How Much Tax Money Goes to Fossil Energy Companies

Q:just how much of our tax money is going to ExxonMobil, Massey, etc.? With the new deficit hawks in Congress going after insignificant items like bottled water expenses, you'd think they'd want to know the size of the really wasteful stuff, right?

A:There have been counts, ranging from $10 billion a year by the Environmental Law Institute, to the more comprehensive, $52 billion a year by Doug Koplow of EarthTrack. But, do taxpayers even have a widely accepted, comprehensive inventory of how of our money is being handed to the dirty energy lobby by politicians?  That includes state-level subsidies, by the way, such as the $45 million that Virginia gives to the coal industry

-Find Your Representatives-Republican or Democrat, and Let Your Voice BE HEARD! Active Participation is Suggested  TellMyPolitician

Why We Still Don't Know How Much Money Goes to Fossil Energy

By Mike Casey   |   February 16, 2011  

The national conversation about wasteful welfare for highly profitable dirty energy corporations has gone from the dramatic statement by the Chief Economist of the International Energy Agency that fossil fuel subsidies are one of the biggest impediments to global economic recovery ("the appendicitis of the global energy system which needs to be removed for a healthy, sustainable development future"), to a speech by Solar Energy Industries Association President Rhone Resch (in which he called the fossil fuel industry "grotesquely oversubsidized"), to a call by President Obama to cut oil company welfare by $4 billion.
 
Not to be outdone, House Democrats are now calling for a $40 billion cut.
Dirty energy welfare defenders have, predictably, responded with ridiculous, Palin-esque denials of reality, but the voter demands that wasteful spending be cut begs the question: just how much of our tax money is going to ExxonMobil, Massey, etc.? With the new deficit hawks in Congress going after insignificant items like bottled water expenses, you'd think they'd want to know the size of the really wasteful stuff, right?

The problem is, we've long suspected that no one really knows how much of our money goes to dirty oil executives like Rex Tillerson and Gregory Boyce. There have been counts, ranging from $10 billion a year by the Environmental Law Institute, to the more comprehensive, $52 billion a year by Doug Koplow of EarthTrack. But, do taxpayers even have a widely accepted, comprehensive inventory of how of our money is being handed to the dirty energy lobby by politicians?  That includes state-level subsidies, by the way, such as the $45 million that Virginia gives to the coal industry.

Energy trends analyst Chris Namovicz of the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) was the latest speaker in our "Communicating Energy" lecture series. We took the opportunity to ask one of the top, neutral energy trends analysts in the country the question, "Do you know if someone has actually done a credible, comprehensive, definitive count of how much taxpayers underwrite fossil fuels in this country?" We added the thought that "there's no one really widely available number whereaverage citizens can say, yeah, this much of my money goes to pay ExxonMobil.
According to Namovicz, there really isn't such a widely available, definitive, comprehensive number.

http://www.youtube.com/v/2B4tgpqjXuY&amp

Right…we're not accounting for the nuclear insurance subsidy, we're not accounting for military oil shipping, we're not even accounting for the tax depreciation benefits that some resources get over others...

The fact is, there is a wide array of government subsidies, both implicit and explicit, that are doled out every year to fossil fuel companies. One estimate, by the Environmental Law Institute, finds that dirty energy companies in the United States alone have run up a $72 billion tab at the taxpayer's bar from 2002 to 2008. Worldwide, it's far worse; as this study by the OECD explains:

The [International Energy Agency] estimates that direct subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption by artificially lowering end-user prices for fossil fuels amounted to $312 billion in 2009. In addition, a number of mechanisms can be identified, also in advanced economies, which effectively support fossil-fuel production or consumption, such as tax expenditures, under-priced access to scarce resources under government control (e.g., land) and the transfer of risks to governments (e.g., via concessional loans or guarantees). These subsidies are more difficult to identify and estimate compared with direct consumer subsidies.

As we pointed out in a recent post, these subsidies aren't just reckless and stupid, they aren't even what people want. In fact, only 8 percent of Americans prefer their tax money be given to highly profitable, mature industries such as ExxonMobil and Massey Energy.

Shouldn't there be a definitive count of energy subsidies? As we're looking at cutting waste from our federal (and states') budgets, shouldn't there be a credible accounting of all the ways we pay to grease the way for these mature, highly profitable industries? We're not talking about one done by dirty energy lobbyists or their hired "experts," by the way, but a real inventory done by those who wouldn't profit by a lower or incomplete count. Such an accounting should include:

• Tax breaks
• Dirty subsidies
• The costs of government agencies that are set up to perform functions that these industries should pay full cost for doing – such as figuring out how to stuff their pollution underground instead of wasting it on exorbitant, fantasy projects like "FutureGen."
• Military expenditures to protect oil shipping lanes.
• Pollution forgiveness or remediation
• Rock-bottom priced access to public property – mountains, subsurface property, aquifers, ocean waters -- which fossil energy companies routinely wreck and pay comparatively little to fix.

We need to force politicians to be aggressively honest about how much of our money is going to Tillerson, Boyce., Blankenship, O'Reilly, Lesar, etc. Until they do, the anti-clean energy bigmouths in Congress who are bashing clean energy policy support need to back way off. And, the dirty energy lobby mouthpieces who propagandize how "cheap" dirty energy is, should do the same. Directly or indirectly, we're paying their salaries.

-Find Your Representatives-Republican or Democrat, and Let Your Voice BE HEARD! Active Participation is Suggested TellMyPolitician

Article by: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2011/02/top-eia-energy-trends-watcher-no-definitive-count-on-dirty-energy-welfare?cmpid=WindNL-Thursday-February24-2011
Westinghouse, Westinghouse Solar Systems, Solar Panel, Solar Electricity, Solar Systems, Inverter, Installation Guides, Facts, Solar Warranty Information, Deals of the Week, Solar Panel Electric Systems, Battery, Grid Tie, Off Grid
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

USA vs China- Renewable Energy News

Fact is we're in a race with China. The nation that weans itself from imported fossil fuels first will have an enormous economic advantage. China is no longer willing to be just the "low cost supplier" – its workers are getting raises – but it does plan on using wind and solar energy, along with hydropower and even nuclear energy, to enhance its national security.

The question we have to ask is, can we afford to do less? China thinks renewable energy can help its grandchildren earn more than your grandchildren. Are we up to the challenge? Or are we going to let troubles in places like Libya drive our future?

Those are the stakes. I think most Americans understand this, and it's why renewable energy remains popular. Even in states dominated by conservative Republicans, efforts to overturn renewable energy targets are falling short.

Bolstering Renewables with Patriotism emphasis added by scotty

By Dana Blankenhorn   |   February 23, 2011

Yesterday I asked whether there is a way to trump the arguments of natural gas, on behalf of renewable energy.

The responses were interesting. Some believe we can't. Others that we must. Some pointed out that natural gas prices are volatile, others noted the volatility of energy from wind.

My article focused on the issue of fracturing, exploding small bombs deep in the Earth's crust to stimulate delivery of gas. I acknowledged that while the concerns are real the argument is not winning the day.

Today I want to propose that we have two trump cards to play right now at a time when lawmakers are re-evaluating incentives for many renewable energy programs: Libya and China.

The price explosion that followed recent unrest in Libya can happen at any time, and in many places. Each time it happens, economies that depend on fossil fuels are hit hard. The stock market tanks. We wind up rooting against democracy for fear that our own jobs could disappear if it triumphed. It's a sin we're constantly reminded of on the world stage, a reality our high ideals can't absolve us of.

Fact is that when you tie your economy to a common commodity that is imported you lose your autonomy. America's national security is in the hands of others. Our best and bravest are sent to fight and die to maintain supply lines, even when alternative technologies exist that can cut those ties and reduce that dependence.

China's next five-year plan  (yes, they still have them) focuses on higher wages and domestic demand. But its key buzzword on the supply side is renewable energy.

In an effort to keep growing while expanding renewable energy to 20% of domestic demand by 2020, our rival plans on doing the very same things America's renewable industry wants us to do, starting with a tax on pollution. A carbon trading system is also expected to be part of the plan, due for ratification next month, with environmental and energy efficiency declared "priority industries" for the first time.

Fact is we're in a race with China. The nation that weans itself from imported fossil fuels first will have an enormous economic advantage. China is no longer willing to be just the "low cost supplier" – its workers are getting raises – but it does plan on using wind and solar energy, along with hydropower and even nuclear energy, to enhance its national security.

The question we have to ask is, can we afford to do less? China thinks renewable energy can help its grandchildren earn more than your grandchildren. Are we up to the challenge? Or are we going to let troubles in places like Libya drive our future?

Those are the stakes. I think most Americans understand this, and it's why renewable energy remains popular. Even in states dominated by conservative Republicans, efforts to overturn renewable energy targets are falling short.

I think we have the wind at our backs. Let's not be afraid to use patriotism to close the deal.

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

Interesting Info about Feed-In Tariffs and Energy Production

...who would not put solar on their (unshaded) roof? If solar power only costs you 15 cents per kilowatt-hour from your roof, and power from your socket costs you 16.5 cents, you already have a 10 percent profit, and that profit margin will only increase...just as we continue to subsidize coal and oil sectors, which have been profitable for 150 years now.

Feed-in Tariffs Needed After Grid Parity

By Craig Morris, Petite Planète   |   February 22, 2011

A few weeks ago, US solar market analyst Paula Mints published an article essentially arguing that solar is about to reach an "un-incentivized future." Don't hold your breath.

There can be no doubt that photovoltaics (PV) has depended upon governmental support. In particular, where proper feed-in tariffs have been offered, PV has done well – and where such policies were quickly discontinued, markets have collapsed.

This story is basically told in two ways: it either proves that feed-in tariffs are successful – after all, there have been no PV booms without feed-in tariffs yet; or it proves that feed-in tariffs are hard to get right so we are better off without them. Mints apparently belongs in the latter camp (you may have guessed I am in the former).

She speaks of the period from 2004-2008 as the "beginning of the FiT phase of PV industry history" when PV prices increased. Journals like the Economist claimed during those years that German feed-in tariffs were raising the price of photovoltaics for sunny countries, but those journalists do not specialize in photovoltaics, so I do not expect better from them. But Mints merely points out that "in 2009, manufacturers from China and Taiwan priced technology aggressively to gain share."

Surely she knows that Asian manufacturers did that with production lines largely purchased in Germany, and companies like Gebr. Schmid, Roth & Rau, and Centrotherm were only able to come up with turnkey production lines because markets like Germany and Spain had feed-in tariffs that created enough demand.

In other words, the thing that finally brought prices down was that PV production became open to all investors; you didn't need special expertise to put together a customized production line. If you had the cash, you could hire a knowledgeable CTO and buy the production plant off the shelf. With exception of Suntech, which got a lot of its expertise from the quite knowledgeable Australian Martin Green, most Asian success stories are mainly based on German production lines brought about by German and Spanish feed-in tariffs (Australia adopted feed-in tariffs after the Chinese began using Green's ideas). Without Spain and Germany's FITs, no cheap PV from Asia.

Many FIT markets didn't fail

Mints proposes a 12-step program to "recover from incentives." The problem, as she puts it, is that the solar industry remains dependent upon policy, and the era of feed-in tariffs is coming to an end: "it is time to call off the hunt for the next big incentive." For instance, one of her steps is for a manufacturing consortium to "discuss how most FiT markets were destroyed." She sums up the past few years on PV markets as, "Demand boomed, and most FiT markets crashed."

In fact, every gigawatt market in the world for PV was driven by feed-in tariffs. Mints is right that some of these markets have gone bust, but do the other markets (like Germany) that haven't gone bust not show us how to do it right? I can't say that of other PV policies (think of the US or pre-FIT Britain).

Can we agree that solar feed-in tariffs have not failed in "most" countries – and that no non-solar FIT market has undergone boom-and-bust anywhere? A more accurate description would be that feed-in tariffs are the only policy that has led to major success stories for solar, but that some incompetent governments threw in the towel when they saw the price tag. Mints writes, "Here's the golden rule of incentives: they are expensive, and someone has to pay the bill." Actually, it's photovoltaics that's expensive, not feed-in tariffs. Studies have repeatedly found that feed-in tariffs are the least expensive way to promote renewables.

More importantly, feed-in tariffs have actually been less prone to boom and bust than other policies. The production tax credit for wind power in the US was repeatedly not renewed in time during the Clinton/Gore administration, but even when it had been seamlessly extended under Bush/Cheney the policy nonetheless proved ineffective during the financial crisis.

The Stimulus Package under Obama tried to remedy the situation – when no profits are posted, there is little tax to write off – by offering upfront bonuses to cover the purchase price, but in 2010 the US wind market nonetheless was cut in half. While they did struggle to get financing, markets with feed-in tariffs fared much better than the US wind market in 2010, though statistics are not generally in yet for installed PV capacity in 2010. (The US doesn't have accurate figures for PV installations, by the way, mainly for lack of national policy; no single organization is in charge of the tally. So get a national FIT.)

FITs already generally below retail rate

Mints main contention – that solar will be better off when it can do without incentives altogether – seems logical at first glance, but don't hold your breath. FITs for wind and biomass have generally always been below the retail power rate, so why should anything change when solar is no longer the exception? As Mints herself points out, conventional energy sectors also continue to be subsidized. Why should the situation ever be any different for photovoltaics? But the main problem is a different one that she – like others who think that grid parity will make a difference – ignores.

Imagine that photovoltaics starts to drop below the retail rate. It is happening now in sunny places with relatively high retail rates, but the areas will spread, and in all likelihood solar will continue to get cheaper, while retail rates will continue to rise.

Under those circumstances, who would not put solar on their (unshaded) roof? If solar power only costs you 15 cents per kilowatt-hour from your roof, and power from your socket costs you 16.5 cents, you already have a 10 percent profit, and that profit margin will only increase.

If nothing is done, there will be a rush to put photovoltaics on roofs. Demand will initially be higher than supply, so installers will make a nice profit; after all, if solar could be 30 percent cheaper than retail power, people will still be satisfied with 15 percent, and installers can pocket the other 15. Where else can you get a 15 percent return? Without feed-in tariffs, what will keep the price of solar down? (It is worth noting that the average installed kilowatt price in the US is already at least 60 percent higher than in Germany thanks to feed-in tariffs – so much for feed-in tariffs keeping prices up...)

With all of that solar power going online, utilities will have a problem. Germany will have it first. It is likely to have had 18 gigawatts of installed photovoltaics as of the end of 2010, and power demand in the summer generally peaks at around 60 gigawatts. If Germany continues to install 3.5 gigawatts (as the current governing coalition plans), its installed photovoltaic capacity will roughly match peak summer demand by the end of this decade, at which point the country may nonetheless still "only" be getting around six percent of its electricity from photovoltaics (it got around two percent from 18 gigawatts last year).

Power companies that operate nuclear and coal plants will have to respond by ramping down these baseload plants during sunny days, which will make a kilowatt-hour from central plants more costly, which will then make investments in photovoltaics even more profitable – and so on. It's a vicious cycle.

In Germany, the answer is not quite clear yet, but we do know that it has not yet thrown out feed-in tariffs. One reason is because they can actually keep the profit margin for photovoltaics at 5-7 percent once the cost of photovoltaics stops plummeting faster than planned decreases in feed-in tariffs, which is inevitable. In other words, after grid parity, feed-in tariffs will help make photovoltaics cheaper than the technology would be under pure net-metering.

FITs never the same

As Mints points out, "FiTs are a-changin'" – but if she means there was ever a point where they were "a-saming", she's wrong. The "proto FITs" under PURPA were not exactly the same as Germany's first feed-in tariffs from 1990 (where 80 percent and 90 percent of the retail rate was paid for wind power and photovoltaics, respectively), and those tariffs changed dramatically in 2000 (when the retail rate became irrelevant). Other countries have offered feed-in rates with a premium based on what the grid needs (such as for wind power in Spain), while others still are adjusted for inflation (such as in France).

Like Mints, a lot of Germans are also talking about an incentiveless future. But what we probably need over the long run are feed-in tariffs that pay for power production from intermittent sources (especially solar and wind) with a fluctuating premium based on power demand; when renewable power production approaches or exceeds demand too often, the premium will not be paid, and investments in such technologies will not pay for themselves as quickly. The floating cap will find itself, so to speak.

The kind of upfront bonuses to finance equipment purchases (a common practice for solar and wind in the US) should be reserved for power sources that can be ramped up and down as need be to accommodate for shortfalls in intermittent renewable power (I am thinking here especially of biomass and natural gas turbines). In other words, we would pay for solar and wind by the kilowatt-hour and biomass/gas (and possibly nuclear and coal) at least partly by the kilowatt. And we would continue to regulate new installations with specially designed incentives – just as we continue to subsidize coal and oil sectors, which have been profitable for 150 years now.

Craig Morris directs Petite Planète and blogs about Mundane matters at Always Greener. This article originally appeared at Renewables International.

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

New Reports Chart Path-Net Zero-Energy Efficient Commercial Buildings

high levels of energy efficiency are the first, largest and most important step on the way to net-zero

New Reports Chart Path to Zero-Net-Energy Commercial Buildings
Press Release Washington, D.C. (February 23, 2011)

– Two new reports from the Zero Energy Commercial Buildings Consortium (CBC) on achieving net-zero-energy use in commercial buildings say “high levels of energy efficiency are the first, largest and most important step on the way to net-zero.”

Leading national organizations such as the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA), American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE), American Institute of Architects (AIA), the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES), the Association of State Energy Research and Technology Transfer Institutions (ASERTTI), the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) and many other commercial building stakeholders worked together over the last year to develop the reports, which highlight the need for new approaches in technology research and deployment, holistic building design and financing as critical elements to further advance energy efficiency in the commercial buildings sector.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) commissioned the reports from the CBC, an industry consortium led by the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO), the Alliance to Save Energy (Alliance) and other leading national organizations to identify barriers and make recommendations to industry stakeholders for achieving net-zero-energy commercial buildings over the next two to three decades.

There are many definitions of net-zero-energy buildings, but typically they are highly energy efficient buildings that use no more energy than they can produce on site on an annual basis.

The Next Generation Technologies: Barriers and Industry Recommendations for Commercial Buildings and the Analysis of Cost and; Non-Cost Barriers and Policy Solutions for Commercial Buildings focus on innovative technologies and practices and market-oriented strategies, respectively. (Free copies of the full reports can be downloaded from the CBC website.)

The CBC reports are quite timely, following closely on President Obama’s February 3 announcement about the new Better Buildings Initiative, which is aimed at improving energy efficiency in commercial buildings by 20 percent over the next 10 years by stimulating private investment in building energy efficiency, generating new jobs in construction and facilities operation and saving commercial building owners and tenants nearly $40 billion yearly on utility bills.

“While many details remain to be settled, the Better Buildings Initiative is a very exciting development for the commercial buildings sector, and the CBC fully supports its goals and looks forward to working with CBC members and industry stakeholders to contribute to these efforts,” according to NASEO Executive Director David Terry. “The President’s initiative targets many of the same barriers examined by CBC members over the last year, which are summarized in the two major reports just released by the CBC.”

David Hewitt, lead author of one of the CBC reports and executive director of the New Buildings Institute, noted that “National initiatives such as the BBI can build on and complement important new initiatives by states and utilities, such as California’s Zero Net Energy Action Plan. The job ahead is big enough that everyone’s efforts are needed, and they need to be coordinated – that’s exactly why we created the CBC.”

Additional recommendations in the two reports include:

• Create and sustain market demand for energy efficiency retrofits and new construction through innovative approaches to financing and valuation of energy efficiency improvements. 

• Emphasize voluntary programs, such as President Obama’s Better Buildings Challenge, to catalyze change in corporate culture through strong leadership and commitment to energy efficiency. 

• Enhance and extend building energy codes and standards to cover all energy end uses, emphasize building and systems commissioning and long-term performance.


• Promote wide-scale use of integrated design and whole-building approaches to achieve more aggressive and dramatic energy reductions. 

• Refine modeling and decision-making tools to fully support new financing, codes, design and benchmarking approaches. 

• Develop and build consensus around national workforce standards and increase training efforts for the professional and technical workforce on energy-efficient building design, auditing, retrofitting, commissioning and operations.

“The long-term road to net-zero begins with what we can do today,” notes Alliance Senior Vice President Jeff Harris. “This includes broad application of today’s best energy efficiency technology and sustained energy management practices in the existing stock of commercial buildings. We also need to design new commercial buildings to be ‘net-zero-ready,’ so that it’s easier to continually improve their energy performance as new and even better technologies are introduced over the next 30-50 years – the expected lifetime of today’s new buildings.”

Article from: News You Can Use for February 24, 2011

Scotts Contracting can assist you in making your Building a Net-Zero - Energy Efficient Property.  Click Here to email for additional Information

Federal Incentives for Green Construction

Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings Download the Report Here

Currently, going green is largely accomplished through offering a series of legal incentives to businesses and clients who work together to use sustainable practices while constructing green buildings. One of the first major federal bills to implement such measures was the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Amendments and additional provisions were made in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 as well as the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008, with more comprehensive reform made in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

 

Many of the provisions in these acts offer tax credits or cash grants to businesses and consumers who invest in sustainable buildings and forms of energy. For example, the Business Energy Investment Tax Credit encourages companies to purchase new equipment that sustainably generates energy for the company's buildings and operations.

 

Legislators' efforts during the 111^th Congress to promote green building also included the Green Affordable Housing Act of 2009, the Green Communities Act and the GREEN Act of 2010. These bills sought to provide financial assistance for green retrofits to federally subsidized housing projects, grants for community greening programs, and to encourage development of renewable energy for residential and commercial buildings. Although none of these bills survived to become law, they may resurface.

 

Additionally, the 112^th Congress is already considering other legislation, such as the Heat Island and Smog Reduction Act (that targets federal buildings for certain green improvements) and the Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act (that would provide funding to help American clean energy businesses export their products). Neither of these bills specifically provides direct incentives for green construction, but their promotion of environmentally conscientious renovation and energy use bode well for future legislative trends.

 

These kinds of incentives help defray the higher initial costs of a green building investment, making the long-term environmental and economic benefits more attractive. One major reason why offering legal incentives is so important is that one of the largest impediments to green building is the up-front cost associated with newer technologies, materials and building methods. Installing solar panels that are capable of powering a home is significantly more costly than using traditional sources of energy. However, a recent study suggests that an additional two percent investment can bring a tenfold return throughout the life of the building.

 

Despite the long-term financial benefits of such projects, the greater initial cost deters many consumers from even considering them. However, with the legislative boost of more programs offering tax credits and cash grants and setting an example by employing green construction in government buildings, the prevalence of green construction may be expected to continue growing.

Read the Complete Article at> The Builders Counsel Blog @ builderscounsel.com/2011/02/federal-incentives-for-green-construction/
--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

Interesting Points about the US Oil Reserves

...The government, by systematically releasing 200,000 to 300,000 barrels of oil a day from the STP until the events in Libya are resolved, could break the trading psychology that has overtaken the U.S. oil market and bring down the the price of WTI crude by some $20 to $30 a barrel... many Americans are freezing in the cold of winter permitting a given sector of the economy to cash in...

The Looming Economic Crisis, the Price of Oil, and Our Strategic Petroleum Reserve Raymond J. Learsy

Scholar and author, "Over a Barrel: Breaking Oil's Grip on Our Future" Posted: February 24, 2011 05:42 AM Huffington Post Article from:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/the-looming-economic-cris_b_827510.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=022411&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily+Brief

The price of oil for West Texas Intermediate Crude (WTI) now sits at over $100 a barrel. WTI is the benchmark for the price of oil traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMerc) and delivered in the United States with Cushing Oklahoma as the point of delivery. The other benchmark for oil pricing is Brent North Sea Oil traded in world exchanges especially London. Today the quoted price for WTI is $101/bbl while Brent is trading significantly higher at $114/bbl.

The difference reflects a difference in supply in the U.S. domestic market and that of the European and otherwise world markets. We have ample supply of oil in the United States with stocks both commercial and government (the Strategic Petroleum Reserve --'SPR') at or near all time highs.

Yet the events in Libya, more out of fear and distorted trading on the exchanges have pushed the price of oil to levels that are threatening the economic recovery worldwide even though our market is amply supplied. Yet, importantly, because of the current schism in the price of oil (WTI vs Brent) we are in a position to do something about it.

We have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve holding some 750 million barrels of oil -- available to the nation in case of national emergency. The looming economic crises caused by the massive jump in oil prices must certainly be classified a national emergency.

Given that our oil markets are well stocked, it is the traded price of oil that poses the grave economic danger. The government, by systematically releasing 200,000 to 300,000 barrels of oil a day from the STP until the events in Libya are resolved, could break the trading psychology that has overtaken the U.S. oil market and bring down the the price of WTI crude by some $20 to $30 a barrel. It might not impact the price of Brent crude directly but would certainly send a message to the International Energy Agency (IEA) to do likewise in that they control government stocks of 1.4 billion barrels.

Of course the oil industry and most likely the likes of the American Petroleum Institute will marshal their lobbying firepower to forestall such a dynamic initiative by the administration. Such attempts will once again underline the divergence in interests, priorities and responsibility between the oil interests and the nation's well being. Should that come to pass, perhaps this is the moment to strongly consider the 'Norway solution' and nationalize the oil industry altogether. Certainly in Norway the national patrimony of that nation's oil riches and its administration has benefited that nation making it the envy of much of the world. There is something wrong with our system whereby many Americans are freezing in the cold of winter permitting a given sector of the economy to cash in.

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

Suggested Reading- Wall Construction Air and Water Issues

The importance of location of the proper air barriers, vapor barriers
and water resistive
barriers on the wall and the roles they play in high‐performing EIFS

Evaluation of the Moisture Performance of EIFS Walls Without
Interior Vapor Barriers

find the white papers here:
http://www.dryvit.com/fileshare/doc/architect/White_Papers_Barriers.pdf
--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

These ____ Blessed Oil Prices

Unpredictable Oil Prices are Hurting Everyone
This post examines the recent swings in the spot price for crude oil —
especially in light of the currently rapid rising spot prices. Noting
that the current run up of prices looks a lot like period leading up
to the sudden price spike that occurred in the summer of 2008. It goes
on to argues that the global economy needs a better market regulating
mechanism that can help manage these swings and reduce their amplitude
so they become less damaging to the world's economies. The energy
business — whether it is alternative energy or oil, gas or coal
exploration and development — has huge up front capital needs. This
needed capital is much harder to raise in a climate of such extreme
near term price uncertainty.
In the summer of 2008 the benchmark ICE Brent crude oil closing price
peaked well above $130 per barrel only to collapse within a few short
months all the way down to slightly above $40 per barrel – a price of
just one third the price it was trading at a few short months before.
This wild price swing did immense harm to the global economy and made
it very hard for anyone making long term capital allocation decisions
to confidently predict what the future cost for a barrel of oil would
be in just a few years let alone the ten or more years that these
planners need to be able to predict on.
This massive price swing, which in part helped trigger the worst
financial crisis and economic recession the world has experienced
since the Great Depression is not a onetime event. In fact once again
the benchmark ICE Brent crude oil price has crossed the $100 per
barrel threshold – trading at $102.19 on 2/18/11. Other oil indices,
such as the OPEC Reference Basket or the West Texas Intermediate (WTI)
index also reflect this currently rising unit price. The current run
up of prices also looks a lot like period leading up to the sudden
price spike that occurred in the summer of 2008; are we soon going to
live through another wild spike followed by a price crash as the
global economy is tipped into steep recession and economic activity
retracts.
ICE brent crude oil closing price Unpredictable Oil Prices are Hurting Everyone
This graph, from oilnergy.com, tracks the Brent index from 1988 to the
present. The very large price spike of 2008 and subsequent equally
phenomenal price collapse can be clearly seen. The recent rapidly
rising prices is also clearly seen. Notice how in recent years the
market has seen much more rapid price volatility than has historically
been the case.
What is driving these recurring price swings? Clearly there is massive
speculation going on in the oil futures market and in both the up and
down directions. Once again the speculative fever seems to be rising
in temperature as the psychologically important $100 per barrel price
is crossed. Speculation seems to be exacerbating the amplitude of the
swings, but the crude oil energy market is far too large to be driven
purely by groups of speculators no matter how many billions they have
behind them. Something else is also going on to trigger these swings.
The World has Reached the Peak Plateau of Global Oil Production
A clear hint at the underlying reason has recently become a part of
the public domain; although some oil insiders have known this for some
time now. Leaked cables (WikiLeaks) from the U.S. embassy in Saudi
capital Riyadh reviewed by the Guardian, describe a warning from a
senior Saudi oil executive, who said the country's crude oil reserves
have been overstated by nearly 40 percent, some 300 billion barrels.
In the leaked cable Sadad al-Husseini, the former head of exploration
at the Saudi oil monopoly Aramco, told the U.S. consul general in
Riyadh that the Saudi oil company could not keep up with the 12.5
million barrels a day needed to keep prices low. Peak oil, he said,
could be reached as early as 2012. The importance of this – to anyone
who is listening – cannot be overstated; this is major news that is
going to impact everyone in a very major way.
The driving force for the price swings is that the world's swing
producer is losing its historic ability to drive prices down when it
chooses by flooding the world's market with surplus oil. Saudi Arabia
can no longer produce a whole lot more oil to quell the speculative
fever that is unleashed as the global surplus in supply is mopped up
by economic recovery. In fact as the world's economies recover from
depression or the dip in the growth rate for countries like China,
demand for oil is rising. The world's suppliers cannot physically meet
that demand and so the price is going to sky rocket once again.
global oil production Unpredictable Oil Prices are Hurting Everyone
The graph above shows the world oil production over the last seven
years. Notice how even when prices spiked above $130 per barrel in
July of 2008 oil output did not increase by very much — even at this
historically very high price. This is powerful evidence that any
alleged Saudi spare capacity, being held in reserve does not in fact,
actually exist.
Why is the World on this Terrible Rollercoaster?
Why… because oil is a particularly inelastic kind of commodity. Oil is
not like doughnuts or most other things that are quite easily
substituted or done without if prices rise too much. People NEED oil
and it is very hard to do without or to substitute with something else
— you cannot put coal into your tank.
And so… the price skyrockets… until finally the marginal consumers are
finally forced out of the market. What then happens is that as
billions of people in the world pay out a much larger share of their
previously disposable income just to meet their critical energy
consumption needs the global pool of disposable income, quite suddenly
dries up and all manner of discretionary spending collapses. People no
longer buy things or go out or travel. Inevitably this leads to a
collapse in factory orders and pushes the world's economies into
recession.
As recession sweeps the world the demand for oil DOES finally collapse
to some degree and as it does – once again – surplus oil appears on
the market and the price begins a violent swing in the other
direction. This process is exacerbated by speculators on the way down
just as it had been previously driven by speculators on the way up.
This is precisely what happened during the violent price swing of
2008, from the historic summer price peak to the four year low set
just a few months later.
The spot market price regime that we are beginning to see develop as –
what I feel – will be a recurring pattern of wild price swings between
peaks and subsequent price troughs is being driven by the lack of
reserve production capacity. The world has effectively reached the
global peak in oil production. Saudi Arabia can no longer turn up the
spigot. It can no longer control the market as it once could.
In the coming decades I fully expect wild successive price swings in
the spot price for oil as the world bumps along the plateau of maximum
global oil production. Because oil is such an inelastic product price
will tend to swing over a wide band. As global economic recovery
pushes on the demand side available "extra" supply will quickly be
soaked up and speculation will drive the spot price to stratospheric
levels. This will collapse economic recovery as energy costs soak up
more and more of the discretionary income. As the global economy again
slides into recession and economic contraction, demand for oil will
fall and each new historical peak price will collapse as speculation
now drives it in the opposite direction.
Rinse and repeat.
This regime of swinging oil prices, oscillating between successive
price highs and troughs, will mask a longer term moving average of
increasing energy costs and it will harm everyone except perhaps the
few speculators who are able to cash out fortunes on the swings (in
both directions I might add). A regime of wildly swinging prices will
prevent much needed long term capital investment in the energy sector
by making it harder to forecast future price levels needed in order to
justify the capital expenditures. It will wound economies across the
globe in a damaging price cycle that will force successive
contractions on the global economy each time it begins to recover from
the preceding contraction.
We Need a Better Global Oil Price Stabilization Mechanism- Continues
Here:http://theenergycollective.com/cdemorsella/52263/unpredictable-oil-prices-are-hurting-everyone?utm_source=tec_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
by Chris de Morsella, writer for the Energy Collective

If you are interested in Green Building on an Investment Property Check out the Benton Gut Rehab Blog Series-Benton Gut Rehab Green Blog Series

Part 1: History

Part 2: Stone Foundation Repair

Part 3: Tuckpointing the Brick Walls pt 1

Part 4: Tuckpointing the Brick Walls pt 2

Part 5: What were they thinking?

Part 6: Paint Pro Tip #35

Part 7: Repairing Water Damage-Exterior Wall

Part 8: 1st Floor Weatherization

Part 9: See the Difference a Little White Paint Makes

Part 10: Interior Framing-Plumbing-Laundry Room

Part 11: Kitchen Framing Tip #36-Benton Rehab Project

Part 12: Water Main Repair- Benton Rehab

Part 13: Benton Rehab Project Drywall Installation and Tip: Number 1172

Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

Re: Stop the Factory Farm Protection Bills

On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Missouri Coalition for the Environment <klogansmith@moenviron.org> wrote:

Donate Now Follow us on:   Upcoming Events   3/29 - Conservation Lobby Day From our friends at the Missouri Rural Crisis Center: Protect the Property Rights of Thousands of Farm Families Email Key Senators by Monday! Tell Them to VOTE NO on SB 187, HB 209 & SB 278! Senate Bill 187 & Senate Bill 278 Senate Bill 187 (introduced by Senator Lager), Senate Bill 278 (introduced by Senator Munzlinger) & House Bill 209 (introduced by Rep. Guernsey) would limit the rights of Missouri's family farmers, landowners and communities to protect their property rights through the court system from the negative impacts of corporate controlled Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). This represents a "taking" or "condemnation" of one's personal property rights without just compensation, and creates a disincentive for factory farms to clean up their act and become good neighbors to farmers, farm families and rural citizens that have lived on their land for generations. Senators should not be supporting this bill because it does not benefit the vast majority of citizens, farmers and landowners in the state. SB 187, SB 278 & HB 209 are clearly a CAFO protection bills that take away the property rights of the thousands of independently owned and operated family farms and rural landowners. Message: SB 187/SB 278/HB 209 would limit the constitutional rights of family farmers and rural landowners from protecting their property rights through the court system from the negative impacts of industrial livestock operations. The operations that would be protected by SB 187/SB 278/HB 209 are a small minority of CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations). Out of Missouri's 100,000+ farming operations, ½ of 1% are regulated as CAFOs. In order to protect this very small minority of industrial livestock operations the majority of farmers and landowners will be left without adequate protection from the potential negative impacts of CAFOs. SB 187/SB 278 are deceitful attempts to hide behind the majority of Missouri's independent family farms to protect CAFOs.SB 187, SB 278 & HB 209- Please email your Senators here. Key Senators: Senator Victor Callahan: (573) 751-3074 Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal: (573) 751-4106 Senator Jane Cunningham: (573) 751-1186 Senator Tom Dempsey: (573) 751-1141 Senator Kevin Engler: (573) 751-3455 Senator Jack Goodman: (573) 751-2234 Senator Tim Green: (573) 751-2420 Senator Jolie Justus: (573) 751-2788 Senator Joseph Keaveny: (573) 751-3599 Senator Will Kraus: (573) 751-1464 Senator Rob Mayer: (573) 751-3859 Senator Ryan McKenna: (573) 751-1492 Senator Brian Nieves: (573) 751-3678 Senator Mike Parson: (573) 751-8793 Senator Chuck Purgason: (573) 751-1882 Senator Jay Wasson: (573) 751-1503 Senator Robin Wright Jones: (573) 751-2606

This email was sent to scottscontracting@gmail.com by klogansmith@moenviron.org |   Missouri Coalition for the Environment | 6267 Delmar Blvd., Ste. 2E | St. Louis | MO | 63130

Posting Supplied Courtesy:
ScottyScott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

Get your tickets for the 3rd Annual Growing Green Awards!

On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 2:17 PM, U.S. Green Building Council - Missouri Gateway Chapter <usgbc-mogateway@mobot.org> wrote:

Please join us for a very special Growing Green Awards,   celebrating 10 Green Years and Still Building!   Wednesday, March 30, 2011, 6:00 PM NEO on Locust 2801 Locust Ave St. Louis, MO 63103   Purchase tickets at  www.GrowingGreenAwards2011.eventbrite.com    $90 on or before March 25 $100 after March 25 Includes hors d'oueveres, drinks and dinner   The Growing Green Awards are designed to celebrate and recognize  the individuals and organizations actively transforming the built environment  while sharing their knowledge of green building and sustainable practices.    Nominations were accepted in six categories: Corporate, Educator, Government, Innovator, Non-Profit and Residential.     Sponsorship opportunities at the Oak, Sapling and Acorn level are still available.  For more information, see the USGBC-Missouri Gateway 2011 Sponsorship Package  or contact Emily Andrews at 314-577-0854       Congratulations to the 2011 Growing Green Award Nominees    CORPORATE   Joseph Abernathy, St. Louis Cardinals Clayco, Inc. Green Street Development Group, LLC Tony Ruebsam, S.M. Wilson & Co. St. Louis RCGA - St. Louis Green Business Challenge Wells Fargo Advisors LLC   EDUCATOR   Paul Todd Merrill, Adjunct Professor of Construction Management at Washington U-School of Engineering & Applied Science St. Louis Carpenters Joint Apprenticeship Training Program Green Practices Committee St. Louis Community College Wydown Middle School, Clayton School District   GOVERNMENT City of St. Louis, MO City of University City, MO Madison County Transit Rep. Margo McNeil and Rep. Shane Schoeller, Missouri House of Representatives   RESIDENTIAL Blue Brick Renovation + Construction, LLC Habitat for Humanity - St. Louis Patty Maher, Tiger Lily Development, LLC Trumpet Builders, LLC Woods Basement Systems, Inc.   INNOVATOR Clayco, Inc. Hellmuth + Bicknese Architects HOK SWT Design Tork Design   NON-PROFIT FOCUS St. Louis Green Construction Corps of the Urban League of Metropolitan St. Louis SSM Health Care   Winners will be announced at the 3rd Annual Growing Green Awards March 30, 2011 * 6 - 9 PM   Purchase tickets at  www.GrowingGreenAwards2011.eventbrite.com

US Green Building Council - St. Louis Regional Chapter | 3617 Grandel Square | St. Louis | MO | 63108

Post Courtesy of:
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com