Rebuke in Iran to Its President on Nuclear Role

New York Times
January 19, 2007

By NAZILA FATHI and MICHAEL SLACKMAN
TEHRAN, Jan. 18 — Iran’s outspoken president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, appears to be under pressure from the highest authorities in Iran to end his involvement in its nuclear program, a sign that his political capital is declining as his country comes under increasing international pressure.

Just one month after the United Nations Security Council imposed sanctions on Iran to curb its nuclear program, two hard-line newspapers, including one owned by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called on the president to stay out of all matters nuclear.

In the hazy world of Iranian politics, such a public rebuke was seen as a sign that the supreme leader — who has final say on all matters of state — might no longer support the president as the public face of defiance to the West.

It is the first sign that Mr. Ahmadinejad has lost any degree of Ayatollah Khamenei’s confidence, a potentially damaging development for a president who has rallied his nation and defined his administration by declaring nuclear power Iran’s “inalienable right.”

It was unclear, however, whether this was merely an effort to improve Iran’s public image by lowering Mr. Ahmadinejad’s profile or was signaling a change in policy.

The presidency is a relatively weak position with no official authority over foreign policy, the domain of the supreme leader. But Mr. Ahmadinejad has used his post as a bully pulpit to insert himself into the nuclear debate, and as long as he appeared to enjoy Ayatollah Khamenei’s support, he could continue.

While Iran remains publicly defiant, insisting that it will move ahead with its nuclear ambitions, it is under increasing strain as political and economic pressures grow. And the message that Iran’s most senior officials seem to be sending is that Mr. Ahmadinejad, with his harsh approach and caustic comments, is undermining Iran’s cause and its standing.

The Security Council passed a resolution on Dec. 23 with sanctions intended to curb Iran’s uranium enrichment program, which Iran says is for peaceful purposes but the United States and some European nations contend is for the purpose of creating nuclear weapons. The measure bars the trade of goods or technology related to Iran’s nuclear program. Enriched uranium can be used for making nuclear fuel but also for making nuclear weapons.

The president dismissed the Security Council resolution as “a piece of torn paper.”

But the daily Jomhouri-Eslami, which reflects the views of Ayatollah Khamenei, said, “The resolution is certainly harmful for the country,” adding that it was “too much to call it ‘a piece of torn paper.’ ”

The newspaper added that the nuclear program required its own diplomacy, “sometimes toughness and sometimes flexibility.”

In another sign of pressure on the president to distance himself from the nuclear issue, a second newspaper, run by an aide to the country’s chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, also pressed Mr. Ahmadinejad to end his involvement in the nuclear program. Mr. Larijani also ran for president and was selected for his post by the supreme leader.

“They want to minimize the consequences of sanctions now that they have been imposed,” said Mohammad Atrianfar, an executive at the daily Shargh, which was closed last fall, and a reformist politician. “But they don’t have clear strategy, and they are taking one step at a time.”

Mr. Ahmadinejad took office more than a year ago as an outsider, the mayor of Tehran who promised to challenge the status quo, to equally distribute Iran’s oil wealth and to restore what he saw as the lost values of the Islamic revolution. His was a populist message, centered on a socialist economic model and Islamic values. He found opposition from the right and the left, in Parliament and among so-called pragmatists.

That pressure has continued, and the criticism now seems to have gained more credibility in the face of the sanctions and Iran’s troubled economic standing. The United States increased pressure on Iran over its role in Iraq has also raised concerns in Tehran and may be behind efforts to restrain the president, political analysts in Tehran said.

“The resolution has decreased Iran’s political credibility in the international community, and so other countries cannot defend Iran,” said Ahmad Shirzad, a reformist politician and a former legislator.

Although the Security Council sanctions were limited to Iran’s nuclear program, they have started to cause economic disruptions.

About 50 legislators signed a letter this week calling on the president to appear before Parliament to answer questions about the nuclear program. They need at least 22 more signatures.

In another letter, 150 lawmakers criticized the president for his economic policies, which have led to a surge in inflation, and for his failure to submit his annual budget on time.

The Iranian stock market, which was already in a slump, continued to decline — falling more rapidly in the past month — as buyers stayed away from the market. The daily Kargozaran reported last week that the number of traders had decreased by 46 percent since the Security Council resolution was passed.

“The resolution has had a psychological effect on people,” said Ali Hagh, an economist in Tehran. “It does not make sense for investors not to consider political events when they want to invest their money.”

Kargozaran reported that a group of powerful businessmen, the Islamic Coalition Party, met with Mohammad Nahavandian, a senior official at the Supreme National Security Council, and called for moderation in the country’s nuclear policies to prevent further damage to the economy.

In the past year, several major European banks have severed their business ties with Iran. Economists say the banks’ actions will also lead to an increase in inflation because importers must turn to complicated ways to finance purchases.

“The nuclear issue has paved the way for other forms of pressures on Iran,” Mr. Shirzad said.

Despite Mr. Ahmadinejad’s harsh language since the resolution was passed, Ayatollah Khamenei has not referred to it directly and only once said that Iran would not give up its right to pursue its nuclear program.

Mr. Larijani has said that Iran will not quit the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty or bar international inspectors despite earlier threats to do so.

Nazila Fathi reported from Tehran, and Michael Slackman from Cairo.

Article: Plugging Into the Sun

POWER HOUSE At Robert Felton’s mansion in the Oakland hills, a photovoltaic system allows him to save $2,500 a month.

New York Times
January 4, 2007

By GREGORY DICUM
WILLIAM LEININGER is not your typical environmental zealot. A Navy commander who works as a doctor at the Naval Medical Center San Diego, he is a Republican and lives in one of California’s most conservative counties, in a development of neat lawns and Spanish-style houses. His 2,400-square-foot, single-level house — “the usual Southern California design,” he said recently — is barely distinguishable from its neighbors, apart from one detail: the red-tile roof is crammed with solar panels.

Dr. Leininger, 42, is one of thousands of Californians, many of them unlikely converts to the cause of alternative energy, who have installed solar power systems in their homes in just the last year.
EMPOWERED Robert Felton in front of the expanse of solar panels he installed near his large house.
Spurred by recent legislation that provides financial incentives — and by rising energy costs and, perhaps, by a lingering distrust of power companies in the aftermath of the California electricity crisis at the start of the decade — homeowners across the state have come to see solar power as a way to conserve money as well as natural resources. Architects in California are routinely designing solar systems into custom homes, and developers are offering solar systems and solar-ready wiring in new spec houses and subdivisions.

Solar power is also emerging as a kind of status symbol, a glamorous mark of personal responsibility. Celebrities, including Leonardo DiCaprio, Alicia Silverstone, Carlos Santana and Tom Seaver, have installed solar systems. (Edward Norton runs a campaign in Los Angeles, encouraging his fellow celebrities to install solar panels on their homes and to make donations for systems in low-income housing.)

The vogue began in earnest a year ago, when the state legislature approved the California Solar Initiative, one of the most ambitious solar programs in the world. The legislation took effect at the start of this month but was preceded by a stopgap measure with similar terms that ran throughout 2006, offering homeowners a rebate on top of the federal tax credit of up to $2,000 that has been available nationwide since 2006.

The theory was that supplanting the year-to-year incentive programs in place since 1998 with the long-term certainty offered by the initiative’s 10-year, $3.2 billion program of rebates (one-third of which would likely go to homeowners) would stimulate the development of a robust solar sector — which could then be weaned from subsidies as its growing scale brought down prices.

If it works as planned, said J. P. Ross, the policy director for Vote Solar, an organization that advocates for large state-level solar projects, the initiative will stimulate the installation of 3,000 megawatts of solar electrical generating capacity in the state over the next decade. That would be an increase by a factor of more than 20, Mr. Ross said, equivalent to 30 small natural-gas-fired power plants.

Given the enthusiasm homeowners have shown for the initiative, filing nearly twice as many plans for solar systems with the California State Energy Commission in 2006 than in previous years, this goal may not be far-fetched.

Other states are considering the future of their solar programs (several states in the Northeast and the Southwest have less ambitious ones in place, including New York, New Jersey and Connecticut), and they are closely watching California’s.

As the rebate program has made it less expensive to install a home solar system — and as banks, which consider a solar system to be an improvement that increases a house’s value, have made financing readily available — the solar industry has grown. There are now 434 companies registered to install solar systems by the state energy commission, which together installed just under 50 megawatts of solar electric generating capacity in 2006, the most in a single year. (California’s total capacity by October was 180 megawatts, enough energy to power about 135,000 homes. At the end of 2005 the nationwide solar photovoltaic capacity was 425 megawatts.)

While much of the total came from industrial and utility installations, more than 7,000 homeowners filed plans with the state energy commission in 2006, up from about 4,000 in each of the previous two years.

The companies are responding not only to an increase in demand, but also to a change in the type of consumers interested in going solar. Unlike the do-it-yourself tinkerers who once made up much of the home photovoltaic market, the people fueling the current growth spurt are interested in hands-off user friendliness.

“I more or less set it up and then I forgot about it,” said Nicky González Yuen, an instructor in political science at De Anza College in Cupertino, who hired a company called NextEnergy to install the modest three-kilowatt system in his 100-year-old Berkeley duplex. “I’m a really busy person, and I didn’t need to know that level of information.”

Companies like NextEnergy provide homeowners with a complete package that includes system design, permit applications, rebate processing, installation, maintenance and warranty. “It was a seamless, painless process,” said Mr. Yuen, whose system cost $16,000 after the California rebate and the federal tax credit, which together saved him $10,000. It was “comparable to having a sprinkler system put in,” he said.

Mr. Yuen, 47, was the first on his block to install a solar system: “In my circle I’m the eco-nut,” he said. But, he said, less than a year later they are quite common in his neighborhood. “A lot of people are really paying attention and beginning to think about the whole environmental cycle,” he added.

But even as these solar adopters re-evaluate their relationship to the power grid, virtually all of them remain connected to it, which is contrary to the go-it-alone image of the early solar pioneers. Though the connection means a house will lose power in a blackout, most home users find the ease of operation makes up for the loss of independence.

“All I see is an e-mail from the system once a month,” said Robert Felton, chief executive of TenFold, a software company, of the report of how much power his mansion in the Oakland hills is using and producing.

As recently as 10 years ago it was unheard of and, in fact, illegal for solar-powered houses in California to connect to the grid; now power companies are legally required to credit their customers for the excess power they produce.

The grid, in effect, serves to store power, replacing the bank of batteries that is a component of off-grid systems. At the end of the year, credits for solar power added to the grid are applied against charges for power taken from it, helping homeowners “zero out” their electricity bills. According to Borrego Solar Systems, the company that installed the long rows of solar panels on a hill next to Mr. Felton’s house, two-thirds of its customers manage to do so.

Excess credits are lost at the end of the year, so homeowners, at least for now, cannot make a profit from their solar systems. Even so, the savings can be substantial: in 2005 Mr. Felton paid Pacific Gas and Electric about $2,500 a month for electricity. (“I have a whole bunch of fountains and water features and stuff like that,” he said.) In California residential electricity rates are tiered, and large users like Mr. Felton pay rates about three times higher than more modest consumers, making solar power even more attractive.

While the average home solar system is about five kilowatts, Mr. Felton’s is 45 kilowatts, and he seldom sees an electric bill. Borrego Solar estimated the system could save Mr. Felton almost $2 million over 30 years — far more than the $255,000 the system cost him after a $134,000 rebate.

Mr. Felton, 67, said that a solar system did not make sense when he built his house in 2000, but that the rebate, as well as rising electricity prices, persuaded him to install the system last year. His pragmatic concerns were also informed by broader issues. “I’m not a hippie greenie,” he said, pointing out that with a background in nuclear engineering, he strongly supports nuclear power. “But solar is certainly a way to get off foreign oil.”

As a member of the military who has been deployed to the Persian Gulf three times, Dr. Leininger has been affected by the nation’s foreign oil habits more than most. “The need for stable oil supplies is the big reason that we spend so much time in the Persian Gulf,” he said. “Decreasing our national energy consumption is in my self-interest.”

His neighbors in the San Diego suburb of Escondido, most of them politically conservative, have responded well to the solar panels of the eight-kilowatt system that he and his wife, Suzann, a cartographer, installed last year on their roof. The neighborhood association, which was required to approve the plan by California law, did so happily, he said. Lately, the Leiningers have noticed at least one other photovoltaic system in the immediate area and a number of solar heating systems for swimming pools. (Meanwhile, in Orange County, which is known for its political conservatism, about 250 solar installations were approved from January to November last year, more than twice the 2005 figure.)

The Leiningers, who paid Borrego Solar $39,000 for their system after a $24,000 rebate, figure their system will pay for itself in a dozen years — assuming residential electricity rates do not increase, as they have by 37 percent since 1998. Dr. Leininger estimated that his system had reduced his household carbon emissions by nearly 30 tons since it was installed in June, and that it was well on its way to zeroing out.

“It comes down to personal responsibility,” he said. “If I can go electricity-neutral on my house, that’s that much less coal we have to burn.”

And much less money. “One of the most gratifying things is on a sunny day when the meter is spinning backward,” Dr. Leininger said. “We have a guaranteed return on the system because we know we’re not going to have an electric bill from now on.”

2005 Peak Oil Report Concerning 2007

Follow Peak Oil Here here. Plus I'm putting up a blog post that I found online from "Jonathan":

Posted by Jonathan at January 28, 2005 10:20 AM

You can read more from Jonathan's blog here: post.

In a recent post, I noted that oil companies' actions (not their words) show that they realize oil exploration is no longer a profitable exercise. Nearly all the world's oil has already been discovered; all that's left to discover are the scraps, and oil companies know it.

In fact, the situation is so critical that "the net present value of all discoveries for the 5 oil majors during 2001/2/3 was less than their exploration costs." (Energy Pulse, November 17, 2004, via FTW) Let that sink in. It now costs more to find new oil than the oil is worth.

Here's more evidence that the oil companies know the oil endgame is beginning. Dow Jones Newswire, January 17, via FTW:

Major oil companies are replacing dwindling reserves by acquiring other oil companies instead of exploring for new fields, a strategic shift with implications for global oil supplies, investment bank Credit Suisse First Boston said in a report Monday.

Integrated oil companies are spending only 12% of their total capital expenditures on finding new oil fields, down from nearly a third in 1990, the report said. [...]

In addition, with the world's biggest oil companies convinced exploration is too costly and risky, the steady growth of the world's total oil reserves has fallen sharply, the bank said. Global oil reserves are being replaced at a rate of 1.2% a year in the last three years, compared to 2.3% over the last 20 years, even as oil demand growth is hitting new records with China and India becoming industrial powers, the bank said. [My emphasis]

With record and ever-growing demand, you'd think that oil companies would be scrambling to find new oil fields. Their reluctance to invest in exploration speaks volumes. It should, in fact, be setting off alarm bells all over the world, but the human capacity for denial is boundless.

It takes on average six years to bring new oil fields online, so one can look ahead by analyzing the totality of planned projects. Such a review of planned projects was recently published by the journal Petroleum Review. It shows that 2007 could be the year that the world really discovers it's running out of oil. EMS:

Global oil supplies could start to have difficulty meeting growing demand after 2007, according to a recent analysis (PDF) of existing and planned major oil-recovery projects published this month in Petroleum Review.

While a flood of new production is set to hit the market over the next three years, the volumes expected from anticipated new projects thereafter are likely to fall well below requirements, the report says.

"There are not enough large-scale projects in the development pipeline right now to offset declining production in mature areas and meet global demand growth beyond 2007," said Chris Skrebowski, author of the report, editor of Petroleum Review and a recently appointed Board member of the Oil Depletion Analysis Centre (ODAC) in London.

"Since it takes, on average, six years from first discovery for a mega project to start producing oil, any new project approved today would be unlikely to come on stream until the end of the decade," Mr Skrebowski noted.

The report, 'Oil field mega projects 2004', analysed all known projects with estimated reserves of over 500 million barrels and the claimed potential to produce over 100,000 barrels of oil a day. Projects on that scale account for about 80 percent of the world's oil supplies.

The report found that just three such projects are expected to come on stream in 2007 and three more in 2008. No new projects could be identified for start-up in subsequent years.

"Ever-growing demand for oil means there is a ready market for additional supplies so substantial new discoveries tend to go into development in a very limited time," Mr Skrebowski noted. "But between a quarter and a third of the world's oil production is already in decline and it appears that giant new discoveries to replace lost capacity are becoming very scarce."

The rate of major new oil field discoveries has fallen dramatically in recent years. There were 13 discoveries of over 500 million barrels in 2000, six in 2001 and just two in 2002, according to the industry analysts IHS Energy. For 2003, not a single new discovery over 500 million barrels has so far been reported. [The falling discovery trend is confirmed by another recent report by energy consultant Wood Mackenzie, according to a January 23, 2004 article in The Wall Street Journal.]

The report says 18 large projects are scheduled to come online in 2005, 11 in 2006, only 3 in 2007, 3 in 2008, and after that: zero.

The bottom line:

From 2007, the volumes of new production will likely fall short of the combined need to replace lost capacity from depleting older fields and satisfy continued growth in world demand. [My emphasis]

In other words, barring a miracle, 2007 is the year world oil production peaks. After that, it's all downhill.

No one in our political leadership says a word about any of this. They rush us to war to grab control of the world's oil regions, but never tell us why. That's not how a democracy is supposed to work.