By Richard Heinberg

The piece is excerpted from the new book Snake Oil: How Fracking’s False Promise of Plenty Imperils Our Future.

We’re running low on cheap oil.

For the past decade I’ve been a participant in a high-stakes energy policy debate — writing books, giving lectures, and appearing on radio and television to point out how downright dumb it is for America to continue relying on fossil fuels. Oil, coal, and natural gas are finite and depleting, and burning them changes Earth’s climate and compromises our future.

In the past two or three years this debate has reached a significant turning point. Evidence that climate change is real and caused by human activity has become irrefutable, and serious climate impacts (such as the melting of the Arctic ice cap) have begun appearing sooner, and with greater severity, than had been forecast. Yet at the same time, the notion that fossil fuels are supply-constrained has gone from being generally dismissed, to being partially accepted, to being vociferously dismissed. The increasingly dire climate story has achieved widespread (though still insufficient) coverage, but the puzzling reversals of public perception regarding fossil fuel scarcity or abundance have received little analysis outside the specialist literature. Yet claims of abundance are being used by the fossil fuel industry to change the public conversation about energy and climate, especially in the United States, from one of “How shall we reduce our carbon emissions?” to “How shall we spend our new-found energy wealth?”

This is an insidious and misleading tactic. The abundance argument is based not so much on solid data (though oil and gas production figures have indeed surged in the United States) as on exaggerations about future production potential, and on a pattern of denial regarding steep costs to the environment and human health.

Permit me to use a metaphor to frame this discussion about fossil fuel abundance or scarcity. Since all debates are contests, at least superficially, it’s possible to summarize this one as if it were a game — like a soccer match or a bowling tournament. Of course, it is far more than just a game; the stakes, after all, may amount to the survival or failure of industrial civilization. But games are fun, and it’s easy to keep track of the score. So … let the metaphor begin!

First, who are the teams? On one side we have the oil and gas industry, its public relations minions and its bankers, as well as a few official agencies — including the U.S. Energy Information Administration and the International Energy Agency — that tend to parrot industry statistics and forecasts. This team is respected and well funded. We’ll call this team “the Cornucopians,” after the mythical horn of plenty, an endless source of good things.

The other team consists of an informal association of retired and independent petroleum geologists and energy analysts. This team has little funding, is poorly organized, and hardly even existed as a recognizable entity a decade ago. This is my team; let’s call us “the Peakists,” in reference to the observation that rates of extraction of nonrenewable resources tend to peak and then decline.

These two teams have very different views of the energy world. Back in 2003, the Cornucopians were saying that global oil production would continue to increase in the years and decades ahead to meet rising demand, which would in turn grow at historic rates of about 3 percent per year (about the same rate at which the economy was expanding). Meanwhile oil prices would stay at approximately their then-current level of $20 to $25 per barrel. The Cornucopians’ message could be summarized as: “There’s nothing to worry about, folks. Just keep driving.”

This view was in stark contrast to that of us Peakists, who, based on geological evidence from around the world (depleting older super-giant oilfields, declining rates of discovery of new fields, and increasing costs to develop them), were saying that rates of global oil production would soon reach a maximum and start to diminish, while petroleum prices would soar. The Peakists’ argument wasn’t that the world would suddenly run out of oil anytime soon, but that the end of cheap oil and expanding rates of production was approaching. Since oil price spikes have had severe economic impacts in recent decades, the implication was clearly that societies would be better off weaning themselves from oil as quickly as possible.

Well, what has actually happened? How has the game progressed so far?

In 2005, world crude oil extraction rates effectively stopped growing. In that year the average global production rate was 73.8 million barrels per day (mb/d); in 2012, that rate had only increased to 75.0 mb/d — a relatively insignificant bump of less than 1.5 mb/d in seven years (a 0.3 percent average annual rate of growth). This was completely counter to the forecasts of the Cornucopians, but it fit the views of the supply pessimists well. Point for the Peakists.

With oil supply rates stagnant, prices went up — soaring from a yearly (inflation-adjusted) average of $35 per barrel in 2003 to a yearly average of $110 in 2012. Again, this development was completely unforeseen by Cornucopians, but had been clearly and repeatedly forecast by Peakists. Point for my side.

When the world oil price briefly shot up to nearly $150 per barrel in the summer of 2008, the global economy shuddered and swooned. Thus began the worst recession since the 1930s. Of course, other factors contributed to the crash — most notably, a bursting housing bubble in the United States and an unsustainable buildup of debt in nearly all the world’s industrial economies. But it’s clear that high oil prices added to financial fragility and the oil price spike of 2008 provided a sudden gust that helped bring down the house of cards. Peakists had been warning of the economy’s vulnerability to high oil prices for years; here was dramatic confirmation. Another point for my team.

Now we’ve arrived at the period 2008–2009; at that stage of the game, the score was Peakists 3, Cornucopians zip. Despite the fact that we Peakists had virtually no funding and limited media access, we were seriously in danger of winning the debate. The term peak oil went from being unknown, to being associated with conspiracy theorists, to being broadly familiar to those who followed energy issues.

The Cornucopians, however, were not about to throw in the towel. In fact, they were just shaking off the complacency that accompanied their status as reigning champs. And they were about to deploy a significant new game strategy.

The “peak” issue was not limited to oil. U.S. conventional natural gas production had been declining for years, and prices were soaring. Peakists said this was evidence of an approaching natural gas supply crisis. Instead, high prices provided an incentive for drillers to refine and deploy costly hydraulic fracturing technology (commonly referred to as “fracking”) to extract gas trapped in otherwise forbidding shale reservoirs.

Small- to medium-sized companies crowded into shale gas plays in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania, borrowed money, bought leases, and drilled tens of thousands of wells in short order. The result was an enormous plume of new natural gas production. As U.S. gas supplies ballooned, TV talking heads (reading scripts provided by the industry) and politicians all began crowing over America’s “game-changing” new prospect of “a hundred years of natural gas.” We Peakists hadn’t foreseen any of this. Point to the Cornucopians.

Not only did supplies of natural gas grow, but prices plummeted. In the pre-fracking years of 2001 to 2006, gas prices had shot up from their 1990s level of $2 per million Btu to over $12. But after 2007, as the hydrofracturing boom saturated gas markets, prices plummeted back to a low of $1.82 in April 2012. Gas was suddenly so cheap that utilities found it economic to use in place of coal for generating base-load electricity. The natural gas industry began to promote the ideas of exporting gas (even though the United States remained a net natural gas importer), and of using natural gas to power cars and trucks. Again, Peakists had completely failed to forecast these developments. Point Cornucopians.

Then, using the same hydrofracturing technology, the industry began to go after deposits of oil in tight (low-porosity) rocks. In Texas and North Dakota, U.S. oil production began growing. It was an astonishing achievement, especially since the nation’s oil production had generally been declining since 1970. Suddenly there was serious discussion in energy policy circles of America soon producing more oil than Saudi Arabia. None of us Peakists had predicted this. Point Cornucopians.

That brings us to the present. As of 2013, the game is tied and headed into overtime. Cornucopians have the momentum and the historic advantage, so they’ve been quick to proclaim victory. Meanwhile, at least one prominent Peakist has publicly conceded defeat: in a widely circulated essay, British environmental writer George Monbiot recently proclaimed that “We were wrong on peak oil.”

It doesn’t look good for my team. It appears to most people that the “Shale Revolution” (the tapping of shale gas and tight oil, thanks to advanced drilling techniques) has changed the game for good. Is it time for us to exit the playing field, heads bowed, shoulders slumped?

No. The game is about to turn again.

Almost no one who seriously thinks about the issue doubts that the Peakists will win in the end, no matter how pathetic my team’s prospects may look for the moment. After all, fossil fuels are finite, so depletion and declining production are inevitable. The debate has always been about timing: Is depletion something we should worry about now?

Readers who’ve seen articles and TV ads proclaiming America’s newfound oil and gas abundance may find it strange and surprising to learn that the official forecast from the U.S. Energy Information Administration is for America’s historic oil production decline to resume within this decade.

But the EIA may actually be overly optimistic. Once the peak is passed, the agency foresees a long, slow slide in production from tight oil deposits (likewise from shale gas wells). However, analysis that takes into account the remaining number of possible drilling sites, as well as the high production decline rates in typical tight oil and shale gas wells, yields a different forecast: Production will indeed peak before 2020, but then it will likely fall much more rapidly than either the industry or the official agencies forecast.

And there’s much more to the story: shale gas wells that cost more to drill than their gas is worth at current prices; Wall Street investment banks that drive independent oil and gas companies to produce uneconomic resources just so brokers can collect fees; official agencies that have overestimated oil production and under-estimated prices consistently for the past decade.

The data I’ve surveyed suggest that, through the technology of hydrofracturing, the oil and gas industry will generate 10 or fewer years of growing fuel supplies. (In the case of shale gas, the clock started ticking roughly five years ago; for tight oil, about three years ago).

Let me be clear: I am not saying that the United States will run out of shale gas or tight oil sometime in the next five to seven years, but that the current spate of oil and gas supply growth will probably be over, finished, done and dusted before the end of this decade. Production will start to decline, perhaps sharply.

The temporary surge of production may yield a very few years of lower natural gas prices and may temporarily improve the U.S. balance of trade by reducing oil imports. What will we do with those years of reprieve? In the best instance, the fracking that has already been accomplished could provide us a bonus inning in which to prepare for life without cheap fossil energy. But to make use of this borrowed time we must build an energy infrastructure of wind turbines and solar panels rather than drilling rigs and pipelines. This will constitute the biggest investment, and the most ambitious project, of our lifetimes. Currently, instead, many renewable energy efforts are being hampered by the false perception of vast, long-term supplies of cheap natural gas.

We are starting the energy transition project of the 21st century far too late to altogether avert either devastating climate impacts or serious energy supply problems, but the alternative — continued reliance on fossil fuels — will ensure a future far worse, one in which even the bare survival of civilization may be in question. As we build our needed renewable energy system, we will also need to build a new kind of economy, and we must make our communities far more resilient, so as to withstand environmental and economic shocks that are inevitably on their way.

Meanwhile the fossil fuel industry is doing everything it can to convince us we don’t have to do anything at all — other than simply keep on driving. The purveyors of oil and natural gas are selling products that we all currently use and that we still depend upon for our modern way of life. But they’re also selling a vision of the future — a vision as phony as the snake oil hawked by carnival hucksters a century ago.

Richard Heinberg is a senior fellow with the Post Carbon Institute and author of 11 books, including The End of Growth and, most recently, Snake Oil.

The Interior and Defense departments agreed to encourage energy development on the public lands, which may contribute to the generation of 10,000 megawatts of solar power in the U.S. Southwest, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said today a conference call.

“This agreement is going to help save the taxpayers billions of dollars in fuel costs, increase our national security and help protect the environment,” Reid said.

President Barack Obama is supporting alternative energy as a way to diversify away from oil and reduce the need for crude imports from the Middle East. Republicans including presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized the administration for slowing energy development on federal land.

The Pacific island nation of Kiribati is moving up in the world — but not in the good way. The small country is looking to relocate to higher ground in order to escape rising seas brought on by climate change.

Some of Kiribati’s 32 coral atolls have already started to disappear beneath the waves. President Anote Tong and his countrymen fear that continued sea level rise will wipe their civilization out entirely unless they relocate to Fiji lickety-split. Tong is reportedly in discussions with Fiji’s military government to buy 5,000 acres of land on the country’s second largest island, Vanua Levu.

“This is the last resort, there’s no way out of this one,” Mr Tong said. “Our people will have to move as the tides have reached our homes and villages.”

Depending on when Kiribati makes its big move, the country could be the world’s first modern climate-induced migration.

Becoming a climate refugee is bad enough, but what’s worse is that Kiribati is one of the greenest nations on the planet. The island boasts only 113,000 people and scant industry, so its carbon footprint is a teensy speck compared to greenhouse gas-spewing powerhouses like China and the U.S. And in 2010, Tong closed a whopping 150,000 square miles of sea to fishing in an effort to give the world’s struggling ocean ecosystems a much-needed break. How’s that for taking one for the (global) team?

Kiribati illustrates a sad-but-true trend happening across the globe: Nations that have little to do with spurring climate change are often some of the hardest hit by its disastrous effects.

Molycorp, Inc. (NYSE: MCP) (Molycorp), Daido Steel Co., Ltd. (Daido), and Mitsubishi Corporation (Mitsubishi) today announced the formation of a joint venture to manufacture and sell next-generation neodymium-iron-boron (NdFeB) permanent rare earth magnets.

The joint venture will manufacture sintered NdFeB permanent rare earth magnets with technology licensed from Intermetallics, Inc., a partnership between Mitsubishi, Daido, and Dr. Masato Sagawa, co-inventor of the NdFeB magnet. The capital contribution ratio of the newly formed company will be 30.0% by Molycorp, 35.5% by Daido, and 34.5% by Mitsubishi. The joint venture will be financed by the three shareholders and by a government subsidy sponsored by Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI).

The joint venture plans to construct an initial 500 metric-ton-per-year magnet manufacturing facility in Nakatsugawa, Japan (Gifu Prefecture), with operations expected to commence by January 2013. The companies expect to begin work on the new facility next month and eventually expand operations in the U.S. and elsewhere.

The technology to be used by the joint venture is a new and novel approach that does not depend on the use of patents held by other magnet companies. The technology allows for the manufacture of permanent rare earth magnets that deliver greater performance with less reliance on dysprosium, a relatively scarce rare earth. The process also results in higher production yields.

Made with the rare earths neodymium, praseodymium and dysprosium (or terbium), NdFeB magnets are the world's most powerful permanent magnets and are key components in many advanced technologies, including high-performance motors used in the power trains of electric vehicles, hybrid vehicles and wind power generators, as well as in motors in home appliance and industrial applications. Electric motors are estimated to use approximately 45 percent of global power consumption, according to the International Energy Agency. Using NdFeB magnets in motors can help reduce electric power consumption by 20 percent and would contribute to reducing global CO₂ emissions by an estimated 1.2 billion tons.

Target markets for the joint venture are the automotive and home appliance markets. These markets, as well as other markets for environmentally friendly technologies, are forecast to be significant drivers of demand growth for permanent rare earth magnets. The joint venture has been provisionally awarded a supply agreement for a next-generation electric vehicle with a major automotive manufacturer.

The new company will engage in the manufacturing and sale of next-generation NdFeB magnets and will take full advantage of Daido's commercial-scale magnet manufacturing technologies, Mitsubishi's domestic and international marketing and sales network, and Molycorp's rare earth oxide, metal, and alloy manufacturing resources and capabilities.

According to the independent market analysts at Roskill, China currently supplies approximately 94 percent of world's demand for rare earths. Export restrictions and other controls by China have made procurement of stable supplies difficult, which underscores the importance of Molycorp's ability to provide the joint venture with stable supplies of rare earth materials for magnet manufacturing.

"I am happy and very honored that Molycorp is able to partner with these extraordinary companies, who are global leaders and innovators in so many areas," said Mark A. Smith, President and CEO of Molycorp. "Molycorp also is pleased that the joint venture can break ground almost immediately and will be able to produce some of world's most powerful rare earth magnets in as little as 14 months."

Smith added: "The next-generation magnet manufacturing technologies being utilized by the joint venture are a perfect complement to the advanced technologies Molycorp is deploying across our own rare earth manufacturing supply chain. This initiative is a major milestone in Molycorp's mine-to-magnets strategy and continues our strong focus on technology innovation, efficiency, and operational excellence."

About Molycorp, Inc.

With offices in the U.S., Europe, and Japan, Molycorp, Inc. is the largest rare earth oxide (REO) producer outside of China. In addition to its current production of rare earth oxides at its flagship rare earth mine and processing facility at Mountain Pass, California, the Company produces rare earth metals, rare earth alloys (such as neodymium-iron-boron and samarium-cobalt alloys) and rare metals such as niobium and tantalum. The rare earths and rare metals Molycorp produces are critical inputs in existing and emerging applications including: clean energy technologies, such as hybrid and electric vehicles and wind power turbines; multiple high-tech uses, including fiber optics, lasers and hard disk drives; numerous defense applications, such as guidance and control systems and global positioning systems; advanced water treatment technology for use in industrial, military and outdoor recreation applications; and other technologies. For more information please visit www.molycorp.com.

I have spent enough time in Australia to know that their spirit of independence as a people cannot be underestimated. As the world's leading coal exporter, there's no doubt that opposition to this legislation was fierce. But through determination and commitment, the voice of the people of Australia has rung out loud and clear.

Today, we celebrate. Tomorrow, we do everything we can to ensure that this legislation is successful.

Japan positioned itself as the next large growth market for renewable energy Friday as the upper chamber of parliament approved legislation that will create a national feed-in tariff.

The new law is expected to bolster solar, wind and geothermal projects by mandating that utilities buy power from renewable sources at above-market rates. The law will go into effect next year, but details about the pricing structure have yet to be determined.

The legislation also prompted the resignation of Prime Minister Naoto Kan, who made passage of the bill a precondition to his departure. Kan has been under heavy pressure to resign as criticism has mounted over his handling of the Fukushima nuclear plant crisis in the aftermath of the March 11 earthquake and tsunami.

As anger grew, so has the call for the country’s leaders to move away from nuclear power and replace it with renewable energy. According to a recent poll, 74 percent were in favor of a gradual phase out of nuclear power plants, 11 percent called for an immediate end and 13 percent thought there was no need to alter policy.

Japan currently gets about 9 percent of its power from renewable sources compared to 30 percent from the nuclear industry. The country has 54 nuclear reactors, but only 15 are currently in operation. That has forced the country to cut down dramatically on consumption this summer – with a drop of about nine percent compared to 2010, according to the Federation of Electric Power Companies.

According to the Global Wind Energy Council, Japan had 2.3 gigawatts of wind power installed at the end of 2010. Japan had more in the way of solar PV with 3.6 gigawatts by the end of 2010, mostly in rooftop residential installation. Japan has a small geothermal presence as well, and supporters say that the country’s position atop a hotbed of geothermal activity makes it an ideal candidate to further tap that resource.

Industry Reaction

For Solar Frontier, the timing of the announcement is perfectly aligned with its recent growth as a major manufacturer of PV modules.

Born as a subsidiary of Japan’s oil industry, Solar Frontier may be among the companies best positioned to tap into the expected market growth. The thin-film maker opened up a 900-MW facility in southern Japan -- far from the quake epicenter -- in February, and recently reached full capacity, making it among the world’s largest solar manufacturers.

Sitting in his Solar Frontier office in Japan at 8 a.m. Friday morning, Brooks Herring, Vice President of International Business, noted the indoor temperature was 28 degrees Celsius, or 82 degrees. It was just another day in what has proved to be a long, hot summer marked by urgent calls for energy conservation. But the realization is that efficiency only goes so far. The country needs more power, and they need it soon.

“We’re optimistic that there will be a speedy implementation after it is passed,” said Herring about the new law. “We expect most of the installations at the utility scale and the residential scale would happen in 2012.”

Solar Frontier opened its biggest manufacturing facility earlier this year with a goal of selling 30 percent into the Japanese market, 40 percent into the European market and 30 percent into the United States and other global markets. Now the company is planning to adjust its strategy accordingly.

“We see the potential for our 30 percent target in Japan to go higher than that next year,” said Herring. “We built a flexible sales organization because we knew that government policies would shift from country to country. We saw that in Europe. So we built a flexible sales organization to cope with that.”

In the wind industry, the move was also seen as a strong step toward renewable sources and away from fossil fuels and nuclear power.

“Japan’s move towards a feed-in tariff is very welcome, since this would replace a portfolio standard with a very low target, which was not effective in stimulating renewable energy development,” said Steve Sawyer, Secretary General of GWEC. “The government made several announcements in recent months in support of renewable energy, but this is the strongest signal yet. Combined with the public rejection of nuclear power, strong support for renewable energy and various private sector initiatives, this opens up numerous opportunities for investors in Japan."

According to GWEC, Japan has four wind turbine manufacturers – Mitsubishi Heavy Industry, Fuji Heavy Industry, Japan Steel Works and Komai Tekko. However, the Japanese market is dominated by manufacturers such as Vestas, GE and Enercon.

"We needed some additional funding and although we had interested investors they were not able to come to the table quickly enough," Think spokesman James Andrew told Automotive News Europe.

He declined to say how much cash Think sought to remain operating, but industry sources say the company would have needed multiple millions to keep going.

The future options for Think include a liquidation of its assets or the sale of the company to a new investor.

EV's and Hybrids are not our Future

Read more: http://www.autoweek.com/article/20110623/CARNEWS/110629943#ixzz1Q8kfznEI

From co-founding the Sustainable Biodiesel Alliance to her civil disobedience arrest at a West Virginia mountaintop removal strip-mine, Daryl Hannah’s “off the grid” lifestyle and activism make her the perfect speaker & role model for OC residents wanting to "go green" at the Tree Hugger's Ball on June 11th in Silverado Canyon.

The OC's favorite family eco festival, the Tree Hugger's Ball & Green Expo, features an environmental expo, local art show, silent auction, guest speakers, no host bar, along with 7 hours of live music and dancing under a canopy of Oaks & Sycamores in scenic Silverado Canyon. BBQ or Vegetarian dinner can be purchased at the event. This year's guests will be entertained with music of Appalachia & Bluegrass by Lilies of the West and “DNA”, Grateful Dead cover tunes of “Skull & Roses” and an evening Environmental Blues concert with ‘Common Sense’ lead singer Nick Hernandez and his special BLUES team! Nick and the Wyland Blues Planet were also featured in this year’s Doheny Blues Fest! Guest speaking at the TreeHuggr’s this year will be Transition Laguna's sustainability expert Chris Prelitz, and arriving in her 'veggie powered' El Camino, LA's outstanding "off the grid" celebrity, DARYL HANNAH!

A tribute to the life and activism of West Virginia's 'Coal Country' star, Judy Bonds, will take place onstage with lovely voices of Appalachia, followed by reflections of close friends, Dennis McHale and Daryl Hannah.

Along with other environmental festivities, manufacturers of green products and services will be exhibiting at our event. Last year our expo presented fuel efficient, biodiesel & veggie cars, alternative energy, nutrition & native plant companies, and local environmental groups. The TreeHuggr's Ball has recently become an acclaimed “ZERO WASTE” event thanks to the leadership of Stephanie Barger and the Earth Resource Foundation! With onsite composting, reusable dinnerware and recycling efforts, the 2010 event generated only ONE bag of trash! Ball attendees are encouraged to bring their own reusable dinnerware and wear an earthy costume for a chance at prizes.

Tickets for this event are available at the CLCF website: http://www.canyonland.org/treehuggers.html or by calling 714-649-2820.

Date: June 11th, 2011
Time: Environmental expo 4:00 pm to Dusk, Ball: 6 pm - 11:00 pm
Location: Santiago Event Center, 27912 Baker Canyon Road, Silverado, CA. 92676
Cost: $25.00 General admission tickets (admission price does not include dinner)
Kids 6-16 yrs $10, Children 5 & under Free!

Caution: It is vitally important not to make connections. When you see pictures of rubble like this week’s shots from Joplin, Mo., you should not wonder: Is this somehow related to the tornado outbreak three weeks ago in Tuscaloosa, Ala., or the enormous outbreak a couple of weeks before that (which, together, comprised the most active April for tornadoes in U.S. history). No, that doesn’t mean a thing.

It is far better to think of these as isolated, unpredictable, discrete events. It is not advisable to try to connect them in your mind with, say, the fires burning across Texas — fires that have burned more of America at this point this year than any wildfires have in previous years. Texas, and adjoining parts of Oklahoma and New Mexico, are drier than they’ve ever been — the drought is worse than that of the Dust Bowl. But do not wonder if they’re somehow connected.

For the full story in the Washington Post...

BHP Billiton has big plans to mine uranium at Olympic Dam, and company documents show that renewables might actually be the best option for powering the project, writes Giles Parkinson

BHP Billiton has caught some flak from the green movement about its massive Olympic Dam project, including over its apparently conservative choice of power supplies. A spokesperson for Greens senator Scott Ludlam last week was scathing: "BHP Billiton has designed a world’s-worst-practice uranium mine, when the alternative would see a lower greenhouse footprint and skilled jobs retained in South Australia".

It’s right that BHP is under scrutiny, because if the biggest mining company in the world — one that measures its annual profits in the tens of billions of dollars — can’t afford to invest in that green thing, then who can? Not so fast. While BHP Billiton appears to have committed to connecting the mine to the coal-fired grid and gas supplies, and is seeking approval for a gas-fired power plant of up to 650MW to power the project, it is also keeping its options open.

In a decision that stands as a clear message to the country’s established energy generators, and to the Cassandras who idly dismiss the potential of renewable energy sources, BHP Billiton is pointedly refusing to sign long-term power supply agreements, because it is canvassing the possibility of sourcing much of its power from geothermal and solar thermal energy sources. The supplementary environmental impact statement released on Friday makes it clear to its board of directors that it would be mad if it didn’t.

In the initial stages of the project, up to the point that the mine gets to a 20 million tonne per annum capacity, the biggest greenhouse abatement opportunities are from biodiesel and from gas (CCGT), but they are both costly.

However, by the time the Olympic Dam project ramps up to a 40mtpa operation — likely within a decade of final approval — its greatest greenhouse abatement opportunities lie with geothermal and solar thermal energy sources. And, more importantly, they both have a negative cost of abatement, which is to say that if the technology is available, then BHP will make more money by replacing its gas and coal-fired energy sources with geothermal and solar.

The mine, by the time it has scaled up to this size, will be emitting up to 3.8 million tonnes of C02e per year. More than half of those emissions could be reduced through geothermal and solar thermal energy, and the company will make money by doing so. Further reductions could be achieved with solar PV and biodiesel, but these appear expensive at current estimates.

Some particularly profitable abatement opportunities are also available, such as crushing the ore inside the pit, but this abatement opportunity will depend on the mine design. There is also a potential role for solar thermal in reducing emissions — which is nearly doubled when the mine gets to its maximum capacity of 60mtpa, and the abatement costs of solar PV fall sharply. At that point, carbon capture and storage also potentially starts to play a role.

The abatement cost survey was adapted from the famous McKinsey curve developed several years ago, but was updated specifically for this project with the help of a McKinsey team that spent a month in BHP Billiton’s offices. BHP Billiton insiders suggest that the solar PV and biodiesel estimates may already be redundant, such is the pace of the declining cost curve. As one observer noted: "This (document) could not be a clearer indication of how the energy industry could change in the coming decade." And it is why the company is so keen on keeping its options open. The technology options are being reviewed on an annual basis.

BHP Billiton cannot commit to those technologies now because they are not bankable at such a scale. But it fully expects that they could be in the next few years, which is why, as one observer noted, "no one wants to hook up with long-term contracts". By extending a grid connector to the site, it keeps its options open. A gas-fired power plant is still possible, even likely, but it might not be needed at anything like the scale envisaged.

So far, the company has only committed to around 57MW of renewable energy sources — 35MW to power a desalination plant that will take water from the Spencer Gulf, and a recently adopted commitment to buy a further 22MW of renewable power from the grid to power the pumping stations to get the water to the project site.

The company intends to install a 250MW co-generation facility using waste heat from the burning of elemental sulphur, which will also serve to reduce emissions and energy costs. Elsewhere, its adoption of renewable energy is on a micro scale, including the installation of solar hot water and solar photovoltaic systems in the new airport, the expanded Roxby Downs and Hiltaba Village.

It would, of course, be a delicious irony if this massive mining project, and one expected to become the largest source of uranium in the world, was powered by geothermal and solar thermal energy installations.

Questions remain: Can these technologies deliver on time? And what help will the government provide to ensure that they are able to seize these opportunities?

If the world’s biggest mining company can see that powering its biggest project with geothermal and solar thermal is a cheap and effective option, then perhaps it is time the government recognises this too, and moves its renewable energy policies out of neutral and into a forward gear.

BEIJING (AP) - China said Thursday it will increase this year's production quota for rare earths but gave no sign it might reverse plans to cut exports of the exotic metals needed by high-tech industry.

China accounts for most rare earths production and has alarmed global manufactures by reducing exports of the ores as it tries to develop its own producers of lightweight magnets and other high-tech goods that use the metals.

This year's production quota will be 93,800 tons, the Ministry of Land and Resources said on its website. That would be an increase of about 5 percent over 2010.

The ministry also said no new licenses for rare earths, tungsten or antimony mines would be granted before June 30, 2012.

The announcement made no mention of altering plans announced in December to reduce export quotas for the first half of this year by about 11 percent from a year earlier to 14,446 tons.

Rare earths are a group of 17 minerals used in manufacturing flat-screen TVs, mobile phones, batteries for electric cars and wind turbines.

China has about 30 percent of rare earths deposits but accounts for 97 percent of global production. Rising global demand, coupled with the decline in Chinese exports, has prompted companies in the United States, Canada and Australia to announce plans to develop or reopen rare earths mines.

Last week, the government announced a tax increase on rare earths in another move to limit exports.

___

Ministry of Land and Resources: www.mlr.gov.cn/mlrenglish

Tuesday, February 15th, 2011 -- 11:43

The industrial doomsday scenario put forward by peak oil theorists isn't just for far flung voices on the Internet anymore.

Peak oil is not a problem of Earth's supplies: there's plenty of oil in a variety of forms. The difficulty is in how much energy it takes to recover and process it. And if it hasn't happened already, soon the demand for energy commodities will soar past existing production capacity and crash headlong into the brick wall of declining discoveries.

The economic effects of this could be devastating to the human populations within industrialized societies, to say the least.

That's not just the line from Noam Chomsky, Michael Rupert and Dmitry Orlov: the second largest company in the world, Shell International, a major player in the energy commodities industries, is saying it too.

In a recent "Signals & Signposts" report by Shell, forecasting energy scenarios through 2050, the oil giant predicted a growing volatility in the price of oil and a coming period of "extraordinary opportunity or misery."

As the demand for oil buts up against actual production and remaining reserves, the climbing price of oil will cause the gross domestic product of all nations to decline, they predict.

In another section, Shell calls these economic effects "Depression 2.0." Though that scenario is introduced as "unlikely," the rest of the report does not paint a rosy outlook.

Shell predicts that as the energy industry struggles to meet global demand, "environmental tension will swell and spread."

They add: "Political, industrial and individual choices will determine whether these tensions can be resolved and whether the solutions will be benign or harmful to us."

Within what they called a "zone of uncertainty," energy entrepreneurs will have "extraordinary opportunity" for growth if the right assemblage of technology is made available. However, Shell adds that competition and "natural innovation" in energy efficiency would only account for a moderation in demand of about 20 percent by 2050.

Meanwhile, between 2000 and 2050, demand for easily accessible energy will triple, they predict.

China, Shell adds, is preparing to institute its own cap-and-trade system for regulating carbon emissions. Businesses around the world, they noted, have already largely started to accept that climate regulations will soon become a reality for global trade and have begun to budget accordingly.

But even the most rapid improvements in renewable technologies, like electric cars or microorganisms that convert captured carbon into liquid fuel, won't help much in the near term.

"New energy technologies must be demonstrated at commercial scale and require thirty years of sustained double-digit growth to build industrial capacity and grow sufficiently to feature at even 1-2% of the energy system," they wrote.

The bumpy peak

Shell predicts in clear terms what journalist Michael Rupert said in his recent film "Collapse": more shocks to the industry loom ahead, which will lead to increased price volatility, producing rapid inflation and deflation on the consumer level.

And if that phenomena hasn't already begun, they add, it will be in full-boar by the end of this decade.

Interestingly enough, Shell also predicts that "[the] longer the delay in climate policy action, the more likely shocks become."

One such example would be the potential for peak output in Saudi Arabia. If it were a reality and word got out that their fields would be in permanent decline, it could produce extreme price variations and social unrest amid worsening economic conditions. A series of US diplomatic cables from 2007-2009, published by secrets outlet WikiLeaks, revealed that the former head geologist in charge of exploration for the Saudi oil firm Aramco, who retired in 2004, has expressed very serious concerns that this was happening.

"RARE earth” is a historical misnomer. Elements that fall under this label were identified mostly in the 18th and 19th centuries, when the word “earths” was used to describe a group of geological materials. At the time, a subset of these was thought to be uncommon.

Graphic

Production and Consumption

Graphic

Green Technologies Increase Demand

In fact, rare earths are relatively abundant. But they are very hard to extract, and processing them can cause environmental damage. The process involves toxic acids, and rare earths are often found in deposits containing the radioactive elements uranium and thorium.

The first color television included rare earths. Recently, demand for them has become more acute, as they have been used to make an array of high-tech products including smartphones, hybrid cars, flat-panel televisions, wind turbines and military weapons.

For the full story...

EUR150 Million Fund to Promote Climate-Friendly Economic Growth

Mercuria will participate as anchor investor in a new Carbon Credit fund launched today by the International Finance Corporation.

This new fund, of value up to EUR150 million, will be an instrument to purchase carbon credits to help reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, extend carbon markets, and increase access to finance for projects that promote environmentally friendly economic growth. Mercuria Energy and Shell Trading committed to the facility as anchor investors. IFC will invest up to EUR15 million in the IFC Post-2012 Carbon Facility and mobilize the remainder from European power utilities and energy companies.

The facility will forward purchase Certified Emission Reductions that are expected to be produced from 2013 to 2020, from projects either directly financed by IFC or by local banks financed by IFC. This will ensure that projects can continue to benefit from carbon finance during a period of policy uncertainty in the approach to the end of the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol in 2012. The facility will provide a longer-term high-quality carbon revenue stream and increase financing options for projects that reduce emissions.

Andrei Marcu, Head of Regulatory Affairs, Environment, and Climate Change at Mercuria Energy said: "Investing in post-2012 reductions at this time is an expression of Mercuria’s confidence in the increasing role for carbon markets in addressing climate change post 2012, and also a great business opportunity. We feel that investing with IFC provides us with a solid partner in navigating these new waters."

Mohsen Khalil, Global Head of IFC’s Climate Business Group, said: "IFC’s investments in the carbon markets at a time of regulatory uncertainty is an important step that will enable private sector companies to continue to develop projects that cut greenhouse-gas emissions. Supporting carbon finance is a central part of IFC’s efforts to help the private sector address the challenges and capitalize on the opportunities presented by climate change."

Slavko Preocanin, President of Shell Energy Europe, said: "Carbon markets have a vital role to play in addressing climate change. Shell fully supports the continued expansion of Clean Development Mechanism projects following the end of the Kyoto commitment period in 2012. Our focus is on supporting the commercialization of projects with innovative structures, enabling them to reduce greenhouse gases and help mitigate climate change."

Tackling climate change in developing countries is a strategic priority for IFC. IFC plans to double its climate-related investments to at least 20 percent of its overall commitments within two years. IFC Advisory Services spending on climate change is also expected to double to the same share over the same period.

About Mercuria Energy Group Ltd.

Mercuria is a privately-owned international group of companies active over a wide spectrum of global energy markets including crude oil and refined petroleum products, natural gas (including LNG), power, coal, biodiesel, vegetable oils and carbon emissions. It is one of the world’s five largest independent energy traders and has a longstanding sector expertise. Mercuria’s worldwide operations are carried out from 28 offices across five continents. For more information, visit http://www.mercuria.com.

About IFC

IFC, a member of the World Bank Group, is the largest global development institution focused on the private sector in developing countries. We create opportunity for people to escape poverty and improve their lives. We do so by providing financing to help businesses employ more people and supply essential services, by mobilizing capital from others, and by delivering advisory services to ensure sustainable development. In a time of global economic uncertainty, our new investments climbed to a record $18 billion in fiscal 2010. For more information, visit http://www.ifc.org.

About Shell Trading

The Shell Trading business encompasses the full range of trading and shipping activities throughout the Shell Group. With trading volumes of about 13 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, spread over physical crude oil, refined products, natural gas, electrical power, chemical feedstocks and environmental products, the organisation has the skill base and international scope to capitalise on trading opportunities inherent in Shell’s asset and market positions around the world. For more information, visit: http://www.shell.com.

Lead-acid batteries are the most recycled products in the world. The process is both straightforward and cost-effective. When batteries arrive at the recycling plant, they're put through a shredder and then sent to a water bath. The shredded plastic floats to the top where it's cleaned and reprocessed like any other recycled plastic. The shredded metals sink to the bottom where they're transferred to a blast furnace for further processing. The output from the blast furnace is mostly molten lead with small amounts of copper and other metals that are skimmed from the surface for disposal or further processing. The lead is then poured into ingots and returned to manufacturers for use in making new batteries. Because of the inherent efficiency of the recycling process, over 97% of all lead-acid batteries in the US and Europe are recycled and almost 80% of the lead used in the US comes from recycling rather than mining. Many major lead-acid battery manufacturers, including Johnson Controls (JCI), Enersys (ENS) and Exide Technologies (XIDE), operate company-owned recycling facilities for the dual purpose of protecting the environment and stabilizing their raw materials supply chains.

Nickel Metal Hydride [NiMH] batteries present a more complex recycling challenge than lead acid batteries. First the electrolyte is evaporated using a thermal process and the batteries are then shredded and put into a blast furnace. The output from the blast furnace is a simple alloy of nickel (~60%) and steel (~40%) that requires moderate post-recycling processing before the metals can be reused to make stainless steel. All rare earth metals in NiMH batteries end up in a slag that's either sent to a landfill or used for construction material. Using material recovery estimates published by Umicore Battery Recycling and average annual metal prices from the US Geological Survey, I've calculated that roughly two-thirds of the raw materials that go into a NiMH battery are recoverable through recycling while one-third of those materials are lost forever.

Lithium-ion batteries are a couple steps beyond NiMH in terms of recycling complexity and cost. The closed loop Umicore recycling process that will be used to recycle batteries for Tesla Motors (TSLA) includes the following steps.

• Step 0: collection and reception of batteries (worldwide, Hoboken (Belgium)
• Step 1: smelting + energetic valorisation (in Hoboken, Belgium)
• Step 2 & 3 : refining & purification of metals (in Olen, Belgium)
• Step 4 : oxidation of Cobalt chloride into Cobalt oxide (in Olen, Belgium)
• Step 5: production of Lithium metal oxide for new batteries (in South Korea)

The electrolytes, plastics and carbons used in lithium-ion batteries are burned off and destroyed in the recycling process. The output from the blast furnace is a complex alloy of cobalt (~37%), steel (~37%), Copper (~22%) and Nickel (~4%) that requires extensive post-recycling processing before the metals can be reused. The lithium and aluminum end up as slag that is either sent to a landfill or used as construction material. Using material recovery estimates published by Umicore and average annual metal prices from the US Geological Survey, I've calculated that about half of the raw materials that go into a lithium-ion battery are recoverable through recycling while the other half the materials are lost forever. In a press release last week Tesla announced a new battery-pack recycling program with Umicore. A related blog from Tesla's Director of Energy Storage Systems spoke in glowing terms of how the recycling would provide "a high margin of return." The claims may defensible in Tesla's case since (a) they use lithium cobalt oxide batteries and roughly 75% of the economic value recovered through the use of Umicore's process is attributable to the recovered cobalt, and (b) even $1 in recycling revenue would be a "high rate of return" when compared with the alternative of paying a landfill tipping charge. It's certain, however, that Tesla's potential recycling revenue won't be more than a low single digit percentage of the cost of a new battery pack. For chemistries like lithium-iron-phosphate from A123 Systems (AONE), lithium-magnesium-phosphate from Valence Technologies (VLNC), lithium-iron-sulfate and lithium-magnesium-oxide from Ener1 (HEV) and lithium-titanate from Altair Nanotechnologies (ALTI) that use cheaper electrode materials, recycling is likely to be a major cost burden instead of an insignificant revenue source.

Starting in 2012, Ford Motor Co. will expand the use of technology that shuts off the engine of an idling engine to include more cars and trucks.

Auto Start-Stop technology already is on hybrid versions of the Ford Fusion and Escape, and on vehicles in Europe with manual transmissions. But the Dearborn-based automaker announced Monday that the fuel-saving feature will be available on most conventional cars and trucks, including those with automatic transmissions.

The goal is to offer start-stop capability on most nameplates in North America by 2015, said Ford spokesman Richard Truett.

Start-stop is poised to spread in North America in the next five years as automakers work to meet increasingly stringent fuel-economy and emissions requirements.

Most automakers offer a form of start-stop technology in Europe because it is affordable — suppliers and analysts estimate the cost as low as $500 — and can improve fuel economy as much as 15 percent. But the systems are almost exclusively offered with manual transmissions.

In North America, fewer than 10 percent of buyers drive a manual, so the technology must be adapted to work with cars most Americans drive.

Ford plans to offer its Auto Start-Stop in gas-powered vehicles with both transmissions in North America, including Ford's dual-clutch six-speed automatic.

Ford says the system can improve fuel economy 4 to 10 percent, depending on the vehicle and how it is driven.

City driving with multiple stops will yield greater benefits. When a vehicle is stopped, the engine turns off and automatically restarts when the brake is released.

Vehicle functions and accessories such as the radio and climate control continue to operate while the engine is off.

"Ford Auto Start-Stop provides extra fuel efficiency without inconvenience, as it works completely automatically," said Barb Samardzich, Ford vice president of powertrain engineering.

"And, just like in our hybrid vehicles, the heater and air conditioner work as normal so drivers will not sacrifice comfort."

The automaker has more than 244 patents on the technology, which will be shown on a concept vehicle to be unveiled next month at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit.

The only start-stop system offered in the United States today is on the Porsche Panamera and Cayenne, but those vehicles don't have a traditional automatic transmission.

BMW AG has said the technology will debut on an undisclosed U.S. vehicle with an automatic transmission in 2011.

General Motors Co. introduced a Buick LaCrosse at last month's Los Angeles auto show with "eAssist" that includes start-stop technology and an electric motor that assists during driving, a combination that improves fuel economy 25 percent.

Chrysler Group LLC, with partner Fiat SpA, plans to offer start-stop technology by 2014.

Bosch, which supplies the technology, expects half the new cars in Europe will have start-stop capability in 2012, and that North America will reach that figure in 2016. In Europe, the system used by Ford was designed to work with both diesel and gasoline engines.

The technology is standard on some models of the Ford Ka and Mondeo and is launching on the Focus, C-Max and Grand C-Max.

The Focus and C-Max are global vehicles, making them strong candidates to offer start-stop features in the U.S. market, as well. The Focus goes on sale in the United States in the new year; the C-Max follows in 2012.

Eventually, Ford believes, the technology will be available in all markets around the world.

For 2011, Ford continues to offer the system on its hybrids including the Escape, Fusion and Lincoln MKZ.

"Many of the same Ford engineers who designed the Auto Start Stop system used on Ford and Lincoln hybrids are developing the Auto Start-Stop system for non-hybrid vehicles that will be sold around the globe," said Samardzich.

Direct-injection engines work well with start-stop technology because they aid the fast engine starts required, she said.

Start-stop will debut on four-cylinder engines but expand to include V-6 and V-8 engines.

No additional vehicle maintenance is required, said Birgit Sorgenfrei, Ford program manager for Auto Start-Stop.

A light on the dash signals when the engine is off, and the needle on a special tachometer moves into the green zone.

"Our hybrid owners tell us that start-stop is one of their favorite features," said Sorgenfrei.

"When the engine is off, they know they are saving fuel and reducing emissions."

[email protected]

(313) 222-2505

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20101228/AUTO01/12280329/Ford-to-add-‘on-off’-engine-technology-to-non-hybrids#ixzz19QTC77Eq

Regarding a discussion evaluating the new MPG-E metric for EV's and Plug-in Hybrids...

This discussion is ridiculous. If you are NOT using a liquid fuel you are NOT getting miles per gallon!

Auto purchases boil down to resource allocation. If you have lots of resources you get what you want. If your resources are scarce you buy what you need.

It is insane to purchase a Volt for $45,000, even if it gets 60-80 whatever fuzzy MPG-E rating when you can buy a new VW TDI that really does get 45 to 50 miles per gallon for $25,000. For the $20,000 difference, I can buy about 6,666 gallons of diesel fuel which will allow me to drive over 300,000 miles with a single tank range of over 600 miles whenever and wherever I desire. So while that Chevy Volt is crushed in a recycling center after about 100,000 miles because no sane person will own a vehicle beyond the battery warranty when the battery replacement cost is $9,500, I will still be breaking in my VW as diesel engines have a historic track record of getting over 300,000 miles with very little maintenance and repair.

20,000/$3.00 = 6,666 gallons x 45mpg = 300,000 miles

And please to not argue that I can get such and such incentives from the US Federal Government against the purchase of the Chevy Volt. The US Federal Government is broke and programs to support EV's just motivate the Fed to print more paper money which further devalues the USD. I and other consumers will allocate our resources as we see fit. The Volt is a useless science experiment ignoring economic realities. Like most GM engineering and promises, it will fail to be of practical use to most people.

by David Doniger

2010-12-10 4:01 PM

U.S. EPA applauds American Samoa’s decision to ban plastic shopping bags

HONOLULU – The US Environmental Protection Agency today applauds the Governor, Legislature and residents of America Samoa for enacting restrictions banning plastic shopping bags – reducing their waste and protecting the environment in a single action.

“We welcome American Samoa’s leadership in the Pacific islands to ban plastic shopping bags,” said Jared Blumenfeld, the EPA’s Regional Administrator for the Pacific Southwest. “This action will decrease the amount of plastic waste in the territory and directly protect marine and bird life in the Pacific.”

American Samoa is not only the first US Territory to ban plastic shopping bags, but one of the first states to enact state or territory wide legislation. Other cities like San Francisco, Portland, coastal North Carolina, and many California cities have bag bans. Santa Monica, San Jose, Berkeley, New York City, Seattle, Boston, Phoenix, Connecticut, and Maryland have proposed bag bans. Other countries that have banned free plastic bags include China, Bangladesh, Australia, Italy, South Africa, Ireland, and Taiwan.

“The landmark move by American Samoa not only helps the local environment, it helps prevent plastic shopping bags from ending up in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch – an enormous area of floating plastic waste,” said Blumenfeld.

The ‘Great Pacific Garbage Patch’ refers to two areas of floating plastic waste in the North Pacific that have been identified by NOAA and many other organizations. These areas are located in both the eastern and western Pacific and are composed of marine debris. The main type of garbage in the patch is plastic litter along with other debris such as derelict fishing nets. Much of the debris is very small bits of floating plastic debris broken down through photodegradation, and surveys estimate that there may be as much as six times more plastic than plankton in parts of the garbage patch. The American Samoa action will help protect many species of Pacific marine and bird life, which attempt to consume the plastic debris after mistaking it for food.

Release date: 2010-08-30

WASHINGTON – As a new generation of cars and light trucks start appearing on the market, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are jointly proposing changes to the fuel economy labels consumers see on the window of every new vehicle in dealer showrooms. The proposed rule seeks public comment on label design options and related issues. The public can view the proposed rule and labels at: http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/ and submit comments as part of the rulemaking process via email to: [email protected]. They can also review the proposed rule at http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy.

“We are asking the American people to tell us what they need to make the best economic and environmental decisions when buying a new car,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “New fuel economy labels will keep pace with the new generation of fuel efficient cars and trucks rolling off the line, and provide simple, straightforward updates to inform consumers about their choices in a rapidly changing market. We want to help buyers find vehicles that meet their needs, keep the air clean and save them money at the pump.”

“New technologies such as battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids are entering the American market in greater numbers,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “We need to provide consumers with labels that include fuel economy and environmental information so that buyers can make better informed decisions when purchasing new vehicles.”

The goal of the new fuel economy labels is to provide consumers with simple, straightforward energy and environmental comparisons across all types of vehicles, including electric vehicles (EV), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV), and conventional gasoline-powered vehicles.

DOT and EPA are looking to provide enhanced information on efficiency and environmental performance – including information about air pollutants, such as smog, that impact public health – to consumers. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 specifically calls on EPA and DOT to rate available vehicles according to fuel economy, greenhouse gas emissions and smog forming pollutants.

EPA and DOT are proposing two new label designs for comment. One label design prominently features a letter grade to communicate the vehicle’s overall fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions performance. The new design will also provide consumers with an estimate of the expected fuel cost savings over five years compared to an average gasoline-powered vehicle of the same model year.

The second proposed label retains the current label’s focus on miles per gallon (MPG) and annual fuel costs, while updating the overall design and adding the required new comparison information on fuel economy and emissions.

Both proposed label designs expand on the content of the current label by including new information on fuel consumption, tailpipe carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and smog-related emissions. The new labels would provide information on a new web-based interactive tool that can also be accessed by smart phone. This tool would allow consumers to personalize the information about a vehicle’s performance.

For EVs and PHEVs, the agencies are proposing to show energy use by translating electricity consumption into miles per gallon equivalent. The proposed label designs for EVs also include energy use expressed in terms of kilowatt-hours per 100 miles.

DOT and EPA encourage public feedback on all aspects of the proposal, including which designs or design features would best help consumers compare fuel economy, fuel costs, and environmental impacts of different vehicles and across different vehicle technologies.

The agencies are proposing that the label only present information on vehicle tailpipe emissions. Upstream emissions, which are associated with electricity generation or refining fuel, would not be displayed on the label. EPA and DOT propose to develop a website to provide consumers additional information on non-tailpipe emissions, while taking comment on other approaches to provide consumer information about lifecycle emissions across various vehicle fuels and technologies. The agencies are aiming to complete the rule in time to allow the new label to appear on the windows of as many 2012 model year vehicles as possible.

DOT and EPA are providing a 60-day public comment period that begins with the proposal’s publication in the Federal Register.

More information on the proposed labels and submitting comments: http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/ and http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy

Contact Information: Cathy Milbourn (News Media Only) [email protected] 202-564-7849 202-564-4355; En español: Jalil Isa [email protected] 202-564-3226 202-564-4355 NHTSA Karen Aldana 202-366-9500