E85 Pricing Reports

Updated: 9/29/07

When I read the following quote, I immediately thought of the recent Business Week article claiming that availability - which they claimed is being hampered by oil companies - is the primary reason E-85 is not taking hold.

I don’t buy E-85 for my flex fuel Ranger even though it is readily available around here with all the ethanol plants. It’s because the price is never less than 80% of the price of E-10. I get 80% of the mileage with E-85 that I get with E-10.

The above quote comes from a devoted ethanol advocate and corn farmer, who frequently posts at The Oil Drum. If he isn’t willing to spend extra money on E-85, then can you really expect the general public to do so? Price is a much clearer explanation than Business Week’s conspiracy theories for why E-85 is not more popular. Price matters.

In addition to gasoline and diesel, AAA has started tracking E85 pricing. Their report is published each day at:

Daily Fuel Gauge Report

Not only do they publish the price of E85, but they also publish a BTU-adjusted price, which is actually a gasoline equivalent price. This price can be used to compare actual per mile fuel costs. AAA explains:

The BTU-adjusted price of E-85 is the nationwide average price of E-85 adjusted to reflect the lower energy content as expressed in British Thermal Units - and hence miles per gallon - available in a gallon of E-85 as compared to the same volume of conventional gasoline. The BTU-adjusted price calculated by OPIS and AAA is not an actual retail average price paid by consumers. It is calculated and displayed as part of AAA’s Fuel Gauge Report because according to the Energy Information Administration E-85 delivers approximately 25 percent fewer BTUs by volume than conventional gasoline. Because “flexible fuel” vehicles can operate on conventional fuel and E-85, the BTU-adjusted price of E-85 is essential to understanding the cost implications of each fuel choice for consumers.

It is of interest to note these BTU-adjusted E85 prices. Despite the fact that ethanol prices (and margins) have collapsed, and gasoline prices remain high, the adjusted E85 price remains higher than that of gasoline. Yesterday’s prices show regular at $2.81, E85 at $2.33, and the BTU-adjusted price of E85 at $3.07. I think ethanol prices will begin to recover as the mandated ethanol levels increase and as the industry goes through a shakeout, so the E85 price gap is not likely to significantly improve.

Is it really a mystery why gas station owners aren’t rushing out to install more E85 pumps? If the demand is there, the pumps will come.

No Energy Worries

At least according to Ray Kurzweil, author of The Singularity is Near and Fantastic Voyage (both of which I have read). In Money Magazine’s 8 forecasts for your financial future, Kurzweil writes:

Ray Kurzweil’s Future

We will meet all of our energy needs with nano-engineered (engineered at the molecular scale) solar panels that are very efficient and inexpensive. We’ll need to capture only about 3 parts in 10,000 of the sunlight that falls on the Earth to meet all of our projected energy needs.

I have a hard time figuring out if Kurzweil is a complete kook or a genius. Singularity really blew me away, and I would love to believe the future he projects, but I am not making plans based on his views.

Dingell’s Got the Right Idea

In case you hadn’t heard, Representative John Dingell of Michigan is proposing a carbon tax. He is inviting the public to comment:

Summary of Draft Carbon Tax Legislation

Some have suggested that he isn’t really sincere on the matter. Here is the New York Times’ take:

What Is John Dingell Really Up To?

A tax on carbon emissions, covering everything from gasoline to electricity use, is the climate solution that economists and environmentalists have long dreamed of because it’s probably the most powerful, least bureaucratic way to discourage pollution. It has been favored by everyone from Al Gore to Alan Greenspan — everyone, it seems, except a single elected official of any significance. Until Mr. Dingell came along.

For understandable reasons, though, the economists and environmentalists aren’t quite sure what to make of his conversion. They suspect that he is really a double agent, cynically supporting an infeasible solution — a big tax increase — as a way to maintain the status quo. But they also wonder whether they may be able to use him even if he is trying to use them.

There is no question that Mr. Dingell has given people ample reason to doubt his sincerity. The biggest head scratcher came during a July interview on C-Span, when he said that he seriously doubted that “the American people are willing to pay what this is really going to cost them.” He would propose a carbon tax, he added, “just to sort of see how people really feel about this.”

Since then, though, he has explained away the interview by saying that it’s the job of political leaders like him to persuade Americans to change their minds. He has also been offering eloquent, full-throated defenses of the tax. And here’s the thing: he has a really good argument.

Whether he is sincere or not, at least it opens up a high profile forum for this debate. And this is a very important debate. I think a clear message that gas prices are headed up - so that people can plan for the rise - is the best way to get people to conserve. Had we done this 5 years ago, gas prices might still be setting near $3.00 a gallon, but the U.S would likely be using less fuel. Why? Because the recent price rise would not have caught the general public by surprise, and consumers could have begun adjusting their lifestyles. They would be financially better off for having done so.

Furthermore, a carbon tax makes alternative energy solutions more competitive. This will encourage a wider variety of options, which is much more preferable to the current system in which the government attempts to pick technology winners by providing narrowly targeted subsidies.

Even if Dingell isn’t serious, I applaud him for raising the profile of this issue.

Update: Engineer Poet at The Oil Drum also put up an essay on this today:

Analysis of the Hon. John Dingell’s carbon-tax proposal

He goes into more detail on exactly where the money goes.

Dingell’s Got the Right Idea

In case you hadn’t heard, Representative John Dingell of Michigan is proposing a carbon tax. He is inviting the public to comment:

Summary of Draft Carbon Tax Legislation

Some have suggested that he isn’t really sincere on the matter. Here is the New York Times’ take:

What Is John Dingell Really Up To?

A tax on carbon emissions, covering everything from gasoline to electricity use, is the climate solution that economists and environmentalists have long dreamed of because it’s probably the most powerful, least bureaucratic way to discourage pollution. It has been favored by everyone from Al Gore to Alan Greenspan — everyone, it seems, except a single elected official of any significance. Until Mr. Dingell came along.

For understandable reasons, though, the economists and environmentalists aren’t quite sure what to make of his conversion. They suspect that he is really a double agent, cynically supporting an infeasible solution — a big tax increase — as a way to maintain the status quo. But they also wonder whether they may be able to use him even if he is trying to use them.

There is no question that Mr. Dingell has given people ample reason to doubt his sincerity. The biggest head scratcher came during a July interview on C-Span, when he said that he seriously doubted that “the American people are willing to pay what this is really going to cost them.” He would propose a carbon tax, he added, “just to sort of see how people really feel about this.”

Since then, though, he has explained away the interview by saying that it’s the job of political leaders like him to persuade Americans to change their minds. He has also been offering eloquent, full-throated defenses of the tax. And here’s the thing: he has a really good argument.

Whether he is sincere or not, at least it opens up a high profile forum for this debate. And this is a very important debate. I think a clear message that gas prices are headed up - so that people can plan for the rise - is the best way to get people to conserve. Had we done this 5 years ago, gas prices might still be setting near $3.00 a gallon, but the U.S would likely be using less fuel. Why? Because the recent price rise would not have caught the general public by surprise, and consumers could have begun adjusting their lifestyles. They would be financially better off for having done so.

Furthermore, a carbon tax makes alternative energy solutions more competitive. This will encourage a wider variety of options, which is much more preferable to the current system in which the government attempts to pick technology winners by providing narrowly targeted subsidies.

Even if Dingell isn’t serious, I applaud him for raising the profile of this issue.

Update: Engineer Poet at The Oil Drum also put up an essay on this today:

Analysis of the Hon. John Dingell’s carbon-tax proposal

He goes into more detail on exactly where the money goes.

Dingell’s Got the Right Idea

In case you hadn’t heard, Representative John Dingell of Michigan is proposing a carbon tax. He is inviting the public to comment:

Summary of Draft Carbon Tax Legislation

Some have suggested that he isn’t really sincere on the matter. Here is the New York Times’ take:

What Is John Dingell Really Up To?

A tax on carbon emissions, covering everything from gasoline to electricity use, is the climate solution that economists and environmentalists have long dreamed of because it’s probably the most powerful, least bureaucratic way to discourage pollution. It has been favored by everyone from Al Gore to Alan Greenspan — everyone, it seems, except a single elected official of any significance. Until Mr. Dingell came along.

For understandable reasons, though, the economists and environmentalists aren’t quite sure what to make of his conversion. They suspect that he is really a double agent, cynically supporting an infeasible solution — a big tax increase — as a way to maintain the status quo. But they also wonder whether they may be able to use him even if he is trying to use them.

There is no question that Mr. Dingell has given people ample reason to doubt his sincerity. The biggest head scratcher came during a July interview on C-Span, when he said that he seriously doubted that “the American people are willing to pay what this is really going to cost them.” He would propose a carbon tax, he added, “just to sort of see how people really feel about this.”

Since then, though, he has explained away the interview by saying that it’s the job of political leaders like him to persuade Americans to change their minds. He has also been offering eloquent, full-throated defenses of the tax. And here’s the thing: he has a really good argument.

Whether he is sincere or not, at least it opens up a high profile forum for this debate. And this is a very important debate. I think a clear message that gas prices are headed up - so that people can plan for the rise - is the best way to get people to conserve. Had we done this 5 years ago, gas prices might still be setting near $3.00 a gallon, but the U.S would likely be using less fuel. Why? Because the recent price rise would not have caught the general public by surprise, and consumers could have begun adjusting their lifestyles. They would be financially better off for having done so.

Furthermore, a carbon tax makes alternative energy solutions more competitive. This will encourage a wider variety of options, which is much more preferable to the current system in which the government attempts to pick technology winners by providing narrowly targeted subsidies.

Even if Dingell isn’t serious, I applaud him for raising the profile of this issue.

Update: Engineer Poet at The Oil Drum also put up an essay on this today:

Analysis of the Hon. John Dingell’s carbon-tax proposal

He goes into more detail on exactly where the money goes.

Dingell’s Got the Right Idea

In case you hadn’t heard, Representative John Dingell of Michigan is proposing a carbon tax. He is inviting the public to comment:

Summary of Draft Carbon Tax Legislation

Some have suggested that he isn’t really sincere on the matter. Here is the New York Times’ take:

What Is John Dingell Really Up To?

A tax on carbon emissions, covering everything from gasoline to electricity use, is the climate solution that economists and environmentalists have long dreamed of because it’s probably the most powerful, least bureaucratic way to discourage pollution. It has been favored by everyone from Al Gore to Alan Greenspan — everyone, it seems, except a single elected official of any significance. Until Mr. Dingell came along.

For understandable reasons, though, the economists and environmentalists aren’t quite sure what to make of his conversion. They suspect that he is really a double agent, cynically supporting an infeasible solution — a big tax increase — as a way to maintain the status quo. But they also wonder whether they may be able to use him even if he is trying to use them.

There is no question that Mr. Dingell has given people ample reason to doubt his sincerity. The biggest head scratcher came during a July interview on C-Span, when he said that he seriously doubted that “the American people are willing to pay what this is really going to cost them.” He would propose a carbon tax, he added, “just to sort of see how people really feel about this.”

Since then, though, he has explained away the interview by saying that it’s the job of political leaders like him to persuade Americans to change their minds. He has also been offering eloquent, full-throated defenses of the tax. And here’s the thing: he has a really good argument.

Whether he is sincere or not, at least it opens up a high profile forum for this debate. And this is a very important debate. I think a clear message that gas prices are headed up - so that people can plan for the rise - is the best way to get people to conserve. Had we done this 5 years ago, gas prices might still be setting near $3.00 a gallon, but the U.S would likely be using less fuel. Why? Because the recent price rise would not have caught the general public by surprise, and consumers could have begun adjusting their lifestyles. They would be financially better off for having done so.

Furthermore, a carbon tax makes alternative energy solutions more competitive. This will encourage a wider variety of options, which is much more preferable to the current system in which the government attempts to pick technology winners by providing narrowly targeted subsidies.

Even if Dingell isn’t serious, I applaud him for raising the profile of this issue.

Update: Engineer Poet at The Oil Drum also put up an essay on this today:

Analysis of the Hon. John Dingell’s carbon-tax proposal

He goes into more detail on exactly where the money goes.

Dingell’s Got the Right Idea

In case you hadn’t heard, Representative John Dingell of Michigan is proposing a carbon tax. He is inviting the public to comment:

Summary of Draft Carbon Tax Legislation

Some have suggested that he isn’t really sincere on the matter. Here is the New York Times’ take:

What Is John Dingell Really Up To?

A tax on carbon emissions, covering everything from gasoline to electricity use, is the climate solution that economists and environmentalists have long dreamed of because it’s probably the most powerful, least bureaucratic way to discourage pollution. It has been favored by everyone from Al Gore to Alan Greenspan — everyone, it seems, except a single elected official of any significance. Until Mr. Dingell came along.

For understandable reasons, though, the economists and environmentalists aren’t quite sure what to make of his conversion. They suspect that he is really a double agent, cynically supporting an infeasible solution — a big tax increase — as a way to maintain the status quo. But they also wonder whether they may be able to use him even if he is trying to use them.

There is no question that Mr. Dingell has given people ample reason to doubt his sincerity. The biggest head scratcher came during a July interview on C-Span, when he said that he seriously doubted that “the American people are willing to pay what this is really going to cost them.” He would propose a carbon tax, he added, “just to sort of see how people really feel about this.”

Since then, though, he has explained away the interview by saying that it’s the job of political leaders like him to persuade Americans to change their minds. He has also been offering eloquent, full-throated defenses of the tax. And here’s the thing: he has a really good argument.

Whether he is sincere or not, at least it opens up a high profile forum for this debate. And this is a very important debate. I think a clear message that gas prices are headed up - so that people can plan for the rise - is the best way to get people to conserve. Had we done this 5 years ago, gas prices might still be setting near $3.00 a gallon, but the U.S would likely be using less fuel. Why? Because the recent price rise would not have caught the general public by surprise, and consumers could have begun adjusting their lifestyles. They would be financially better off for having done so.

Furthermore, a carbon tax makes alternative energy solutions more competitive. This will encourage a wider variety of options, which is much more preferable to the current system in which the government attempts to pick technology winners by providing narrowly targeted subsidies.

Even if Dingell isn’t serious, I applaud him for raising the profile of this issue.

Update: Engineer Poet at The Oil Drum also put up an essay on this today:

Analysis of the Hon. John Dingell’s carbon-tax proposal

He goes into more detail on exactly where the money goes.

Peak Exports

Some of you may know that I have written some criticisms over the use of a technique called Hubbert Linearization to predict Peak Oil. I maintain that it is essentially useless for trying to predict an oil production peak. I have attempted to validate the model for a number of countries to see if it could have predicted a production peak in real time, and in the vast majority of cases the answer is no. And if you have a model that is wrong most of the time, you can’t have any confidence in the output for any particular case. But it is being used as evidence that Saudi Arabian oil production has peaked, and I think that’s useless. I wrote as much in an article for The Oil Drum:

Does the Hubbert Linearization Ever Work?

The main proponent for using the HL to forecast a Saudi peak is petroleum geologist Jeffrey Brown, aka Westexas at The Oil Drum. We have sparred quite a bit over the nature of the technique, of the concept of falsification, and over evidence in general. My impression is that he has a filter that does not allow contrary evidence to enter the picture, only highlighting evidence that seems to corroborate the story. This is not an uncommon trait; we all do it to some extent. But I think that by doing this with the HL, a lot of people have been convinced that it has more utility than it really does.

Now, despite our disagreements on the HL, I believe in giving credit where it is due. So, I want to focus on an area in which I think he nailed it.

Export Land

The Export Land Model is straightforward. In fact, the first time I read it, I thought “Yes, that makes perfect sense.” You can read about it firsthand at the two links below (the second one was featured on The Oil Drum yesterday), but I will summarize my take below.

Net Oil Exports and the “Iron Triangle”

Declining net oil exports–a temporary decline or a long term trend?

In brief, the model states that when oil production peaks, not only do we have to worry about declining production, but we have to worry about increasing domestic consumption from oil exporting nations. If Saudi oil production falls by 3% in a year, but domestic consumption in Saudi increases by 3% in that same year, exports are going to fall off at a much steeper rate. Very straightforward, nothing controversial there. And it is worth noting that among the top 5 oil producers, production has fallen over the past couple of years and domestic consumption has in fact risen.

I will add my $0.02 here, as I don’t think world oil production has yet peaked. But it doesn’t have to, for this situation to present a problem. If you have a situation in which oil production is growing slowly, but domestic consumption in major oil-producing nations is growing rapidly, you are setting up a situation in which exports are slashed even though production is growing. This is very similar in concept to Peak Lite, where demand growth is growing faster than production growth and that leads to a pseudo-peak. The export model can also lead to a pseudo-peak, hitting major oil importers the hardest.

As they have begun to recognize the Peak Lite concept, the mainstream media has also finally recognized the export problem:

America’s top oil suppliers to slash exports by 2012

Six of the largest oil suppliers to the U.S. are poised to significantly cut exports by 2012, ramping up pressure on supply and price, and intensifying the focus on one of the last great deposits open to private investment: Canada’s oil sands.

The forecasted cuts by Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Algeria and Russia are the subject of a keynote address that Jeff Rubin, chief market strategist and chief economist at CIBC World Markets will deliver at the firm’s Industrial Conference Oct. 2 in New York City. In his remarks, Mr. Rubin will share his latest research on the global oil supply/demand balance, with specific focus on the size and scope of the oil supply crunch facing the U.S. over the next five years.

And this next section sounds very familiar:

In recent reports and at a major oil and gas conference in Ireland this month, Mr. Rubin explained that surging domestic demand is eating into the export capacity of the world’s leading oil-producing nations. With production likely to plateau or decline in these countries, he expects global oil exports to fall by seven per cent, or 2.5 million barrels a day by 2010.

Of course if this plays out like this - and I think it probably will even if production does increase somewhat - we will continue to see major price pressure on oil and gas. Political leaders have got to wake up to this situation, and get very serious about implementing conservation measures. I think if people knew that gasoline prices were only going higher, they would start to buy more fuel efficient vehicles, carpool, and have second thoughts about moving into a home 30 miles from their job. But as long as they hold out hope that prices will fall - and false promises from political leaders only bolster those hopes - we won’t see major shifts in consumption.

Debunking Business Week Misinformation

Besides hypocrisy, another thing I hate is the spreading of misinformation. Sometimes, the spreading of misinformation is done without malice, because you may just be repeating something you thought to be true. So, misinformation is in a different category than hypocrisy for me. But I do try to combat the spreading of misinformation when it occurs, particularly when the misinformation causes people to get mad at my industry. After all, we have enough ill will toward us already. We don’t need more heaped on as a result of misinformation.

Which brings me to a very misinformed story in Business Week:

Big Oil’s Big Stall On Ethanol

This is a remarkable collection of half-truths that paint a thoroughly inaccurate picture. Here is the story that Business Week told: E85 is being stalled because the oil companies are fighting against it. Yet they are reaping billions in subsidies from ethanol. And the auto makers are upset about it. After all, they need the oil industry to embrace E85 so they can sell more E85 vehicles.

I was compelled to write to David Kiley, the author of the story, and point out the errors in his argument. I will also point them out here.

For starters, Kiley argues that Big Oil is the beneficiary of the ethanol subsidy. Vinod Khosla has made similar arguments. As I have pointed out in my draft Ethanol FAQ, the ethanol industry is certainly displaying curious behavior on this issue if it is a benefit for the oil industry:

Consider for a moment just who has lobbied to keep the credit intact. Has it been oil companies? No. Has it been politicians from oil states like Texas and Alaska? No. The groups always arguing in favor of the ethanol tax credit have historically been farm state politicians, ethanol lobbying groups, and corn lobbying groups.

Last year I documented the reaction of Brian Jennings, the executive vice president of the American Coalition for Ethanol, when ExxonMobil (XOM) CEO Rex Tillerson called for an end to the subsidies. Jennings said “it is outrageous for an executive for big oil to actually suggest getting rid of the tax credit for ethanol.” That’s very odd behavior if Big Oil is actually the beneficiary.

Kiley then argues that wider availability of E85 is the best way to meet the targets that congress has set:

Despite collecting billions for blending small amounts of ethanol with gas, oil companies seem determined to fight the spread of E85, a fuel that is 85% ethanol and 15% gas. Congress has set a target of displacing 15% of projected annual gasoline use with alternative fuels by 2017. Right now, wider availability of E85 is the likeliest way to get there.

And of course, “Big Oil” is his reason that E85 is not spreading. In my response to him, I asked him to do a calculation:

If you produced E85 with 100% of the ethanol made in the country, what percentage of the nation’s fuel would it supply? Answer that question, and you may understand why there aren’t more E85 pumps.

(The answer to the question is that using the entire ethanol supply to produce E85 could supply 4% of our fuel). Of course you can’t make E85 with anything approaching 100% of the ethanol supply, because most ethanol is blended as an oxygenate. But let’s also consider his claim that E85 is a likely way of displacing 15% of projected gasoline demand.

If we want to displace 15% of of our 140 billion motor fuel supply, we need 21 billion gallons of gasoline equivalent. Because E85 has a lower energy content, we will need more than 21 billion gallons of E85 to displace 21 billion gallons of gasoline. How much will we need? As I reported last year, the DOE showed that a Ford Taurus that gets 29 mpg on gasoline gets 21 mpg on E85. I just checked a number of 2007 models here, and the drop in fuel efficiency from gasoline to E85 is consistently in the range of 26-30%. So, let’s say we lose 28% on our fuel efficiency, which means we need 28% more E85 than the 21 billion gallons of gasoline we are displacing.* This means we need 27 billion gallons of E85, which will consist of 4 billion gallons of gasoline and 23 billion gallons of ethanol.

So we need 23 billion gallons of ethanol to accomplish 15% gasoline displacement. Availability of the pumps is given as a major problem in the Business Week article. I have a question. Can we actually produce anywhere close to this amount of ethanol? Is this like Field of Dreams, where we build the infrastructure and then the ethanol will come? Why on earth would gas station owners sink a lot of money into E85 pumps when the fuel is not available in any significant quantity?

Here’s another way to look at the problem. If you blended all of last year’s ethanol into the gas supply, it would only make a blend of 3% ethanol. Not E85. E3. You could burn E3 in the cars on the road now. In fact, you can triple the ethanol production, put 100% of it in the gasoline supply, and you have an E10 blend that any car on the road today could run. No need for expensive new pumps. No need for E85 capable vehicles.

One other thing I commented on in my response to the author was this claim:

That inconvenient truth is one reason oil companies aren’t rushing to install E85 pumps. Of the 179,000 pumps at U.S. gas stations, only about 1,000 pump E85. Almost none are at oil-company-owned stations.

Remember, this is an article vilifying Big Oil for not putting E85 pumps in their stations. I wonder if the author bothered to check and see the percentage of gas stations owned by oil companies? Probably not, because when he found out that it is less than 3%, it would have taken the wind out of his article. That’s right, most service stations are owned by independent operators, not Big Oil as the author apparently believes. They would be the ones on the hook for purchasing these pumps, and their margins have to justify the pumps.

One final note about the auto companies. The article paints them as a group trying to promote ethanol, but says they are “infuriated” at the oil industries tactics. Please. The auto industry loves making E85 capable vehicles, because there is a CAFE loophole that allows them to exaggerate the mileage of an E85-capable vehicle for CAFE accounting purposes – even if the auto never sees any ethanol. This means that they can meet their CAFE targets and avoid financial penalties by making vehicles like a Ford Expedition E85 capable.

Of course the geniuses at Oil Watchdog have latched onto this article. For them, it provides a simplistic explanation (very important for that audience) for why people are down on ethanol: It’s not actual problems with ethanol, it’s just a Big Oil anti-ethanol campaign. And for them, this qualified as a “solid answer” to the question of why there is so much anti-ethanol sentiment lately. Pathetic.

To conclude (I hadn’t intended to write this much), we have a very misinformed writer misleading a big audience and misdirecting their ire at oil companies over an issue he is wrong about. In other words, just another day at the office.

* Some might argue that engines optimized for E85 (with higher compression ratios, for instance) might not have the steep 28% mileage drop. This is possible, but remember that we are talking about displacing 15% of the gasoline supply, and we don’t know where we could come up with the ethanol to do that. So autos are likely to continue to be optimized for the predominant fuel, not for something like E85.

Ted Kennedy Opposes "Big Wind"

One thing I strive hard not to be is a hypocrite. If I suggest that we need to conserve energy or reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, you can bet I am striving to walk the talk. I have very little tolerance for political leaders who ask people to make sacrifices they are unwilling to make, or otherwise display hypocrisy. Hypocrisy just really gets under my skin.

I watch very little TV, but I love The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. And I get it here in Scotland, albeit a day delayed. Last month, I was watching an episode, and Jason Jones did a segment on Ted Kennedy’s opposition to a wind farm. This was the first I had heard about this. Why was Kennedy opposed? Because it was near his home.

As Jones reported:

“It looked bad for the native population, until one man stood up … Yes. Ted Kennedy – noted man from Nantucket and co-sponsor of dozens of renewable energy bills – took a stand—against the wind farms.”

While I was working on this, I ran across the clip, so you can see it for yourself. If you want to see textbook hypocrisy, here you go. Ted Kennedy, supporter of alternative energy - as long as it doesn’t affect his property value.

The skit would have been funnier if it didn’t tick me off so much. Watthead, a fellow energy blogger, commented at the time:

Cape Wind - The Story Behind the Daily Show Video

I read a number of articles on the controversy following the airing of the clip, and it supported the implications from the Daily Show clip: Ted Kennedy was looking out for his self-interest, and that of a small but wealthy minority.

And I just happened to read another article on the controversy today, which is what prompted me to write this essay:

William Delahunt’s ‘Deepwater’ Deceptions

The article says subscription only, but is available as of this writing. The article explains that an effort is underway to deflect criticism from those who oppose the wind project by suggesting deepwater technology may be a better option:

FOR WELL OVER A YEAR now, Congressman William Delahunt and his chief aide, Mark Forest, have been telling constituents that “deepwater” wind technology is a viable alternative to Cape Wind, the 130-turbine, 468-megawatt offshore wind-energy project proposed for Nantucket Sound in front of Delahunt constituent Edward M. Kennedy’s Hyannisport home.

“This is not spin,” the congressman wrote in a local newspaper.

It most certainly is.

“Deepwater wind” refers to wind-turbine technology that could safely be built in deep ocean waters. Waters roughly 10 meters deep are currently the norm for offshore-wind-power technology but Delahunt suggests that wind turbines in waters 35 to 45 meters are commercially viable.

Maybe in two decades, experts say, but certainly not any time soon.

And then the reason for the deepwater deception:

Why is Congressman Delahunt misleading the public?

Deepwater wind is the favorite “alternative” of the wealthy folk who oppose the ambitious Cape Wind project proposed for Nantucket Sound. This project has been delayed for more than six years, primarily because of inexcusable political meddling.

These politically engendered delays have substantially harmed Congressmen Delahunt’s constituents. Steel workers, electrical workers, members of the carpenters and painters unions — all these and others would be employed during the wind project’s construction process. Other maritime-industry unions would be employed throughout the life of the project to provide operation and maintenance services.

I just hate that kind of crap. But I feel a little bit better after writing about it.

By the way, let me know if the video works for you. I got it started, paused it until it had downloaded, and then watched it. But let me know if you have problems with it.

Update: Author Wendy Williams, who exposed this hypocrisy in the first place, dropped by and left a comment below. Her book on this subject is: Cape Wind: Money, Celebrity, Class, Politics, and the Battle for Our Energy Future on Nantucket Sound.