Electric cars with batteries produce more waste.  The reason I brought this up is that my wife and I are debating the pros and cons of living car free, investigating alternatives, the main reason being that our current car is a gas guzzler and sits in the driveway most of the time as I ride my bike to work and we live in a community that we can easily get around without a car.  I have been reading about fuel alternatives and different types of vehicles on TOD but I believe there are no alternatives and in the long term we must all use less.  

Jul 2005        9,520
Aug 2005        9,550
Sep 2005        9,550
Oct 2005        9,520
Nov 2005        9,500
Dec 2005        9,480
Jan 2006        9,450
Feb 2006        9,450
Mar 2006        9,450
Apr 2006        9,100
May 2006        9,050

Notice the drop starting Apr 2006.

Rick

Tar Sands or Electrified Rail ?

Tar Sands _ Upfront Capital Costs - US$60,000/barrel/day
Marginal Operating Costs - Can$50/barrel

I am working on this analysis ATM.

Saudi Ambassador to US:
SA to have a democratically elected legislature within 10 years

"A Force for Peace & Stability"
Speech by Saudi Ambassador to the U.S.
Prince Turki Al-Faisal
at the U.S. Arab Economic Forum Gala Dinner
Houston, Texas on June 27, 2006

. . Political reforms are also being implemented to increase citizen participation, such as last year's elections for municipal councils. More elections are planned for the future in order to give our people a more direct say in the decisions that affect them.

Saudi Arabia's goal is also to promote peace and stability in our region. The Roman poet Horace once wrote: "It is your concern when your neighbor's wall is on fire." Right now, our neighbors' walls are ablaze. Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine all require immediate attention. In addition, the situation with Iran calls for international engagement and diplomacy. In each of these circumstances, the Kingdom is doing what it can to bring parties together, open up dialogues, and offer solutions for peace and progress.

Many of the world's problems also require humanitarian assistance, such as for natural disasters, disease and poverty. In those areas Saudi Arabia is a leader. Many people don't know that the Kingdom contributes more per capita in foreign aid than any other country in the world. We have also provided hundreds of millions of dollars to victims of the tsunami in the Indian Ocean region, hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and the earthquakes in Pakistan and, most recently, in Indonesia. . .

. . . So tonight, I lay down the following challenges for all of us.

First, to Saudi Arabia, I challenge ourselves to meet the needs of our youth and ensure that they have the education, the tools and the means to help change the world, and become a force for good and tolerance.

I challenge the Palestinian people to give up the armed struggle and follow the spirit of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King by engaging in civil disobedience instead of violence, even in the face of Israeli guns. Violence is the weapon of the weak; non-violence is the weapon of the strong.

I challenge the Israeli people to give up their illegal, immoral and colonial occupation of Palestine.

I challenge the United States to use the power and abilities with which God has blessed this great nation to bring about an end to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict through the implementation of the President's Roadmap.

'Berlin - Germany has a well-deserved reputation as an eco-friendly nation. It also has a great love for cars and a passion to drive with no speed limits on much of the country's vast network of Autobahn highways.

So how can it bridge the gap between promoting an environmentally conscious world and a desire to hit the gas pedal?

The answer may be that the car of the future will be powered by something not all that different from salad oil or fat left over from the deep-frying of food.

And it might not be that far away: About 12 per cent of Germany's more than 15,000 petrol stations already give motorists the chance to tank up with so-called biodiesel before hurtling down the Autobahn.

Germany's push to develop new fuel-efficient vehicles represents the latest stage in the nation's green revolution which began almost 30 years ago, when it began introducing a comprehensive recycling system.

The nation currently leads the way in promoting alternative energy with an array of subsidies and government support aimed at underpinning Germany's burgeoning alternative energy sector and in particular helping to develop its wind and solar power industries.

But with oil prices soaring, Germany is now also emerging at the forefront in developing the technology for adapting vehicles to renewable fuels.

Last year the nation became the world leader in the production of biodiesel, pumping out almost 3,000 million litres of the fuel.

Biodiesel is derived from organic sources and contains no petroleum. In Germany the main source is rapeseed which grows across the country.

'Coordinated action to expand biofuel markets and advance new technologies could relieve pressure on oil prices while strengthening agricultural economies and reducing climate-altering emissions,' said Worldwatch Institute President Christopher Flavin, releasing a report this month on biofuels.

Germany's plans to broaden the use of biodiesel fuels also form part a wider, ambitious European Union goal that 5.75 per cent of the bloc's transport sector fuel needs should come from biofuels by 2010.

Germany and France have both said they aim to reach the EU target before the 2010 deadline. Biofuel currently accounts for about four per cent of Germany's total diesel sales.

But despite the ambitious plans in Berlin and Paris, there are doubts whether the 25-nation EU will be able to reach its 2010 target without new measures to encourage the use of biofuels after the Union missed its 2 per cent target for 2005.

As a result, Brussels plans to rework its biofuels initiative by the end of the year, and observers speculate that this could involve setting mandatory targets instead of the existing indicative goals.

This could mean that even more of Germany's 400,000 farmers might soon find themselves heading across their farmlands on tractors powered by biodiesel.

Farmers in both Germany and neighbouring Netherlands have already begun to use biodiesel tractors with transport companies believing that adapting their fleets to organic fuels will produce long-term savings.

Most economists do not see any immediate end to the pressures which keep oil prices surging higher.

Dubbed 'flower power', biodiesel fuels in Germany are at present exempt from the nation's fuel tax. In addition, filling up on green fuel can cost motorists up to 15 euro cents less a litre than relying on regular diesel.

But apart from the environmental benefits of biofuels, such as reduced air pollution, a greater use by industry is considered key to promoting organic fuels as a serious alternative to carbon-based fuels.

The development of a global market in biofuels could help to ensure the commercial viability of biodiesel.

In the meantime, some consumers also still need some convincing when it comes to filling up with biodiesel.

This is despite the fact that Germany's powerful car industry agreed more than two years ago that biofuel could make up up to five per cent of regular diesel without impacting on a car's performance.

Besides worries about the impact that green fuels might have on their vehicles, car owners also first have to obtain a special clearance from the auto maker to use biodiesel.

Other concerns still prevalent refer to fertilisers and pesticides that might have been used to grow the energy crops, and even the risks of deforestation in certain areas.'

© 2006 dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur

It is possible that current German production of biodiesel outweighs America's current production of ethanol as motor fuel - and to my current very limited knowledge, biodiesel does not significantly impact the fuel efficiency of already fuel efficient vehicles. And do notice the long term perspective, the awareness of multi-level implications of actions, and the attempt to create a 'closed loop' in the sense that farm machinery would use a portion of the harvest to power itself - not hard to imagine in a society where horses were being used at least until the 50s around here - a major war tends to force a certain reduction in your standard of living.

This, broadly speaking, is the level of debate in Germany. Also worth noting, peak oil as such is not really the focus - but ensuring that economic activity continues to be profitable is.

This is another reason I have such a hard time with the doomer perspective (apart from war) - it is very possible to plan and prepare for the future, if you do it.

As an interesting thought experiment - could Germany feed itself using the roughly 5% of its diesel current needs through biodiesel? I think it seems realistic, especially when tied into the electrified rail system and river/canal system.

The autobahns would be empty, the car industry bankrupt, and a number of other problems shouldn't even have to be listed, but too many readers seem to think that when describing Germany, I simply mean it will go on as before, while the U.S. crumbles.

But will Germans be starving in the freezing dark? Unlikely, very, very unlikely - after all, they still remember what that is like.

For anyone who still thinks that ethanol or hydrogen will solve the energy crisis, I cleverly hide my laughter by unexpectedly stuffing a whole taco into my mouth with one hand.  With the other hand, I direct your attention to Robert Rapier, of R-Squared Blogspot, who reports that "a barrel of ethanol contains approximately 3.5 million BTUs, and a barrel of oil contains approximately 6 million BTUs."   So, using Advanced Mogambo Mathematics (AMM), I quickly calculate that you will need to use almost twice as many units of ethanol to produce the same work and one unit of oil!  And when you consider the energy necessary to produce ethanol from seeds, to plants, to harvest, to process- whew! -what a loser!

This data will be on the net at 1:pm Eastern Time, along with US production for the week as well as imports and price data as of Friday June 23rd at:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip.asp

Click on "Crude", "Gasoline" or "Distillate" for data on each.

It [MEND] says it aims to bring all of Nigeria's output of 2.4 million barrels a day to a halt unless its demands are met.

"Each step in the history of the Niger Delta struggle has always assumed more sophistication than the previous one," said Oronto Douglas, a human rights lawyer nominated by MEND to mediate with the federal government.

"A total shutdown is a high possibility," he said, adding that triggers could include military reprisals against the militants or electoral fraud in next April's general elections.

The Norwegian blogspot

http://energikrise.blogspot.com/

Recently had a post with excellent diagrams (in English) illustrating the developments in UK natural gas production, net exports, net imports, storage injections and withdrawals based upon data from DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) for the period January 1996 through March 2006.

The diagrams illustrate how UK gradually became a net exporter and through the most recent years again became a net importer of natural gas.

37 - 38 % of the primary energy consumption in UK has been from natural gas in the recent years.

The diagram illustrates how supplies through the recent heating season have been composed from domestic production, storage withdrawals and growing imports.

The most recent data from DTI shows domestic production that continues to decline and growing imports.

Norway supplied most of the imports in 2005, question is if Norway will be able to increase supplies at a rate balancing UK domestic declines until the gas field Ormen Lange starts to flow in the fall of 2007?

• Total Prod Supplied for Domestic Use UP 0.2% to 20.578 Mbpd
  
• Total Net Imports UP 3.4%
  
• Domestic Production DOWN 7.0%
  

Rick

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2006-06/28/content_627866.htm

Iran running one year behind china, about to ration gasoline to its suffering citizens. Protests from this action will subsequently justify price increases and higher supplies/consumption.

Also, how much bigger a deal is it to refine the heavier stuff? Is it simply a matter of existing refinery capacity not being geared up for it, or is it inherently more expensive, etc?

Thanks in advance for any help.

Israeli warplanes buzz Syrian president

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/28/israel.soldier/index.html

Putin orders forces to destroy hostage killers: Russian special services told to strike militants who killed 4 workers in Iraq

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13163804/

Bet you didn't know this.

Executives from Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., ConocoPhillips Co., Marathon Oil Co. and Shell Oil Co. took the stage at the U.S. Arab Economic Forum on Tuesday and spoke out against the idea advanced by lawmakers that the U.S. is crippled by its dependence on foreign oil.

"Energy isolation is naive; energy dependence is uncomfortable; energy interdependence makes sense," said Shell President John Hofmeister. "We are trying to bring the message to help people understand that we are the world of users and world of producers."...

"When they speak, you should listen to them," Prince Turki Al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the U.S., said of the oil executives.

He also criticized using "addiction" to describe oil needs.

"It's misleading," Al-Faisal said. "Oil is like oxygen and water. It's a necessity of life. It is misinformed to think that any country can do without oil."

Like Oxygen and Water

The "umlat A" is really greek Delta.

A higher value for the long-run price elasticity of petroleum demand from recent studies is around 0.5, meaning

Ä ln(price) = -(1/0.5) x Ä ln(quantity)

The U.S. currently consumes about 20.6 million barrels per day (mbd) of oil, of which we produce about 8.2 mbd ourselves. To eliminate all of those imports entirely through the conservation incentives induced by price increases with an elasticity of 0.5 would require

Ä ln(price) = -(1/0.5) x [ln(8.2) - ln(20.6)] = 1.84

implying a price of

price = ($70/barrel) x exp(1.84) = $440/barrel.

Some studies have suggested a much lower elasticity. It is amusing to calculate, for example, that if the elasticity were as low as 0.1, energy independence would require an oil price of

price = ($70/barrel) x exp(9.21) = $700,000/barrel.

Of course the last number should make abundantly clear the limitation of this kind of calculation. It is quite wrong to assume that the log-linear summary of the historical relations (which is where the elasticity estimates come from) can be extrapolated to infer the results of a huge, ahistorical adjustment of the magnitude we're contemplating here. Indeed, economic theory tells us that an elasticity can't possibly stay below unity as the price becomes arbitrarily high. If you're spending all of your income on oil, for example, and the price goes up by 5%, your consumption is forced (by virtue of the budget constraint) to go down by 5%, not 0.5%, as an elasticity of 0.1 would imply. While the above calculations should hardly be taken literally, they do give us a sense of what I believe to be the fundamental reality-- trying to eliminate U.S. oil imports entirely through conservation efforts would be an enormously costly undertaking.

American politicians who speak of energy independence have in mind also alternative sources of energy, and here there is not such a simple way to wade through the thicket of possibilities. To take one of the more concrete and tangible possibilities, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge might produce around 1 mbd, which would offset 8% of the U.S. oil import bill. But, even if exploration were approved today, the oil would not come into production for a number of years, at which point a good deal of that new production might be necessary just to replace depletion from existing U.S. fields. Expecting ANWR to result in a significant reduction in U.S. imports from current levels for this reason strikes me as quite unrealistic.

Finally, it is worth pointing out that, even if the U.S. somehow were to achieve energy self-sufficiency, that would not be the same thing as energy independence. It is hard to envision an arrangement that could effectively decouple the price of oil in the U.S. from that elsewhere in the world, even if our imports were zero. As a result, even if we were importing no oil from Saudi Arabia, I would expect a disruption in Saudi production to still have a very dramatic effect on the price that consumers pay in the U.S.

For these reasons, I am open to discussion about the extent to which it might be desirable to try to reduce the amount of oil that the U.S. imports, and strategies for achieving that goal. But when someone talks about "energy independence", I find it hard to take them seriously.

For those who don't want to read...basically oil is needed and so much so that people will pay whatever they can for as long as they can.  Mathematically it's going to take $400 barrel oil before we make DRASTIC improvements.  I disagree that it will take this much, but we are stomaching the prices now and it's going to take a lot more to alter our culture in the US.  The difference in the price it would take, is due to elasticity of demand which seems to vary depending on who you talk to.

It may have to do with a little something that goes on in the stock market known as the margin debt cycle. Investors have the option of borrowing money from their broker to buy stock with against collateral. In up markets, this daring-do is great, but in the unwinding phase, it seems to have awesome stock trashing powers. It's not that it represents a huge portion of actual money in the market (less than 5% typically) but it is the leading edge of the high rolling momentum money in the market and is accurately measurable. So it was with the tech stocks in the late 90s. But we aren't in any wild stock market run now, you may say. True, but there has been a somewhat wild run in a particular area - emerging markets and oil. If you put the margin debt cycle on a stock chart of tech in '00 and this stock group now it looks like this:

The thin red line is the Nasdaq margin debt level. The NYSE debt presents a similar picture although it is not quite back to its '00 high yet. The debt was obviously responding to the tech bull/bear untill '03. After that, the debt was no longer responding to this area of the market. It was, however, clearly responding to emerging markets at first (very fast rise in '03) and then it seemed to lock onto oil in '05 as its first love and has been inseparable ever since, ignoring the huge run of emerging markets in '06. Technical analysts would point out that in both '00 and now, the debt is churning in a volitile topping pattern after a smooth run up to historically dangerous levels. If you ignore the rapid up and down in the margin debt in '03, you have now an exact replica of the smooth runup to a churn top in '00. The '03 margin upburst was understandable in light of the fact that everyone knew the bear bottom had finally been put in and perhaps at least a short term play on a bounce was in order with some leverage. The current gyrations, however, would appear to be nervous money nearing a top.

There has to be a unwinding phase to this cycle, and it may drag the whole stock market down with it (along with an overshooting by the fed as in '00), but it may not be near as bad as the previous one considering the type of stocks involved. The '00 techs had little or no monetary value in sharp contrast to the oils, metals, and mining with floods of cash flows and very cheap valuation. Value investors would step in and put a quicker bottom under any major slide. But, this debt cycle thing does have a strong tendency to completely take over the stock market and eventually trash every stock regardless of value or anything else. Witness what happened at the end of the previous debt unwinding cycle (mid '02 to early '03) when pretty much everything was sharply sold down. So far in the basic materials stocks, oil stocks have moved pretty much in synch with the group. I look for a decoupling to occur at some point between oil stocks and the broader materials stocks for the simple reason that the other materials are subject to the commodity cycle of higher demand bringing on the needed supply. This isn't going to happen readily with oil. I also look for a decoupling of oil stocks from the market in general. This happened in the 70s, when you had a weak economy, no emerging market demand, a lousy stock market, and stellar returns in energy stocks. If we get a big mark down of the oil stocks, it will present a most pleasant buying point.

UPDATE from reader jap:
Actually, asphalt is not made with "heavy oil." It is primarily a much heavier, denser grade of petroleum. In the past, it has sold at a lower price than oil which is converted to fuel. That is no longer the case. In fact, this dense petroleum product is increasingly processed into a "synthetic" oil and then sold for refining into fuel...

Hmm, so is it "heavy oil" or not?  In any case, sounds to me like heavier and heavier oily stuff is becoming fuel material, as we are running out of light oil.  If the "tar sands" are worth processing, and CTL is considered, surely non-sandy oily goo is better?  The "cracking" needed to break the larger molecules into fuel-size ones is expensive in money and energy, but no longer avoidable?  That means a lower EROI.

More in that same comment:

I have always maintained that that the first casualty of peaking oil will be roadways. They are ribbons of petroleum and take prodigious amounts of fuel just to operate the machinery and transport the personnel who lay the roadway.  Keep track of the status of road maintenence this winter and after. It should be a good indication of coming problems with petroleum supply.

So the potholes in the roads are a visible symptom of declining EROI?  Is the desire for liquid fuels now competing with the desire for smooth roads (and for food)?  Should I have kept that SUV after all, since the potholes will destroy my mini-car?

June 28, 2006

(Letter to Members of Congress)

When we met with leaders in Washington last month, we were encouraged to find deep, bipartisan determination to address the far reaching impact of our nation's growing dependence on foreign oil.  As we reiterated last month, we believe renewable fuels can play an important role in addressing this national problem.  The good news is that ethanol and other biofuels are well known to our country and to the U.S. auto industry.  For decades, farmers in the heartland have been turning corn into fuel, and, likewise, we at DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and General Motors have been building flexible vehicles that run on ethanol.    

Today, there are more than 5 million flexible fuel vehicles on the road, and the three domestic automotive companies will add an additional million cars and trucks this year alone.  If all of these vehicles were running on E85, they would displace more than 3.5 billion gallons of gasoline a year, or a full year of gas consumption in a state such as Missouri or Tennessee.  

But we are prepared to do more.  We are proud to announce that we will double our production of vehicles that are capable of running on renewable fuels by 2010.   That's more than two million E85 and biodiesel capable vehicles a year by the end of the decade - the single largest commitment to renewable fuels in our nation's history.  

Our hope is that with this commitment, fuel providers will have even more incentive to produce ethanol and other biofuels and install pumps to distribute them.  Without this alternative fuel infrastructure, we will still be missing the opportunity to displace gasoline supplies in the U.S. with home grown and produced biofuels.  Right now, there are 170,000 gas stations in the United States, but only about 700 E85 pumps.  We need business and government to work together to enhance the production, distribution and use of renewable biofuels.

We in the domestic auto industry are doing our part. Last month, our companies endorsed the Energy Future Coalition's goal of getting 25 percent of the country's energy from renewable sources by 2025.  In addition, we have taken the following steps:

o    DaimlerChrysler has committed to produce 500,000 FFVs by the end of the 2008 model year and has endorsed the use of federal and military specification B20 in Dodge diesel trucks in fleet applications.  

o    Ford, in addition to consumer awareness programs and marketing campaigns, entered into a partnership with VeraSun, the second largest ethanol producer in the U.S., to assist in funding of retail fuel outlets for the nation's first "Ethanol Corridor" across Missouri and Illinois -- increasing the E85 infrastructure in these states by about a third. The Corridor will allow an FFV driver to travel from Kansas City, MO to Chicago, IL using only E85.  

o    General Motors, by the end of this year, will have created partnerships in California, South Dakota, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Texas with oil companies, ethanol suppliers and distribution outlets that will add more than 140 new E85 pumps to the approximately 700 already in service, and we are educating the consumer with our Live Green, Go Yellow advertising campaign and website.

Vehicles alone will not get the job done.  To capitalize on this commitment, Congress and the Administration need to continue to promote the production of biofuels, increase incentives for refueling infrastructure and continue incentives for automakers to produce biofuel vehicles.  Eventually, we need to get to the point where most Americans have reasonable access to these fuels at a price that is competitive with gasoline.

We look forward to working with you on the steps necessary to make this challenge a reality for America.

Sincerely,

Thomas W. LaSorda
President and CEO
DaimlerChrysler Corporation    

William Clay Ford, Jr.              
Chairman and CEO  
Ford Motor Company

G. Richard Wagoner, Jr.
Chairman and CEO                      
General Motors Corporation

It is a governemnt initative headed by our current socialist party prime minister and the comission has 8 members, mostly corporate and research people.

It is part of a bid to make energy one of the main issues in the upcomming Swedish elections and I hope it also is made out of genuinie concern about our future. Our current prime minister had the same kind of concerns early in his first term when it was importent for the cooperation with the greens but then it was put in the back burner, this makes me sceptical. But regardless of intentions it is very good work!

The four cooperating opposition parties have had very large problems finding a common energy policy due to disagreements on the nuclear power issue but has recently decided on one that I have tried to sum up in short in: http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/6/14/93057/6889#90

My first impression of this report is that almost all of the technical suggestions and principles are the same wich is reasonable since the real world is as it is and some things make sense.

The comission suggest active use of market forces to get things done and select solution.

This report is not the socialist party line but it is probably very influencing on it due to it being an initiative from our slightly despotic prime minister. I get a distinct impression of a larger reliance on centralized government action then the opposition that has a higher degree of market solutions. (Swedish main stream left wing is far to the left on the US scale and move slowly to the right in some issues. Swedish right wing is a lot to the left on the US sacle and moves faster to the right. )

The almost complete absence of nuclear power in the document is intresting. This might be due to the hatred of nuclear power among the greens and left(former communist) party who are the ones the socilist cooperate with and they must have their support to have any chance of winning.

It will be very intresting to see how this influences the creation of a common Socialis+Greens+Left policy before the election.

Overall I am very happy to have sound reasoning on both sides of the election, we have a small win / big win situation if this continues to be an election issue.
This is as if GWB had declared that it would be good to get rid of oil dependency and then personally led comission work with local energy nerds from industry and research.

I will now try to sum up the Oil Comission report exept the supplemets:

Heading towards an oil free Sweden.

Main goals to reach in 2020
Road transportation shall thry efficiency and new fuels use 40-50% less oil.
Heating of buildings shall not use any oil.
Industry should use 25-40% less oil.

Background:

Curent oil use 2004:
Transportation 97% oil 95 TWh of the total is oil
Farming, forestry and fishing 79% 7 TWh
Building industry 67% 2 TWh
Heating and warm tap water exept district heating 11% 10 TWh
Industry 11% 18 TWh
District heating 8% 4 TWh
Service industry 6% 3 TWh
Electricity production 1% 3 TWh

Five main reason to lessen the oil use:

1. Less contribution to the greenhouse effect.
   
2. Securing our long term energy supply.
   
3. Being a pioneer country for sustainable energy use and efficiency.
   
4. Strenghetening our international competetiveness
   
5. Use and development of our field and forest resources.

EU is important in this work.

Oil use is not the same thing as oil dependency. (Dont know why that is regarded as important, perhaps it has to do with the world having oil for manny more years. ) No sector in society should be 100% depending on fossil oil even if a total oil replacement will take a very long time.

This development should strenghten our competetiveness in efficiency and bioenergy, especially in wehicle, building and industrial technology. This should strenghten us in the global marketplace and give us new small and large companies, employment, export incomes and regional development. (There is a strong urbanization that is regarded as a problem. Some rural areas need biomass industry to not become depopulated. On the other hand this urbanization saves energy. ) We shall as a nation use our large forest, field and large fresh water resources but also our knowledge in IT.

The sucess will to a degree depend on the price development on the oil market. We think the current high oil prices do not depend on the first stages of physical oil depletion but on a combination of larger demand, political disturbances and technical disturbances during oil production. In the long run the situation will worsen with physical depletion, even larger demand and perhaps large political disturbances.

We do not know how coal will affect this. There is a risk for large scale use for synthetic use that will give a global warming impact.

Analysis and suggestions:

1. Swedish society should be able to save 20% of total energy use untill 2020
   
2. No oil heating in 2020
   
3. Road transportation including farming, forestry, fishing and building should be able to use 40-50% less petrol and diesel in 2020
   
4. Industry should be able to use 25-40% less oil in 2020

This is great challange for the whole society. We need confiding cooperation between politics, industry and research.

Forest growth could in the long term be increased with 15-20% by better care and some fertlization. Unused and fallow field not yet planted with forest could give 3000 - 5000 km2 of energy crops or energy hardwood.

Governent money should be used for education, investment support, initial buys of new technology and production facilities for biofuels.

Non energy intensive industry should often be able to save 40% of the electricity used, and general building use should  often be able to decrease by 20%.

More production of renewable electricity. 10 TWh of wind power by 2015. 25 TWh of combined heat and power production in district heating plants. Wide research efforts.

Skepticism against additional natural gas but optimism about biogas as a wehicle fuel. Government should only actively support local and regional biogas and biomass gasification gas infrastructure.

House heating efficiency:

New built houses should with super insualtion, heat exchanging, etc need nearly zero external heat energy. >75% of new built houses should be such in 2020.

Now code needs to be announced well in advance of taking effect to give time for the market to react. The code should depend on how a house is heated and the heating needs and corresponding CO2 emissions needs to be declared for the consumers. Installation of broad band internet is good for telecommunting.

Less tax on energy efficient houses.

A specific campaign for renovating the "million apartment program" that were bult from 1965 and other older apartmet houses.

Less use of direct resistive electric heating.

Energy education of landlords.

General energy education on all school levels.

The care and running of government buildings must set a good example.

Road transportation:

Our personal wehicle fleet use 20% more fuel then the EU average. (Its due to high age, larger cars and less diesel use. )

A larger perecntage of diesel wehicles, saves 25-30% compared with petrol engines.

More hybrid wehicles. Especially trucks and busses in urban traffic where it can save 35% of fuel use. Plug in hybrids could in the future save up to 50% of the fuel use. A break thru in the near term of plug in hybrids would be of immense help for replacing oil for transportation.

Taxation should encourage use of fuel efficent wehicles.

Cars should have an energy efficiency marking system in the same way as refridgerators, etc.

Ecodriving is since 2006-03-01 part of the car driving license curriculum. This should also done for heavy truck licenses and so on.

Energy efficient combinations of road, rail and sea transportation should be encouraged.

Central governemnt should togeather with municipialities and companies act for building of new rail combi terminals and renovation of harbours.

The rules for government procurement should be changed to make it easier to require energy efficient and enviromental transportation.

Government should support the development and use of IT systems for efficient logistics.

The comission where not in total agreement about the need for ethanol tolls against for instance brasilian ethanol.

Goverment should support a number of pilot and demo plants for the second generation of bio fuels such as DME, FT-diesel, methanol and biogas produced thru gasification, ethanol from wood(celulose), and biogas from optimised field crops.

We should continue to try to get EU to allow higher levels of biofuels in standard gasolene and diesel.

A number of pilot and development projects for faster and more comfortable collective traffic and biofuel use should be developed in cooperation with some municipialities.

Collective traffic commuting should be encouraged, perhaps with lower taxes.

One country wide ticket system for all collective traffic. (It is currently a mess. )

Much more money for high speed train lines between larger cities.
Government should give a long term guarantee for lower taxes on train travel.

Alternatives to air travel should be encouraged such as train travel or virtual conferencing.

The CO2 certificate trading should include air traffic.

We should togeather with outher countries support research into more efficient airline engines and new types of fuels such as hydrogen and biomass based aviation kerosene.

Government should be a pioneer in virtual conferencing.

...pages about research being good with lots if exaples...

Some will like this, hemp is included as a possible energy crop.

There is more but I am quite tired now. I guess there will be some official and complete translation somewhere to be found in the future.

"Sorry, meant to post these earlier - got sidetracked by a meeting this morning with the Saudi minister of state"

I have an e-mail into the Dallas Morning News.  I asked them if our recent opinion piece on Peak Oil was discussed.

Maybe I can change the lead author to Alan Drake?

Energy Secretary Bodman Announces SPR Loan at Platts Energy Podium  

    NEW YORK, June 28 PRNewswire -- The U.S. Department of Energy will loan 750,000 barrels of crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to two refiners who have been unable to receive waterborne shipments due to the closure of the Calcasieu Ship Channel in Louisiana, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman told the inaugural Platts Energy Podium event on Wednesday.
    Speaking at the energy roundtable hosted by the Platts Washington office, Bodman said ConocoPhillips would receive 500,000 barrels of SPR crude for its 239,000 b/d Westlake refinery in Louisiana. He also confirmed that Citgo would take 250,000 barrels for its 425,000 b/d plant in Lake Charles.
    The refineries told DOE they would be forced to shut down without the borrowed crude supplies, which will be repaid after the summer driving season, the secretary said, adding that deliveries of the SPR crude would
be made within "two or three days."

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=/www/story/06-28-2006/00 04389053&EDATE=WED+Jun+28+2006,+03:43+PM