"gets it", which is why it's very disappointing to see him pander with a couple of worthless ideas mixed in with a lot of really good ones.  As we move through the difficult times we need leaders who know what's going on (Warner does) and who are willing to tell people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear (Warner is missing the boat on this one).

Its best to keep it comprehensive across the board.  Division in Congress derailed changes in energy policy since the mid & late 90's and it cost us dearly.  I know its not the best strategy, but the likely alternative is more inaction, and that makes any solution more difficult to implement.

Regarding carbon sequestration & capture, here is the best news in terms of progress, I have read from that sector.  Demonstration of carbon capture by 2010 and increase coal generation from 35% to 50% by 2014.  (1% increase in efficiency creates 2% less C02.)

On nuclear, I wish he legislation included the advanced study and implementation for thorium.  Virginia's very own Thorium Power has the leading technology in this field and its demonstration plant is set to produce electric sometime by next decade.  

On offshore drilling, it is not that our current VA US senators are more interested in offshore drilling for the natural gas other than for petroleum.  Its going to be needed in order to ween us off of oil.  

On "carbon capture," that's just a pilot plant and it doesn't include sequestration. My guess is that this technology won't be available, certainly not economically, before 2020 at the absolute earliest.

two points:

1.  the news was "the best (real life) news in terms of progress I have read in that sector."

2.  the demonstration project is on a large generating unit.  A Platt's article stated they were both b/n the 300-600MW size.  Pilots are much smaller.  Caveat - Fluor's technology has already been proven on real-life non-coal generators, but not on coal.  

From DOE carbon sequestration initiative (for what its worth)

Using present technology, estimates of sequestration costs are in the range of $100 to $300/ton of carbon emissions avoided. The goal of the program is to reduce the cost of carbon sequestration to $10 or less per net ton of carbon emissions avoided by 2015. Achieving this goal would save the U.S. trillions of dollars.

Further, achieving a mid-point stabilization scenario (e.g., 550 parts per million CO2) would not require wholesale introduction of zero emission systems in the near term. This would allow time to develop cost effective technology over the next 10-15 years that could be deployed for new capacity and capital stock replacement capacity.

Dominion's CEO Tom Farrell (or the President) testified before the Congress regarding national transmission corridors, admitting that sequestration would not be market ready until the mid-2020's.  For what its worth, energy exec are very conservative, that's their nature.  The technology is there, its just that it is not refined so the cost is still great (not different than other alternative resources.)

Its not that I disagree with your point on CCS, however, there does stand the possibility of a better outcome.  

at this point.  And we have a lot of coal fired generation to replace.

In 2003 they initiated FutureGen for the price tag of $1.8B.  Earlier this year they abruptly shelved the plan, expanding it by entering in a partnership with six different projects for the same price, with advancements forecasted by 2015.  If it works by then, we can see its deployment enter the market as soon as 2020.  Fluor's retrofit technology, although not as clean, is interesting in it that it is poised to be finalized on two real coal plants 4 to 6 years.  

Today the FutureGen alliance is still moving forward trying to be the world's first.

From their FAQ:

How much water will the power plant use on a daily basis?

Preliminary estimates are that the plant will require 2500 gallons of water per minute.

Where would the water come from and how will it be used in the plant? Will there be any wastewater effluent?

Each of the site proposals has identified their recommended water supply. There may be some wastewater effluent. Any water discharged from the plant will be in compliance with the EPA standards for wastewater purity.

What type of formations will FutureGen use for CO2 storage?

Deep-saline formations, at depths greater than 3,000 feet, are being proposed as the target formation for CO2 storage. The Department of Energy and the FutureGen Alliance are both interested in deep-saline formations because the CO2 storage capacity of these formations is large, making them a long-term viable solution.

How will the CO2 be delivered to the storage area? Will it be in a gaseous state?

A pipeline will be used, most likely 10-16" in diameter, to deliver the CO2 from the plant to the permanent storage area. (One of the Candidate Sites would not require a pipeline because the storage area is at the plant.) At the plant, the CO2 will be compressed into a dense liquid-like state known as a supercritical fluid, which is like a liquid, before being transported for injection into the ground.

How does the Alliance know that the CO2 storage area will not interfere with groundwater?

Groundwater suitable for drinking is much shallower than the depths of the proposed target formations for CO2 storage. The Candidate Sites have from 1300 to more than 5000 feet of rock separating the two, as well as multiple impermeable seals or caprocks between the target formation and overlying formations with potable water resources.

Virginia Tech was one of seven chosen partners in the DOE sequestration research, and Dominion also chipped in.

is to expand rail throughout the country.  The idea is that as time goes on, less and less stuff is shipped by truck and air, and more is shipped via rail.  Note in particular we are talking about electrified rail, so that goods can be transported long distances without burning any diesel fuel at all.

There was serious discussion of this over here:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node...

This is all off-the-shelf technology (the rest of the world is busy electrifying rail like crazy), conceptually it is pretty easy to understand and explain, and by itself fairly non-controversial.  No research needed - just need the correct incentives to get the ball rolling.

equals more baseload generation.  We can certainly replace petroleum as a transportation fuel.  But if electricity replaces it, then we need more power plants.  And right now and in to the near term, that equals a primary mix of coal, nuclear, and natural gas.

Lowell's comment about nuclear is common sense.  Like any movement, the extreme elements, whether right or left, hurt credibility.  Conservationists, to be credible, have to be for a mix of solutions.  As one of my environmentalist friends told a group that shot down wind, nuclear, coal, gas and bio-fuels during a meeting: "Hey guys, you have to be for SOMETHING!!"  Solutions will have to be more regionalized, some areas have great wind potential, others do not, some have solar consistency, some do not, others have hydro, others don't, some have thermal, ocean waves, etc., so no one application will fit all.  The more realistic the ideas, the better they will be accepted by people who are going to actually win public offices.  We have to give them something to choose from other than raise gas taxes, make people walk to work and live in a small house next to their job.  That might sound like logic to some who have the education and connections to work from home, but a politician cannot sell it to the voters.  The market might force more of that to happen, but no politician can win on that platform.

"That might sound like logic to some who have the education and connections to work from home, but a politician cannot sell it to the voters.  The market might force more of that to happen, but no politician can win on that platform."

True and perhaps reassuring, but on the other side of the equation, that same sort of message of what one's core supporters want to hear, has essentially delayed national energy policy which compounded our problems.  

Hearing the right say more oil, more gas, more coal and more nuclear, while the left say more EEC and more renewables, are both correct in the short and mid-terms.  

You know when the fed speaks to Congress, more and more everyday folks tune in to hear what is said because they have made what happens to Wall Street a part of their lives.  When top energy regulators arrive at Capitol Hill, more media and everyday folks need to start listening to what is said.  If we focus are attention on the price of crude, or soley focus on what % RPS are state has, we are going to fail to grasp half of the problem.  

For that reason, the candidate who can tell the whole story (good and bad), is probably going to be the primary driver of who I vote for.  We have limited time and a storm is coming.  If you can get it, and I can get it, everyone should also.  

Warner and Obama are repeating the same antidotes that we have had for years--fuel efficiency is always thrown in last when it should be the fundamental foundation of any energy policy. If Mark Warner doesn't know this he's behind the curve.
And how many billions more in subsidies are we going to throw at nuclear when they still can't get a plant constructed? Look at the data--compare subsidies for nuclear, oil and renewables. It's a national disgrace!
Nuclear is a waste of time. We will spend far too much money storing the waste and arguing about liability.
There needs to be an aggressive re-education effort of the public. Conservation and efficiency must become accepted standards. For example, why not a national 55 mph wartime speed limit. "I'm patriotic- I drive 55 until our guys come home!"
That alone would knock the wind out of oil prices as America's gasoline gluttony is the largest and most elastic use of world oil. Think about it.

Energy efficiency is the #1 answer, not even close to any other answer in its potential efficacy and long-term benefits.  For the vast majority of politicians, sadly, this is too advanced a concept to understand. Or maybe they don't WANT to understand, as there are a lot more powerful lobbies out there for producing energy than for consuming it more efficiently. Hmmmm...

points on improving efficiency was on natural gas fired plants.  Where are you getting all of this natural gas to replace coal fired generation?

On this, do you mean if we spend $15 billion dollars on this problem, you want all 15 to go to energy efficiency?  

We do all recognize that energy policy does not operate in a vacuum.  We have other spending priorities too.  That competition for funds means that these project will takes many, many years as we allocate them over a long time period.  We are already running a deficit that Japan and China are funding for us.  We are spending a lot on Iraq and Afghanistan.  And more of our  discretionary spending is being consumed by Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the national debt.  Just so you realize that we are not replacing the appliances in 100 million plus households in the next 5-10 years even with subsidies.

With respect to speculation, you state:

True, "speculation" might be contributing a bit (maximum $30 per barrel out of $140?) to oil prices right now.

I have no idea how much money financial speculation in oil fuutres (as opposed to actual hedging) is adding to the price of oil. Common sense tells me the answer is "some," particularly after today's action, but whether is it $3, $30, or $45, I can't say. Quite honestly, I don't know too much about futures trading.

But I suspect John Shoen is wrong that it cannot be effectively related. While there might be other markets on which oil futures can trade, obtaining licenses, setting up offices, establishing back office relationships and all the other stuff that goes into trading a futures contract is not simple. And that is even assuming there are sell-side dealers in those other markets able to handle the volume. There is a reason this happens mainly on the NYMEX.

His suggestion that were regulators to somehow put an end to financial speculation that traders would just go to e-bay (I don't think he means this literally -- I think he is saying they would just bet among themselves) is ridiculous. Without a market to oversee, regulate and enforce the trade and the participants, well, lets just say no one in the right mind would do it, even if they legally could.

Nor does Shoen seem to understand the whole concept of futures, because he asserts that speculators are buying oil. They are not. They are buying contracts to purchase oil at a specified price and some agreed-upon future date. These financial investors don't need, and will never actually buy or use the oil they are contracting to buy.  And like any bubble, they are not even betting that supply and demand will cause oil to actually cost this much. Their bet is that there will be another financial buyer willing to buy their futures contract at a higher price.

The speculation problem is purely a financial one that is affecting the price of oil today. The bubble will eventually burst and the speculative money will move on. Some speculators will go broke. And the price of oil will stabilize at a price reflective of actual supply and demand of the commodity.

An effort by Congress to shut it down would likely be sufficient to end the bubble, I would think. But we have serious energy problems to deal with. The speculation problem will eventually take care of itself.

 

Part of the linear progression here is the number of pension funds, index funds, and regular investors that are buying and holding.  True speculators buy and sell their positions frequently.  You have a huge move of investors away from equity and debt securities and into commodities of all types.  It is why gold is so high too.  It why natural gas prices are higher this Summer than they were in the Winter.  Normal progression for natural gas prices is higher prices for heating season deliveries and lower ones for the rest of the year.  Low in Summer when all the utilities are filling up their storage.

Futures are highly leveraged positions (options even more so).  We need only raise the margin requirements and then prices would come down as people were forced out of their positions.  But NYMEX isn't interested in that because they make money off of volume.  If they force participants out of the market, they lose money.  And their drive has been to constantly increase trading, which is why they offer NYMEX minis that are smaller versions of the regular futures contracts.  That's why they offer a range of more complex derivatives through Clearport.  And unless Congress is interested in changing that, nothing will happen.  And even then, you need regulatory coordination.  Since our capital markets are so intertwined, investors can just go to the IPE in London and bet on crude.  They can go to Japan too and even Dubai has been trying to get a piece of the action here.  

We need to close the regulatory loophole that Phil Gramm created that keeps the CFTC from regulating certain exchanges, most notably the IntercontinentalExchange (ICE).  

If the public in general was open to being educated about such matters we would not be in this mess.  Jimmy Carter tried but was soon drowned out by the "party on" crowd that replaced him.  Conservationists try to educate the public about litter, pollution, sprawl, etc., and we are also subject to being called hypocrites because we do not do enough ourselves.  The age of the sound bite and journalistic sensationalism is not conducive to widespread public education.  We, the public, usually respond when the wolf is at the door and it costs us money or our freedom.  I own a hybrid car, use the lowest energy lighting available, cut off all unused appliances, travel less and recycle more but I can still do much better if I set my mind to it.  We have no choice but to set our mind to it but with our nation's deficit and dependence on oil, which we have all contributed to, we have to use common sense as we turn the corner.  Like some of you, I fear that a quick but fake fix will make too many people think the crisis is over, that is why the gas tax holiday is nothing but hype.  But I am very concerned about the millions of low income workers who have little margin in their budget and have to absorb a quick weaning from decades of waste on the part of all of us.  They will be hit the hardest and government programs to help them will be limited because, quite frankly, the dollar and our nation's credit is melting daily.

Thanks.

anymore.  We are out of quick fixes.  In real dollars, we finally surpassed the record price of oil in 1980.  Even without speculation, demand has outpaced supply.  We against a wall at this point.

"expand oil and gas production, including support for bipartisan legislation introduced by U.S. Senators John Warner and Jim Webb that would lift the federal moratorium on offshore exploration for domestic energy supplies"

We've been over this and over this, as have many other energy experts, but apparently nobody's listening (sigh). Unfortunately, the public believes what it wants to believe, and the politicians are generally more than happy to "give the people what they want."

Let's take drilling out of the equation for a second.

Do you or do you think the environmentalists are opposed to exploring offshore in the Atlantic to obtain an inventory for natural gas?

If not, are there any concerns about what will back up renewables on the eastcoast, 10 to 15 years from today and beyond, the timeframe we all expect renewables to make a big push into our energy grid?  

I keep reading posters who say the navy is opposed to offshore drilling off Virginia's coastline, but something tells me they may not.  Sen. John Warner is the ranking or senior member of the Arm Services Committee, and all our current statemens, Kaine, Webb and Mark Warner, are all in favor, at least in terms of natural gas.  This sort of gives the hint that maybe the navy has talked to the state implying there is enough room or they could shift their airspace wherever inventories are found to be lower.  

associated with oil.  I suppose we could allow companies to explore, simply to find out, but isn't this just the camel's nose under tent to offshore oil and gas production?  I smell a trick.

will not meet anyone's goals for national c02 reduction.  Before anyone can consider drilling, time is needed to explore and assess how much and where.  Once complete any proposed drilling venture would still have to first go through the normal permit and waiver process.  

For the state of Virginia, this would only be related to natural gas, not petroleum.  By 2013-2018, if no such inventory is obtained, the trend for natural gas may be similar in proportion to what has happened in crude.  That would place market stresses on what extent renewables are implemented beyond the current states' RPS, which are set to expire around 2018-2025.  

If our daily weather patterns cools due to periodic changing solar output, the high inflation from crimped natural gas supplies, combined with high oil, renewables' favorability from the masses would certainly wane.

With a narrowing gap b/n excess production and demand, high oil is to SUV's as natural gas is to _?_.

First off: on the topic of Mark Warner pandering, I don't know if anyone's noticed but he's the most popular Governor of Virginia since Thomas Jefferson and has an overwhelming fundraising lead?  I agree with everyone who says we shouldn't take Mark Warner's victory for granted, but still, he doesn't have to pander.

Warner's a centrist who will meet people half way.  I love him for it, although sometimes it means he makes the difficult compromises that I wish we didn't have to make.  More domestic production and refinement is apparently his "half-way" to entice others to meet him half way on the R&D for alternative energy.  And, sigh, oh well.  Hopefully he'll be able to get something through the new Congress without having to make that sacrifice, but considering Gilmore, Drake and McCain want to give away something for nothing, if that's the compromise that has to be made, I guess it's better than total inaction and gridlock.

...But I wonder if we've already missed the boat?  As I said earlier, it was only a matter of time before the oil industry realized they were pricing consumers out of the market and into other energy sourcing; for the second day in a row, it looks like the price of sweet crude is going to fall at a massive rate as OPEC has started ringing the alarm bell that market fundamentals are softening and we're starting to reduce our dependence.  Will there still be broad political will to address this problem if gas falls back to $3 a gallon?

In other words, are we f!#%ed?

A 1998 presidential directive produced these conclusions from President Clinton's DOE / EIA

The emission of CO2 by electric power plants is not controlled because no standards or required reductions currently exist. Some technology is available to limit CO2 emissions, but it is extremely expensive. Theoptions to limit the emission of CO2 from electricity generation are to encourage reduction of the overall consumption of electricity through energy efficiency and conservation initiatives, to improve combustion efficiency at existing plants or install new units that employ more efficient technologies, such as combined-cycle units and combined heat and power (CHP) systems, and to replace fossil-fueled generation with nonfossil-fueled alternatives, such as nuclear, hydroelectric, and other renewable energy sources.