Petrol, Diesel, LPG, Hybrid - What's Best For You

By Paul Clarke

Oil

The main criteria of a car’s eco-friendliness is generally seen as the energy it uses in its operation. Cars have primarily run on oil-based fuel in the form of petrol or diesel for over a century. But we are now at the point where demand for oil is rising so much, and reserves are declining, that oil is actually running out. Oil prices have always been volatile and they react to speculation about events ranging from terrorism to hurricanes, but rising demand and diminishing reserves mean that overall, oil is just going to keep on getting more expensive. However despite this, most cars today still rely on oil as their primary source of energy; and oil is obviously a key contributor to carbon emissions, and climate change.

Petrol

Petrol has been the most popular fuel for cars in the UK for years; petrol engines are generally quiet and smooth, they are responsive and their performance is good. Petrol is currently slightly cheaper than diesel. Petrol engines emit around 10% more carbon dioxide (CO2) than diesel. However petrol cars pump out less toxic emissions than diesel. Unfortunately at the moment there is no single source of fuel which can compare with petroleum in terms of its instant bulk availability, energy density and (relative) cheapness.

Diesel

Diesel engines are more economical than petrol engines, therefore they emit less CO2. New 'common rail' diesels are approximately 10% more efficient than older diesels, and direct-injection diesel engines give the best fuel economy, diesels emit more particulates than petrol – but diesel engines with a particulate trap help prevent emissions of sooty particulates – ie. the clouds of smoke that you’ll experience if you follow old buses through towns. So diesel engines will generally provide you with more miles per gallon than their equivalent petrol models – just look at the differences between similar vehicles in our Green Car Guide. Diesel is currently more expensive to buy than petrol, and the forecasts are that diesel prices will continue to rise more steeply than petrol in the near future.

Diesel engines have always been seen as slow and noisy, however technology has seen some remarkable advances in recent years; for instance Honda has developed their own diesel engine that is designed to be quiet, refined, clean and with instant response – fighting against all the old stereotypes.

LPG

Over recent years, LPG (liquefied petroleum gas) has been a viable fuel option in the UK. LPG produces fewer emissions than petrol and diesel but fuel consumption is worse. It’s been possible to convert many existing cars to run on LPG by after-market conversions, and some manufacturers such as Vauxhall have had new cars in their range that are dual-fuel, which are designed to run primarily on LPG with petrol back-up. There is a reasonable network of filling stations.

LPG, and natural gas in heavier vehicles, has been an attractive proposition in the past primarily due to its cheaper cost, as it has enjoyed less fuel duty. However there is no guarantee that the Chancellor will maintain this in the future, and although there are some emissions improvements over petrol, LPG is still derived from a fossil fuel and therefore still releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

CNG

Some vehicles, usually heavier vans or trucks that normally run on diesel, but also cars such as the Volvo (V70 Bi-Fuel), can run on CNG (Compressed Natural Gas), which again results in lower CO2 emissions than standard petrol cars, but the fuel is not as efficient as diesel. Finding CNG for refuelling can be a challenge.

Petrol-Electric Hybrids

Petrol-electric hybrid vehicles run on a combination of a conventional petrol engine and an electric motor powered by an energy storage device such as a battery pack. In simple terms they work on the principle that an electric motor provides the power at low speeds such as in urban driving, and they switch to petrol for driving at higher speeds. The batteries are recharged while driving and hybrids use regenerative braking, which means that energy is put back into the battery when braking, which improves energy efficiency.

Hybrid technologies improve fuel efficiency and therefore provide considerable fuel savings compared with a normal petrol vehicle – as well as carbon emissions savings. While models might cost more than conventional cars, running costs can be two-thirds that of equivalent petrol-fuelled vehicles.

Because of their lower CO2 emissions, hybrids also benefit from reduced vehicle excise duty and are treated favourably in Budgets. In addition they are exempted from the London Congestion Charge.

However at the moment there are a limited number of hybrid vehicle choices; there are currently just four hybrids available in the UK; the Toyota Prius, Honda Civic hybrid, Lexus RX400h and Lexus GS450h. As they are still a relatively new technology, there aren’t many available second-hand and so they are quite expensive.

Toyota’s first Prius (launched in Japan in 1997) didn’t sell in great numbers, however a new model has been introduced and this is now proving more successful. Although it looks like a normal car, it is designed around energy efficiency, and has many clever technological features that assist fuel consumption, including air conditioning and brakes powered by electricity rather than by sapping energy from the petrol engine. Lexus, part of Toyota, has introduced a hybrid version of the RX300, known as the RX400h. This is an SUV and because of its size, it still only returns around 35mpg compared to the Prius’s 65.7mpg.

Although the official fuel economy figures for cars such as the Toyota Prius at 65.7mpg sound great, they only really achieve maximum economy benefits in built-up areas where they primarily run on electric rather than petrol although the Prius can only drive for around a mile on battery power before needing to revert to petrol; in real-world motoring it seems difficult to attain the official figures. On a motorway run, a good diesel is likely to be more economical. Nevertheless hybrids are still one of the best options that the consumer has today to achieve better fuel economy, especially if much driving is done in towns, along with the financial benefits such as lower tax and escaping London’s Congestion Charge.

Only petrol-electric hybrids are currently available; diesel-electric hybrids will achieve even better fuel consumption – watch out for these appearing in the not-too distant future.

Battery-Electric cars

Electric cars use a battery and electric motor to power the vehicle, meaning they have no emissions at the point of use. Due to the capacity of the battery, their range is normally limited to about 40-60 miles between recharges, which means they are only really suitable for city-based users.

Electric vehicles can be recharged by plugging them into an existing electrical socket, and some city councils are installing electric recharging points in car parks or on-street. However, they are only truly ‘green’ if they are recharged with electricity from renewable sources such as windfarms.

Electric cars are not subject to road tax and, as an added bonus for London drivers, they enjoy 100 per cent congestion charge discount. Drivers living in areas where they have to pay for residential parking permits might also find that they get a discount on this cost.

Electric cars are often regarded as the ideal non-polluters, but it’s not quite that simple. They’re obviously good for lack of tailpipe emissions and are near silent, but they need to carry rechargeable batteries. These batteries are not really energy sources, they are energy storers. This creates two issues. Firstly they are heavy and bulky with very low energy densities. Secondly, the original source of energy, for recharging, has to be questioned, because if it’s not renewable, those vehicles will indirectly contribute to climate change. There is a further drawback; if their batteries are lead or cadmium-based, there is a serious pollution problem if they are not properly disposed of at the end of their life.

The only electric car available in the UK at the moment, although this is about to change, is the G-Wiz, a small car for about-town use, claimed to be the greenest, most energy-efficient and cheapest car to run in the UK. It has two front seats plus two children size seats, which can be folded down for luggage. It is in insurance group 1, exempt from VED and the London Congestion Charge, and qualifies for free or discounted parking in some London areas. The G-Wiz is claimed to consume just one quarter of the energy of a similar-sized petrol car and costs around just £1.64 a day to run, equivalent to around 600 miles per gallon.

Goingreen, the company behind the G-Wiz, should be commended on their efforts in bringing such a vehicle to the market, and for some people, in the centre of London for example, it can provide motoring with very low running costs. However it’s not practical for everyone - its drawbacks include the fact that it needs a 6 hour recharge – you literally need to plug it in! – and its range and speed are limited. Apart from all that, its design is just not as cool, trendy and sophisticated as cars such as the Smart or even the Toyota Aygo.

In summary, viable electric vehicles are still around the corner while hybrids, bio-diesel and bio-ethanol vehicles are here now.

Biofuels

Biodiesel

Biofuel has traditionally been in the form of biodiesel, currently available in various types and qualities, primarily from vegetable oils, such as from recycled cooking oils, and from crops such as rapeseed oil, both of which avoid the carbon emissions of mineral diesel. However there is no wide availability, unless in industrial quantities, and it is more commonly used to blend with normal diesel. There’s at least one company that is currently building up a world-wide biodiesel production and refining capacity but it’s not ready yet.

A wide range of car manufacturers supply cars rated as totally compatible with biodiesel and even older models may be compatible. It’s recommended that if your fuel runs through rubber pipes they must be replaced with plastic equivalents. Biodiesel will remove dirt in the engine left by previous use of petro-diesel and deposit it in the filters, therefore the filters need to be changed after the biodiesel has been used for a while. Biodiesel will work in most modern diesel engines (but not petrol!) but there are warranty implications - all vehicles should be checked for their compatibility for running on biodiesel.

D1 Oils is a British company which recognises the increasing demand for biodiesel and aims to become a global, sustainable, low cost supplier of crude vegetable oil and biodiesel refiner. It has developed plantation rights and established refinery operations in several international regions, creating a supply chain from seed selection through to the sale of biodiesel to end users. Currently it has four operations centred in the UK, South Africa, Asia Pacific and India. There are also projects in Madagascar and Saudi Arabia. The main plant source is the Jatropha tree which can grow in desert areas with a minimum requirement for water.

Grassolean is a US site where you can find information on starting your own Biodiesel project.

Green Fuels Ltd was formed to bring affordable and sustainable biodiesel technology to the UK and European marketplace. They market decentralised plant for making biodiesel on a scale suitable for home, business or locality. They also provide training.

Low-Impact Living Initiative (LILI), www.lowimpact.org a non-profit organisation helping to protect the environment by promoting sustainable alternatives. They run hands-on courses throughout the year including several on making your own biodiesel and there's even one on vegetable oil as a motor fuel. They can also supply and deliver biodiesel to your home.

Bio'petrol’ - Ethanol and Methanol Vehicles

Ethanol and Methanol are viable vehicle fuels which are an alternative to petrol in internal combustion engines, giving considerable carbon emission benefits if the fuel is derived biologically. It’s cleaner inside the engine as well as outside. Vehicles usually require adaptation to convert from petrol to ethanol if the concentration exceeds 10% (E10) (manufacturers tend to be conservative and warranties usually state that no more than 5% ethanol should be added, however, most cars seem to run on E10). The required engine modifications to convert from petrol to ethanol are more extensive than those to convert diesel to biodiesel. Several manufacturers are working to produce vehicles that will run on an 85% proportion (E85) and in the Americas and Canada, Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) can run on E85 as well as gasoline (petrol). Where ethanol can be produced in abundance, notably Brazil, the fuel is used widely. The alcohols also have potential for the raw source in fuel cells.

Recently, biofuels that can run with petrol have been introduced in the UK. The Saab BioPower and the Ford Focus Flexi-Fuel are the only two new vehicles on the market that are designed to run on biofuel. For more information see items in our News section.

Hydrogen

Hydrogen fuel cells are seen as the fuel of the future. Although they are charged with very bulky hydrogen, it can be supplied in a liquid hydrocarbon compound and that way, theoretically, the density problem can be solved. To be climate-friendly the compound must be renewable (bio(m)ethanol for example), not petroleum based. One of the biggest attractions about hydrogen is that the only waste it produces is water.

Various manufacturers are developing prototype cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells however they still demand much research and development to be commercially viable in vehicles and it will be a number of years before they are widely available, together with the fuel, in the UK.

Other technologies

Citroen has developed ‘Stop & Start’ technology, currently used in two of its models. The normal petrol engine shuts down if the car stops in traffic in normal driving. You still pay a premium over standard models for this technology, but they are cheaper than hybrids – but the fuel savings are not as great - the fuel consumption does not improve significantly at all; like hybrids, they offer greatest benefit in urban areas.

For more information about green cars you can buy today see www.green-car-guide.com

Paul Clarke is the founder of the Green-Car-Guide.com which is designed to help motorists make an informed choice about environmentally-friendly cars, saving them money on fuel and car running costs. The Green-Car-Guide.com was the first website of its kind in the UK and was launched on 21st September 2006. For further information please go to
www.green-car-guide.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Paul_Clarke

A Guide to Insulation for Your Home

By Richard Chapo

As energy prices increase, warming and cooling your home is becoming more and more expensive. Upgrading your insulation is one way to fight the increased costs.

A Guide to Insulation for Your Home

Insulation acts as a blanket for you home. During cold winters, it serves as a barrier to keep as much of the warm air produced by your heating system as possible in the home. In summers, it servers the opposite role of keeping warm air out and cool air in. All and all, this makes it a pretty flexible building material when you think about it.

The key to keeping your heating and cooling costs down is to understand insulation and use the best possible type for you home. To assist in this regard, every community maintains building codes calling out for minimum levels of insulation. Unfortunately, these minimum levels often are insufficient, a particular problem with new homes given that builders use them as the standard to minimize the cost of construction. Nearly every home could significantly cut heating and cooling costs if they upgraded their insulation.

Insulation comes in three basic forms – flexible insulation, loose-fill insulation and reflective insulation. Flexible insulation is the most familiar, to wit, the rolls of pink stuff you see at construction projects. Loose-fill insulation comes in bags and is actually sprayed into walls. Reflective insulation is used like flexible insulation to fill stud walls, but works by using a material that reflects the radiating heat in a structure. There is also rigid insulation, but it is rarely used.

When considering insulation in your home, there are two key issues to address. First, the insulation in your home should have an “R” value, which represents the insulations resistance to the transfer of heat. If you really want to cut utility costs, you should replace your current insulation with a brand that has double the R value you currently have installed.

A second issue to consider is coverage. You might be surprised to learn that insulation is missing in certain key areas of your home. Heat rises, so checking the insulation in your attic should be your first step. You should also consider placing a seal around the entrance to the attic from the interior of the home. This space is almost always unsealed and acts as a highway for heat to escape.

Insulation is hardly a sexy topic when it comes to home improvements. While it may be bland, improving it can save you thousands and thousands of dollars.

Rick Chapo is with SolarCompanies.com - visit us to find out more about building your own home.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Richard_Chapo

Natural Energy Resources

By Kum Martin

As we continue to depend on gasoline, coal, and natural gas, the prices of these things have increased dramatically. This is putting a strain on even the wealthiest families. Winters in the Northeast can be brutal, and with rising energy costs it is no wonder that many people struggle every winter to pay their utility bills. Families have to make tough choices and figure out what they can possibly live without in order to pay their high utility and gasoline bills.

The cost of fuel for our vehicles continues to rise at an alarming rate. Many people need gasoline in order to drive to work, but with the rising costs of fuel, many have found alternative methods for transportation. One option they have sought out is using ethanol to fuel their cars. Others have cut back on their driving habits and eliminated long drives and even vacations to conserve fuel. Scientists are working extremely hard to manufacture alternative fuels for our vehicles and have made a lot of progress in creating gasoline alternatives. Aside from creating alternative fuels for our vehicles, there are numerous companies working on alternative energy sources for our household utilities.

We need to take advantage of our natural resources such as water, wind, and the sun and use them as sources of energy. Solar energy is an expensive venue to start, but in the long run it is cleaner and eventually it can become a cheaper way to heat a home. Many houses are being built with solar panels, which allow the sun to warm a home with less air pollution than a home heated with natural gas.
Water is an excellent source of power. Places like Niagara Falls supplies power to millions of people. Water is powerful and available in mass quantities, so it can easily supply energy to thousands of people at one time. Wind is also becoming a reliable source of energy and many locations atop hills are using wind driven turbines to provide energy to communities.

All of us need to conserve energy and continue to work on finding ways to use our natural resources to help cut down on pollution for a cleaner world.

Check Out More Articles:

natural gases causing global warming, environmental pollution reproductive health,
privacy hedge trees

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Kum_Martin

Congress Needs to Wake Up to Nuclear Waste Disposal, Part 1

By James Finch

Over the past 24 years, each time your house or business consumed a nuclear-generated kilowatt-hour of electricity, you were billed – by mandate of the U.S. government – one-tenth of one penny to pay for the storage of nuclear waste. And those pennies add up. Since 1982, the Nuclear Waste Fund has grown to more than $28 billion. The plan back then was to safely dispose of the nuclear waste left over after providing 20 percent of the nation’s electricity through nuclear energy. Instead, like a ticking time bomb, about 40,000 metric tons of spent fuel rods are chilling out in 141 concrete cooling ponds never intended for long-term use. Many are within a few dozen miles of large cities, such as New York, Philadelphia, Washington and Miami.

Now, at least nine states are heating up over the localized nuclear waste issue. On September 13th, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan joined state attorneys general in California, Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Vermont and Wisconsin in calling on Congress to reject legislation enabling the federal government to designate nuclear waste storage facilities in all states with nuclear power plants, superceding objections by the state’s governor or state and local zoning and environmental laws.

The endless merry-go-round of deciding upon a final resting place for nuclear waste has been studied for more than two decades, has cost taxpayers more than $9 billion and has actually been solved. Unless of course, you are talking about an ideal solution which is required to be as satisfactory for up to one million years from now as it might be some 10,000 years into the future. That appears to be the most recent verdict – let’s keep nuclear waste in temporary storage scattered across geologically challenged locations, some near major cities, for decades to come, because a minority of environmentalists are “uncomfortable” with a well-studied, scientifically satisfactory centralized disposal site in a remote location. Instead of moving forward with a site, which will reportedly store the waste safely for 10,000 years (and probably up to 80,000 years), the environmental lobby would prefer a toxic risk for tens of millions of Americans from ‘overcrowded’ temporary storage sites. They would like to stall matters until scientists can prove a centralized storage site can survive all potential abuse for up to one million years.

Unfortunately, even if Congress acts in early 2007, the best-case scenario for a centralized nuclear waste repository brings us to 2017. And that would require quite a few politicians and bureaucrats coming to their senses. While they haggle over whether the nuclear waste can be safely stored for 10,000 years (which a number of scientific studies confirm that it can), or whether the waste site must store the spent nuclear fuel for one million years, electricity consumers are annually paying $1 billion for temporary storage.

The amount of nuclear waste accumulating since U.S. utilities began powering our homes with nuclear energy comes to about 54,000 metric tons over the past forty years. To put this in perspective, it would take up the size of a football field with a depth of less than 10 yards. Nuclear energy does not generate carbon dioxide emissions. By contrast, the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere through fossil fuels is enormous. According to one of the world’s leading environmental scientists, James Lovelock, who recently authored “The Revenge of Gaia” (Basic Books, 2006), one could freeze the annual carbon dioxide emissions and create a mountain one mile high and twelve miles in circumference. And that’s each year. Using the same yardstick since the 1960s, we would have 40 such mountains of carbon dioxide, but one small football field of nuclear waste.

A Mountain Which Can Solve the
Current Waste Disposal Issue

After passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) chose nine locations in six states as potential permanent repository sites. The DOE whittled this list down to five sites after various technical studies and environmental assessments. After intensive scientific study, the DOE chose its finalists: Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Deaf Smith County, Texas and Hanford, Washington. Following lengthy environmental studies of all three sites, Congress amended the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1987 and designated Yucca Mountain to be studied as the final destination for nuclear waste.

“We’ve been studying Yucca Mountain for 22 years,” Steven Kraft told us during a recent telephone interview. Mr. Kraft is mechanical engineer who serves as the senior director for Used Fuel Management at the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), and was part of the Recovery Team following the Three Mile Island accident in March 1979. “It is the most studied piece of real estate on the face of the earth. There isn’t anything we don’t know about it.”

Why didn’t they pick someplace far away like Mongolia, Siberia or Greenland? “You’re making the assumption that somehow the remoteness of a location makes it okay,” Kraft responded. “You’re talking about places where there are geologic instabilities or the geology is very difficult to understand.” There are also proposals suggesting ice sheet disposal, deep ocean disposal, or simply blasting the waste into outer space. “Yucca Mountain meets all of the requirements, and I can’t think of a better site,” Kraft explained. “They have an awful good rock body down there that has withstood a lot of scientific scrutiny. It is by happenstance of geology they have a good location.”

And what is the key to geology? “What makes Yucca Mountain such a good site is, in the formation below the repository, are naturally occurring zeolites,” Kraft pointed out. Water softeners rely upon zeolites as ion-exchange beds. “Zeolites strip out a lot of the radionuclides and belays the flow of water,’ he explained. “By the time you get to the accessible environment, the dose rate stays well below EPA standards.”

No location is perfect. Even if all nuclear power plants were turned off today, more than 108 million pounds of nuclear waste would require disposition. You can’t burn nuclear fuel pellets. Nuclear waste is not flammable; it is too weak to explode. Each year, the nation’s 103 reactors produce another 2,000 metric tons of waste. It has to end up somewhere. The Yucca Mountain area is geologically stable. The last volcanic eruption – a small one – occurred 80,000 years ago. About 12 to 15 million years ago, large eruptions north of Yucca Mountain laid down the sturdy bedrock which formed this mountain.

The Yucca Mountain area only receives about seven inches of rainfall per year. Ninety percent runs off the side of the mountain ridge and mostly evaporates or is absorbed by vegetation. The proposed repository is 1000 feet underground. And the site is 1000 feet above the water table. Rainwater seeping through rock fractures is negligible and would likely be trapped inside the mountain.

James Finch contributes to StockInterview.com and other publications. His archived articles can be read at www.stockinterview.com. His latest 304-page book, Investing in the Great Uranium Bull Market, was recently endorsed by one of the world’s top scientists, James Lovelock: www.stockinterview.com/book_offer_visitor.html

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=James_Finch

Electric Vehicles and How They Work

By Richard Chapo

With all of our oil problems, the idea of the electric vehicle has risen from the ashes. Here is a guide to electric vehicles and how they work.

Most of the people in the world will either drive or ride in a vehicle in their lifetime. Most of these vehicles will be powered by an internal combustion engine, which will run on either gasoline or diesel fuel. While these vehicles have been the standard for nearly a hundred years now, new engine types have started to make an impact on the vehicle scene, which include electric and hybrid engines. Electric engines are the cleanest engines available to consumers today, so it's important to learn about electric vehicles and how they work.

Electric vehicles usually look just like “normal” vehicles on the outside, except for the lack of a tailpipe (and exhaust system). Internally, however, and under the vehicle, a big difference can be seen. There is no gas tank (as electric vehicles do not burn fuel) and battery packs are often found either under the vehicle or in the trunk. These batteries are the same type that are used to start a gasoline powered vehicle, only there are many more of them used in conjunction to store energy to power the vehicle. There is also a regulator attached to the batteries to make sure that the amount of energy produced and used by the vehicle is constant, and that none of the batteries burn out.

Another interesting thing to note about electric vehicles and how they work is the fact that almost everything besides the engine in an electric vehicle is the same as that in a gas powered vehicle. The transmission, brakes, climate control systems and air bags all function in the same way. The electric motor itself is the true difference. There are three types of electric motors that are available on the market today: the AC Brushless (good top speed, but low acceleration), the AC Induction (ok top speed, best acceleration, but highest price) and the Permanent Magnet (middle of the road in performance). Any of these motors can be used to create an electric vehicle.

While an electric vehicle moves, the momentum generated while braking can be used to charge the batteries for power. Called regenerative braking, this specialized braking system can help you recover up to 15% of the energy used for acceleration by applying the momentum generated in the braking process to the batteries. While this does not provide enough recharge to fully run your electric vehicle, it can help to extend the amount of driving you can do.

There are other aspects of electric vehicles and how they work that can be discussed, such as battery types and other additions to make your vehicle more energy efficient. Electric vehicles may not be the speediest or easiest to maintain vehicles available today, but with new technology being developed all the time, electric vehicles will eventually become a great alternative to polluting combustion engine vehicles.

Rick Chapo is with Solar Companies - information on renewable energy.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Richard_Chapo

Is Alternative Energy a Good Investment Today?

By J.S. Kim

Although you hear a lot about alternative energy being a good investment today, I think that it’s still a lot more hype than reality. Yes I’ve heard the arguments for alternative energy investments such as high oil prices now make the development of alternative energy sources more appealing on a cost-benefit scale. And I know that major oil companies are pumping billions of dollars into developing alternative energy. Still, considering that Exxon declared over $9 billion in profits, not revenues, in just one quarter in 2006, several billion earmarked for alternative energy development is not a lot. And while I’m also aware that companies like Vesta Wind Systems has jumped by 40% in the last six to nine months, I still think that alternative energy investments are more of a trading strategy rather than investment strategy for the time being.

As you know we always discuss investing here, not trading, meaning that we wish to hold almost all of our investments for at least six months or longer, not just a couple of weeks or months. Although alternative energy is real, and it does work there are many reasons to be skeptical before jumping on board.

First of all, most crisis as presented by the media serve multiple interests, none of which includes the public at large. This is ironic because the major media all over the world seems to be deathly silent regarding real crises that do affect the public at large, such as one of the largest looming financial crises today. Anyone remember the travesty that was touted every single day in the media for at least a solid month leading up to New Year’s Eve 1999 that was called Y2K? And that whole “crisis” passed with not even a blip on anyone’s screen. But Y2K did serve many corporate interests. It served the media’s interest because by attracting scores of readers and viewers and higher advertising revenues, and it served the technology industry’s interests by resulting in millions, if not billions of increased sales of computers and software by fearful consumers.

I would not be one bit surprised years later to find out later that the public relations branches of technology companies were the ones that manufactured and released the lion’s share of Y2K stories to the media for public consumption. Likewise this is why I’m skeptical of the Peak Oil crisis. Personally I think Peak Oil has been manufactured by big oil to justify higher crude oil prices. The term Peak Oil conjures up images of scarcity, and we know that scarcity in the supply-demand yield curve leads to higher prices. Furthermore, the media is happy to disseminate the Peak Oil theory because any type of crisis generates more advertising revenue for them. Personally I think that most of the crises we hear about in the media are junk, cooked up in the back offices of public relations divisions of the very industries the well-publicized crises will benefit.

If anything, the threat of lost imports from Venezuela as Venezuela continues to strengthen trade relations with China poses more of a threat to the U.S. economy that the Peak Oil crisis. Over the next six years, China will invest over USD $5 billion in oil exploration and production in Venezuela and Venezuela will increasingly become less dependent upon the U.S. not only for its oil exports but also for oil infrastructure as China increasingly fills both of these needs.

With sophisticated 3-D and 4-D seismic imaging equipment today, we know that big oil has unearthed some huge reserves of oil in deep sea territories. In the past it was impossible to drill at the depths that oil and gas companies drill at today. But now, with the rapid development of deep-sea drilling technology, drilling at depths of 3,000 meters (over 10,000 feet) is not only becoming more common, but are leading to some significant oil and natural gas discoveries. In fact knowing that exploration is increasingly going deep sea, I bought a Norwegian company that specializes in building deep sea drilling infrastructure called Acergy and in a little over two months I’m sitting on nice fat 25% profits. At this point I’ll employ tight stop-losses on the stock but I still wouldn’t be surprised to see it go much higher in the next year. The point is, I don’t buy the Peak Oil crisis. And if the Peak Oil crisis isn’t real, and there is still a trillion more gallons of oil to be pumped out of the ground, big oil can and will kill any alternative energy sources from making it into the mainstream. There will be just too much profit at stake.

Case in point. Many people believe that some of the alternative energy sources being discussed today like fuel cells and so forth are new. In fact they aren’t new at all and have been around for decades. They just have never made it into the mainstream because big oil has always successfully killed their development. In 1834, Thomas Davenport invented the battery electric car. In 1889, Thomas Edison built an electric vehicle using nickel-alkaline batteries. Over a hundred years later, in 1996, U.S. auto giant General Motors manufactured electric cars that ran at speeds of up to 135 kilometers an hour, released zero emissions, and cost only USD $0.16 per litre to operate. What happened to a car that was much more friendly to both the consumer and the environment that the petrol powered car? Big oil killed it because it was big oil unfriendly.

So for this very reason, though I may be wrong, I think the future for alternative energy is just that – in the future.

This article may be freely reprinted on another website as long as it is not modified, changed, or altered in any way and as long as the below author byline is included along with the active hyperlink exactly as is.

J.S. Kim is the Managing Director of SmartKnowledgeU™. He has over thirteen years of experience in finance and financial services, and has earned a BA in Neurobiology from the University of Pennsylvania, a Master in Public Affairs from the University of Texas at Austin, and an MBA with a concentration in finance from the McCombs Business School, University of Texas at Austin. He is the inventor of the revolutionary MoneyPing™ investment strategies, a novel approach to learn how to build wealth, not just dreams.

To learn more at J.S. Kim's blog "The Zen of Investing", click the following link, Learn to Invest Money and Achieve Financial Freedom

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=J.S._Kim

Electric Vehicle Invented

By Richard Chapo

Many say the electric vehicle will never exist, but popular hybrid vehicles are a variation of them. To under electric vehicles, it is prudent to know who and when they were invented.

The electric vehicle has been heralded for many years as the vehicle of the future. This type of electrically powered vehicle is better for the environment and less expensive to run than traditional gasoline powered vehicles, and can be built from existing vehicle parts with a few modifications. With all of the focus on hybrid and electric vehicles in recent years, you might think the time when the electric vehicle was developed was relatively recently, but this is not the case.

So, when was the electric vehicle invented? Historians have recorded that between 1832 and 1839 (the exact year is uncertain), Robert Anderson of Scotland invented the first electric powered vehicles. This crude model was not exactly what would be considered a vehicle by today's standards, but was definitely the forefather of electric vehicles today. Around 1842, more practical and usable electric vehicles were developed in America by Thomas Davenport, and in Scotland by Robert Davidson.

While the evolution of the electric vehicle invented more possibilities, France and Great Britain were the only two countries to really start focusing on the electric vehicle, in the late 1800's. In 1895, the United States finally got on board with developing electric powered vehicles, after an electric tricycle was built by A.L. Ryker. The first commercial version of an electric vehicle or vehicle was found in 1897, when the Electric Carriage and Wagon Company of Philadelphia built a fleet of electric powered taxis for New York City.

The years 1899 and 1900 were the best years in the history of electric vehicles for the United States, as electric vehicles outsold any other type of vehicle in these two years. Production of electric vehicles peaked in the year 1912, and these type of vehicles enjoyed success into the 1920's, after which there was a marked decline in the demand for electric vehicles. As more and more road systems were developed crossing the US, the need for longer range vehicles became apparent. Coupled with the finding of oil in Texas, which meant gasoline was more affordable for everyday use, combustion engines quickly became the more popular engine for vehicles.

Today, the electric vehicles invented in the last half of the 20th century are seen as the wave of the future for eco-friendly vehicles. The same problems still plague electric vehicles that did so in the 1920's, including slow speeds and short ranges, but hopefully with new technology, electric vehicles will be able to replace the polluting combustion engine vehicles we drive today.

Rick Chapo is with Solar Companies - information on alternative energy.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Richard_Chapo

Beyond China's Coal Fields: Expanding Its Gas Resources

By James Finch

In the first half of 2006, China's total power consumption reached 1.3 trillion kilowatt-hours, an increase of 12.89 per cent over the same period a year ago. But the country only generated 1.23 trillion kilowatt-hours during the first six months of this year – a shortfall of 700 million kilowatt-hours. According to China Electricity Council Secretary-General Wang Yonggan, power shortages will continue to plague China, but he hopes they will somewhat ease. At the beginning of 2005, twenty-five Chinese provinces suffered power shortages. This had been reduced to nine provinces this past January, and recently the number of provinces suffering power shortages had fallen to four.

China relieved its widespread power shortages over the past six months because of its new power stations, but officials insist the power industry must try to reduce energy consumption per unit of GDP by 20 percent to comply with the latest five-year plan through 2010. Power deficits are still expected in East China, North China and part of South China during peak summer months even though China spent more than $9 billion in the first half of 2006 to improve its power transport capacity.

But how will China continue to fuel its power stations so they can generate electricity? Nearly 84 percent of China’s power is thermally fueled, mostly by coal. China’s 30,000 coal mines produced more than two billion tons in 2005. This is not likely to be drastically reduced over the next two decades, but China is making an effort to exploit other resources. Drawing almost 14 percent of its energy from hydroelectricity, the country plans to dam up all five of Asia’s major rivers in order to keep its generators going. China has helped drive up the price of uranium with its plans to dramatically increase its nuclear energy program.

Reducing the Coal Consumption Rate

Slowly, China is trying to wean itself off coal. Over the first six months of this year, China reduced its coal consumption rate, as measured by kilowatt-hour, by less than two percent compared to the first half of 2005. While China has stated it plans to expand its hydro, nuclear and renewable energy programs to increase their share of electrical power production, the country ambitiously hopes to more than double the amount of natural gas in its energy mix. Currently providing a little more than three percent of the energy mix, the Chinese have often announced they want natural gas to provide eight percent or more, by the time the Eleventh Five Year Plan ends in 2010.

“It’s doable,” Phil Flynn of Alaron Trading Corp told us. “It’s going to be tough and very expensive, but I think they can reach that percentage.” However in February of this year, the China Daily newspaper reported the bulk of China’s gas-fired power plants could be closed down because of a natural gas shortage. For example, four gigawatts of installed capacity were not used in Eastern China, in the latter part of 2005, because the country could not obtain sufficient gas supplies to power the plants. China’s National Development and Reform Commission plans to increase the country’s gas power capacity to 30 gigawatts, but the head of China’s Electricity Council announced that gas shortfalls would probably make this target impossible to achieve.

Husky Energy’s Recent Gas Discovery Spurs More Exploration Activity

It is not for lack of trying. In June, Husky Energy announced a deep gas discovery beneath the South China Sea, about 155 miles south of Hong Kong. The area had been abandoned decades earlier when shallower wells had come up dry. Fu Chengyu, Chairman of Husky’s Chinese partner China National Offshore Oil Corp (CNOOC) called the gas discovery “a tremendous breakthrough for us.” The find may reportedly contain 3.5 trillion cubic feet of gas. Last week, Husky Energy and CNOOC signed three new production-sharing contracts to drill for oil and gas in deepwater blocks in the eastern and western South China Sea.

While Husky Energy may be Calgary-based, it remains controlled by Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing. China’s big announcement in mid July invited the more autonomous foreign oil companies to explore in as many as nine blocks in northwestern China. The target is the Xinjian’s Tarim Basin, which has proven reserves of six billion tons of oil and eight trillion cubic meters of natural gas. Analysts heralded this as China’s biggest step forward in cooperating with major foreign oil and gas companies since 1994. China is eager to move these projects further in order to keep its 2200-mile natural gas pipeline running at capacity to supply its major coastal cities in eastern China.

Australian LNG Helping China’s Energy Mix

In late September, the city of Shenzhen, in China’s southern province of Guangdong, will begin generating electricity powered by Australian gas. Northwest Shelf Australia LNG PTY plans to annually ship over three million tons of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) for the next 25 years. The LNG contract valued at $25 billion is Australia’s largest resource contract. It angered many Australians when CNOOC became the first foreign country to own a stake in Australia’s gas reserves. The gas had been allocated for domestic use in Australia. The deal entitled the Chinese firm to own about 1.1 trillion cubic feet of gas and another 210 million barrels of liquids of Western Australia’s gas project. Because of previous long-term contracts with Japan, China may not be able to sign new gas deals with Australia until after 2010.

“Right, we see in the LNG (liquefied natural gas) business a kind of unprecedented situation: unprecedented demand from not only new emerging buyers China and India, but also the U.S.” China plans to build over a dozen more new LNG terminals along its southern coast similar to the one in Guangdong province, which will serve cities in the Pearl River Delta, Hong Kong and power plants in the Delta region. Several LNG projects, under construction or waiting for approval, would impact Shanghai, Beijing and other multi-million population centers. Despite the size of this and other deals, it is not enough. “The actual demand is so big that neither onshore nor offshore gas or LNG will be able to meet the demand on its own, said Azfar Shaukat, director of Mott MacDonald Group’s oil and gas studies. “It has to be a combination of them.”

China’s Coalbed Methane Development

What can China do about its coal mines which drive the country’s electrical production? Although official figures are lower, as many as 6000 Chinese die in the country’s 30,000+ coal mines every year. More suffer from air pollution and black lung. By comparison in the United States, the American Lung Association estimates about 24,000 premature deaths are caused every year by air pollution from coal-fired power plants. About 40 percent of the emissions of carbon dioxide, which contribute to greenhouse gases and global warming, come from coal burning. Imagine how much larger a problem this has become for the Chinese?

Nonetheless, coal mining will stay with China for at least the entire 21st century. More uses from China’s coal mines could make these resources indispensable. Rising petroleum costs have forced China to move forward to convert coal to oil products. Thirty coal liquefaction projects are now in the detailed planning or feasibility study stage. The Chinese plan to spend more than $15 billion in order to produce 50 million tons of oil from coal liquefaction by 2020.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, a former mining engineer, has been sympathetic to the plight of coal miners. New restrictions and regulations have increased the safety for coal miners. One of those upon which there is greater emphasis is capturing the methane from coal seams before the mining process begins. Methane gas in coal seams is the culprit behind widespread pollution and coal mining deaths. Nearly a decade ago, China United Coalbed Methane (CUCBM) was formed to capitalize upon the wasted methane released into the atmosphere during the mining process. Following the developments in New Mexico’s San Juan Basin and Wyoming’s Powder River Basin, the Chinese are determined to utilize the ‘unconventional gas,’ also known as coalbed methane (CBM) as an important energy source.

In early July, Jimmy Rogers told us, “Longer term, natural gas production is declining in North America.” A few weeks later, in our interview with Sprott Asset Management CBM research analyst Eric Nuttall he echoed those remarks, saying, “North American natural gas production has been in decline for several years.” Nuttall added, “Most incremental production is coming from smaller, more expensive-to-drill, thinner economic, higher decline pools and reservoirs.” He pointed to CBM as where the action would be, “The growth areas have largely been unconventional.” And that is where the Chinese may be headed in order to obtain additional gas reserves.

A researcher for China United Coalbed Methane (CUCBM) wrote, “By 2010 and 2020, the shortage for the natural gas supply in China will be 30 billion to 40 billion cubic meters and 90 billion to 100 billion cubic meters respectively.” Professor Sun Maoyuan wrote on behalf of the CUCBM, “It is estimated that the coalbed methane resource is between 30 trillion and 35 trillion cubic meters, which is equivalent to the resource of natural gas. In China’s 13 major coal-bearing basins, 10 coal-bearing basins are located in North China with 22.27 trillion cubic meters of coalbed methane resource, accounting for 68% of the total coalbed methane resource in China.” He explained China’s goal was to reach 10 billion cubic meters by 2010 and double that goal five years later. He wrote, “It is estimated conservatively that coalbed methane will account for 20 – 25 percent of the gas energy.”

Since 1998, when CUCBM signed its first production-sharing contract (PSCs) with Texaco, nearly thirty such CBM concessions have been awarded. Major oil companies, and those with the closest connections to Chinese government officials, were the earliest awarded, such as Arco, Phillips, Greka and Australia’s Lowell oil. Smaller U.S. firms, such as Far Eastern Energy, were later invited to participate.

One Example: Pacific Asia China Energy

By 2005, Canadian public companies were awarded CBM concessions – the first Canadian publicly traded firm to obtain not one, but two, production-sharing contracts was Pacific Asia China Energy (TSX: PCE). This has worked out well for this young company. An evaluation by leading CBM appraisal firm, Sproule International of Calgary, assessed the “most likely case” scenario for the company’s Guizhou property in southern China at 5.2 trillion cubic feet. Since then, the company has been drilling to confirm this estimate, and recently announced recent drill results “strongly correlate” with the independent technical report.

We asked the company’s vice president of exploration, Dr. David Marchioni about China’s view on CBM as part of the energy mix away from coal. He told us, “The central government is pushing hard for CBM exploration and mine degasification, which will yield CBM. They have announced a new formal policy promoting CBM and starting studies for new gas pipelines.”

Has CBM registered on the radar screen yet? “CUCBM themselves is actively exploring,” Marchioni said. “And CUCBM has production at present, but at fairly low volumes.” Pacific Asia China Energy (PACE) may become an important test case, with its massive 970 kilometer square concession in south-central China’s Guizhou province, in which the company would earn 60 percent by funding the exploration and pilot program. Would this help China’s energy mix? “What would have impact is if PACE or any other players could produce CBM at high volumes and that ‘it works’ in a big way,” Marchioni explained. “The technological learning from this and the news of success would encourage others.”

There are other reasons why a small company, such as PACE, would find enormous opportunity in China. “We would not be able to afford a sizeable concession (like this) in Canada or the western world,” Steve Khan, executive vice president of the company told us. Our investigation showed a comparable CBM concession, to what PACE holds in China, could cost more than $100 million in one of Alberta’s prolific coalbed methane areas.

A concession this size is not something the Chinese government didn’t want. Nor is it far removed from a population center. Within a radius of 500 miles, there are in excess of 240 million people. “The growth is so significant that any source from energy, including CBM, is being secured by the Chinese government,” Khan said. “The uniqueness about PACE is that we’re not looking to produce gas and sell it into the market. We can produce and sell it to the market which we are in. Industrial consumers there are short of gas to run their factories. Many of them are seeking out companies like us to contract for the secure delivery of gas.”

One of the problems, which companies developing energy relationships in China face, is convincing investors to focus on the positive aspects of the country’s dramatic GDP growth and its insatiable asset to obtain sufficient energy to maintain this rate. “North Americans are a little less attuned to what’s happening in China than the Europeans,” Khan explained. “When we visit the London fund managers, they look at this as a great opportunity, and they are investing more funds into that part of the world.”

Those who appear to be most eager in what PACE has are the Chinese. The company presented at a provincial coal symposium earlier this year. Because the national government has mandated the reclassification of existing coal areas before they can be mined, and because PACE has a joint venture with Mitchell Drilling of Australia, and their proprietary Dymaxion® drilling technology, one major door could open later this year. “We hope to be able to put in a pilot project on one of those coal mines,” Khan said. “The Chinese coal mines are very actively pursuing us to push that agenda forward because they are in need of that reclassification.”

CONCLUSION

By 2010, it’s a good bet China will have invested tens of billions to build up its energy portfolio. Many warn of a slowdown in early 2007, and it might give a much-needed breather to China’s runaway growth. Or this might be a brief pause in China’s remarkable transformation from an agricultural economy into an industrial superpower. The United States had some fifteen depressions as the country entered and passed through its own Industrial Revolution. It would not be surprising if China experienced volatility during this critical five-year plan. Four years from now, China might very well avert its potential energy crisis. In the meanwhile, this might suck up a great deal of the world’s energy sources, or drive energy prices to record highs. Nonetheless, it will be an exciting and erratic period while the rest of the world watches China out-perform the rest of the world’s economies.

James Finch contributes to StockInterview.com and other publications. Visit http://www.stockinterview.com to download your free copy of “Investing in the Great Uranium Bull Market: A Practical Investor’s Guide to Uranium Stocks.” You can always write to James Finch at jfinch@stockinterview.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=James_Finch

Consider Geothermal For Your New Home Heating System!

By Bill Prudehome

One thing is for sure energy prices are going to continue to rise. If you are considering replacing your heating and cooling systems or if you are building a new home then you should consider the advantages of using geothermal! One of the most energy efficient methods of heating and cooling your home is to use a geothermal heat exchanger.

Some geothermal systems even provide hot water for your home.

Geothermal heating and cooling is not science fiction, it is a proven method of supplying heating and cooling and its acceptance, and installation is growing daily. Savings on yearly energy bills can be as much as 60 percent. In the US, the federal government and many states are providing tax incentives and credits if you install a geothermal HVAC system. Other countries including Canada also have incentive programs. Check out your local electrical utility or government website.

How does it work?

It uses technologies that have been around for many years - pumps and heat exchangers. A well is drilled on your property. The water from the well is pumped through a heat exchanger in your home where a portion of the latent heat in that water is removed and used to heat your home. In the summer, as the water temperature is cooler than the outside air the system provides air conditioning to your home. In climates where temperatures fall below 0 degrees, supplemental heating using gas, electricity, or fuel oil may be incorporated into the system.

Electricity is used to power the pump and the circulation fans. There is no cost to the homeowner for the actual heat. No gas or fuel oil is consumed.

A geothermal system is not only cost beneficial, it is very environmentally friendly and it conserves our precious fossil fuels.

Interested?

For additional information on geothermal heating and cooling systems, follow the link.

For additional information on geothermal HVAC systems for your home or for information on other home renovation projects, visit Renovation Headquarters.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Bill_Prudehome