On April 28, Rocky Mountain Institute cofounder Amory Lovins stopped by the Energy Institute to visit with faculty and give a talk titled “Astonishing Automotive Futures: Disruptive Designs, Analyses, and Strategies.” If you missed it:
PolitiFact: What happens to oil from Keystone pipeline
Politifact, feat Barry Rabe and Mark Barteau
President Donald Trump’s approval of the Keystone XL pipeline brought protests from opponents who say it won’t benefit the United States.
“I’ve opposed the Keystone strategy for a long time because it is an export strategy,” U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., told the Press-Republican newspaper in Plattsburgh. “It doesn’t even have any oil for America to make our gas prices cheaper.”
“It’s literally oil from Canada taken through America, so we take all the risks of any kind of spill or any kind of problem, and then it exports it to Mexico and then straight to China or other places,” she said.
Is Gillibrand right? Will the crude oil that flows through the pipeline immediately leave the U.S.?
A new national survey from the University of Michigan explores why consumers choose to drive SUVs, pick-ups, vans and minivans over cars, even though these so-called "light trucks" generally demonstrate lower fuel economy than passenger cars.
Is Trump’s war on fuel economy really going to hurt the environment and save jobs?
UPROXX, feat. John DeCicco
Unless something major comes out of the investigations into the Trump campaign’s affiliation with Russia, it’s likely that Donald Trump’s first term will be judged primarily on his wins and losses. But while the effort to repeal and replace Obamacare went up in smoke, Trump has racked up wins on the job creation front, and he clearly has his eyes set on more.
Diversity dividends: The economic value of grassland species for carbon storage
University of Michigan News, feat. Brad Cardinale
A collaboration of scientists has developed one of the first models to assign a dollar value to the loss or gain of species in an ecosystem. The new work offers an economic argument for preserving biodiversity.
The findings were published April 5 in Science Advances. The lead author of the paper is Bruce Hungate of Northern Arizona University. University of Michigan ecologist Bradley Cardinale is a co-author.
Could the energy storage industry fabricate some of the "thousands and thousands of jobs" that President Trump says he wants?
The short answer from insiders is yes. But whether those jobs arrive during his administration or are delayed or lost to Asia will depend in part on decisions Trump makes on trade, energy, transportation and infrastructure.
This summer, an instructional team of battery experts from industry and the University of Michigan will teach a short course in battery manufacturing. The course runs from June 19-22.
The program outline is listed below with a brief description of the topics and learning objectives that will be covered. Course instructors are experts in the various aspects of battery manufacturing, with extensive real-world expertise. The classroom instruction will be complimented with hands-on instruction in the Battery Lab at the University of Michigan. The cost for this course is $1500.
When President Trump traveled to Michigan last week to announce that his administration will reevaluate (and almost certainly weaken) a key environmental achievement of the past decade —new fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards for cars and light trucks — he alleged that “industry-killing regulations” had contributed to a loss of jobs in the U.S. automobile sector. The truth is, however, that there is no factual basis for the claim that stricter standards have killed jobs. There is, however, abundant evidence that these regulations have saved Americans billions of dollars at the pump, bolstered U.S. energy independence, fostered automotive innovation, and led to major reductions in air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
Trump budget blueprint eviscerates energy programs
Climate Central, feat. Mark Barteau
The White House’s proposed “America First” budget forcefully kicks many federal climate-related energy programs to the curb, representing a possible turn away from renewable energy and a broad disinvestment in the research and development needed to transform the U.S. energy system into one better able to adapt to climate change.