Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Iran increases petrol price but delays rationing
Deutsche Presse-Agentur via MonstersandCritics.com
Iran on Tuesday increased petrol prices but delayed scheduled rationing of fuel, Fars news agency reported. The petrol prices increased from 800 rials (0.086 dollars) to 1,000 rials (0.108 dollars) per litre for normal and 140 rials (0.151 dollars) for super petrol.
Tehran residents formed long queues on Monday night in front of petrol stations to fill their cars before the price increase.
From Tuesday petrol is only supplied through the so-called “smart card” or petrol coupon, an initiative by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to stop lavish fuel consumption which currently stands at an estimated 73 million litres daily. ..
The plan also aims to eventually set a daily ration of three litres for private cars and 15 to 20 litres for taxis at the price of 10 cents per litre, and anything above the ration quota to be sold at 30 to 40 cents per litre.
Although the ration and price for the extra quota was to be implemented in April, the government has hesitated owing to public anger and a desire to slow down inflation, which is already at a critical level of 20 per cent. ..
Additionally, although smart card machines have been installed at almost all petrol stations, due to lack of the necessary software the cards cannot yet show the consumption volume; the main aim of distributing the cards.
(22 May 2007)
See also Iran could scrap petrol rationing plan: MP.
How best to keep the lights on in Scotland
Iain Macwhirter
With 25% of Europe’s wind and tidal power on Scotland’s shores, waiting to be exploited, it would be perverse to pour money into new nuclear plants when there is already 20% surplus nuclear capacity.
The strange, and tragic thing about all this is that Labour had to lose an election to come to terms with this reality. When he was First Minister, McConnell had been forced, against his own inclinations, to accept the No 10 line that Scotland could not be excluded from the new nuclear future.
Scotland now accepts that renewable energy is the cost-effective future. But still the UK government is unable to come fully to terms with the demands of the renewable future, as we discovered last week when BP pulled out of the first commercial carbon capture power station in Aberdeenshire.
BP had invested $50 million in this project at Peterhead to build a power station run on hydrogen from natural gas and store the C02 produced in a spent oilfield. The government thought BP was in for keeps. But with Lord Browne’s departure, enthusiasm for making BP Beyond Petroleum” has waned, and the prospect of keeping the Miller field open another year while the government organised a competition for the project funding was too much. BP took its ball away.
The SNP government is naturally livid, despite the propaganda bonus for independence. Salmond is attacking Darling and Co for incompetence and selling Scotland short, so preoccupied with the case for new nuclear power stations in England that they failed to keep their eye on the renewable ball in Scotland.
There is clearly some truth in this. Because the UK government is committed to nuclear energy, it is less responsive to other projects. The BP plant would have required substantial public funding, which may now find its way into subsidising nuclear power stations in England. ..
(28 May 2007)
Americans Alarmed about Dependence on Oil Imports, High Gas Prices
Staff, ConsumerAffairs.com
In a recent national survey commissioned by the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), a large majority of Americans expressed great concern about the nation’s dependence on oil imports. ..
More than half (55%) of Americans mistakenly believe the nation holds more than twenty percent of the world’s oil reserves. In fact, the U.S. has less than 3% of this oil. Those who overestimate domestic oil reserves also are most likely to think “we can produce enough oil to reduce our dependence on oil imports.” ..
Over four-fifths (84%) of Americans are concerned about this oil import dependency, with more than one-half (52%) expressing great concern. When asked why they were concerned, large majorities expressed concern about future gas prices and supplies, and funding unfriendly foreign governments and terrorism, with majorities expressing great concern about each.
“Americans clearly understand the relationship between oil imports and not only future price hikes but also funding of terrorism,” said Stephen Brobeck, CFA’s Executive Director. “They are also clearly feeling the pinch of rising gasoline prices,” added Brobeck, “since average household expenditures on gasoline have increased $1,000 over the past five years.” ..
(24 May 2007)
