Azerbaijan plays a certain role in ensuring Europe's energy security rather than the issue of providing the house of European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso with gas, chairman of the Center for Political Innovation and Technologies Mubariz Ahmadoglu told Trend.
"Azerbaijan's role in ensuring energy security of Europe could rise significantly. At present, a single, strong attitude of Europe to Azerbaijan is required particularly to the settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict," he said.
He said that Armenia compares the term "peaceful settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict" and "non-settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict".
"The European Commission has one position towards Azerbaijan, while the EU president Herman van Rompuy and high representative for EU foreign policy Catherine Ashton have another. The European Parliament has another position towards Azerbaijan. It differs from the previous two positions. The participation in ensuring energy security of Europe will implicitly mean the participation in strengthening the Armenian separatists. Are the Europeans so weak from the philosophical, moral, geopolitical and economic point of view that their fate is being discussed in Nagorno-Karabakh? " he said.
He said that the main slogan of observers from the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland in the unrecognized parliamentary elections of the separatists in Nagorno-Karabakh related to the fate of Europe in the Nagorno-Karabakh.
There are "supporters of the thesis" about the unique geographical position of Armenia in all European societies. The geographical position of Armenia, located on the edge of the South Caucasus region, has no transit or communication significance. In this case, "a unique geographical position" stipulates the fact that Armenia is surrounded by non-Christian countries. Sargsyan's thesis that Armenia is the last outpost of Christianity in the East more strengthens this notion, he said.
He said that seeing the weakening of their lies about the Nagorno-Karabakh in the U.S., Russia and France, Armenians have chosen the EU as a space for their bluff to give real results.
"The EU President and High Representative for EU foreign policy, Catherine Ashton's dealing with religious activity more encourages the Armenians to achieve success in this direction. It is strange but both supporters and opponents of transporting Azerbaijani energy resources to the West play a role in enhancing the instrument of pressure on Azerbaijan called Armenia", he further said.
Source: http://en.trend.az
Monday, January 10, 2011
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Scots-Chinese deal as Vice Premier Li Keqiang visits UK
Scotland and China have sealed a major green energy deal, as Chinese Vice Premier Li Keqiang began a four-day visit to the UK.
The agreement, worth $10m (£6.4m), will see technology pioneered in Scotland used at a new renewable energy conversion plant in China.
Confirmation of the deal came as Mr Li and his delegation arrived in Edinburgh for the first day of his visit.
The vice premier is also meeting Prime Minister David Cameron in London.
The visit has a focus on promoting trade and political links with the UK and other European nations.
Mr Li - widely tipped to become the next Chinese premier - will also meet key UK government figures in London, including Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, Chancellor George Osborne and Foreign Secretary William Hague.
Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond said the licensing deal was reached between Sino-Scots firm Shanghai Huanuan Boiler and Vessel Co/Cochran and Scotland-based engineers W2E Engineering, which specialises in generating electricity from domestic refuse.
Mr Salmond, who has led several trade missions to China over the past two years, said the visit was vital for building economic growth, especially in renewable energy.
"China already has the largest deployment of on-shore renewable technology, and Scotland is a world-leader in pioneering the technology and application of clean, green energy," he said.
"This announcement is another positive step forward in strengthening Sino-Scottish links and confirming Scotland's reputation as a global leader in the development of renewable energy."
Shanghai Huanuan chairman Dong Ping added: "This agreement will see the creation of new green power stations built in Scotland and in China and this will generate sustainable renewable energy at a reduced cost for our global customers."
On the first day of the trip, Mr Li held talks with Scottish Secretary Michael Moore and is also visiting the renewable energy firm Pelamis Wave Power.
Mr Moore described the meeting as "very constructive", adding: "China and the UK are key partners in growth for the future.
"There are a huge number of economic opportunities which exist between China and Scotland and I am keen to see us take advantage of our excellent trading links and create new routes to market in the near future."
Mr Li is also due to deliver a speech at a China-Britain British Council banquet, ahead of his return to Beijing on Wednesday.
The vice premier's stay in the UK comes after a three-day visit to Spain, where he signed $7.5bn (£4.8bn, 5.7bn euros) in trade deals.
Mr Li also reaffirmed his country would buy Spanish government bonds, despite the recent crisis of market confidence over eurozone debt.
China has already made several Scottish trade agreements, including a deal requiring all "Scotch Whisky" sold in China to have been made in Scotland.
Anne MacColl, of the economic agency Scottish Development International, said Scotland was in a strong position to contribute to many of China's key aims, which also included life sciences, financial services and academic connections.
Source: BBC
www.bbc.co.uk
The agreement, worth $10m (£6.4m), will see technology pioneered in Scotland used at a new renewable energy conversion plant in China.
Confirmation of the deal came as Mr Li and his delegation arrived in Edinburgh for the first day of his visit.
The vice premier is also meeting Prime Minister David Cameron in London.
The visit has a focus on promoting trade and political links with the UK and other European nations.
Mr Li - widely tipped to become the next Chinese premier - will also meet key UK government figures in London, including Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, Chancellor George Osborne and Foreign Secretary William Hague.
Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond said the licensing deal was reached between Sino-Scots firm Shanghai Huanuan Boiler and Vessel Co/Cochran and Scotland-based engineers W2E Engineering, which specialises in generating electricity from domestic refuse.
Mr Salmond, who has led several trade missions to China over the past two years, said the visit was vital for building economic growth, especially in renewable energy.
"China already has the largest deployment of on-shore renewable technology, and Scotland is a world-leader in pioneering the technology and application of clean, green energy," he said.
"This announcement is another positive step forward in strengthening Sino-Scottish links and confirming Scotland's reputation as a global leader in the development of renewable energy."
Shanghai Huanuan chairman Dong Ping added: "This agreement will see the creation of new green power stations built in Scotland and in China and this will generate sustainable renewable energy at a reduced cost for our global customers."
On the first day of the trip, Mr Li held talks with Scottish Secretary Michael Moore and is also visiting the renewable energy firm Pelamis Wave Power.
Mr Moore described the meeting as "very constructive", adding: "China and the UK are key partners in growth for the future.
"There are a huge number of economic opportunities which exist between China and Scotland and I am keen to see us take advantage of our excellent trading links and create new routes to market in the near future."
Mr Li is also due to deliver a speech at a China-Britain British Council banquet, ahead of his return to Beijing on Wednesday.
The vice premier's stay in the UK comes after a three-day visit to Spain, where he signed $7.5bn (£4.8bn, 5.7bn euros) in trade deals.
Mr Li also reaffirmed his country would buy Spanish government bonds, despite the recent crisis of market confidence over eurozone debt.
China has already made several Scottish trade agreements, including a deal requiring all "Scotch Whisky" sold in China to have been made in Scotland.
Anne MacColl, of the economic agency Scottish Development International, said Scotland was in a strong position to contribute to many of China's key aims, which also included life sciences, financial services and academic connections.
Source: BBC
www.bbc.co.uk
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Deep water oil drilling ban rejected
A committee of MPs has opposed any freeze on deep water drilling for oil in the UK's seas, warning such a move would undermine the country's energy security.
The powerful energy and climate change committee raised doubt over whether equipment to tackle a similar environmental disaster would be adequate in the harsh conditions West of Shetland.
In the inhospitable seas near the Island, the Government is looking in a bid to secure future fuel reserves for Britain. The area holds much deeper and more hazardous waters than the relatively shallow North Sea.
More than forty wells are likely to be drilled in search of gas to ease the country's looming energy shortage. And a lack of clarity over liability laws could leave the UK taxpayer picking up the bill for a major oil spill offshore, a report by the committee in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster warned.
The MPs launched their inquiry to examine the implications of the explosion on BP's Deepwater Horizon rig 50 miles off the Louisiana coast which killed 11 workers and left millions of barrels of oil pouring into the sea. A committee of MPs have rejected such a move warning it would undermine the UK's energy security.
They raised doubts over whether equipment used to tackle oil spills would be adequate in the harsh conditions West of Shetland. The committee urged the health and safety executive to consider making equipment to seal a drill pipe a requirement on all UK deep water rigs.
The committee's chairman Tim Yeo said: "A moratorium on deep water drilling off the west coast of Shetland would undermine the UK's energy security and isn't necessary."
But he said: "The harsh and windy conditions in the North Sea would make an oil spill off the coast of Shetland very difficult to contain or clean up.
"Safety regulations on drilling in the UK are already tougher than they were in the Gulf of Mexico, but oil companies mustn't use that as an excuse for complacency."
The report said the conditions to the west of Shetland were far more difficult than those experienced by teams tackling the spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
And green campaigners renewed their call for a moratorium on deep water drilling in UK waters, amid concerns over the environmental threats of deep sea drilling and the UK's reliance on fossil fuels,
John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace which has launched a legal bid to halt the granting of new drilling licences, said: "This report lists all the reasons why a ban on deep sea drilling makes sense and then ignores its own findings.
"The oil companies have no idea how they would deal with a major spill off the coast of the UK but apparently we're supposed to trust them until they come up with an adequate plan."
Dan Barlow, head of policy at WWF Scotland, said: "This report highlights that the current UK oil drilling framework falls short of providing the necessary safeguards to protect Scotland's marine environment in the event of an oil spill.
"Given the environmental imperative to end our addiction with oil, the focus of our energy policy must be on making a renewable revolution a reality.
"Pursuing new oil would undermine the leadership role this country has built on tackling climate change and progressing toward a low carbon economy."
But the Government welcomed the report's conclusion that a moratorium was unwarranted.
Energy Minister Charles Hendry said: "We looked at our regime and increased inspections immediately after Deepwater Horizon and plan a further review once US reports and the detailed analysis of the factors which caused the Gulf of Mexico incident are available."
He added: "As we move towards a less carbon intensive future, oil and gas are set to remain a key part of our energy system for years to come and it is vital that we search for and produce the UK's own resources as safely as possible."
Meanwhile a report into the Deepwater Horizon explosion blamed systematic industry failures. A US presidential commission blamed failures to appreciate risk and said a fundamental mistake by BP was failing to exercise proper caution.
The spill has cost BP billions of collars and led to the departure of their chief executive.
Source: http://news.stv.tv
The powerful energy and climate change committee raised doubt over whether equipment to tackle a similar environmental disaster would be adequate in the harsh conditions West of Shetland.
In the inhospitable seas near the Island, the Government is looking in a bid to secure future fuel reserves for Britain. The area holds much deeper and more hazardous waters than the relatively shallow North Sea.
More than forty wells are likely to be drilled in search of gas to ease the country's looming energy shortage. And a lack of clarity over liability laws could leave the UK taxpayer picking up the bill for a major oil spill offshore, a report by the committee in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster warned.
The MPs launched their inquiry to examine the implications of the explosion on BP's Deepwater Horizon rig 50 miles off the Louisiana coast which killed 11 workers and left millions of barrels of oil pouring into the sea. A committee of MPs have rejected such a move warning it would undermine the UK's energy security.
They raised doubts over whether equipment used to tackle oil spills would be adequate in the harsh conditions West of Shetland. The committee urged the health and safety executive to consider making equipment to seal a drill pipe a requirement on all UK deep water rigs.
The committee's chairman Tim Yeo said: "A moratorium on deep water drilling off the west coast of Shetland would undermine the UK's energy security and isn't necessary."
But he said: "The harsh and windy conditions in the North Sea would make an oil spill off the coast of Shetland very difficult to contain or clean up.
"Safety regulations on drilling in the UK are already tougher than they were in the Gulf of Mexico, but oil companies mustn't use that as an excuse for complacency."
The report said the conditions to the west of Shetland were far more difficult than those experienced by teams tackling the spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
And green campaigners renewed their call for a moratorium on deep water drilling in UK waters, amid concerns over the environmental threats of deep sea drilling and the UK's reliance on fossil fuels,
John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace which has launched a legal bid to halt the granting of new drilling licences, said: "This report lists all the reasons why a ban on deep sea drilling makes sense and then ignores its own findings.
"The oil companies have no idea how they would deal with a major spill off the coast of the UK but apparently we're supposed to trust them until they come up with an adequate plan."
Dan Barlow, head of policy at WWF Scotland, said: "This report highlights that the current UK oil drilling framework falls short of providing the necessary safeguards to protect Scotland's marine environment in the event of an oil spill.
"Given the environmental imperative to end our addiction with oil, the focus of our energy policy must be on making a renewable revolution a reality.
"Pursuing new oil would undermine the leadership role this country has built on tackling climate change and progressing toward a low carbon economy."
But the Government welcomed the report's conclusion that a moratorium was unwarranted.
Energy Minister Charles Hendry said: "We looked at our regime and increased inspections immediately after Deepwater Horizon and plan a further review once US reports and the detailed analysis of the factors which caused the Gulf of Mexico incident are available."
He added: "As we move towards a less carbon intensive future, oil and gas are set to remain a key part of our energy system for years to come and it is vital that we search for and produce the UK's own resources as safely as possible."
Meanwhile a report into the Deepwater Horizon explosion blamed systematic industry failures. A US presidential commission blamed failures to appreciate risk and said a fundamental mistake by BP was failing to exercise proper caution.
The spill has cost BP billions of collars and led to the departure of their chief executive.
Source: http://news.stv.tv
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
China nuclear breakthrough 'boosts energy security'
By succeeding in reprocessing spent nuclear fuel in an experimental reactor, China has made an important technological step forward in ensuring its long-term energy security, experts say.
The feat by the China National Nuclear Corporation -- announced Monday with much fanfare on state television -- has already been achieved by other nations, and it remains to be seen whether it can be done on an industrial scale.
But the successful reuse of irradiated nuclear fuel, developed at a CNNC plant in the country's remote northwest, is likely to be key in China's efforts to diversify its energy mix, especially away from highly-polluting coal.
The work by CNNC "is a crucial step towards resolving the raw materials problem faced by the nuclear industry (in China), one already tackled by the other main nuclear powers," Lin Boqiang, director of the China Centre for Energy Economics Research at Xiamen University, told AFP.
The report was scant on details about the so-called Chinese "breakthrough", but said it would help extend the lifespan of Beijing's proven uranium deposits to 3,000 years, from the current forecast of 50-70 years.
CNNC general manager Sun Qin said in the report that China had joined a "minority of countries" to have a complete nuclear fuel cycle. France and Russia are among the nations already reprocessing nuclear fuel.
A Beijing-based Western expert on nuclear technology, who asked not to be named, told AFP that while earlier tests involved non-radioactive products, China had "moved on to active tests with fissile, radioactive material".
China currently has 13 nuclear reactors and has given the green light to plans for 34 others, 26 of which are already under construction, People's Daily -- the official mouthpiece of the ruling Communist party -- said Tuesday.
Beijing has stepped up investment in nuclear power in an effort to slash its world-leading carbon emissions and scale down the nation's heavy reliance on coal, which accounts for 70 percent of its energy needs.
China, which overtook Japan in mid-2010 to become the world's second-largest economy, is the world's biggest energy consumer, according to the International Energy Agency.
It aims to get 15 percent of its power from renewable sources by 2020.
It wants to increase nuclear power capacity to 112 gigawatts by 2020, which would account for about seven percent of the country's total installed power capacity, state press reports have said.
The government said previously the target was 70 gigawatts.
China currently produces around 750 tonnes of uranium a year but annual demand could rise to 20,000 tonnes a year by 2020, according to state media.
CNNC is developing a uranium mine in the poor west African country of Niger, which produced its first barrel of ore last week.
In order for China to greatly increase the amount of power generated from its existing uranium stocks, it would have to develop the capability to use nearly all of the non-fissile uranium-238.
That can be achieved by rapid neutron reactors, which France expects to see come on-stream in about 2040 -- and which one expert hinted was the path being taken by CNNC.
"China has made a concrete breakthrough in the development of fourth generation, rapid neutron nuclear technology," Ye Qizhen, an expert at the Chinese Academy of Engineering, told the China Business News after the announcement.
Lin said recycled nuclear fuel can be used by the third-generation reactors, such as the ones developed by France's Areva and US-based Westinghouse Electric, and being built in China.
But he noted that so far, nuclear fuel reprocessing in China is still in the experimental phase.
"For now, we don't know if new technical problems will crop up in the transition to (industrial) production," he said.
Source: www.bangkokpost.com
The feat by the China National Nuclear Corporation -- announced Monday with much fanfare on state television -- has already been achieved by other nations, and it remains to be seen whether it can be done on an industrial scale.
But the successful reuse of irradiated nuclear fuel, developed at a CNNC plant in the country's remote northwest, is likely to be key in China's efforts to diversify its energy mix, especially away from highly-polluting coal.
The work by CNNC "is a crucial step towards resolving the raw materials problem faced by the nuclear industry (in China), one already tackled by the other main nuclear powers," Lin Boqiang, director of the China Centre for Energy Economics Research at Xiamen University, told AFP.
The report was scant on details about the so-called Chinese "breakthrough", but said it would help extend the lifespan of Beijing's proven uranium deposits to 3,000 years, from the current forecast of 50-70 years.
CNNC general manager Sun Qin said in the report that China had joined a "minority of countries" to have a complete nuclear fuel cycle. France and Russia are among the nations already reprocessing nuclear fuel.
A Beijing-based Western expert on nuclear technology, who asked not to be named, told AFP that while earlier tests involved non-radioactive products, China had "moved on to active tests with fissile, radioactive material".
China currently has 13 nuclear reactors and has given the green light to plans for 34 others, 26 of which are already under construction, People's Daily -- the official mouthpiece of the ruling Communist party -- said Tuesday.
Beijing has stepped up investment in nuclear power in an effort to slash its world-leading carbon emissions and scale down the nation's heavy reliance on coal, which accounts for 70 percent of its energy needs.
China, which overtook Japan in mid-2010 to become the world's second-largest economy, is the world's biggest energy consumer, according to the International Energy Agency.
It aims to get 15 percent of its power from renewable sources by 2020.
It wants to increase nuclear power capacity to 112 gigawatts by 2020, which would account for about seven percent of the country's total installed power capacity, state press reports have said.
The government said previously the target was 70 gigawatts.
China currently produces around 750 tonnes of uranium a year but annual demand could rise to 20,000 tonnes a year by 2020, according to state media.
CNNC is developing a uranium mine in the poor west African country of Niger, which produced its first barrel of ore last week.
In order for China to greatly increase the amount of power generated from its existing uranium stocks, it would have to develop the capability to use nearly all of the non-fissile uranium-238.
That can be achieved by rapid neutron reactors, which France expects to see come on-stream in about 2040 -- and which one expert hinted was the path being taken by CNNC.
"China has made a concrete breakthrough in the development of fourth generation, rapid neutron nuclear technology," Ye Qizhen, an expert at the Chinese Academy of Engineering, told the China Business News after the announcement.
Lin said recycled nuclear fuel can be used by the third-generation reactors, such as the ones developed by France's Areva and US-based Westinghouse Electric, and being built in China.
But he noted that so far, nuclear fuel reprocessing in China is still in the experimental phase.
"For now, we don't know if new technical problems will crop up in the transition to (industrial) production," he said.
Source: www.bangkokpost.com
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Why gas costs more--and is more profitable--out West
FORTUNE -- In the cutthroat fuel industry, some refiners are pulling ahead by taking advantage of a quirk in the United States gasoline market. Gas prices in the U.S. fluctuate with the global, volatile oil market, but gasoline prices within the country are far from uniform. Part of that is because the Western market requires a different, more expensive mixture than the gasoline sold in states near the Gulf of Mexico.
The premium on gasoline on the West Coast was fueled by a series events starting with a smog problem in California and ending with a handful of companies creating a tight market for clean-burning gasoline. California mandates more eco-friendly fuel, and other states in the West are starting to follow suit. This means that companies who have been selling to that market only expect the profit margin on Western gas to grow.
For example, Fortune rated one company, Western Refining (WNR, Fortune 500), which has access to the Western gasoline market, one of the best performing stocks in 2010. Western Refining reported a third-quarter net income of $6.9 million for 2010, compared to its net loss of $4.8 million in the same period of 2009.
The company succeeded for several reasons. It shed underperforming facilities in the East. Out West, "we had two of the most profitable refineries on a gross margin basis," Western Refining CEO Jeff Stevens explained at a symposium in December. That's partially because the company fine-tuned its cost structure at those refineries and because the cost of oil is increasing again. But the high premium for gasoline out West certainly helped.
Western Refining is one of a limited number of refineries have the capacity to make the specific mixture required for clean fuel. That means that these refineries can charge more for their product. "You're essentially creating a segmented market-you're limiting the amount of suppliers that can compete," says Frank Wolak, a Professor of Commodity Price Studies in Stanford's Economics Department.
Californians have been buying expensive gas for decades. The state had terrible smog problems in the 1990's and was forced to reduce air pollution after the Environmental Protection Agency passed the Clean Air Act. Since then, California has had to buy gasoline that produces fewer pollutants than fuel sold in the rest of the country.
Only a small number of refineries switched to produce that kind of gasoline. In a report on the high price of California gasoline in 2004, Wolak wrote that six refiners own more than 90 percent of the refining capacity in the state. Now, he says the same set of refineries dictates the market.
Western Refining is one of them, and it's in a good position to benefit from new demand for clean-burning gasoline. The company has two major refineries: one in El Paso in west Texas, and the other in Gallup, New Mexico near the four corners. The Gallup refinery distributes to cities including Phoenix and Tucson that are starting to buy cleaner burning gasoline.
The cities are responding to the EPA, which declared back in 1997 that the Phoenix Metropolitan area fell short of the National Air Quality Standards, then demanded that the state come up with a plan to fix it. In 2004, the EPA approved Arizona's plan, called the Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline program.
Now, the Arizona gasoline market pulls in the same profits for refiners as California, Western Refining CEO Stevens says. He expects the trend to continue.
"Looking forward we're seeing that the West coast continues to remain-- particularly on the gasoline side--really the strongest market," Western Refining's Stevens said at the symposium.
The market will stay profitable for the foreseeable future, Wolak says, because the few refineries that produce the cleaner gasoline mixture will keep control without much competition. "If you had a national market among all the refineries, that would become much more difficult."
He also says that while it might make sense environmentally, a national market for clean burning gas won't happen for a while, if ever. Meanwhile, refiners can continue to meet the needs of state governments demanding cleaner-burning fuel, and keep pocketing the premium.
Source: CNN
http://money.cnn.com
The premium on gasoline on the West Coast was fueled by a series events starting with a smog problem in California and ending with a handful of companies creating a tight market for clean-burning gasoline. California mandates more eco-friendly fuel, and other states in the West are starting to follow suit. This means that companies who have been selling to that market only expect the profit margin on Western gas to grow.
For example, Fortune rated one company, Western Refining (WNR, Fortune 500), which has access to the Western gasoline market, one of the best performing stocks in 2010. Western Refining reported a third-quarter net income of $6.9 million for 2010, compared to its net loss of $4.8 million in the same period of 2009.
The company succeeded for several reasons. It shed underperforming facilities in the East. Out West, "we had two of the most profitable refineries on a gross margin basis," Western Refining CEO Jeff Stevens explained at a symposium in December. That's partially because the company fine-tuned its cost structure at those refineries and because the cost of oil is increasing again. But the high premium for gasoline out West certainly helped.
Western Refining is one of a limited number of refineries have the capacity to make the specific mixture required for clean fuel. That means that these refineries can charge more for their product. "You're essentially creating a segmented market-you're limiting the amount of suppliers that can compete," says Frank Wolak, a Professor of Commodity Price Studies in Stanford's Economics Department.
Californians have been buying expensive gas for decades. The state had terrible smog problems in the 1990's and was forced to reduce air pollution after the Environmental Protection Agency passed the Clean Air Act. Since then, California has had to buy gasoline that produces fewer pollutants than fuel sold in the rest of the country.
Only a small number of refineries switched to produce that kind of gasoline. In a report on the high price of California gasoline in 2004, Wolak wrote that six refiners own more than 90 percent of the refining capacity in the state. Now, he says the same set of refineries dictates the market.
Western Refining is one of them, and it's in a good position to benefit from new demand for clean-burning gasoline. The company has two major refineries: one in El Paso in west Texas, and the other in Gallup, New Mexico near the four corners. The Gallup refinery distributes to cities including Phoenix and Tucson that are starting to buy cleaner burning gasoline.
The cities are responding to the EPA, which declared back in 1997 that the Phoenix Metropolitan area fell short of the National Air Quality Standards, then demanded that the state come up with a plan to fix it. In 2004, the EPA approved Arizona's plan, called the Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline program.
Now, the Arizona gasoline market pulls in the same profits for refiners as California, Western Refining CEO Stevens says. He expects the trend to continue.
"Looking forward we're seeing that the West coast continues to remain-- particularly on the gasoline side--really the strongest market," Western Refining's Stevens said at the symposium.
The market will stay profitable for the foreseeable future, Wolak says, because the few refineries that produce the cleaner gasoline mixture will keep control without much competition. "If you had a national market among all the refineries, that would become much more difficult."
He also says that while it might make sense environmentally, a national market for clean burning gas won't happen for a while, if ever. Meanwhile, refiners can continue to meet the needs of state governments demanding cleaner-burning fuel, and keep pocketing the premium.
Source: CNN
http://money.cnn.com
Monday, January 3, 2011
Inefficient 100W light bulbs banned in California
New regulations have come into force in California requiring light bulb manufacturers to produce more energy-efficient products.
The new standard actually comes as part of the federal Energy Independence and Security Act, which was signed into law by President George W Bush in 2007.
The rest of the country will adopt the standard on January 1, 2012, but California has been given the authority to begin a year early.
Designed to reduce energy use and associated pollution, while improving US energy security, the new standard requires that 100-watt bulbs made on or after January 1, 2011, must use 28% less energy, while providing the same amount of light. Effectively, this means 100W bulbs being replaced by 72W bulbs that are just as bright.
The California Energy Commission said that the new standard would avoid the sale of around 10.5 million inefficient 100W light bulbs in California during 2011, saving consumers $35.6 million in lower electricity bills.
Reducing energy use in California also results in improved environmental quality by avoiding the construction of new power plants and air pollution from burning fossil fuels, the Commission said.
The inefficiency in standard incandescent light bulbs comes because about 90% of the electricity used by the bulbs is converted into heat, rather than visible light.
More efficient halogen, compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL) or light-emitting diode (LED) bulbs work to convert more of their power into light.
The Commission said the new standard was technology neutral, allowing consumers to choose among a variety of high-performance products for their replacement lighting. Additionally, it does not affect the existing supply of incandescent light bulbs stocked in retail stores or incandescent light bulbs already in use.
Source: www.brighterenergy.org
The new standard actually comes as part of the federal Energy Independence and Security Act, which was signed into law by President George W Bush in 2007.
The rest of the country will adopt the standard on January 1, 2012, but California has been given the authority to begin a year early.
Designed to reduce energy use and associated pollution, while improving US energy security, the new standard requires that 100-watt bulbs made on or after January 1, 2011, must use 28% less energy, while providing the same amount of light. Effectively, this means 100W bulbs being replaced by 72W bulbs that are just as bright.
The California Energy Commission said that the new standard would avoid the sale of around 10.5 million inefficient 100W light bulbs in California during 2011, saving consumers $35.6 million in lower electricity bills.
Reducing energy use in California also results in improved environmental quality by avoiding the construction of new power plants and air pollution from burning fossil fuels, the Commission said.
The inefficiency in standard incandescent light bulbs comes because about 90% of the electricity used by the bulbs is converted into heat, rather than visible light.
More efficient halogen, compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL) or light-emitting diode (LED) bulbs work to convert more of their power into light.
The Commission said the new standard was technology neutral, allowing consumers to choose among a variety of high-performance products for their replacement lighting. Additionally, it does not affect the existing supply of incandescent light bulbs stocked in retail stores or incandescent light bulbs already in use.
Source: www.brighterenergy.org
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Restart for nuclear plants
RICHMOND, Va. -- Two years ago, the promise of a new day loomed for the U.S. nuclear energy industry. Both presidential candidates supported to varying degrees an expanded role for nuclear power, as each vowed to reduce America's reliance on foreign oil and its greenhouse gas emissions.
John McCain proposed building 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030 and 100 over a longer period. While Barack Obama was less robust in his enthusiasm for nuclear power, he readily admitted more reactors would be necessary to meet his energy security and pollution-reduction goals.
And a year after beating McCain, President Obama indeed announced more than $8 billion in federal loan guarantees to construct the first two new nuclear reactors in the United States in more than 30 years. Both would be in Georgia and owned by Southern Company, with one coming online in 2016 and the other a year later.
Obama also proposed in his 2011 budget an additional $36 billion in loan guarantees to supplement an existing $18.5 billion. In the just-passed spending bill, however, he got only $8 billion, about a quarter of his request. No doubt that more than $26 billion in U.S.-backed financial support can move off the drawing boards a number of new plants, creating tens of thousands of new jobs and producing emissions-free power.
But will it? Today there are 104 nuclear reactors operating in 31 states, with 33 reactors being in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Region II, which covers the Southeast. North Carolina has five. However, only two or three additional reactors nationwide have a reasonable chance of being built over the next decade.
Plans to construct nuclear reactors in more than a half-dozen states, mostly across the South, have been delayed or canceled due to various bottom-line factors - escalating construction costs, a drop in electricity usage due to the recession, the competitive price natural gas, the inability of their owners to obtain from state regulators a good enough return on their big investments or a combination of the above.
The latest plant to hit trouble is in Maryland, where a joint-venture between Baltimore-based Constellation Energy and French-owned EDF has broken apart. The trans-Atlantic alliance had proposed building a reactor alongside the two Constellation already operates at Calvert Cliffs. Recently, though, Constellation determined the terms for $7.5 billion in federal loan guarantees were not in its best interest. EDF is searching for another U.S. partner.
That so many proposed nuclear plants have been temporarily or permanently shelved, and with the once promising Calvert Cliffs project now up in the air, the industry - the market - is telling Washington and state capitals that corrective action is needed.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu gets it. A few weeks ago he acknowledged that nuclear power would have to be part of any "clean energy standard," especially in the Southeast where renewables like wind are less abundant. Overall, Chu would like 25 percent of the nation's energy to be produced from low- or no-emissions sources by 2025, with that doubling by 2050.
To bring a new reactor online requires a great deal of capital. The design, construction and permit-granting process is expensive and time-consuming. The going rate is $7-9 billion, and it takes nearly a decade to go from concept to ribbon-cutting.
It is likely that the new Congress will push for changes. The loan guarantee program, which has been slow to process applications, will receive bipartisan scrutiny. There may be efforts to dramatically reshape it in the form of a "clean energy bank." Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., has proposed creating an independent Clean Energy Deployment Administration to finance emerging low-carbon technologies, including nuclear.
Industry stamina can be maximized if risk is minimized. That means Washington must craft loan guarantees with terms that cushion against economic variables unpredictable enough to even scuttle reactors on the verge of groundbreaking. It means that federal and state environmental and other regulatory processes must be shortened to reduce the billions in upfront reserves needed to bolster a new project. And it means sheathing political swords in the name of a more secure energy future based at least in part on a reliable, emissions-free source.
New political winds are blowing through Washington and in state capitals across the country. Despite an uncertain partisan divide, the need for scores of new reactors is one issue where there should be common ground. Obama has demonstrated his willingness, the new Congress certainly can, and new governors and state legislatures must.
Source: www.newsobserver.com
John McCain proposed building 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030 and 100 over a longer period. While Barack Obama was less robust in his enthusiasm for nuclear power, he readily admitted more reactors would be necessary to meet his energy security and pollution-reduction goals.
And a year after beating McCain, President Obama indeed announced more than $8 billion in federal loan guarantees to construct the first two new nuclear reactors in the United States in more than 30 years. Both would be in Georgia and owned by Southern Company, with one coming online in 2016 and the other a year later.
Obama also proposed in his 2011 budget an additional $36 billion in loan guarantees to supplement an existing $18.5 billion. In the just-passed spending bill, however, he got only $8 billion, about a quarter of his request. No doubt that more than $26 billion in U.S.-backed financial support can move off the drawing boards a number of new plants, creating tens of thousands of new jobs and producing emissions-free power.
But will it? Today there are 104 nuclear reactors operating in 31 states, with 33 reactors being in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Region II, which covers the Southeast. North Carolina has five. However, only two or three additional reactors nationwide have a reasonable chance of being built over the next decade.
Plans to construct nuclear reactors in more than a half-dozen states, mostly across the South, have been delayed or canceled due to various bottom-line factors - escalating construction costs, a drop in electricity usage due to the recession, the competitive price natural gas, the inability of their owners to obtain from state regulators a good enough return on their big investments or a combination of the above.
The latest plant to hit trouble is in Maryland, where a joint-venture between Baltimore-based Constellation Energy and French-owned EDF has broken apart. The trans-Atlantic alliance had proposed building a reactor alongside the two Constellation already operates at Calvert Cliffs. Recently, though, Constellation determined the terms for $7.5 billion in federal loan guarantees were not in its best interest. EDF is searching for another U.S. partner.
That so many proposed nuclear plants have been temporarily or permanently shelved, and with the once promising Calvert Cliffs project now up in the air, the industry - the market - is telling Washington and state capitals that corrective action is needed.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu gets it. A few weeks ago he acknowledged that nuclear power would have to be part of any "clean energy standard," especially in the Southeast where renewables like wind are less abundant. Overall, Chu would like 25 percent of the nation's energy to be produced from low- or no-emissions sources by 2025, with that doubling by 2050.
To bring a new reactor online requires a great deal of capital. The design, construction and permit-granting process is expensive and time-consuming. The going rate is $7-9 billion, and it takes nearly a decade to go from concept to ribbon-cutting.
It is likely that the new Congress will push for changes. The loan guarantee program, which has been slow to process applications, will receive bipartisan scrutiny. There may be efforts to dramatically reshape it in the form of a "clean energy bank." Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., has proposed creating an independent Clean Energy Deployment Administration to finance emerging low-carbon technologies, including nuclear.
Industry stamina can be maximized if risk is minimized. That means Washington must craft loan guarantees with terms that cushion against economic variables unpredictable enough to even scuttle reactors on the verge of groundbreaking. It means that federal and state environmental and other regulatory processes must be shortened to reduce the billions in upfront reserves needed to bolster a new project. And it means sheathing political swords in the name of a more secure energy future based at least in part on a reliable, emissions-free source.
New political winds are blowing through Washington and in state capitals across the country. Despite an uncertain partisan divide, the need for scores of new reactors is one issue where there should be common ground. Obama has demonstrated his willingness, the new Congress certainly can, and new governors and state legislatures must.
Source: www.newsobserver.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)