Ecobella Blog

The Indo-German iron fertilization experiment LOHAFEX will be carried out from the German research vessel “Polarstern” in the southwest Atlantic from 7th January to 17th March 2009. The interdisciplinary team of 48 scientists on board “Polarstern” will closely collaborate in monitoring the algal bloom expected to grow in the fertilized patch of ocean and studying its effects on the chemistry and biology for at least 45 days.

The results of LOHAFEX will be of great interest to both ocean ecologists and geochemists because the minute, unicellular algae suspended in the sunlit surface layer known as phytoplankton not only provide the food sustaining all oceanic life but also play a key role in regulating concentrations of the greenhouse gas CO₂ in the atmosphere.

Background

The Southern Ocean encircling Antarctica is rich in the nutrients nitrate, phosphate and silicon but phytoplankton growth is limited by the supply of iron which is a crucial ingredient of all organisms. Iron is highly insoluble in sea water, so, unlike the other nutrients, is quickly lost in sinking particles. Addition of trace amounts of iron to these waters, whether from natural sources (contact with land masses and via settling dust blown of the continents) or by artificial iron fertilization (from a ship releasing dissolved iron sulfate to the surface layer), results in rapid algal growth leading to development of phytoplankton blooms.

Phytoplankton grow by taking up CO₂ dissolved in sea water and converting the carbon into biomass (organic matter). Because the CO₂ dissolved in the ocean’s surface layer is in equilibrium with the atmosphere, blooms cause a deficit which is compensated by uptake from the atmosphere. The fate of the bloom biomass determines how long this CO₂ is retained in the ocean. If the organic matter is recycled by bacteria and zoo plankton – unicellular protozoa and a variety of small animals that graze on phytoplankton – within the surface layer, and the iron selectively lost, then the CO₂ taken up is returned to the atmosphere within months. However, the organic particles in the form of phytoplankton cells and zoo plankton fecal material that settle out of the surface layer sequester CO₂ for longer time scales depending on how deep they sink. Carbon transported in particles that sink below 3,000 m is sequestered for centuries and the portion buried in the sediments for much longer.

Five iron fertilization experiments in the Southern Ocean have created phytoplankton blooms but only in the previous experiment EIFEX carried out from Polarstern was it possible to actually follow the rain of particles sinking through the underlying deep water column because the experiment was carried out in the closed core of a stationary, rotating eddy. LOHAFEX will also be conducted in a pre-selected eddy but the size of the patch will be twice as large – 300 km² fertilized with 20 tonnes of iron sulfate. EIFEX had to be terminated after 35 days while the bloom was still growing and sinking but LOHAFEX will last 10 days longer and quantify the amount sinking to depth more accurately.

Another goal of LOHAFEX is to study the effects of iron fertilization on the zooplankton, in particular the shrimp-like krill, which is the main food of Antarctic penguins, seals and whales. Stocks of krill have declined by over 80% during the past decades and their response to the iron-fertilized bloom will indicate whether the decline is due to declining productivity of the region for which there is evidence. Thus, large-scale iron fertilization of the krill habitat could well help in boosting their stocks to their former high densities and facilitate long-term recovery of the decimated great whale populations.

To follow up on the latest developments of this experimento follow: http://www.nio.org/projects/narvekar/narvekar_NWAP2.jsp

Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, January 26, 2009; Page A02

President Obama plans to instruct key federal agencies today to reexamine two policies that could force automakers to produce more fuel-efficient cars that yield fewer greenhouse gas emissions, according to sources who have been briefed on the announcement.

The move, which the White House has privately trumpeted to supporters as “the first environment and energy actions taken by the president, helping our country move toward greater energy independence,” could reverse two Bush-era decisions that have helped shape the nation’s climate policy and its auto market.

Obama will instruct the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider whether to grant California a waiver to regulate automobile tailpipe emissions linked to global warming, sources said, and he will order the Transportation Department to issue guidelines that will ensure that the nation’s auto fleet reaches an average fuel efficiency of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, if not earlier.

On Dec. 19, 2007, then-EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson blocked the efforts of California and more than a dozen other states to limit automobiles’ carbon dioxide emissions, arguing that President George W. Bush had addressed the issue by signing a law that same day raising the corporate average fuel-efficiency standard to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. But California’s tailpipe emissions rules would have effectively required even greater fuel-efficiency increases, by seeking to cut vehicles’ greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent between 2009 and 2016, something American automakers have resisted.

The Bush administration never issued near-term guidelines for tighter fuel-efficiency standards: The Transportation Department circulated a proposal last fall that would have required auto companies to build new cars averaging as much as 31.8 miles per gallon by 2015, compared with the current level of 27.5 miles per gallon, but it announced less than two weeks before Bush left office that it would not issue formal guidelines.

Daniel J. Weiss, who directs climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, praised the new administration for pressing ahead with ambitious fuel economy goals.

“President Obama’s actions will reduce our oil dependence by speeding the production of the gas-sipping cars of the future,” Weiss said. “He understands that oil and gasoline prices will rise with our recovering economy, and more fuel-efficient cars will help families cope with higher prices. And other countries will want to buy our more-efficient vehicles.”

Officials at General Motors and Ford said they were not aware of what the announcement would be. The White House declined to discuss the president’s planned energy announcement.

Obama, who has consistently urged U.S. automakers to produce more fuel-efficient cars, is likely to accelerate the timeline for raising the nation’s corporate average fuel economy for cars and trucks. The Transportation Department guidelines must be issued by April in order to affect the 2011 auto fleet.

Granting a waiver for California to regulate tailpipe emissions would affect nearly half the U.S. auto market. Thirteen other states — including Maryland — and the District have already adopted California’s proposal, while at least four others have pledged to do so. When the EPA rejected the waiver, Obama issued a statement saying the decision “is yet another example of how this Administration has put corporate interests ahead of the public interest. If the courts do not overturn this decision, I will after I am elected president.”

“Not only is the new president a man of his word, but he’s making a dramatic break with the Bush administration’s climate policy,” said Frank O’Donnell, who heads the advocacy group Clean Air Watch. “It’s a powerful signal that science — and the law — will guide his administration’s decisions. This should prompt cheers from California to Maine.”

Permalink: http://www.washingtonpost.com

January 13, 2009 Release
(Next Update: February 10, 2009)

Overview. The downward trend in oil prices continued in December as the worsening global economy weakened oil demand and the second Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) agreement for substantial production cuts within a month has failed, thus far, to support substantially higher prices. The outlook for supply and demand fundamentals indicates a fairly loose oil market balance over the next 2 years. The global economic downturn points to declining oil consumption in 2009, while additional production capacity from both OPEC and non-OPEC nations should boost surplus production capacity, reducing the likelihood of a renewed strong upward pressure on prices. Global real GDP growth (weighted according to shares of world oil consumption) is assumed to be 0.6 percent in 2009 and 3.0 percent in 2010. These projections compare with 4.6 percent real GDP growth in 2007 and 3.2 percent in 2008. The oil price path going forward will be driven mainly by the depth and duration of the global economic downturn, the pace and timing of the recovery, and actual OPEC production.

Consumption. World oil consumption continues to be revised downward in response to the global economic downturn. Global consumption is estimated to have been largely unchanged in 2008 and is projected to fall by 800,000 barrels per day (bbl/d) in 2009. Total world oil consumption is expected to record a modest rebound in 2010, rising by 880,000 bbl/d from year-earlier levels, on the assumption of the beginning of an expected recovery in global economic growth. Oil consumption growth is concentrated in countries outside of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), particularly China, the Middle East, and Latin America. However, projected declines in oil consumption in OECD countries more than offset any non-OECD oil consumption growth in 2009 (World Oil Consumption). If the world economic recovery happens sooner or is stronger than EIA now anticipates, oil consumption could decline at a slower rate or potentially increase at a faster rate than expected, putting upward pressure on oil prices.

Non-OPEC Supply. Non-OPEC supply is projected to rise modestly over the next 2 years. After falling by 340,000 bbl/d in 2008 because of project delays and disruptions in Central Asia and the Gulf of Mexico, non-OPEC supply is projected to grow by about 180,000 bbl/d in 2009 and 90,000 bbl/d in 2010. These projections assume that unexpected delays to new non-OPEC supply that have occurred in the past will continue through the forecast period. Supply growth in countries such as the United States, Brazil, and Azerbaijan is expected to more than compensate for continued declines in many non-OPEC nations, particularly Mexico, the North Sea, and Russia. The global economic slowdown and falling oil prices bring additional risk to the usual uncertainties concerning non-OPEC supply growth, such as unexpected disruptions, project delays, and underestimation of decline rates. Lower oil prices bring into doubt the viability of some high-cost non-OPEC projects, especially those utilizing nonconventional technology or those seeking to exploit frontier oil basins. The credit crunch associated with the global economic crisis can also make it difficult to acquire financing for new projects or even finance the investment required to prevent accelerated declines at producing fields. If conditions in global financial markets lead to delayed investment in existing and new oil fields, then even a short-lived economic downturn could have longer-term ramifications for world oil supply. This would heighten the risk of a return to a tight supply situation once the world economy and oil demand growth recover.

OPEC Supply. OPEC’s December announcement that it would cut crude oil production again, following its earlier cut in November, has not yet led to a substantial increase in oil prices. Together, the two announced cuts imply a new overall target for production (excluding Iraq) of 24.845 million bbl/d , 4.2 million bbl/d below actual September production. However, the market is not presently convinced that OPEC members will willingly curtail output enough to lead to much higher prices. Adherence to the announced cuts will be challenging, as several individual countries are motivated to maintain production at higher levels to to generate revenue needed to finance their government programs amid falling prices. The lack of transparency in the new agreement, highlighted by the failure to publicize individual country production cuts, is one indicator of the reluctance of countries to cut production consistent with the group’s new overall production target. OPEC plans to meet again on March 15 in Vienna to evaluate the effectiveness of its recent actions.

EIA projects that total OPEC crude oil production (including Iraq) will fall by more than 2 million bbl/d, from 31.4 million bbl/d in September 2008 to 29.3 million bbl/d in the first quarter of 2009, implying a compliance rate of a little more than 50 percent. Because of Indonesia’s exit from OPEC, EIA has revised its historic and forecasted values for OPEC oil production to be consistent with the current membership. OPEC crude oil production is expected to average 30.0 million bbl/d in 2009 and 30.7 million bbl/d in 2010. In addition, EIA expects that OPEC production of non-crude liquids will rise substantially next year, growing by 600,000 bbl/d in 2009 and by 850,000 bbl/d in 2010. The combination of lower demand for OPEC crude oil and the capacity expansions expected in several OPEC countries means that surplus production capacity could increase to roughly 4.0 million bbl/d in 2009 and 4.7 million bbl/d by the end of 2010, compared with the 1 to 2 million bbl/d of surplus capacity available over the past several years (OPEC Surplus Oil Production Capacity).

Inventories. Revised data indicate that OECD commercial inventories rose by 330,000 bbl/d in the third quarter of 2008, lower than historic rates for inventory builds during that time of year. OECD commercial inventories stood at 2.63 billion barrels at the end of the third quarter, equivalent to 57 days of forward consumption cover. On the basis of days of forward cover, OECD commercial inventories are well above average historic levels, and EIA projects that they will remain there through the end of 2010 (Days of Supply of OECD Commercial Stocks). The combination of substantial surplus capacity and above-average inventories should dampen price pressure over the period. In any event, a sustained rebound in prices is not likely until the economic recovery causes a sustained rebound in demand for OPEC crude oil.

Permalink: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html

Peter Huber 10.29.08, 6:00 PM ET
Forbes Magazine dated November 17, 2008

The backbone will let cheap fuels like coal and water displace expensive gas-fired power.

Online shipping or energy arrived a century before Ebay. The electric grid has long let us buy cheap fuel by the smidgen and rent billion-dollar, million-horsepower turbines by the millisecond. We can also use the grid to beat oil.

The wires that move electricity from power plant to wall outlet have done more to raise efficiency and lower energy costs than all the improvements made to car engines since Henry Ford rolled out the first Model T. We could gain as much again by building a high-voltage, continent-spanning backbone grid to establish a single national U.S. market for electricity. This would also unleash domestic capital, labor and ingenuity in the one energy market that stands a good chance of cutting us loose from foreign oil suppliers.

We use as much raw energy generating electricity as we get out of the 7 billion barrels of oil we burn every year. At $70 a barrel we spend four times as much on oil as we do on the fuels used to generate electricity, yet big electric power plants turn their fuel into a lot more useful power than we get out of oil-fired engines and furnaces. The huge capital investment in our power plants isn’t fully used, either. Idle capacity could power just about all the miles we drive, at a cost comparable to buck-a-gallon gasoline. A further 10% boost in electrical output could take care of all the heating supplied by oil-fired home furnaces, and at off-peak prices electric heat is cheaper than heating oil.

The price of electricity varies all over the map. Demand moves from east to west with the sun, tracking human activity and afternoon peaks in air-conditioning loads. At many hours on most days some utilities are burning expensive gas as they strain to meet peak demand while others have cheap capacity standing idle. Often someone is selling wholesale electricity for 20% to 50% less than others are paying elsewhere. Several hours later many of the cheap sellers and expensive buyers have traded places. This happens because the grid’s three main “interconnections”—east of the Rockies, west of the Rockies and Texas—are hardly linked to one another at all, and within each there’s too little transmission capacity to deliver much of the cheap power to the expensive buyers.

A single 765,000-volt transmission line can move about 1% of the total average U.S. electric load. Thousands of miles of these lines are already up and running. It will take another 22,000 miles to knit the existing wires together into a national grid. This backbone will be able to move about 25% of our current electricity consumption over distances that span significant fractions of the continent. Electrical losses will be modest, because very high voltage lines are fantastically efficient. The backbone will cost $75 billion to build. It will add about 0.3 cents of transmission cost per kilowatt-hour to the retail price of electricity, which currently averages about 9 cents.

By pooling demand, the backbone will let cheap power chase high demand around the clock and across the country. It will let inexpensive coal, uranium, water behind a dam or (eventually) wind, sun and other renewables displace expensive gas-fired power. It will lower the capital cost of electricity by allowing fuller use of billion-dollar power plants, much as filling every seat on a jumbo jet lowers the average cost of flying. A plant located in (say) Lebanon, Kans., the geographic center of the country, will be within easy reach of peak loads on both coasts and everywhere in between.

By pooling supply and demand nationwide, the backbone will cut the average cost of generating electricity by somewhere between 30% and 50%. And it will reduce it still more over the longer term, by allowing producers to locate power plants where the land is cheap, the neighbors are friendly, the coal, uranium, gas, wind or sun is most readily available, the ecosystems are durable and the obstructive lawyers are scarce.

By providing cheap access to the cheapest power, a backbone grid will also accelerate electrification. Plug-in hybrid cars will recharge mainly at night. Heating loads peak at night, too. Using idle capacity in plants and wires to compete in these two big, oil-dependent sectors will further level out supply and demand and thus further lower the cost of electricity.

If other fuels displace the gas currently used to generate electricity, that amount of gas can then displace about 10% of the oil used for transportation. Using electricity to displace oil and gas in the heating sector would put another 15% of the U.S. oil market into play. Electrifying light-duty cars and trucks would displace another 30%. These numbers will sound unrealistically big only to people who don’t grasp how big electricity already is.

We have abundant supplies of or reliable access to all the fuels we currently use to generate electricity, and the development of wind, solar and other renewables will only expand our homegrown options.

Peter Huber is a senior fellow of the Manhattan Institute and coauthor of The Bottomless Well (Basic Books, January 2005)

Permalink: http://www.forbes.com/opinions/forbes/2008/1117/104.html

Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- ExxonMobil (XOM) Chief Executive Rex Tillerson on Thursday urged federal lawmakers to consider a “carbon tax” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions instead of a cap-and-trade law such as the one Congress is drafting.

Marking a major milestone in the evolution of the oil firm’s stance on the climate change issue, Tillerson’s policy call comes as Democratic leaders prepare to move toward creating stringent cap-and-trade legislation.

“My greatest concern is that policy makers will attempt to mandate or ordain solutions that are doomed to fail,” such as a cap-and-trade system, Tillerson said in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center here.

“A carbon tax would be a more direct, transparent and more effective approach, ” he said.

A carbon tax is a straight fee for emissions while a cap-and-trade system establishes economy-wide emission limits and a market for firms to buy and sell pollution allowances based on whether they were above or below their cap.

Only a few years ago, Exxon was a major financial supporter of climate change skeptics, though recently the firm’s position had begun to recognize the political reality in Washington as Democrats’ power rose, and the company started calling a carbon tax a more “reasonable” solution to cut emissions in the economy. Tillerson’s comments represent the first clear call by the CEO for a price on carbon.

Exxon’s public stance on a carbon tax comes as U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., one of the strongest advocates for stringent climate change legislation and clean energy legislation in Congress, is expected to be named chairman of the House subcommittee responsible for drafting greenhouse gas laws.

The move – if ratified as expected later Thursday – will likely mean tougher greenhouse gas and clean energy policies out of the Energy and Commerce Committee than industry had forecast before a major shake-up in the panel late last year. Markey’s play follows the successful November coup by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., for the chairmanship of the full Energy and Commerce Committee from more moderate Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich. It is widely believed to have been approved by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who also backs tough cap-and- trade legislation.

Analysts say Markey in the post will help Waxman to more easily pass tough new cap-and-trade legislation that would cut greenhouse gases sooner, faster and across a wider spectrum of the economy than Dingell or Boucher would have preferred. At one time, Dingell had proposed a carbon tax. By forcing lawmakers and the public to quantify the economic impact of cutting greenhouse gases, analysts said the veteran automaker advocate attempted to make it less politically tenable to support stringent emissions reductions.

Tillerson said cap-and-trade systems “inevitably introduce unnecessary costs and complexity that undercut their effectiveness,” calling it ultimately a ” stealth tax.” Taking advantage of the current economic crisis caused by a systemic problem failure in the financial houses, the Exxon CEO also raised the specter of more economic toil precipitated by a cap and trade. “This new Wall Street of emission brokers will take the emphasis away from the goal of reducing carbon emission and focus it’s attention on price volatility,” he said.

Tillerson said reductions and changes to other taxes, such as income or excise policies, could offset the carbon tax on the economy.

Although widely encouraged by economists – including within the Congressional Budget Office – who say it’s a more efficient and direct approach to cutting emissions, the carbon tax has been largely shunned by most lawmakers as it’s seen as politically unfeasible to pass. That may be why Exxon has joined the ranks of other heavy carbon emitters calling for a carbon tax, as it would reveal more transparently of the actual costs to the economy of putting a premium on greenhouse gas emissions.

Rising energy prices and a stumbling economy are thought to have played the biggest role in the embarrassing defeat of a climate change bill in the Senate last year. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., withdrew Sen. Barbara Boxer’s bill from floor consideration after it was clear that a majority of Senators weren’t going to support the estimated $7 trillion measure.

And the failing economy – along with a massive fight over how the income from auctioning emission allowances will be re-distributed between industries – is why many lawmakers have said final passage of climate change bill isn’t likely this year.

Pressed by reporters to say what price level Tillerson thought carbon would need to be taxed to activate emission cuts, the oil chief said it would take at least $20 a ton. “It’s a question of how much you think the economy is willing to take and how aggressive you want to be,” he said.

-By Ian Talley, Dow Jones Newswires, 202-862-9285; ian.talley@dowjones.com

(END) Dow Jones Newswires

There was a news documentary called the Great Global Warming Swindle and a debate on this documentary sponsored by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

The following series of 10 video clips (little under 80 minutes in total) that present the documentary and the debate.

I found most interesting the debate, because it brings up the shortcuts that are usually made when debating this topic. Enjoy!!!

Dr. James E. Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and one of the world’s most eminent climate scientists and his wife, propose a three-pronged approach to tackling the climate crisis.

First, they call for a moratorium on all new coal-fired power plants that do not effectively capture carbon dioxide emissions (a technology that has yet to be proven reliable). Burning coal, they point out, releases more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than all other fossil fuels combined. Phasing out coal, they say, “is the sine qua non for solving the climate problem.”

They predict that the continued construction of coal plants would raise atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to the point at which one million species would be driven to extinction, which roughly works out to 400 species per plant. “Coal plants,” they write “are factories of death.”

Second, they call for a straightforward, revenue-neutral carbon tax, as opposed to cap-and-trade mechanisms. The tax would apply to all oil, gas, and coal at the well-head or at the point of entry, so that it would affect all goods that rely on fossil fuels. A person reducing his carbon footprint more than average makes money. A person with large cars and a big house will pay a tax much higher than the dividend. Not one cent goes to Washington.

A carbon tax is something of a hard sell in today’s political climate. Obama prefers a cap-and-trade plan as did his rival, John McCain, along with much of the political establishment. And the ball is already rolling on cap-and-trade: On Jan. 1. the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a carbon-trading plan with mandatory emissions caps, went into effect for 10 northeastern states.

Third, they propose greatly increasing R&D for so-called fourth-generation nuclear power technology, which is designed to improve safety and greatly minimize nuclear waste.

Most scientists believe that such technology will not be commercially available until 2030, but the Hansens say that stepped-up government support could make it a reality sooner.

Full article: http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/01/05/nasa-climate-scientist-pens-personal-appeal-to-obama/

30 December 2008

Brazil’s ethanol sales for 2008 are accelerating past petrol sales for the first time, the National Petroleum Agency reports.

The figures take into account sales of hydrated ethanol that can be used in its pure form in most cars in Brazil, and not anhydrous ethanol that is used just to blend with petrol, the agency says.

Sales of hydrated ethanol through October reached 15.8 billion litres, up 44.9% from a year earlier.

Brazil is the leading exporter of ethanol from sugarcane, and the world’s number two producer after the US, which uses corn as its base feedstock.

Approximately 90% of cars sold in Brazil’s market can be run on either ethanol, petrol or a mix of both in any proportion.

In the country ethanol costs about $0.63 (€0.45) a litre compared to $1.07 for a litre of petrol.

Permalink: http://www.biofuels-news.com/industry_news.php?item_id=267