The Oil Drum

This week Andris Piebalgs talks Nuclear in his blog. Without taboos, Andris lays down the advantages of Nuclear energy that have put it at the core of the Commission's New Energy Policy for Europe.

Nuclear energy has been discussed many times at TOD, mostly from a technical perspective, on its practicality and long-term sustainability. This time we look at Nuclear Energy policy, from the perspective of an Executive that has made a clear option towards this energy source.

Source: NewScientistTech (click to enlarge)

and we can't embed CNN's video player, so you'll have to go over there and watch Kunstler's well-done piece on Glenn Beck if you haven't seen it already:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/05/14/beck.life.oil.cnn?iref=videosearch

And, yes, under the fold, if you can believe it, yes, that's your president doing his best Dr. Evil (from Austin Powers) impression. No, I am not kidding.

40 professors of ETH Zurich, one of the most highly reputed and visible technical universities on this planet, belong to the Energy Science Center, a collaborative effort created in order to study the challenges that lie ahead in terms of resource depletion and the effects exerted by our presence on the global dynamics of our planet. Currently, the potential ramifications of peak oil and global warming are the Center's main focus.

A year and a half ago, six of the professors decided to define a new Energy Strategy for ETH Zurich, to determine how ETH, through research and educational activities, could contribute to finding solutions to these rapidly emerging and ever more pressing issues.

In February 2008, they published the results of their collective efforts in a brochure that can be downloaded from the web in either German or English. Last week, they finally presented the results of their studies to the broader public in a special energy science colloquium entitled 1 t CO₂ and/or 2 kW per Capita? Strategic Goals and Transformation Paths for the Energy System of the Future. The presentation (in German) can be downloaded from their website in streaming video format.

This paper provides a critical review of the seminar talk presented by Prof. Boulouchos, who spearheaded the research effort, as well as of the recommendations made by the committee.

Mr. or Madam President,

Vice President Dick Cheney once famously quipped "The American way of life is non-negotiable." I submit that while our next president might not be so brash in stating this, the root of our energy problems can be traced to this attitude. But, nature doesn't negotiate. It doesn't appear that any of the remaining presidential candidates understand the basis of the problems we face: Oil is a depleting, finite resource - albeit one crucial for the "American way of life."

Because this resource is so crucial - and obviously not just for Americans - depletion is going to drive prices up as consumers bid for dwindling supplies. Threatening to sue OPEC isn't going to change that. Threatening to tax Big Oil into submission isn't going to change that. Mandating that we will invent new technologies to meet a greatly increased Renewable Fuel Standard isn't going to change that. These are the sorts of proposals that merely demonstrate that your grasp of the problem is superficial. And you have to understand the problem in order to begin addressing it.

Today, I attended a public debate organized by the four Swiss Academies of Sciences. A position paper entitled: Rethinking Energy - Efficient Use and Conversion of Energy: Contribution to Sustainable Development in Switzerland that had been prepared by the four academies over the past year was to be debated by experts and the broad public. Unfortunately, the position paper itself is only available in German and in French, but both versions contain a three-page summary in English. A broad range of experts were invited to the debate, including scientists, economists, CEOs of energy companies, as well as some politicians.

The House is scheduled to vote today on their latest incarnation of an energy bill:

Energy bill vote pushed to today amid opposition

WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democratic leaders pushed back a vote on an energy bill with a historic increase in fuel economy standards until today, in the face of growing opposition from Senate Republicans, President George W. Bush and even some Democrats.

As outlined by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the bill would include new requirements for renewable fuels, the elimination of $21 billion tax breaks to oil companies and other sources of revenue, and require electric utilities to generate 15% of their energy from renewable sources by 2020.

Thanks to David Roberts over at Grist for picking up Hillary Clinton's new climate and energy plan, which was just introduced in the last couple of days, and can be found copied under the fold and in PDF format here. (Thanks silence!)

I had hoped to have time to give you a good analysis of both Clinton and Giuliani's plans, but I'm just swamped. So, I wanted to give you a crack at HRC's, then next week we'll talk about Rudy's; it's long, and it's under the fold. Enjoy.

Sometimes I am astonished at the misconceptions people have. Take this article:

Old cars become green machines

The story is about a woman who has a number of cars that have been modified to run off of biodiesel. The cars include gas guzzlers like a Lincoln Continental Mark V, a Chevy Tahoe, and a Cadillac. But because she is running them on biodiesel, she thinks she is neither using oil nor polluting:

Colette Brooks' sprawling ocean-view property* is dotted with tricked out cars -- from a low-rider Lincoln Continental to a Cadillac with plush leather seats. The petite 49-year-old business owner might be a car junkie, but she's indulging her obsession without polluting the air by running her rides on biodiesel and other alternative fuels.

"I feel so superior driving next to a Hummer and going, ‘Dude, yo, look at this, this is what you should be doing,' " Brooks said.

As I continue to work on an Ethanol FAQ, I again wanted to solicit feedback from readers on the following question:

What about the environmental benefits of using ethanol as fuel?

The feedback I received on the previous posting on ethanol use and foreign oil displacement was very valuable in helping me to identify poorly communicated points, and make some key edits. I am hoping for the same kind of feedback on the present offering. I would also ask readers to take a look at the questions I have tackled in the FAQ, and let me know if there are glaring omissions, errors, typos, or items requiring additional clarification. I will continue to post some portions of the FAQ here for feedback, with the intent of posting a finished product within a month or so. And although it seems like all I have been posting on lately is ethanol, I don't expect that trend to continue following completion of the FAQ.