Friday Five: Bike Accessories I Want

Every time I look for something on Amazon I end up getting sucked into looking at new things for my bike. I have a wish list of bike accessories I think are cool and want to purchase for my bike. If you bike maybe you will like them too!

I love me some hello kitty. I want a bell for my bike and this would make me happy every time I look at it.

I had a pair of similar click lights which were awesome because they were so easy to put on and move and switch between bikes. I’m not sure where they went so I need a new pair so I can ride at night again!

I like the look of wire baskets rather than wicker and also like the idea of it being quick release since I don’t want a basket on my bike 24/7.

I think this would go perfectly with my hello kitty bell, right? Perhaps then no one would steal my bike because they would think I’m too much of a badass who would track them down! Plus, more visibility for night time bike rides which I love.

I’m only half joking about wanting this. I do want to get a bike trailer at some point and though I probably won’t get this one I like the idea of taking JuJu around for a ride. It would be awesome to be able to go places with her without a car or walking!

And there ya have it! Maybe I’ll get all these for Christmas for my next super cool bike! ;)

Related posts:

Bike To Work DayA Day of Bike CommutingGood Thing I Like To BikeBack on the BikeBike Ride To The Airport

View the original article here

Energy’s Game-Changing Face

A Wall Street Journal report [subscription required] quotes energy analysts who say America will cut its Middle East oil imports in half by the end of the decade and could become oil-independent by 2035, thanks to North American production. 

To those who see the unique chance for the United States to increase domestic oil and natural gas production and fundamentally change this country’s energy equation, we say welcome to the fold. The Journal’s sources are saying things similar to what others have said, including Wood Mackenzie’s analysis last fall, Citi’s 2020 Energy Outlook released this spring and this week’s study by Harvard’s Kennedy School. Of course, along with the energy, there’s job creation and tax revenue generated for government treasuries. All good.

Look at the analyses and there’s a common thread: hydraulic fracturing. It’s the game-changer for the United States, unlocking oil and natural gas resources from shale and other tight rock formations. It is responsible for the rewriting of U.S. natural gas reserve estimates, and its use in oil development is expanding in North Dakota, Texas and other states.

USA Today highlights the fracking boom in a big article, here.  There’s a neat infographic with the story, detailing some hydraulic fracturing basics. The piece’s main thrust is the fantastic economic and energy opportunities afforded by fracking, as well as some of the challenges:

“Even as the price of natural gas dropped to around $2 for a thousand cubic feet this warm winter — half last year's price — states caught up in the boom have enjoyed an employment windfall when jobs nationally have been hard to come by. Since 2009, Pennsylvania has 38,900 natural resources jobs, up 72%; North Dakota has 21,900 jobs, a 172% surge, according to Federal Reserve data. These numbers don't include jobs added to service the fracking industry — everything from selling workers donuts to making steel pipes used in the process.”

That’s what dynamic growth, driven by energy derived from hydraulic fracturing, looks like. The article goes on:

“For many others, the good times are rolling. Welders employed in the natural gas industry average $28.48 an hour, 6 bucks more an hour than other industries pay, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. ‘We're still hiring,’ says David Schultz, a plant manager for Forum Energy Technologies' metal fabrication plant in Clearfield, Pa. … About half the fracking well tanks that are manufactured or fixed at the plant are bound for Ohio and the Utica shale, Schultz says.”

No question, there are challenges, as the article notes. Traffic, noise, stretched public services, scarce hotel space, long lines at restaurants. People are concerned the boom will go bust, although industry leaders repeatedly stress the long-term nature of their shale investment. Ohio State University agricultural extension agent Mike Hogan:

“The number of trucks on the roads is incredible. But the money is more than welcome here.”

That seems to be the dominant attitude in other shale states. Energy development is bringing dramatic growth that occasionally tests local infrastructures. But it’s also lifting local, regional and state economies – taking up what Citi’s Daniel Ahn, one of the authors of its energy outlook, describes as slack in our economy. “This couldn’t happen at a better time,” Ahn says.

View the original article here

Caution Warranted as E15 Launches in Kansas

From Kansas we hear that a gas station owner in Lawrence has become the first in the country to offer E15 fuel – gasoline with 15 percent ethanol instead of the 10 percent blend that’s standard around the U.S. According to the New York Times, Scott Zaremba may expand E15 to more of his eight stations.

Before motorists in the Lawrence area rush down to fill up, they might take the time to check their vehicle warranties. Even though the EPA has approved E15 for cars and light trucks from model year 2001 forward, a Coordinating Research Council study showed that the fuel can cause engine damage. Automobile manufacturers have said vehicle warranties will not cover damage from E15. Bob Greco, API downstream group director:

“We need to press the pause button on EPA’s rush to allow higher amounts of ethanol in our gasoline. The new fuel could lead to engine damage in more than 5 million vehicles on the road today and could void the manufacturer’s warranty.”

Greco said E15 also could damage engines in boats, recreational vehicles and lawn equipment. Consumers should follow the fueling recommendations in their owner’s manuals and carefully read all gasoline pump labels before refueling, he said.

Potential problems with E15 – which is being advanced as a way to help meet volume requirements set out by the Renewable Fuels Standard – were discussed at a hearing on Capitol Hill this week. API President and CEO Jack Gerard criticized EPA’s rush to push E15 into the marketplace:

“EPA should not have proceeded with E15, especially before a thorough evaluation was conducted to assess the full range of short- and long-term impacts of increasing the amount of ethanol in gasoline on the environment, on engine and vehicle performance, and on consumer safety.”

Greco said consumer protection is paramount:

“Our first priority should be protecting consumers and the investments they’ve made in their automobiles. EPA has an obligation to base this decision on science and not on a political agenda.”

View the original article here

American Energy Works: Bob

ConocoPhillips’ Bob Morton is chief materials scientist at the company’s technology center in Bartlesville, Okla. The chemical that allowed development of low-sulfur gasoline and diesel – without sacrificing octane and without increasing the cost of the fuel – was developed there, he says.

Coming up with environmentally friendly consumer products is Morton’s mission:

“What I really love about my job is sometimes I’m given the opportunity to see something that nobody has seen before. And when those moments happen truly, those are the things that I think are the most wonderful parts of doing the job.”

Check out Bob’s story:

Visit American Energy Works.org for more videos and information about the people who’re at work for America’s energy future.

View the original article here

Energy: It’s About Jobs

The latest jobs report, showing the creation of just 80,000 new jobs in June, is refocusing the political debate on the economy. How meager is 80,000 jobs? Well, according to UPI that’s “not even enough to keep up with growth in the working-age population,” which last month grew by 191,000. Meanwhile, a Rasmussen survey reports that only 31 percent of likely voters say the president is doing a good or excellent job handling economic issues.

Short analysis: It’s about jobs. Good news: It doesn’t have to be hard.

Energy-related job booms in North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas and other states are showing what’s possible – in terms of jobs, tax-revenue generation and associated economic growth – when energy development leads the way. The Institute for Energy Research’s Robert Bradley Jr., in an article for Oilprice.com:

"In North Dakota, where drillers are producing crude oil from the Bakken Shale, workers are finding jobs offering wages that are significantly higher than the national average. Truck drivers are being paid $80,000 a year to start. Some workers on oil rigs are being paid six figures. And yet many jobs are going begging. According to the mayor of Williston, 'A lot of jobs get filled every day, but it’s like for every job you fill, another job and a half opens up.' In April, North Dakota had a jobless rate of 3.0 percent, the lowest in the country."

Additional detail:

In Pennsylvania, Bradley writes, state analysis projects jobs for drill operators will grow nearly 85 percent this year (compared to sub-3 percent growth otherwise in the state).Expansion is occurring in Texas’ Eagle Ford shale play, Louisiana’s Haynesville Shale, Arkansas’ Fayetteville Shale and other energy-rich rock formations, “increasing domestic energy supplies, making energy more affordable, and spawning subsidiary investments in the private sector creating additional jobs.”A steel plant in Ohio is adding 200 jobs to produce more drill pipe.A planned ethane plant in Texas is expected to create 400 jobs.

Bradley:

"These jobs are being created by companies, not the federal government. And they are based on 'made in the USA' technologies that have the potential to greatly increase nation’s energy security and alter the world’s balance of power. As U.S. oil and natural gas supplies increase, some experts believe American energy independence is on the horizon."

On his blog, John R. Hanger connects energy production and employment:

"Jobs are a major product of that commerce and energy production. The 5 biggest energy producing states all have unemployment rates below the national average, but the same cannot be said about the 5 states producing the least energy." 

Meanwhile, Canada, which a few years ago staked its economic revitalization on energy, is looking for U.S. workers to fill anticipated job slots in Alberta. The Edmonton Economic Development Corporation expects a shortage of 114,000 workers in the coming months and has set up the aptly named opportunityawaits.com website to promote job openings. One U.S. veterans group is reaching out to former military personnel and active-duty soldiers who soon will transition to civilian life, encouraging them to consider oil sands and Keystone XL pipeline jobs in Canada. Fox News has a story, here. Again, the point is to recognize the dynamic economic power of the energy stimulus.

No question, U.S. jobs figures for June suggest a still-struggling economy. The administration says it’s not to blame, that there are limits to what a president can do to change the national economic trajectory. Indeed, a president has limited options – so perhaps the first move is to not stand in the way of growth.

Energy is a proven job creator, a shining sector in the weak economy. But the administration is making energy expansion harder, not easier. It is delaying construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, and it is restricting offshore energy development. Its permitting policies in the Gulf of Mexico have suppressed production there, costing jobs and economic opportunity throughout the region. It is sending confusing messages on hydraulic fracturing, the shale technology that is unlocking America’s ample energy potential.

America’s oil and natural gas companies are creating good jobs and can create even more. With the right policies this industry can add 1 million new jobs before the end of the decade. Here’s a blueprint for an American-made energy policy.  It’s energy, it’s jobs and it’s within our reach.

View the original article here

EPA’s Unjustified Particulate Matter Proposal

Three good reasons EPA should shelve a proposal to tighten its air pollution standard governing particulate matter:

Science doesn’t justify it.Current control programs are working.A more stringent standard could harm jobs and economic growth.

EPA is scheduled to hold public hearings on its PM 2.5 standard today in Philadelphia and Sacramento – part of a commenting period that runs into August. The proposal, which is to be finalized by the end of the year, would tighten the standard from 15 micrograms per cubic meter to 12 or 13 micrograms.

API’s Howard Feldman, director of regulatory and scientific affairs, discussed the proposal during a conference call with reporters:

“Changing the standard should be supported by clear scientific analysis. The science in this case cannot demonstrate a proven ‘cause and effect’ between levels below the current standard and health consequences. In part, this is because in EPA’s analysis it failed to adequately address confounding factors. EPA also assumed rather than demonstrated a linear relationship between pollution and health effects, concluding that harm to health must occur even at very low levels.”

Feldman, who was to deliver testimony in Philadelphia, said a tighter standard could result in higher costs for providing and using energy, meaning fewer businesses would be created, fewer would expand and fewer workers would be hired. Feldman:

“Existing control programs are working. According to EPA, between 2000 and 2010, concentrations of PM 2.5 in the air fell by 27 percent. As a result, more than three-fourths of Americans today live in areas where air quality meets today’s standards.”

Dr. Julie Goodman of Gradient, an expert in toxicology, epidemiology and in assessing health risks from chemicals in products and the environment, also joined the call. Goodman said EPA has not produced “coherent evidence” that a new PM standard is necessary:

“There’s no evidence that lowering (the standard) 2 to 3 micrograms will have any effect on health. In other words, there’ll be no (real) health benefits from lowering the standard.”

Goodman’s remarks for the Philadelphia hearing can be read here.

View the original article here

Another Fracking Strawman, Up In Smoke

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, telling Reuters on Monday that state regulation of hydraulic fracturing isn’t enough:

"There are some who are saying that it's not something we ought to do, it should be left up to the states. That's not good enough for me because states are at very different level, some have zero, some have decent rules."

Bold, to be sure. So we wonder about the “some who are saying” in Salazar’s comment. Who’s he talking about? Perhaps EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, who said this in an interview last fall:

"The vast majority of oil and gas production is regulated at the state level. There are issues of whether or not the federal government can add to protection and also peace of mind for citizens by looking at large issues like air pollution impacts, which can be regional. ... So it's not to say that there isn't a federal role, but you can't start to talk about a federal role without acknowledging the very strong state role. We have no data right now that lead us to believe one way or the other that there needs to be specific federal regulation of the fracking process."

Worth repeating: The chief of the federal agency charged with protecting the environment says they’ve got nothing indicating that there needs to be “specific federal regulation of the fracking process.” More Jackson, a few days later on MSNBC:

“States are stepping up and doing a good job. I always say it doesn't have to be EPA that regulates the 10,000 wells that might go in."

Now, about the last part of Salazar’s comment, that some states have “zero” hydraulic fracturing regulation. We’ve checked around, and it looks like the secretary succumbed to a bit of Washington hyperbole there. A 2009 report by the Groundwater Protection Council, funded by the Energy Department for its National Energy Technology Laboratory, didn’t detect any oil and natural gas-producing states with ZERO rules.

Meanwhile, state officials sure sound deserving of Jackson’s confidence.

Oklahoma Corporation Commission Chairman Dana Murphy, before Congress last fall:

"My fundamental point would be to encourage that the states are the appropriate bodies to regulate the oil and gas drilling industry. Protection of water and the environment and the beneficial development of the nation's resources of oil and gas are not mutually exclusive goals. Oklahoma is proof of that."

And Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Michael Krancer:

“Simply put, because of our long history of oil and gas development and comprehensive regulatory structure, Pennsylvania does not need federal intervention to ensure an appropriate balance between resource development and environmental protection is struck.”

And Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper:

“I was personally involved with 50 or 60 (fracked) wells. There have been tens and thousands of wells in Colorado … and we can’t find anywhere in Colorado a single example of the process of fracking that has polluted groundwater. … There is a lot of anxiety out there certainly with hydraulic fracturing. But often times that anxiety is not directly connected to facts.”

If Secretary Salazar is dissatisfied with state-centered regulation of fracking – which is closest to and most responsive to individual industry operations – he should check with Administrator Jackson. And also with officials in the states, who clearly take the responsibility to oversee fracking within their borders seriously.

View the original article here

Make TAPS the Gift That Keeps On Giving

Worth reading is U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s op-ed piece in the Juneau Empire, marking the 35th birthday of the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline System, or TAPS.

The Alaska Republican knows something about oil. She represents a huge energy state and would likely head the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee if the GOP emerges from this fall’s elections with a majority. She depicts TAPS as more than a conduit for crude from Alaska’s North Slope. It’s an economic pipeline as well – for the state and the rest of the country. Key facts:

TAPS is 800 miles long, running from Prudhoe Bay in the north to Valdez on the Gulf of Alaska.Since oil first started flowing in 1977, the pipeline has delivered more than 16.6 billion barrels.As Murkowski notes, three out of every 10 jobs in Alaska can be traced to TAPS.The pipeline has generated more than $171 billion in revenues to the state treasury. North Slope oil production allowed the state to terminate its income tax in 1980.

Murkowski writes:

“Oil wealth has paid for improving our roads, water and sewer systems, building parks, renewing our cities, and improving life in our most remote villages. The riches that Alaskans have extracted from under the North Slope have also funded our schools, and helped bring our health care system into the 21st century.”

The pipeline’s birthday is an excellent time to think about its future. Murkowski writes that at its zenith, TAPS carried 2 million barrels of oil per day. Now the daily flow is only about a quarter of that. Alaska has slipped behind North Dakota to No. 3 on the list of top oil-producing states (behind Texas). Here’s a chart from Gov. Sean Parnell’s office showing North Slope production decline, which has decreased TAPS’ flow: 

There are risks with reduced pipeline flow. According to the governor’s office, at lower flow levels it takes longer for oil to go through the pipeline, and at lower temperatures ice forms inside that can cause damage. Murkowski:

“Without new oil production, throughput in the pipeline could fall enough to threaten its future viability. Shutting down the pipeline would mean closing up shop on the North Slope. Alaska’s oil — like its massive natural gas reserves today — would be stranded with no way to market, leaving the state scrambling to replace the 85 percent of its annual revenue that today comes from oil.”

There’s a relatively simple solution: Produce more domestic crude oil to send through TAPS. The oil is there – offshore in the Beaufort Sea and the Chukchi Sea (where Shell hopes to sink exploratory wells this summer) and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), which Murkowski writes is the “largest single prospective onshore source for conventional oil in North America.” Some estimate ANWR could produce 1 million barrels of oil per day, which by itself would solve the under-capacity situation with TAPS while significantly boosting our country’s oil output. 

The problem is policy. ANWR continues to be held off limits by Washington, and development of Alaska’s offshore areas has been slow in coming – again, chiefly because the federal government has been slow granting approvals. Murkowski:

“The federally owned lands and waters to the east, west and north of Prudhoe Bay hold tremendous resources, but access has been slowed by an administration more interested in designating new wilderness than shoring up Alaska’s economy.”

We need policies that create sustained and predictable access to oil and natural gas on federal lands – in ANWR and elsewhere (see map below). Access = energy development, which will mean job creation, economic growth and a more secure energy future. And a great birthday present for TAPS.

View the original article here