Right now, we’re paying anywhere from 70 cents to a dollar more per gallon than this time a year ago.
(Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
Energy analysts say a glut of
oil means gas prices probably
won’t spike too much this year.
Rebecca Williams has more:
Transcript
Energy analysts say a glut of
oil means gas prices probably
won’t spike too much this year.
Rebecca Williams has more:
We’re paying anywhere from 70 cents to a dollar more per gallon than this time a year ago. The good news is, we’re not likely to see four dollar-a-gallon gas anytime soon.
“We’re not in a world with runaway oil prices.”
That’s Ruchir Kadakia. He’s a global oil market expert with IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates. He says weak global demand is keeping oil prices in check for now. At the same time, supply is relatively high. He predicts oil won’t average much higher than 80 dollars a barrel for the next year or so.
“And so what that really means for the gasoline point is through probably 2011, we shouldn’t expect to see gasoline prices much above three dollars unless it’s for a short period of time maybe in the summertime for a few months.”
Kadakia says oil speculators can drive prices higher or lower in the short term. But he doesn’t think we’ll see any major price spikes over the long term.
This is a mock-up of what the proposed label would look like (Photo courtesy of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration)
Back in 2007, Congress told the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration to come up with
new fuel efficiency labels on tires.
Mark Brush reports on when we might
see those labels in tire shops:
Transcript
Back in 2007, Congress told the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration to come up with
new fuel efficiency labels on tires.
Mark Brush reports on when we might
see those labels in tire shops:
It’s been 2 years, and the government is still working out how to get this labeling program going.
Right now, if you walk into a tire shop, it’s hard to compare tires on how fuel efficient they are. There’s no official standard yet.
But that should change soon. The new tire labeling program is expected to roll it out in the next few months.
Dan Zielinski is a spokesman for the Rubber Manufacturers Association. He says they support a labeling law because it’ll help competition.
It could give tire makers something to brag about.
“’It will be an incentive to say ‘my tire is better because,’ or, ‘my range of tires here are better because.’ It offers the consumers better performance on certain criteria. And I think that will drive the market even before the consumer demand does.”
A more fuel efficient tire will only get you a couple of miles per gallon more. But, put those tires on the 200 million cars and trucks driving the roads these days, and that could add up.
The price of a barrel of oil has jumped
up from $45 to nearly $70 in just
three months. And gas prices have been
creeping up too. Rebecca Williams reports
these prices are out of sync with the usual
rules of supply and demand:
Transcript
The price of a barrel of oil has jumped
up from $45 to nearly $70 in just
three months. And gas prices have been
creeping up too. Rebecca Williams reports
these prices are out of sync with the usual
rules of supply and demand:
Right now there’s a huge glut of supply of oil – and at the same time, weak global demand for it.
Ruchir Kadakia is a global oil market expert. He’s with Cambridge Energy Research Associates.
He says speculators are driving oil prices up.
“People believe that with positive economic growth in the future there will be greater demand for oil. So they start to buy up oil in anticipation of that demand recovery.”
So these speculators are making money while most of the economy is in a slump.
But Kadakia thinks the realities of supply and demand will eventually catch up and drag oil prices back down.
“The pain we’re feeling at the pump today is probably going to be the worst we feel all this summer.”
He thinks gas prices might actually get back below two dollars a gallon.
You get more out of your tank of gas if it is purchased in a cold location versus a warm one (Photo by Ben VonWaggoner)
People who buy gasoline in cold
places get more bang for their buck than
people buying gas in warm places. Kyle
Norris explains:
Transcript
People who buy gasoline in cold
places get more bang for their buck than
people buying gas in warm places. Kyle
Norris explains:
Let’s say my friend Ana buys 10 gallons of gasoline in a cold place like the
Canadian tundra. And I buy 10 gallons of gas in the warm state of Florida.
My friend Ana will be able to drive further than I will with those 10 gallons.
That’s because gas expands at warm temperatures. But its energy content
does not.
There’s a gizmo gas stations can put on individual pumps that adjusts for
temperature differences. But each one costs a couple thousand bucks a pop.
Dave Maurer is with the US Government Accountability Office.
“There actually have not been a lot of studies done on the benefits and costs of installing this
equipment. Really what we found is that it’s not really known.”
Right now different states do different things. California has just started a
major study on this topic. But without much research, Maurer said it’s tough
for policy makers to make decisions.
The seven million or so Flex Fuel Vehicles
are just a small portion of the 200-million
or so vehicles in the American fleet, but
there could many, more in the future.
(Photo by Shawn Allee)
For most drivers, filling up at the
pump’s a pretty easy operation – you drive
up, you fill up, and you drive out. But people
who have Flex Fuel Vehicles have another choice.
They can fill up on gas or E-85, that 85 percent
ethanol blend – if they find the right station.
Shawn Allee reports a lot more of us
could have to make that same choice in the future:
Transcript
For most drivers, filling up at the
pump’s a pretty easy operation – you drive
up, you fill up, and you drive out. But people
who have Flex Fuel Vehicles have another choice.
They can fill up on gas or E-85, that 85 percent
ethanol blend – if they find the right station.
Shawn Allee reports a lot more of us
could have to make that same choice in the future:
I’m at a car lot in my home town. I’m not actually in the car market, but I am
curious what these E85 compatible Flex Fuel vehicles look like. I don’t own one
myself.
Anyway, I’m here with Edgar Moreno. He sells cars on this lot. He’s gonna show
me one of these vehicles here.
Allee: “Edgar, what can you show me?”
Moreno: “The Chevy Impala.”
Allee: “I actually don’t see anything that would tell me it’s a Flex-fuel vehicle.”
Moreno: “Usually it says on the gas cap whether you can use E85 or not.”
(sound of twist)
Allee: “It’s bright yellow. It says E85. In fact it says E85-slash-gasoline. What does
that mean?”
Moreno: “You can fill it with either, or.”
Allee: “How many stations are there available where I could fill this Impala up with
E85?”
Moreno: “I think there’s one in the area, but you have to drive quite a bit to get
there.”
Allee: “So, it’s one of those situations where, if I take this Impala off the lot, I could
still use it at a regular gas station, but I might have to search around for an E85
station?”
Moreno: “Yes, you do. Yep.”
Congress and both presidential candidates are considering making every car a Flex
Fuel Vehicle.
Detroit has spent a lot of money promoting E85 vehicles, and you might think they’d
be in favor of this.
Well, I called Ford Motor Company about this and found out that’s not the case.
“You could mandate every vehicle on the road to be a flex fuel vehicle. It would be a
great cost to our industry.”
Curt Magleby is Ford’s point-man on ethanol regulations.
He says if Congress gets its way there’d be more Flex Fuel Vehicles, but not necessarily
more E85 pumps.
“So you can mandate the vehicle side, but unless there’s a real focus on distribution,
it’s wasted money – we’d be putting dollars on the hoods of our vehicles for no
reason.”
So, Ford and the other car makers could make less profit on Flex Fuel Vehicles if there’s
a mandate.
At one time, they got government incentives to build Flex Fuel Vehicles, but those will
phase out.
So there’d be no benefit for the automakers.
And there’s another twist in the E-85 story.
The fuel industry is pushing to distribute ethanol in a way that might not require flex fuel
cars at all.
This is a little technical, but most gas already has 10% ethanol in it.
The fuel industry wants to sell 20% or even 30% ethanol blends because it saves oil
companies money. The government subsidized ethanol is cheaper than refining oil for
gasoline.
Ford and other car-makers are fighting this.
Magleby says burning E-20 or E-30 blends would be a disaster for existing cars.
“Ethanol is corrosive and it burns hotter, so you have to have a different fuel tank.
You have to have stainless steel fuel lines. You have to have hardened valves in your
engine.”
Car companies say burning 20% or 30% ethanol blends could hurt existing cars.
Scientists are checking whether that’s the case.
In the meantime, Congress is deciding exactly how it will promote ethanol.
It could mandate all cars be E85 Flex Fuel vehicles or it could promote lower-level
ethanol blends in gasoline.
Either way, over the next few years, we’re going to see big changes in our cars or our gas
pumps.
Map of the Great Lakes, the basin, and the 8 connecting states. (Photo courtesy of Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, NOAA)
The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Compact is an
agreement to stop shipping water out of the Great Lakes
basin. But all eight Great Lakes states and Congress
must approve it first. Lester Graham talked with Peter
Annin, the author of the book “The Great Lakes Water
Wars.” Annin says some of the states have been reluctant
to approve the treaty because Michigan has an image of saying
‘no’ to water requests from other states while putting
almost no water restrictions on its own towns and businesses:
Transcript
The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Compact is an
agreement to stop shipping water out of the Great Lakes
basin. But all eight Great Lakes states and Congress
must approve it first. Lester Graham talked with Peter
Annin, the author of the book “The Great Lakes Water
Wars.” Annin says some of the states have been reluctant
to approve the treaty because Michigan has an image of saying
‘no’ to water requests from other states while putting
almost no water restrictions on its own towns and businesses:
Peter Annin: “Michigan has been a laggard in monitoring and regulating its own domestic water
use. And so it’s seen by some other states as being somewhat hypocritical in the water debate.
For example, Minnesota, which is the most progressive domestically, if you’re going to withdraw
water from the Great Lakes at 10,000 gallons a day or more, you have to get a permit. In the state
of Michigan you can go up to 5 million gallons of water withdrawn from Lake Michigan per day
before you have to get a permit. 10,000 gallons in Minnesota, 5 million gallons in Michigan, and
this is what is causing tension between Michigan and some of the other Great Lakes states.”
Lester Graham: “Lets assume that all 8 Great Lakes states do pass this within the next year or
two, Congress then has to pass it – and many of the members of Congress are in those thirsty
Southwestern states. What happens then?”
Annin: “Yeah, that’s a really good point. We have to remember that the compact is just a piece of
paper until it passes all 8 Great Lakes legislatures and then is adopted by Congress. And there
are a lot of concerns among the general public, given that we have these dry-land states that have
a lot of problems with water perhaps opposing the Great Lakes compact. I’m not so certain that
that’s going to be an issue, because those states also have a lot federal water projects that come
up for renewal all the time that require the Great Lakes Congressmen to sign off on. And I’m not
sure they’re in a position, given how precious and important water is for them to survive on a daily
basis down there, that they’re really that interested in getting into a water fight with the Senators
and Congressmen in the Great Lakes basin. But, we’ll see.”
Graham: “I’ve looked at different models for getting Great Lakes water down to the Southwest,
and economically, they just don’t seem feasible. It would be incredibly expensive to try to get
Great Lakes water to the Southwest states, yet, State Legislators say again and again ‘oh no,
they have a plan, they know how it will happen.’ And as water becomes more valuable, they could
make it happen. How likely is it that there would be a canal or pipe and pumping stations built to
divert Great Lakes water, if this compact doesn’t pass?”
Annin: “It looks highly unlikely today, for the reasons that you just mentioned. It takes an
extraordinary amount of money to send water uphill, which is what would be to the West, and we’d
certainly have to cross mountain ranges if you’re even going to send it a shorter distance, to the
Southeast. To the point where it would be cheaper for many of these places to, even though it’s
expensive, to desalinate water from the ocean and then send it to inland places. But, you know, a
lot of water experts in the United States say ‘never say never’, because the value of fresh, potable
water is probably going to skyrocket in this century. We’re leaving the century of oil; we’re entering
the century of water. But, for right now, you’re absolutely right, it is extraordinary cost-prohibitive.
But let me say one other footnote here, it’s hard to find a federal water project in this country that
actually made economic sense.”
Trash and toxic waste cross the U.S.-Canada border every day, and untreated toxic waste often ends up at the Clean Harbors facility. Some are trying to restrict this practice and purge the idea that waste is a commodity.
There’s only one place in North America that still dumps
toxic waste straight into the ground without any kind of pre-treatment. A legislator from Ontario, Canada wants this landfill to clean up its act. But trade in toxic waste is big business. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Ann Colihan follows some trucks to learn more:
Transcript
There’s only one place in North America that still dumps toxic waste straight into the ground without any kind of pre-treatment. A legislator from Ontario, Canada wants this landfill to clean up its act. But trade in toxic waste is a big business. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Ann Colihan follows some trucks to learn more:
(Sound of trucks)
6,000 trucks cross the Blue Water Bridge every day between Canada and the United States. Just under the bridge, Lake Huron funnels into the skinny St. Clair River on its way to south to Lake Erie. The Blue Water Bridge connects Port Huron, Michigan with Sarnia, Ontario. This is the second busiest truck crossing between the United States and Canada. With post 9/11 security, the border can get backed up for miles in both directions. A lot of these trucks are carrying garbage back and forth across the border. Canadian trash and toxic waste is going to the U.S. and American toxic waste is going to Canada.
During her first month in office, Ontario Member of Parliament for Sarnia-Lambton, Caroline Di Cocco, found out just how much toxic waste was coming into her district.
“In 1999 that year, it was over 450,000 tons. To put it in perspective, the Love Canal was 12,000 tons.”
Di Cocco went on a five year crusade to change the Ontario laws that govern the trade in toxic waste. She adopted the U.N. resolution known as the Basel Agreement, as her model.
“The notion from that Basel Agreement is that everybody should look after their own waste and it is not a commodity.”
Di Cocco is not alone in her fight to slow or stop the flow of garbage and toxic waste from crossing the border. Mike Bradley is the mayor of Sarnia, Ontario. He can see the backup on the Blue Water Bridge every day from his home.
“One of the ironies on this is that while Michigan is very much upset, and rightly so, with the importation of Toronto trash, there are tens of thousands of tons of untreated toxic waste coming in from Michigan crossing the Blue Water Bridge into the Clean Harbors site.”
The Clean Harbors facility is the only place in North America that does not pre-treat hazardous waste before it dumps it into its landfill. Frank Hickling is Director of Lambton County Operations for Clean Harbors. He says imports from nearby states in the U.S. accounts for about forty percent of its volume.
“It’s from the Great Lakes area. We do reach down and take waste that our facility is best able to handle. We’re right on the border.”
Rarely do lawmakers on both sides of the border agree on an environmental issue. But pre-treatment of hazardous waste is the law in all fifty states, Mexico and every other Canadian province and territory except Ontario. Pre-treatment reduces the amount of toxic waste or transforms it into a less hazardous substance. But Hickling says disposing hazardous waste in Clean Harbors is a better economic bet.
“Obviously, if you don’t have to pre-treat it, it is cheaper there’s no doubt about that. But what isn’t obvious is the security of the site. Pre-treating waste doesn’t help immobilize the material forever.”
Clean Harbors’ company officials say their landfill won’t leak for 10,000 years. They say that the U.S. pre-treats hazardous waste because they expect their landfills to leak in hundreds of years or less. Hickling says the blue clay of Lambton County that lines Clean Harbors landfill gives them a competitive edge as a toxic dump.
“The facility is in a 140-foot clay plain and we go down about 60 feet. So there’s 80 feet below.”
But Clean Harbors has had big environmental problems. When volume was at its peak in 1999 the Clean Harbors landfill leaked methane gas and contaminated water. Remedial pumping of the landfill is ongoing.
Caroline Di Cocco found other ways to deal with toxic waste rather than simply dumping it in her district.
“First of all, there has to be a reduction of the amount of generation of this hazardous material. The more expensive you make it for industry to dispose of it, the more they are going to find creative ways to reduce it. Then there are what they call on-site treatments and closed-loop systems. You see technology is there but it’s expensive and again we go to the cost of doing business. And so a lot of the hazardous waste can be treated on site in a very safe way. And then what can’t be, well then you have to have facilities to dispose of it. But I believe that the days of the mega dumps have to end.”
Meanwhile, Clean Harbors looks at what the new Ontario regulations for pre-treatment will cost them.
“Certainly when you’re making the investment in pre-treatment and you’re adding all that cost for no additional environmental benefit we’re going to have to be getting larger volumes to ensure its profitability.”
Until we see a reduction in the loads of toxic waste that need to be dumped in Clean Harbors, it’s likely the trucks will roll on down the highway.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mary Ann Colihan.
Low-sulfur fuel is now available to everyone, even if they haven't realized it yet. (Photo by Pam Roth)
A quiet revolution of cleaner air began this year for cars
and trucks. Motorists might not know it, but they’ve been burning
low-sulfur fuel as part of a requirement under the federal Clean Air
Act. The requirement was put in place during the Clinton Administration.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mike Simonson reports:
Transcript
A quiet revolution of cleaner air began this year for cars and trucks. Motorists might
not know it, but they’ve been burning low-sulfur fuel as part of requirement under the
federal Clean Air Act. The requirement was put in place during the Clinton Administration.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mike Simonson reports:
Low-sulfur fuel is sometimes referred to as “green gas.” The gas isn’t really colored green.
But if it was, people might have noticed that they’re pumping different gas. For two years,
refineries in the United States have been investing millions of dollars to produce the new gas.
Dave Podratz is the manager of the Murphy Oil refinery in Superior, Wisconsin. He says his
refinery spent 26 million dollars to begin making the gas since October.
“It’s not the kind of thing you would notice, the average consumer going to the pump probably
wouldn’t even notice it watching tail pipe emissions, but the sufur dioxide emissions are
definitely going down.”
Podratz says the new fuel cut the amount of sulfur by 90 percent. And other tail pipe
emissions are going down as well. That’s because low sulfur fuel improves the efficiency
of your car’s catalytic converter, Which, in turn, reduces the amount of pollutants like
nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mike Simonson.
A new report says metropolitan Milwaukee is pumping so much groundwater, it’s pulling water out of the Great Lakes basin. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports:
Transcript
A new report says metropolitan Milwaukee is pumping so much groundwater, it’s
pulling water out of the Great Lakes basin. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Sarah Hulett reports:
Just west of Milwaukee runs a line that divides the Great Lakes basin from
the Mississippi River basin. Researchers at the U.S. Geological Survey say
the fast growing-communities that sit along that line are pumping enough
groundwater that it’s actually reversed the underground flow that used to go
into Lake Michigan. Instead, that water is coming out of the lake.
Noah Hall is with the National Wildlife Federation.
“What’s most shocking and disturbing about this, though, is that this
groundwater pumping that’s been going on is having the effect of draining
Lake Michigan of ten million gallons a day, and diverting that water out of
the Great Lakes basin, never to return.”
Hall says that water is going into the Mississippi River basin. He says the
USGS report illustrates the need for Great Lakes governors to regulate
groundwater – not just surface water.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Sarah Hulett.
Right now, we’re paying anywhere from 70 cents to a dollar more per gallon than this time a year ago. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
