New Device could make internal combustion 15-20% more efficient

Well, looks like old fashioned regulation actually stands up to Cost Benefit analysis. The problem is that the costs are to Industry, a well organized bunch of folks with lobbies, scientists, and such, and the benefits are primarily to the general population, well, they get a choice every few years!

Chemical & Engineering News: Latest News – Budget Office Reports On Regulations:

Budget Office Reports On Regulations EPA air pollution rule helps boost overall societal benefits of federal actions Cheryl Hogue A 2005 air pollution rule is a major reason why benefits from federal regulations continue to outpace costs, says a draft White House Office of Management & Budget report released on April 13. Federal regulations issued between 1996 and 2005 generate total annual benefits estimated to be between $94 billion and $449 billion, the OMB report says. Costs of those rules, which range from health and education standards to transportation and labor regulations, are estimated to be between $37 billion and $44 billion yearly, the draft report says. The document is the 2006 installment of an analysis that OMB by law must prepare each year for Congress. The ratio of benefits to costs is higher for the 1996–2005 decade than it was between 1995 and 2004 primarily because of a single rule reducing air pollution from power plants, the draft report says. That EPA regulation requires 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia to control sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, two key pollutants released by coal-fired power plants. According to the draft report, that rule will generate from $50 billion to $60 billion a year worth of health benefits by reducing public exposure to fine particulate matter. This rule will cost about $1.8 billion annually to implement. Most of the costs and benefits of federal regulation are due to EPA rules, the draft report adds. During the 1996–2005 decade, the annual benefits of the agency’s rules are calculated to be between $59 billion and $394 billion, while estimated costs ranged from $24 billion to $26 billion. The draft report is available at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/reports/2006_draft_cost_benefit_report.pdf. Chemical & Engineering News ISSN 0009-2347 Copyright © 2006 American Chemical Society

Duke Energy, that is, not the Blue Devils!

The Supreme Court sure has a green tinge today!

newsobserver.com | Justices rule against Duke on pollution controls

The Supreme Court gave a boost today to a federal clean air initiative aimed at forcing utilities to install pollution control equipment on aging coal-fired power plants.
In a unanimous decision, the justices ruled against Duke Energy Corp. in a lawsuit brought by the Clinton administration, part of a massive enforcement effort targeting more than a dozen utilities.

Most companies settled with the government, but several Clinton-era cases involving more than two dozen power plants in the South and the Midwest are still pending. The remaining suits demand fines for past pollution that if levied in full would run into billions of dollars.

The justices ruled that the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., overstepped its authority by implicitly invalidating Environmental Protection Agency regulations in a way that favored Duke. The case now returns to the lower courts.

The appeals court’s decision “seems to us too far a stretch,” Justice David Souter wrote.

The enforcement program is aimed at reducing power plant emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide that contribute to smog and acid rain. Sulfur dioxide is the leading cause of acid rain.

The utility industry has long resisted installing costly pollution controls under the program called New Source Review. It waged vigorous campaigns against the program starting in the 1980s and more recently by battling it out with regulators when sued in federal courts.

Of course, he’s not serious. Dingell (D – Auto Industry) floats a carbon tax proposal for the US that is sure to be shot down.

Counting on Failure, Energy Chairman Floats Carbon Tax – New York Times

A powerful House Democrat said on Friday that he planned to propose a steep new “carbon tax” that would raise the cost of burning oil, gas and coal, in a move that could shake up the political debate on global warming.

The proposal came from Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and it runs directly counter to the view of most Democrats that any tax on energy would be a politically disastrous approach to slowing global warming.

But Mr. Dingell, in an interview to be broadcast Sunday on C-Span, suggested that his goal was to show that Americans are not willing to face the real cost of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. His message appeared to be that Democratic leaders were setting unrealistic legislative goals.

I happened to watch an interesting short film called After the Peak about peak oil, the concept (not that revolutionary unless you ask Messrs  Exxon-Mobil, Shell and Dick Cheney!) that oil production will start declining after a certain peak production event. The docudrama made by local film maker James McQuaid was part of a public meeting on the local (Orange County, NC) responses to the coming energy crisis. Interesting conceptually, it was shown as a 30 minute local newscast, with the usual cast of characters, the too handsome eye candy anchor and his female sidekick, the young and breathless “street reporter”, the gray haired expert, and the uber-energetic sports guy! The newscast is set a year into the future when the price of gas is $10/gallon. The documentary of interviews with various community members about the effects of the price of gas on their business/life. In the 30 minutes, he touched upon food, school buses, sports, NASCAR, the poor, commutes, etc. It was an interesting effort, if a little over the top! The fake interviews with the racing track owner who’s closing his track down, the UNC athletic director who has to cancel all his long distance events, the manager of the local food store who threatens food scarcity.

But is $10 a gallon really a big deal?

This simple chart shows income adjusted dollar per gallon gas prices (gas prices from 2006, income from 2004, but it should not change too much.)

Let’s avoid the low income outliers and just compare the U.S and Germany. In April 2006, the U.S was paying $2.95 a gallon and Germany, $8.06 per gallon (ref). If you further adjust that with the per capita income of the two countries, $41,300 for the U.S versus $30,500 for Germany (ref), you will find that the price of gas in Germany is well above $10 a gallon already, they seem to be doing just fine! Maybe they just drive less. The US uses 381 million gallons of gas per day (that’s about 1.2 gallons per day per person). I agree that this comparison is a little flawed because the bulk of the German price is due to taxes, which go back to the government and are presumably used for various good deeds. Also, if the price of gas went up due to shortages, the price differential between Germany and the US would presumably stay constant (unless the Germans lowered taxes). My point is that many countries cope with high gas prices quite well, they just don’t make the same choices the Americans make, 1 acre lots, large SUVs, super long commutes, etc. There are a lot of efficiencies to be had here. The graph below shows the income adjusted gasoline price for a few countries (easy data was available!)

My take: we need to swiftly move away from gasoline by a) Disincentivizing the use of gasoline in transportation b) Incentivizing the use of electricity for transportation. Electricity can be produced more efficiently, and pollution at the source can be controlled more effectively. A combination of a drastic increase in solar and wind power, coupled with aggressive development in battery technology should more than solve our problem without much recourse to biofuels (that great boondongle).