter.
Instructor is Don Boucher.
• Birding in the Willamette Valley, this class is easy and fun bird
identification with emphasis on our locality. Learn identification
techniques, how to choose field guides and binoculars and the
whereabouts of good birding sites. Class is two weeks long with two
indoor/outdoor workshops: 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. April 1 classroom session
at Avery House Nature Center and field identification in Avery Park,
1200 S.W. Avery Park Lane; 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. April 8 classroom session
at Avery House Nature Center, field trip to Finley Wildlife Refuge.
• Birding By Ear: A Study in the Sounds of Nature, Beginning
birdwatchers should attend Birding in the Willamette Valley first.
Become familiar with local bird songs and calls at this two-week
class; 7 to 8:30 pm. April 12, Avery House Nature Center; 9 to 11
a.m. April 15, meet at Avery House for a field trip to Willamette
Park; 7 to 8:30 p.m. April 19, Avery House; 9 to 11 a.m. April 22,
meet at Avery House for field trip to Jackson Frazier Wetland.
Maureen Beezhold coordinates the local chapter of the Northwest Earth
Institute and is assistant coordinator for the Corvallis chapter of
the Oregon Natural Step Network. For information on any of these
projects, call 752-3517.
http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2006/03/11/news/community/zzearth
year.txt
http://tinyurl.com/qyzz9
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 10:57:46 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Young Edisons and Einsteins
Young Edisons and Einsteins
By Christopher Marcisz, Berkshire Eagle Staff
Saturday, March 11
NORTH ADAMS — Jared Reed's research into adolescent sleeping habits
for the regional science fair held yesterday at Massachusetts College
of Liberal Arts was inspired by his own experience.
"I wanted to see if teenagers receive enough sleep," said the Taconic
High School sophomore. "I know I don't. I wanted to investigate it."
Among his sample, he found that most students get far less sleep than
they need, and that many reported falling asleep in class. His list
of possible solutions include moving back the start time of classes,
and encouraging good sleep habits, such as going to bed at the same
time each night. And drinking warm milk does, in fact, help.
Yesterday's science fair was held at the Amsler Campus Center. It
featured 53 projects by 77 students from high schools across Western
Massachusetts. The winners of yesterday's fair will go to the
statewide competition in May at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Monica Joslin, the college's dean of academic affairs and chairwoman
of the fair's planning committee, said such events teach a spectrum
of topics and skills, such as following through on in-depth projects
and making presentations.
"It's not just about learning science," she said. "It is putting all
your liberal arts skills together."
The displays were up for morning and afternoon sessions. When not at
their tables, the students toured MCLA's robotics and biology labs.
Joslin said she hopes it will encourage some to consider a career in
science or engineering. "We need more scientists," she said.
Physics teacher Renee Sweeney came with 13 projects from Westfield
High School. She said she looks for students to show a high level of
enthusiasm and the ability to dig deeply into a topic. Their work
began in September.
She is particularly proud when students who are not necessarily the
best science students get engrossed in a project, and when science
students learn how to use creative communication skills to explain
and present their work.
"Seeing them turn around like that is the best thing about teaching,"
she said.
The projects on display reflected a variety of interests and
subjects. Eliza Cerveira of Taconic High presented a study
about "triboluminescence," the process by which asymmetrical bonds in
a crystal give off energy when scratched. She demonstrated it with a
bunch of wintergreen Lifesavers, and with some pieces of quartz
crystals.
Others studied the prospect of biogas and wind power as alternative
energy sources, and hydroponic gardening.
Other projects reflected a broader interest in engineering. Peter
Morizio and Kevin Ross of Westfield High documented their efforts to
build a hovercraft using floatation devices and a lawn chair.
A team of Pittsfield High School sophomores Levi Bissell, Chris Tweed-
Kent and Dan Tweed-Kent, tried to make contractible crutches.
Dan said the group's inspiration for the project was suffering
through various leg injuries through the years playing soccer and
snowtubing, and wanting to improve on the familiar ones used today.
"(Crutches) are such bothersome things to deal with," he said. "We
decided to see if we could reduce the size dramatically."
The end result was made from PVC pipes put together with some
collapsible, spring-loaded pieces. The design is supposed to be small
enough to be easily stored and carried.
http://www.berkshireeagle.com/headlines/ci_3591516
http://tinyurl.com/pux3e
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 11:00:30 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: The Future of American Military Strategy a Conference Report
The Future of American Military Strategy a Conference Report
by Michael P. Noonan, rapporteur
Michael P. Noonan is Research Fellow (Defense Policy) and Managing
Director of the Program on National Security at the Foreign Policy
Research Institute.
The Foreign Policy Research Institute held a conference on the future
of American military strategy on 5 December 2005 at the Union League
of Philadelphia. A distinguished group drawn from the current and
retired ranks of the military (active and reserve component),
academia, and policy analysis convened to explore alternative
strategies for American defense policy. Michael P. Noonan and James
Kurth, the Claude Smith Professor of Political Science at Swarthmore
College, Editor of Orbis, and Senior Fellow at the FPRI, served as
panel moderators. In attendance were over one hundred individuals
drawn from academia, non-governmental organizations, the media, the
military, and the interested public. The following is a brief summary
of the conference proceedings. The complete collection of conference
papers will be published in 2006.
The conference was structured around four panels that addressed
distinct models ("strategic drivers") for American military strategy:
(1) irregular warfare (threat-based), (2) "offshore balancing"
(minimalist), (3) countering a rising peer competitor ("Pax
Americana"), and (4) a balanced approach ("strategic pluralism"). For
each panel, a single presentation served as the starting point of a
discussion among the presenter and the other two panelists. In
addition, the luncheon keynote address (the W.W. Keen Butcher Lecture
on Military Affairs) served as a bridge between the morning and
afternoon discussions. The views expressed within this report are
those of the respective speakers and should not be construed to
represent any agency of the U.S. government or other institution.
FPRI's Program on National Security gratefully acknowledges the
financial support provided for this conference by Dr. John M.
Templeton, Jr., W.W. Keen Butcher, and the Hamilton Family
Foundation. Many thanks are also extended to the Honorable John
Hillen. Before entering government in autumn 2005, Dr. Hillen, in his
role as Director of FPRI's Program on National Security, made many
contributions, intellectual and otherwise, to this and other projects.
Complex Irregular Warfare
Lieutenant Colonel Frank Hoffman, USMCR (ret.), a Research Fellow at
the Center for Emerging Threats and Opportunities (CETO) as well as a
non-resident Senior Fellow of the FPRI, began by arguing that a world
of irregular (both low-end and high-end) and unconventional warfare
is our future, and that this world did not start on 9/11, but rather
began either in Beirut in 1983 or else in the World Trade Center
attack of 1993. The U.S. military is experiencing its second age of
small wars. This necessitates a resilient strategy where institutions
need to be more adaptive, agile, and anticipatory.
The military — and non-military arms of the government — should be
adapted to deal with a very unconventional world. The global force
posture should be flexible using a light international footprint to
allow for tailored responses to crises. The Army, while generally
moving in the right direction in terms of being more agile and
expeditionary, is still too focused on conventional threats. To
address this, Hoffman stated that more investment needed to be made
in infantry forces, civil affairs and psychological operations units
and less emphasis should be placed in heavy mechanized force
structure and investment. The Air Force brings significant
capabilities to the table in terms of strategic mobility and
warfighting, but its investment priorities should focus upon
developing a future bomber, space capabilities, information warfare,
and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) rather than procuring large
numbers of expensive fighter aircraft such as the F-22.
The Marine Corps should become more modular, and the current three
division/three air wing force should transition to six brigades that
would be more cohesive and provide a rotation base for long-term
conflicts. Because small wars require small unit leaders who are more
mature, more seasoned, and more experienced, the Marines need to
adjust manpower policies and training to develop and retain such
leaders. Lastly, the Navy needs to adjust from its surplus of strike
and "blue" water (open ocean) assets and develop more "green"
(littoral) and "brown" (inland/riverine) water capabilities. Three
aircraft carriers should be mothballed — leaving nine in the fleet —
and smaller boats should be purchased to deal with unconventional
threats. Special Operations Forces (SOF) would be split off to form a
distinct, yet small, service.
Hoffman compared the United States to a "one-armed cyclops." The
military tool of national power has been developed, resourced, and
honed at the expense of other elements of national power. In order to
rectify that situation, Hoffman made several recommendations. On the
domestic side, more homeland resilience needs to be developed. Most
of the National Guard should be transitioned to the Department of
Homeland Security with force structure adjustments made to make it
more useful for domestic operations. The Coast Guard, too, should
have its end-strength increased by 10-20 percent and needs modernized
equipment (e.g., ships, helicopters, and UAVs). Internationally, the
State Department and other inter-agency actors need to be bolstered
and need to work with the international community. Hoffman called for
increased funding for State Department stabilization initiatives and
more investment in threat reduction programs.
Irregular warfare is not a passing fad. Hoffman declared "complex
irregular warfare is the form of conflict that gives us the most
problems and will challenge us the most in the future." The United
States does not dominate all technologies and all forms of warfare
and is particularly weak culturally and capability-wise in the
unconventional realm. Our enemies have learned from places such as
Afghanistan, Somalia, and Iraq to be more efficient, cunning, and
savage. The Pentagon is thinking about a much more irregular world,
but it must face the imponderables, put aside parochial illusions
about the future, and "not allow our enemies to outstrip the march of
our imagination, our intelligence or our resolve."
Monica Duffy Toft, an Associate Professor of Public Policy at the
Kennedy School of Government and the Assistant Director of the John
M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies, Harvard University, argued
that the idea of using the Department of Defense (DoD) to fight
terrorism is, and should remain, a controversial one. The threat from
non- state actors is not comparable to the threat of global
thermonuclear war or even a major conventional war. "It is not clear
that converting the military to resilient structure, capable of
engaging complex irregular threats will give the traction we need to
do well in a major conventional war," said Toft. Enemies (whose
motivations are variable), or potential enemies, will look for our
strengths and try to exploit our weaknesses. Future threats are hard
to discern, therefore we should make our capabilities opaque. In
other words, the U.S. military should develop multiple core
competencies to leave our enemies, or potential adversaries, guessing.
Colonel John D. Waghelstein, USA (ret.), a Professor Emeritus of the
U.S. Naval War College, opened by saying that opponents going
asymmetric is nothing new. But the military has real trouble in
dealing with this. According to Waghelstein, "this is not just the
fact that we have been unprepared because of the sine wave
of 'mobilization, fight the war, demobilization' and then be
unprepared in numbers and force structure and infrastructure for the
next war, it has also been a preoccupation with the Army in
particular of focusing on the next big war, as opposed to whatever
little war might be at hand_ that is in the DNA of the Army." He
argued that keeping assets such as civil affairs and psychological
operations co-located with Special Operations Forces was necessary
because otherwise they might fall prey to the budgetary priorities of
the big services. He remained skeptical whether the services, even
the Marine Corps, would be willing to invest the time and resources
into developing irregular warfare capabilities, particularly in the
cultural and linguistic domains. To conclude his comments, he held
that while he agreed with most of Hoffman's position there would need
to for an "insurgency" both within the DoD and from outside —
probably in the Congress — in order to make the necessary reforms.
A Smaller Military to Fight the War on Terrorism
Charles V. Peña, a senior fellow with the Coalition for a Realistic
Foreign Policy and an adviser on the Straus Military Reform Project,
led off by claiming that the end of the Cold War ensured that the
United States was relatively safe in a traditional nation-state
strategic context. Our overwhelming strategic nuclear force is a
deterrent and no other nation has the power projection capabilities
to attack us directly. This reality allows us to think radically
about how to change the military and reduce defense spending by at
least 25 percent. In his opinion, the U.S. has an overcapacity in
military capability. Overcapacity in defense capabilities is
problematic because it leads their overuse, or misuse, by
policymakers.
The U.S. should not underwrite the security of so many countries and
regions around the world. The Europeans and East Asian nations should
shoulder more of the burden for their security. Our global force
posture should transition from a sprawling one to that of a balancer
of last resort. "We would understand that crises and conflicts that
develop around the world, for the most part, actually don't threaten
U.S. national security," according to Pena. The United States would
only step into crises or conflicts that truly threatened national
security. National security should be more narrowly defined in
general and should be seen first and foremost as protection from
threats to the United States, its population, and its way of life. Al
Qaeda is a real threat, but it is not a nation-state and our global
presence helps to feed its popularity.
The military should be about half the size that it is today. In order
to transform the military it needs to learn to do more with less.
Reducing the defense budget will drive transformation because it will
force tough choices that will drive new thinking and innovation.
Funding from unnecessary weapons programs such as the F-22 should be
reprogrammed for capabilities such as UAVs, language training, human
intelligence, and SOF. Such a military should secure the U.S. from
traditional threats and would acknowledge that the military is not
the primary tool for dealing with the terrorism threat — either
domestically nor internationally. Captain Joe Bouchard, USN (ret.),
the Executive Director of the Center for Homeland Security and
Defense (CHSD) at Zel Technologies, LLC, focused his remarks on the
War on Terrorism. He began with the observation that the "War on
Terrorism" is the wrong phrase because it implies that there is a
military solution to the problem when there is not one. "What we are
in these days is a clash of ideas, a clash of ideologies." Relating
this to Peña's argument, he asserted that the offshore balancing
approach is too state-centric. The ideological nature of our current
protracted conflict requires active engagement around the world. He
agreed that the defense budget could be reduced, but that a lot of
restructuring needed to take place. He disagreed with the notion that
the military should not play a large role in homeland security.
Bouchard argued that the homeland arena is one area where we could
lose militarily. Northern Command and the National Guard should play
expanded roles and the Federal Emergency Management Agency should be
abolished.
Eugene Gholz, Assistant Professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs
at the University of Texas in Austin and a Research Associate of
MIT's Security Studies Program, agreed with much of Pena's position.
Gholz argued that the U.S. should be militarily "prudent" rather
than "proactive." Geographical space and distance allow us the
opportunity not to act in crises or against threats that are
peripheral to our security. A strategy of prudence would allow us to
sit back and gather and process information about threats or
potential threats. Increased information would allow us to make wiser
defense investments. The quality of information would be improved "by
developing a variety of views and interpretation and having real
competition to understand the threat position the Americans face."
While critics might label this as risky, Gholz proclaimed that it is
the status quo that is risky because it assumes that we have enough
information about threats to make responsible choices. Cutting back
missions would go hand-in-hand with cutting the defense budget.
Lastly, he called for a reduced emphasis on jointness in the
military. "One of the key ways that we can diversify our portfolio of
watching other countries and paying attention to what the emerging
threats are and figuring out our best response to them is if we have
multiple systems being developed by different services, multiple sets
of equipment, and multiple organizational cultures that are paying
attention to different threats," said Gholz. This would allow us to
diversify our portfolio of strategic and military capabilities and
potential responses.
Defense Strategy in the Post-Saddam Era
Michael O'Hanlon, Senior Fellow of Foreign Policy Studies and The
Sydney Stein, Jr. Chair at the Brookings Institution, delivered the
luncheon keynote address. He focused on scenarios that might affect
the future of American military strategy and places where we may have
to fight.
Low Plausibility/Low Concern Scenarios
(1) Defending the Baltic states from a Russian invasion. O'Hanlon
argued that economic coercion against Russia would be the primary
response against any such eventuality.
(2) Defending Russia (primarily Siberia) from a Chinese invasion.
Again, an economic response such as a blockade or global economic
sanctions would be most appropriate.
(3) Defending a reunified Korea against a Chinese land invasion
because of historical border disputes. He argued that this was
extraordinarily unlikely because "China is going to have a lot of
other more plausible and appealing places to apply military leverage,
if it ever decides it wants to." Disputes over the resources on the
seabed were more likely in his opinion.
Sufficiently Plausible/Sufficiently Important Scenarios
(4) China using an economic blockade and coercion against Taiwan in
the event that Taiwan pushes more ambitiously for independence. Any
blockade of Taiwan scenario would be challenging to our Navy and Air
Force because it would necessitate maintaining an air supremacy,
naval blockade breaking capability in the western Pacific for many,
many months while China would be able to control escalation at times
and places of its choosing.
(5) Intervening in Indonesia or the Philippines to prevent al Qaeda
from taking large swaths of territory. This would require a lot of
stability operations capability and ideally would be carried out at
the invitation of the host country and as part of a multinational
coalition. That said, under certain circumstances we might have to go
in without permission.
(5a) An island in, or near, the Indonesian or Malacca Straits falling
under the control of a Jihadi group threatening international
shipping. In this scenario, O'Hanlon asserted that we would have the
option of sailing around the lanes, even though it would be less
economically efficient. (6) Intervening to ensure that neither
Indonesia nor the Philippines become failed states. Both nations are
too important to our global interests to allow them to fail,
particularly if such state failure spread jihadi influence.
(7) The complete collapse of nuclear armed Pakistan. "Nuclear weapons
in the hands of Pakistani Jihadis would be directly threatening to
the United States in a way that would send chills up my spine . . . I
think it would be actually a greater threat to our core security than
almost any attack on any overseas ally that I can think of in a more
classic sense," said O'Hanlon.
(8) Nuclear war between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. If a limited
nuclear exchange occurred perhaps an international trusteeship for
Kashmir could be set in place to alleviate the necessity of either
country to concede defeat. A robustly sized force would be needed to
rigorously control the borders.
(9) U.S. preemptive action against Iranian nuclear installations in
response to increased Iranian support for terrorism and their making
blatant progress towards a nuclear weapon. Iran's reaction would
likely be twofold: (a) they will continue their nuclear program in a
slower manner with public support and (b) doing something else such
as fomenting "more trouble inside of Iraq, to supporting more anti-
Israeli terror, to attacking our interests in the Persian Gulf."
(9a) Iran shutting down the Strait of Hormuz. This would require a
more robust Navy presence in the Gulf for an extended period of time
with a lot of quick response capacity to intercept ballistic
missiles, to try to intercept anti-ship cruise missiles, and to be
responsive against any submarines that would try to do a quick ambush
and then retreat.
(10) An international trusteeship for Palestine. If the peace process
broke down or stalled, this scenario, in the future, might be
feasible.
(11) A jihadi coup in Saudi Arabia. This might put the eastern oil
fields at risk and in today's world the loss of that oil supply would
jeopardize the global economy. The U.S. would consider unilateral
intervention if no other options were available. Hopefully future
energy conservation and alternative energy production would allow for
a time lag that might allow the situation to work itself out
internally and, if not, would allow for the development of
multilateral (for legitimacy purposes) intervention force.
According to O'Hanlon, "looking out over the future, I see all four
of our Services as equally important for American national security,
and I see high-end combat almost as important as it has been
historically. Low-end or complex combat contingencies are more
important than before, but not so much more important that we can
ignore the old fashioned stuff." The U.S. must maintain robust forces
across a wide range of capabilities. There are no easy choices in the
defense budget because we have to keep doing a lot with limited
resources.
Countering an Aggressive Rising Power
Thomas Donnelly, a resident fellow in defense and security policy
studies at the American Enterprise Institute and editor of Armed
Forces Journal, started off by arguing that the search for strategic
wisdom must begin with looking at ourselves rather than looking
outward. According to Donnelly, for Americans of the post-Cold War
generation "the goal of our strategy has been to preserve the
amazingly free, generally pretty peaceful and extraordinarily
prosperous era that has been occasioned by the collapse of the Soviet
empire." Maintaining American preeminence or primacy applies equally
to the Clinton Administration as it does to that of Bush 43. Other
members of the international community, however, see the expansion of
our values (read: democracy) as threatening.
For Donnelly, there are three categories of international actors that
fit the definition of aggressive rising powers and are threats to
American primacy. First and foremost is the People's Republic of
China. That country's remarkable economic growth, population, and
rapidly modernizing military make it a rising great power. They are
not simply a rising East Asian power; they are a rising global power
with global interests — particularly in the international economy.
Next, al Qaeda and radical Islamism are an aggressive rising great
power. While they currently lack a state their long-term goal is the
establishment of a Caliphate in the Middle East. Last, are weak
states like Iran, North Korea, and possibly Pakistan. By traditional
measures of power they don't rate such status, but the acquisition of
nuclear weapons has turned the traditional calculus of the balance of
power on its head. "Their very weakness becomes the thing that is
most of concern and most disruptive to the international order and to
us in the United States," said Donnelly.
The U.S. should follow three imperatives. The first should be to try
to keep these problems as separate from one another as is possible.
Next, we need to pull together a set of alliances or a global
alliance to try to help preserve Pax Americana and the peace. He sees
Great Britain, Japan, and India, along with the United States, as
members of an emerging global alliance held together by strategic
interests (vis-à-vis China and the Middle East), a dedication to
liberal democracy, and a continuing commitment to the legitimacy of
military force as a tool of statecraft. Last, the United States needs
to have a domestic dialogue about strategy making.
Militarily, he sees the capabilities-based approach as ineffectual.
We need to think geopolitically and strategically about the conflicts
we are most likely to be involved in and structure forces
appropriately. Crediting the Rand Corporation's Andrew Hoehn with the
concept, Donnelly stated that the U.S. needed to shift to a posture
of "lateral jointness." In other words, the Army and Marine Corps
would focus on missions in the Middle East, the Navy (and also the
Marine Corps) would focus on East Asia, and aerospace power would
provide global fire support and reconnaissance. He insisted that
dealing with the third tier of rising powers would be labor intensive
and there would be no quick fixes.
Brigadier General Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., USAF, appearing in a
personal capacity, began by acknowledging that there is debate within
the military between those who see irregular warfare as the future
and those who see Iraq as "the last war." He liked Donnelly's notion
of a balance of power that favors freedom, but added that is also the
freedom to hate us. He also approved of Donnelly's raising the issue
of China. Confrontation is not inevitable, but it might be possible
if China sees it as a pragmatic way of achieving their ends.
Competition over resources, and particularly energy resources, would
likely be the number one driver of future conflict in Sino-American
relations. We need increased cultural understanding of Chinese
notions of nationalism and feelings of victimhood. General Dunlap
agreed that the capabilities-based approach to force structure needed
to be taken off the table; threats need to be examined and
prioritized. Concluding his remarks, he argued that the strength of
the United States is in the free enterprise system premised upon
competition. Taking this into the military realm, he agreed with
Donnelly and others that there needed to be more competition in the
realm of ideas and divisions of labor amongst the services so that
more the clash of ideas and divergent military theories flourished to
produce greater efficiency and effectiveness.
Daryl G. Press, an Associate Professor of political science at the
University of Pennsylvania and a Research Associate of the John M.
Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University, agreed
with Donnelly's emphasis on more traditional threats by major powers
in the future. Paying too much attention or placing too much emphasis
on non- traditional threats now might lead us to develop the wrong
suite of capabilities for ten or fifteen years down the road, when we
may be dealing with major powers that have conflicting interests with
ours. But Press had four concerns with a strategy of primacy. First,
while it is currently indeterminate whether China will or will not
become a threat, pursuing policies such as building an encircling
alliance around China might greatly increase the probability of
conflict or long-term friction in Sino-American relations. Second,
primacy will weaken the incentives of our potential allies to stand
with us or help us confront mutual threats that do arise. Third, "a
militarily active approach in the Persian Gulf is not well connected
to our interests and actually causes us more problems than it
solves." Too much of an American presence fuels support for al Qaeda
and weakens the legitimacy of governments in the region who have
their own reasons to go after jihadis. Last, while we have a strong
interest in the current war of ideas, primacy takes an overly
aggressive and counter-productive approach to promoting our values.
Our ideology, said Press, "doesn't need to be spread at the barrel of
a gun." There are more useful political, economic, and humanitarian
tools to spread our values.
Balanced Force Structure to Achieve Liberal World Order
Colonel Mackubin Thomas Owens, USMCR (ret.), the Associate Dean of
Academics for Electives and Directed Research and Professor of
National Security Affairs at the US Naval War College and a non-
resident Senior Fellow of the FPRI, asserted that there is a "more
balanced form of primacy that is based on hegemonic stability theory
that is not necessarily aggressive, but its primary purpose is to
underwrite the kind of liberal world order that most of us would
like." Presently the United States faces the same sort of situation
that Great Britain found itself in at the end of the 19th Century —
confronting a rising Germany and policing their empire. The security
environment poses the possibility of a high-end threat from a country
like China and low-end threats from state and non-state actors. In
the military domain, the United States must be able to react to and
deal with both of those types of threat well; that is, we must
practice "strategic pluralism" rather than "strategic monism."
The U.S. military must avoid preparing for the wars that it wants to
fight rather than the wars it is going to have to fight. Even after
9/11 the military has focused too much expenditure on high-end
threats. In order to minimize irregular threats and counter a rising
China and develop a liberal world order, we must invest in providing
security that is necessary for prosperity and economic advancement.
Endorsing the views of Thomas Barnett, Owens' said that we
must "export security from the core . . . on the one hand, to try to
make that part of the world more secure, and at the same time, take
whatever steps are necessary to try to accommodate the rise of
China." Problems arise, however, if China does not want to be
accommodated.
A strategy of balanced primacy will require robust forces and
investment. The Army will probably need at least 48 maneuver
brigades — an addition of 5 brigades from current planning — and the
National Guard should focus on homeland security. The Marine Corps
would maintain its current size but would bifurcate its roles to
focus on expeditionary capabilities on the one hand and act
as "colonial infantry" on the other. Naval forces will be critical
for power projection. The size of the Navy should remain about the
same as it is today — which provides about seven times the firepower
as the larger Navy of the 1980s — but we need more capabilities such
as the Littoral Combat Ship to operate closer to shore. The Air Force
will require long- range bombers for strike and loitering
capabilities and some F22s — although fewer than are presently
proposed. In the nuclear arena we need smaller yield warheads on deep
penetrators to get at targets that are difficult to reach. SOF should
not be expanded too much, nor too quickly, in order to avoid a
qualitative tradeoff in their capabilities. Overall, the most
important thing we can do is maintaining properly trained forces that
are survivable on a lethal battlefield.
Maintaining and cultivating allies is important to the overall
strategy. We must do whatever we can to attract allies to "bandwagon"
with us. For all the talk about the problems of primacy, Owens
pointed out that no one has tried to counterbalance against us. To
conclude his remarks he argued that in order to fund the strategy of
balanced primacy the U.S. would probably need to maintain a defense
investment of at least 4.5 percent of Gross Domestic Product. The
costs of balanced primacy in terms of budget deficits, and so on, are
not overwhelming because "the idea of primacy and economic prosperity
are self-reinforcing."
Elizabeth A. Stanley, an Assistant Professor in the Edmund A. Walsh
School of Foreign Service and the Department of Government at
Georgetown University, argued that the United States needed balanced
national power capabilities rather than larger balanced military
capabilities. She stressed that primacy was not sustainable
economically (particularly as federal entitlements expand after 2011)
nor domestically (over costs and casualties) and may not be the best
way to plan forces under current uncertainty. Currently our forces
are over committed around the globe. The threats we have today, even
traditional threats, are transnational in nature. Stanley argued that
these threats are best dealt with in four ways: (1) in a preventive
proactive way, (2) multilaterally, (3) across elements of national
power, and (4) we must be willing to work with people while
respecting their dignity and preferences so as not to exacerbate
grievances and resentments.
Because of the underlying ends-means mismatch, she contended that the
U.S. military should use Stephen Peter Rosen of Harvard University's
approach of "type two" planning under uncertainty. This path would
allow us to hedge against risk by using resources to buy information
about what is technologically feasible on the battlefield and also
advanced strategic warning intelligence capabilities rather than
investing in capabilities that might be wrongly suited to the
emerging strategic environment. Finally, the U.S. needs to recognize
that the world is a complex, interrelated system and that the best
strategy to deal with this is to work with allies and third parties
to attack contributors to world instability and disruptions.
Bruce Berkowitz, a Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution at
Stanford University, observed that the current environment, as
opposed to the Cold War period, makes force planning more difficult
for three reasons. First, there are more fundamentally different
types of opponents (e.g., North Korea, Al Qaeda, possibly China,
etc.). The U.S. has not figured out how to link offensive and
defensive capabilities and because there are so many threats we
cannot design a total force capable of dealing all of them. Second,
the very nature of asymmetric threats "makes it difficult to measure
what you need to do to deter your opponent, because he is actively
taking steps to make that calculation certainly difficult to
calculate, and also much more difficult to define." Last, it is very
difficult to measure the critical capabilities of cultural
intelligence, tracking individuals, and appropriate levels of
language skills. Berkowitz argued that for these reasons the U.S. had
to rely upon a capabilities-based approach. Capabilities have to be
measured against what we think are useful against most of the
opponents we face today and assess those against what we have and
then decide upon an investment strategy. He identified precision
strike and intelligence persistence (i.e., the ability to surveil or
gather intelligence on a given area or target for a long period of
time) as two useful, measurable capabilities that we have today and
need to develop more of. The Regional Combatant Commanders, as
consumers of capabilities, needed to have input into force structure
requirements. // FPRI
Source
Publication date: 11 March 2006
http://www.moldova.org/print/eng/1/10503/
http://tinyurl.com/kg9fc
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 11:03:06 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Tester offers energy plan for U.S.
Tester offers energy plan for U.S.
By CHARLES S. JOHNSON
Gazette State Bureau
HELENA -- Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Jon Tester says he has an
energy plan that calls for diversifying American energy sources and
reducing the nation's addiction to foreign oil.
"The whole thing (war) in Iraq shows us we need to get off that
bottle and supply as much as we can in the United States," Tester
said in a phone interview.
Some of his plan involves ideas he pushed for or supported in the
Legislature, where he is Senate president.
He said diversification of domestic energy production "offers a great
deal of opportunity for Montana" to generate energy and create jobs.
Tester said it's possible to create a comprehensive energy policy
nationally, but "we need to stop the cronyism and corruption in
Washington, D.C., and stop the special interests like Big Oil from
controlling the energy spigot from the halls of Congress.
"I have fought and won in the Montana Legislature to bring
affordable, reliable power and new jobs to Montana through my
leadership on energy legislation," said Tester, a Big Sandy farmer,
who vowed to do the same if elected to the U.S. Senate.
Here are the elements of Tester's plan:
Increasing the use of clean, affordable wind power. He favors
extending the federal production tax credit for wind power, set to
expire in 2008, for 15 years to provide more certainty to producers.
This tax credit gives power producers a per-megawatt tax credit on
the sale of electricity generated from wind power.
Creating a national renewable portfolio standard. Tester wants to see
the nation follow Montana's lead through his 2005 law. He would
require that renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, biomass
and geothermal energy make up 15 percent of the U.S. energy supply by
2020.
Investing in biofuel technology. Tester said ethanol and biodiesel
have the potential of stabilizing U.S. fuel costs, while providing
new markets for agricultural products and creating jobs in rural
Montana.
Promoting conservation and energy efficiency. Tester would require
that all new vehicles, including sports utility vehicles, get at
least 20 miles per gallon.
He favors extending the current tax credit for people buying hybrid
cars to the first 200,000 sold annually from the current 60,000. He
favors extending tax credits to owners of conventional vehicles
topping 40 miles a gallon.
Tester's plan included no mention of conventional energy sources such
as coal. When asked about it, he said he supports the coal-fired
power plant proposed near Great Falls.
"We need a combination so we can get the energy supply as diverse as
possible," he said. "There is a great opportunity in all of them."
Tester is one of four Democrats running for the Senate. Former state
Rep. Paul Richards, now of Boulder, has an extensive renewable energy
plan on his Web site. State Auditor John Morrison of Helena does not
list energy among the six issues he discusses on his Web site. Clint
Wilkes, a Bozeman businessman, mentions no issues on his Web site.
On the Republican side, incumbent Sen. Conrad Burns lists energy as a
major issue and calls for more domestic oil production and more
extensive use of clean coal technology. Burns favors more use of
hydrogen fuel cells, ethanol fuels, biomass energy and wind power.
The other Republican, Bob Kelleher, doesn't have a Web site for this
campaign yet.
http://billingsgazette.net/articles/2006/03/11/news/state/58-energy-
plan.prt
http://tinyurl.com/fzwep
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 11:11:02 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: >>>Littleton midget developing giant technology<<<
Littleton midget developing giant technology (42% of VPS is owned by
FCEL)
By Keith DuBay
Fuel cells are electrochemical devices that combine hydrogen with
oxygen to produce electricity, heat and water.
A Littleton R&D company could be at the forefront of developing a new
clean-burning coal technology that could reach a market well into the
billions of dollars.
Versa Power Systems, Inc. won part of an $85 million Department of
Energy contract to provide the core fuel cell technology for a clean,
multi-megawatt coal-fueled power plant. Versa is competing with two
other project teams -- one led by General Electric Hybrid Power
Generation Systems and the other by Siemens Power Generation, Inc –
for leadership on the three-phase, 10-year project.
The goal: To build highly efficient, clean-burning plants – that is,
no sulfur and no mercury pollutants that are produced in current coal-
burning plants – that will dominate the worldwide multi-billion
dollar utility market for coal-burning power plants.
Versa is a midget compared to its competitors and potential contract
partners (work on such contracts is sometimes shared and is subject
to negotiation with the DOE during the next six months), with four
employees in Littleton and 35 in Calgary, Alberta.
Yet Versa has a solid pedigree. It was formed in 2001 as a joint
venture between the Gas Technology Institute, Electric Power Research
Institute, Materials and Systems Research, Inc., and the University
of Utah. Fuel Cell Energy (NasdaqNM:FCEL) has since acquired an (42%)
equity position in Versa, transfering to Versa the former solid oxide
fuel cell development team and assets of Global Thermoelectric Inc.,
which basically represents the Calgary operation.
Versa has developed a prototype plant using solid oxide fuel cells in
Calgary. The cells take hydrogen and other products of coal
gasification and turn them into electric power along with heat that
drives turbine generators. A four-foot-high cell stack produces three
kilowatts, but operates on natural gas so far. The DOE program will
further develop the cells for burning coal and build cell stacks that
are gigantic enough to power megawatts and even gigawatts.
Regardless of how Versa's role in the coal plant contract shakes out,
the company expects to become a leader in the solid oxide cell
technology, said Bill Barker, director of program development, who
added that the $85-million contract " is part of the overall
Administration's push to energy independence and clean energy."
The current employees are executives, chemical engineers, industrial
designers and scientists. The company expects to add significantly to
staffs at both locations.
FuelCell Energy will be responsible for the overall systems
development of the coal-based multi-megawatt SOFC/T power plant.
Versa Power will provide SOFC stack technology development; Gas
Technology Institute (GTI) will provide pressurized testing of fuel
cells; and Nexant will bring coal gasification expertise to the
project.
According to Versa, the program's goal is to develop a large-scale
solid oxide fuel cell turbine power system of 100 megawatts and
larger, permitting an overall efficiency of at least 50 percent in
converting coal to grid electrical power. This compares to today's
average U.S. coal-based power plant reaching an electrical efficiency
of approximately 35 percent. In addition, the program seeks to
capture 90 percent or more of system's carbon dioxide emissions and
meet a cost target of $400 per kilowatt (exclusive of coal
gasification and carbon dioxide separation subsystems).
"Being part of this new DOE program will enable us to begin scale-up
of our 5 to 10 kilowatt SOFC stack that has demonstrated successful
performance under the SECA program," said Robert Stokes, Versa
Power's president and CEO. "We look forward to continuing our
successful collaboration with FuelCell Energy to develop the
technology required for large central power stations to produce
affordable, efficient and environmentally-friendly electricity from
coal."
Keith DuBay (kdubay@cobizmag.com) is online editor of ColoradoBiz.
http://www.cobizmag.com/articles_printable.asp?id=870
http://tinyurl.com/fmkql
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 11:15:34 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Super-Hot Particles Give Science Its Sizzle ; Experiment is Step Toward Fusion P
Super-Hot Particles Give Science Its Sizzle ; Experiment is Step
Toward Fusion Power
Source: Record, The; Bergen County, N.J.
Publication date: 2006-03-10
By SUE MAJOR HOLMES, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. A particle accelerator at Sandia National
Laboratories has heated a swarm of charged particles to a record 2
billion degrees Kelvin, a temperature beyond that of a star's
interior.
Scientists working with Sandia's Z machine said the feat also
revealed a new phenomenon that could eventually make future nuclear
fusion power plants smaller and cheaper to operate than if the plants
relied on previously known physics.
"At first, we were disbelieving," said Chris Deeney, head of the
project. "We repeated the experiment many times to make sure we had a
true result and not an 'Oops!' "
Sandia's experiment, which held up in tests and computer modeling in
the 14 months since it was first done, was outlined in the Feb. 24
edition of Physical Review Letters. The authors also presented a
theoretical explanation of what happened by Sandia consultant Malcolm
Haines, a physicist at Imperial College in London.
The achievement will not mean fusion in the near future, but it's
another step toward that goal, said Neal Singer, a Sandia spokesman.
Sandia's Z machine, housed in a warehouse-sized laboratory, is
designed to generate tremendous amounts of energy. It normally passes
20 million amps of electrical current through a cluster of tungsten
wires about the size of a spool of thread. The massive electrical
pulse instantly vaporizes the wires into a cloud of charged, super-
hot particles known as plasma.
At the same time, the Z machine compresses the plasma in a powerful
magnetic field. Almost instantly, the particles smash together in a
collision that can emit temperatures in the millions of degrees.
Sandia boosted the Z machine's output into the billions of degrees in
part by substituting steel wires around a larger, coffee cup-sized
core. Increasing the size of the core increased the distance the ions
traveled, giving them more time to gain velocity and therefore
energy.
But the larger core did not account for all the heat generated in the
collision. It also could not explain why the plasma particles did not
stop moving once they collided with one another for about 10
billionths of a second, some unknown energy caused them to keep
pushing back against the magnetic field.
Haines theorized that the energy of the Z machine's magnetic field
itself added energy to the particles.
The new phenomenon could be exploited in fusion power as a trigger
that would set off a controlled nuclear reaction by heating a small
amount of deuterium or tritium. It is likely to be more efficient
than other proposed methods because it produces higher temperatures
while requiring less input energy.
Publication date: 2006-03-10
© 2006, YellowBrix, Inc.
http://www.memagazine.org/Story.html?
story_id=90449823&category=Engineering&ID=asme
http://tinyurl.com/nwsc9
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 11:21:17 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: ENERGY SECURITY & EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
ENERGY SECURITY & EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
How Clean Energy Can Deliver More Reliable Power for Critical
Infrastructure and Emergency Response Missions
An Overview for Federal, State and Local Officials
Prepared
by Clean Energy
Group
OCTOBER 2005
http://www.cleanenergystates.org/library/Reports/CEG_Clean_Energy_Securi
ty_Oct05.pdf
(12 pages)
http://tinyurl.com/92u7h
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 11:25:24 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Green Paper on EU energy policy
Green Paper on EU energy policy
On Wednesday 8 March 2006 the European Commission presented the Green
Paper on "A European Strategy for Sustainable, Competitive and Secure
Energy". Since Green Paper on Security of Supply (2000) worked has
progressed but given recent developments a new impetus is needed for
a comprehensive European energy policy. The most fundamental question
is whether there is agreement on the need to develop a new, common
European strategy for energy, and whether sustainability,
competitiveness and security should be the core principles to
underpin the strategy. Therefore Commission proposes that a Strategic
EU Energy Review will be presented to the Council and the EP on a
regular basis.
mportant issues in the document are the urgent need for investment,
the increasing dependency on imports so domestic energy should be
made more competitive, the high energy prices are probably here to
stay – but also offer a drive towards energy efficiency and
innovation, address the climate change issue and the aim for fully
competitive internal energy markets (lower consumer prices, develop
interconnections, consolidation should be market driven).The Green
Paper identifies 6 key areas for action:
1. Competitiveness and the internal energy market
2. Solidarity between Member States
3. Diversification of the energy mix
4. Climate change
5. A strategic European energy technology plan
6. Coherent external energy policy.
Please find the Green Paper here:
http://www.cogen.org/Downloadables/News/Green_Paper_A_European_Strateg
y_for_Sustainable_Competitive_Secure%20Energy_8%20March_2006.pdf
(20pages)
http://tinyurl.com/rjd2b
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 11:29:08 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: A fistful of petrodollars - a trigger to change roles in the capitalist world
A fistful of petrodollars - a trigger to change roles in the
capitalist world
March 10, 2006
Over the past few years there has been a substantial shift in the
balance of power in the global economy. One dramatic change that has
not received the attention it deserves is the shift of wealth towards
countries that supply energy and raw materials, and away from those
that have to pay for them. In Germany, people have come to associate
the term "Heuschrecken", or "locusts", with the perception that all
capitalist attacks - o r "challenges", to use less emotive
terminology - start from the US, and from private-equity activities
in particular. In the US the paucity of domestic savings to finance
investment activity and exorbitantly high levels of consumption have
largely been offset so far by the wonderfully reliable purchases of
US Treasuries by Asian central banks, particularly those of Japan and
China. This was without doubt the chief source of financing after the
new economy era. However, in the course of 2004 and 2005 the
countries supplying energy and raw materials around the globe
increasingly accumulated wealth and started to fund a major
proportion of the current account deficits of other countries. In
most cases history repeated itself and the funds were invested in US
Treasuries, i.e. highly liquid assets - even though they were pretty
low-yielding. But awareness of the fact that such investments are not
particularly lucrative is spreading. And other ways of consuming or
investing these riches are beginning to gain (political)
significance.
Russia is using the money it earns from oil and raw materials to
repay its debts ahead of schedule and in so doing documenting its
newfound independence - and strength. And it has increased its
foreign exchange reserves by well over USD 100 bn in just two years,
to USD 175 bn in the meantime. But it still has cash to spare.
Initially, many people including oil experts had predicted that
energy prices would decline rapidly. Currently, they believe the most
likely scenario is that the oil price will stay relatively high. The
related prospect of a further sustained improvement in revenues is
helping to loosen the purse strings of the oil and gas exporters.
This means that not only the Russians and the Arabs but also many
smaller energy suppliers in Africa and Latin America are becoming
more inclined to import luxury goods from Europe, modernise their
production plant with German technology and make huge investments in
infrastructure, including communications technology.
Everything looks wonderful, everyone's happy! Trade theory just like
it's written in the globalisation storybook. But the thoughts on what
to do with the oil riches do not end with the reactions depicted. The
world's nouveaux riches have learnt their lessons in capitalism by
observing the players of the old world and attending their
universities. After having amassed huge piles of forex reserves
mainly in the form of US Treasuries for so many years, they are now
developing an appetite for Western companies and property. Direct
investment and takeovers, hostile ones if necessary, are being
launched. The new investors are not arrogant in their demeanour. They
do not show up in pinstripes, puffing on cigars. Rather, they are
very relaxed, smiling benevolently like the charges of Mother Teresa,
such as the father-and-son duo from India's Mittal clan. The Indians
do their sums properly, negotiate hard and think big: they aim to
take over Europe's steel giant Arcelor. This would give rise to a
global titan in the sector, one that would produce three times as
much steel as the current runner-up from Japan. Europe's companies
are dumbfounded, and Europe's politicians are reacting like Pavlov's
dogs: automatically adopting a protectionist stance. There is growing
anxiety that the shareholder-value approach will strike with a
vengeance and that European humanism and the welfare state are in
grave danger.
But the interest of the new investors is not confined to "Old
Europe". Indeed, it extends to the "New World", the den of the
capitalist lion. It looks as though the oil-producing sheikhdoms now
also want to become global logistics specialists in the air and at
seaports. But this has unleashed waves of protectionism in the
motherland of capitalism, even more so than recently when the Chinese
sought to take over a US oil company. The evidence is clear: the
sheikhs also realise that their black gold will not flow forever and
that sizeable returns are to be made in places where businesspeople
seize on growth opportunities where they see them - in the US. The
day will come when oil will be so scarce that it will cease to be the
most important energy source. Anyone who can is already securing the
reserves vital for a flourishing economy, via supply contracts and
gas pipelines. In a tense diplomatic situation with Iran, China
hammers out an energy agreement. The whole world beats a path to
Russia's door in a bid to partake of its natural riches, and South
America's "new left" is left largely to its own devices as long as it
leaves the oil spigots wide open. Of course, there's no denying that
petrodollars also benefit the oil producers that work with terrorists
and corrupt regimes and that now provide new financing for the
latter's inhuman objectives.
It's an uncomfortable place, this new world. But don't the oil and
raw materials producers in the distant world have every right to use
the rules devised by the West to their own advantage? The oil and gas
suppliers, the Indians and the Chinese, will come and purchase
whatever they find lying sick, fallow or dormant. Who knows, they may
be able to find the hidden pearls. They roll up their sleeves, take
risks and invest their own money in places where they can generate
the highest returns by employing clever, bold management. Yes, they
will become - no, let me correct myself, they have already become
true capitalists, the new financiers and entrepreneurs of the whole
wide world. Just the way we used to be. Back in the days when we
still had children, thirsted for knowledge, and had parents urging us
to be diligent. When we were still spared the agonies of legalese and
rampant bureaucracy. We have grown old. We only come up with
protectionism and petty nationalism. What we should do instead is
take up the gauntlet, not put up barriers.
http://www.dbresearch.de/servlet/reweb2.ReWEB?rwkey=u5422914
http://tinyurl.com/nu43c
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 11:32:37 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: James E. McWilliams: Politics & Prose
James E. McWilliams: Politics & Prose
Three books on global warming
By James E. McWilliams
SPECIAL TO THE AMERICAN-STATESMAN
Sunday, March 12, 2006
On Feb. 16, 2005, 55 of the world's industrialized nations decided to
change the environment. They began by putting into effect the Kyoto
Protocol, a commitment to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and
other heat-trapping gasses that cause global warming. The United
States, which has 5 percent of the world's population but burns 25
percent of its energy, joined Australia, Liechtenstein and Monaco in
refusing to sign the accord on the grounds that, as President Bush
explained, "more certainty" was needed on whether or not global
warming was a legitimate phenomenon caused by the human consumption
of fossil fuels.
The president's uncertainty happens to be widely shared. A
substantial portion of the general public recognizes global warming
as a problem, but not a pressing one demanding an immediate remedy. A
smaller cohort of citizens and renegade scientists completely reject
human-induced climate change as a scam perpetuated by elite
environmentalists. When Bush claimed to want more certainty, one
thing was certain: He knew he wasn't alone.
Three recently published books attempt to bridge this gap between
public (and presidential) opinion and mainstream science. The message
they convey is not subtle. In each book, alarm bells go off, panic
buttons are hit and warning flares are shot. This seems entirely
appropriate, given the scenario these authors warn of: If we don't
change our way of life, life as we know it may end.
The Kolbert Report
According to Elizabeth Kolbert's concise "Field Notes from a
Catastrophe" (which emerged from a series of New Yorker articles),
the scientific consensus on the cause of global warming is nearly
absolute. At a 2004 international conference, she reports, not a
single one of the 300 scientists in attendance questioned the claim
that human behavior was the "dominant factor" instigating climate
change. That same year, an analysis of more than 900 articles
published in professional journals between 1993 and 2003 found a
similar unanimity.
Scientists might be in broad agreement on this issue, but, as Kolbert
shows, Republican politicians have remained unconvinced. Sen. James
Inhofe, R-Okla., deemed the connection between human behavior and
global warming to be "the greatest hoax ever perpetuated on the
American people." The president himself dismissed an Environmental
Protection Agency report on global warming as a subjective
interpretation "put out by the bureaucracy." Much of the public's
ambivalence on the issue, Kolbert suggests, derives from this public
flogging of objective truth.
During the past five years, Kolbert trooped across the Arctic North
to file dire stories on melting permafrost, disappearing glaciers and
rising sea levels. Kolbert reports on her field research in lucid (if
sometimes too magazine-inflected) prose, but the most compelling
moments come not when she's wading through slush, but when she shows
scientists blowing a fuse.
A renowned climatologist, for example, admits how "it's impossible to
predict what will happen," but then says, "I wouldn't be shocked to
find out that by 2100 most things were destroyed." A New York
University physicist predicts, "We're going to burn everything
up . . . and then everything will collapse."
Kolbert spends considerable time trying to humanize these scientists
by telling us how messy their offices are or what they ate for lunch.
These details, clearly intended to draw us into the headier logistics
of climate change, generally prove distracting. Nevertheless,
whatever the color of whomever's beard, Kolbert forces us to ponder a
tragic disconnect: Politicians, the group best positioned to do
something about the scientists' warnings, turn out to be the group
that's most adamantly ignoring those warnings.
Flannery will get you somewhere
Whereas Kolbert stresses the gap between objective science and
interest-bound politics, Tim Flannery, an Australian scientist,
broadens the scope considerably in "The Weather Makers." He explores
three interrelated themes: the scientific models and methods that
prove the connection between human behavior and global warming, the
environmental havoc that global warming is already wreaking and —
perhaps most usefully — pragmatic steps we can take to reduce
greenhouse emissions by 70 percent.
Flannery's emphasis on hard science, and the fact that he's a
scientist rather than a science reporter, renders this harsh analysis
even more sobering and incisive than Kolbert's. When Flannery
describes how Australia's Great Barrier Reef is undergoing a "cascade
of extinctions" or how Antarctica's melting ice caps are driving
polar bears into their last remaining refuge (zoos), the reader feels
like a reporter getting the information straight from the source,
rather than through the filter of journalism.
Like Kolbert, Flannery laments the influence of scientists who
downplay the threat of global warming, noting that "a nonspecialist
cannot know whether the view being presented is fringe or mainstream
thinking, and so (the public) come(s) to believe that there is a real
division in the scientific community." Flannery's ultimate goal is to
replace the "proliferation of misleading stories" with a single
narrative — "based on the work of thousands of colleagues" — of
conventional wisdom.
His story concludes with us. Anyone looking for a novel answer to our
problems is sure to be disappointed. Flannery's call for increased
funding for alternative sources of energy is familiar, as is his
denunciation of SUVs, as is his pedestrian nag to turn off the lights
when you leave the room. Nor does he offer easy answers; every
suggestion he makes entails political or personal sacrifice.
The absence of a magic bullet, however, confirms that there is no way
around the problem of global warming other than the solutions that
environmentalists have been promoting for more than two decades. As
Flannery writes, "We know enough to act wisely."
A somewhat ill 'Wind'
That capacity distinguishes us from many of our ancestors, as Eugene
Linden argues in "The Winds of Change." Linden's central claim is
that weather has been an unappreciated and often singular force of
historical change. It is only now — right now —that we have gained
the knowledge and power to prevent the sort of climactic disasters
that befell past civilizations. As intriguing as this weather-centric
thesis might be, Linden's claim that countless pivotal historical
events, from the fall of Mayan civilization to the "lost colony" of
Roanoke, Va., were the result of climate-related change smacks of
cranky determinism.
That said, Linden joins Kolbert and Flannery — not to mention
virtually the entire scientific community — in arguing that, if we
don't radically change our behavior, we will be "blindsided by
climate change."
One of the positive outcomes of the Bush administration's failure to
sign the Kyoto Protocol has been an intensified effort among writers
and scientists to highlight the dangers posed by the human
consumption of fossil fuels. One can only hope that as the Bush
administration seeks "more certainty," a few of these titles make it
onto the president's summer reading list. The season, after all,
promises to be a long and hot one.
James E. McWilliams is an assistant professor of history at Texas
State University-San Marcos and the author of 'A Revolution in
Eating: How the Quest for Food Shaped America.'
Find this article at:
http://www.statesman.com/life/content/life/stories/books/03/12politics
.html
http://tinyurl.com/rzfwc
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 11:34:52 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Green group petitions US, Aussies
Green group petitions US, Aussies
(Saturday, March 11, 2006)
American Ambassador Larry Dinger with representatives of WWF South
Pacific outside the American Embassy in Suva yesterday
AMERICAN ambassador Larry Dinger has received postcards from people
concerned over his country's failure to sign the Kyoto Protocol.
Members of the WWF climate team presented postcards signed by people
in Tuvalu to Mr Dinger.
The WWF team then approached the Australian High Commission.
WWF South Pacific communications coordinator Ashwini Prabha said the
post cards asked US president George Bush to ratify the Kyoto
Protocol, which could save countries like Tuvalu from rising sea
levels.
She said the Kyoto Protocol was the only global treaty that made it
compulsory for developed nations to reduce greenhouses gas emissions.
The WWF said Australia and the US had refused to ratify the Kyoto
Protocol.
Although both are a major donors to Pacific Island countries, they
had failed to acknowledge that climate change was already affecting
the region.
Ms Prabha said Australia was the largest emitter (per capita or per
person) of greenhouse gases while the US was the largest emitter
globally.
"On February 16, the Kyoto Protocol celebrated its first birthday
having come into force a year ago," she said.
She said Tuvalu was one of the countries most vulnerable to the
impacts of climate change globally and was already experiencing
severe droughts that were causing water shortages, higher king tides
and stronger cyclones.
http://www.statesman.com/life/content/life/stories/books/03/12politics
.html
http://tinyurl.com/rzfwc
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 11:37:03 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: In Phoenix, Even Cactuses Wilt in Clutches of Record Drought
In Phoenix, Even Cactuses Wilt in Clutches of Record Drought
Source: Copyright 2006, New York Times
Date: March 10, 2006
Byline: MICHAEL WILSON
Thursday began like the 141 days before it, sunny and crisp, dust
settling everywhere except on the record — set again — for the number
of days without rain.
Phoenix knows all about dry weather. It is a place where children are
drilled throughout elementary school to conserve water, where hotels
boast of covered parking areas not to protect from rain, but to offer
a bit of shade. Grown men spread lotion all over their bodies every
morning. Noses bleed. Newcomers watch in horror as their hands seem
to age right in front of them.
But even the desert suffers droughts, and this winter has brought a
strong one, the fickle air currents pushing approaching storm clouds
to the east. Until this year, the record for days without recorded
rainfall was set in 2000, a measly 101 days. The recording instrument
for rainfall is at the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport,
referred to as "the bucket" by meteorologists, and drier than a
Sunday morning during Prohibition.
"People are sort of losing their grip," said Gary Woodard, who, as
associate director of the University of Arizona Center for
Sustainability of Semi-Arid Hydrology and Riparian Areas, is an
expert on the region's water. " 'Did you hear it's going to rain
tomorrow?' Well, actually, there's an 80 percent chance it's not
going to rain. People are getting very excited about very slim
chances of rain."
The drought has wreaked havoc on wildlife, which depend on the scant
seven inches of rain that Phoenix gets in an average year, most of it
in the three or four winter months.
"We have cactus dying from lack of water," Mr. Woodard said. "We have
well-established mesquite trees that are in a lot of trouble."
Small animals are too dried out to do what comes naturally.
"None of the animals, none of the birds are having offspring this
spring. No baby quail, no baby bunnies," Mr. Woodard said.
An alarming result of the drought is the condition of the air. On
Thursday, Arizona's Department of Environmental Quality posted its
25th pollution advisory of the winter, a remarkable number. Last
winter — the opposite of this one, with abundant rainfall — there
were no such days. There is no rain to knock the dust and particles
out of the air and wash them away.
"We've just had this large, dry, stagnant air mass hanging over the
area since November," said Steve Owens, director of the environmental
agency. "It used to be, you'd come to Arizona if you had breathing
problems because of the air quality. Now, I think you'd have
physicians who would say, 'Don't come to Arizona.' "
The drought seems to promise a harsh fire season. Last year,
relatively heavy rains fell all winter, prompting fast growth in
trees and shrubs that now sit dry and cracked. "I don't think I could
have planned a better fire season," said Tom Pagano, a forecaster
with the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service. "A lot of
people in that business are quite worried."
The drought has not hurt the skin-care industry.
"You have to use lotion right when you're out of the shower, when
your skin is still moist," said Mary Low, services manager at Arizona
Biltmore Resort and Spa. "People wear sandals, so the skin on the
heels of your feet get exposed to the dry air. The skin on the feet
gets dry and cracked. You have to use a pumice stone and put lotion
on your feet."
Another high-end refuge, Spa du Soleil in suburban Scottsdale,
uses "medical grade oxygen" to infuse 87 vitamins straight into a
customer's face, said the spa's director, Irene Kelly. "It really
does keep your skin nice and smooth and plump and supple and
hydrated," Ms. Kelly said.
Tourists love the sunshine and high temperatures in the 60's and
70's. Local residents shrug, and click on the humidifier at night.
"You get used to it, and pray every day that it rains," said Justin
Hoiby, 27, an event planner overseeing a Western-themed company
picnic — Pennsylvania executives racing in little covered wagons — in
Scottsdale. It was Wednesday, and to the north, a huge, fat, gray-
black rain cloud hung over the mountains, like a blimp over a sold-
out stadium.
"I think it's going to stay to the north," Mr. Hoiby said, as the
executives competed in a Wild West Olympics. "I've been watching it."
And yet, closer it came, the cloud blocking the sun and kicking up a
little dust, irritating some tourists like Mary Green, 67, visiting
from Chicago. "Nice for them," she said, looking over her shoulder at
the grayness. "Not nice for a visitor who wants sunshine. It's not
going to last, that's the nice thing."
But did it ever arrive? A few raindrops hit a forehead and a
windshield. A nearby gas station attendant, Robert Roe, saw it: "It
came down pretty good for about two seconds."
Jeff Grenfell, 41, a sommelier and chef, was hiking at the time. "I
got a few drops," he said later.
Rain!
Not quite. None hit the bucket at the airport, according to the
National Weather Service. The dry streak did not end, and a record-
setting 142nd day continued, with no precipitation in the 24-hour
forecast.
The record number of days in Phoenix with nothing more than trace
amounts of rain (defined as less than 1/100th of an inch, but more
than a drop on the forehead) is 160.
Whether that record will be broken in 19 days is unclear. Forecasters
are calling for a relatively high chance — 50 percent — of rain this
weekend.
Originally posted at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/10/national/10phoenix.html?
_r=1&oref=slogin
http://tinyurl.com/lpx2o
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fuelcell-energy/
A personal quest to promote the use of wind energy and hydrogen technology in the Great Lakes area of the United States. The Great Lakes area is in a unique position to become an energy exporting region through these and other renewable energy technologies. *Update 2014: Just do it everywhere - Dan*
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment