We have enough coal to be converted to gas at $60 to $70 a barrel to last 200 years. Is that true?

I think $60 to $70 is a little low...but yes. Fisher Troppe conversion aka Coal to Liquids (CTL). South Africa has been doing this since the end of WW2. There is some issues with disposal of the left overs after conversion...heavy metals, etc..
Sasol and Rentech are 2 companies I've been keeping my eye on for quite some time.

As Marcus said, it is true but not simple. There is some work on a microwave heating system that would allow the oil to be converted underground and pumped out rather than mined and converted on top. The enviros are busy trying to stop all efforts obviously.

We are the only country in the world whose natural resources are considered liabilities rather than assets by its people.

The US is to coal what Arabia is to oil. Nuclear is the way to go, but unfortunately the NIMBY mentality and enviro loons will fight that every step of the way. France is doing it right when it comes to this issue.

So what you are telling me is I am paying $4.00 a gallon and costs of all goods are going through the roof when we have a viable alternative at maybe $75 a barrel?

You know, I go back to what I have said for a long time. Let's vote all those old useless bastards out of office. I want someone to protect MY interest not special interest.

We need a leader with a multi step energy plan.
Get all the oil we can for now. (Drill everywhere)
Convert to a nuclear based electric grid. (Put them everywhere)
Work on electric cars (Nuclear electricity should be cheap)
Work on Natural gas cars (We got alot of it)

In the end, we have enough oil for jets & trains. We have a good % of electric cars that, along with commercial and residential run off nuclear, and we have coal and natural gass to fill the power gaps. Throw in some solar and wind and we are completely independant.
Then we are gonna need a bigger fence because everyone will want to be here.

Problem: Only way it happens is if Al Gore and the enviro-nazi's are tried and hung for treason.

for years the dems have been saying that we *need* gas to cost more. Well prior to the 2004 campaign Kerry had tried to add a new $0.50 per gallon federal tax for the sole purpose of raising the price. They have said a number of times that it needs to be $4 per gallon or more.

They have it now & they're not going to do a damn thing to change it. Obama recently said that he's fine with gas at $4 or $5, his only complaint was that it came up too fast so people couldn't get used to it.

BP wants to expand an existing refinery in IN. they were given a permit to do so. About 10 days ago an environmental group filed suit to prevent it.

A new refinery is trying to build in SD, but people are suing to stop that, too:

ELK POINT, South Dakota (CNN) -- Farmland stretches as far as the eye can see -- row upon row of corn stalks waving in the breeze. It's an unlikely place to watch America debate its energy crisis but a battle is raging in this corner of South Dakota over what could be the nation's first new oil refinery in 30 years.

Farmer Dale Harkness wants future generations to enjoy the land in Elk Point, South Dakota, as it is now.

Plans were kept secret for months but residents of Union County have now voted in favor of rezoning land for a $10-billion refinery capable of converting 400,000 barrels of Canadian oil into gasoline, diesel and jet fuel every day.

But while the county as a whole favored the project by a 58 percent majority on June 3, most of the rural voters whose land would be affected by the refinery said no.

"I'll keep fighting it," said farmer Dale Harkness, whose front yard could one day face the refinery, which would also need a pipeline to be built.

He and his wife, Carol, vow to fight in the courts to prevent a project they say is speculative at best, and at worst will pollute the land, creeks and skies of this tiny town for generations to come.

"They will never build here. 150 years from now someone will be enjoying that land and this land," Harkness said, pointing to the property around him. Video Watch farmers and the local mayor react to the refinery plan »

"They" is a Dallas-based company called Hyperion Energy, which says the plant will be a first-of-its kind "clean" refinery. It has never built a refinery and concedes it doesn't currently have the money to build this one either.

But project executive Preston Phillips said the project is necessary and his group is the one to build it.

"We wouldn't be spending the resources and the time if we didn't think we could," he said.

"We continue to push the ball down the road. There's $4-a-gallon gas at the pump. Crude oil is $120 to $140 a barrel. This project is at the right time today and the United States needs it."

The mayor of Elk Point, Isabel Trobaugh, agrees. She said the refinery would bring in hundreds of permanent jobs and thousands of construction jobs during the six years it takes to build.

Trobaugh, like the rest of her town, has been kept in the dark about the refinery plan, but that has not dampened her enthusiasm.

"They say that's the way big business does it," she said. "When they do their thing they don't want anyone to know they are coming in, so they keep it a secret."

Hyperion's involvement in Elk Point was initially dubbed "the gorilla project" because several large concrete gorilla sculptures were placed in the area now marked out for the refinery when nothing else was known.

But when details about the oil plant emerged, neighbor suddenly became pitted against neighbor, the Harknesses said. Some were willing to sell their land, others wanted to fight the development, Carol Harkness said. Divisions were even obvious in church where neighbors who once worshipped together found themselves unable to sit with one another for even an hour on Sunday, she said.

The initial secrecy by Hyperion created some of the ill will and raises other questions, said Mitch Pugh, editor of the nearby Sioux City Journal.

"I think there are a lot of unknowns," he said. "Those Hyperion people -- not a lot is known about them. They are not big players in the oil market. ... Where are they going to get the money?"

That's a question that Hyperion officials can't -- or won't -- answer. A request to the U.S. government for a guaranteed loan for the $10 billion in construction costs went nowhere. The company itself has mostly been involved in real estate dealings with oil and gas leases, projects that haven't generated the capital needed for the refinery.

Hyperion's chief executive is Albert Huddleston, whose wife, Mary, is the granddaughter of famed oil tycoon H. L. Hunt. A federal lawsuit filed by a former trustee of Huddleston's wife's multimillion-dollar trust claims Huddleston wasted money from that fund. Huddleston has countersued, charging the former trustee with his own fraud.

Huddleston declined to be interviewed by CNN but sent a videotape in which he talked about global politics and Canadian oil among other topics.

He also mentioned how he might build the refinery.

"I made a decision that if you came to me and had no permit for 30 to 35 years then I'm not going to take you seriously because I'm not going to believe that you can get it,'' he said on the videotape.

"So I'm not going to these strategic and financial partners and other people until we have a permit. And if we don't get the permit perhaps people are right: I just don't believe that's the case."
advertisement

Mayor Trobaugh said she knows Huddleston will build the refinery and has the means to do it. But she's not willing to share the details, even with her constituents.

"No I wouldn't do that," she said. "What he told me was private about his own personal funding and that's not public."

for years the dems have been saying that we *need* gas to cost more. Well prior to the 2004 campaign Kerry had tried to add a new $0.50 per gallon federal tax for the sole purpose of raising the price. They have said a number of times that it needs to be $4 per gallon or more.

They have it now & they're not going to do a damn thing to change it. Obama recently said that he's fine with gas at $4 or $5, his only complaint was that it came up too fast so people couldn't get used to it.

BP wants to expand an existing refinery in IN. they were given a permit to do so. About 10 days ago an environmental group filed suit to prevent it.

A new refinery is trying to build in SD, but people are suing to stop that, too:

ELK POINT, South Dakota (CNN) -- Farmland stretches as far as the eye can see -- row upon row of corn stalks waving in the breeze. It's an unlikely place to watch America debate its energy crisis but a battle is raging in this corner of South Dakota over what could be the nation's first new oil refinery in 30 years.

Farmer Dale Harkness wants future generations to enjoy the land in Elk Point, South Dakota, as it is now.

Plans were kept secret for months but residents of Union County have now voted in favor of rezoning land for a $10-billion refinery capable of converting 400,000 barrels of Canadian oil into gasoline, diesel and jet fuel every day.

But while the county as a whole favored the project by a 58 percent majority on June 3, most of the rural voters whose land would be affected by the refinery said no.

"I'll keep fighting it," said farmer Dale Harkness, whose front yard could one day face the refinery, which would also need a pipeline to be built.

He and his wife, Carol, vow to fight in the courts to prevent a project they say is speculative at best, and at worst will pollute the land, creeks and skies of this tiny town for generations to come.

"They will never build here. 150 years from now someone will be enjoying that land and this land," Harkness said, pointing to the property around him. Video Watch farmers and the local mayor react to the refinery plan »

"They" is a Dallas-based company called Hyperion Energy, which says the plant will be a first-of-its kind "clean" refinery. It has never built a refinery and concedes it doesn't currently have the money to build this one either.

But project executive Preston Phillips said the project is necessary and his group is the one to build it.

"We wouldn't be spending the resources and the time if we didn't think we could," he said.

"We continue to push the ball down the road. There's $4-a-gallon gas at the pump. Crude oil is $120 to $140 a barrel. This project is at the right time today and the United States needs it."

The mayor of Elk Point, Isabel Trobaugh, agrees. She said the refinery would bring in hundreds of permanent jobs and thousands of construction jobs during the six years it takes to build.

Trobaugh, like the rest of her town, has been kept in the dark about the refinery plan, but that has not dampened her enthusiasm.

"They say that's the way big business does it," she said. "When they do their thing they don't want anyone to know they are coming in, so they keep it a secret."

Hyperion's involvement in Elk Point was initially dubbed "the gorilla project" because several large concrete gorilla sculptures were placed in the area now marked out for the refinery when nothing else was known.

But when details about the oil plant emerged, neighbor suddenly became pitted against neighbor, the Harknesses said. Some were willing to sell their land, others wanted to fight the development, Carol Harkness said. Divisions were even obvious in church where neighbors who once worshipped together found themselves unable to sit with one another for even an hour on Sunday, she said.

The initial secrecy by Hyperion created some of the ill will and raises other questions, said Mitch Pugh, editor of the nearby Sioux City Journal.

"I think there are a lot of unknowns," he said. "Those Hyperion people -- not a lot is known about them. They are not big players in the oil market. ... Where are they going to get the money?"

That's a question that Hyperion officials can't -- or won't -- answer. A request to the U.S. government for a guaranteed loan for the $10 billion in construction costs went nowhere. The company itself has mostly been involved in real estate dealings with oil and gas leases, projects that haven't generated the capital needed for the refinery.

Hyperion's chief executive is Albert Huddleston, whose wife, Mary, is the granddaughter of famed oil tycoon H. L. Hunt. A federal lawsuit filed by a former trustee of Huddleston's wife's multimillion-dollar trust claims Huddleston wasted money from that fund. Huddleston has countersued, charging the former trustee with his own fraud.

Huddleston declined to be interviewed by CNN but sent a videotape in which he talked about global politics and Canadian oil among other topics.

He also mentioned how he might build the refinery.

"I made a decision that if you came to me and had no permit for 30 to 35 years then I'm not going to take you seriously because I'm not going to believe that you can get it,'' he said on the videotape.

"So I'm not going to these strategic and financial partners and other people until we have a permit. And if we don't get the permit perhaps people are right: I just don't believe that's the case."
advertisement

Mayor Trobaugh said she knows Huddleston will build the refinery and has the means to do it. But she's not willing to share the details, even with her constituents.

"No I wouldn't do that," she said. "What he told me was private about his own personal funding and that's not public."

Here in South Dakota the county commission has approved the Refinery. It has also gone to a vote of the people and passed. The nuts are still trying to stop it but our Governor is doing all he can to streamline the process and get the ball rolling. We also have a pipeline in the works that will distribute Canadian oil to refineries as far south as Texas. They are saying that If the refinery is completed here they will run a line from the pipeline. Most people here think it will be a great thing for the state and the people who live here.

OTTAWA -- Der Spiegel, the German newsmagazine, explained earlier this month why the Persian Gulf states are switching to coal. "[They] may be sitting atop massive oil reserves," the magazine said. "But with prices for crude skyrocketing, it makes more sense to sell it than to use it. Instead, the Gulf states are turning to coal for their own energy needs - to the detriment of the climate." And these states are not alone. "Demand for coal plants," the magazine says, "is growing rapidly across the globe."

Abu Dhabi (largest of the seven UAE emirates) has announced that it will switch to coal-fired power plants. Dubai (the second largest) is already building four of them - with a combined output of 4,000 megawatts - as a first-phase investment in coal. Apart from the United Arab Emirates, Oman (widely regarded as "the next Dubai") has signed a contract with South Korea for the construction of several coal-fired plants. Beyond the Gulf, Egypt proposes to build its first coal-fired plant on the shores of the Red Sea. Russia has announced plans to build more than 30 coal-fired plants by 2011.

As almost everyone now knows, China connects a new coal-fired plant to its electrical grid every 10 days - and intends to keep doing so for several years. Less known is China's decision to construct a massive coal-fired plant in Inner Mongolia that will convert the region's vast coal reserves into oil. With 10,000 people now engaged in the construction, the plant will be completed by the end of the year. The coal-to-liquid process used by this plant will consume twice as much coal and produce twice the CO{-2*&%$*&%$ emissions as the simple burning of coal in a conventional power plant.

Entire article here and it is worth reading.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/GAM.20080718.RREYNOLDS18/TPStory/TPComment

T. Boone Picken's plan

Following the Pickens Plan to a Profit Boon
By Nick Hodge | Friday, July 18th, 2008

Chalk another one up to clean technology.

Legendary Texas oilman, billionaire and America's 117th richest
person, T. Boon Pickens, has unveiled a $58 million public relations
blitz focused on persuading Americans to reduce their dependence on
foreign oil by turning increasingly to natural gas and wind.

Called The Pickens Plan, the project calls for an estimated $1
trillion government investment to displace electricity currently
produced with natural gas with clean wind power.

Then, the resultant excess natural gas capacity would be used to
power cars and trucks.

T. Boone, the plan's creator, says it would alleviate hundreds of
billions of dollars currently spent on oil while creating thousands
of U.S. jobs.

According to Pickens, ""I've drilled more dry holes and also found
more oil than just about anyone in the industry. With all my
experience, I've never been as worried about our energy security as I
am now."

But don't get it twisted. Pickens isn't hugging trees just yet. It's
all about the bottom line, and T. Boone is heavily vested in both the
wind and natural gas industries.

In fact, he's spending $12 billion on what could prove to be the
world's biggest wind farm—in Texas, of all places.

Another of his ventures, Clean Energy Fuels (NASDAQ: CLNE), builds
and operates natural gas fueling stations for vehicles.

Said Pickens: "Don't get the idea that I've turned green, my business
is making money, and I think this is going to make a lot of money."



Making Money with The Pickens Energy Plan

According to The Pickens Plan website:

America is in a hole and it's getting deeper every day. We import 70%
of our oil at a cost of $700 billion a year - four times the annual
cost of the Iraq war.

I've been an oil man all my life, but this is one emergency we can't
drill our way out of. But if we create a new renewable energy
network, we can break our addiction to foreign oil.

Breaking that addiction is shaping up to be a multi-billion dollar
business, and the "Oracle of Oil" is placing his bet right now.

It's probably wise to follow his lead. In addition to Energy &
Capital, Pickens was one of the few insiders calling for $100 oil
when that price seemed unfathomable. And the realization of his most
recent call for $150 oil seems imminent.

Even if all the points of the plan don't come completely to fruition,
the wind and natural gas industries are still poised for a boon.

Just in July, T. Boone's natural gas provider Clean Energy Fuels has:

been awarded a five-year contract from the City of Akron to operate
and maintain the fueling station for the city's 45 full-sized
compressed natural gas buses

received two liquefied natural gas supply contract renewals from the
City of Phoenix that will add $6.7 million to the company's bottom
line

secured nearly half its supply of natural gas through June 2011 by
entering into an extended definitive agreement with its supplier,
Williams Four Corners

Clean Energy Fuels is probably a good place to be. More and more
fleets, both governmental and corporate, are switching to natural gas
vehicles everyday, for both economic and ecologic reasons.

As this trend plays out, all those fleets are going to need natural
gas fueling stations. And Clean Energy is the foremost player in that
game.

Another lucrative way to play the emergence of natural gas vehicles
would be to invest in the company making natural gas engines. This
report has all those details.


The Windier Side of Energy

Pickens isn't just betting on natural gas. He also has ambitious
plans to build the world's largest wind farm on the Texas panhandle—
for a modest $12 billion.

Back in April. T. Boone made the first down payment on 500 wind
turbines at a cost of $2 million dollars each. GE (NYSE: GE) was the
lucky beneficiary of that transaction.

But that initial $1 billion (for the 500 turbines) hardly puts a dent
in the now $12 billion price tag—the project was originally estimated
to cost a mere $6 billion.

By 2012, about 2,700 turbines are slated to be erected on 200,000
acres of the Texas panhandle. That's four times bigger than the
word's current largest wind farm.

When finished, 4,000 turbines will crank out enough electricity to
power over one million homes.

But a billionaire-oilman-turned-wind-investor isn't the only
indication of the momentum the wind sector possesses.

In 2007, wind received the most investment dollars of any clean
technology with $50.2 billion, or 43% of all new green investment. It
was also the leader in 2006 when it was responsible for 38% of new
investment.

The wind industry also dominated asset finance in 2007, receiving
about $38.9 billion or 46% of all new-build asset investment, which
basically means steel in the ground in the form of either wind farms,
solar power plants or biofuel production facilities.

To date, 94 gigawatts (GW) of wind capacity have been installed
worldwide, with 20 GW coming online in 2007, led by the U.S., China
and Spain.

Wind also received the most public investment in 2007, raising $11.3
billion. It should be noted, however, that $7.2 billion of that
investment came just from the IPO of the world's leading wind
installer and wind farm manager, Iberdrola Renovables (MCE: IBR).

The wind industry has also been a favorable environment for exits of
venture- and private equity-funded companies, as well as for mergers
and acquisitions. This has been evidenced by Energias de Portugal's
$2.93 billion purchase of Horizon Wind and Scottish & Southern
Electric's $3.2 billion purchase of Airtricity.

More recently, investor interest in wind power has heated up due to a
report from the U.S. Department of Energy claiming wind can provide
20% of all U.S. Electricity needs by 2030.

For that to happen, more than half a trillion dollars needs to be
invested in new turbine manufacturing capacity and capital projects.
Just in the first quarter of 2008, the U.S. Installed 1,400 MW of new
wind capacity with a price tag of $3 billion. Expect that trend to
continue and expand.

The way to profit from this part of Pickens Plan is to stake your
claim now in a variety of turbine manufacturers, both foreign and
domestic, and also in wind farm developers and owners.

These could be juggernaut wind companies like Vestas Wind Systems
(COP: VWS) and Gamesa (MCE: GAM), or in large development firms like
Fluor (NYSE: FLR).

Of course, there's also a handful of smaller companies that stand to
make a fortune as the wind industry continues to mature.

for years the dems have been saying that we *need* gas to cost more. Well prior to the 2004 campaign Kerry had tried to add a new $0.50 per gallon federal tax for the sole purpose of raising the price. They have said a number of times that it needs to be $4 per gallon or more.

I think they are right for one reason. Trust me, I'm not happy about $4/gallon. But, I like the fact that it keeps bubba driving the big block with 44" mudders and the soccer mom running the 2 ton SUV from putting as much money into the hands of people that are not looking out for our best interest. This includes OPEC, big oil and the U.S. govt.

This little set of morons got a little too greedy and lost control of the ball. Now, we are all talking about something in ways that used to be reserved for tree huggers and energy researchers. All because gasoline is $4/gallon. That cannot be a bad thing.



There is no reason we cannot develop an electric based transporatation infrastructure. Other than the fact that money is continuing to be funneled into the most inefficient means of locomotion...the internal combustion engine (80% goes out as waste heat). Doesn't matter if you fill the tank with 87 octane, propane, natural gas, hydrogen, farts or gas from coal. They are still dogs that need to be laid to rest.

have you looked at your electric bill lately? KWH's aren't getting any cheaper.

And actually, there are reasons. We do not yet have the ability to recharge batteries in a reasonable time, say 15 minutes. When a vehicle is limited to a max range on a charge of 200 to 250 miles & takes 8 hours to refuel, it's not suitable for a whole lot of things we do.

Have you found an electric truck to haul your dive boat with yet? I haven't seen anything come close that ability on the road.

have you looked at your electric bill lately? KWH's aren't getting any cheaper.

And actually, there are reasons. We do not yet have the ability to recharge batteries in a reasonable time, say 15 minutes. When a vehicle is limited to a max range on a charge of 200 to 250 miles & takes 8 hours to refuel, it's not suitable for a whole lot of things we do.

Have you found an electric truck to haul your dive boat with yet? I haven't seen anything come close that ability on the road.

It's the infrastructure that is missing. Instead of a gas fillup, you get a recharged battery swap in 30 seconds. May not be that, but the filling station will inevitably change when gas is $4/gallon. It will slowly crush our economy.

No electric truck available yet, but one could be produced with more torque than anything you or I have ever driven. I still think some form of high energy content liquid fuel will be required for heavy duty activities like hauling, flight, marine applications and such. But most of our day to day could be handled with moderate range electric vehicles.

Electric bill has stayed the same because utilities are required to request rate increases and maybe becuase I can see the cooling tower of the nuke plant when I am driving home from work.

aren't nuke plants everywhere & the libs have blocked building those for decades now. My electric bill has been going up, not staying the same. We have rate increases here.

I've asked before, no one can answer. So we can't:

Drill offshore.
Drill onshore.
Build wind farms.
Build new hydro dams.
Build or expand refineries.
Build nuke plants.

So, just exactly where is the fucking power supposed to come from? The dems seem to think that raising punitive taxes on oil companies is going to create it, but I'm not buying that deal.

aren't nuke plants everywhere & the libs have blocked building those for decades now. My electric bill has been going up, not staying the same. We have rate increases here.

I've asked before, no one can answer. So we can't:

Drill offshore.
Drill onshore.
Build wind farms.
Build new hydro dams.
Build or expand refineries.
Build nuke plants.

So, just exactly where is the fucking power supposed to come from? The dems seem to think that raising punitive taxes on oil companies is going to create it, but I'm not buying that deal.

I understand that there is about 30 new Nuclear plants scheduled for the USA.

FPL won approval from the Miami Dade County Commission in December 2007 for zoning variances that would allow the company to build 2 new units at Turkey Point.
http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/factSheets/BuildingNewNuclearPlants.pdf

BTW, price fluctuations in the price of Ux have very little effect on the cost to end user. One cubic centimeter of uranium is equivalent to 60,000 liters of gasoline, 110 to 160 tons of coal, or almost 60,000 cubic meters of natural gas.

On topic...

The Desert Boom
by Todd Woody

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Source: Fortune

In the Southwest, demand for sites for solar power projects is
creating a hot real estate market.

Doug Buchanan grins with relief when he sees the carcasses. He has
just driven up a steep dirt road onto a vast, sunbaked mesa
overlooking the Mojave Desert in western Nevada. There, a few feet
from the trail, lie the corpses of two steers. A raven perches on
one, the only object more than three feet above the ground on this
pancake-flat plateau. Cattle, dead or alive, qualify as good news in
Buchanan's line of work. If cattle are present, that means grazing is
permitted, and that in turn means that this land is most likely not
protected habitat for the desert tortoise.

Buchanan, 53, is scouting sites for a solar power company called
BrightSource Energy, an Oakland-based startup backed by Google and
Morgan Stanley. The blunt, fifth-generation Californian, who used to
survey the same area for natural-gas power sites, knows that the
presence of an endangered species such as the tortoise could derail
BrightSource's plans to build a multibillion-dollar solar energy
plant on the mesa.

BrightSource badly wants these 20 square miles of federal land on
what is called Mormon Mesa. The company was in such a hurry to stake
its claim with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management that it applied for
a lease sight unseen. That's an expensive gamble for a startup, given
that application fees alone run in the six figures. "I usually like
to go out and kick the tires before filing a claim," Buchanan
says, "but there's a lot of competitive pressure these days to move
fast."

That's putting it mildly. A solar land rush is rolling across the
desert Southwest. Goldman Sachs, utilities PG&E and FPL, Silicon
Valley startups, Israeli and German solar firms, Chevron,
speculators - all are scrambling to lock up hundreds of thousands of
acres of long-worthless land now coveted as sites for solar power
plants.

The race has barely begun - finished plants are years away - but it's
blazing fastest in the Mojave, where the federal government controls
immense stretches of some of the world's best solar real estate right
next to the nation's biggest electricity markets. Just 20 months ago
only five applications for solar sites had been filed with the BLM in
the California Mojave. Today 104 claims have been received for nearly
a million acres of land, representing a theoretical 60 gigawatts of
electricity. (The entire state of California currently consumes 33
gigawatts annually.)

It's not just a federal-land grab either. Buyers are also vying for
private property. Some are paying upwards of $10,000 an acre for
desert dirt that a few years ago would have sold for $500.

No doubt the prospect of potential riches is overheating
expectations. But California and surrounding states have mandated
massive increases in renewable energy in the next few years. That has
led some experts at Emerging Energy Research of Cambridge, Mass., to
predict that Big Solar could be a $45 billion market by 2020.

Meanwhile, the land rush is setting the stage for a showdown between
solar investors and those who want to protect a fragile environment
that is home to the desert tortoise and other rare critters. The
Southwest is on the cusp of what could be a green revolution. And the
biggest obstacle of all may be ... environmentalists.

***

Over the past year a parade of executives bearing land claims have
made the trek to a stucco BLM office just off the interstate in the
dusty city of Needles, Calif., a 110-mile drive south from Las Vegas.
(It's the town where the late "Peanuts" cartoonist, Charles M.
Schulz, briefly lived as a boy; in the comic strip, Snoopy's brother
Spike is a resident.) The Bush administration has instructed the BLM
to facilitate renewable-energy projects (along with nonrenewable
ones). But Sterling White, the BLM's earnest Needles field manager,
is also concerned about what could happen if they transform the
Mojave into a collection of giant power stations. "One of our biggest
challenges is the cumulative impact of these projects," he says.

Nearly 80% of the land that White's office oversees is federally
protected wilderness or endangered-species habitat. That leaves about
700,000 acres for solar power plants, only some of which are near
transmission lines. Land leases are handed out on a first-come, first-
served basis, but White is also supposed to weed out speculators from
genuine solar developers based on loose criteria such as who is
negotiating with utilities and who is applying for state power
licenses. White has yet to approve a single lease, but he has
summarily rejected four because they lie in protected-species
habitat.

***

Solar prospectors tend to be as secretive about their land as forty-
niners were about the veins of gold they discovered. Most bids are
placed by limited-liability corporations with opaque names that
conceal their ownership. And no one has been as quick to move into
the Mojave - or as tightlipped about it - as Solar Investments.

That entity, it turns out, is Goldman Sachs's solar subsidiary. The
investment bank's designs on the desert are a topic of intense
interest and speculation. Goldman declined to comment. But here's
what we know:

Solar Investments filed its first land claim in December 2006 and
within a month had applied for more than 125,000 acres for power
plants that would produce ten gigawatts of electricity. Many of the
sites lie close to the transmission lines that connect the desert to
coastal cities. (Goldman has also staked claims on 40,000 acres of
the Nevada desert.)

Nobody expects Goldman to begin operating solar plants. It will
probably either partner with another developer or sell its limited-
liability company (and its leases) outright. The firm has been making
the rounds of solar developers. "The conversation's been pretty wide-
ranging, primarily as an investor interested in financing deals,"
says one solar energy executive approached by Goldman. "But there's
clearly an element of interest in our technology." Goldman has
requested permission to install meteorological equipment on its sites
and is evaluating "competing technologies, including solar dish
systems, power towers, and large-scale photovoltaic arrays,"
according to a letter Goldman sent to the BLM in August 2007.

Competitors are lining up behind Goldman, staking claims on some of
the same sites in hopes the bank will abandon them. PG&E and FPL, for
instance, are in the queue after Goldman on one site. Solel, an
Israeli solar company that last year scored a contract to deliver 553
megawatts to PG&E, is third in line behind Goldman on another.

"I view Goldman as a very interesting indicator of things to come,"
says Brian McDonald, PG&E's director of renewable-resource
development. "They're usually ahead of the curve - you can extract a
huge amount of value if you get in early." There's other smart money
here too. A Palo Alto startup called Ausra received $40 million from
the elite green venture capitalists Vinod Khosla and Kleiner Perkins
Caufield & Byers. Ausra has signed a deal with PG&E and announced its
intention to construct a gigawatt's worth of projects a year.

...continued

Most of the power production contemplated for the Mojave will rely on
solar thermal technology - the common approach in large-scale
generation projects - in which arrays of mirrors heat liquids to
produce steam that drives electricity-generating turbines. But a
secretive Hayward, Calif., startup called OptiSolar has filed claims
on 105,300 acres to build nine gigawatts' worth of photovoltaic power
plants, which employ solar panels similar to those found on
residential rooftops. (The company also has applied for leases on
21,800 acres in Arizona and Nevada.) To put those ambitions in
context, the biggest photovoltaic power plant operating today
produces 15 megawatts. Says OptiSolar executive vice president Phil
Rettger: "We have a proprietary technology and a business approach
that we're convinced will let us deploy PV at large scale and be
competitive with other forms of renewable energy."

***

With the prime BLM sites quickly being snapped up - recently the
agency temporarily stopped accepting new land claims while it
develops a desertwide solar policy - competition is growing for
private land. Here, too, the emphasis on secrecy borders on the
obsessive. A request to view a piece of desert that is up for sale is
treated as if I had asked to visit Area 51.

Waiting outside a roadside diner in southwestern Arizona - I've
promised not to say where - with BrightSource senior vice president
Tom Doyle, I expect to see a weather-beaten farmer come chugging up
in a battered pickup. Instead, a pale-green Volvo SUV driven by a
physician glides into the parking lot. The doctor, who wishes to
remain anonymous, acquired the land two years ago as the renewable-
energy boom got underway. "We thought we'd put solar on it - that's
the reason we bought it," the doctor says as we pile into the Volvo
and head into the desert to visit the site. After about five miles we
turn off the road and come to a stop in a rocky patch of desert
framed by low-slung mountains and buttes. Doyle quizzes the physician
about water rights, endangered species, and access to transmission
lines before moving out of earshot to talk dollars. The whole process
takes only about 20 minutes - the two sides ultimately decide not to
do a deal - and then Doyle is on to visit the next potential
property.

Such is the land frenzy that farmers in Arizona were paid $45 million
for 1,920 acres by Spanish solar company Abengoa so that it could
build a 280-megawatt power plant; the land had an assessed value of a
few hundred thousand dollars. The company also plunked down $30
million for 3,000 acres in the California Mojave that had traded
hands for $1.25 million nine years earlier. That prompted developer
Scott Martin to put his adjacent 300-acre parcel - land he had bought
only a few months earlier for $457,500 - on the market for $3
million. Also for sale: a $15 million, 3,000-acre tract near Palm
Springs, which Martin began shopping around to solar executives like
Ausra's Perry Fontana. When I join Fontana to check out the site, a
onetime World War II air base outside the Mojave ghost town of Rice,
he says, "I probably get three calls a day from brokers or
landowners." As if on cue, his Bluetooth earpiece lights up with a
cold call from a broker peddling some land near Needles.

***

Green energy is not about to get a green light from all
environmentalists. "We're going to challenge these big solar
projects, and there's going to be tremendous environmental battles,"
says veteran California activist Phil Klasky, a member of several
green groups who helped lead a campaign in the 1990s that scuttled a
radioactive-waste dump planned in tortoise territory in the
Mojave. "Large solar arrays will have an impact on surrounding
critical habitat for the desert tortoise and other threatened
species. We have to fight global warming, but just because it's solar
doesn't make it right."

The developers are worried about resistance. "I remember the spotted
owl," says Fred Morse, a former Department of Energy official who is
a senior advisor to Abengoa's U.S. operations. The widespread logging
of ancient forests, home to the northern spotted owl, set off epic
environmental fights in the 1980s and '90s. As Morse puts it, "The
Mohave ground squirrel or the desert tortoise - any one of them could
become a cause."

Solar energy companies may make for less tempting targets than timber
barons, but development of the desert has never been attempted on
such a scale. The result is that some environmentalists find
themselves anguished over which side to take. "We've had our share of
conflicts over endangered species in this state, no doubt about it,"
says Kevin Hunting, a biologist and a deputy director of the
California Department of Fish and Game, which enforces the state
endangered-species laws. "We're actively looking to strike that
critical balance between the state's renewable-energy goals and
conserving species that are vulnerable. It's challenging."

California wildlife regulators, for instance, have peppered Ausra
with requests for more biological surveys on the site of a 177-
megawatt solar power plant to be built in San Luis Obispo County. The
feds could also require Ausra to prepare a plan to protect the San
Joaquin kit fox, a process that could take years and shred the
project's economic viability.

Worse for developers, state and federal law require wildlife
officials to consider the total impact of multiple projects when
weighing whether to approve any individual facility. Next door to
Ausra's solar farm, for example, is OptiSolar's planned 550-megawatt
power plant, which would cover 9 1/2 square miles of potential
endangered-species habitat with solar panels. Will the regulators
approve one? Both? Nobody knows.

In the meantime, the solar land rush is unlikely to cool down. Which
is why Morse wants to keep quiet Abengoa's $30 million real estate
deal. The company is applying to build a 250-megawatt solar power
plant on the site, and it may be in the market for more land. "We
don't want to publicize that purchase," he says, "as the speculators
will be coming out of the woodwork."

dems seem to think that raising punitive taxes on oil companies is going to create it,

:wtf:

No chit. What are they thinking?

IF they get built. That's a big damned if. I'm not counting on anything until I see some new ones start going online. The last one I can recall being built was back in the 1970's & after spending billion on construction, it was abandoned. the costs of fighting the antis got to be too much & it was cheaper to absorb billions in losses than to try & keep fighting.

Same thing happened to a hydro dam in TN at the time. This is the one that got blocked by the famous snail darter. I think they finally did manage to finish that one, after years of fighting.

Owl gore is now out there comparing domestic offshore drilling to invading iraq. He gets more unstuck every year.

back to electric cars, I think CA is closest to mandating them on the state level. I'd like to see such a large scale changed adopted someplace 1st, see how it goes & what most importantly doesn't work, before seeing something mandated on a national level. They already enjoy rolling blackouts on occasion, I can only imagine that going away after they force people to plug all their cars into the grid for charging.

aren't nuke plants everywhere & the libs have blocked building those for decades now. My electric bill has been going up, not staying the same. We have rate increases here.

I've asked before, no one can answer. So we can't:

Drill offshore.
Drill onshore.
Build wind farms.
Build new hydro dams.
Build or expand refineries.
Build nuke plants.

So, just exactly where is the fucking power supposed to come from? The dems seem to think that raising punitive taxes on oil companies is going to create it, but I'm not buying that deal.

Progress Energy was approved to build 2 new nucluear units on the site of an existing unit here. What is it with your locals not wanting nuclear power??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shearon_Harris_Nuclear_Power_Plant

The sky is falling, the sky is falling...and it's the democrats fault every time:rolleyes:

as I said before, I'll believe it when I see them go online.

as I said before, I'll believe it when I see them go online.

As long as gas stays at $4+/gallon, I'd say it has a pretty good chance of happening. Gas drops back to $1.25/gallon and we can kiss our energy independance good bye:D

I dunno, mccain proposed building 25 new nuke plants & the dems went nuts about it. damn sure no support from them on the idea.

I dunno, mccain proposed building 25 new nuke plants & the dems went nuts about it. damn sure no support from them on the idea.

Methinks that if fuel prices stay high or go higher, the election will ignore abortion, health care, immigration, taxes, morality, gay marriage, school vouchers, NAFTA, global warming and al qaeda. None of these issues can reasonably hit you and I in the pocket on a daily basis to the degree that this issue can.

maybe. so far the dems have prove resistant to doing ANYTHING to increase domestic energy production.

Are we heading for Peak Coal?

15.01.2008



Peak oil, yes; but peak coal? India's Tata Powerrecently acquired 30% stakes in Indonesia's two largest coal mines,securing 20 million tons of coal to fuel its 750 kilowatt project onIndia's west coast. This is a shrewd and opportune move.

There's a sustained and tightening squeeze on global supplies of the'thermal' coal needed to power the world's coal-fired power stations,just as Asia (except Japan) embarks on a massive expansion of plannedgenerating capacity based on coal, despite rising concerns about carbonpollution. The technology that needs to be deployed to separate andstore the pollutants from coal burning is still at least five yearsaway.

Meanwhile, disastrously polluted China brings a newcoal-fired station on stream every week to help 'keep the lights on'and power its frantic industrial growth. The Chinese plan to triplegenerating capacity to 500 gigawatts by 2030. India is driving totriple its generating capacity by 2010. South Korea is adding 7.3gigawatts in the next several years, and Vietnam has announced thatit's to spend billions on coal power due to its soaring economicgrowth, combined with fears that its off-shore gas reserves may not beas large as initially anticipated.

Even 'green' Japan is adding 10 new coal-powered stations, without decommissioning any of its existing ones.

Consequently,the price of seaborne coal in Asia has risen by over 40% this year,with the prospect of higher prices in the years ahead. It's clearly asellers' market.

A pivotal problem is emerging in the shape ofChina, which is radically upsetting the market. It is becoming a netimporter of coal for the first time for a variety of reasons. Untilnow, China regularly exported between 80m-100m tons, largely to SouthKorea and Japan, both of which are totally dependent on coal imports.

Andit's going to have to import a lot more, which may sap Asian suppliesfor years to come, hence the scramble among Asian governments and powerutilities to clinch long-term, fixed price contracts with the mines. Asit is, over half of global 'thermal' coal is traded via directcontracts between power companies and mines.

China may be thelargest coal producer in the world but it is facing increasingdifficulties in supplying its industrial south from its northern coalbelt at world competitive prices, due to transport costs and the lowenergy content of much of its coal. At the same time, some 8000'unsafe' mines,accounting for 5% or more of overall output, have beenclosed down in the wake of public outrage over the 4,000-5,000 minerdeaths occurring annually. It is also importing 'cleaner' coal to tryto combat pollution.

So it has been importing coal inincreasing volumes from Australia, India, Vietnam, Mongolia and evenNorth Korea. But India, although the world's third largest coalproducer, now needs more of its own coal and is having to import coalitself. Vietnam is under the same pressures. It is moving to curbexports to China's Guangdong economic powerhouse region, which havebeen running at around 20m tons annually.

Australia currentlyexports over $20bn of coal a year, and is the most important 'switch'producer, along with Indonesia. It has scope to expend production, butis seriously constrained by capacity problems at the port of Newcastle,NSW, and an inadequate rail link from Queensland.

Indonesia isalready the world's largest exporter of thermal coal, and is strivingto double output over the next five years. It needs a lot of help to doso. At its big annual Coal Show earlier this year, it was made clearthat Indonesia needs everything from large excavators and geologicalsurveys to hand tools to get thejob done.

So there's noshort-term fix to Asia's coal problem, and in the longer-term, thesituation could be nearer to the 'peak' oil scene than is generallyunderstood. Careful and detailed independent research by two highlyregarded bodies, the Energy Watch Group (EWG) and the Institute forEnergy (IFE), suggest that the price and cost of high energy coal isgoing to catch up with the prices of oil and gas over the next 10-20years.

Both concluded that global coal reserves are at least60% lower than suggested 20-25 years ago. They say that the olderpredictions were made on the 'basis of inadequate data'; and since thena lot of coal has been mined. China, in particular, hasn't updated itsreserve estimate for 15 years. It could be within anything of 5-15years of 'peak' production, according to the EWG, putting a spanner inthe country's coal-fired economic growth. And the IFE points outcountries like Poland, Germany and the UK have reduced recently their'estimates' by 50%-90%.

The US is often cited as the 'SaudiArabia' of coal. But it passed 'peak' production in 1990 and theremainder of its vast reserves are mainly in lower-quality bituminousand very low quality sub-bituminous coal and lignite. Little more thanhalf the world's dwindling reserves are of the best quality coal,anthracite.

At the same time, about 90% of the world'sremaining coal is in just six countries (China, USA, Australia, India,South Africa and Russia), which scarcely bodes well for a high securityof supply and market 'perfection.'

Given the geologicaldifficulties in developing new fields and the additional infrastructurecosts entailed, the world's supply of high grade coal available atanything like today's operating costs is extremely limited.

Prospectivelythen, as the needle of the world's fossil fuel tank drops towards the'E' mark, what we are heading towards is a high cost and interrelatedhydrocarbon market, involving bilateral, neo-mercantilist deals ratherthan the free market. As is usual these days, China is at the core ofthe issue.

By Michael Orme for The Daily Reckoning

Drill offshore.
Drill onshore.


Not that I am against some new diving spots, or drilling period, But all this oil will just end up on the WORLD market, and will do NOTHING for us to lower gas prices, except for the royalties the government will get from the oil companies...

I saw an interview with an oil analyst the other day, and he had a new slant, at least new to me, on why ANWAR was a bad idea. The pipe line is above ground, old, rusty, extremely vulnerable, and almost impossible to defend against terrorists.

He quoted former CIA Director James Woolsey as calling it something like "America's kick-me sign."

I saw an interview with an oil analyst the other day, and he had a new slant, at least new to me, on why ANWAR was a bad idea. The pipe line is above ground, old, rusty, extremely vulnerable, and almost impossible to defend against terrorists.

He quoted former CIA Director James Woolsey as calling it something like "America's kick-me sign."
Bill, we already have such "kick-me" signs all over our country. Major shipping ports, dams, nuclear power plants, schools, etc. The potential vulnerability for such drilling sites and pipelines shouldn't scare us from developing them.

Bill, we already have such "kick-me" signs all over our country. Major shipping ports, dams, nuclear power plants, schools, etc. The potential vulnerability for such drilling sites and pipelines shouldn't scare us from developing them.

Howard, there are different levels of vulnerability. A nuclear power plant in the contiguous 48 states is a lot easier to defend than an 800 mile pipeline across the frozen tundra. A disgruntled Canadian engineer already shot a hole in that pipe line. What do you think committed terrorist could do to it. All our investment would be rendered a waste of time and money.

BTW, here is Woolsey on the subject.

Arctic Drilling Would Not Increase Security

WASHINGTON, DC, April 17, 2002 (ENS) - At a Capitol Hill press conference Tuesday, former Director of Central Intelligence James Woolsey dismissed claims that opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil drilling would improve America's national security.
President George W. Bush has proposed to increase the nation's domestic oil supplies and reduce demand for overseas oil by opening more public lands, including ANWR, to oil drilling. Woolsey argued that drilling the Arctic would weaken the nation's energy security by increasing reliance on the vulnerable Trans Alaska Pipeline.

"The bottom line is that we'll be dependent on the Middle East as long as we are dependent on oil," said Woolsey, who served as director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 1993 to 1995. "Drilling in ANWR is not a recipe for America's national security. The only answer is to use substantially less petroleum."

Citing U.S. Geological Survey estimates that indicate the amount of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would be at best three tenths of one percent of the world's known reserves, Woolsey asserted that such a minimal amount of oil was not worth the continued reliance on the pipeline.

"A key vulnerability of drilling in the Arctic Refuge is the Trans-Alaska Pipeline," said Woolsey. "It was shut down last fall by a drunk who shot one bullet, it has been sabotaged and incompetently bombed twice, and these people are children compared with the sophistication of people who attacked us September 11."

"Oil from ANWR is so far in the future and such a small amount, that the negative features of it -environmentally but primarily from my perspective the vulnerability of the pipeline - outweigh any national security benefit claimed," Woolsey concluded.

The U.S. Senate is scheduled to vote Thursday on an amendment introduced by Alaska Senator Frank Murkowski, which would authorize opening a portion of ANWR to oil and natural gas exploration.

Senate Democrats filed a motion to cut off debate on the amendment, forcing a vote this week. Supporters of the measure said they doubt the vote will carry enough votes to pass.

Environmental groups say that by focusing on fossil fuel production, Senate Republicans are missing an opportunity to diversify the nation's energy supplies.

"The drive by some to open the refuge has become an obsession that is distracting the nation from looking at real options for clean, secure, and reliable energy," said Martha Marks, president of REP America, the lobbying arm of Republicans for Environmental Protection. "Drilling in the Arctic refuge will not reduce gasoline prices, will not improve our energy security, and will not reduce our dependence on the Middle East."

Howard, there are different levels of vulnerability. A nuclear power plant in the contiguous 48 states is a lot easier to defend than an 800 mile pipeline across the frozen tundra. A disgruntled Canadian engineer already shot a hole in that pipe line. What do you think committed terrorist could do to it.

True, but a similar argument has been made about inspecting the millions of shipping containers (for explosives and biological weapons) that are exchanged on a daily basis at U.S. ports. That enormous potential threat doesn't curtail shipping, nor should it. I don't think perceived threats alone should stop us from pursuing this important national resource. It comes off as more of a "scare tactic", and we've already been through enough of that.

we lack in both domestic production of crude & domestic refinery capacity. there has been nothing but opposition to increasing both.

97% of the oil on the world market is being produced by other countries. That means that all of our eggs are in their basket & we have absolutely no say in what the price will be & no way to impact it. If OPEC doesn't want to increase production, there's nothing we can do about it.

If we step up our own production, that changes. We can decide to open up & produce more regardless of what they want.

Right now we are utterly dependent on foreign oil. Bunches of people are screaming about ending that dependence. Well, ya can't have it both ways. Either you do what we're doing & refuse to exploit your own natural resources, in which case you remain dependent on foreign sources, or you get down to doing what needs to be done to change that, which means finding & using your own resources.

I want us to:

drill offshore
drill onshore
drill ANWR
build new refineries, in new locations away from the gulf coast. Our refinery capacity should be able to keep up with our domestic consumption.
build bunches of nuclear plants. why shouldn't every state have at least one reactor to help meet its needs?

I guess we're supposed to wait for someone to fart mass quantites of magic fairy dust or something

I really think our answer is nuclear. I do fear an accident because anything can happen but I think nuclear is the answer.

I read something the other day about what % of fuel we import unrefined. What made me sick was to think we would import anything already refined. Why the hell are we paying other people to do that? We stick to importing crude and making a few refineries. That would add jobs as well as keep some domestic money domestic.

Everytime I see talk of building refineries I hear "Thats not the answer they will take 10 years to build." Well I have been hearing that BS for about 10 years now.

Not that I am against some new diving spots, or drilling period, But all this oil will just end up on the WORLD market, and will do NOTHING for us to lower gas prices, except for the royalties the government will get from the oil companies...

There is a huge difference here. Even if prices stay the same, at least the money stays here. Our trade deficite goes down and we are more self sufficent. Besides if we don't drill here prices will continue to go up our economy will falter and we will be bowing to the countries who have the oil. There is no doubt we need to go in other directions also need to develope other solutions but we need oil now.