Energy Facts & Figures for Dummies Part II

Share this article on:

Last week we introduced Part 1, which can be read HERE. This is a continuation of this in depth look at facts pertaining the energy.  These facts will hopefully make our debate over energy issues become ore fact-based and less emotionally based.)
Introductory Notes
In keeping with Just Facts’ Standards of Credibility, all graphs show the full range of available data, and all facts are cited based upon availability and relevance, not to slant results by singling out specific years that are different from others.


just-facts-energy 150
Pollutants
When modern energy is unavailable or expensive, people tend to burn more wood, crop waste, manure, and coal in open fires and simple home stoves. Open fires and home stoves do not burn fuel as efficiently as commercial energy technologies, and hence, they produce elevated levels of outdoor and indoor pollutants. The added consumption of wood also causes deforestation. [63] [64] [65] [66] [67]
* Assessing the full environmental impacts of different energy technologies requires looking beyond the effects at a single point of production, use, or disposal. To do this, researchers perform “life cycle assessments” or LCAs. Per the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), LCAs allow for:
the estimation of the cumulative environmental impacts resulting from all stages in the product life cycle, often including impacts not considered in more traditional analyses (e.g., raw material extraction, material transportation, ultimate product disposal, etc.). By including the impacts throughout the product life cycle, LCA provides a comprehensive view of the environmental aspects of the product or process and a more accurate picture of the true environmental trade-offs in product and process selection.[68] [69]
* Per a 2008 paper in Environmental Science & Technology:
Indeed, all anthropogenic [manmade] means of generating energy, including solar electric, create pollutants when their entire life cycle is taken into account. Life-cycle emissions result from using fossil-fuel-based energy to produce the materials for solar cells, modules, and systems, as well as directly from smelting, production, and manufacturing facilities. [70]
* The air pollutants generated by energy sources vary with factors such as combustion methods, manufacturing techniques, and pollution control technologies.[71] [72] For example, bituminous coal combusted in a fluidized bed boiler without pollution controls produces one tenth the sulfur dioxide of the same fuel burned in a cyclone boiler without pollution controls. [73] [74] [75]
* In general:

  • electricity generated by nuclear, hydropower, solar, geothermal, and wind energy emits a fraction of the air pollutants of fossil fuels. [76] [77] [78] [79] [80]
  • geothermal heat pumps generate less pollutants than any other technology for heating and cooling. [81]
  • biofuels usually emit less air pollutants than petroleum-based fuels, although some biofuels emit more nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds over their lifecycles. [82] [83] [84] [85] [86]
  • natural gas combustion generates the lowest air pollutant emissions of all fossil fuels.[87] [88] [89] [90] [91]
  • as of 2000, electricity generated by coal combustion created more sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides than any other fuel. [92]

* Per the U.S. Department of Energy (2010):
While coal used to be a dirty fuel to burn, technology advances have helped to greatly improve air quality, especially in the last 20 years. Scientists have developed ways to capture the pollutants trapped in coal before they escape into the atmosphere. Today, technology can filter out 99 percent of the tiny particles and remove more than 95 percent of the acid rain pollutants in coal, and also help control mercury. [93] [94]
* In the U.S. from 1990 through 2015, sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions per Btu of coal-generated energy decreased by 86%, and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions decreased by 78%. [95]
* Since the late 1970s, new automobiles have been equipped with catalytic converters, an “anti-pollution device” that converts “exhaust pollutants … to normal atmospheric gases such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water.” [96] [97][98]
* Facts about air pollution levels and their effects are detailed in Just Facts’ research on pollution.
Greenhouse Gases
* Carbon dioxide (CO2) contributes more to the greenhouse effect than any other gas released by human activity.[99][100]
* In general:

  • electricity generated by nuclear, solar, geothermal, and wind energy emits a fraction of the greenhouse gases of fossil fuels.[101] [102] [103] [104] [105]
  • hydropower’s “air emissions are negligible because no fuels are burned. However, if a large amount of vegetation is growing along the riverbed when a dam is built, it can decay in the lake that is created, causing the buildup and release of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.”[106]
  • when extracting natural gas, coal, and petroleum from the ground, uncombusted methane can be released. Methane is a greenhouse gas that is 28 times more potent (per unit mass) than CO2.[107] [108] [109]
  • When combusted, fossil fuels emit the following amounts of CO2:

energy pollutants chart 1
* Biofuels such as ethanol generate CO2 when burned, but the crops used to make these fuels absorb an equal amount of CO2 as they grow. However, planting, fertilizing, harvesting, processing, and distributing ethanol emits more CO2 than extracting, refining, and distributing gasoline.[111] [112] [113] [114] [115]
* Per the U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO), lifecycle analyses comparing CO2 emissions of corn-based ethanol and gasoline have produced varying results, but the most authoritative study in the eyes of the federal government (conducted by Argonne National Laboratory) estimates that, on average, corn-based ethanol produces about 20% less CO2 than gasoline.[116]
* Another type of biofuel called cellulosic ethanol has the potential to produce 60-95% less CO2 emissions than gasoline. This fuel is more difficult to manufacture than regular ethanol, and as of 2016, producers have been unable to make enough of it to meet the mandated amounts specified in federal law.[117] [118] [119] [120][121] [122] [123]
* Converting undeveloped land to cultivate crops for biofuels creates CO2 emissions because existing plant life is removed and the soil is disrupted. If this land is repeatedly used to produce biofuels, the net CO2 emissions will be less than using fossil fuels. The timeframe until this breakeven point occurs depends upon factors such as the type of land converted and type of biofuel produced. Per a 2008 paper in the journal Science, the CO2 breakeven time of converting:

  • wetter portions of Brazil’s woodland/savanna region to produce sugarcane ethanol is about 17 years.
  • dryer portions of Brazil’s woodland/savanna region to produce soy biodiesel is about 37 years.
  • central grasslands of the U.S. to produce corn ethanol is about 93 years.
  • lowland tropical rainforest of Indonesia and Malaysia to produce palm biodiesel is about 320 years.
  • Amazonian rainforest to produce soy biodiesel is about 320 years.
  • tropical peatland rainforest to produce palm biodiesel is about 840 years.[124]

* Per the U.S. Energy Information Administration:

Most of the biodiesel produced in the United States is made from soybean oil. Some biodiesel is also produced from used oils or fats, including recycled restaurant grease. In some parts of the world, large areas of natural vegetation and forests have been cleared and burned to grow soybeans and palm oil trees to make biodiesel. The negative environmental impacts of land clearing may be greater than any potential benefits of using biodiesel produced from soybeans and palm oil trees.[125]

* Facts about greenhouse gases and climate change are detailed in Just Facts’ research on global warming.
* In order to perform useful work, energy usually must be converted from one form to another. Most energy on earth ultimately comes from the sun, and this energy typically undergoes multiple conversions before it is used to accomplish a particular task. For example, the energy that ultimately powers a light bulb may have the following history:

  • The process of fusion converts the nuclear energy of elements in the sun into sunlight (electromagnetic energy).
  • When sunlight strikes the earth’s oceans, some of it is converted to thermal energy.
  • This thermal energy heats the water and causes it to evaporate and rise, thus converting some of it to gravitational energy.
  • When this water falls as rain, it fills rivers that drive the turbines of hydroelectric dams, thus converting some of it to mechanical energy.
  • This mechanical energy is used to turn generators, thus converting some of it to electrical energy.
  • When this electrical energy flows through light bulbs, some of it is converted back to electromagnetic energy (light).[126] [127]

* With each conversion process, some amount of the energy is dispersed, thus making it less useful for performing work. Per the U.S. National Academy of Sciences:
Every time energy changes forms, some portion is “lost.” It doesn’t disappear, of course. In nature, energy is always conserved. That is, there is exactly as much of it around after something happens as there was before. But with each change, some amount of the original energy turns into forms we don’t want or can’t use, typically as so-called waste heat that is so diffuse it can’t be captured.
Reducing the amount lost – also known as increasing efficiency – is as important to our energy future as finding new sources because gigantic amounts of energy are lost every minute of every day in conversions.[128] [129] [130] [131]

* In the U.S. from 1949 to 2015, energy consumption per inflation-adjusted dollar of economic output decreased by 63%:

* Homes built in the U.S. from 2000-2009 are about 30% larger than homes built prior to this period, but they use about 2% more total energy. This result is primarily due to better insulation and increased efficiencies of heating and air conditioning technologies.[133]
* Homes built in the U.S. from 2000-2009 use about 18% more energy on appliances, electronics, and lighting than older homes.[134] This is because newer homes are more likely to have “dishwashers, clothes washers, clothes dryers, and two or more refrigerators.” Also, because they have more square footage, newer homes tend to have more “computers, TVs, and TV peripherals such as digital video recorders (DVRs) and video game systems.”[135]

* Increasing the efficiency of electronics, appliances, and lighting reduce the demand for energy and can save consumers money if the added cost of making these products more efficient does not exceed the cost of the energy saved.[136] [137]* Energy Star is a joint program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy. Per the program’s website:

If looking for new household products, look for ones that have earned the Energy Star. They meet strict energy efficiency guidelines set by the EPA and US Department of Energy.[138]
* In 2010, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) published an investigation of Energy Star in which GAO submitted 20 “bogus products” for approval. Fifteen of the products were approved, 2 were rejected, and 3 were unanswered at the time the report was published. Among the products certified as Energy Star compliant were:

  • a gasoline powered alarm clock.
  • a geothermal heat pump eligible for federal tax credits and state rebate programs that purportedly had higher efficiency than any Energy Star product.
  • a computer monitor that was approved within 30 minutes of submission.
  • “a room cleaner represented by a photograph of a feather duster adhered to a space heater on our [fake] manufacturer’s Web site.”


* The U.S. Green Building Council, per its website, is a “nonprofit organization committed to a prosperous and sustainable future for our nation through cost-efficient and energy-saving green buildings.”[140] This organization provides various types of green building certifications that qualify the owners for government incentives, such as tax breaks and zoning allowances. This rating system is named LEED for “Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design.”[141]
* In 2012, USA Today conducted an investigation of schools with green building certifications (such as LEED) and found:

  • “More than 200 states, federal agencies and municipalities require LEED certification for public buildings.”
  • out of 239 schools in the Houston (Texas) Independent School District, three newly built “green schools” ranked 46th, 155th, and 239th for energy costs per student.
  • “Building a LEED-certified school often adds 2% to 3% to construction costs, and as much as 10% in the case of a Selinsgrove, Pa., high school….”
  • a Green Building Council brochure had claimed that “green schools save money” based upon pre-construction cost estimates of 30 schools. One of these schools, located in Olympia, Washington, was projected to use 28% less energy than conventional schools. In its’ first two years of operations, the school used 19% more energy than conventional schools.
  • a Green Building Council brochure had claimed that “green schools help improve student performance,” but aUSA Today “review of student test scores for 65 schools in 11 states that have been rebuilt to get LEED certification and have been open for at least two years” found “no clear pattern” of improved student performance.[142]

* Per the U.S. National Academy of Sciences:
Another familiar form of conversion loss occurs in a vehicle’s internal combustion engine. The chemical energy in the gasoline is converted to heat energy, which provides pressure on the pistons. That mechanical energy is then transferred to the wheels, increasing the vehicle’s kinetic energy. Even with a host of modern improvements, current vehicles use only about 20% of the energy content of the fuel as power, with the rest wasted as heat.
Electric motors typically have much higher efficiency ratings. But the rating only describes how much of the electricity input they turn into power; it does not reflect how much of the original, primary energy is lost in generating the electricity in the first place and then getting it to the motor.
Efficiencies of heat engines can be improved further, but only to a degree. Principles of physics place upper limits on how efficient they can be. Still, efforts are being made to capture more of the energy that is lost and to make use of it. This already happens in vehicles in the winter months, when heat loss is captured and used to warm the interior for passengers.[143] [144]

Costs of Transportation Fuels

* Transportation fuels have different energy densities, and thus, the price per volume of each fuel does not accurately reflect the energy supplied to consumers. For example, the energy content of a gallon of ethanol is 31% less than a gallon of gasoline. Hence, a car fueled with E85 (a mixture of 70-85% ethanol and 15-30% gasoline) will get 25-30% less miles per gallon than the same car when it is fueled with pure gasoline.[145] [146] [147] [148] [149]
* Like ethanol, the volume of biodiesel blended with regular diesel is shown by a number that follows the first letter of the named fuel. Thus, B20 contains 20% biodiesel and 80% regular diesel.[150]
* On an energy-equivalent basis, the average subsidized retail prices (including taxes) for transportation fuels during 2015 were as follows:
fuel chart 1

[151]

* A federal law known as the “Renewable Fuel Standard” requires U.S. consumers to use certain amounts of ethanol and other biofuels. This mandate uses a compliance mechanism that transfers some of the costs of producing these fuels from biofuel companies to petroleum companies. These added costs are then passed on to consumers in the form of higher gas prices.[152] [153] [154] [155]
* During 2015, a federal tax credit subsidized biodiesel at a rate of $1.00 per gallon.[156]
* Federal payments, tax breaks, loans, and loan guarantees subsidize petroleum and natural gas production at a rate of about $0.01 per gasoline-gallon equivalent.[157]
* Combining the data above yields the following average prices for transportation fuels during 2015 without federal subsidies:
fuel chart 2

[158]

To be continued…
Email this author

Posted in Energy, Environment, Latest | Comments Off on Energy Facts & Figures for Dummies Part II

Energy Facts & Figures for Dummies Part II

Share this article on:

Last week we introduced Part 1, which can be read HERE. This is a continuation of this in depth look at facts pertaining the energy.  These facts will hopefully make our debate over energy issues become ore fact-based and less emotionally based.)
Introductory Notes
In keeping with Just Facts’ Standards of Credibility, all graphs show the full range of available data, and all facts are cited based upon availability and relevance, not to slant results by singling out specific years that are different from others.


just-facts-energy 150
Pollutants
When modern energy is unavailable or expensive, people tend to burn more wood, crop waste, manure, and coal in open fires and simple home stoves. Open fires and home stoves do not burn fuel as efficiently as commercial energy technologies, and hence, they produce elevated levels of outdoor and indoor pollutants. The added consumption of wood also causes deforestation. [63] [64] [65] [66] [67]
* Assessing the full environmental impacts of different energy technologies requires looking beyond the effects at a single point of production, use, or disposal. To do this, researchers perform “life cycle assessments” or LCAs. Per the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), LCAs allow for:
the estimation of the cumulative environmental impacts resulting from all stages in the product life cycle, often including impacts not considered in more traditional analyses (e.g., raw material extraction, material transportation, ultimate product disposal, etc.). By including the impacts throughout the product life cycle, LCA provides a comprehensive view of the environmental aspects of the product or process and a more accurate picture of the true environmental trade-offs in product and process selection.[68] [69]
* Per a 2008 paper in Environmental Science & Technology:
Indeed, all anthropogenic [manmade] means of generating energy, including solar electric, create pollutants when their entire life cycle is taken into account. Life-cycle emissions result from using fossil-fuel-based energy to produce the materials for solar cells, modules, and systems, as well as directly from smelting, production, and manufacturing facilities. [70]
* The air pollutants generated by energy sources vary with factors such as combustion methods, manufacturing techniques, and pollution control technologies.[71] [72] For example, bituminous coal combusted in a fluidized bed boiler without pollution controls produces one tenth the sulfur dioxide of the same fuel burned in a cyclone boiler without pollution controls. [73] [74] [75]
* In general:

  • electricity generated by nuclear, hydropower, solar, geothermal, and wind energy emits a fraction of the air pollutants of fossil fuels. [76] [77] [78] [79] [80]
  • geothermal heat pumps generate less pollutants than any other technology for heating and cooling. [81]
  • biofuels usually emit less air pollutants than petroleum-based fuels, although some biofuels emit more nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds over their lifecycles. [82] [83] [84] [85] [86]
  • natural gas combustion generates the lowest air pollutant emissions of all fossil fuels.[87] [88] [89] [90] [91]
  • as of 2000, electricity generated by coal combustion created more sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides than any other fuel. [92]

* Per the U.S. Department of Energy (2010):
While coal used to be a dirty fuel to burn, technology advances have helped to greatly improve air quality, especially in the last 20 years. Scientists have developed ways to capture the pollutants trapped in coal before they escape into the atmosphere. Today, technology can filter out 99 percent of the tiny particles and remove more than 95 percent of the acid rain pollutants in coal, and also help control mercury. [93] [94]
* In the U.S. from 1990 through 2015, sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions per Btu of coal-generated energy decreased by 86%, and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions decreased by 78%. [95]
* Since the late 1970s, new automobiles have been equipped with catalytic converters, an “anti-pollution device” that converts “exhaust pollutants … to normal atmospheric gases such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water.” [96] [97][98]
* Facts about air pollution levels and their effects are detailed in Just Facts’ research on pollution.
Greenhouse Gases
* Carbon dioxide (CO2) contributes more to the greenhouse effect than any other gas released by human activity.[99][100]
* In general:

  • electricity generated by nuclear, solar, geothermal, and wind energy emits a fraction of the greenhouse gases of fossil fuels.[101] [102] [103] [104] [105]
  • hydropower’s “air emissions are negligible because no fuels are burned. However, if a large amount of vegetation is growing along the riverbed when a dam is built, it can decay in the lake that is created, causing the buildup and release of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.”[106]
  • when extracting natural gas, coal, and petroleum from the ground, uncombusted methane can be released. Methane is a greenhouse gas that is 28 times more potent (per unit mass) than CO2.[107] [108] [109]
  • When combusted, fossil fuels emit the following amounts of CO2:

energy pollutants chart 1
* Biofuels such as ethanol generate CO2 when burned, but the crops used to make these fuels absorb an equal amount of CO2 as they grow. However, planting, fertilizing, harvesting, processing, and distributing ethanol emits more CO2 than extracting, refining, and distributing gasoline.[111] [112] [113] [114] [115]
* Per the U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO), lifecycle analyses comparing CO2 emissions of corn-based ethanol and gasoline have produced varying results, but the most authoritative study in the eyes of the federal government (conducted by Argonne National Laboratory) estimates that, on average, corn-based ethanol produces about 20% less CO2 than gasoline.[116]
* Another type of biofuel called cellulosic ethanol has the potential to produce 60-95% less CO2 emissions than gasoline. This fuel is more difficult to manufacture than regular ethanol, and as of 2016, producers have been unable to make enough of it to meet the mandated amounts specified in federal law.[117] [118] [119] [120][121] [122] [123]
* Converting undeveloped land to cultivate crops for biofuels creates CO2 emissions because existing plant life is removed and the soil is disrupted. If this land is repeatedly used to produce biofuels, the net CO2 emissions will be less than using fossil fuels. The timeframe until this breakeven point occurs depends upon factors such as the type of land converted and type of biofuel produced. Per a 2008 paper in the journal Science, the CO2 breakeven time of converting:

  • wetter portions of Brazil’s woodland/savanna region to produce sugarcane ethanol is about 17 years.
  • dryer portions of Brazil’s woodland/savanna region to produce soy biodiesel is about 37 years.
  • central grasslands of the U.S. to produce corn ethanol is about 93 years.
  • lowland tropical rainforest of Indonesia and Malaysia to produce palm biodiesel is about 320 years.
  • Amazonian rainforest to produce soy biodiesel is about 320 years.
  • tropical peatland rainforest to produce palm biodiesel is about 840 years.[124]

* Per the U.S. Energy Information Administration:

Most of the biodiesel produced in the United States is made from soybean oil. Some biodiesel is also produced from used oils or fats, including recycled restaurant grease. In some parts of the world, large areas of natural vegetation and forests have been cleared and burned to grow soybeans and palm oil trees to make biodiesel. The negative environmental impacts of land clearing may be greater than any potential benefits of using biodiesel produced from soybeans and palm oil trees.[125]

* Facts about greenhouse gases and climate change are detailed in Just Facts’ research on global warming.
* In order to perform useful work, energy usually must be converted from one form to another. Most energy on earth ultimately comes from the sun, and this energy typically undergoes multiple conversions before it is used to accomplish a particular task. For example, the energy that ultimately powers a light bulb may have the following history:

  • The process of fusion converts the nuclear energy of elements in the sun into sunlight (electromagnetic energy).
  • When sunlight strikes the earth’s oceans, some of it is converted to thermal energy.
  • This thermal energy heats the water and causes it to evaporate and rise, thus converting some of it to gravitational energy.
  • When this water falls as rain, it fills rivers that drive the turbines of hydroelectric dams, thus converting some of it to mechanical energy.
  • This mechanical energy is used to turn generators, thus converting some of it to electrical energy.
  • When this electrical energy flows through light bulbs, some of it is converted back to electromagnetic energy (light).[126] [127]

* With each conversion process, some amount of the energy is dispersed, thus making it less useful for performing work. Per the U.S. National Academy of Sciences:
Every time energy changes forms, some portion is “lost.” It doesn’t disappear, of course. In nature, energy is always conserved. That is, there is exactly as much of it around after something happens as there was before. But with each change, some amount of the original energy turns into forms we don’t want or can’t use, typically as so-called waste heat that is so diffuse it can’t be captured.
Reducing the amount lost – also known as increasing efficiency – is as important to our energy future as finding new sources because gigantic amounts of energy are lost every minute of every day in conversions.[128] [129] [130] [131]

* In the U.S. from 1949 to 2015, energy consumption per inflation-adjusted dollar of economic output decreased by 63%:

* Homes built in the U.S. from 2000-2009 are about 30% larger than homes built prior to this period, but they use about 2% more total energy. This result is primarily due to better insulation and increased efficiencies of heating and air conditioning technologies.[133]
* Homes built in the U.S. from 2000-2009 use about 18% more energy on appliances, electronics, and lighting than older homes.[134] This is because newer homes are more likely to have “dishwashers, clothes washers, clothes dryers, and two or more refrigerators.” Also, because they have more square footage, newer homes tend to have more “computers, TVs, and TV peripherals such as digital video recorders (DVRs) and video game systems.”[135]

* Increasing the efficiency of electronics, appliances, and lighting reduce the demand for energy and can save consumers money if the added cost of making these products more efficient does not exceed the cost of the energy saved.[136] [137]* Energy Star is a joint program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy. Per the program’s website:

If looking for new household products, look for ones that have earned the Energy Star. They meet strict energy efficiency guidelines set by the EPA and US Department of Energy.[138]
* In 2010, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) published an investigation of Energy Star in which GAO submitted 20 “bogus products” for approval. Fifteen of the products were approved, 2 were rejected, and 3 were unanswered at the time the report was published. Among the products certified as Energy Star compliant were:

  • a gasoline powered alarm clock.
  • a geothermal heat pump eligible for federal tax credits and state rebate programs that purportedly had higher efficiency than any Energy Star product.
  • a computer monitor that was approved within 30 minutes of submission.
  • “a room cleaner represented by a photograph of a feather duster adhered to a space heater on our [fake] manufacturer’s Web site.”


* The U.S. Green Building Council, per its website, is a “nonprofit organization committed to a prosperous and sustainable future for our nation through cost-efficient and energy-saving green buildings.”[140] This organization provides various types of green building certifications that qualify the owners for government incentives, such as tax breaks and zoning allowances. This rating system is named LEED for “Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design.”[141]
* In 2012, USA Today conducted an investigation of schools with green building certifications (such as LEED) and found:

  • “More than 200 states, federal agencies and municipalities require LEED certification for public buildings.”
  • out of 239 schools in the Houston (Texas) Independent School District, three newly built “green schools” ranked 46th, 155th, and 239th for energy costs per student.
  • “Building a LEED-certified school often adds 2% to 3% to construction costs, and as much as 10% in the case of a Selinsgrove, Pa., high school….”
  • a Green Building Council brochure had claimed that “green schools save money” based upon pre-construction cost estimates of 30 schools. One of these schools, located in Olympia, Washington, was projected to use 28% less energy than conventional schools. In its’ first two years of operations, the school used 19% more energy than conventional schools.
  • a Green Building Council brochure had claimed that “green schools help improve student performance,” but aUSA Today “review of student test scores for 65 schools in 11 states that have been rebuilt to get LEED certification and have been open for at least two years” found “no clear pattern” of improved student performance.[142]

* Per the U.S. National Academy of Sciences:
Another familiar form of conversion loss occurs in a vehicle’s internal combustion engine. The chemical energy in the gasoline is converted to heat energy, which provides pressure on the pistons. That mechanical energy is then transferred to the wheels, increasing the vehicle’s kinetic energy. Even with a host of modern improvements, current vehicles use only about 20% of the energy content of the fuel as power, with the rest wasted as heat.
Electric motors typically have much higher efficiency ratings. But the rating only describes how much of the electricity input they turn into power; it does not reflect how much of the original, primary energy is lost in generating the electricity in the first place and then getting it to the motor.
Efficiencies of heat engines can be improved further, but only to a degree. Principles of physics place upper limits on how efficient they can be. Still, efforts are being made to capture more of the energy that is lost and to make use of it. This already happens in vehicles in the winter months, when heat loss is captured and used to warm the interior for passengers.[143] [144]

Costs of Transportation Fuels

* Transportation fuels have different energy densities, and thus, the price per volume of each fuel does not accurately reflect the energy supplied to consumers. For example, the energy content of a gallon of ethanol is 31% less than a gallon of gasoline. Hence, a car fueled with E85 (a mixture of 70-85% ethanol and 15-30% gasoline) will get 25-30% less miles per gallon than the same car when it is fueled with pure gasoline.[145] [146] [147] [148] [149]
* Like ethanol, the volume of biodiesel blended with regular diesel is shown by a number that follows the first letter of the named fuel. Thus, B20 contains 20% biodiesel and 80% regular diesel.[150]
* On an energy-equivalent basis, the average subsidized retail prices (including taxes) for transportation fuels during 2015 were as follows:
fuel chart 1

[151]

* A federal law known as the “Renewable Fuel Standard” requires U.S. consumers to use certain amounts of ethanol and other biofuels. This mandate uses a compliance mechanism that transfers some of the costs of producing these fuels from biofuel companies to petroleum companies. These added costs are then passed on to consumers in the form of higher gas prices.[152] [153] [154] [155]
* During 2015, a federal tax credit subsidized biodiesel at a rate of $1.00 per gallon.[156]
* Federal payments, tax breaks, loans, and loan guarantees subsidize petroleum and natural gas production at a rate of about $0.01 per gasoline-gallon equivalent.[157]
* Combining the data above yields the following average prices for transportation fuels during 2015 without federal subsidies:
fuel chart 2

[158]

To be continued…
Email this author

Posted in Energy, Environment, Latest | Comments Off on Energy Facts & Figures for Dummies Part II

Getting an Initial Handle On Immigration Reform

Share this article on:

BorderPatrolOne of the issues that continues to confront our nation is what to do about those illegal residents living in our communities now and how to reform the entire immigration and naturalization system. A few ideas toward that end are outlined herein.
First, we have to secure our borders. Whatever Congress decides, it is clear that our borders need to be more secure. That’s step one to bringing a solution to our immigration problem in this country.
Second is terminology. I have found that those immigrants who have come to our country under the existing laws, are very proud to be immigrant Americans. To them being an immigrant is, by definition, someone who has come to this country legally. And to refer to those who are not here legally as “illegal immigrants” is offensive to those who are legally here, those who are American citizens, and those who are working toward citizenship. So let’s talk about “illegal residents.”
One creative solution to consider comes from the Vernon Krieble Foundation in Colorado. Recognizing that both high tech and agricultural companies are unable to find enough workers, Krieble proposes a simple way for non-citizen workers and their families to legally come to the U.S. for specific jobs and for a specific period of time – for temporary workers filling jobs that are needed to filled right now. A Red Card that would allow workers to enter the country for a specific job and keep track of them. A new non-citizen work permit would be issued for a specific job waiting for this person. These non-citizen workers would go through a background check and return home at the end of their employment. By one estimate, this would stop up to 90 percent of illegal border crossings and free up the resources and manpower needed to control the border. Other estimates are that 40% of those living here illegally do not want to stay but are here to make good money and to send that money home to their families. The Red Card might be a solution to make these folks legal as well (http://redcardsolution.com/index.php/about-red-card).
Let’s increase the number of H1B1 visas for technology experts from other countries as long as we are not “minting” enough technology folks within our own borders. One concern might be that we will be employing technology workers, giving them substantial knowledge and training, and then they go back to their home country and compete against us. Another is that we should be hiring US citizens for these jobs. My bet is that our economy can use as many technology workers as we can produce ourselves and that we can bring here through an expanded H1B1 program. There are many job openings in the technology field right now that are not filled.
What about those high school students who are not US citizens and who came over here at an early age with their parents who are illegal residents? How to handle these kids who acclimated to our society, are Americans is their outlook and behavior and have excelled in high school? Many say they should not be eligible for in-state college tuition. However, this might be a better idea: if a young person excels in high school, competes and is accepted into a state college or university but is an illegal resident, then let them attend as an in-state student as they work toward U.S. citizenship. And they can only graduate if they have become citizens within that four year period of time. This means we have to speed up the citizenship process as part of a complete immigration system overhaul.
How do we handle the 11,000,000 or more illegal residents now here in the United States? This is not as tricky as it sounds. The Red Card Solution mentioned above could handle a large percentage of these people in a sensible way. Here is another idea. After the borders are secure, give those who are here illegally two options. Option one: go back to their home country, get in line, secure a visa, pay a fine for being here illegally, and come back into the US legally. Option two: after a background check give this person legal status, they pay a fine over a period of time, but U.S. citizenship is never allowed. This takes the political issue of voting off the table, brings these folks out of the shadows, and they become taxpaying members of our society. The issue that will have to be settled is how to handle government programs for these folks – welfare, social security, Medicaid and Medicare, etc. But reasonable people ought to be able to develop a reasonable way to handle these issues once those who are illegal residents today become legal residents and start paying taxes.
This issue of illegal residents can be handled creatively, humanely and with the support of most in our communities.
Email this author

Posted in Immigration, Latest | Comments Off on Getting an Initial Handle On Immigration Reform

How to Cut UVA Tuition 74% Without Really Trying

Share this article on:

UVa_Rotunda 150Helen Dragas, former rector of the University of Virginia, tried yesterday in op-eds published in the Roanoke Times andDaily Progress to jump-start a conversation about how to dispose of roughly $100 million a year income from a $2.3 billion “Strategic Investment Fund” cobbled together from various sources.
That conversation never occurred in the full Board of Visitors because, Dragas charged, university officials had shepherded a series of actions creating the fund without completely explaining its real purpose. Only after the fact did she come to understand that the estimated $100 million a year was to be used primarily to hire faculty, build labs, promote research and otherwise advance the prestige and reputation of the university — and that was in her last few days as a board member. And when the full board was invited to discuss the university’s plans for the money, it was in a closed meeting the legality of which Dragas has questioned.
Here are proposals that Dragas outlined in her op-eds:

  • Roll back tuition by 74% for in-state students, saving about $5,500 a year of $22,000 for a four-year degree. That would still leave between $40 million and $100 million a year to dedicated to university advancement.
  • Freeze tuition for five years by cutting non-classroom spending.
  • Reduce the $67 million a year spend on financial awards to out-of-state students. With 21,000 applications for 1,200 out-of-state, first-year spots, subsidies are unnecessary.
  • Cut administrative salaries. University staff is overloaded with highly paid administrators. One assistant to a secretary earns roughly $115,000 a year (equivalent to nine student tuitions).
  • Control construction costs. “Excessive costs of almost $1,000 per square foot for a medical center waiting room and $425 per square foot for a maintenance building help explain why cash flow from depreciation has fed the surpluses over time.”
  • Rationalize fund-raising efforts. The university has more than 20 related foundations whose combined activities reportedly cost it more than three times the national non-profit average per dollar raised.

Finally, Dragas proposes:

Virginians interested in mission-centered, efficiently run state institutions should engage a team of the brightest MBA candidates to audit the university’s spending. These objective young minds would earn a stipend, gain valuable experience, and play a meaningful role in keeping UVa excellence affordable for the next several generations.”

Oh, and by the way, the work of the student audit teams would be completely transparent. “That way, board members, administrators, other students and taxpayers could all benefit from their insights and example.”
(This article first ran in Bacon’s Rebellion on August 1, 2016)
bacon-90Email this author

Posted in Education, Latest | Comments Off on How to Cut UVA Tuition 74% Without Really Trying

Managed Lanes Maturing, Adding New Locations

Share this article on:

HOV-lane-150In my June column in Public Works Financing, I wrote about two ongoing developments in the evolution of priced managed lanes. First, a growing number of projects now require at least three people in the vehicle to qualify for free passage; 10 such projects are in operation, with more under construction (such as the I-77 project in Charlotte). Second, there’s a newer trend to exempt only buses and registered vanpools (i.e., super HOVs) from paying tolls, with three such projects in operation and a new one about to open (Mopac, in Austin, TX).
There are two reasons for these changes, as more experience is gained with priced managed lanes. To effectively use variable pricing to keep traffic flowing smoothly, nearly all the vehicles using the managed lanes must be affected by those prices. Policies like those on several California projects that give a majority of vehicles free passage (as HOV-2s or alternative-fuel vehicles) risk traffic flow breakdown, defeating the purpose and value of variable pricing. The second reason is that large metro areas increasingly intend to build out seamless networks of managed lanes. But most of the lane-miles in these networks, of necessity, will be new construction. And for that to be affordable, there needs to be robust toll revenue, on which financing of the projects can be based.
So I’ll venture to say that the days of HOV-2 “HOT lanes” are numbered, and from here on out, we will be seeing primarily true express toll lanes, in which everybody except very high-occupancy vehicles (buses, primarily) will be paying variable tolls.
Atlanta is a good example, as columnist Kyle Wingfield noted recently in his blog for theAtlanta Journal Constitution. He pointed out that Georgia DOT’s plan to spend about $11 billion over the next decade adding express toll lanes to the metro Atlanta freeway system is an $11 billion investment in transit guideways—if the region’s transit agencies have the good sense to take full advantage of the emerging uncongested network.
Austin, as noted above, is about to open the northbound lane of its new Mopac express toll lanes project, which will be free only to buses, not HOVs. And Capital Metro is planning new express bus routes to take advantage of Mopac and several other express toll lane projects that are under way in the region. The most ambitious of these would spend $4 billion revamping congested I-35 through the metro area, including express toll lanes that, again, would be free only for Capital Metro express buses.
In Charlotte, I’m pleased to report that the state Senate did not take up the bill passed by the state House that would have cancelled the concession agreement under which the I-77 express toll lanes are already under construction. Like most new-construction projects, this one will require a minimum of three persons in the vehicle to obtain free passage, consistent with the project financing for the $647 million project being based on toll revenues.
Chicago last month saw the opening of reversible express toll lanes on the Chicago Skyway, which is being managed, operated, and improved under a 99-year toll concession. The new express lanes will use all-electronic tolling and will exclude trucks. The natural extension of the project would be converting to variable tolling the reversible (non-tolled) express lanes on the Dan Ryan Expressway (I-90), that begin at the northern end of the Skyway. And that project, in turn, could jump-start long-discussed plans to add express toll lanes to other portions of Chicagoland’s very congested freeway network. Similar non-tolled express lanes operate on the Kennedy Expressway, and could also be converted to variable pricing.
The Dallas/Fort Worth metro area, with express toll lanes in operation on both the LBJ Expressway (I-635) and the North Tarrant Express, has another such project under construction on US 360. A joint effort of the North Texas Tollway Authority, the North Central Texas Council of Governments, and Texas DOT, the $330 million project is adding two express toll lanes each way over a nearly 10-mile stretch of this expressway. A second phase to extend the new lanes would bring the total cost to $604 million.
Houston is under way on the first of its managed lanes to be developed as a toll concession. The project, close to beginning construction, will add 10 miles of express toll lanes each way in the median of SH 288, from Brazoria County to US 59 in Houston itself.
A new entrant into the express toll lanes field could be Little Rock, AR. The Arkansas Highway & Transportation Dept. is considering a major widening of I-30, from I-530 in Little Rock to Benton, home of Walmart’s corporate headquarters. The Little Rock MPO, Metroplan, has a regional high-occupancy toll lanes study under way.
In Tampa, FL, the long-running controversy over Florida DOT’s plans for a $3.5 billion Tampa Bay Express network of express toll lanes picked up important endorsements in June. Local transit agency HART “unequivocally” supported TBX, and was followed by an endorsement from the South Tampa Chamber of Commerce. The following week, the Hillsborough MPO voted 12-4 to support the project, including it in the MPO’s long-range transportation plan.
Finally, the congestion-plagued Washington, DC metro area got some good news early in July. Virginia DOT won a $165 million federal FASTLANE grant, which will cover its share of already-approved projects under which concession company Transurban will extend the I-95 express toll lanes 10 miles further south toward Fredericksburg and about 7 miles north along I-395 to the Potomac River. And across the river, the Southern Maryland Transportation Alliance is working to build support for relieving congestion on I-270 by adding two express toll lanes each way, to be toll-financed under a P3 concession agreement. If this project goes forward, it would yield another link in the emerging express toll lanes network in the metro DC region.
(This article first ran in the July issue of Surface Transportation Innovations)
Email this author

Posted in Latest, Transportation | Comments Off on Managed Lanes Maturing, Adding New Locations