TED, an organization whose motto is ‘Ideas Worth Spreading’, is dedicated to generating high-level conversations led by visionaries in their respective fields. They talk about a variety of issues and green technology is often in the program as well.

The editors of a website called Online College Courses have compiled a list of TED Talks related to chemistry. As it happens, two of them are related to energy and fuels.

The first is delivered by biologist and futurist Juan Enriquez, who talks about the potential of bioenergy. “Our current energy sources – coal, oil, gas – are ultimately derived from ancient plants – they’re “concentrated sunlight.” He asks, Can we learn from that process and accelerate it? Can we get to the point where we grow our own energy as efficiently as we grow wheat?”, says the description of the lecture. Apparently less than a month after this talk, Enriquez’s company announced a process that could just that.

The other talk is about the worrying aftermath of the BP Gulf spill. Marine toxicologist Susan Shaw presents evidence that the clean-up process designed to spare beaches may have had a devastating effect on the health of the deep sea.

Article by Antonio Pasolini, a Brazilian writer and video art curator based in London, UK. He holds a BA in journalism and an MA in film and television.

Related posts:

• Bolivia Assails Rich, Carbon Market at Cancun Talks
• United States: UN Role in Climate Talks Should be Diminished
• New Cache of Emails Leaked In Advance of Durban Climate Talks
• Jeremy Rifkin on Climate Change and Alternative Energy
• U.N. Climate Talks Must Solve Forest Carbon Riddle

Yes, you read that correctly.

In an assessment eerily similar to one delivered by Mark Delucchi and Mark Jacobson (and broken down here) less than a week ago, BP – the energy company that we all love to hate – says that the diversification of energy resources by 2030 will see renewables leaping ahead of fossil fuels for the first time in history.

At least that’s the message delivered by BP Energy Outlook 2030, an industry report which BP Group Chief Executive Bob Dudley says covers the “huge issues.”

Huge indeed, since what could be a bigger issue than global energy supplies, or the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide most of them produce when burned? Scientists have repeatedly warned that any increase in global warming beyond 2 degrees Celsius could lead to catastrophic climate change.

Of course, Dudley is quick to point out that the report is a projection, “not a proposition.” Or, in Dudley’s carefully worded explanation, while the company is not as optimistic as some about reducing carbon emissions, the cause implicated in global warming, it does see wind, solar, bio-fuels and other renewable sources of energy capturing an increasing portion of market share, increasing up to 6 percent by 2030, or as much as 18 percent of market share overall.

This figure compares more than favorably to natural gas, which the report expects to grow the fastest of the fossil fuels, or at 2.1 percent per year – more than three times as fast as oil. Even coal is expected to grow no faster than 1.2 percent per year, though by 2030, BP speculates, it will provide as much energy as oil (not counting biofuels).

In order for renewable energy technologies like solar and wind to leap ahead as predicted, fossil fuel consumption is expected to fall, from 83 percent to 64 percent.

This fall, the report suggests, will be largely a result of environmental policy initiatives around the globe, and the report anticipates a peak in global emissions just after 2020, at about 20 percent above 2005 levels – a fact that Dudley says should be a “wake-up call” in light of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change’s caveat regarding that infamous 2 degrees.

The report also examines energy demand from emerging economies like China and India, and suggests that such non-OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, a consortium of 34 largely European countries) nations will account for 93 percent of demand.

What makes the report truly hopeful, in terms of renewable technologies like solar (and truly scary in terms of staying under that 2-degree limit) is the fact that one of the world’s largest and formerly most profitable oil companies is saying it. This is like having your chain-smoking father remind you that cigarettes cause cancer.

Photo Credit: Oregon DOT & Wikimedia via CC licenses

Related posts:

• Can We Reach 100% Renewable Power by 2030?
• UK Should Aim For 60% Cut in Emissions, Says Committee
• Meeting California’s 33% Renewables Standard
• A Strong Climate Treaty Could Mean More Jobs
• Long-Term Renewable Energy Targets Must Be Set Now, Experts Say

Almost all oil production on Alaska’s North Slope remains shut down after workers on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline system discovered a leak over the weekend. BP, the pipeline company’s largest single owner, has called it a “significant event.”

BP is no stranger to pipeline problems in Alaska. We recently reported that a BP maintenance report in October found severe corrosion throughout its own system of pipelines, and workers had complained of “Band-Aid” solutions to long-running maintenance issues.

At the time, BP spokesman Steve Rinehart told us that the company has “an aggressive and comprehensive pipeline inspection and maintenance program,” and the 148 pipelines ranked “F” for corrosion were not necessarily a current safety risk. “We will not operate equipment or facilities that we believe are unsafe,” he said.

BP’s listing of corroded pipes and its documentation of pipeline failures wouldn’t have included the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, which is operated by Alyeska Pipeline Service—technically a separate company. But as we’ve noted, Alyeska is largely controlled by BP, which owns 47 percent of the company. Other owners include ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil, Unocal Pipeline, and Koch Alaska Pipeline.

With the exception of the company’s current CEO, Alyeska has always taken its top talent on loan from one if its oil company owners, and only once has its CEO come from a company that’s not BP, noted AlaskaDispatch. Alyeska’s current CEO, Thomas Barrett, took his post on January 1, exactly one week before the most recent spill was detected.

The pipeline system has had a long history of maintenance problems and worker safety complaints. Here’s what we reported in November:

In 2006, two spills from corroded pipes in Alaska placed the company’s maintenance problems in the national spotlight. At the time, BP temporarily shut down transmission of a portion of its oil from its Prudhoe Bay field to the continental United States, cutting off approximately 4 percent of the nation’s domestic oil supply, while it examined its pipeline system.

Photographs taken by employees in the Prudhoe Bay drilling field this summer, and viewed by ProPublica, show sagging and rusted pipelines, some dipping in gentle U-shapes into pools of water and others sinking deeply into thawing permafrost. Marc Kovac, a BP mechanic and welder, said some of the pipes have hundreds of patches on them and that BP’s efforts to rehabilitate the lines were not funded well enough to keep up with their rate of decline.

Several more close calls on Alaskan pipelines came between September 2008 and November 2009, when three BP gas and oil pipelines on Alaska’s North Slope ruptured or clogged, as we’ve reported.

Prior to this weekend’s incident, the most recent closure of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline occurred in May—during the BP oil spill—when “several thousand barrels” of oil spilled from the 800-mile line.

Article by Marian Wang, appearing courtesy ProPublica.

Related posts:

• Offshore Spills Raise Wider Questions on Drilling
• Mass Water Shipment Planned From Alaska to India
• Scaling Biofuels for Aviation ‘Not so difficult,’ Branson Says
• U.S. to Suspend Arctic Drilling: Alaska Senator
• Green Coalition Files Lawsuit Over U.S. Arctic Drilling Approval

Investigators working to piece together the data that workers on the Deepwater Horizon saw in the rig’s final hours have run into a roadblock, according to a letter sent Monday to the presidential panel’s commissioners.

A company called National Oilwell Varco, an offshore drilling company, provided the data displays aboard the rig and is standing in the way of the investigators’ effort to reconstruct data displays similar to the ones on the rig using data supplied by BP, the investigators said:

For over a month, we have attempted to elicit NOV’s assistance on this matter. They have been generally uncooperative, either in the form of refusal or delay.

“The men who know the precise answers to those questions … are deceased,” wrote investigator Fred Bartlit. “All we have is the data. We request your assistance in obtaining NOV’s cooperation.”

National Oilwell Varco, in a statement, said it rejected the investigators’ requests out of concern that trying to recreate the displays could produce a “misleading picture of what actually happened.”

Read the investigators’ letter.

Article by Marian Wang, appearing courtesy Propublica.

Related posts:

• Oil Spill in Brazil Bigger Than Chevron Admits, NGO Says
• Interactive Resource Tracks Gulf Spill Response in Near Real-Time
• BP to Commit Up to $500 Million to Oil Spill Research
• BP, Coast Guard Attempt to Censor Images
• Gulf Oil Spill Booms to be Recycled in Production of Chevy Volt

(Reuters) – Halliburton Co. used flawed cement in BP Plc’s doomed Gulf of Mexico well, which could have contributed to the blowout that sparked the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, a White House panel said on Thursday.

Halliburton’s shares tumbled as much as 16 percent after the National Oil Spill Commission released a letter detailing the panel’s findings, before recovering to close down nearly 8 percent at $31.68 per share on the New York Stock Exchange. BP’s U.S.-listed shares closed up 1.3 percent at $40.60 per share.

While not absolving BP of responsibility, the report heaped criticism on Halliburton’s cement job, raising investor concerns it could be forced to bear some of the clean-up costs. BP has taken a $32.2 billion earnings charge to cover the cleanup.

The cost to insure Halliburton’s debt jumped on the news.

Halliburton had run a series of tests that showed the material was unstable in the weeks before the April 20 explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig, which killed 11 workers and spurred a temporary ban on deepwater U.S. drilling.

In an emailed statement, Halliburton said it is reviewing the report and will publish a response later on Thursday. A BP spokesman declined to comment.

Both Halliburton and BP were aware of flaws in the cement slurry, similar to the one used to seal the mile-deep Macondo well, as early as March 8, over a month before the spill, “but neither acted upon that data,” according to National Oil Spill Commission chief counsel Fred Bartlit.

“The fact that BP and Halliburton knew this cement job could fail only solidifies their liability and responsibility for this disaster,” said Rep. Edward Markey, a Democratic lawmaker who has criticized BP and its well partners.

The industry has developed tests to identify faulty cement jobs in offshore wells, but “BP and/or Transocean personnel misinterpreted or chose not to conduct such tests at the Macondo well,” Bartlit wrote.

Tests conducted by industry cement experts show “the foam cement used at Macondo was unstable,” Bartlit wrote in a letter to co-chairs Bob Graham and Bill Reilly. “Halliburton (and perhaps BP) should have considered redesigning the foam slurry before pumping it at the Macondo well.”

The report supports claims by BP that it shares the responsibility for the disaster with its Macondo partners, including Swiss-based Transocean Ltd, which owned the Deepwater Horizon rig.

In an interim report BP issued in September, it said Halliburton used an “unstable” cement mixture that allowed hydrocarbons to flow up the drill pipe and onto the floor of the rig, where they ignited.

The resulting spill marred the coasts of four U.S. Gulf states, prompted a ban on new deepwater drilling and left BP’s image in tatters in the United States, home to 40 percent of the London-based oil giant’s business.

Article by Chris Baltimore; additional reporting by Anna Driver in Houston, Braden Reddall in San Francisco and Ayesha Rascoe in Washington; editing by Stacey Joyce and Jerry Norton.

Article appearing courtesy Reuters.

Related posts:

• Cement Plant Turned Off Lights For Earth Hour and Keeps Them Off
• Saint Gobain, Lafarge Glass and Cement Plants to Install Pollution Controls
• Sustainable Concrete
• Turning a Bad Into a Good: New Uses for CO2
• Congress Launches Investigation Into Gas Drilling Practices

(Reuters) – The U.S. government confirmed on Sunday that BP Plc has succeeded in permanently plugged its runaway Macondo well, closing the first chapter in the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

Here are some questions and answers on how things might play out for BP, the U.S. offshore industry and the Gulf’s fragile ecosystem.

What are BP’s Biggest Challenges Going Forward?

* The spill has wiped about $70 billion from BP’s market value and spurred the company to ditch its gaffe-prone British chief executive, Tony Hayward, to be replaced by an American, Bob Dudley.

* BP now faces billions of dollars in fines and penalties from civil and possibly criminal prosecution by the U.S. government. BP has set aside about $32 billion for spill liabilities, but experts say that amount could soar for BP and its partners if they are found criminally negligent.

* BP must defend its dominant North America position — it is one of the largest U.S. oil and natural gas producers and the largest acreage holder in the Gulf of Mexico, which generates a large percentage of earnings growth. BP could have trouble finding partners willing to enter joint ventures for deepwater projects due to a higher risk profile, experts said.

Will BP Tap the Macondo Well in the Future?

* BP has remained mum about its intentions for the Macondo reservoir, which could hold upward of 100 million barrels of oil. In coming years, BP could unveil plans to retap Macondo despite its troubled history, said Eric Smith, associate director of the Tulane Energy Institute in New Orleans.

Especially if oil prices rise, such a plan could gain the blessing of the U.S. government, which might be enticed by the royalties that BP would pay to extract the oil, Smith said.

What are the Long-Term Impacts for Offshore Drilling?

* The Obama administration has slapped a moratorium on new deepwater U.S. offshore oil drilling, spurring some rig operators to set their sights on other offshore basins like Brazil and Africa.

* The spill has fundamentally recast the risk-reward equation for drilling in the oil-rich Gulf of Mexico, long considered a prime target for energy companies looking to escape the political uncertainty of Venezuela and Russia.

* Deepwater operators are having trouble obtaining permits for activities that are allowed under the government’s drilling halt. A return to normal is not seen for years.

* Delays and regulation could add 10 percent to the marginal cost of deepwater oil production, and a one-year delay in nascent deepwater projects could impact global oil supply by 500,000 barrels per day between 2013 and 2017, according to Bernstein Research.

How has the Spill Impacted the Gulf Coast?

* For 87 days following the April 20 Deepwater Horizon rig explosion that triggered the oil spill, crude spewed into the Gulf, contaminating wetlands, fishing grounds and beaches from Louisiana to the Florida Panhandle.

* BP engineers provisionally capped the leak on July 15 and lawyer Kenneth Feinberg is overseeing a $20 billion, BP-funded program to compensate businesses, fishermen and others, some of whom suffered devastating losses.

* NOAA head Jane Lubchenco told a White House briefing on August 4 that: “At least 50 percent of the oil that was released is now completely gone from the system. And most of the remainder is degrading rapidly or is being removed from the beaches.”

* A number of studies have shown that much of the oil that was not captured or burned off was consumed by deep-water microbes, but other environmentalists warn of unknown long-term consequences from the spill.

Article by Chris Baltimore, edited by Philip Barbara, appearing courtesy Reuters.

Related posts:

• As Oil Nears Loop Current, Fears Grow That Slick Could Reach Florida
• U.S. to Suspend Arctic Drilling: Alaska Senator
• Spill, Baby, Spill
• Gulf Oil Spill Booms to be Recycled in Production of Chevy Volt
• Oil Men Raked Over the Coals

The same day BP finally threw a cap over their spewing oil well in the Gulf of Mexico (which is expected to be as effective as celebrity rehab) the non-profit Artists & Athletes Alliance held a private discussion with Philippe Cousteau about the epic Gulf disaster. Event attendees, like Jorga Fox, Alyssa Milano, Stephen Baldwin and Jason Mraz, were treated to Cousteau’s inside information about the spill and it’s consequences, and got a rare glimpse of his feisty Irish side when discussing BP, the government, and our dependence on fossil fuels.

Frustrated with the media’s B-level response to the BP oil spill, Cousteau decided it was time for “powerful storytelling and powerful images.” Acting on his words he made history in May when he dove into the oil slick only 20 miles from the site of the gushing Deepwater Horizon well. Wearing a dry suit to keep from coming into contact with the toxic mix of oil and dispersant, which hung, like a cloud, around him, Philippe said the combined compounds resembled “Chunky Campbell soup.”

Throughout the discussion Cousteau repeatedly stressed the fact that this spill is “unprecedented” and tried to explain why the Gulf disaster is so different from the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound. The Exxon spill happened at the surface of the ocean when an oil tanker broke open, and spilled 11 million gallons of water into a bay, protected by land on three sides.

The Deepwater Horizon spill is occurring 1 mile under the surface of the ocean, 180 million gallons have spilled so far, and computer models are projecting the spill will spread to the Atlantic. Cousteau deemed the 86 days it took to get a cap on the well “unacceptable” and suggested that if we didn’t know how to clean up the oil then we shouldn’t be drilling for it in the first place.

I had seen Cousteau’s coverage of the spill on various networks and one delightfully unexpected treat is that he’s much feistier in person. (Obviously, someone is over editing the tapes – ABC, CNN, etc. let the man talk). Standing sometimes to make a point, swearing at others, he passionately pleaded for the government to stop subsidizing coal and oil and let it compete at it’s true market price against renewable energy sources. He tried to reason with his privileged audience, “The price at the pump is not the price we are paying.” Cousteau also repeated sentiments from the TEDxOilSpill conference held last month in Washington D.C., “We have underinvested in our oceans for decades.”

The event was moderated by eminent Louisiana physician Corey J. Hebert who has been treating children for post traumatic stress disorder since Katrina and expects the fallout from the oil spill to be worse due to the loss of jobs along the coast. As Dr. Hebert explained, “You can rebuild a house, but if you take away a person’s livelihood you take away their ability to feed their children.” In fact, Dr. Hebert was so impressive one woman behind me purred, “Cousteau is great and all, but who is that man up there with him?”

Going forward Cousteau and Dr. Hebert agreed that we should focus on the environmental legacy we leave behind; no child deserves an environment that is anything less than what we inherited.

While we wait to see if the well cap holds, and whether BP is held responsible for it’s actions perhaps we should also take responsibility for our actions and try to wean ourselves off our carbon addiction. After all… maybe the oil was buried deep because we weren’t suppose to find it.

Article by Raegan Payne appearing courtesy Celsias.

photo: lumis

Related posts:

• Energy is not Created Equal: Technology Subsidies
• Study of CO2 ‘Supply Line’ Urges Carbon Price at Point of Extraction
• Environmental Law Institute Reports on Subsidies for Energy Companies
• Carbon Tax – Should It Be Seriously Considered?
• Shift Fossil Fuel Subsidies to Support Green Energy, IEA Urges

This morning the President spoke on the news from the Gulf, emphasizing that while there may be good news, the work is not done containing the leak, and will not be until the relief wells are finished and functioning. After his opening remarks where he explained exactly what is happening, he was asked what his message for the people in the Gulf region would be:

Well, I would expect that sometime in the next several weeks I’ll be back down. What we’re trying to do right now is to make sure that the technical folks on the ground are making the best possible decisions to shut this well down as quickly as possible, that we’re standing up the fund so that people are compensated quickly. I’m staying in touch each and every day, monitoring the progress and getting briefed by the scientists.

The key here right now is for us to make decisions based on science, based on what’s best for the people of the Gulf — not based on PR, not based on politics. And that’s part of the reason why I wanted to speak this morning, because I know that there were a lot of reports coming out in the media that seemed to indicate, well, maybe this thing is done. We won’t be done until we actually know that we’ve killed the well and that we have a permanent solution in place. We’re moving in that direction, but I don’t want us to get too far ahead of ourselves.

His opening remarks with a little more detail below:

I wanted to give everyone a quick update on the situation in the Gulf. As we all know, a new cap was fitted over the BP oil well earlier this week. This larger more sophisticated cap was designed to give us greater control over the oil flow as we complete the relief wells that are necessary to stop the leak.

So to summarize, the new cap is good news. Either we will be able to stop the flow, or we will be able to use it to capture almost all of the oil until the relief well is done. But we’re not going to know for certain which approach makes sense until additional data is in. And all the American people should rest assured that all of these decisions will be based on the science and what’s best for the people of the Gulf.

Related posts:

• U.S. to Suspend Arctic Drilling: Alaska Senator
• BP to Commit Up to $500 Million to Oil Spill Research
• Oil Spill in Brazil Bigger Than Chevron Admits, NGO Says
• Sierra Club Launches Oil Spill Action Center
• Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Makes a Political Mess

(Reuters) – The Obama administration issued a revised moratorium on deepwater oil drilling Monday but will likely face another tough legal battle with the companies which have so far successfully sued to get the original drilling suspension lifted.

The Justice Department said it will now seek to have the court order blocking the original moratorium thrown out, with the administration arguing a pause is needed because of the BP Plc oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

But opponents may argue the new moratorium is simply a repackaging of the old one and should also be blocked.

* The Interior Department attempted to offer more justification for the moratorium in its revised order so it can pass muster with U.S. courts which rejected its first suspension order as too broad and arbitrary.

The new ban removes a specific depth of 500 feet and instead focuses on the equipment and technology used by the drillers. It specifically points to new difficulties drillers have had with the blowout preventers used on the relief wells being drilled to kill the rogue BP well.

The administration says the moratorium could be lifted on new wells once drillers provide more evidence of their ability to prevent a blowout and respond adequately should another deepwater catastrophe occur, and detail what assets are available to contain a second spill should it occur.

The new moratorium roughly covers the same period of time, ending by November 30, a move that could draw the ire of drillers and the courts. The original moratorium was issued in late May and was to last six months, i.e. until late November.

“The arguments for a moratorium on deepwater drilling are compelling in the wake of the Gulf tragedy, but the government faces an uphill battle convincing a skeptical federal district court that the new suspension does not simply repackage the moratorium that the court already struck down,” said David Uhlmann, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School.

* The uncertainty means oil companies probably won’t go back to work drilling right away, whatever the courts decide.

Hornbeck Offshore Services Inc and Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc last month won a district court judgment lifting the original moratorium. The Justice Department says that ruling is now moot and will ask an appeals court to vacate the order blocking the original moratorium.

Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, said the legal system probably would not move fast enough for the companies to get back to work as quickly as they would like. “It just takes a long time to grind through.”

In light of that reality, about an hour after the new moratorium was announced, Diamond Offshore said it was moving one of its rigs from the Gulf of Mexico to the coast of Africa.

* The Interior Department, in an attempt to show the new moratorium should survive judicial scrutiny, pointed to new information collected and noted that drillers now have an avenue to prove they are operating safely.

Obama administration officials have said repeatedly that a drilling moratorium was needed so they could investigate the cause of the BP well blowout and ensure other rigs are operating safely.

* But the administration may again run up against the economic impact of a moratorium, since the district court found the economic harm to the workers and affected communities outweighed the risk of another oil well blowout.

Louisiana officials have said the drilling business is worth $3 billion a year to its economy, including more than 20,000 jobs. The state’s governor, Republican Bobby Jindal, has pleaded with the White House to provide some certainty so companies and their employees can get back to work.

Article by Jeremy Pelofsky; edited by Simon Denyer and Todd Eastham; appearing courtesy Reuters.

Photo: Ken Lund

Related posts:

• Obama’s win: Bright future for CleanTech?
• Got a Legal Question on Clean Tech or Renewable Energy Law?
• France Invests €1B in Nuclear, Saying Moratorium ‘Makes No Sense’
• Wind Mills, Bans, and Possible Ill Effects
• Green Media Panel: Practical & Legal Considerations for Communicating Your Message

1. Solar Sugar Daddy: During his Saturday address, President Obama lavished an astonishing $2 billion in loan guarantees upon two solar companies. This upended the administration’s seedling strategy with renewables — a few million for algae research here, a few million for efficient buildings there — without choosing winners. No question, then, that Spanish firm Abengoa is a favorite horse, receiving $1.45 billion for its plans to build 250 megawatts of solar concentrators outside Phoenix, Arizona.

2. This Week’s Reason to Hate BP: The British oil company is falling far short of its promises in cleaning up the epic leak in the Gulf of Mexico. Since April 20, “BP has skimmed or burned about 60 percent of the amount it promised regulators it could remove in a single day,” the Washington Post reports.

3. Bulldog Bingaman: If any climate bill gets passed this year, it will probably be thanks to the tireless backroom efforts of Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) Politico reports how the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources committee has quietly gained the support of some Republicans for a proposal to place a cap on emissions from power plants, without ever stepping in front of a camera to take credit.

4. Recession? Don’t Tell the Propellerheads. Americans bought almost 10,000 small wind turbines last year (100 Kw or under), growing the market by 15 percent even as the recession held the country in its chilly grip. Call it retail activism, call it a clever use of subsidies, but the end result is more than 20 megawatts of clean, domestic electricity.

5.Finally, a Flying Car: Terrafugia is taking orders at $10,000 a pop for its “roadable aircraft.” With fold-up wings and a top cruising speed of 115 mph (in the air), this might be the wonderbug we’ve all been waiting for.

Article by David Ferris, appearing courtesy Matter Network.

photo: Observe The Banana

Related posts:

• Biofuel Enzyme Breakthrough Promises Greener Bioenergy
• Algae Biofuel: Can Pond Scum Become Our Energy Savior?
• Technology Advances in Cellulosic Ethanol
• Brazil Pumps More Funds Into Ethanol Research
• Solazyme Sambas into Brazil with Engineered Algae that Crave Sweets