Is it a good thing or a bad thing to say that going green has gone mainstream? I dunno myself. If the mainstream media continues to cover green technology, I guess that more and more consumers will be introduced to the idea that they can make mainstream decisions in their lives that can help the environment and possibly save themselves a few buckaroos in the process. But, if the media does as Discovery Channel did with their coverage of all that is green in automobiles, then there could be just as much misinformation floating around as good solid reporting. Any comments on that?

I think that getting the news of the mini Chevy concepts, the current hybrids and clean diesels out there is more important than the fact that many people don't know just how far off hydrogen as a fuel just might be. When consumers go car shopping, and they see some of the current green technology in the showroom that they just saw on the major news stations it could spur a possible purchase. Your mileage may vary, literally.

[Source: Reuters on Youtube via Hugg]

According to Reuters, a group of researchers at Massachusetts Institute of Technology are working on what they think is a more logical ethanol solution for our impending fuel crisis. Instead of using ethanol as a primary fuel or an additive, we could potentially see more realistic fuel-saving improvements across a wider spectrum if we implemented a system on cars that injected ethanol in small quantities when the engine is under heavy load.

The idea is to run a smaller, more fuel-efficient engine in your car while maximizing the usage of the higher octane ethanol so as to not impede performance. The group estimates gas mileage improvements of about 20 to 30 percent and Daniel Cohn, senior research scientist at MIT, says that adding the ethanol injection system would roughly add $1,000 to a vehicle, considerably undercutting the premium for a gas-electric hybrid.

It seems like a novel use of ethanol, since the renewable fuel's limited supply is often the first argument used against its sustainability. The source article is rather short, though. When discussing how the system works, they only state that it would be used on a turbocharged ICE and that the ethanol would be injected when knock is likely to occur. They don't discuss the turbo in any level of detail, but one might consider that it may make sense to incorporate a system that would advance the timing and increase the boost pressure when the ethanol is in use like that of Saab's biopower system. As for the amount of ethanol required, Cohn doesn't offer an estimate, but says that it would only have to be refilled about every three months.

[Source: Reuters via ABC News]

For the last three years, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transporation have ranked 20 companies that they feel offer the best benefits for commuters and for three years Intel has come out on top. Why shouldn't they? They offer their employees vanpools, subsidies for public transportation, showers and storage for those who bike or run and even a dry-cleaner to lessen the demand for driving. And what if you could measure your commute times in milliseconds? In 2005, a whopping 40 percent of their employees got to work via the Internet.

According to Reuters, the ranking is part of a federal government effort to reduce traffic congestion and auto emissions by eliminating the American habit of driving to work alone.

You can view the full list after the jump. See if you can find the patterns. Reuters was kind enough to point out that almost all are technology companies and only eight are in states that do not touch the Pacific Ocean. Oh, and don't immediately fret if your company didn't make the cut. The ranking was only open to 133 firms with at least 700,000 employees.

[Source: Reuters via MSNBC]

This'll teach me to stare at news feeds all morning. At 7:39 AM EDT, the Dow Jones Newswire reported that the Organization for Petroleum Exporting Countries agreed to cut oil production by 1 million barrels per day (about 3 percent). As a result, early electronic trading saw the price of crude oil futures rise back up above $60 per barrel before the New York Mercantile Exchange rang its opening bell. At the time of this writing, it was at a $1.45 increase.

By the time I was about to submit a post this matter turned into a bit of a mess. At 10:30 AM EDT new news came out saying that OPEC president Edmund Daukoru denied the announced reduction. This article (subscription required) in the Wall Street Journal quotes a senior cartel official saying, "All I can tell you is that you should listen to what the OPEC president is saying; he is the one authorized to speak for OPEC."

So was it all just a sham by some "unnamed OPEC governor"? Maybe not. Daukoru says, "We each have an idea of what is an appropriate response... We agree that something needs to be done. We will have to agree on how much, how soon and how we distribute it among the member countries."

The WSJ article also points out that last Thursday there was an unsourced report in the Financial Times saying that OPEC has formally agreed to cut output by 4 percent in the coming weeks to defend the $50 to $55 price per barrel range. When two unofficial leaks converge in this fashion, a certain substance forms that's difficult to discount.

Reuters also reported on the alleged oil production cut. In their original article, they speculated that further cuts may be incurred at OPEC's next meeting on December 14th.

I'm sure we'll be hearing more about this quite soon.

Note: The rise in crude oil futures have since dropped to +89 cents on the day, still trading above $60 per barrel.

Late update: Crude oil futures for November delivery settled up 62 cents at $60.03 per barrel. Intraday trading saw the price rise as high as $60.97.

[Source: Wall Street Journal, subscription required]

Last Friday, the Wall Street Journal published an interview with President Bush that focused on energy policy. You can just about guess what he says without even reading the article. These two reports from Reuters and AFX (via Forbes), however, each take a bit of a different approach with the interview, so we're off to the source.

Bush is generally optimistic about the country's current status and its ability to deal with the energy problem and describes his administration's approach as multifaceted. He says that ultimately, our cars will be fueled by hydrogen that is formed with nuclear energy, but in the meantime, we need to focus on ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, plug-in hybrids and the encouragement of energy conservation. He doesn't specifically mention biodiesel at any point, but the interviewer does and the President incorporates it into his answers.

Bush says that government spending will target the bottlenecks in the alternative fuel production process, and gives examples focused on ethanol. He defines the first bottleneck as transportation, or getting the fuel from the plant to the pumps. The second is convenience for consumers, that is, more pumps in more areas. By tackling these issues, he says we will "affect" global warming.

In addressing climate change and emissions specifically, he says that the country doesn't need to implement or enforce emissions caps. He says, "So long as we're meeting the targets... then I think that we ought to pursue the current track we're on." He even goes as far as to say, "We're taking the lead when it comes to the global warming issue." The only sense in which I think this is actually true would be that the U.S. is leading the rest of the world in greenhouse gas emissions, but I don't think that's what he actually meant.

Instead of addressing the administration's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol at this point, the interviewer abruptly changes the subject to the status of the domestic automakers which we won't get into here.

The AFX article on the Forbes website offers only a very brief summary of the interview focusing on Bush's optimistic outlook on alternative fuels. The Reuters article, on the other hand, takes a much more critical approach and suggests that it means little to meet emissions targets when those targets are set too low. The reporter quotes Vicki Arroyo, director of policy analysis at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, who believes that the U.S. should be setting an example for industrialized nations saying, "We're on target for the status quo."

Definitely take a look at the Reuters article if you get a chance. Here's the link for the WSJ interview, but it requires a subscription. As for Forbes, they're on the fringe of establishing a bad reputation around here.

[Source: Reuters]

Reuters reports that yesterday the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed a "renewable fuels standard" in order to comply with a 2005 law mandating refiners and marketers to raise biofuel production to 7.5 billion gallons in 2012. As reference, production for 2006 is projected at 4 billion gallons. Renewable fuels currently make up 2.78 percent of the nation's gas sales. The EPA's proposed standard would raise that to 3.71 percent next year.

The plan does, however, outline a market-style credit system which would allow a more flexible way for fuel suppliers to comply with the rules by selling biofuels mainly where it's most economical to do so.

The EPA projects that the renewable fuels standard would reduce U.S. petroleum consumption by 3.9 billion gallons per year equating to about 14 million tons in greenhouse gas emissions saved.

As an opponent of the pending rules, Bob Slaughter, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, said, "Consumers will be better served if the market, rather than politics, determines future use of fuel-blending components, including renewables."

Related:

• Massachusetts v. EPA: The Monkey Trial of the century

[Source: Reuters]

Seventy bucks a barrel for crude oil is the new norm, and the high price is driving interest in alternative energy sources on the trading floor as well as the gas pump. On the Chicago Board of Trade, a Reuters commentary says, soy oil, a byproduct from turning soybeans into animal feed, is looking more and more like a safe bet for future profits.

About 90 percent of U.S. biodiesel comes from soy oil, and since demand for biodiesel will increase in the coming years, that means demand for soy oil will increase. Soy oil futures were selling a pound of soy oil for 26.12 cents in late April, a nine-month high. If the National Biodiesel Board's prediction that biodiesel production in 2006 will be double that of 2005 comes to pass, those who buy now may reap the benefits later.

[Source: Reuters]

Scott Sklar, over at Renewable Energy Access, synthesizes three recent polls that ask Americans their opinions on energy and how it affects them. His point is that the three polls, when taken together, show an "American consensus" on energy attitudes. The New York Times/CBS News, Reuters and Pew Research took the polls, which were conducted or released in April. The highlights, as far as green driving is concerned, are that 90 percent think our lack of energy independence jeopardizes national security, huge majorities favor more research and development of renewable energy sources and over half said they'd accept a tax increase on gas if it reduced dependence on foreign oil or resulted in less consumption or eased the threat of global warming. All in all, the people seem ready for real leadership on green issues.

[Source: Renewable Energy Access]