Posts Tagged ‘energy’

NASA Spots Huge Gamma-ray Blast

Friday, February 20th, 2009

from NASA

Astronomers using NASA’s Swift satellite and Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope are seeing frequent blasts from a stellar remnant 30,000 light-years away. The high-energy fireworks arise from a rare type of neutron star known as a soft-gamma-ray repeater. Such objects unpredictably send out a series of X-ray and gamma-ray flares.

“At times, this remarkable object has erupted with more than a hundred flares in as little as 20 minutes,” said Loredana Vetere, who is coordinating the Swift observations at Pennsylvania State University. “The most intense flares emitted more total energy than the sun does in 20 years.”

The object, which has long been known as an X-ray source, lies in the southern constellation Norma. During the past two years, astronomers have identified pulsing radio and X-ray signals from it. The object began a series of modest eruptions on Oct. 3, 2008, then settled down. It roared back to life Jan. 22 with an intense episode.

Because of the recent outbursts, astronomers will classify the object as a soft-gamma-ray repeater — only the sixth known. In 2004, a giant flare from another soft-gamma-ray repeater was so intense it measurably affected Earth’s upper atmosphere from 50,000 light-years away.

Scientists think the source is a spinning neutron star, which is the superdense, city-sized remains of an exploded star. Although only about 12 miles across, a neutron star contains more mass than the sun. The object has been cataloged as SGR J1550-5418.

While neutron stars typically possess intense magnetic fields, a subgroup displays fields 1,000 times stronger. These so-called magnetars have the strongest magnetic fields of any known object in the universe. SGR J1550-5418, which rotates once every 2.07 seconds, holds the record for the fastest-spinning magnetar. Astronomers think magnetars power their flares by tapping into the tremendous energy of their magnetic fields.

“The ability of Fermi’s gamma-ray burst monitor to resolve the fine structure within these events will help us better understand how magnetars unleash their energy,” said Chryssa Kouveliotou, an astrophysicist at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala. The object has triggered the instrument more than 95 times since Jan. 22.

Using data from Swift’s X-ray telescope, a team led by Andrea Tiengo of INAF-IASF (Milan, Italy) captured a series of “light echoes” from the object. Images acquired when the latest flaring episode began show what appear to be expanding halos around the source. Multiple rings form as X-rays interact with dust clouds at different distances, with closer clouds producing larger rings. Both the rings and their apparent expansion are an illusion caused by the finite speed of light and the longer path the scattered light must travel.

“X-rays from the brightest bursts scatter off of dust clouds between us and the star,” said Jules Halpern at Columbia University. “As a result, we don’t really know the distance to this object as well as we would like. These images will help us make a more precise measurement and also determine the distance to the dust clouds.”

The Russian KONUS instrument on NASA’s Wind satellite, the joint NASA-Japan Suzaku mission, and the European Space Agency’s INTEGRAL satellite also have detected flares from SGR J1550-5418.

NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., manages the Swift satellite. It is being operated in collaboration with partners in the U.S., the United Kingdom, Italy, Germany and Japan. NASA’s Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope is an astrophysics and particle physics observatory developed in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Energy and with important contributions from academic institutions and partners in France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Sweden, and the U.S.

To see the related images, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/swift/bursts/gammaray_fireworks.html

For more information about the Swift satellite, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/swift

For more information about the Fermi mission, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/fermi

Gamma-ray

Gamma-ray

Gamma-ray

Gamma-ray

Whitehouse Briefing: Auto Industry To Adhere To MPG Standards

Tuesday, January 27th, 2009

SUBJECT: The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

In 2007, the Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). This law mandates that, as part of the Nation’s efforts to achieve energy independence, the Secretary of Transportation prescribe annual fuel economy increases for automobiles, beginning with model year 2011, resulting in a combined fuel economy fleet average of at least 35 miles per gallon by model year 2020. On May 2, 2008, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking entitled Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks; Model Years 2011-2015, 73 Fed. Reg. 24352. In the notice and comment period, the NHTSA received numerous comments, some of them contending that certain aspects of the proposed rule, including appendices providing for preemption of State laws, were inconsistent with provisions of EISA and the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007).

Federal law requires that the final rule regarding fuel economy standards be adopted at least 18 months before the beginning of the model year (49 U.S.C. 32902(g)(2)). In order for the model year 2011 standards to meet this requirement, the NHTSA must publish the final rule in the Federal Register by March 30, 2009. To date, the NHTSA has not published a final rule.

Therefore, I request that:

(a) in order to comply with the EISA requirement that fuel economy increases begin with model year 2011, you take all measures consistent with law, and in coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency, to publish in the Federal Register by March 30, 2009, a final rule prescribing increased fuel economy for model year 2011;

(b) before promulgating a final rule concerning model years after model year 2011, you consider the appropriate legal factors under the EISA, the comments filed in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the relevant technological and scientific considerations, and to the extent feasible, the forthcoming report by the National Academy of Sciences mandated under section 107 of EISA; and

(c) in adopting the final rules in paragraphs (a) and (b) above, you consider whether any provisions regarding preemption are consistent with the EISA, the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA and other relevant provisions of law and the policies underlying them.

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

The Secretary of Transportation is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE, January 26, 2009

Department Of Energy

Friday, January 16th, 2009

Energy Sources
Energy is the vital force powering business, manufacturing, and the transportation of goods and services to serve the American and world economies. Energy supply and demand plays an increasingly vital role in our national security and the economic output of our nation. It is not surprising that the United States spends over 500 billion dollars annually on energy.

Increasing energy supplies.
As America’s need for energy grows, the Department of Energy is meeting the challenge by establishing clean fuel initiatives to make the most of traditional fossil fuels while investing in cutting edge research to develop sustainable sources such as fusion and to employ hydrogen (an energy carrier like electricity) which can be produced from diverse, domestic sources and greatly reduce our dependence on imported oil.

Modernizing our energy infrastructure.
By developing the infrastructure to support these fuels, DOE is striving every day to protect our nation’s energy needs and our planet’s environment.

Ensuring the productive and optimal use of energy resources, while limiting environmental impact.
In addition, the Department of Energy is harnessing the power of the earth itself to meet our energy needs. Advances in wind, hydro and geothermal energy allow us to take advantage of clean, abundant energy.

Cooperating on international energy issues.
The Department’s activities are instrumental in establishing the safety, reliability, and efficiency of energy supplies in a global marketplace.

Renewable Energy Credits Remain With Customer

Thursday, January 15th, 2009

Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania - Net Metering
Incentive Type: Net Metering
Eligible Renewable/Other Technologies: Solar Thermal Electric, Photovoltaics, Landfill Gas, Wind, Biomass, Hydroelectric, Fuel Cells, Municipal Solid Waste, CHP/Cogeneration, Waste Coal, Coal-Mine Methane, Anaerobic Digestion, Other Distributed Generation Technologies
Applicable Sectors: Commercial, Industrial, Residential, Nonprofit, Schools, Local Government, State Government, Fed. Government, Agricultural, Institutional
Limit on System Size: Residential: 50 kW; Non-residential: 3 MW; Customers with systems that are part of microgrids or are available for emergency use: 5 MW
Limit on Overall Enrollment: No limit specified
Treatment of Net Excess: Credited to customer’s next bill at retail rate; customer receives compensation for remaining NEG at “price-to-compare” at year-end
Utilities Involved: Investor-owned utilities
Interconnection Standards for Net Metering? Yes
Authority 1: 73 P.S. § 1648.1 et seq.
Date Enacted: 11/30/2004; amended 2007
Authority 2: 52 Pa. Code Chapter 75, Subchapter B
Date Enacted: 06/22/2006
Effective Date: 12/16/2006
Authority 3: PUC Rulemaking Order L-00050174
Date Enacted: 05/22/2008
Effective Date: 11/28/2008

Summary:
The PUC adopted net-metering rules and interconnection standards for net-metered systems and other forms of DG in 2006, pursuant to the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards (AEPS) Act of 2004. In 2007, H.B. 1203 amended the Pennsylvania AEPS and also expanded net metering. Revised rules consistent with these amendments became effective in November 2008.

In Pennsylvania, investor-owned utilities must offer net metering to residential customers that generate electricity with systems up to 50 kilowatts (kW) in capacity; nonresidential customers with systems up to three megawatts (MW) in capacity; and customers with systems greater than 3 MW but no more than 5 MW who make their systems available to the grid during emergencies, or where a microgrid is in place in order to maintain critical infrastructure. Net metering is available when any portion of the electricity generated is used to offset on-site consumption (i.e., system size is not limited by the customer’s on-site load).

Systems eligible for net metering include those that generate electricity using photovoltaics (PV), solar-thermal energy, wind energy, hydropower, geothermal energy, biomass energy, fuel cells, combined heat and power (CHP), municipal solid waste, waste coal, coal-mine methane, other forms of distributed generation (DG) and certain demand-side management technologies.

Net metering is achieved using a single, bi-directional meter that can measure and record the flow of electricity in both directions at the same rate. Net excess generation (NEG) is carried forward and credited to the customer’s next bill at the full retail rate. Customer-generators are compensated for remaining NEG at the utility’s “price-to-compare” at the end of the year. The price-to-compare includes the generation and transmission components — but not the distribution component — of a utility’s retail rate. In order to reconcile net metering with Pennsylvania’s broader renewable energy goals, the “year” referenced above is defined to coincide with the compliance year (June 1 - May 31) used for Pennsylvania’s Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard (AEPS).

The utility must provide this meter if a customer’s existing meter does not meet these requirements. If a customer agrees, a dual-meter arrangement may be substituted for the bi-directional meter. Utilities must provide net metering at nondiscriminatory rates identical with respect to rate structure, retail rate components, and any monthly charges to the rates charged to non-net-metered customers. Utilities may not charge net-metered customers any fees or other charges that do not apply to non-net-metered customers. Furthermore, utilities may not require customers to install any additional equipment or carry liability insurance.

Any customer net excess generation (NEG) will be credited at the utility’s retail rate and carried over to the customer’s next bill during a 12-month period. Customers retain ownership of alternative-energy credits (commonly referred to as “renewable-energy credits” or “RECs” when associated with renewable energy) unless there is a contract with an express provision that assigns REC ownership to another entity, or unless the customer expressly rejects REC ownership. If a net-metered customer chooses to take ownership or transfer ownership of alternative-energy credits, then the customer is responsible for installing metering equipment required to measure alternative-energy credits.*

Pennsylvania’s rules allow meter aggregation on properties owned or leased and operated by a customer. This primarily benefits farms that are commonly owned and operated. Aggregation is limited to meters (in a single utility’s service territory) that are located on properties within two miles of the boundaries of the customer’s property. The utility must provide the necessary equipment for physical meter aggregation, but the customer must pay the costs. In addition, “virtual meter aggregation” is allowed for properties owned or leased and operated by a customer and located within two miles of the boundaries of the customer’s property and within a single utility’s service territory. For virtual meter aggregation, the customer is responsible only for any incremental expense involved in processing the account on a virtual meter aggregation basis.

If a net-metered customer’s self-generation results in a 10% or higher reduction in the customer’s purchase of electricity for an annualized period, the customer must pay for its share of stranded costs to prevent interclass or intraclass shifting.

*In November 2008 amended rules for the Pennsylvania Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard (AEPS) became effective. These rules exempt PV systems of 15 kW or less from a requirement that alternative energy credit (AEC) certification be verified by metered data, and instead provide a more general instruction that it be verified by the system administrator. Thus, despite the reference to “required” equipment that remains in the net metering rules, small solar facilities may not be required to install additional metering equipment in order to generate AEPS eligible credits.

Contact:

Calvin Birge
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
P.O. Box 3265
Harrisburg, PA 17105-3265
Phone: (717) 783-1555
Fax: (717) 787-5813
E-Mail:> cbirge@state.pa.us
Web site: http://www.puc.state.pa.us

PacWind Develops Vertical Wind Turbines For Ricoh

Wednesday, January 14th, 2009

The vertical wind turbines for Ricoh’s Time Square billboard project were designed by PacWind of California.

PacWind, LLC is a wind energy innovator. Since 1998, its founders have been developing a proprietary series of Vertical Axis Wind Turbines that have had a transformative effect on the wind energy industry. The Company has designed wind turbines for a wide variety of applications - from turbines built for NASA to capture 400- mile-an-hour winds for a lander on Mars - to more common uses like the turbine that powers Jay Leno’s 20,000-square-foot Green Garage in Los Angeles. Unlike traditional propeller wind turbines, PacWind’s vertical axis turbines are silent, vibration free, maintenance free, cost-effective and visible to birds. PacWind turbines provide a swift financial return to their owners and users. They are suitable for use in both densely populated cities and rural areas, like wind farms. PacWind’s vertical turbines can be installed on buildings, homes, stand-alone poles and can blend into diverse landscapes.

Chicago Board of Trade Options and Futures

Tuesday, January 13th, 2009

WHEAT - CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE Code-001602
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 01/06/09 |
————————————————————–| NONREPORTABLE
NON-COMMERCIAL | COMMERCIAL | TOTAL | POSITIONS
————————–|—————–|—————–|—————–
Long | Short |Spreads | Long | Short | Long | Short | Long | Short
——————————————————————————–
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS) OPEN INTEREST: 345,164
COMMITMENTS
61,797 49,139 97,886 157,866 151,452 317,549 298,478 27,614 46,686

CHANGES FROM 12/30/08 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST: 23,368)
3,195 -632 11,134 6,320 10,825 20,648 21,327 2,720 2,041

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
17.9 14.2 28.4 45.7 43.9 92.0 86.5 8.0 13.5

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS: 297)
84 94 118 81 99 239 251

CORN - CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE Code-002602
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 01/06/09 |
————————————————————–| NONREPORTABLE
NON-COMMERCIAL | COMMERCIAL | TOTAL | POSITIONS
————————–|—————–|—————–|—————–
Long | Short |Spreads | Long | Short | Long | Short | Long | Short
——————————————————————————–
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS) OPEN INTEREST: 1,269,024
COMMITMENTS
128,032 88,425 435,483 556,291 539,255 1119806 1063163 149,218 205,861

CHANGES FROM 12/30/08 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST: 29,977)
4,576 -5,183 19,529 -2,175 7,413 21,930 21,759 8,046 8,218

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
10.1 7.0 34.3 43.8 42.5 88.2 83.8 11.8 16.2

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS: 605)
137 146 223 236 270 499 538

OATS - CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE Code-004603
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 01/06/09 |
————————————————————–| NONREPORTABLE
NON-COMMERCIAL | COMMERCIAL | TOTAL | POSITIONS
————————–|—————–|—————–|—————–
Long | Short |Spreads | Long | Short | Long | Short | Long | Short
——————————————————————————–
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS) OPEN INTEREST: 17,865
COMMITMENTS
666 1,654 1,173 13,845 12,553 15,684 15,380 2,180 2,485

CHANGES FROM 12/30/08 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST: -196)
-61 -42 -28 -124 -32 -212 -102 16 -94

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
3.7 9.3 6.6 77.5 70.3 87.8 86.1 12.2 13.9

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS: 43)
5 12 7 23 16 34 30

SOYBEANS - CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE Code-005602
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 01/06/09 |
————————————————————–| NONREPORTABLE
NON-COMMERCIAL | COMMERCIAL | TOTAL | POSITIONS
————————–|—————–|—————–|—————–
Long | Short |Spreads | Long | Short | Long | Short | Long | Short
——————————————————————————–
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS) OPEN INTEREST: 395,931
COMMITMENTS
55,635 19,351 128,049 163,322 184,753 347,006 332,153 48,925 63,778

CHANGES FROM 12/30/08 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST: 16,879)
3,519 241 8,376 2,423 7,478 14,318 16,095 2,561 783

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
14.1 4.9 32.3 41.3 46.7 87.6 83.9 12.4 16.1

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS: 303)
94 70 120 99 111 255 257

SOYBEAN OIL - CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE Code-007601
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 01/06/09 |
————————————————————–| NONREPORTABLE
NON-COMMERCIAL | COMMERCIAL | TOTAL | POSITIONS
————————–|—————–|—————–|—————–
Long | Short |Spreads | Long | Short | Long | Short | Long | Short
——————————————————————————–
(CONTRACTS OF 60,000 POUNDS) OPEN INTEREST: 236,752
COMMITMENTS
17,680 28,369 61,982 131,756 125,854 211,418 216,206 25,334 20,546

CHANGES FROM 12/30/08 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST: -8,418)
2,257 -4,874 -4,921 -8,276 -461 -10,940 -10,255 2,521 1,837

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
7.5 12.0 26.2 55.7 53.2 89.3 91.3 10.7 8.7

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS: 186)
31 56 70 64 60 151 150

U.S. TREASURY BONDS - CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE Code-020601
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 01/06/09 |
————————————————————–| NONREPORTABLE
NON-COMMERCIAL | COMMERCIAL | TOTAL | POSITIONS
————————–|—————–|—————–|—————–
Long | Short |Spreads | Long | Short | Long | Short | Long | Short
——————————————————————————–
(CONTRACTS OF $100,000 FACE VALUE) OPEN INTEREST: 828,610
COMMITMENTS
57,160 156,985 53,381 580,901 458,993 691,442 669,359 137,167 159,250

CHANGES FROM 12/30/08 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST: -12,255)
1,239 -22,564 7,996 -31,614 -862 -22,380 -15,430 10,124 3,175

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
6.9 18.9 6.4 70.1 55.4 83.4 80.8 16.6 19.2

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS: 144)
23 36 30 59 73 101 120

SOYBEAN MEAL - CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE Code-026603
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 01/06/09 |
————————————————————–| NONREPORTABLE
NON-COMMERCIAL | COMMERCIAL | TOTAL | POSITIONS
————————–|—————–|—————–|—————–
Long | Short |Spreads | Long | Short | Long | Short | Long | Short
——————————————————————————–
(CONTRACTS OF 100 TONS) OPEN INTEREST: 135,183
COMMITMENTS
20,959 8,020 28,640 59,681 78,864 109,279 115,523 25,903 19,659

CHANGES FROM 12/30/08 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST: 2,517)
1,576 674 -58 -1,545 1,350 -27 1,965 2,544 552

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
15.5 5.9 21.2 44.1 58.3 80.8 85.5 19.2 14.5

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS: 148)
36 24 39 58 53 122 100

ROUGH RICE - CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE Code-039601
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 01/06/09 |
————————————————————–| NONREPORTABLE
NON-COMMERCIAL | COMMERCIAL | TOTAL | POSITIONS
————————–|—————–|—————–|—————–
Long | Short |Spreads | Long | Short | Long | Short | Long | Short
——————————————————————————–
(CONTRACTS OF 200,000 POUNDS) OPEN INTEREST: 6,552
COMMITMENTS
1,125 548 448 4,037 4,234 5,610 5,230 943 1,323

CHANGES FROM 12/30/08 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST: -276)
0 96 -10 -214 -145 -224 -60 -52 -216

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
17.2 8.4 6.8 61.6 64.6 85.6 79.8 14.4 20.2

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS: 45)
8 9 5 17 15 27 27

2-YEAR U.S. TREASURY NOTES - CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE Code-042601
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 01/06/09 |
————————————————————–| NONREPORTABLE
NON-COMMERCIAL | COMMERCIAL | TOTAL | POSITIONS
————————–|—————–|—————–|—————–
Long | Short |Spreads | Long | Short | Long | Short | Long | Short
——————————————————————————–
(CONTRACTS OF $200,000 FACE VALUE) OPEN INTEREST: 524,308
COMMITMENTS
64,391 87,111 11,076 378,920 354,999 454,387 453,186 69,921 71,122

CHANGES FROM 12/30/08 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST: -16,605)
5,259 5,748 -1,348 -7,288 -12,501 -3,377 -8,101 -13,228 -8,504

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
12.3 16.6 2.1 72.3 67.7 86.7 86.4 13.3 13.6

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS: 150)
24 29 13 70 73 101 108

10-YEAR U.S. TREASURY NOTES - CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE Code-043602
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 01/06/09 |
————————————————————–| NONREPORTABLE
NON-COMMERCIAL | COMMERCIAL | TOTAL | POSITIONS
————————–|—————–|—————–|—————–
Long | Short |Spreads | Long | Short | Long | Short | Long | Short
——————————————————————————–
(CONTRACTS OF $100,000 FACE VALUE) OPEN INTEREST: 1,328,603
COMMITMENTS
157,445 134,951 145,309 813,725 771,931 1116479 1052192 212,123 276,411

CHANGES FROM 12/30/08 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST: 22,309)
8,912 21,171 4,822 -4,627 -27,978 9,107 -1,985 13,201 24,294

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
11.9 10.2 10.9 61.2 58.1 84.0 79.2 16.0 20.8

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS: 188)
36 42 49 84 92 147 156

5-YEAR U.S. TREASURY NOTES - CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE Code-044601
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 01/06/09 |
————————————————————–| NONREPORTABLE
NON-COMMERCIAL | COMMERCIAL | TOTAL | POSITIONS
————————–|—————–|—————–|—————–
Long | Short |Spreads | Long | Short | Long | Short | Long | Short
——————————————————————————–
(CONTRACTS OF $100,000 FACE VALUE) OPEN INTEREST: 1,090,823
COMMITMENTS
105,424 146,807 51,135 750,636 707,519 907,196 905,462 183,627 185,361

CHANGES FROM 12/30/08 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST: -58,205)
-46,154 232 -1,099 -9,641 -65,388 -56,894 -66,255 -1,312 8,050

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
9.7 13.5 4.7 68.8 64.9 83.2 83.0 16.8 17.0

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS: 140)
21 36 29 69 63 108 110

30-DAY FEDERAL FUNDS - CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE Code-045601
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 01/06/09 |
————————————————————–| NONREPORTABLE
NON-COMMERCIAL | COMMERCIAL | TOTAL | POSITIONS
————————–|—————–|—————–|—————–
Long | Short |Spreads | Long | Short | Long | Short | Long | Short
——————————————————————————–
(CONTRACTS OF $5,000,000) OPEN INTEREST: 700,792
COMMITMENTS
159,048 14,552 334,526 174,584 315,793 668,159 664,872 32,633 35,920

CHANGES FROM 12/30/08 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST: -194,017)
-3,615 515 -113,968 -77,105 -84,341 -194,688 -197,793 671 3,777

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
22.7 2.1 47.7 24.9 45.1 95.3 94.9 4.7 5.1

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS: 71)
24 12 31 32 25 67 59

DOW JONES INDUSTRIAL AVERAGE - CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE Code-124601
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 01/06/09 |
————————————————————–| NONREPORTABLE
NON-COMMERCIAL | COMMERCIAL | TOTAL | POSITIONS
————————–|—————–|—————–|—————–
Long | Short |Spreads | Long | Short | Long | Short | Long | Short
——————————————————————————–
($10 X DJIA INDEX) OPEN INTEREST: 10,432
COMMITMENTS
2,952 3,713 12 5,694 2,258 8,657 5,983 1,775 4,449

CHANGES FROM 12/30/08 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST: 478)
-128 -566 -15 2,033 -197 1,890 -778 -1,412 1,255

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
28.3 35.6 0.1 54.6 21.6 83.0 57.4 17.0 42.6

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS: 27)
5 7 1 12 5 17 13

DOW JONES INDUSTRIAL AVG- x $5 - CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE Code-124603
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 01/06/09 |
————————————————————–| NONREPORTABLE
NON-COMMERCIAL | COMMERCIAL | TOTAL | POSITIONS
————————–|—————–|—————–|—————–
Long | Short |Spreads | Long | Short | Long | Short | Long | Short
——————————————————————————–
($5 X DJIA INDEX) OPEN INTEREST: 69,087
COMMITMENTS
20,790 10,291 523 37,351 42,130 58,664 52,944 10,424 16,143

CHANGES FROM 12/30/08 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST: 6,566)
-1,157 1,066 -214 7,563 1,346 6,191 2,198 375 4,368

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
30.1 14.9 0.8 54.1 61.0 84.9 76.6 15.1 23.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS: 81)
27 13 4 27 24 55 40

INTEREST RATE SWAPS 10YR - CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE Code-246602
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 01/06/09 |
————————————————————–| NONREPORTABLE
NON-COMMERCIAL | COMMERCIAL | TOTAL | POSITIONS
————————–|—————–|—————–|—————–
Long | Short |Spreads | Long | Short | Long | Short | Long | Short
——————————————————————————–
(CONTRACTS OF $100,000) OPEN INTEREST: 31,020
COMMITMENTS
17,697 7,094 187 12,911 23,608 30,795 30,889 225 131

CHANGES FROM 12/30/08 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST: 2,307)
2,082 -7 74 156 2,238 2,312 2,305 -5 2

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
57.1 22.9 0.6 41.6 76.1 99.3 99.6 0.7 0.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS: 41)
12 10 4 12 14 26 26

INTEREST RATE SWAPS 5YR - CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE Code-247602
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 01/06/09 |
————————————————————–| NONREPORTABLE
NON-COMMERCIAL | COMMERCIAL | TOTAL | POSITIONS
————————–|—————–|—————–|—————–
Long | Short |Spreads | Long | Short | Long | Short | Long | Short
——————————————————————————–
(CONTRACTS OF $100,000) OPEN INTEREST: 50,166
COMMITMENTS
31,429 1,144 1,663 16,706 47,328 49,798 50,135 368 31

CHANGES FROM 12/30/08 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST: -241)
-279 107 12 -53 -338 -320 -219 79 -22

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
62.7 2.3 3.3 33.3 94.3 99.3 99.9 0.7 0.1

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS: 34)
11 8 3 11 8 23 18

——————————————————————————–

Updated January 9, 2009

Prices for rooftop solar systems fall as supply grows

Tuesday, January 13th, 2009

By Paul Davidson, USA TODAY
Here’s a bright spot in an overcast economy: Solar panel prices are tumbling.

Prices for rooftop solar systems, including installation, already have fallen 8% to 10% since October and are expected to drop another 15% to 20% this year.

Fueling the trend are an oversupply of worldwide manufacturing capacity and lower demand, especially in Spain and Germany, which have been growth engines for the industry.

For U.S. homeowners, effective prices are likely to plunge by more than 50% after figuring in a bigger federal tax credit that took effect Jan. 1.

“The era of extremely expensive (solar) modules is over,” says analyst Nathaniel Bullard of research firm New Energy Finance.

Since 2004, solar prices have been propped up by a shortage of capacity to make both silicon the raw material for solar-power systems and finished panels. Meantime, the Spanish and German governments have paid system owners hefty subsidies to generate solar power, turbocharging sales in those countries.

Manufacturers responded by building a wave of factories. Then Spain and Germany slashed this year’s incentives. In the U.S., the biggest solar investors were banks such as Morgan Stanley that can no longer benefit from tax credits because of insufficient profits.

New Energy projects an oversupply of nearly 4 gigawatts of solar modules in 2009, or enough electricity to supply 2.6 million homes.

The glut is already dragging down prices. Barry Cinammon, CEO of Akeena Solar, one of the nation’s largest installers, says wholesale prices have fallen about 15% since October. Since installation accounts for about half the cost of a system, total costs are down about 8%. SunPower, one of the largest solar makers, expects its retail prices for installed systems to dip as much as 20% this year.

“Now, all of a sudden, we have module manufacturers calling us,” says Peter Rive, chief operating officer of Solar City, the No. 1 installer.

Consumers can reap even bigger gains if they can buy in a recession.

Until this year, homeowners who bought solar systems were eligible for a tax credit that shaved system prices 30%, but the credit was capped at $2,000. Last fall, Congress renewed the 30% credit and removed the cap, lopping thousands more dollars off solar price tags.

In California, which accounts for nearly 70% of the U.S. solar market, a typical 4-kilowatt, $32,000 solar energy system cost a homeowner about $23,000 last year after state and federal incentives. This year, if prices sink as expected, that system is likely to cost $10,000 to $12,000.

National Biofuels Action Plan

Monday, January 12th, 2009

elease No. 0258.08
Contact:
USDA: Jim Brownlee 202-720-4623
DOE: Jennifer Scoggins 202-586-4940

Printable version
Email this page Email this page
FACT SHEET: National Biofuels Action Plan
October 7, 2008

In an effort to meet President Bush’s “Twenty in Ten” goal and meet the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) targets in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) the Biomass Research and Development Board (the Board)-co-chaired by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)-developed the National Biofuels Action Plan (NBAP) to accelerate the development of a sustainable biofuels industry.

To meet increasing demand, we must continue to advance solutions that improve our energy security and reduce greenhouse gas emissions - our economic competitiveness, national security, and environmental health depend on it.

Biomass Research and Development Board

The Board determined that meeting aggressive production targets requires enhanced interagency collaboration among the senior decision makers from 10 federal agencies and the White House. The NBAP identifies key research challenges and defines clear interagency actions critical to developing the science and technology needed to make next-generation, cellulosic biofuels cost-effective so as to grow a biofuels industry and supply chain in a sustainable manner.

NBAP action areas include:

* Sustainability: A working group led by USDA, DOE, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is defining science-based national criteria, which will be established by November 2008, and indicators to assess the sustainability of biofuels production coordinated with ongoing international activities.
* Feedstock Production: A Board-commissioned interagency working group conducted a feedstock availability and cost study using EISA production targets. A separate Board working group is developing a long-term integrated feedstock research and development plan across the federal government, which will reach completion by December 2008.
* Feedstock Logistics: A working group led by USDA will facilitate collaboration to develop and deploy logistics systems that can supply cellulosic feedstocks to demonstration facilities.
* Conversion Science and Technology: A working group composed of DOE, USDA, EPA, National Science Foundation (NSF), and U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) is collaborating to develop a 10-year federal science and technology research plan by December 2008 for developing cost-effective means of biomass conversion and production of cellulosic biofuels.
* Distribution Infrastructure: A U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)-led group is studying the feasibility of transporting ethanol in pipelines and assessing the availability of geographic information system (GIS) capabilities across agencies.
* Blending: The Board has approved a statement on blending ethanol with gasoline in amounts greater than 10 percent (E10) and will review results of an interagency testing program to evaluate the impact of intermediate blends on vehicle emissions and material compatibility by fall 2008.
* Environment, Health and Safety: An EPA-led working group is inventorying federal activities and areas of jurisdiction with respect to public health, safety, and environmental protection.

Global warming could overheat crops

Monday, January 12th, 2009

SEATTLE, Jan. 9 (UPI) — U.S. researchers say global warming is likely to result in lower crop yields in the tropics and subtropics. leading to serious food shortages.

The food shortages could hurt half of the world’s population, said David Battisti, a University of Washington atmospheric sciences professor.

The report, published in the journal Science, said higher temperatures in the tropics can be expected to cut yields of the primary food crops, maize and rice, by 20 percent to 40 percent. Rising temperatures also are likely to play havoc with soil moisture, cutting yields even further.

“The stresses on global food production from temperature alone are going to be huge, and that doesn’t take into account water supplies stressed by the higher temperatures,” Battisti said Thursday in a release.

Co-author Rosamond Naylor, director of Stanford University’s Program on Food Security and the Environment, warned that it will take decades to develop new food crop varieties that can better withstand a warmer climate.

“We have to be rethinking agriculture systems as a whole, not only thinking about new varieties but also recognizing that many people will just move out of agriculture, and even move from the lands where they live now,” Naylor said.