Just so you know, I’m virtually certain you can’t do (b). And even if you could, how would it help your argument? You’ve already said USGS is BS. As for (a), I’m almost equally sure you can’t find ANYTHING of any import (which is to say, some source other than editorialists, or pundits — including bloggers who just parrot what they’ve heard, especially if they don’t specify sources — or spokesmen for the companies involved) within the last five years or so to back up your argument.

To tell you the truth though, I’m inclined to give company spokesmen the benefit of the doubt, assuming they are speaking for a publicly traded company. If they’re speaking for a private company, then all bets are off. If that’s the case, then they’re no better than editorialists, pundits, and bloggers. But if you can quote a spokesman for a publicallly traded company, you’re coming to a gun fight with at least a knife. If you can’t, well… be careful you don’t end up shooting yourself in the foot. And please pardon the mixed metaphore. But perhaps that concern explains why you have yet to take a shot at me, which is to say that never, not once have you ever documented ANYTHING you’ve said to me. I like you Evan, but I have to admit to a certain level of disappointment. You’re very good at spinning phrases, quoting verses, and offering metaphores. But to me, those things are tools, not product. Pardon me for dancing on the proverbial lawn again (and fracturing even more metaphores), but the way I see it, “you” might very well have the best tools in the shed, but it’s the quality of the product that comes out of the shed that matters.

FWIW, I read it.

I’ll add that if USGS were right about fuel, we’d have been out of it by 1950. They have always been extraordinarily pessimistic.

Granted, the seminar is not about the CSIS, but neither should the CSIS be considered in isolation. And granted, the various speakers spend a lot of time talking about “global warming”. But again, that motivation should not be considered in isolation either — all of the arguments hold up equally well without reference to global warming. The only thing the issue about global warming adds is a certain level of urgency. It should also be kept in mind that California has been at this stuff for years, well before global warming became popular. And despite the occasional bonehead decision (deregulation without decoupling in a predatory trading environment rates right up there in that regard), CA has an exceptional track record. They policies they have enacted over the years have saved piles of money – for everyone concerned. You just have to have a little ability to look forward to see it really is much more of an investment than a sacrifice.

25-30 years or so ago I lived in Austin, Texas. I suppose that fact alone calls my whipppersnapper credentials into question (although I suppose the characterization itself is relative, lol!). Be that as it may, the fact remains that even without adjusting for inflation my utility bills back then cost me more than they do now, in spite of the fact that none of the places I lived while there had air conditioning. And let me tell ya, as a displaced Connecticut Yankee, that took some serious getting used to. The first couple of months I was pretty sure I was gonna die.

Anyway, while I can’t speak for Massachusettes (I’ve never been particulary fond of that state), I think Gary Gulrud’s analogy of CA as a “canary in a coal mine” is very apt. And I think even he would agree that when you’re deep in a “coal mine”, canaries are worth their weight in California gold. We could quibble about how to weight the significance of the various motivations, but whatever it is the evidence has gotten rather overwhelming that CA is going to save much of the rest of the country from themselves, perhaps even much of the rest of the world, from mining too deep into a dangerous vein.

Cali and Mass are like canaries in our coal mine, and they are on their backs. Reform will be the litmus test in my remaining votes.

Yeah, that’s what business needs, government guidance on how to enhance their competitiveness.

Now get off my lawn you little whippersnapper!

This article does a succinct job of explaining some of the ways that the government is already sand in the works. The article concentrates on the roadblocks that impede energy efficiency. Similar arguments could be made for impeding grid efficiency and obstructing integration of “intermittent” (utility scale solar, wind, etc.) and distributed (rooftop solar, backyard wind, etc.) energy sources. Good or bad, there are now and will always be policies and regulations in place. The problem is, the ones that exist now are antediluvian. And because they are the market forms to them similarly. It’s simply not a question of “leave the market alone and everything will work out fine”. It just doesn’t work that way. The article makes the point: “Whereas European and Japanese corporate cultures emphasize energy-saving as a strategy that enhances their competitiveness, U.S. companies generally do not.” One of the reasons they don’t is because they don’t have the necessary governmental guidance. Our energy policies, from the top on down, are indeed a mess. It’s time to get it right.

So while I would have preferred the CICS issue would have been put up for a vote, I’d have voted for it in a heartbeat (in spite of the name). According to the documentation, that $60M/yr amounts to a $.35/mo surcharge on each electric bill. And it’s subject to 100% matching funds from private industry. And I’m quite sure they will have no problem getting the match, because it’s going to be a money-maker for everyone concerned. This is the kind of coordination that should be welcomed, not scorned.

By the way… does anyone actually read this stuff? Or am I wasting my time?

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3021/pdf/FS08-3021_508.pdf

3.65 bbls is a lot, but not a game-changer. To put it in perspective, the US uses about 20.73 million bbl/day (CIA 2004 est.). Assuming the entire recoverable reserve became immediately available, that represents 176 days of supply. And of course it will be expensive to get to.

No. Problem is, I don’t think they can DO it.

Rico, I have much more faith in you than in the government.

Since we last went back and forth it seems as if there is 400 – 500 billion bls in North Dakota–so far. That’s over half the entire mideast reserve. Yes, the new drilling costs a bit more, but there seems to be no lack of supply. As for “peak oil”, pfft! Peek and ye shall find; that’s my theory.

Let the government eliminate taxes on fuel and windfall taxes on big oil if they want to see prices go down. The fact that big oil is only allowed to make a lousy, measly 10% on the dollar is the real scandal.

No–if you can guarantee that outcome! But what are the odds, really?

If it were as easy as having the gummint hiking prices by 1/3 of 1% to yield us entire new industries, no one would favor it more than I would. Heck, no one would have any objections whatever. But it ain’t, see?

And, no, I don’t prefer the “alternative”! #B^1

I just want the market to do what the market does best: create wealth and tech all by its lonesome.

IMO, promoting renewable energy sources simply makes sense regardless of how “you” feel about climate change, because the cost of fossil fuels will continue to go up.

There’s a demand crunch. But there are also humongous new discoveries. If the government would (mostly) get the heck out from under big oil’s feet (refineries and exploration), we’d all be better off: oil would be a lot cheaper and we’d all (including big oil) be a lot richer.

And so without the fuel, they end up being unused. Building an entire new fuel production sector requires a market. So – what’s your solution? Are you unwilling to make a compromise? The unobstructed free market works pretty well, with minor adjustments.

The free market is great at making big adjustments. As it did to oil in the first place. And to the computer. That gas station network wasn’t set up by the government in the first place–thank the lord! (or we’d be stuck with it till kingdom come).

Yes, I am basically unwilling to compromise, given the unfortunate history of energy policy since 1975. Let the market do it. The companies that “won’t do it” will get pushed aside like all the others. The government is nothing but sand in the works.

Even the prius is considered to be more a public relations vehicle than anything else (auto manufacturers, by the way, usually introduce new technologies on their top of the line vehicles – because of the cost, the hybrid is among the first where it was introduced in a bottom of the line vehicle.)

Don’t get me started on THAT economic/humanitarian/ecological disaster-tragedy. Suffice it to say I do not consider hybrids to be conducive to the good of anyone or anything.

IMO, promoting renewable energy sources simply makes sense regardless of how “you” feel about climate change, because the cost of fossil fuels will continue to go up. As of right now, around 40% of the levelized cost of a new coal-fired plant is tied up in the cost of the fuel (coal) required to run it. In other words, they’re relatively cheap to build, but keep costing “you” money. Current policies in many jurisdictions around the country are designed to accommodate that situation — the up front costs are predetermined and financed with public bonds or some other similar vehicle. The cost of operation and maintenance (including the cost of the fuel) can be passed on to the consumer. That’s where utilities really make their money. And the more they burn the more money they make. So under such a model there’s no incentive to economize or to introduce a source which has a high up front capitalization cost but low O&M cost. That needs to change.

Despite being touted as the traffic capital of the country, California has the lowest percapita energy intensity of all states (the amount of energy consumed per capita unit of GDP). It is dramatically lower than the average. And one of the reasons is that the allowed the utilities to decouple profits from sales. Essentially, they get paid according to how many customers they serve, not how much fuel they burn. So they have a built-in incentive to try to economize.

I disagree with some of Brendan’s remarks (especially his numbers), but I agree with his fundamental thesis — that it isn’t a choice between policy and no policy. That’s impossible. It’s a choice between good policy and bad policy. And it’s awfully hard to form good policy by taking shots in the dark. You certainly have to have a framework to accumulate and analyze information. And I don’t have any problem with the idea of working with industry to most efficiently realize policy either. It’s done all the time. So to me, the question is… is the way the CICS is being funded appropriate? On that score I have misgivings. I do think energy R&D should be better funded, though. I’d prefer it be put up for a vote. But if it were, I’d vote for it. Because it makes sense.

FYI, there are already some flex fuel vehicles out there – but no fuel to use with them. And so without the fuel, they end up being unused. Building an entire new fuel production sector requires a market. So – what’s your solution? Are you unwilling to make a compromise? The unobstructed free market works pretty well, with minor adjustments. Its the burdensome adjustments that cause issues. $100/vehicle is not a big deal – several K is. Yet auto manufacturers often won’t do anything absent a push because it would put them at an economic disadvantage against their competitors. Even the prius is considered to be more a public relations vehicle than anything else (auto manufacturers, by the way, usually introduce new technologies on their top of the line vehicles – because of the cost, the hybrid is among the first where it was introduced in a bottom of the line vehicle.)

I contrast the comments I see here with the “planetgore” blog who generally seem elitist and disparaging of any concept except “oil” and the pure market. As someone who has worked with both the oil companies and with market systems (and regulations) I realize that sometimes you have to give a little. Oil ain’t bad – its given our population freedoms and comforts that the kings of old could only dream about – but there’s more out there than oil.

An example: there is a push to make all new cars flexfueled, which would allow much greater flexiblility in sources of fuel. The concept is pushed by Anthony Zubrin, a PhD in nuclear engineering, as well as others. His concept is that a flex fuel vehicle could make use of methanol (or ethanol), of which methanol is easy to make fromabundant coal. The cost is ~$100/vehicle. In contrast, the new CAFE standards will cost thousands – and really only have support because of increasingly expensive oil supplies. So – which is the better course – make a small regulatory requirement or a large one? Unfortunately, much as we would love to have all out concepts accepted without opposition, politics is a long game of chess that never ends, and sometimes small allowances lead to great results. The clean air act which required a change in how manufacturers made automobile fuel injection systems has drastically cleaned up the air. Was that a bad regulation? I don’t think so… (Although MTBE was)

planetgore however has focused like a dog with its bone on the ethanol issue – and then mocked Zubrin and others when Obama came out for flex fueled vehicles.

My question is why does the acceptance of a good idea by your political opponents make it wrong? The cost benefit of a flex fuel mandate is obvious – we spend $400 billion a year on oil imports. Even if we could produce half our fuel from coal – or my preference, nuclear, we would be giving our economy a huge boost – much better than the ill advised tax “credits” coming our way – and produce multitudes of good paying moderate to high tech jobs.

We need to look at smarter alternatives. That’s why I love Anthony’s blog. He and his readers are open to smart alternatives, and want to have a discussion about it. I’ll be there as it continues…

I hope you stick around. We’ve only just begun to discuss the evolution of energy here, and IMHO, it is an extremely important ingredient in the overall debate. It sounds like you have something to contribute.