HeidiAllen.com

Gas prices are obviously impacting a lot of people and businesses here in the US, but we still have it easy compared to many other countries.

In Costa Rica, gas is currently $4.72 a gallon. In the capital of San Jose, that nation’s most populous city, emergency services will be cutting back from 3 ambulances to 2, because they can’t afford the gas. Emergency calls to EMS will now be prioritized, and ambulances will only be dispatched to the most serious cases.

Taxis are no longer driving around the city looking for customers. Instead, they line up at various locations, waiting for the customers to come to them. When the taxi at the front of the line gets a fare, the rest of the drivers get out and PUSH their cars forward.

All this is going on at a time when Costa Rican president and Nobel Prize winner Oscar Arias has been caught red-handed with a 2 million dollar slush fund made up of government money. Sigh.

And what are we, the world’s biggest consumers, doing about the gas price issue? Apparently, falling for the bull that drilling in environmentally sensitive areas will bring down prices.

This simply isn’t true. See the actual Department of Energy analysis at the end of this post for the facts.

Meanwhile, when I called a senator’s office recently and asked his aide to tell the senator that I support reigning in oil market speculators, he responded, “Oh, so you want to REGULATE the free market?!!!”

“No,”, I replied. “I want to protect the free market and the American people from what the speculators are doing to them. Wouldn’t that be a less costly and faster way to deal with high gas prices?”

He spouted a bunch of talking points that supposedly “proved” me wrong. I researched them after I hung up and discovered that he didn’t have a leg to stand on.

And that’s where we’re at. Talking points versus facts. Given our recent history, don’t expect facts to win out.

US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration
“Official Energy Statistics from the US Government”

May 2008: Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

“With respect to the world oil price impact, projected ANWR oil production constitutes between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030, based on the low and high resource cases, respectively. Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices. Relative to the AEO2008 reference case, ANWR oil production is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light (LSL) crude oil¹⁸ prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 in the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 in the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 in the high oil resource case. Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount.”

2007: Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf

“The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017.”

I watched the film Quatemass & The Pit (aka 5 Million Years To Earth) the other night. It was released in 1968, but contains this extraordinary bit of dialogue:

Quatermass: Look Roney, suppose we found that our earth was doomed, say by climatic changes… What would we do about it?

Professor Roney: Nothing. Just go on squabbling as usual.

While one or two brave scientists were already raising the specter of global warming at the time (in particular, oceanographer Roger Revelle, who testified before Congress regarding the threat way back in 1957), almost no-one in the general public had ever heard of such a thing.

In addition to the prescient climate change reference, there’s the added wisdom of Professor Roney’s response. Despite nearly unanimous agreement on global warming in the scientific community (a rare thing), governments, particulary ours, do pretty much nothing (or worse), wasting precious time squabbling.

I was reminded of this today, when I called Texas Senator John Cornyn’s office to ask him to reconsider his stance on opening up environmentally sensitive areas to drilling under the mistaken notion that this will lower prices at the pump. First, no-one answered the phone after repeated calls. Finally, an aide picked up. It was immediately clear to me why calls weren’t being anwered.

Usually, when you call a Senator or Representative’s office, the aide takes down the reason why you’re calling and some proof that you’re a constituent, like your zip code. And that’s it. But this aide wanted to debate me.

I went along for a little while, but finally asked that he please just pass my comments on to the Senator. I’m doubtful that he will, but at least he can’t claim (as has happened in the past) that Texans don’t care about the issue, because no-one’s calling.

Sigh. Wouldn’t it be nice if our governments would come together, stop squabbling, and do something about what is very likely the most serious threat that humankind has ever faced?

Back in 1994, when the internet was new and government agencies were still relatively clueless about network security, I unwittingly stumbled into the Department of Energy’s nuclear power plant accident database. What I discovered was that every nuclear plant in the country had filed dozens (often hundreds) of accident reports.

While most of the accidents didn’t endanger anyone, a number did. Any release of highly radioactive isotopes increases the risk of cancer, birth defects and unforeseen consequences within the environment. The trick (and the fact that plant builders and operators depend on) is that the cause is nearly impossible to prove.

On their website, Texas’s largest retail energy provider, TXU, claims “Nuclear power plants have a record of safety excellence”. This may be true, relatively speaking. Every plant, nuclear or not, has accidents. The problem with nuclear is that accidents pose a far greater risk for a far, far greater length of time.

Plutonium-239 is one of the constituents of nuclear power waste. It can be used to produce nuclear weapons, which makes it highly sought after by terrorist groups and rogue nations. It has a half-life of 24,110 years.

Uranium-238, the most prevalent isotope in uranium ore, has a half-life of about 4.5 BILLION years.

Does anyone really think it’s possible to ensure safe storage and handling of these materials for even a tiny fraction of that time? The former Soviet Union was under that delusion, and now their nuclear arsenal has been dispersed to questionable sources worldwide.

Nuclear is not an option, not even to create power.

TXU is moving ahead with plans to build 2-5 new nuclear power plants in Texas. Friends of the Earth has a page that will enable you to easily send an email to the decision makers involved. I urge you to take action on this issue:

Friends of the Earth TXU action page

In December 2005, an article in New Scientist postulated that a US conversion of residential and commercial buildings to white roofs could offset global warming. The offset, it said, would be temporary, since the model used assumed that the same amount of particulates and greenhouse gases would continue to be released into the atmosphere. However, since white roofs reduce energy use, emissions are also reduced.

Unfortunately, most people don’t like white roofs, and many assume they’d be counterproductive in colder climates. A 2004 article in Building Operating Management covered the latter topic (sans the global warming angle) and concluded that the advantagtes of cool roofs still outweight the disadvantages, even in northern states.

As for the “white roofs are ugly” problem, that too has been solved. To increase Cool Roof adoption by consumers, and to meet California’s strict building codes, many companies have engineered other “cool” colors. I’ve listed these from best performance on down. Be aware that companies like BASF have traded a high “best” reflectance rating for the ability to provide a wider range of roof colors:

Davlin Coatings
(white, custom colors)
Best reflectance (R value): 0.88. Best emittance (E value): 0.90.

Henry
(white, gray, silver)
Best reflectance: 0.87. Best emittance: 0.88.

Certainteed
(white, gray, tan, green, terra cotta)
Best reflectance: 0.86. Best emittance: 0.91.

KM Coatings
(white, gray, tan)
Best reflectance: 0.86. Best emittance: 0.91.

Lapolla Coatings
(white, gray, tan)
Best reflectance: 0.86. Best emittance: 0.90.

Ponderosa Paint
(white, gray, tan)
Best reflectance: 0.86. Best emittance: 0.88.

Johns Manville
(white, gray, sandstone and custom colors)
Best reflectance: 0.86. Best emittance: 0.86.

Weatherstar Coatings
(white, standard & custom colors)
Best reflectance: 0.85. Best emittance: 0.89.

Everest Coatings
(brown, terracotta, tan, green, gray, white, red, ivory)
Best reflectance: 0.83. Best emittance: 0.90.

BASF Ultra Cool
BASF Superl SP II ULTRA-Cool
(36 different colors, including black!)
Best reflectance: 0.74. Best emittance: 0.84.

The best overall performance in any roof coating available at this time is National Coatings A-590 High Reflectance White, which has a reflectance of 0.92 and an emittance of 0.87.

UPDATE: I went on to write a much more comprehensive tutorial on this topic in ‘Cool Roofs: What, Why, How & How Much?’.

When I was 7 or 8 years old, I became obsessed with power generation. Thus began a brief tradition (1971-1977 or so) of attending the energy fair that came to our city each year.

The biggest booth was almost always the Westinghouse nuclear power display. I still have one of their pamphlets featuring a shiny smiling atom. I knew about radioactive waste, so my visits to the booth were a little kid’s version of industrial espionage.

After I was done spying on the enemy, I’d go first to the wind power booths, then to the solar power booths, and finally to the long row of empty 3 or 4 foot wide booths attended by resolute looking men.

This was my favorite part. I’d stop before each man and ask the same question: “Why are you standing in an empty booth?”.

Their answers were all pretty much the same and went something like this:

“I invented a way for cars to run without gas/on very little gas. I thought I’d solved the energy crisis. I took my invention to a major automaker. They said that I was a hero. They bought my invention for a lot of money, but made me sign a non-disclosure agreement. Now I see that they will NEVER tell the world about my invention. I’m prevented by law from telling anyone the details, but I can travel the country with this energy fair and try to warn people about what the automakers are doing.”

Around this same time, I became interested in antique cars. Some of the oldest ones didn’t run on gas. I found this very interesting.

Around 1990, I met a man who told me the story of his family’s Ford purchase (I’m pretty sure it was Ford.). They’d ordered an unusual set of options, so the factory was building it to spec. They arranged a family trip to the factory to pick up the car.

When they arrived, the manager who’d been their contact wasn’t there. There was confusion while employees rushed around trying to find their car. Finally, they were taken to a car in another area of the factory parking lot. In the rush of getting everything finalized, they didn’t take a good look at the car.

Now they had to drive back to Florida. After a while, it seemed like a good time to pull over and get some gas. However, they couldn’t find the gas tank. In fact, they couldn’t even find the gas gauge. Unsure what to do, they just kept driving. They made it all the way home.

Ford employees were waiting for them in their driveway, smiling and clearly nervous. The employees explained that there’d been a mistake, and that the family had been given a prototype. They assured the family that their car was on its way, and that Ford would pay for the delivery. They rebuffed the family’s questions about the prototype and quickly whisked the mystery car away.

When the family went inside their home (the Ford employees had stopped them before they got that far), they found numerous frantic messages on their answering machine begging them to return the prototype as soon as possible. They called back and tried to find out more about the car, but no-one was talking.

Hmmmm…

In 1997, I heard about the EV1, the first production electric car whose performance was competitive with combustion vehicles. Rumour had it that the cars would be available only for lease and in very small quantities. Supposedly, Saturn employees had the best chance of getting one. I got myself hired at Saturn. Seriously. I’m not kidding.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I’d already seen a solar carport in action charging electric vehicles. It dovetailed beautifully with my dream of one day living off the grid.

At first, the plan was to lease the EV1 in several states, including Texas, where I was. However, much to my disappointment, the rollout only occurred in California and Arizona.

The reviews from the EV1 leasers were enthusiastic. People loved this car. With nothing but positive press, and a long, long waiting list of hopeful EV1 drivers, I thought that the electric car had finally arrived. Then I found out that GM was winding down the program.

A new film is coming out that chronicles the EV1 saga, Who Killed The Electric Car?. I hope it comes to Texas, but I’m not holding my breath!

Meanwhile, the Tango, Wrightspeed X1, Tesla, Eliica and Venturi Fetish give me hope. Then there’s the HHO car (view video here), although they say they’re in discussions with a major automakers and that terrifies me!

Yesterday marked the third or fourth day in a week that we were blocked in on all sides by creeks, rivers and giant puddles overflowing their banks. Hmmm… four 100 year floods in 12 years… Gee, I wonder if there’s anything to that global warming stuff?

I also learned a nifty bit of trivia from the weather service: I live in the flash flood capitol of the world. I will spend Thanksgiving in part displaying my gratitude for high ground.

Maybe it’s time to consider raising the interstate up a little?

This is a mini-version of what our road looked like. Notice how fast the water is moving.

See more amazing photos of the flood at WOAI’s slideshow.

Our county engineer’s office also has some eye poppin’ pics.

I’m not one to think of hurricanes as “God’s wrath”, but for those who are, it’s pretty clear what conclusion must be drawn: God’s pissed off at the US oil and natural gas industries.

If you don’t believe me, look at this oil refineries map and this natural gas facilities map.

If you want to make God happy, get serious about renewable energy!

I’ve just joined the virtual march on Washington at StopGlobalWarming.org. My petition entry reads:

“The impact of global warming is the equivalent of a nuclear war unfolding in very slow motion. The difference is that this is a war we can reverse… if we act now!”

While this statement may seem overly dramatic, it’s not far off the mark. I hold a minor in Environmental Geography, which encompasses much of the science behind global warming. As I studied, I was shocked by the depth and breadth of this threat, and even more shocked that the American people aren’t being fully informed of the danger they face.

Please help me get the word out by joining the virtual march today. Thank you!

On a related note, the New York Times reported yesterday that Philip Cooney, the man hired by the Bush administration to “fact check” global warming studies before they were passed on to the White House, altered documents to eliminate evidence of a link between petroleum use and global warming.

Not surprisingly, the White House hired Cooney away from the American Petroleum Institute, where he worked as their “climate team leader” (hilarious spin article here) and a registered Washington lobbyist. News reports assiduously avoid stating the obvious, but clearly, the Bush administration hired Cooney precisely so that he’d do exactly what he did.

(BTW, for a laugh, check out the CEQ website. It reads like very dry satire. I guess if you use the word “clean” enough times, people will believe you’re telling the truth.)

A little history:

Early 2002: Exxon-Mobile successfully lobbies the White House to have Dr. Robert Watson, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), removed from his position after he concludes (based on his organization’s research) that global warming is a real and imminent threat.

September 2002: The Bush administration edits the climate change section right out of the EPA’s annual air pollution report.

June 2003: The Bush administration tries to change the EPA’s draft Report on the Environment to soften it’s global warming conclusions.

Early 2004: A secret climate change report authored by the Pentagon is leaked to the press. The report concludes that the affects of global warming will be catastrophic and that it poses a far greater threat to national security than terrorism. The White House remains mute.

There’s more, but the pattern should already be clear. Cooney wasn’t acting on his own.

Yea! I’m a big fan of sustainable technology. (See my articles on driving green here.) Today, the auto journalism industry took a good, hard look and agreed:

Ford’s Hybrid SUV Wins Top Truck Honors
Business - AP

DETROIT - America’s “in” sedan and the world’s first gas-electric hybrid sport utility vehicle were named North America’s top vehicles Sunday at the North American International Auto Show.
(snip)
The Chrysler 300 — which becomes the 300C when it’s equipped with Chrysler’s powerful Hemi V-8 engine — collected its latest honor as 2004 North American Car of the Year. Ford’s new Escape hybrid SUV garnered the award as 2004 North American Truck of the Year.

Imagine driving an SUV and still getting 36 MPG in the city and 31 MPG on the highway! Imagine going 400-500 miles on one tank of gas! Imagine doing the patriotic thing by lessening our dependence on oil!

I still don’t think that the raised (and therefore imbalanced) weight center of most SUVs is safe. I hate driving in front of them because the headlight height seems designed to blind people in cars. And I don’t like parking too close to them because I’ve seen too many cars flattened by SUV drivers who just “didn’t see them.” But if you must drive an SUV… (Or check out the Top 10 SUV Alternatives.)

Meanwhile, the Toyota Prius hybrid has been racking up the awards, including:

Car of the Year 2005, a European award

2004 North American Car of the Year

Motor Trend’s 2004 Car of the Year

You can learn more about these two vehicles here:

Ford Escape Hybrid

Toyota Pruis