ChamliteEssay Preview: ChamliteReport this essayQuestion 1Chemalite, Inc.Summary of TransactionsJan. 2, 2003 through June 30, 2003PatentMachinery & EquipmentInventoryOwners EquityJan. 2+125,000+125,000 : Common StockJan. 2+375,000+375,000 : Common StockJan. 15-7,500-7,500 : Incorporation ExpensesJun. 15-62,500+62,500 : Building the MachineryJun. 24-75,000+75,000 : Purchase of Plastics and ChemicalsTotal230,00062,50075,000367,500Question 2Chemalite, Inc.Income StatementJan. 2, 2003 through June 30, 2003RevenueFees earnedExpensesOperating expenses:Incorporation expenses-7500Depreciation expense (patent)-12,500Total operating expenses-20,000Net income-20,000The company did incur a loss as Mr. Larson suggested. However, the loss is not $145,000; the loss, which is due to incorporation expenses and the patent depreciation expense, is only $20,000. Mr. Larson did not recognize the building of the machinery and the purchase of the inventory as investments.
Predicting the Future of Energy and Climate Change.
Predicting the potential of an Energy and Climate Change system entails not only evaluating the potential costs of fossil energy, but also evaluating the likelihood that a system will not become commercially viable and will need to be reengineered to meet the climate goals, either by limiting emissions of greenhouse gases or by replacing existing existing technologies with new technologies. An innovative “climate strategy” in which an alternative energy is added to provide a much more competitive but potentially costly energy, as opposed to a fossil-fuel, would not only require energy efficiency improvements, but also greatly reduce the cost of the energy added. And, of course, the costs of doing so would be lower than if, instead, the energy from existing technologies were used instead to create new energy sources.
However, to take a step back, here are some other potential solutions that could provide improved global energy independence and energy security:
Renewable Energy is one of many options available from the United States and developed in response to a wide range of environmental, economic, and social pressures such as climate change, poverty, and environmental injustices. This combination of technological innovation, resource-intensive uses, and market-friendly climate policy means that energy independence and energy security have very real-world potential to become both a national security and economic priority. Renewable Energy is a long-term, bipartisan alternative to fossil fuels that has been embraced by countries such as the United States and North Korea over the years, although some other technologies remain at the forefront and can help prevent nuclear-related disaster from occurring in the future, potentially giving Americans the opportunity to have their energy provided right now. The U.S. and North Korea currently use more than 100 billion kWh of renewable energy per year, making it one of the largest sources of natural gas in the world. More than 30% of U.S. energy uses come from natural gas. An effective energy and climate strategy is a national security first step as well as a long-term, multi-pronged strategy that combines government-led innovation, environmental stewardship, and environmental security. While we must prioritize the energy efficiency of our energy infrastructure, we should also prioritize and prioritize other policies that allow us leverage our resources and our economies to be more energy efficient and cost-effective. For this reason, we will explore the possible U.S. and North Korea solutions to energy independence, including energy security, when we take up the challenge of energy independence.
In a unique example of U.S. government-led policy that works in tandem with other international nations in this area, the U.S. government recently introduced new U.S. energy policy in conjunction with the Council on Foreign Relations. Under the proposal the US government will move aggressively to develop strategies for low-carbon energy, and focus on improving the efficiency of our natural gas supply by encouraging more investment in clean, low-carbon energy and using the energy of our shale gas reserves so that they can be harnessed for cleaner and safer energy and to reduce energy consumption while protecting our planet from climate change. The key focus of the Council on Foreign Relations is to address the United Nations climate change summit in Paris this 2017, and to establish the basis for international legislation to take into account United Nations emissions data for energy security. In 2017, the United States has pledged to meet the Paris Agreement on climate reduction. The U.S. has also committed to continue working with the Council on Foreign Relations to develop additional U.S. energy security solutions, such as U.S. Directed Energy Alternatives (DEO), United States Directed Investment and Energy Savings Strategy (EET), and the United States Energy Security Initiative (ERISA). The U.S. also committed to develop and provide training opportunities for U.S. citizens and staff, with an emphasis on energy security and climate responsibility. These two initiatives are well-established and have been well received by the American people. It is important to note, however, that for the U.S. to continue working along these lines, the U.S. must continue to
In the case of energy systems as used in today’s society, it is easy to see that new energy sources are becoming more common. And, of course, it is possible, for instance, to build a battery-powered wind-powered energy system that was designed for a rapidly declining and rapidly changing climate and that has already generated substantial amounts of new coal-fired electricity. But the system, with its high capacity capacity and the ability to deliver significant reductions to the power sector only using renewable energy in places where there is current wind and solar, should be constructed and built more quickly than in places that do not currently have these technologies or in conditions where these technologies can be delivered only in coal-fired electricity, or where this type of renewable energy system is being developed for small businesses or commercial installations.
The Energy State: Energy Is the Product
In the sense that it represents the totality of our society, it is also, in an increasingly dynamic world, the product of our changing habits, the processes to produce it, and our changing values. This, in turn, results in two important changes that can be expected as a result of the growth of technology and their consequent economic impacts.
While the production of energy in the energy sector today, combined with the expansion of production and investment for industrial-scale renewable energy production as a percentage of GDP, brings us a new and much more dynamic economy with new new opportunities for people with low income, or underdeveloped countries and for rural communities all over the world, a revolution in our energy economy. This will have a critical and irreversible effect on our current economic and social and political system.
In a more recent article in the International Economic Review, Eric Daley and I discuss recent developments, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, a major shift in policy on climate change and other issues, and two possible future trajectories of energy and the new climate system. We also point out that this shift should not be seen as a mere aberration or a backward step in recent times by the countries currently on track to meet or exceed their targets to curb global population growth and extreme weather. This shift is expected to make the current situation much more dramatic.
The new carbon pricing system in the European Union is likely to be a major factor in a shift to a carbon tax or an emissions tax, as are the potential economic repercussions of such measures across the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and many other developed nations. But the fundamental issue is how they will act. As the United States has made progress at cutting greenhouse gas emissions and increasing the efficiency of power generation, others will have a very different incentive to put in place new rules designed to limit fossil fuel use, which can have unintended negative consequences for the climate and for human health.
Moreover, because the new technologies are more prevalent than before, and they are not only being developed for use in their current environment that does not match the existing energy mix, they are also being developed for applications on which they are very unlikely to be adopted, or not for use when they are.
As Professor Mark Perry, director of the Center for Energy Policy and Policy Innovation, explains:
“We really need an energy system today that takes advantage of the global climate crisis, that uses natural gas for its primary uses, and doesn’t require a lot of fossil-fuel power generation in the form of large, expensive renewables. It can supply that. A system that relies on coal is much safer: it’s much warmer with less carbon pollution, and it can generate power that is also much cleaner than coal. And this system can be built without using any of the fossil fuels now in use today that are used for that purpose.”[5]
The Future of Energy Systems.
In what sense is the future of the Energy System? It is a question that arises from how a system, and systems, will adapt, in the current context, to shift from fossil fuels. The question is not whether the system should get a boost from carbon limits, but whether the energy it provides as they will eventually be needed will remain in the system’s existing form, or whether the current energy needs will meet them. While some systems that operate as a whole will benefit from some of the improvements in the current climate, its main contribution will not be a change of climate policy, such as replacing existing emissions sources or replacing existing technologies, but rather an enhancement or reduction of existing systems (e.g., by lowering the level of emissions from new sources that are already being developed to meet the specific emissions targets mandated in the Clean Power Plan).
Predicting the Future of Energy and Climate Change.
Predicting the potential of an Energy and Climate Change system entails not only evaluating the potential costs of fossil energy, but also evaluating the likelihood that a system will not become commercially viable and will need to be reengineered to meet the climate goals, either by limiting emissions of greenhouse gases or by replacing existing existing technologies with new technologies. An innovative “climate strategy” in which an alternative energy is added to provide a much more competitive but potentially costly energy, as opposed to a fossil-fuel, would not only require energy efficiency improvements, but also greatly reduce the cost of the energy added. And, of course, the costs of doing so would be lower than if, instead, the energy from existing technologies were used instead to create new energy sources.
However, to take a step back, here are some other potential solutions that could provide improved global energy independence and energy security:
Renewable Energy is one of many options available from the United States and developed in response to a wide range of environmental, economic, and social pressures such as climate change, poverty, and environmental injustices. This combination of technological innovation, resource-intensive uses, and market-friendly climate policy means that energy independence and energy security have very real-world potential to become both a national security and economic priority. Renewable Energy is a long-term, bipartisan alternative to fossil fuels that has been embraced by countries such as the United States and North Korea over the years, although some other technologies remain at the forefront and can help prevent nuclear-related disaster from occurring in the future, potentially giving Americans the opportunity to have their energy provided right now. The U.S. and North Korea currently use more than 100 billion kWh of renewable energy per year, making it one of the largest sources of natural gas in the world. More than 30% of U.S. energy uses come from natural gas. An effective energy and climate strategy is a national security first step as well as a long-term, multi-pronged strategy that combines government-led innovation, environmental stewardship, and environmental security. While we must prioritize the energy efficiency of our energy infrastructure, we should also prioritize and prioritize other policies that allow us leverage our resources and our economies to be more energy efficient and cost-effective. For this reason, we will explore the possible U.S. and North Korea solutions to energy independence, including energy security, when we take up the challenge of energy independence.
In a unique example of U.S. government-led policy that works in tandem with other international nations in this area, the U.S. government recently introduced new U.S. energy policy in conjunction with the Council on Foreign Relations. Under the proposal the US government will move aggressively to develop strategies for low-carbon energy, and focus on improving the efficiency of our natural gas supply by encouraging more investment in clean, low-carbon energy and using the energy of our shale gas reserves so that they can be harnessed for cleaner and safer energy and to reduce energy consumption while protecting our planet from climate change. The key focus of the Council on Foreign Relations is to address the United Nations climate change summit in Paris this 2017, and to establish the basis for international legislation to take into account United Nations emissions data for energy security. In 2017, the United States has pledged to meet the Paris Agreement on climate reduction. The U.S. has also committed to continue working with the Council on Foreign Relations to develop additional U.S. energy security solutions, such as U.S. Directed Energy Alternatives (DEO), United States Directed Investment and Energy Savings Strategy (EET), and the United States Energy Security Initiative (ERISA). The U.S. also committed to develop and provide training opportunities for U.S. citizens and staff, with an emphasis on energy security and climate responsibility. These two initiatives are well-established and have been well received by the American people. It is important to note, however, that for the U.S. to continue working along these lines, the U.S. must continue to
In the case of energy systems as used in today’s society, it is easy to see that new energy sources are becoming more common. And, of course, it is possible, for instance, to build a battery-powered wind-powered energy system that was designed for a rapidly declining and rapidly changing climate and that has already generated substantial amounts of new coal-fired electricity. But the system, with its high capacity capacity and the ability to deliver significant reductions to the power sector only using renewable energy in places where there is current wind and solar, should be constructed and built more quickly than in places that do not currently have these technologies or in conditions where these technologies can be delivered only in coal-fired electricity, or where this type of renewable energy system is being developed for small businesses or commercial installations.
The Energy State: Energy Is the Product
In the sense that it represents the totality of our society, it is also, in an increasingly dynamic world, the product of our changing habits, the processes to produce it, and our changing values. This, in turn, results in two important changes that can be expected as a result of the growth of technology and their consequent economic impacts.
While the production of energy in the energy sector today, combined with the expansion of production and investment for industrial-scale renewable energy production as a percentage of GDP, brings us a new and much more dynamic economy with new new opportunities for people with low income, or underdeveloped countries and for rural communities all over the world, a revolution in our energy economy. This will have a critical and irreversible effect on our current economic and social and political system.
In a more recent article in the International Economic Review, Eric Daley and I discuss recent developments, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, a major shift in policy on climate change and other issues, and two possible future trajectories of energy and the new climate system. We also point out that this shift should not be seen as a mere aberration or a backward step in recent times by the countries currently on track to meet or exceed their targets to curb global population growth and extreme weather. This shift is expected to make the current situation much more dramatic.
The new carbon pricing system in the European Union is likely to be a major factor in a shift to a carbon tax or an emissions tax, as are the potential economic repercussions of such measures across the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and many other developed nations. But the fundamental issue is how they will act. As the United States has made progress at cutting greenhouse gas emissions and increasing the efficiency of power generation, others will have a very different incentive to put in place new rules designed to limit fossil fuel use, which can have unintended negative consequences for the climate and for human health.
Moreover, because the new technologies are more prevalent than before, and they are not only being developed for use in their current environment that does not match the existing energy mix, they are also being developed for applications on which they are very unlikely to be adopted, or not for use when they are.
As Professor Mark Perry, director of the Center for Energy Policy and Policy Innovation, explains:
“We really need an energy system today that takes advantage of the global climate crisis, that uses natural gas for its primary uses, and doesn’t require a lot of fossil-fuel power generation in the form of large, expensive renewables. It can supply that. A system that relies on coal is much safer: it’s much warmer with less carbon pollution, and it can generate power that is also much cleaner than coal. And this system can be built without using any of the fossil fuels now in use today that are used for that purpose.”[5]
The Future of Energy Systems.
In what sense is the future of the Energy System? It is a question that arises from how a system, and systems, will adapt, in the current context, to shift from fossil fuels. The question is not whether the system should get a boost from carbon limits, but whether the energy it provides as they will eventually be needed will remain in the system’s existing form, or whether the current energy needs will meet them. While some systems that operate as a whole will benefit from some of the improvements in the current climate, its main contribution will not be a change of climate policy, such as replacing existing emissions sources or replacing existing technologies, but rather an enhancement or reduction of existing systems (e.g., by lowering the level of emissions from new sources that are already being developed to meet the specific emissions targets mandated in the Clean Power Plan).
Question 3Chemalite, Inc.Balance SheetJan. 2, 2003 through June 30, 2003Assets$230,000Equipment & Machinery$62,500Inventory$75,000Patent$125,000Less Depreciation-12,500Net Patent$112,500Total assets$480,000LiabilitiesStockholderÐŽ¦s equityCommon stock$500,000Retained earnings-20,000Total liabilities and stockholderÐŽ¦s equity$480,000Question 3Chemalite, Inc.Statement of Cash FlowsJan. 2, 2003 through June 30, 2003Cash flows from operating activities:Deduct cash payment for incorporation costs-7,500Deduct cash payment for depreciation of patent-12,500Net cash flow from operating activities-20,000Cash flows from investing activities:Cash payment for net patent-112,500Cash payment for building machinery-62,500Cash payment for purchasing supplies/inventory-75,000Net cash flow from investing activities-250,000Cash flows from financing activities:Cash received from issuing common stock$375,000Cash provided for purchase of patent$125,000Net cash flow from financing activities$500,000Net increase in cashJan 1 2003 cash balanceJune 30 2003 cash balance$230,000Question 4Chemalite, Inc.Income StatementFor the Year Ended December 31 2003Fees earnedTotal Sale$754,500.00COGS-545,000.00Gross Profit$209,500.00Operating expensesFees Paid-7,500.00Marketing Expense-22,500.00Consulting Fees-23,750.00Salaries-80,000.00Depreciation On Machinery-10,625.00Depreciation On Patent-25,000.00Interest-750.00Total operating expenses-170,125.00Net Profit39,375.00Question 4Chemalite, Inc.Balance SheetDecember 31 2003
