Obama DOD Spends $150 A Gallon For Algal Jet Fuel Rather Than $2.88 A Gallon For Conventional Fuel

Obama Defense Dept. Spends $150 A Gallon For Algal Jet Fuel Rather Than $2.88 A Gallon For Conventional Fuel – Gateway Pundit

It’s an Obama world.

The US military is spending as much as $150 per gallon of jet fuel from algal sources rather than $2.88 a gallon for conventional jet fuel.

.

.
The Washington Times reported:

Last month, a Government Accountability Office report found that the military was spending as much as $150 a gallon on alternative jet fuel derived from algal oil rather than $2.88 a gallon for conventional jet fuel.

“Why should the Defense Department be paying for solar panels? Why should defense be paying for biorefineries? Those are not defense items. We have a Department of Energy that’s supposed to be doing that stuff. The disarming of America is not just what he’s been doing in cuts or delays like the F-35s, but less obvious is what he’s puts in [the defense budget] that we’re spending money on that should be spent on defense as opposed to his agenda.

“Now, [the president’s] true to his agenda, and you may agree with it and that’s fine. I don’t,” Mr. Inhofe said.

Meanwhile, veterans are dying before they can get help from the VA.

.

.

Tens Of Thousands Of High-Paying Jobs Lost As Canada Pulls Plug On Keystone Pipeline

Report: Canada Pulls Plug On Keystone Pipeline; Will Send Oil To Asia – Gateway Pundit

The Keystone Pipeline project was expected to create tens of thousands of high paying jobs in the oil industry. The project itself would create 20,000 construction jobs. And the pipeline would bring oil from Canada and North Dakota to refineries in the United States.

.
…………

.
The proposed project would have extended from Alberta, Canada to Illinois, transporting approximately 400,000 barrels of crude oil per day. Estimated cost is $1.7 billion.

But Obama rejected the plan in 2011 and 2014.

Democrats are beholden to the radical green movement – the poor and middle class be damned.

Now this…

Canada pulled the plug on Keystone and will send the oil to Asia.

Watts Up With That reported:

Obama’s inability to make a decision on Keystone has finally yielded a result – Canada has made the decision for him.

Breitbart reports Canada has just approved the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project – a major pipeline to ship Canadian oil to Asia.

The Canadian oil will still be burnt – in Asia, instead of America.

All the jobs and energy security which Canadian oil could have delivered to America, will instead be delivered to Asia.

Rather than purchasing crude from a friendly and allied neighbor, the United States will most likely need to continue its reliance upon hostile sources like Venezuela.

Only a Democrat could make such a dangerous and irresponsible decision for the country.

.

.

Russia Dumping The Dollar

Russia Is Actually Abandoning The Dollar – Daily Sheeple

.

.
The Russians are actually making a move against the petrodollar. It appears that they are quite serious about their de-dollarization strategy. The largest natural gas producer on the planet, Gazprom, has signed agreements with some of their biggest customers to switch payments for natural gas from U.S. dollars to euros. And Gazprom would have never done this without the full approval of the Russian government, because the Russian government holds a majority stake in Gazprom. There hasn’t been a word about this from the big mainstream news networks in the United States, but this is huge. When you are talking about Gazprom, you are talking about a company that is absolutely massive. It is one of the largest companies in the entire world and it makes up 8 percent of Russian GDP all by itself. It holds 18 percent of the natural gas reserves of the entire planet, and it is also a very large oil producer. So for Gazprom to make a move like this is extremely significant.

When Barack Obama decided to slap some meaningless economic sanctions on Russia a while back, he probably figured that the world would forget about them after a few news cycles.

But the Russians do not forget, and they certainly do not forgive.

At this point the Russians are turning their back on the United States, and that includes the U.S. dollar.

What you are about to read is absolutely stunning, and yet you have not heard about it from any major U.S. news source. But what Gazprom is now doing has the potential to really shake up the global financial landscape. The following is an excerpt from a news report by the ITAR-TASS news agency

Gazprom Neft had signed additional agreements with consumers on a possible switch from dollars to euros for payments under contracts, the oil company’s head Alexander Dyukov told a press conference.

“Additional agreements of Gazprom Neft on the possibility to switch contracts from dollars to euros are signed. With Belarus, payments in roubles are agreed on,” he said.

Dyukov said nine of ten consumers had agreed to switch to euros.

And Gazprom is not the only big company in Russia that is moving away from the U.S. dollar.

According to RT, other large Russian corporations are moving to other currencies as well…

Russia will start settling more contracts in Asian currencies, especially the yuan, in order to lessen its dependence on the dollar market, and because of Western-led sanctions that could freeze funds at any moment.

“Over the last few weeks there has been a significant interest in the market from large Russian corporations to start using various products in renminbi and other Asian currencies, and to set up accounts in Asian locations,” Pavel Teplukhin, head of Deutsche Bank in Russia, told the Financial Times, which was published in an article on Sunday.

Diversifying trade accounts from dollars to the Chinese yuan and other Asian currencies such as the Hong Kong dollar and Singapore dollar has been a part of Russia’s pivot towards Asian as tension with Europe and the US remain strained over Russia’s action in Ukraine.

And according to Zero Hedge, “expanding the use of non-dollar currencies” is one of the main things that major Russian banks are working on right now…

Andrei Kostin, chief executive of state bank VTB, said that expanding the use of non-dollar currencies was one of the bank’s “main tasks”. “Given the extent of our bilateral trade with China, developing the use of settlements in roubles and yuan [renminbi] is a priority on the agenda, and so we are working on it now,” he told Russia’s President Vladimir Putin during a briefing. “Since May, we have been carrying out this work.”

“There is nothing wrong with Russia trying to reduce its dependency on the dollar, actually it is an entirely reasonable thing to do,” said the Russia head of another large European bank. He added that Russia’s large exposure to the dollar subjects it to more market volatility in times of crisis. “There is no reason why you have to settle trade you do with Japan in dollars,” he said.

The entire country is undergoing a major financial conversion.

This is just staggering.

Meanwhile, Russians have been pulling money out of U.S. banks at an unprecedented pace

So in March, without waiting for the sanction spiral to kick in, Russians yanked their moolah out of US banks. Deposits by Russians in US banks suddenly plunged from $21.6 billion to $8.4 billion. They yanked out 61% of their deposits in just one month! They’d learned their lesson in Cyprus the hard way: get your money out while you still can before it gets confiscated.

For those that don’t think that all of this could hurt the U.S. economy or the U.S. financial system, you really need to go back and read my previous article entitled “De-Dollarization: Russia Is On The Verge Of Dealing A Massive Blow To The Petrodollar“. The truth is that the U.S. economic system is extremely dependent on the financial behavior of the rest of the globe.

Because nearly everyone else around the rest of the planet uses our currency to trade with one another, that keeps the value of the U.S. dollar artificially high and it keeps our borrowing costs artificially low.

As Russia abandons the U.S. dollar that will hurt, but if other nations start following suit that could eventually cause a financial avalanche.

What we are witnessing right now is just a turning point.

The effects won’t be felt right away. So don’t expect this to cause financial disaster next week or next month.

But this is definitely another element in the “perfect storm” that is starting to brew for the U.S. economy.

Yes, we have been living in a temporary bubble of false stability for a few years. However, the long-term outlook has not gotten any better. In fact, the long-term trends that are destroying our economic and financial foundations just continue to get even worse.

So enjoy the “good times” while you still can.

They certainly will not last too much longer.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

As Promised, Obama To Impose New EPA Regulations That Will Cause Energy Prices To Skyrocket (Video)

Obama Declares War On Poor & Middle Class; New Rules Will Force Energy Prices To Skyrocket – Gateway Pundit

We were warned…

In January 2008 Barack Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle:

“Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Businesses would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that cost onto consumers.”

He promised that his plan would cause electricity rates to skyrocket.

.

.
He wasn’t kidding.

.

.
On Monday the Obama administration unveiled the first-ever national limits on carbon emissions from existing power plants.

FOX News reported:

The Obama administration on Monday unveiled the first-ever national limits on carbon emissions from existing power plants, a controversial regulation aimed at fulfilling a key plank of President Obama’s climate change agenda.

The Environmental Protection Agency wants existing plants to cut pollution by 30 percent by 2030, under the plan.

The draft regulation sidesteps Congress, where Obama’s Democratic allies have failed to pass a so-called “cap-and-trade” plan to limit such emissions. The EPA plan will go into effect in June 2016, following a one-year comment period. States will then be responsible for executing the rule with some flexibility.

They are expected to be allowed to require power plants to make changes such as switching from coal to natural gas or enact other programs to reduce demand for electricity and produce more energy from renewable sources.

They also can set up pollution-trading markets as some states already have done to offer more flexibility in how plants cut emissions.

If a state refuses to create a plan, the EPA can make its own.

Obama’s energy policies will disproportionately harm the poor, middle class and minorities.

Real Clear Energy reported:

A study by Eugene M. Trisko for American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity reviewed the disproportionate impact of higher energy costs on differing income groups from 2001 to 2011.

The study found that the amount of money spent on energy for half of American households that make less than $50,000 almost doubled rising from 12 percent in 2001 to 20 percent in 2011.

Minorities with lower average incomes than white households are disproportionately harmed by rising energy prices.

For example, in 2009, 67 percent of black households and 62 percent of Hispanic households had average incomes below $50,000 in contrast with only 46 percent of white households.[4]

Since minority households have lower incomes than white households, rising energy prices will take a larger share of their family’s disposable income leaving fewer dollars for housing, medicine and clothes.

Obama’s refusal to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, new greenhouse gas regulations from the EPA and discussions of a carbon tax provides more evidence that Obama’s anti-fossil fuel agenda will force energy prices higher.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Well, Obama does not break ALL his promises

Sure, he lied about transparency, not allowing lobbyists to have access to the White House, and then there is that whopper about keeping your doctors and insurance. Oh and about Benghazi too. But, about bankrupting coal with regulations? That he was honest about

Yep, he said it. His goal is to bankrupt any business that relies on coal.

“If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them,” Obama said, responding to a question about his cap-and-trade plan. He later added, “Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

So fast forward to the present day and he is still at it.

On Monday, Obama plans to announce his decision to use his executive power to cut carbon emissions by up to 20 percent, a move that would be “the strongest action ever taken by an American president to tackle climate change,” The New York Times reports.

The initiative would allow states to use cap-and-trade systems, which let companies emitting pollutants buy and sell greenhouse gas emission allowances. A cap is set on the total number of permits to dispense carbon emissions. Companies that emit larger amounts of greenhouse gases can buy additional permits from companies that don’t need to emit as many.

Hope and Change? Looks more like Marx and Lennin. This cap and trade nonsense failed to make it through Congress, but Obama needs no stinkin’ Congressional approval. He has that magic executive order pen ya know.

Prince Charles plays Chicken Little

I find it odd that the members of the Gore Church Cult of Climate Change claim we must end Capitalism to save ourselves from certain destruction. Yet, if they opened their eyes and looked at countries that ARE destitute, and that often have miserable records on human rights, and on conservation and pollution they would see that those nations do not have capitalistic systems. They would see that capitalist nations tend to be free nations with far higher standards of living. 

Someone should clue Prince Charles in

Via Telegraph:

Prince Charles has called for an end to capitalism as we know it in order to save the planet from global warming.

In a speech to business leaders in London, the Prince said that a “fundamental transformation of global capitalism” was necessary in order to halt “dangerously accelerating climate change” that would “bring us to our own destruction”.

He called for companies to focus on “approaches that achieve lasting and meaningful returns” by protecting the environment, improving their employment practices and helping the vulnerable to develop a new “inclusive capitalism”.

In a politically-charged speech at the Inclusive Capitalism conference, the Prince said: “I remember when the Iron Curtain came down there was a certain amount of shouting about the triumph of capitalism over communism. Being somewhat contrary, I didn’t think it was quite as simple as that. I felt that unless the business world considered the social, community and environmental dimensions, we might end up coming full circle.”

Inclusive Capitalism? What will these Leftist buffoons think up next?

Conservative Journalist O’Keefe: Congress Has Contacted Me Over My Anti-Fracking Sting Film (Video)

James O’Keefe: Congress Has Contacted Me Over My Latest Anti-Fracking Sting Video – Gateway Pundit

Citizen journalist James O’Keefe from Project Veritas was on The Kelly File last night to discuss his latest undercover video released Tuesday. James was reporting from the Cannes Film Festival in France where he held a press conference today.

.

.
O’Keefe told Megyn Kelly he was contacted by members of Congress regarding his latest anti-fracking report.

James O’Keefe: I think the nefarious thing about this film we did was they’re trying to stop our energy independence. And those Hollywood figures Ed Begley Jr., Mariel Hemmingway are OK with that and what’s worse is they’re using non-profit groups and (C)(3) groups to cover up from where the funding is coming from. Is that illegal? I know the senate has been investigating that very issue. So there are some serious issues here about the coverup of the funding and about how many movies in Hollywood are funded by these mystery groups.

Megyn Kelly: You tweeted out today that a senate committee has reached out to you over possible non-profit participation and coverup of this video. Is that true have you been reached out to by lawmakers?

James O’Keefe: I have been reached out to by lawmakers. I’m not allowed to give too much information at this point.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Hollywood Leftists Ed Begley Jr. And Mariel Hemmingway Caught In Anti-Fracking Sting Operation (Video)

O’Keefe Strikes AGAIN! Hollywood Progressives Duped In Anti-Fracking Sting Operation (Video) – Gateway Pundit

James O’Keefe strikes again!

.

.
The conservative journalist duped progressives Ed Begley Jr. and Mariel Hemmingway to get involved in an anti-fracking film that was funded by Middle Eastern oil interests.

O’Keefe will unveil the movie at the Cannes Film Festival on Wednesday!

Via The Hollywood Reporter:

James O’Keefe says he duped Ed Begley Jr. and Mariel Hemmingway into agreeing to get involved with an anti-fracking movie while hiding that its funding comes from Middle Eastern oil interests.

Journalist James O’Keefe, known for his controversial undercover sting operations aimed usually at liberals – is set to unveil at the Cannes Film Festival on Wednesday the first of a group of videos that he says will reveal hypocrisy among Hollywood environmentalists.

In the video, obtained exclusively by The Hollywood Reporter and embedded below, actors Ed Begley Jr. and Mariel Hemmingway are duped by a man named “Muhammad,” who is looking to make an anti-fracking movie while hiding that its funding is coming from Middle Eastern oil interests.

Muhammad, accompanied by a man pretending to be an ad executive, seemingly has the two actors agreeing to participate in the scheme, even after he acknowledges that his goal is to keep America from becoming energy independent. The meeting, which appears to have been secretly recorded, took place a few months ago at the Beverly Hills Hotel.

And, he’s going to release this Wednesday at the Cannes Film Festival!

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Ever notice how countries that have tried the kind of Marxism the Democrats want for America are rejecting it?

Take Australia for example. That nation is slashing its expenditures on fighting global warming climate change climate disruption

Australia’s conservative coalition is set to cut more than 90 percent of the funding related to global warming from their budget, from $5.75 billion this year to $500 million, over the next four years.

Environmentalists and leftist politicians in the country protested the move by conservative Liberal Party Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s governing coalition to slash funding for climate programs, arguing such funding for green energy and reducing carbon dioxide emissions were necessary to stop global warming.

But Abbott’s government shot back, saying that the country needed to reduce the size of government and improve the economy.

“The coalition government acknowledges the role of renewable energy in Australia’s energy mix,” said Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane. “There is over $1 billion in funding for existing renewable projects to be completed over the coming years.”

“Given the tight fiscal environment as a result of [liberal] Labor’s legacy of debt and deficit, the government considers there is a very significant investment in renewable energy,” MacFarlane added.

Ah, reduce the size of government to spur economic growth he says? Hmmmm, maybe President Obama and fans of his idea of a carbon tax ought to LEARN from Australia

“The carbon tax is an act of economic vandalism,” Abbott said in March. “You can’t trust [Labor] anywhere near an economy.”

The carbon tax was imposed by former Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard in the summer of 2012, and quickly became unpopular as businesses and households began to bear the costs of higher power bills and higher inflation.

Well DUH! What kind of moron could not see that coming? Higher taxation does not help an economy. But what if those taxes were really going to help clean up the environment?

After just one year, the carbon tax increased taxes on 2.2 million Australians, according to Robson, and has done nothing to decrease the country’s carbon emissions, which aren’t predicted to fall below current levels until 2043.

AHA! See those taxes were going to slow down those evil carbon emissions in 30 years. THIRTY YEARS? Good Freaking Grief

Robson also found that a year after being enacted, the carbon tax caused electricity prices to rise 15 percent. The country’s unemployment rate shot up by 10 percent after the carbon tax was implemented.

“The carbon tax is bad for the economy and it doesn’t do any good for the environment,” Abbott told The Washington Post last year. “Despite a carbon tax of $37 a ton by 2020, Australia’s domestic emissions were going up, not down. The carbon tax was basically socialism masquerading as environmentalism, and that’s why it’s going to get abolished.

In other words, Green is the new Red folks

Reporter Tries To Ask Obama’s EPA Chief A Question, Is Promptly Hauled Off By Capital Police

A Reporter Tried To Ask The EPA Chief A Question; You’ll Never Guess What Happened Next – TPNN

.

.
Ari Natter, renewables and energy efficiency reporter for Bloomberg BNA, tweeted today that he was detained by Capitol Hill police. His crime? He was simply doing his job. Natter attended the American Council On Renewable Energy conference to cover the event. EPA chief Gina McCarthy was a speaker. After she made her remarks, Natter attempted to ask her a question. After all, that is what reporters do. The content of the question was not disclosed in Natter’s tweets, but he did tweet about his experience of being detained. These tweets were picked up and reported initially by the Daily Caller.

Natter was detained while covering the American Council On Renewable Energy conference, where McCarthy spoke. Also speaking at the conference was Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a staunch supporter of green energy who regularly takes the Senate floor to sound the alarm on global warming.

McCarthy spoke about renewable energy issues, including the EPA’s proposal to cut back the amount of ethanol refiners are required to blend into gasoline annually to avoid economic calamity. She also talked about the Obama administration’s view that energy and environmental policy go hand in hand.

While the question asked by Natter that led to his detainment is not known, here is what he tweeted just prior to his ‘arrest’.

————————————————————————————————————————–
Ari Natter
@AriNatter

Obama admin “remains committed to biofuels despite the fact that people have concerns about our proposal,” @GinaEPA tells @ACORE. #REpolicy
11:21 AM – 28 Mar 2014

4 Retweets 1 favorite
————————————————————————————————————————–

Natter was subsequently released after police checked with their superiors and ran a background check to determine if his press credentials were valid. They were, so they let him go.

Given the Obama administration’s scandals involving attacks on freedom of the press with the spying on of James Rosen; seizing the phone records of AP reporters; and his attempted plan to monitor news rooms, this latest incident will undoubtedly make one wonder about the future of a free press under an Obama presidency.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Best Damned Governor in America 5300 Marxifornia 0

Two bits of advice for California. First, If you want businesses to come to or stay in your state stop kicking them in the financial nuts. Second, Try electing people like Rick Perry!

Time for another “California is destroying California” post. Toyota is planning to close their operations in California and move them to – wait for it – Texas.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry reportedly courted Toyota by promising lower taxes and easier regulations, according to Bloomberg.

Sales, service, marketing, advertising, manufacturing, and quality operations will relocate to suburban Dallas, according to Reuters. Employees will be informed of the move on Monday, and some will be offered relocation packages and financial assistance.

Somewhere, deep inside a Sacramento opium den, Jerry Brown just shrugged his shoulders and said, “Let them draw welfare.”

I don’t remember exactly what year it was, but a while back some of our legislative clowns made a fact-finding journey to Texas to try and figure out what that state was doing right in terms of job creation. Here’s a hint in case anyone is paying attention: When the governor of Texas places radio ads on California stations urging business owners to relocate to his state and they take him up on it, it might be a good idea to listen to what he’s saying.

The saddest part? California is a state absolutely blessed with everything it takes to be the MOST successful, prosperous state in this union. Only the incompetence of Liberalism could screw it up, and, sadly, that is exactly what is happening.

Game-Changer: U.S. Navy Turning Seawater Into Fuel (Video)

Could You Soon Be Filling Up With Seawater? US Navy Reveals ‘Game Changing’ Fuel Created From Water – Daily Mail

.

.
The US Navy has developed a radical new fuel made from seawater.

They say it could change the way we produce fuel – and allow warships to stay at sea for years at a time.

Navy scientists have spent several years developing the process to take seawater and use it as fuel, and have now used the ‘game changing’ fuel to power a radio controlled plane in the first test.

The development of a liquid hydrocarbon fuel is being hailed as ‘a game-changer’ because it would allow warships to remain at sea for far longer.

The US has a fleet of 15 military oil tankers, and only aircraft carriers and some submarines are equipped with nuclear propulsion.

All other vessels must frequently abandon their mission for a few hours to navigate in parallel with the tanker, a delicate operation, especially in bad weather.

The ultimate goal is to eventually get away from the dependence on oil altogether, which would also mean the navy is no longer hostage to potential shortages of oil or fluctuations in its cost.

The predicted cost of jet fuel using these technologies is in the range of $3-$6 per gallon, and with sufficient funding and partnerships, this approach could be commercially viable within the next seven to ten years.

Pursuing remote land-based options would be the first step towards a future sea-based solution, the Navy says.

.

.
Vice Admiral Philip Cullom declared: ‘It’s a huge milestone for us.

‘We are in very challenging times where we really do have to think in pretty innovative ways to look at how we create energy, how we value energy and how we consume it.

‘We need to challenge the results of the assumptions that are the result of the last six decades of constant access to cheap, unlimited amounts of fuel,’ added Cullom.

‘Basically, we’ve treated energy like air, something that’s always there and that we don’t worry about too much.

‘But the reality is that we do have to worry about it.’

They hope the fuel will not only be able to power ships, but also planes.

The predicted cost of jet fuel using the technology is in the range of three to six dollars per gallon, say experts at the US Naval Research Laboratory, who have already flown a model airplane with fuel produced from seawater.

Dr Heather Willauer, an research chemist who has spent nearly a decade on the project, said:

‘For the first time we’ve been able to develop a technology to get CO2 and hydrogen from seawater simultaneously, that’s a big breakthrough,’ she said, adding that the fuel ‘doesn’t look or smell very different.’

Now that they have demonstrated it can work, the next step is to produce it in industrial quantities.

But before that, in partnership with several universities, the experts want to improve the amount of CO2 and hydrogen they can capture.

.

.
‘We’ve demonstrated the feasibility, we want to improve the process efficiency,’ explained Willauer.

Collum is just as excited.

‘For us in the military, in the Navy, we have some pretty unusual and different kinds of challenges,’ he said.

‘We don’t necessarily go to a gas station to get our fuel, our gas station comes to us in terms of an oiler, a replenishment ship.

‘Developing a game-changing technology like this, seawater to fuel, really is something that reinvents a lot of the way we can do business when you think about logistics, readiness.’

A crucial benefit, says Collum, is that the fuel can be used in the same engines already fitted in ships and aircraft.

‘If you don’t want to reeengineer every ship, every type of engine, every aircraft, that’s why we need what we call drop-in replacement fuels that look, smell and essentially are the same as any kind of petroleum-based fuels.’

Drawbacks? Only one, it seems: researchers warn it will be at least a decade before US ships are able to produce their own fuel on board.

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* Bill Whittle: Gulliver, Unbound


.

The Hydrogen Fuel Cell Car Is Back

The Hydrogen Car Is Back… Again – Popular Mechanics

.

.
The basic principle behind hydrogen fuel cells is fairly simple: Hydrogen atoms are stripped of their electrons to generate electricity and then combined with oxygen to form water as a by-product. Mainstream deployment of fuel-cell vehicles, though, has proved to be complex. Compared with liquid fuels, hydrogen is tough to transport and store. And without a meaningful number of vehicles on the road, there’s been no incentive to build hydrogen fuel infrastructure. Now new initiatives in California and across the U.S. are pushing for a long-awaited expansion of the refueling network. And with the debut of three promising hydrogen-fuel-cell vehicles from Honda, Hyundai, and Toyota, consumers will have new options beginning in 2014. Are we finally seeing the dawn of the hydrogen age? Not so fast.

WHY NOW?

The current hydrogen push has less to do with consumer demand than with government incentives that treat fuel-cell vehicles (FCV) as equal to or better than electric vehicles. In California the combination of 300-mile range and fast refueling gives fuel cells the maximum available zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) credits. That makes it easy for a manufacturer to meet the state’s ZEV mandate with fewer cars. On the federal level, both FCVs and EVs get an EPA credit multiplier of 2.0 beginning in 2017, which means that sales of either type of car confer a disproportionate benefit on the ledger for an automaker’s entire fleet. In response, manufacturers have formed several high-profile partnerships, including Ford/Daimler/Renault-Nissan, BMW/Toyota, and GM/Honda to develop the vehicles. On the fueling side, a recent infusion of $20 million of funding per year has expanded the California Fuel Cell Partnership’s plan to 100 statewide refueling stations. The Department of Energy’s H2USA organization wants to use California’s efforts as a blueprint for the rest of the nation.

CAN I BUY A FUEL-CELL CAR?

In the past, fuel-cell vehicles have only been available in the hundreds. The three new FCVs slated for production this year and next will increase the volume to thousands, but they will be available primarily in California, where most of the country’s hydrogen stations exist. According to Alan Baum, an automotive analyst at Baum and Associates, even if the stations proliferate, fuel-cell vehicles, like EVs, won’t dominate the market. “It’s not going to be a widespread technology, and for that matter it doesn’t need to be,” he says. “We’re doing an all-hands-on-deck strategy.”

ARE THE PRACTICAL?

Not according to Tesla and SpaceX founder Elon Musk, who says fuel cells are more of a marketing ploy than a realistic solution. Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn agrees: “Knowing all the problems we have with charging [EVs], where is the hydrogen infrastructure?” Both men have a bias toward electric vehicles, but the infrastructure issue is a big one. With the current cost of a hydrogen filling station at more than $1 million, neither the government nor the corporate world has any plans for a rapid expansion of the filling network. “We’ve got electricity everywhere,” Baum says. “Putting in 240-volt charging units requires some effort and expense, but it’s not game changing. Putting in hydrogen is.”

WHERE DOES THE POWER COME FROM?

.

.
Here’s the abridged version: Compressed hydrogen from the storage tank (A) is stripped of its electrons in the fuel-cell stack (B), creating electricity. A power-control unit (C) orchestrates the flow of energy from the stack to the battery (D), which powers the electric motor that moves the car. The battery ensures full power during acceleration until the fuel cell reaches peak voltage. Got all that?

ARE THEY SAFE?

Yes. Stringent requirements established by the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) ensure that the technology is safe. Automakers are required to build robust hydrogen storage tanks that not only hold the fuel at up to 10,000 psi but also withstand arcane-sounding trials such as “bonfire” and “gunshot” tests by the DOT. Tanks are usually made of several layers of carbon fiber wrapped around aluminum or polyethylene liners, and many are also protected by external layers of steel. Regulations covering PRDs (pressure-relief devices) govern both temperatures and pressures at which gas is released, typically well below what is standard for safe operating conditions.

HOW GREEN ARE FUEL CELLS?

It depends on where you look. The only tailpipe emission from an FCV is water, but the process of creating hydrogen fuel – just like that of formulating gasoline or generating current for an electric vehicle – has an environmental impact. More than 90 percent of hydrogen today is created using a natural-gas-reforming process involving steam and methane, which reduces CO2 emissions from “well to wheel” by approximately 60 percent, compared with the process of creating gasoline. So, carbon dioxide is still released into the atmosphere – it just happens before the liquid hydrogen gets to your tank. Incentives and mandates encourage a cleaner hydrogen-creation process: The state of California requires that 30 percent of H2 supplied for transportation come from renewable sources, which can include wind, solar, and biomass material.

WHAT ABOUT REFUELING?

One advantage of FCVs is that they can travel farther and restore range faster than most current EVs. Refueling is simple: Once a nozzle with a snap collar is securely mated and locked to your car, the transfer of hydrogen begins with a brief hissing sound, followed by a 3- to 5- minute fill-up. However, it takes considerably longer for a filling station to restore the pressure required to service the next vehicle, so current setups can only refuel six or so cars per hour.

SO, IS HYDROGEN HAPPENING?

“When you have several major carmakers saying we’re going to invest in this, that’s significant,” Baum says. But vehicles are just one piece of the puzzle. Every other player in the hydrogen supply chain, such as the service station industry, needs to invest heavily. Until then, refueling options and vehicle choices will remain extremely limited, with no guarantee of expansion. Which is to say that hydrogen-fuel-cell cars will be a minor footnote in terms of overall vehicle sales for the foreseeable future. For all but the earliest of adopters, hydrogen as a prominent fuel alternative remains somewhere on the horizon.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Thanks Barack… U.S. Electricity Production Declines As Price Index Soars To New Record

Electricity Price Index Soars To New Record At Start Of 2014; U.S. Electricity Production Declining – CNS

.

.
The electricity price index soared to a new high in January 2014 with the largest month-to-month increase in almost four years, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Meanwhile, data from the Energy Information Administration, a division of the U.S. Department of Energy, indicates that electricity production in the United States has declined since 2007, when it hit its all-time peak.

The U.S. is producing less electricity than it did seven years ago for a population that has added more than 14 million people.

“The electricity index rose 1.8 percent, its largest increase since March 2010,” said BLS in its summary of the Consumer Price Index released Thursday.

.

.
In December, the seasonally adjusted electricity index was 203.740. In January, it climbed to a new high of 207.362.

Back in January 2013, the electricity price index stood at 198.679. It thus climbed about 4.4 percent over the course of a year.

Last month, the average price for a kilowatthour (KWH) of electricity in a U.S. city also hit an all-time January high of 13.4 cents, according to BLS. That marks the first time the average price for a KWH has ever exceeded 13 cents in the month of January, when the price of electricity is normally lower than in the summer months.

.

.
A year ago, in January 2013, a KWH cost 12.9 cents. The increase in the price of a KWH from January 2013 to January 2014 was about 3.9 percent.

During the year, the price of a KWH of electricity usually rises in the spring, peaks in summer, declines in fall, and is at its lowest point in winter. In 2013, the average price of a KWH in each of the 12 months of the year set a record for that particular month. January 2014’s price of 13.4 cents per KWH set a new record for January.

.

.
Historically, in the United States, rising electricity prices have not been inevitable. In the first decades after World War II, the U.S. rapidly increased it electricity production, including on a per capita basis. Since 2007, the U.S. has decreased its electricity production, including on a per capita basis.

In the 1950s and 1960s, when U.S. electricity generation was increasing at a rapid pace, the seasonally adjusted U.S. electricity price index remained relatively stable. In January 1959, the electricity index stood at 29.2, according to BLS. A decade later, in January 1969, it was 30.2—an increase of 3.4 percent over a 10-year span.

That 3.4-percent increase in the index from January 1959 to January 1969 was less than the 4.4 percent the index increased from January 2013 to January 2014.

Over the last seven years, according to the EIA, the U.S. has actually decreased its total net electricity generation, although not in an unbroken downward line from year to year (generation did increase from 2009 to 2010 before going down again in 2011 and 2012).

The EIA has published historical data going back to 1949 on the nation’s annual total net electricity generation, which EIA measures in million kilowatthours.

.

.
In 1949, according to EIA, the U.S. produced 296,124.289 million KWH of electricity. By 1959, it produced 713,378.831 – an increase of 417,254.542 million KWH or about 141 percent.

In 1969, the U.S. produced 1,445,458.056 million KWH – an increase of 732,079.225 or about 103 percent from 1959.

In 1979, the U.S. produced 2,250,665.025 million KWH – an increase of 805,206.969 or about 55.7 percent from 1969.

In 1989, the U.S. produced 2,967,146.087 million KWH – an increase of 716,481.062 or about 31.8 percent from 1979.

In 1999, the U.S. produced 3,694,809.810 million KWH – an increase of 727,663.723 or about 24.5 percent from 1989.

In 2009, the U.S. produced 3,950,330.927 million KWH – an increase of 255,521.117 or about 6.9 percent.

In 2007, according to EIA, the U.S. generated a net total of 4,156,744.724 million KWH of electricity, which, so far, is the historical peak. In 2012, the last year for which full data is available, the U.S. generated a net total of 4,047,765.26 million KWH. That represents a drop of 108,979.464 million KWH – or about 2.6 percent – in the nation’s electricity production since 2007.

CNSNews.com divided the million KWH of electricity generated each year in the United States, according to EIA, by the number of people in the U.S. population as of July of that year (as estimated by the Census Bureau) to derive a number for per capita electricity production (see chart).

As with overall electricity production, per capita production exhibited decelerating growth over the decades, peaked in 2007, and has since declined.

From 1950 to 1959, per capita total electricity generation (in million KWH) grew by 83.11 percent; from 1960 to 1969, it grew by 69.76 percent; from 1970 to 1979, it grew by 33.51 percent; from 1980 to 1989, it grew by 19.25 percent; from 1990 to 1999, it grew by 11.25 percent.

From 2000 to 2009, per capita total net electricity generation in the United States declined by 4.45 percent.

In 2007, when U.S. electricity generation peaked at 4,156,744.724 million KWH, per capita production also peaked at 0.013799 million KWH for each of the 301,231,207 people in the country as of July of that year.

In 2012, the U.S. generated 4,047,765.26 million KWH for a population of 313,914,040—for a per capita production of 0.012895. That means per capita electricity production in the U.S. declined by about 6.6 percent in five years.

The downward trend in U.S. electricity production continued into 2013. The EIA’s latest Monthly Energy Review, which includes data through October 2013, indicates that in the first ten months of 2013, the U.S. generated a total of 3,392,101 million KWH of electricity, down from the 3,407,155 million KWH produced in the first 10 months of 2012.

The Monthly Energy Review also indicates that a large part of the decline in U.S. electricity generation has come from a decrease in the electricity produced by coal – which has not been replaced by a commensurate increase in the electricity produced by natural gas or the “renewable” sources of wind and solar.

In 2007, the year U.S. electricity generation peaked at 4,156,745 million KWH, coal accounted for 2,016,456 million KWH of that production – or 48.5 percent of it. Natural gas, then the nation’s second largest generator of electricity, accounted for 896,590 million KWH of total production – or about 21.6 percent.

In 2007, wind generated 34,450 million KWH – or about 0.8 percent of the nation’s supply that year. Solar generated 612 million KWH – or about 0.0147 percent of the national supply.

By 2012, when U.S. electricity generation had dropped to 4,047,765 million KWH, coal generated only 1,514,043 million KWH – or 37.4 percent of the national supply.

Between 2007 and 2012, the nation’s annual coal-fired electricity generation declined by about 25 percent, or 502,413 million KWH. The combined increases in natural gas, wind and solar did not make up for this decline. In 2012, natural gas produced 1,225,894 million KWH, up 329,304 million KWH from 2007; wind produced 140,822, up 106,372 million KWH from 2007; and solar produced 4,327 million KWH, up 3,715 million KWH from 2007.

The combined 439,391 million KWH increase in electricity generation from natural gas, wind and solar did not cover the 502,413 million KWH decline in the electricity generated by coal.

Coal was not the only source that produced less electricity in 2012 than in 2007, according to the EIA data.

Electricity from nuclear power plants dropped from 806,425 million KWH in 2007 to 769,331 in 2012 – a decline of 37,094 million KWH or 4.6 percent.

Electricity generated from petroleum sources dropped from 65,739 million KWH in 2007 to 23,190 million KWH in 2012—a decline of 42,549 million KWH or about 64.7 percent.

Conventional hydroelectric means of generating electricity hit their peak in 1997, a decade before overall electricity generation peaked in the United States. In that year, the U.S. produced 385,946 million KWH of electricity through conventional hydroelectric power. By 2012, that had dropped to 276,240 million KWH, a decline of 109,706 million KWH or 28.4 percent.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Anti-Fracking Leftists Arrested For Gluing Themselves To Gas Pumps… At The Wrong Gas Station

Fracking Protesters Arrested For Gluing Themselves To The Wrong Petrol Pumps – Big Peace

On Monday, four members of an anti-fracking group wound up in jail for using bicycle locks and glue to fasten themselves to gas pumps at a petrol station in Great Lever, England. The group sacrificed themselves in order to protest the hydraulic fracking activities of Total, a French petroleum company.

.
…………………..

.
But, to their embarrassment, the group sacrificed themselves to the wrong petrol station, which was no longer owned by Total. The petrol station was owned by Certas Energy, who neglected to take down the signs after buying the station.

The petrol station’s manager, Reezwan Patel commented that some protesters were peaceful, but that those who shackled themselves to the pumps “were stupid and have cost us a lot of money.” He added that, “We had to close for six hours, so with the loss of customers and the damage to the pumps, it could be a couple of thousand pounds we have lost.”

The four activists were not only ridiculed by Reezwan but also were excoriated by the local environmental group, the Bolton Green Party. The party chairman, Alan Johnson exclaimed, “I was very annoyed, and I have to stress that these people have nothing to do with our protest. We were there to protest peacefully, and warn people about the dangers of fracking, and these people have put themselves, and others, in danger with what they did.”

Throughout Bolton, a borough of Greater Manchester, anti-fracking groups have been rallying to protest hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” in the UK. Fracking is controversial because of the potential risks the process may have on the environment and the water supply.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Statist Control Freaks Update: Only 6 More Days Before Incandescent Bulbs Are Banned In U.S.

Time To Stock Up On Incandescent Bulbs Before They Go Out Permanently – The Foundry

If your New Year’s resolution is to change your light bulbs, don’t worry – the federal government’s here to help.

Beginning January 1, 2014, the federal government will ban the use of 60-watt and 40-watt incandescent light bulbs. The light bulb has become a symbol in the fight for consumer freedom and against unnecessary governmental interference into the lives of the American people.

.

.
In 2007, Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed into law an energy bill that placed stringent efficiency requirements on ordinary incandescent bulbs in an attempt to have them completely eliminated by 2014. The law phased out 100-watt and 75-watt incandescent bulbs last year.

Proponents of government-imposed efficiency standards and regulations will say, “So what? There are still plenty of lighting options on the shelves at Home Depot; we’re saving families money; and we’re reducing harmful climate change emissions.”

The “so what” is that the federal government is taking decisions out of the hands of families and businesses, destroying jobs, and restricting consumer choice in the market. We all have a wide variety of preferences regarding light bulbs. It is not the role of the federal government to override those preferences with what it believes is in our best interest.

Families understand how energy costs impact their lives and make decisions accordingly. Energy efficiency has improved dramatically over the past six decades – long before any national energy efficiency mandates.

If families and firms are not buying the most energy-efficient appliance or technology, it is not that they are acting irrationally; they simply have budget constraints or other preferences such as comfort, convenience, and product quality. A family may know that buying an energy-efficient product will save them money in the long term, but they have to prioritize their short-term expenses. Those families operating from paycheck to paycheck may want to opt for a cheaper light bulb and more food instead of a more expensive light bulb and less food.

Some may read this and think: Chill out – it’s just a light bulb. But it’s not just a light bulb. Take a look at the Department of Energy’s Federal Energy Management Program. Basically anything that uses electricity or water in your home or business is subject to an efficiency regulation.

When the market drives energy efficiency, it saves consumers money. The more the federal government takes away decisions that are better left to businesses and families, the worse off we’re going to be.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

How Obama’s EPA Plans To Kill Jobs And Reduce Your Income

How The EPA Plans To Kill Jobs And Reduce Your Income – The Foundry

How’s your heating bill? If you feel like you’re not paying enough, you’re in luck.

.
……….

.
President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is pushing new regulations on power plants – regulations that will kill jobs, jack up your energy costs, and even end up reducing families’ income because of the impact on the prices of everything you buy.

As Heritage experts Nicolas Loris, Kevin Dayaratna, and David Kreutzer explain:

<blockquotThese regulations will act as a major energy tax that would negatively impact American households. Americans will suffer through higher energy bills, but also through higher prices for goods and services, slowing the economy and crippling the manufacturing sector.

…It will cost more to heat, cool, and light homes, and to cook meals. These higher energy prices will also have rippling effects throughout the economy. As energy prices increase, the cost of making products rises.

The EPA’s war is against coal, which is the main source of electricity for 21 states. In their research, Heritage experts analyzed a phase-out of coal (thanks to the EPA’s regulations) between 2015 and 2038.

Here are their dire warnings. By the end of 2023, they project:

* Employment falls by nearly 600,000 jobs (270,000 in manufacturing).
* Coal-mining jobs drop 30 percent.
* A family of four’s annual income drops more than $1,200 per year, and its total income drops by nearly $24,400 over the entire period of analysis.

And for what?

Certainly not helping the environment. The authors sum it up: “President Obama’s climate plan would have a chilling effect on the economy, not the climate.”

They explain that “regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions will have no meaningful effect on global climate change. The EPA admitted this in its own proposed rule.”

So – hundreds of thousands of lost jobs, thousands in lost income, higher prices across the board—and “no noticeable climate impact.” That’s what these regulations mean.

It’s important to remember that these rules are being developed by unelected bureaucrats at the whim of the Obama Administration. We’ve already learned that the Administration delayed a number of controversial regulations, including energy-related ones, conveniently until after the 2012 election. Why? Because they’re harmful to Americans.

The authority to make such sweeping changes doesn’t belong to these unelected bureaucrats, the Heritage experts say. Congress should take back its power and prevent these rules from inflicting harm on the economy – and our wallets.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* Mexican Lawmaker Antonio Garcia Conejo Strips Before Congress In Protest Of Energy Bill


.

New Invention Harvests Electricity From Background Radiation

New Invention ‘Harvests’ Electricity From Background Radiation And Could Be Used To Beam Power To Remote Locations Or Recharge Phones Wirelessly – Daily Mail

Engineers at Duke University have designed a breakthrough gadget that ‘harvests’ background microwave radiation and converts it into electricity, with the same efficiency as solar panels.

The development, unveiled on Thursday, raises exciting possibilities such as recharging a phone wirelessly and providing power to remote locations that can’t access conventional electricity.

And the researchers say that their inexpensive invention is remarkably versatile. It could be used to capture ‘lost’ energy from a range of sources such as satellite transmissions, sound signals or Wi-Fi.

.

The Duke engineers used metamaterials, which their press release describes as ‘engineered structures that can capture various forms of wave energy and tune them for useful applications.’

They say the device harvested microwaves with an efficiency of 36.8 percent, similar to modern solar cells that capture light energy.

A report that will appear in the journal Applied Physics Letters in December states that this invention is capable of converting microwave signals to enough direct current voltage to recharge a cell phone battery.

The gadget, created by undergraduate engineering student Allen Hawkes, graduate student Alexander Katko and lead investigator Steven Cummer, consists of five fiberglass and copper conductors wired together on a circuit board.

It is capable of providing 7.3V of electricity. As the press release points out, current USB chargers provide around 5V.

Hawkes said: ‘We were aiming for the highest energy efficiency we could achieve. We had been getting energy efficiency around 6 to 10 percent, but with this design we were able to dramatically improve energy conversion to 37 percent, which is comparable to what is achieved in solar cells.’

.

His colleague, Katko, added: ‘It’s possible to use this design for a lot of different frequencies and types of energy, including vibration and sound energy harvesting.

‘Until now, a lot of work with metamaterials has been theoretical. We are showing that with a little work, these materials can be useful for consumer applications.’

Possible uses for the new technology include building metamaterial into homes to ensure Wi-Fi signals are not just lost.

Electrical products could also have a device attached to increase efficiency by ensuring that excess power is not wasted.

In theory, the invention could also be used to beam signals from phone towers that could then be converted into electricity.

Electronic devices could be recharged wirelessly or electricity sent to remote areas without power cables.

.

The researchers explained that a series of the power-harvesters could even capture signals from satellites passing overhead.

This could allow for electricity in hostile environments such as mountaintops or deserts. Cummer said: ‘Our work demonstrates a simple and inexpensive approach to electromagnetic power harvesting.

‘The beauty of the design is that the basic building blocks are self-contained and additive. One can simply assemble more blocks to increase the scavenged power.’

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.