Drought in Kyrgyzstan

Posted by on

Drought does not only mean thirst and failed crops. In Kyrgyzstan it also means blackouts:

The question of whether the country will be able to avoid major heat and electricity outages has become more pressing than ever. Due to the especially dry weather since the summer of 2007 the level of water in Toktogul reservoir, which supports the country’s hydro power plant, has been especially low.

To maintain water reserves for the heating and electricity needs of the cold winter season, the Kyrgyz government imposed electricity rationing in late August.

Mixing Solar and Coal

Posted by on

Via Rich Sweeney, and interesting project to test adding solar energy to existing fossil fuel plants:

Both projects involve adding steam generated by a solar thermal field to a conventional fossil fuel-powered steam cycle, either to offset some of the coal or natural gas required to generate electric power or to boost overall plant power output. The projects will be conducted in parallel, with one focused on natural gas plant technologies and the other on coal plant technologies.

Cities Getting Bad Rap on Climate Change?

Posted by on

David Satterthwaite argues that the oft-repeated claim that cities generate three quarters of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions is just plain wrong. Writing in the current issue of the journal Environment and Urbanization, he charts what sounds a lot like one of those oft-repeated urban legends:

Perhaps this was an estimate for the United States, which was then assumed to be valid worldwide. However, these figures are certainly inaccurate when applied to cities worldwide, although it is difficult to produce an accurate figure because there are too few cities for which there are detailed greenhouse gas emission inventories.

Sorting out what is city and what not is also a definitional issue. Should my city’s tally include the emissions from the farm outside of town where my food is grown?

[I]f greenhouse gas emissions from power stations and industries are assigned to the location of the person or institution who consumes them (rather than where they are produced), cities would account for a higher proportion of total emissions. But it would be misleading to attribute this to “cities” in general, since these emissions would be heavily concentrated in cities in high-income nations and they should be ascribed to the individuals and institutions whose consumption generates them, not to the places where they are located.

Hall on Energy Subsidies

Posted by on

Last week, I argued that U.S. military spending ought to be considered in a tally of energy subsidies. Daniel Hall thoughtfully disagrees:

You can certainly find estimates that imply total U.S. energy subsidies are north of $100 billion a year, but I haven’t seen any estimates that look rigorous or convincing.  This study put out by (or linked from) EarthTrack looks at least somewhat more respectable; it finds that total U.S. subsidies are $37-63 billion per year.  But notice that much of this is of an indirect nature — more than a third comes from the estimates of defending Persion Gulf oil shipments — and it is unclear who these indirect subsidies are supporting.  Securing the Gulf arguably subsidizes the world oil market — U.S. consumers may benefit, but so do all other world consumers.  Further, what percentage of our military expenses should be counted as an energy subsidy?  We have many strategic objectives beyond energy policy when we deploy forces in the Middle East (or elsewhere).

Make Me Drive Slower!

Posted by on

The GAO looks at the energy-saving benefits of a reduced speed limit. The answer? Dunno. For high speeds, going slower for sure saves gas, but there’s the whole lawlessness thing…

However, other factors, including drivers’ compliance with a reduced speed limit, would affect the actual impact of a lower speed limit on the amount of fuel savings. Reducing the speed limit does not necessarily mean that drivers will comply.

Sunday Morning Oil Blogging

Posted by on

From Wednesday morning’s Financial Times, an example of what happens when the price of oil drops. It’s Saudi Arabia, reviewing the capital investment it was planning back in the olden days, when oil was expensive:

Mr Buraik said he expects other countries to conduct their own reviews in the wake of changing dynamics.

“People would like to go to and re-evaluate, and maybe some projects were evaluated at $80 or $100 a barrel – now we are talking about $65 a barrel,” he said. “I think the whole oil industry, the new expansions, oil and gas, it will be re-evaluated – it will be reassessed based on the current economic circumstances.”

The International Energy Agency’s latest forecast suggests that this drop in infrastructure investment means we’re going to get screwed again by high prices soon enough. Bloomberg:

“There remains a real risk that under-investment will cause an oil-supply crunch” by 2015 as the decline in output from mature oilfields speeds up, the Paris-based adviser to 28 oil-consuming nations said. “The current financial crisis is not expected to affect long-term investment, but could lead to delays in bringing current projects to completion.”

On the bright side – less greenhouse gas emissions!

Sunday Morning Beer Blogging

Posted by on

I realize that serious economics commentators do their beer blogging on Fridays, but I just got ’round to reading this in Friday’s Financial Times:

Cold, refreshing, helps you forget – the charms of beer are pretty recession-proof. However, what was a lifestyle choice when consumers were flush with cash rapidly becomes an overpriced foreign beer as wallets close. So it seems that one of the trends in beer drinking that has predominated for almost a decade – growth in premium imported brands – has begun to turn.

Legislative Failings and New Mexico Water Wars

Posted by on

The New Mexico legislature has repeatedly failed to grapple with the problem of who owns deep brackish groundwater, and how its use will be regulated. My colleague Sean Olson has a story in this morning’s Albuquerque Journal that illustrates the mess that has resulted, as folks with development interests elbow one another out of the way:

SunCal Cos. is now claiming sole ownership of brackish water beneath its West Side property, a claim Atrisco Oil and Gas made in July.
In an application to the Office of the State Engineer filed late last month, SunCal claims it retains all water rights on its land under an agreement with Atrisco signed in December 2006. The agreement was part of a $250 million deal for SunCal to buy the land formerly held by the Atrisco land grant heirs in its corporate successor Westland Development Co.
Atrisco CEO Peter Sanchez said New Mexico water law is clear that the water source belongs to Atrisco.
“I think their claim is an example of some of the confusion right now due to the lack of law and jurisdiction over these issues,” Sanchez said.

For an economically efficient property rights system to work, you need three things:

  • exclusivity
  • transferability
  • enforceability

We seem to have none of that right now, but rather a situation that encourages people to drill and claim as fast as they can. This is a recipe for disaster.