Garbage In, Garbage Out: "Premature Death" and Environmental Policy

Excellent explanation of the problems with the EPA using "premature death" as a component of its cost-benefit calculations.

Bob Tippee editor of the the Oil & Gas Journal:




On the basis of this approach, I would think the City of San Francisco might be in trouble for the "premature deaths" caused by homeless pollution.

Already California has been fined for issues caused by the pollution emitting from the homeless. See Feces, blood, syringes at California Capitol: Workers unprepared for clean up, OSHA says:

Capitol Park groundskeepers, who usually maintain shrubbery and repair park facilities, complained that they were expected to clean blood and fecal matter left in the park. The workers said they were given pressure washers, which can atomize the waste and expose the groundskeepers and passers-by to blood-borne diseases, said Steve Crouch, director of public employees for the International Union of Operating Engineers. He filed the complaint on behalf of the workers on March 15.

“Over the past several years, the homeless started spending more time at Capitol Park around trees and bushes, woody areas,” said Crouch. “In the evenings, they spend the night, and they leave debris and garbage.”

The job should have been done by a hazardous materials crew, Crouch said, and the areas probably should have been cordoned off to limit other people to exposure.

and, without vouching for this following site, its links are valid 16K Complaints Related To Fecal Matter Reported In A Week: San Francisco has created a sanctuary of filth:

Things are going down the drain in San Francisco…or not. In just the last seven days, the city that only two days ago found a 20 lb. bag of human excrement left in the hot sun has logged over 16,000 feces-related complaints, according to Newswars and KRTV. The outhouse conditions and other factors have already cost the California cesspool millions in lost business, and the situation only getting crappier.

There is an even a website related to the city’s scatological nightmare that actually records the town’s “non-emergency” requests. If the word “feces” is typed into the site’s search engine, 16,015 (as of this posting) instances come up. Of course, there are many other terms for the stench and those words give thousands of more instances. The sanctuary city is an outdoor outhouse as the wealthy liberals who allowed it to happen live far away from the aroma that they’ve created with their policies, and residents are just now realizing the cost.

The homeless and their encampments are the major problem. While many citizens have no qualms about allowing a vacant lot to lose a few tax dollars to house the unfortunate, the process of human bodily functions is often forgotten about (at least until the smell hits them and wrestles their nostrils a bit).

Going to the SF City website SF311 and entering the word "feces" came up with this very partial listing:

I wonder what this is doing to those citizens not wearing hazmat suits and not taking care to not spread the contamination airborne when using power washers or garden hoses to clear their sidewalks. Perhaps the EPA could do an audit of the lack of sanitation in SF is doing to the people there. The millions in lost tourist dollars doesn't seem to have the impact that worrying over "premature deaths" seems to have.

I doubt SF is the only city in the US dealing - or seemingly, not dealing, with such issues.

Chinese Artificial Islands: Ecological Disaster

Odd we aren't seeing more outcry against China's total disregard for environmental matter as in VOA's report from January 2016 Marine Biologists: Artificial Islands Devastating South China Sea Ecosystems

Between 2012 and 2015, Chinese fishermen have used large, extended propellers affixed to utility boats to chop the reefs and prepare for the construction of artificial islands.

Fishermen scour the ocean floor for giant clam shells, which are prized as jewelry and luxury items that sell for up to $150,000.

According to Dr. John McManus, a University of Miami marine biologist, while building on the reefs is not new, China’s large-scale construction of a military base and runways is resulting in unprecedented environmental damage.

“Suddenly we have this massive situation where large areas of coral reef are being buried," he said. "In the end it was almost 13 square kilometers — 13 million square meters — that was destroyed, just in terms of being buried under these islands, and this was a huge, huge shock.”

China’s Foreign Ministry has said the artificial islands are to be used for civilian purposes, search and rescue missions, as well as defense.

Well, I guess that makes it all right, then.

Not.

Oil Dumbness from President Obama

We all know that Mr. Obama hates the oil, gas and coal industries. Apparently he's now decided that as a lame duck, it's time to help boost the stock of his "green energy" buddies (as if the massive waste of millions of dollars into failed and failing green companies hasn't been a signature endeavor of his presidency) by pushing for a huge tax on each barrel of oil amounting to $10.

This "climate change president" who sees global warming or whatever as apparently being worse threat to the world than Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and the alphabet soup of non-state terrorist entities (AQ, AQIP, ISIS, Boco Haram, etc, etc) has decided to kill a few more productive energy jobs on his way out the door.

The Oil & Gas Journal's Bob Tippee has look at this foolishness here:

With his proposal for a “$10/bbl fee on oil paid by oil companies,” the president sides with environmental extremists in conflict not only with Americans who bring oil products to market but also with those who use them.

To fund a “21st Century clean transportation system,” he wants to expropriate one third of the recent value of crude oil from an industry in the throes of a market slump.

His proposal would ravage prospects of 100,000 oil industry workers who have lost their jobs and of thousands still employed but justifiably worried.

It would squelch the recovery of US oil production that will happen when the market regains balance.

And it would fleece consumers. They, not oil companies, ultimately would pay the fee.

Obama launches this assault on national welfare in response to climatological jeopardy evident more in the propaganda of environmental activists than in a temperature record at growing odds with alarming model predictions.

His probably ill-fated lurch offers one benefit. It illuminates the cost of aggressive climate precaution. The 25¢/gal by which it would hike the US gasoline price wouldn’t amount to even a small down payment on the sacrifice Americans must make if they’re to have any hope of influencing global average temperature.

When enough consumers recognize the mistreatment ahead they’ll begin asking questions too long ignored: How serious a threat does climate change really represent? For how much observed warming are people really responsible? Can overhaul of the energy economy really make a meaningful difference?

Oil companies have new reason to demand answers to these questions, to expose the political debate on climate for the sham that it has been, and to resist the stampede Obama wants to start.

Their interests, and the interests of their consumers, depend on rescue of the issue from the distortions of zealotry.

Funny how his "21st Century clean transportation system" involves such 19th Century gems like railways. According to the WaPo,

The administration said it would devote $20 billion of the money raised to expand transit systems in cities, suburbs and rural areas; make high-speed rail a viable alternative to flying in major regional corridors and invest in new rail technologies like maglev; modernize the nation’s freight system; and expand the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery program launched in the 2009 economic stimulus bill to support local projects.

Wait, transit systems in rural areas? Well, I'm sure the farmers of Iowa and Nebraska have just been dying to have a transit system they can hop on to get to town. Texas ranchers, too. Hope the system has cars to tote large tractors and combines from place to place.

It seems odd to me that as cars have gotten more fuel efficient, as pollution as dropped significantly over the past years that this stuff continues to be pushed. I'm surprised he hasn't proposed a "war on methane producing cattle" - a major source of green house gases - perhaps he could could put VP Biden in charge of a "moonshot" to stop cow flatulence. Oh, yes, he already tried that.

Update: One other thing since the "nation's freight system" is run by private companies (and pretty darn efficiently, too) exactly why does the federal government need to throw money at a non-problem?

Daylight Saving Time - And Energy Mistakes

Nice little video from the editor of the Oil and Gas Journal Setting clocks back recalls series of US energy mistakes :

I think this is a bad idea: "Promotion boards to look at energy efficiency"

While it pains me to say it, the Secretary of the Navy continues to assert a mythical "energy vulnerability" while inserting what can only be construed as a "green" component into Navy officer promotions, as reported at Promotion boards to look at energy efficiency - Navy Times:

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, who has spent the past two years trying to wean the service off of fossil fuels, said promotion boards will consider an officer’s energy management when deciding whether to move him up. Furthermore, Battle E commendations will be based, in small part, on a command’s ability to sip fuel instead of guzzle.

Look, if the SecNav wants to cut fuel costs that's arguably a good idea, though I would assert it is not necessary to take drastic measures that will hurt combat preparedness. What fries my bacon is his persistent assertion that there is an U.S. strategic fuel shortage and that it requires drastic steps, including pumping millions of DON money into creating a "biofuels" market. Why isn't he screaming for more nuclear powered ships? That's the ultimate effective "energy management" to beat the SecNav's concerns of reducing

. . . the sea services’ dependence on oil from adversaries while reducing the need to refuel, which takes ships out of combat while making them vulnerable to attacks.

As I have said before here, and here, the U.S. has plenty of fossil fuels to operate our Navy for hundreds of years. In the latter post I wrote, "When we claim we're "hostages" to foreign energy, we're just being stupid. Politically correct, but stupid." Develop the energy we have, and stop this nonsense.

This program of the SecNav is a another misstep in already overly "politically correct" environment.

Chart from here

On the other hand, sail makers should be out in force, selling "new" wind energy tools for optimum fuel savings for promotion hungry officers.

Or, hey, just tie the ships up and send the crews home to practice being at sea by playing video games and following other silly guidelines.

Algae Fuel "Investment" Baloney

Algae farm (claytonbodiecornell.greenoptions.com)

OK, in light of the "occupiers of Wall Street" complaining of - well, almost everything except labor unions and fire ant bites, here's a little addition to what they should be be concerned about - a government program to provide "venture capital" to a program that apparently has failed to find any real venture capitalists dumb enough to risk their own money in it. An example of "corporate welfare" if ever there was one.

Here,with a little highlighting from me, the "Algal Biomass Organization" offers up praise for an "investment" of $510 million from the USDA, DOE, and Navy (what does it matter whose budget the money comes from? It is all taxpayer money, extracted from the pockets of people who work for a living) into "biofuels" at "ABO Responds to USDA/DOE/Navy Biofuels Investment Promise" from Algae Industry Magazine:

The Algal Biomass Organization has voiced its opinion of the US government’s recently announced $510 million biofuels investment commitment over the next three years. Following is their statement: Late last month, three federal departments came together to launch an ambitious effort to commercialize next generation biofuels. The USDA, DOE and Navy announced an historic commitment to directly invest up to $510 million to retrofit and/or build facilities capable of producing drop-in replacement fuels. Funds from the private sector will be matched one-to-one, bringing the total potential available capital to more than $1 billion.

This announcement is a significant boon to our industry and comes at a time where several of our member companies are moving from lab to pilot, and from pilot to commercial production of algae-based drop-in fuels.

We’ve always praised the US military for its leadership in procuring and testing biofuels—their support has shown that domestic, sustainable fuels can perform at the highest levels of use. But until now, direct investment in companies or projects was not an option.

These three departments have rightly determined that it’s not going to be enough to just be a customer. They understand that the capital costs of facility construction are too high, and not the right model for venture capital, and the technologies still so new as to preclude traditional bank financing.

Let’s be clear – this is not a feel-good publicity stunt. This is an investment in the long-term national security and economic health of our country. As Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said: “America’s long-term national security depends on a commercially viable domestic biofuels market that will benefit taxpayers while simultaneously giving Sailors and Marines tactical and strategic advantages.”

What was most inspiring to me, however, was one aspect of the partnership that went under reported—where the funds were sourced. It turns out that no new authorizations are required (no surprise, given the current climate surrounding our national debt) because the funds have been pulled from elsewhere in the budget.

That means, for the first time in what seems like a long time, that advanced biofuels took precedence for limited funds. From the Obama administration to the departments of the Navy, Agriculture and Energy, the importance of accelerating commercialization of advanced biofuels is now a national priority.

It’s now up to our industry to take advantage of this opportunity and show what we can do.

Sincerely,
Mary Rosenthal

Let's take a look at the highlighted portions.

First, "three federal departments came together to launch an ambitious effort to commercialize next generation biofuels . . ." Uh, pumping federal taxpayer money into a project so iffy that its ". . . capital costs of facility construction are too high, and not the right model for venture capital, and the technologies still so new as to preclude traditional bank financing" means that taxpayers are at risk $510 million on something no rational commercial enterprise would fund (but for, apparently, the government decision to pony up money).

How does the government justify this? The Wall Street Journal editorial of 10 October 2011 has it just right, in describing the "Solyndra economy" mindset of this administration:

And there you have America's Solyndra economy, as the White House understands it: Washington allocates capital, and taxpayers pick up the tab if those choices go bust. Through this political lens, the August bankruptcy of the Fremont, Calif. company was a necessary casualty in the greater campaign to steer the U.S. economy toward Mr. Obama's noble goals. Private competition that winnows out losers is so yesterday.

Politics and a disdain of free markets triumphs economic sense. After all, throwing a big lump of government money at this project hardly seems capable of being described as an effort to "commercialize" anything. We might as well say we provide federal funding to "commercialize the next generation of grade schools." Ms. Rosenthal, I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Secondly, take a look at

What was most inspiring to me, however, was one aspect of the partnership that went under reported—where the funds were sourced. It turns out that no new authorizations are required (no surprise, given the current climate surrounding our national debt) because the funds have been pulled from elsewhere in the budget.

Are you kidding me? The Defense and Navy "budget" process is designed to put money on things that need money. Ship repair, aircraft repair, fuel, ammunition replacement, personnel costs and so forth, Stripping money from such allocations means something suffers. Yep, because "advanced biofuels took precedence for limited funds", something else, planned for as priority, suffered. Was it Seaman Johnny's advancement in rate? Did ships not get under way because they needed repair? Oh, those things are lower precedence, I suppose.

Further, as I have tried to say before, the issue here is not a shortage of domestic fuel that would help with "energy independence" but rather with an extreme "green" agenda that is distorting our economy and wasting taxpayer dollars (see Baloney at the Navy Top: "We use too much fossil fuel"). I am not opposed to the development of a biofuel that is self-funded and self-sustaining. I am opposed to this forced "create a market" by expending tax dollars approach.

If you think this is the wave of future, I invite you to invest your own hard-earned money into companies that produce this product, like Sapphire Energy (no, I don't own any stock, nor do I guarantee any financial results, and all private investments are subject to risk, just like investments in any other company and all the other disclaimers you can imagine) (UPDATE: Oh, wait, it's privately held.)(UPDATE2: Oh, wait, Sapphire Energy got a $50 million loan guarantee from the USDA as set out here to "to build an algae-based diesel biofuels plant in Columbus, New Mexico." - Hmmm.)

My previous rants against this "investment" can be found here, here, here and here.

Baloney at the Navy Top: "We use too much fossil fuel"

I wish people would get it straight, despite what the Secretary of the Navy said at the 2011 Current Strategy Forum Focuses on Energy, U.S. National Security,
"We use too much fossil fuel . . .", thus,

. . .Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, described energy as the main vulnerability to U.S. national security in his keynote address.

No!   No!   No!

The problem is not that we use too much fossil fuel, the problem is that we have allowed ourselves to become dependent on imported fossil fuel, despite sitting on the world's largest deposits of "fossil fuels."

It is the importation of foreign oil that is a strategic issue, not their use. It's the long lines of commerce that bring oil to our shore that are vulnerable.

Lines that we can control or eliminate.

We import 51% of our oil, with 51% of that from the Western Hemisphere (thanks Canada (23.3%), Venezuela (10.7%)  and Mexico (9.2%)). Only 17% of our oil comes from the Persian Gulf states. What would it take to make it a national strategic priority to replace that 17% with domestic supplies? And then reduce the flow from Venezuela?

The solution is not all that exotic. Instead of looking for "alternative" fuels as our primary energy sources, the emphasis should be on developing our known internal energy resources so that we eliminate the energy "vulnerability" identified by Mr. Mabus as soon as possible.Then we can chase windmills and solar fields and the like.

It seems, however, that developing our own resources seems not to be the politically "in" thing right now, so we continue to squander money on half-baked projects that may actually be doing worse damage to both man and the environment than fossil fuels.For example, we continue to convert corn to ethanol despite knowing that it is both not as "green" as its proponents suggest and is helping to create food shortages that may stir civic strife in countries used to getting cheaper food. That strife I mentioned? Get ready for more humanitarian interventions and civil wars as this goes on.

In the mean time, as set out here, look at these charts based on the Congressional Research Service (which you can view or download here):

When we claim we're "hostages" to foreign energy, we're just being stupid. Politically correct, but stupid.

You want jet fuel (which also powers gas turbine war ships)? Try our vast amounts of oil shale:

How large is this resource? In the Piceance Basin, an area of 1,100 square miles, the oil shale is over 1 million barrels per acre, or roughly 750 billion barrels of recoverable oil. If you extend outward to Wyoming and to Utah, it is 1.3 trillion. This is why you hear shale next to trillions, not billions or millions, of barrels. The Air Force in the 1970s looked at shale, tested it, and found that it was a superior liquid for jet fuel. Roughly 65 percent of the oil shale is liquid, which could go into jet fuel. The J-8 engine can take shale oil as premium jet fuel.

Expensive? How much does it cost to have to defend sea lanes through which our imported oil flows? How many awful governments do we have to prop up to keep the foreign oil flowing. It's not the oil that's to blame, it's the lack of internal development of our known resources. It's not working to get a realistic balance of all the costs involved in our use of energy.

Natural gas - another fossil fuel - we have more than we ever thought. Some of this "new" gas is due to the development of horizontal fracking and horizontal drilling. Is there some reason why U.S. Navy trucks and cars don't run on natural gas?

Don't think it's safe to do horizontal fracking? Imagine if we put as much money into making it safer as we waste trying to convert switchgrass to ethanol. That may all work in some future, but the other supplies are here now and ready.

Coal -The EIA says:

The United States is home to the largest recoverable reserves of coal in the world. In fact, we have enough coal to last more than 200 years, based on current consumption levels. Coal is produced in 25 States spread across three coal-producing regions, but approximately 72% of current production originates in just five States: Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Montana.

Right now we export coal in addition to our internal use. But we can convert coal to oil. South Africa does. China does. At one time, Barrack Obama thought we should, too:

For decades, scientists have known how to convert coal into a liquid that can be refined into gasoline or diesel fuel. But everyone thought the process was too expensive to be practical.
The lone exception was South Africa, a one-time pariah state that had huge reserves of coal and, thanks to anti-apartheid sanctions, limited access to foreign oil. Sasol Ltd., a partly state-owned company, built several coal-to-liquids plants, including the ones at Secunda, and became the world's leading purveyor of coal-to-liquids technology.
Now, oil prices are above $70 a barrel, and Sasol has emerged as the key player at the center of the world's latest alternative-energy boom.
China is building a coal-to-oil plant costing several billion dollars in Inner Mongolia and may add as many as 27 facilities -- including some with Sasol's help -- over the next several years, according to a recent tally by Credit Suisse.
In the U.S., the Defense Department is studying coal-to-oil technology as a way to reduce the American military's dependence on Middle Eastern crude oil. And the National Coal Council, an industry association, is pushing for government incentives to help generate some 2.6 million barrels of liquid fuel a day from coal by 2025. That would satisfy some 10 percent of America's expected oil demand that year. The plan would require 475 million tons of coal a year, which represents more than 40 percent of current annual U.S. production. Industry officials believe America's coal reserves are big enough to allow for the extra production.
Coal-to-liquids "is not going to replace oil," says Lean Strauss, a Sasol executive who directs the company's overseas energy business. "But it's an important substitute. It is one of the solutions to energy security."
In June, two senators from coal-producing states, Barack Obama of Illinois and Jim Bunning of Kentucky, introduced a bill to offer loan guarantees and tax incentives for U.S. coal-to-liquid plants.

It amazes me that the what used to be "can do" leadership in this country has become a bunch of "true believers" in what is provable nonsense.

I expect better from those who are concerned with our national security and especially from those tasked with maritime security, who should be arguing for reducing our energy sealines of communication through developing all of our resources, and not just those in favor with one administration or another.

It's not fossil fuel, but why are we not developing and encouraging the use of nuclear power?
Because Harry Reid says "no" to a viable storage location for spent fuel in his state?

You want to get people working? Get them working on this - developing our fossil fuels, nuclear power and, yes, alternatives.

Once weaned from imported oil, we can use our internal supplies as we develop the "alternative energy" sources.

While being less vulnerable in the process.

Or I guess we could rig sails and fly kites. Or build triremes. All the while sitting on huge energy reserves.

UPDATE: I probably should have caught this before, but here's hint at Secretary Mabus's agenda in which it is revealed he wants to use Navy money to drive the move to "renewable fuels":

The Navy’s goal is to shift half its energy usage from fossil fuels to renewable sources by 2020. Critics have cast doubts on these plans, and have questioned the Navy’s assumptions about the future cost of biofuels. Other experts have pointed out that the military, which accounts for less than 2 percent of all U.S. fossil fuel demand, cannot on its own drive the renewable energy market until the United States adopts a national strategy that would generate greater economies of scale.

Mabus disagrees. “I think the military can lead on that,” he told reporters April 27. “The  Navy can be a market … I’m absolutely convinced we can do it.”

Count me as one of those critics . . .