Below are a few letters received at EnergyBiz Insider on topics that appeared in the past few weeks. They capture the essence of how many readers say they feel.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deterring Terror - June 17, 2009

The greatest threat faced by Americans today is the projected $20 trillion debt because of expenditures to protect us against dangers that do not exist.

The U.S. Department of Energy has spent about one trillion dollars and done nothing of value to resolve critical energy challenges. It deliberately suppressed information in 1987 that should have been used to counter false claims in articles in MIT's Technology Review and the Washington Post of Chernobyl-scale accidents from nuclear waste stored at DOE sites in order to obtain funding for hundreds of billions of dollars for indefinite jobs to move the waste from where it was safely stored to other locations. My letter correcting the false claims was published in Technology Review but not the Washington Post. The editor of Technology Review admitted at a meeting of the Washington, D.C., MIT Alumni Association that the article had been a major mistake.

The nuclear fuel claimed in this article to be a terrorist target is just another in a long list of false allegations of danger made or supported by the DOE and its predecessors that includes:

the hypotheses accepted by the AEC in 1960 that low levels of radiation were dangerous despite overwhelming evidence of beneficial effects

claims in a Government Accounting Office report in 1968 after AEC headquarters staff review that nuclear waste at AEC sites was not well managed

false claims that well-managed, well-safeguarded reprocessing is a proliferation threat and that claims of scientists inexperienced with reprocessing that their concepts are proliferation-resistant

claims that plutonium is one of the most toxic substances despite several medical studies reviewed by the EPA and CDC and described in a CDC report showing significant health benefits and no adverse health effects to workers with significant amounts of plutonium in their bodies.

claims early this century that fully safeguarded nuclear power programs in North Korea and Iran and non-existent nuclear programs in Iraq were a nuclear proliferation threat.

Clinton Bastin
Chemical Engineer/Nuclear Scientist
US Department of Energy (Retired)

Developing Global Climate Strategies - June 19, 2009

Most developing countries have large energy resources in the form of various sources of organic waste. These resources can, with presently available technology, be transformed into two products -- pure biomethane used for various purposes (vehicle fuel, heating, electricity generation) and fertilizer replacing artificial fertilizers.

Rwanda right now is an example of a country setting out to make use of this potential. Nationally available organic waste resources are more than enough to cover all automotive fueling needs. Local production of biomethane will (1) eliminate the need for crude oil imports, and (2) also preserve the locally available biomass resources for non-energy uses.

Peter Boisen
Chairman - Country Representatives Committee
NGVA Europe

A number of assumptions are taken on faith in most discussions that surround "climate change."

The acquiescence of scientists to the bullying by the crowd insisting on global warming orthodoxy -- that anthropogenic-caused climate change will destroy the earth unless we submit ourselves to government and allow tyranny to save us is despicable. We are doomed unless we surrender to a certain political class who knows the "green way?" This is not only ridiculous, it is dangerous to liberty.

There is no doubt that there are cycles of climate change; we have the evidence in polar drillings, even in aged trees that tell a scientific story of cooling and warming. But the cycles are caused entirely from sun spots and solar activity. Climate change is something that humans can do less about than they can about a thunderstorm. We are tilting at windmills at the expense of the common man and private property.

The drillings tell us another story about global warming -- that CO2 follows warming, rather than preceding it. This appears to be a smoking gun. Some astrophysicists have even pondered that CO2 release by Mother Nature during warming is a natural thermostat -- after all, isn't CO2 in solid form dry ice?

The priests of climate change (used to be global warming -- but climate change sounds better when you turn out to be wrong) try to intimidate the rest of us to take on faith that CO2 causes global warming when there is a dispute that CO2 is a pollutant.

Cornelius Van Sant

Investor Impressions of Brazil - June 22, 2009

Brazil -- Home of an effective and growing ethanol-based auto fuel economy for sure.

Some 35 years ago, Brazil's far-sighted leaders and politicians established a national program to develop a sugar cane-based ethanol-fueled auto economy. They conducted research on sugar cane husbandry and have increased sugar yield per acre over 400 percent. They have refined the ethanol manufacturing process. They have developed fuel formulation and auto engines that perform equally as good as our latest designs. They ARE world class in the auto industry now.

What is evident is how an economy can develop and grow when human ingenuity and innovation is allowed, encouraged, and sheltered within a framework of The Rule of Law -- AND those laws are written to benefit THE PEOPLE and not just a select few.

Contrast that with the debacle of U.S. policy and actions of the last decade -- rampant disregard and open violation of our most fundamental legal rights by our top "leaders", a plethora of "earmarks" and special provisions inserted into unrelated legislation packages, slipped under the door to benefit those who pay the most, and now, massive abrogation of long standing LAWS regulating bankruptcy and commercial contract rights of "secured" lenders.

From any OBJECTIVE observation point, the U.S. is now a nation controlled by corrupt politicians for the benefit of firms and individuals who lobby the most (pay the piper?) and a greatly diminished reputation of our legal system -- both criminal and commercial law violations go unpunished, allowed, and even touted by our elected and appointed officials. An international investor would view an investment in the US as having substantial political risk now.

How sad WE, THE PEOPLE have allowed and tolerated this debasement of our nation by a few greedy and selfish politicians. SHAME ON US.

Keith E. Bowers

Drilling Sinks Deep - June 24, 2009

"With gasoline prices at $4 a gallon, Americans were crying for relief."

This response is absurd. Outside of the OPEC nations, the U.S. has the lowest priced gasoline in the world. Huge opportunities have been missed over the last decade to tax gasoline as a process to drive demand down systematically; this will put Americans in small, efficient cars much more quickly than CAFE or GM restructuring.

"We shouldn't make decisions to sell off taxpayer resources based on old information."

Leaving the oil and gas in the ground for 15 to 20 years may be the best use of this resource. If taxpayer resources are to be monetized, it is better to use other nation's resources first and save ours for the irreplaceable applications in the future when the resource is scarce and valuable.

Jeff Rosner, Ph.D.
Agilent Technologies

If the assumptions on available oil reserves off Florida prove to be almost 4 billion barrels, this number should be seen against our current consumption levels of 8 billion barrels a year. Thus, it would equal a mere six months' worth of consumption. We need to get away from the concept of burning oil. It is too valuable to waste in this manner. Given that the entire U.S. reserves are something south of 40 billion barrels (drilling ALL of it), we are reaching the end. Yet the cry for cheap gas continues, even as Europe wisely taxes it heavily to avoid the waste that we take as a human right.

Foreign oil only adds to the growing flow of U.S. dollars paid to import from an increasingly hostile world. With most U.S. oil consumption NOT being used as a transportation fuel, one must consider what life would be like without oil given the vast and ubiquitous higher value uses for this versatile mineral. Look at what is around you...what is not made of wood, glass or metal is probably made from oil. We will, in our lifetimes, look back on these days and wonder why we burned such a valuable mineral much like we look back wishing we still had the vast oil resources in the USA already squandered at under $1 a barrel.

Republicans get riled that ARRA deficits would be a burden on their grandchildren but unconcerned that we might use up every last drop of oil well before those grandchildren need it, while at the same time destroying the planet and our ability to feed it. We are on a lifeboat with limited supplies. The hero is NOT the one consuming supplies like at a banquet.

There is not a lack of energy on this planet. Every day we are bathed in far more than we could conceivably utilize. We have only to harvest this energy using wind and solar, with geothermal as our base load supplement. Then our grandchildren will live in a clean and sustainable world. The time is now, the opportunities are endless. OIL is NOT.

Barry Fitzgerald

Car Troubles - June 26, 2009

In the mid-nineties I worked on an electric car research project for a utility. We had cars then that ran for 80 miles without recharging. It seems like a step backwards to be developing cars that will run for 40 miles between charges. It seems like this whole issue is driven by politics, not by technology and certainly not by economics. I couldn't get to work and back in a car with a 40-mile range, and the cost of the infrastructure to put in charging stations is huge. In addition there is the environmental impact of dealing with the batteries. Surely we can do better than this.

Richard Racette

The wrong mission did not kill GM and Chrysler. The lack of a mission did. I'm a retired (thankfully!) multi-line dealer. With a few exceptions, our domestic customers were looking purely for the lowest transaction price. They paid little attention to the make as long as it was the size they needed. Buyers of foreign brands were much more likely to know the specific make, model and options they wanted...and as a result, they tended to pay more for equivalent types of cars. A prospective buyer found it easier to associate desirable qualities with brands that had focused missions ("Toyotas are dependable").

Complete this sentence: "Dodges are --------". Bet you had trouble. That's what killed GM and Chrysler. Ford isn't out of the woods, either.

Now, even mighty Toyota is suffering, and the restructured domestic industry has a once-per-century opportunity. If the domestic makers can produce clean cars at a competitive price that pushes all the emotional buttons that underlie all consumer sales, then they can regain prominence. If they are content to react, then the taxpayers have made a colossal mistake in bailing them out.

There is a huge difference between doing the right thing and doing a thing right.

Phil Davis

I want to compliment you on your article "Car Troubles".

The fact that no one is discussing how we are going to manage these batteries after their useful life troubles me. I may have missed something along the way, but I would like to know what management systems are in place to handle these old batteries?

I have been managing waste materials for over 37 years and the biggest problem we have is the enormous amount of material that gets buried in landfills or incinerated in waste-to-energy facilities. Past practice has demonstrated that there isn't much thought put into a system that re-uses or recycles "new" products. I am hoping that this is not the case with our new electric car batteries, whether they are...hybrids, plug-ins, solar or any other type of batteries.

Anthony Leteri
President
USA Environmental Resource Management Services, inc.

Just two errors in your otherwise well-balanced editorial:

1. You have a paragraph that begins: "If this can be done [reducing the cost of batteries], then the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in areas of the country that rely heavily on coal would be greatly enhanced." I think you mean "...that DON'T rely heavily on coal..." That may have been a typo. As you point out later, in areas where electricity is predominantly generated from coal, PHEVs don't offer much greenhouse gas reduction, or may even increase GHGs. No improvement in battery technology will change that.

2. You also make one reference that I've seen elsewhere, but it's spurious and misleading: "cars that need to be recharged during the day". The fact is, *NO* PHEV "needs" to be recharged during the day -- that's the whole advantage of PHEVs over all-electric vehicles. When the battery drops below a certain charge level, the car starts working like a regular hybrid, and would get about the same mileage as a standard hybrid. It can fill up at any gas station. Daytime recharging is always optional for a PHEV, and as a matter of local energy policy it probably rarely makes sense -- communities (and utilities) generally don't want to ADD new electrical loads during peak load hours. They want to add them off-peak (at night).

Randy Steer

You wrote a nice summary of the possibilities for eventual commercial deployment of the various flavors of more efficient electric drives that will someday be cost-feasible in all types of motor vehicles.

But not today. All-purpose battery electric vehicles will not be practical, let alone cost-effective, for a long, long time. Same applies to plug-in hybrids.

You neglected to discuss the real problem: how to begin the process of breaking America's total dependency on liquid, petroleum-based motor fuels.

Low-carbon natural gas is readily available in nearly every urban region of the United States. Methane is a clean, affordable motor fuel that is abundant, is produced in the USA and is delivered to millions of homes and businesses through a robust and efficient infrastructure that has been in place for many years. Natural gas vehicle technology is inexpensive, available, robust and easily adapted to existing internal combustion engines.

Yet this solution is ignored by policy makers and advocates for more sustainable energy solutions.

Contrary to popular belief, the natural gas industry is NOT controlled by the oil industry. Natural gas is sometimes produced with oil, but natural gas is also produced independent of oil. Natural gas and oil are similar in that they are fossil hydrocarbons, but delivery and use of these fuels require totally separate infrastructure and marketing organizations.

And natural gas is the only infrastructure that is adaptable to the distributed production of hydrogen; infrastructure that will be essential to the commercial deployment of the hydrogen fuel cell-powered electric car.

Yet you did not mention natural gas in your article, let alone describe commercial pathways to zero-carbon hydrogen motor fuels.

Not one of the U.S. automakers produce or are planning to produce an OEM light-duty natural gas vehicle in the United States; yet they produce millions overseas. Why?

And in spite of obvious economic advantages, the Obama Administration ignores natural gas motor fuels and vehicles as a pathway to zero-carbon hydrogen motor fuels and fuel cell electric vehicles.

Why?

Aftermarket conversion of a mundane gasoline truck to compressed natural gas yields an instant 30 percent life-cycle reduction in carbon emissions with a fuel cost that is 20 percent to 50 percent lower than gasoline. The economics and emission benefits of repowering buses and trucks to operate on either compressed of liquefied natural gas are even more dramatic.

Why the silent treatment?

Dave Bruderly, P.E.
Wise Gas, Inc.

Threshold Crossed - July 01, 2009

Dear Readers,

Okay, this one sparked a lot of letters and a lot of sentiments. Our goal here will be to print the ones that add the most insight and the ones that round out the viewpoints. I hear you loud and clear: Global warming is hoax. Deniers are completely ill-informed. I'm absolutely shocked that this subject matter stirs such emotion.

The ones that can flesh out these points will get printed as well as the ones that had something unique to say. Thankfully, we have Jim Vess to help me, as well as some others who may speak up.

It may be that Jim, our production editor, will run them in two shifts -- today and July 15th. Meantime, your editor will be completing stories on our colleague and good friend Bernard Madoff -- Jim is particularly close with this fellow -- as well as those on alternatively fueled cars and the new transmission game. (Please hold your comments until these stories have run as I can only read and respond to so many on a given day.)

Seriously, thanks for taking your valuable time to express your viewpoints.

Ken

In an otherwise positive editorial, I have to say that I am disappointed that you choose to give any credence to those who claim global warming is either a hoax or a result of natural processes. The well-established fact is that almost all professionals concur that man-produced carbon emissions is leading to an increase in the global temperature, which in turn is causing major changes in weather patterns.

Clearly you are trying to be balanced in your reporting. But I urge you to use more discrimination in your editorials. After all, I doubt you would give any credence to the 14th century notion that the sun revolves around the earth. Yet it was widely accepted as fact at that time. The Catholic Church, the major stakeholder, imprisoned or executed those who dared to disagree based on scientific discovery. It is a similar situation today now, with the politicians putting forth these false notions, without any peer-reviewed science backup.

Clearly, the coal and utility industries are behind this. It's too bad because they will be able to install equipment to meet these goals while getting these expenditures into their rate base. Coal will remain king for at least the next 20 years, and play a major role in power production for another 50 years or more. We have few alternatives at this time.

It's time to discredit the naysayers and get to work on improving efficiency and lowering emissions.

David F. Knowles, P.E.

From what I have read, the cost of $175 per year referred to in your article that was projected by the CBO came with several caveats and qualifiers. The most outrageous of these is that the costs only look at the government cost of implementing the plan: of running the trading organization to track the credits and allowances. It does not include the cost increases on consumer goods. Can you confirm or deny that this is the case?

Additionally, your article does not address the concrete, non-theoretical reasons why the "naysayers" are more vocal now. Could they be more vocal because the globe has been cooling over the past 10 years? Without any reduction in overall CO2 emissions? If you are going to report the energy news, please don't act like ABC on health care. Give both sides of the story. All you are doing is perpetuating the myth of "man-made" global warning, at the peril of America's economy and the growth of an even more intrusive government.

Mike Brasovan
President
THG ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC

 
Respond to the editor.