New Energy Economy?: Yesterday Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, while speaking to an audience of Natural Gas executives, declared natural gas “a vital part of the New Energy Economy. It is a permanent part of the New Energy Economy. It’s not a bridge fuel, not a transition fuel, but a mission-critical fuel,” as reported by the Denver Business Journal. This statement is a clarification from a March press conference, where the Governor discussed the energy source as a “bridge fuel” to a future absent fossil fuels. But as the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday, this reposition may be a result of market forces as well as political winds. Over the past year natural gas futures have tumbled 72% from a year ago and dropped 2.2% on Wednesday to $3.35 per million BTUs. The US Department of Energy forecasts that, based on current reserves, the US has access to a 100 year supply of this fuel. These projections are good news for Colorado, given that natural gas is found in abundance in the Centennial State, but bad news for those intensely passionate about sustainable energy: While natural gas emits about half as much carbon as coal, it is still emitting carbon. Solar arrays and wind farms, meanwhile, are carbon free but increasingly uncompetitive on a cost basis with the falling price of the “clean burning fuel.” Is conversion to natural gas (from coal) an acceptable clean technology compromise, or must we eliminate all emissions no matter the economics?
That will be $8 and a shorter lifespan: Results of a 20 year study came out this week showing that rhesus monkeys on a strict, reduced-calorie diet were three times less likely to die from age related causes over the study period compared to monkeys allowed to eat freely. Although a similar human result is unlikely given an overall longer lifespan, scientists believe the findings, which have been demonstrated in many other species, are applicable to humans. These results come at the same time as many cities and states are moving to add calorie counts to restaurant menus, which naturally leads to the question: why not combine the two? Perhaps the new signage would prove a more effective at deterring high calorie choices if, instead of calorie count, the values were given in terms of lost life. Your call: a delicious burrito for lunch or an additional hour in the end.
