I don’t usually go for political articles, but this one deserves mention for the wholesale idiocy about energy on display.
Don Monfort writes: Submitted on 2011/10/01 at 10:24 am
Sorry to stray off topic, but I was flabbergasted by something I just read:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204226204576602524023932438.html
The most flabbergasting part; our energy policy is based on fantasy:
When it was Mr. Hamm’s turn to talk briefly with President Obama, “I told him of the revolution in the oil and gas industry and how we have the capacity to produce enough oil to enable America to replace OPEC. I wanted to make sure he knew about this.”
The president’s reaction? “He turned to me and said, ‘Oil and gas will be important for the next few years. But we need to go on to green and alternative energy. [Energy] Secretary [Steven] Chu has assured me that within five years, we can have a battery developed that will make a car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon.’” Mr. Hamm holds his head in his hands and says, “Even if you believed that, why would you want to stop oil and gas development? It was pretty disappointing.”
America is still going to use oil in 5 years, but I’d rather it be domestic than foreign, wouldn’t you? Alternate technology takes time to develop and there’s zero chance we’ll all be driving electric vehicles in 5 years.
Obama said this when he was running for office:
Obama pledges to end oil dependency
Friday, August 29, 2008 (KGO ABC7 Television)
“I will set a clear goal as president: in ten years we will finally end our dependence on oil in the Middle East,” said Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama.
…
“If he means what it sounds like it means, it’s impossible,” said Stanford University Professor James Sweeney.
I guess we know what he meant by that now.
When the presidential limo becomes an electric vehicle, I’ll take his pledge seriously.
The vehicle fuel consumption is about 8 miles per gallon which on metric system corresponds to around 30 litres/100 km – source specs
If the author understood that it is the design of the left to destroy America and western society and that in order to do this they must cripple our economy and our ability to produce energy, the the author would not be surprised at all by Obama’s comments or actions.
“…we can have a battery developed that will make a car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon…”
That’s nonesense… Batteries store energy and have nothing to do with fuel efficiency, well, almost nothing. Internal resistence of the battery does play a minor role, but that’s about it.
Unless his car is in Ireland, where the wheels can spin all day but he goes knowhere
And of course what energy source would charge the battery up?!
“I don’t usually go for political articles,…….”
=========
I think you are just about to see why, your hesitation was justified 🙂
Gasoline has 34 MJ per liter and a typical car in the USA has between 30-35 mpg, or 9 mpl.
So we need a power density of 13×34 per liter; call it 440 MJ liter/Kg. Even if power density doubles every decade, we are 15-20 years away from such a device.
Electric cars 130mpg in 5 years? And what are we feeding power stations to generate those extra electricity, if not fossil fuels? We have a president that believed in unicorn and ‘Green’ magic dragon.
There is no design to destroy the West, just the not very bright advicing thr scientifically illiterate..
No plan to destroy the west, they genuinely beloeve they are doing good work. Saving the Planet
Look up The Peter Principle
Gee, in only five years we will be able to charge all those batteries with “green” energy and not coal………………..
..and the government is not only going to pay my mortgage, it’s going to buy me a new car
I have a great idea, let’s put as many people out of work as we possibly can, trash the housing market, regulate coal so it costs more, and then claim everyone can go out and buy new cars…..in the next five years because the government is busy building other sources of power.
How about if we talk everyone into believing that coal is bad and the government has to regulate/tax it..get everyone to driving electric cars so demand goes way up……..so the government makes more money
I want to see his electric Air Force One! Talk about a carbon trail … … …
As for Chu – he’s never run a business in his life. Has no concept of profit and loss, or how to balance them. Feh!
I only hope he keeps talking like this, he is a nincompoop.
The problem is not just ignorance, it’s stupidity (or maybe dishonesty)
What does it mean “that we can have a battery developed that will make a car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon” I wonder? I think the Princess Bride quote about that “word doesn’t mean what you think it means” is the case here
Batteries do not produce energy, they store it. The equivalent mileage of an electric car can only be determined by knowing how that stored energy (electricity) was produced and including the efficiency of generation, transmission and storage. All of these steps are are inefficient.
Using that criteria, battery powered cars will always (IMO) have lower MPG than gasoline powered cars of the same type (size, weight, function). Simply hauling around the heavy batteries and the huge losses in transmission and storage of electricity makes that almost an insurmountable disadvantage of electric cars.
Batteries improve incrementally, just a gasoline engines do. However, huge step changes in either the energy efficiency of either design is difficult to believe in.
Advocates of new technologies seem to always overlook the limitations that physics imposes on us. Is that due to ignorance, stupidity, or mendacity?
And the electricity for Mr Obama’s battery car will come from?
A battery car? Clean and green?
But, but, but . . . .. . .Where do they get the electricity from?
Do the batteries grow in fields?
Silly buggers.
Unless you are charging your battery directly from a local source, you are wasting about 40% of the source generated energy in grid transmission losses, no?
Barry Woods says:
“There is no design to destroy the West…”
If it has feathers, and walks like a duck, and quacks…
So he’s for clear cutting mountain tops to produce the coal necessary to run power plants to charge the car batteries?
So in five years all cars, trucks, motorcycles, ships, boats, planes and trains will run on electricity?
All plastics will be made from renewables, no houses will be heated with oil?
Oh wait, doing the math now, in five years…it’ll be someone else’s problem, gotcha 🙂
It doesn’t really seem like the guy knows what he’s talking about. And he’s the President of the US of A. Supposedly the most powerful bloke around (at least used to be). It worries me a wee little bit.
Besides, cars aren’t everything – you actually need electricity to power most stuff the economy might need, so developing some fancy-schmancy car batteries (which, as Mike has mentioned, do not affect fuel efficiency in any significant way) is not going to keep the lights on in New York. Building coal, gas and nuclear power stations is.
Ah yes, Stephen Chu. The guy “taking the blame” for the Solyndra debacle on account of he had no idea what he was doing.
I’m sure his word is golden, Barry.
Has anyone ever seen and battery operated 18-wheeler, locomotive, or passanger/cargo airplane?
There is more to transportation and just family cars.
“we have the capacity to produce enough oil to enable America to replace OPEC”
As of July 2011, that would be about 4.9 million barrels per day. See link:
http://205.254.135.24/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbblpd_m.htm
I would say that this is just about as much fantasy as replacing oil as our primary transportation fuel in 5 year. I am sure there are those who would like to believe we could produce those kind of numbers, but based on my experience as an oil explorer, I high doubt this is possible.
For those who say we can, I have a friendly challenge for you : tell us all specifically how & where you will do this , what price point is needed to bring that fuel to market & the implied capital expenditures to do so. Assume no regulatory hurdles or any other constraints – you have no constraints other that finding that production, developing it & bringing it to market. Be specific, Talk about rates from each region you would develop ; do not talk about reserves as that is irrelevant – tell us how you will bring 4.9 million barrels of oil per day from domestic sources to the market. And remember , I do this for a living – any arm waving or other unsupported rhetoric, I will raise the BS flag. I am looking forward to hearing supporters answers.
And I thought our Ozzie cousins were being led by an idiot……………….
@BarryWoods:
“Look up The Peter Principle”
Then rent the movie “Idiocracy.” It’s supposed to be set in the future, but we’re living it right now.
Let’s say , just for a moment, that these electric cars become mainstream with millions of them on the road daily. Will there then be a market for a commercial “electric filling station”? Let’s also say I decide to open an “electric filling station”. I buy grid electricity at current rates and sell it to travelers at a 20% mark up. The number of vehicles I can provide electricity for daily will depend on how many outlets I have and how long it takes each one to recharge. Can I make a decent living doing this? Will my markup need to be much higher? Will I be subject to a limited quota of electricity I can sell each day or can I hog as much as I want? Will I be allowed to generate my own electricity to sell, say via a small coal fired plant behind my business? Is anyone even thinking about this?
It seems some of the tax and spend commenter’s at WSJ missed the part about mailbox money that goes out to 10,000,000 royalty recipients, and were complaining it wasn’t fair to them whut don’t get none. This is above and beyond what 401K and other investments get from the oil industry, and is taxable, so the Gov’t get’s some also.
I think the above qualifies as wealth redistribution, so I can’t understand their beef.
Pres. Downgrade the CinC of JUNK science!
THIS JUST IN: : Unobtainium find just discovered, promises to make batteries as energy dense as gasoline, should be ready for sale in 5 years.
Loans have already gone out to companies to mine the mass-less and invisible Unobtainium ore……
http://img.allvoices.com/thumbs/image/609/609/86987240-shrinking-obama.jpg
The net effect of global warming hysteria has been and will be to harm America.
We have the capacity to become totally energy independent using coal, shale oil, and natural gas.
Why don’t we do it ? Depending upon a middle east which is unstable for energy is mentally challenged.
I used to think the the alarmists were doing some good although for the wrong reasons because they encourage alternative energy development but on balance they do more harm than good. Not using what we have is stupid !
Didn’t seem to learn anything from Solyndra.
Maybe the voters will spring for some lovely parting gifts in 2012.
For a dose of hard reality:
US 48 states oil production peaked in 1970. , UK about 2000, Norway in 2005.
Jean Laherrere shows Global LIGHT OIL oil discoveries peaked ~1965. Global peak LIGHT oil production is peaking about now.
See “westexas” graph of:
Available Net Oil Exports
Available net global exports (after China + India imports) DECLINED 12% from 2005 to 2010
See Robert L. Hirsch, The Impending World Oil Mess:What It Is and What It Means To YOU! ISBN 978-1926837-11-6
May 2011 ASPO conf. Presentation PDF or Video
See solutions in: Edwin Black The PLAN – How to Rescue Society When The Oil Stops – or the Day Before
Turning Oil to Salt Gal Luft, Anne Korin
It’s about wealth transfer. They need to ‘hold back’ developed nations from further energy and economic expansion while they pump billions into green tech to hurry it up and make it viable so they can put all the developed countries under it.
Then phase 2 is where all the newly green developed countries then give all this green tech to the under developed countries and set it up for them so all nations will be equal in economy and energy.
Yes, they really believe this.
“Resources must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries,” Holdren and his co-authors wrote. ”This effort must be largely political, especially with regard to our overexploitation of world resources, but the campaign should be strongly supplemented by legal and boycott action against polluters and others whose activities damage the environment. The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being”. – John Holdren, 1973 (Obama’s current science czar)
Mr Hamm is also reported on the Hockeyschtick.
“we can have a battery developed that will make a car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon.”
Utter nonsense. We live in the age of incompetence.
Don’t you think we have a misunderstanding here? Either on the side of President Obama, Secretary Chu or Mr. Hamm:
In five years we might have a battery that can power a car for 130 miles on a single charge. That is the discussion right now. “A car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon” is just nonsense. Too bad none of these gentlemen noticed…
[Energy] Secretary [Steven] Chu has assured me that within five years, we can have a battery developed that will make a car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon.’”
….he also assured me that Solyndra was a solid company, solar works at night, and within five years the entire country will be running on solar…..
bair polaire says:
October 1, 2011 at 2:44 pm
“Don’t you think we have a misunderstanding here? Either on the side of President Obama, Secretary Chu or Mr. Hamm:”
Obama never had a technical education so he has no mental concept of physical values. A similar mistake happened to a German top Green, Cem Özdemür, recently in a TV interview where he said we need more transmission lines to store the wind energy; and that Germany’s electricity usage would be max 100 GigaByte (GigaWatt would have been correct). Cem, like Obama, never had a technical education.
You can’t expect them to understand the difference between Work and Current, for instance. They never learned that.
More religion of environmentalism on display here. If Obama really wanted to move us towards energy independence he’d issue an executive order that the entire federal government vehicle fleet be converted to natural gas. That’s something we have plenty of, something that could actually be done with no new technology, jump start a mostly total conversion away from oil fueled vehicles, and in the process cut our dependence on foreign oil dramatically. But when it’s not about practical solutions, but about religion, this is what you get.
Barry Woods says:
October 1, 2011 at 1:56 pm
“No plan to destroy the west, they genuinely beloeve they are doing good work. Saving the Planet.”
So, they are not malevolent just unimaginably stupid and more destructive than malevolent? You just kicked the ball into your own goal.
The US will never produce enough oil for self-sufficiency. We need the oil as reserve against the day that world war breaks out again.
I’m on cell phone so cannot give full link to the reference.
Click my name above, then see my speech on Peak Oil from April 2011 on my blog.
Chu is apparently an idiot. Power plants can barely break 50% thermal efficiency, and when you include power line losses and charging losses (few batteries are better than 70% efficient at charging), you’re worse off than with a diesel engine. Even if you reduced the battery weight to zero, giving them an infinite storage capacity, you still wouldn’t break 50 mpg for the total system.
Looked at another way, if you only used a tiny lithium ion battery that could propel you car to the end of the driveway or one lap around the block, you still couldn’t get half the mileage Chu is claiming, and that’s with a battery that fits in your pocket.
Perhaps Obama completely misunderstood him, or perhaps Chu completely misunderstood what someone was telling him, because it’s more likely that what was meant was that we’ll have a battery that will let a fairly conventional looking car (not a graphite composite toy) go 135 miles on a charge.
The battery will get recharged by a solar-powered windmill
There is nothing wrong with the science
And no need to question their motives. The latest close-to-billion-dollar solar loan guarantee beneficiary is related to Nancy Pelosi. This proves they are noble and incorruptible. And wise
“in ten years we will finally end our dependence on oil in the Middle East”
Did Obama mean *from* the middle east? What percentage of oil used in the USA comes from the Middle East?
From what I have read, the current electric grid couldn’t even survive converting 25% of the current US auto fleet to all electric. Converting the entire US auto fleet to electric would require massive increases in both generating capacity and carring capcity of the transmission and distrubution grids. To think that this can be accomplished in less than 50 years is dilusion.
In my opinion, far more than better batteries are needed to make electric vehicles competitive with ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) based vehicles.
1 Range: Electric vehicles must achive a mininum 350 mile range on one charge. Most ICE based vehicles have fuel tanks sized to provide a range of 350-400 miles.
2 Recharge time must be competitive with refuling times of ICE powered vehicles. I will be generous and say 15 minutes minimum.
3 Availability of publich recharging stations. You need to be able to re-charge your electric vehicle at remote locations away from both home and work for travel. Geographic distribution should be similar to gas stations today.
I used to think there was nothing wrong with electric vehicles – especially as a lot of vehicle use is commuting to and from work.
I mean – you can’t argue with less inner city air pollution can you ?
That was until I saw an article highlighting that the Nissan Leaf – a totally electric car – would have a battery life guarantee of only a few years at most. The replacement batteries cost almost 80% of the purchase price so if you buy one of these things you are effectively guaranteeing a new vehicle purchase every two years – maximum five.
Might be good for Nissan or whoever manufactures the batteries but not so good for the purchaser.
I’m still running a 1996 Taurus as our “workhorse” vehicle and it is going fine – when the electric vehicles can match this maybe they’ll be viable.
Personally, I think they are a pipe dream.
Steven Chu is giving us (Chinese-Americans) a bad name as scientist. What a fool.
We just need to legislate green technology into existence. Imagine where we would be today if we had had the vision and the determination to do that in the ’60’s with the flying car! We could all be living like the Jetson’s right now.
Clearly, we are the ones we have been waiting for.
Ryan Welch ,
The author , Steve Moore , appears on TV fairly often and knows his stuff . It was Mr. Hamm who was surprised . That being said , Obama’s reaction amply demonstrates the fantasy world in which his entire administration lives .
“…we can have a battery developed that will make a car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon…”
With 48% or so of all electricity generated from coal, exactly why do we need a car that runs on 48% coal when at the same time Obama is having the EPA do everything possible to shutdown coal plants.
Some people require a 2 x 4 to get the mind working properly. When your thick enough, nothing will help.
Hows about a clockwork cars? They could be directly coupled to windmills to wind them up.
Roger, there is no link above, but I found your blog and the post regarding Peak Oil via a Google search. I agree Peak Oil is not a problem and should not be a concern.
Nearly 20 years ago, PBS had a program regarding the history of the oil shortage/energy crisis. It’s been going on for over a century. We keep finding new deposits along with new and better methods to extract it. We have known reserves of at least times of all we (human civilization) have consumed so far.
Holdren and Chu are experts. For a good expose of “experts”, watch the on-line video “The Trouble with Experts” at http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/episode/the-trouble-with-experts.html
IanM
The Bakken oil field is estimated by Continental Resources (2011) to hold 24 billion barrels of recoverable oil:
http://www.ogj.com/articles/2011/02/continental–bakken.html
This is included within a total resource of around 400 billion barrels, most of which isn’t recoverable with present-day technology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_oil_field
Comparing Bakken’s potential of 24 billion barrels to other supergiant fields:
Ghawar Field (Saudi Arabia): around 80 billion barrels (past production + reserves), the world’s largest known oil field.
Burgan Field (Kuwait): around 70 billion barrels (past production + reserves)
The Sugar Loaf field, a recent discovery offshore from Brazil, may have a recoverable resource of 25 to 40 billion barrels.
If Bakken does hold 20+ billion barrels of recoverable oil, it would be among the planets top ten oil fields:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_fields
And, as crude oil recovery technology improves ….
Peter D. Tillman
Consulting Geologist, Arizona and New Mexico (USA)
Sweet! A 130mpg equivalent battery. Of course, the “tank” only holds .5 gallons, but you weren’t actually planning on going anywhere were you?
George Turner ,
Are you saying a Noble Laureate is an Idiot ? Some truly great minds have won the Noble Prize , like J Carter , Obummer , Al Gore , and Paul Krugman .
Barry Woods says:
October 1, 2011 at 1:56 pm
There is no design to destroy the West, just the not very bright advicing thr scientifically illiterate..
No plan to destroy the west, they genuinely beloeve they are doing good work. Saving the Planet
Look up The Peter Principle
============================================================
Barry, I know this has been addressed, and I don’t typically like to pile on, but what you’re suggesting isn’t plausible. Sure, I’d buy that Obama isn’t very bright…….. and maybe Chu bought his degree from some internet offer, and maybe the entire Dept of Energy and the USGS forgot the president’s phone number……….. but they all can’t possibly be that vapid! My goodness, this idiocy suggests a heavy dependence on Velcro just to keep their shoes and pants fastened.
5 years? It’s not going to happen in 10! 20 is doubtful. WTF do they think we’re going to charge it with? A pinwheel? Who actually thinks this is possible?
These people in authority, yes, they are complete and utter buffoons. But, they all can’t be that utterly stupid.
Yes it’s flabbergasting, but it might be a good idea to make sure our flabbergastation occurs in the right places.
America can produce more oil. They have enough in theory to replace OPEC for a while – I haven’t calculated how long that “while” is, but I suppose it’s between a few days and a few years. But US oil production peaked at ~9.5m bpd around 1970 and is ~5m BPD now, and imports are ~10m bpd, so in practice it simply can’t happen. So the idea that “we have the capacity to produce enough oil to enable America to replace OPEC” is definitely flabbergastworthy.
An electric car with “the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon”? Well, it’s difficult to know what this means, but almost any interpretation of it is flabbergastric. It probably comes from manufacturers’ promotions of electric cars, like this one: http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1289/ “the combined efficiency of the battery powered 40 miles, and another 200 miles of driving is around 110 miles per gallon“.
When Mr Hamm says “why would you want to stop oil and gas development?“, we should all be ultraflabbergasted with him. Wilfully stopping the engine of America before a replacement is available is an act of manic destruction.
That covers all Anthony’s flabbergastednesses, so why my initial comment?
Well, I think the idea that America, or the world, can produce enough coal, oil and gas for all our energy needs for the foreseeable future is ludicrous. Fairly simple honest calculations, with some reasonably credible estimates of future discoveries etc, can give us an idea of how long these supplies will last us, and how long it will be before severe pain begins. If you think “peak oil” is a fiction, just look at the US production graph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Oil_Production_and_Imports_1920_to_2005.png
The same will happen to oil on a global basis, and the same will happen to coal and gas, it’s just that the dates of the peaks are not yet known.
So it does make sense for us to be working towards other energy sources, which at present look like nuclear, geothermal and solar (in its various forms), and the technologies etc required to make them competitive. (Forcing people into uneconomic renewable energy is definitely a flabbergaster). Some energy uses will be economic for early transfer to new sources, others less so. It makes a huge amount of sense for the world to keep vigorously producing and using coal, oil and gas, while working hard on new technologies that will over time make them redundant.
If we’re still developing the technologies as the various “peak fossil fuel”s occur, the price of fossil fuels will go up, thus making the alternatives more economically viable. That’s called “feedback”, and like certain other feedbacks, it’s negative. How flabbergasting!
With an American president who says things like this, who needs an enemy?
I really feel for the USA. They have an absolutely unqualifed gentleman running their country, elected by economic illiterates.
I predict that history will make short work of this administration. So much for the “hopey-changy” thing.
Moving to electric cars in 5 years is not economically feasible as the costs will far outweigh the benefits. The EPA and other government inefficiency engines will add costs to any development of American resources. So most development of resources to furnish raw materials to the automotive industry will occur in China and other nations that do not have pollution standards. This exacerbates the OPEC problem and totally negates the purpose of pollution standards developed by the EPA.
Electricity losses are 33% in generation and 33% in transmission leaving a net 34% efficiency but there are losses in battery charging and discharging as well. Discounting the energy used for coal and oil production, here is a simple analysis.
The efficiency of coal fired power plants is about 30%.
About 2.2 lbs of CO2 is generated from every kwh being purchased at the plug. In charging a battery and energy transfer, the loss is 10%, when the power from the battery is being used, there is only 72% efficiency. So 1 kwh of electricity results in .648 kwh of energy available to move the car.
One gallon of gasoline is able to produce 36.6 kWh.
Then when converted into motion in cars, there is only 20% efficiency. So that results in a transfer of only 7.32kwh. The carbon dioxide output for the combustion of one gallon is 19.5lbs of CO2.
19.5lbs*.648kwh/2.1lbs = 6.02 kwh electricity equivalent.
So 6.02 kwh of electricity will produce the same amount of carbon dioxide emissions as does one gallon gasoline.
So the carbon energy efficiency of electric cars versus gasoline cars is 6.02 kwh/7.32kwh = 82.2%.
So electric cars today are 82.2% as carbon efficient as gasoline powered cars.
That calculation shows that electric generation by coal for electric cars is not as efficient as using domestic gasoline in gasoline powered cars.
This president has no clue about energy. His policy is in expanding government authority in the energy sector of our economy and to destroy the free market economy everywhere.
Fuel Cell technology is the best and brightest technology for the future. It is highly efficient and will lead to 130 MPG equivalent in energy consumption. It will also be way more efficient in production as batteries have huge costs in production from mining operations. Fuel cells will be lighter and use less resources. But it is more like 15 to 30 years away unless something miraculous happens. Battery technology will not meet the efficiency of fuel cell technology. From an economics perspective as well, moving from gasoline to electric to fuel cell leads to huge economic losses in retooling and supply line infrastructure. Adding natural gas into the mix adds even more developmental economic costs. If the government makes all the decisions, we will lose. The free market is the best place to allow the right technology to progress.
Now perhaps someone can take this further to equate this to American versus Chinese jobs.
It isn’t just the left. Ousting one party does nothing to stop the overall agenda of reducing nationalism via energy policies, socialization, economic control and military force. Some of the goals are worthy to reduce global conflict due to religious differences and nationalism.
We need to conserve resources. There are too many of us.
Al Gore, John Kerry, the Bush family and most of recent world & military leaders belong to the same mystical clubs. It makes no difference which party is in power. Different parts of the agenda are accomplished by either way. The risk is always that without checks and balances, despots make life miserable for everyone but themselves.
Using global warming as one of the mechanisms to accomplish objectives just make the leaders look ruthless, like blatant propagandists and educated fools.
Across the Western world we are led by Leftists influenced by Greens. Cameron in Britain claims to be a conservative but promises a green government. Angela Merkel is slowly frittering away German wealth and industry. Spain, Portugal and Denmark are going broke chasing Green energy, Australia is about to commit hari kiri on the altar of global warming. Western economies are slowly crumbling due to Leftist dreaming to be replaced by Eastern pragmatism. Luckily every country mentioned have a core of practical people whose voices are being heard. The hip pocket nerve is nudging the populace to forget the Green crap and start thinking about survival.
AGW and those who forced it down complicit throats have a great deal to answer for just as those who prevent free speech so lies can be perpetuated. One of our self proclaimed great brains believes only those elites should have access to the opinion columns of newspapers; the great unwashed to be kept silenced. Judging by the polls the revolution has started. We must ensure we don’t get to this position again.
The oil sands of Canada are the key. Thus, if you watch American Big Oil ads these days, you will notice that they now talk about ‘North American’ supplies.
It is not ‘Peak Oil.’ It is ‘Peak Cheap Oil.’
And since NAFTA the US and Canadian economies have become increasingly integrated.
upcountrywater says:
October 1, 2011 at 2:28 pm
“THIS JUST IN: : Unobtainium find just discovered, promises to make batteries as energy dense as gasoline, should be ready for sale in 5 years.”
Unobtanium? Never heard about that before? This is great news! Where can I get it?
Hurrying to the phone, calling the Norwegian newspapers…..
Astounding! He has absolutely no idea of economics – only 2 million new cars per year would consume ALL of the current world supply of lithium. Or lead. Or cobalt. Or just about any battery metal you can think of. The prices will get to Mars before NASA does!
In USA alone the annual number of new cars purchased is well over 5 million.
Then again I like the idea of Mr Obama running out of electricity in his motorcade and having to sit in the car for 12 hours waiting for it to recharge.
One of these days Obama will wake up to the pig in a poke that Chi sold him and reailize he needs to back a new plan.
I am thinking he’ll start believing in harnessing fairy pharts as the next great green energy boondoogle.
More Soylent Green!
Distinguish “Peak LIGHT Oil” (aka “crude oil”) from Peak HYDROCARBONS.
Anyone who does not is equivocating.
See Tad Patzek Hubbert Peaks
There is a distinct production peak for each geographic region for each type of hydrocarbon.
Sum them to get the overall rate.
The issue is the TRANSITION from “light oil” to “liquids” from “bitumen” or “coal”.
that will cost an investment of $100,000 per bbl/day production.
With 1.5% growth and 3.5% depletion rate, we need to replace 5%/year of 86 millon bbl/day needs about 4.3 million bbl/day each year.
i.e. that needs 43 plants at 100,000 bbl/day each year or one every 8 days. This will cost about $430 billion each year.
Until people wake up and seriously propose such plans, we are led with pipe dreamers.
I see the peak oilers have made it here. There will be 6 mil bpd extra from Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Canada oil sands. The numbers are being revised monthly has people been surprised how quickly the fields are ramping up. For example, Eagle Ford goes from 0 bpd to 2 mil bpd in 10 years.
Carbon Tax Corruption Scandal
http://floppingaces.net/most_wanted/carbon-tax-corruption-scandal/
We have to remember that Obama also felt that he could cut the deficit in half with substantial increases in spending. He suffers credibility gaps in most every aspect of his administration.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/obama-pledges-to-halve-us-budget-deficit-1629344.html
Here is an interesting video put together by Bill Whittle on the top pledges Barry had made entering office and where he stands after halfway through his term.
http://youtu.be/6iaRCq9eXKw
Of course, it’s all so obvious – the health of the AGW cult is almost totally dependent on the Peter Principle being at an historic high amongst our ‘political elite’.
Not only is it unlikely we will ever produce all of our own oil/energy, there is no reason for doing so. Having said that, there is also no reason foregoing all the wealth that domestic oil production delivers. In the WSJ article Hamm makes the good point that millions of people are collecting royalties from the Bakken in North Dakota. I can assure you from leasing experience here in Wyoming, that these lease and royalty payments go to every region of the U.S., pay a load of taxes, and provide very good salaries. All the calumnies uttered against oil and gas are incomprehensible–but that is ideology, isn’t it?
I have pondered why railroad yards haven’t coverted their engines to run on CNG with rail tank cars used for CNG fuel storage in bulk. If its good for Bus fleets why not train fleets?
They could hedge fuel costs with NG production from their own property, including building a NG pipeline system along their rail right of ways, allowing additional fleet capacity down the road via internal production/consumption.
I realize that Diesel is a denser source of stored fuel, but CNG in bulk in the US is currently both cleaner and cheaper to burn (I believe, but am open to being proven wrong) making it seems like a Hmmm.
Mr. Hamms belief that America can produce as much oil as OPEC is flabbergasting. It is also flabbergasting that people believe the Obama administration wants to stop oil and gas development. Domestic oil production has risen since Obama took office.
http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=us&product=oil&graph=production
“Within five years” Obama will be a footnote.
The really sad thing is the point that Prof Judith Curry keeps making and the politicians neglect. Watch out for the Uncertainty Monster…
Then add to these issues the idea that we can burn more fuels to sequester the CO2 from the power plant and you have a serious fantasy issue. I heard a fun ad on radio from one of the auto supply stores the other day that said, “… if you believe in that, then get on your unicorn and ride back to your gumdrop castle…”
This board just doesn’t get it. Chu and the boys aren’t constrained by the laws of physics. It’s the noble thought that counts.
JeffL,
Check out Eagle Ford shale oil. Production is going through the roof down there. It is close to 4 MMBPD, I believe. Don’t think we can back out OPEC, but it is pretty impressive down there.
I don’t think we can get rid of OPEC oil, but maybe with heavy shale oils in Colorado and Wy.
In the late 40’s, Heinlein wrote “You have mistakenly assumed malice where an explanation of stupidity would suffice.” Indeed. They don’t have a clue. Well, none of them ran a business, met a payroll, delivered a product, so how would they know?
As for 25% conversion to electrics, closer to 5%. Yes, we have a surplus of electricity at night, in some places, lower rates. But start charging cars at 30kW or more and the surplus goes away rather quickly, along with the cheaper rates.
My solution (you read it here) is fuel cell -> battery -> electric motor. Liquid fuel is the only practical answer in the short term. Fuel cells can be very efficient. Battery can supply peak current for acceleration. Natural gas needs high pressure to store a useful amount. It works, but safety and maintenance questions (fuel cells can use it, so perhaps.) Filling stations are few and far between. Coal to liquid may address some of the import issue.
Will take a wee bit more than five years.
I teach a course in engineering economics, and one of the special topics I prepared a couple of years ago concerned the switch to renewable wind/solar/biofuels. To reach Al Gore’s goal of a complete transition of the electrical grid by 2018 to wind, the cheaper of solar/wind, would take yearly investment of $560B without taking changes in transmission infrastructure, or decommissioning of old power plants into account. For perspective this is the entire U.S. savings per year. SO, no replacement of any capital goods, just put up new wind turbines, until 2018, and then decommission coal/gas plants and put up lines. Can we go two decades without improvement of the nations capital? People like Gore, have no idea what they are talking about.
They should switch Nobels; Obama gets the science one and Chu the Peace Prize.
===============
Glad I’m an Engineer, not a terrorist or someone with an “adgenda”. It would take about 15 seconds to make the “beast” worthless, and about 2 minutes to eliminate it and it’s occupants.
After seeing that video, it should be obvious, it supplies NO security.
Fools.
Oh, c’mon, it’s easy to get 130 miles per gallon from your battery. Just put sails on the car.
Or have the government mandate gliders for all and we can all get infinity miles per gallon.
Did you know Uncle Fester piloted a glider in Burma during WWII? I can see him in the cockpit, grinning.
===========================
Now add this little gem to the equation.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/01/fed-plan-to-consolidate-power-over-nations-power-highway-has-states-nervous/?test=latestnews
Step 1 ; take control of auto companies
Step 2: push for electric vehicles with tax subsidies, bankrupt the competition
Step 3: take control of where power lines are
Result: more government control over where you can go and what you can do.
These people are not idiots, They are following a well thought out plan to turn the U.S. into the GDR.
By the time battery technology is finally good enough to provide a reasonable range, it will only be needed as a buffer in a fuel cell powered system anymore.
I see Saudi Arabia is in a silent panic. Domestic consumption of oil will exceed production in just 19 years.
http://www.emirates247.com/news/region/saudi-alarmed-by-high-oil-demand-2011-06-19-1.403349
So yes, the US could exceed OPEC oil production when you factor in the 40% exaggeration in their reserves, not to mention the same for other ME countries.
If we could produce electric vehicles to replace ICE cars there is nowhere near enough electricity
AND how can any bankrupt nation afford millions of expensive new cars!
The wrong people are running the show!
George Turner says:
< October 1, 2011 at 2:53 pm
< "Power plants can barely break 50% thermal efficiency"
I think you will find that most coal-fired power plants do not even break 40% efficiency.
pdtillman says:
October 1, 2011 at 3:20 pm
…If Bakken does hold 20+ billion barrels of recoverable oil, it would be among the planets top ten oil fields:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_fields
And, as crude oil recovery technology improves …
Then there is the up-coming Niobrara and Mowry prospects in Colorado and Wyoming. I don’t know that anyone understands these two prospects yet, they are apparently but a petroleum engineer I know thinks these two each hold about 250Billion barrels of which 5% might be recoverable with current technology.
Think about this…animals have been living and dying on continental margins and slopes for, what, 3 billion years, and people think we are short of hydrocarbons? People here say, of course, “Yes, but at what price?” Oil is just about as cheap today, relative anything of constant value, as it was in the 1920’s, and people were concerned about supply then, too.
Despite all efforts of the Administration.
Wonderful. This country and Europe are in a recession with a rather disappointing outlook for a rapid recovery. This is in part due to our chasing some environmental pipe-dream on “green” energy which has driven up the cost of everything.
We need now more than ever the least expensive energy we can find to help leverage ourselves out of this serious economic morass. We need energy that we can use in the vehicles we have and the ones we will have in the next few years. Not everyone can just run out and buy an extra battery powered car to run errands in.
The current fleet of cars mostly burn some form of liquid hydrocarbon fuel. Let’s work on developing liquid hydrocarbon fuels from any promising source. In this country, we have an abundent supply of methane (lots of hydrogen) and water (more hydrogen) and coal (lots of carbon). Germany used these sources to make gasoline during WWII using 1930s technology. Most of their high grade aviation fuel was made that way. Process efficiencies then were not very high.
Now we have 21st century technology to apply to these basic proven processes and it is not. unreasonable to expect to see efficiencies improve with experience. The main threat to instituting these developments in the past was economic. Oil producers could increase supply or cut price into a free global market and starve out competitive sources. That is becoming a less viable threat but in recent years environmental objections, valid or not, have served to discourage attempts at creating a new industry that actually could make us independent of OPEC oil. .
In five years? I guess that the delivery order was placed with China ….yesterday!!
Does 0bama (or Chu for that matter) have the slightest clue as to what the feedstock is for plastics, asphalt, and a lot of other stuff that is not burned in internal combustion engines and some boilers? Yep, you got it, oil. Gad, where did we ever find people this stupid? I know some smart people (e.g. Anthony) live in CA, so that cannot explain all of it. Now I know why this bozo does not want his transcript(s) released. Apart from the fact that they well may show that he tried to game the system by stating he was an Indonesian citizen by virtue of the adoption by his step-father. If he did that after 18 he is one and not an American citizen, dual citizenship did not exist at the time. At the age of majority, he could have declared himself to be one of three things 1) An American citizen by virtue of his birth in America, 2) A citizen of Kenya (potentially dual with US, I am not sure of what the status of dual citizenship was with Kenya at the time), or 3) A citizen of Indonesia exclusively. Dual citizenship with Indonesia exists at the moment, but did not back then. Whatever he declared himself to be through his actions and statements are what he is. If he stated on his college application that he was an Indonesian in order to game the system to get into Occidental, he is one. If he traveled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport junior year, he really is one with a vengeance. A record of his visa or an American passport showing entry and exit stamps from Pakistan would clear that up. Records prior to 1980 have been reportedly been ordered to be destroyed however. http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=230829 [An interesting note on the difference between his life story and his book is also noted.] But that aside, it would show us his grades. His Harvard Law Review letter of 1990 would have earned me an F in 9th grade English. Now I am an engineer. (PhD MIT ’78 – EE – Thesis in Temperature Profile Retrieval From Orbiting Microwave Satellites under one of the pioneers in the field; Prof. David Staelin) This engineer is often noted for his ability to write and speak Manglish, a variant of American English in which all spelling and syntax are totally mangled. However, even I parse the sentence for the subject object and verb to make sure the tenses, etc. all match. I screw up on posting like this from time to time, but this is not intended to be a published letter, paper or article either. 0bama is hiding something or several things. Either his grades stunk, or is not an American citizen, or there were disciplinary problems along the line or one or more of these.
More Soylent Green! says (October 1, 2011 at 3:09 pm): “Nearly 20 years ago, PBS had a program regarding the history of the oil shortage/energy crisis.”
Would that be NOVA season 16 episode 09 “The World Is Full of Oil”, aired in March 1989? That one was a real eye-opener.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/listseason/16.html#1609
“I don’t usually go for political articles, ……”
Anthony,
I am dead serious when I say that you are one my heroes and you are helping to save this Republic.
But, in all due respect: It was NEVER about science. It was always about money, and power, and most of all it has been about POLITICS.
Regards
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)
sceptical says:
“Mr. Hamms belief that America can produce as much oil as OPEC is flabbergasting. It is also flabbergasting that people believe the Obama administration wants to stop oil and gas development. Domestic oil production has risen since Obama took office.”
You are mis-characterizing what Hamm said. He did not say that “America can produce as much oil as OPEC.” The article quotes Hamm: With the right set of national energy policies, the United States could be “completely energy independent by the end of the decade. We can be the Saudi Arabia of oil and natural gas in the 21st century.”
It seems obvious that when he said “replace OPEC” he meant as a supplier of the oil that we buy from OPEC and consume in the US. He seems to be very successfully doing his part to accomplish that.
Oil production has risen despite the Obama gangs impediments. In the same article it is mentioned that 6 oil companies have been busted on criminal charges, for allegedly causing the deaths of 24 nondescript birds. Up the road from where I live, they say that scores of golden eagles, and thousands of others of our feathered friends, have been killed by the wind turbines in Altamont pass. I don’t see how that happens, because the wind mills are usually just standing there like statues on the occassions that I pass through there. But that is OK. The point is that the Obama gang is impeding, harassing, and delaying oil and gas drilling, while slobbering over any solar or wind boondoggle that comes along. Obama’s dream and policy is to replace fossil fuel energy with crap like solar, battery LOL!, and wind power. But you must not have heard about that.
kim says:
October 1, 2011 at 4:19 pm
“Oh, c’mon, it’s easy to get 130 miles per gallon from your battery. Just put sails on the car.”
Yes. Everything was going well with the prototype until we approached the highway underpass…
/government science
Several have commented on whether the US can produce enough oil and gas for domestic consumption.
I ask if it is a good idea for the US to attempt to do so.
There was a time when America was the innovator of the world – forget about natural resources and where they come from. It’s what you turn them into that matters.
I watched a special on the Dreamliner, a new aircraft that makes heavy use of composites and uses less fuel to go further distances. Isn’t that more America than not buying oil from Canada or Mexico?
This story has echos of the Emperor’s New Clothes, except that the little boy would not be anywhere near enough to the Emperor to shout to him. How would one get the word about clotheslessness to Steven Chu or Pres. Obama?
IanM
Should have been gas and not goes – darn iPad spellcheck
Meanwhile our UK Prime Minister will ensure that plastic bag consumption from super markets will be reduced.
It is so nice to see our Western Leaders tackling major priorities when the economy is collapsing due to idiotic green policies.
Obama does not have a clue but that is ok because no other Western leader does…
How did we ever get to be run by morons who think the center of the Earth is at millions of degrees!
Macro Contrarian (@JackHBarnes) says:
October 1, 2011 at 3:55 pm
but CNG in bulk in the US is currently both cleaner and cheaper to burn
===================================================
It won’t be cheaper when the demand goes up………….
Too little, MPG or vision, the Aptera series 2 electric version should hit the streets at 200MPG equivalent, the gasoline hybrid version should get 130 MPG on gasoline only. The Leaf is getting 99 MPG equivalent and the Volt gets 93 MPG-e today.
“sceptical says:
October 1, 2011 at 4:00 pm
Mr. Hamms belief that America can produce as much oil as OPEC is flabbergasting. It is also flabbergasting that people believe the Obama administration wants to stop oil and gas development.”
Sceptical,
Do you have trouble with english comprehension? Did you not understand what Obama said? He has said this several times. He has also said he will ensure that no new Coal fired power plants are ever built.
As for American Oil & Gas, it is indeed plausible that America could produce as much as OPEC but this would probably require opening the 90% or so of offshore America that is currently off limits to oil and gas. It would not be necessary to produce that much and it might drive down oil prices such that economics would not warrant it. However, that the US still has vast reserves of oil is in fact highly likely.
PhilM: “I want to see his electric Air Force One!” Don’t be ridiculous. In five years, Obama will get around the world by yogic flying. Charles, HRH the Prince of Wales will be happy to teach him.
Roger Sowell
You apparently mean well, but err by confusing “peak light oil” with “peak hydrocarbons”.
See
Tad W. Patzek, Exponential growth, energetic Hubbert cycles, and the advancement of technology Archives of Mining Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences, May 3, 2008
and his 2006 presentation The Hubbert Peaks
See especially his 2006 Slide 21 and 2008 Fig. 13.
Each alternative TYPE of hydrocarbon in each REGION for each TECHNOLOGY will result in a similar Hubbert (logistic) peak. When accumulated they provide the overall production curve.
North Sea Oil similarly peaked in 1999. Compare global crude & condensates production.
The “peak oil” problem is in the geological and technological limits on the rate of production for each hydrocarbon TYPE, REGION and TECHNOLOGY. Each “peak” is inevitable. Consequently, our challenge is in the RATE of adaptation to alternative resources.
With current lack of investment and CARTEL constrained OPEC production on top of geologically constrained NON-OPEC production, we are facing a rollercoaster in our transition to alternative fuels.
The particular challenge is on Net Oil Exports. See especially:
Peak Oil Versus Peak Net Exports–Which
Should We Be More Concerned About? ASPO-USA 2010
Now “Westexas” shows a 12% decline in “available” oil exports since 2005 left after China and India’s imports. That is projected to 100% decline in about 20 years at present rates (China & India consuming ALL net oil exports).
Wake up and examine the dire straits the oil IMPORTING countries are in, especially in the worlds largest oil IMPORTER – the USA. (formerly the world’s largest exporter before peaking production in 1970.)
Look at the hard numbers, and do not listen to wishful political equivocation.
the SCOAMF will be able to end America’s dependence on foreign oil as he promised:
just look at how his healthcare, tax, economic and foreign policies have devastated the markets, and how close to a full blown depression we are… once we are over the edge and on the way down, importing oil will be the last thing on our mind.
So Obama’s solutions are on the stark raving bonkers side of life.
Reduce the deficit by spending more.
Reduce energy use by using more energy.
Reduce injustice by killiing American citizens with remote drones.
Reduce NASA costs by taking NASA back to Earth.
God Bless Al Gore.
Jeremy says:
October 1, 2011 at 5:09 pm
*****
Jeremy – obviously you haven’t heard of oil shale. It has trillions upon trillions cubic feet of natural gas, is ubiquitous (a large find was just discovered in England – and they are going to use it), and also produces condensate liquids (petroleum). Wake up and smell the roses man!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-14990573
Chu and Obama’s enthusiasm for hybrid vehicles shows a lack of awareness of basic economics.
Confronting Slow Rate of Auto Technology Change
The basic issue is HIGH COST.
The 0.3%/year hybrid penetration rate is negligible compared to the task of replacing an optimistic ~ 3.5%/year depletion in global production with alternative fuels to accommodate depletion of conventional oil and even nominal 1.5%/year population growth.
To accommodate growth from China & India, the reality for other oil importing countries is to replace ALL oil imports within 20 years and accommodate growth. i.e. > 6.5%/year.
Oh yeah, the Obamanable Snowman will show you guys. To ensure his (Chu’s) prophecy comes true, our beloved President is going to introduce legislation to prohibit all level and all uphill automobile traffic. It will be a rider on his “I’m taking the country for a ride” bill.
@Jeff L
First of all he said at the start of the article ( which apparently you did not read )
United States could be “completely energy independent by the end of the decade. We can be the Saudi Arabia of oil and natural gas in the 21st century.”
So as to your question about HOW to do this again the article
How much oil does Bakken have? The official estimate of the U.S. Geological Survey a few years ago was between four and five billion barrels. Mr. Hamm disagrees: “No way. We estimate that the entire field, fully developed, in Bakken is 24 billion barrels.”
Regardless lets take the 4 – 5 Billion… and your 4.9 Million per day. That alone would mean that the USA from one major oil field can produce enough oil for 2.2 to 3 years of NO FOREIGN IMPORTS of course to break a monopolistic hold you really only need a 15 to 20% share, meaning that this field alone ( assuming it is not the order of magnitude of the 24 Billion which is 6 times that ) breaking the strangle hold that OPEC has on us.
Now again I cannot provide the exact logistics. I do not think they are warranted for this generalization of comments. however I do feel this provides enough information to actually see if it makes MORE sense to you now.
So you really think one guy making flakey comments is how policy is made? Have you ever talked to senior officials in any department?
By the way Great article. I loved it and it actually shows just about EVERY problem there is with the Obama administration and their favoritism and cronyism in applying legal and legislative bias in what they do. I am a political person I dislike this administration a lot. I do not believe they mean harm, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
To be balanced I did not particularly care in retrospect for the Bush administration either.
[snip – Anthony]
Americans get rid of that clueless id*#t as soon as possible. He is bad for America and he is bad for the World
Paul,
“Too little, MPG or vision, the Aptera series 2 electric version should hit the streets at 200MPG equivalent, the gasoline hybrid version should get 130 MPG on gasoline only. The Leaf is getting 99 MPG equivalent and the Volt gets 93 MPG-e today.”
One would think that they would be selling government subsidized Volts and other quaint electric shoeboxes on wheels, by the tens of millions. I guess people just prefer practical vehicles for most of their transportation needs. And the marginal improvements we will see in the near future in electric vehicle technology ain’t gonna significantly change that.
yo brad,
“So you really think one guy making flakey comments is how policy is made? Have you ever talked to senior officials in any department?”
Obama and Chu are senior officials.
Z’bama and Chu have how many $x9 “guaranteeing” this? Recycling this five-year-plan has been going on since Carter was POTUS. Of course Jimmy was an engineer-before-peanut-farmer/GvGA, but “nucular,” like they pronounce it down there, and headed the team that designed those $40,000 microwave ovens for nuclear subs. It’s agenda and payback over science and either fiscal or economic reality. This kind of junk science dominates academia, MSM, and the markets, not to mention the bulk of science blogs-linked-to-HuffPost.
High unemployment and no growth is strongly dependent on the high price of oil, which is directly caused by OPEC’s throttling supplies to maximize the tribute they receive for their economic “war”.
E.g. when the price of oil hit $147/bbl and plummeted to $33/bbl, OPEC cut back production until prices returned to about $80/bbl within about 6 months.
To reduce unemployment, and restore economic sovereignty, the non-OPEC countries need need to produce alternative fuels faster/more than OPEC can cut plus provide for depletion and growth. i.e. about 3.5 million bbls/day each year.
It can be done. We need the focus and commitment to do so.
The world’s economic sovereignty is at stake.
Smokey says: October 1, 2011 at 6:15 pm
[snip – Anthony]
Smokey, you got snipped!
Just in case you are sulking, here is something to cheer you up about [petrol] vehicles.
Since you wrote in Notes n Tips that you enjoyed the Marion Davis clip here’s another hot blonde on the stage. She can sing soul too!
The clip accompanies the ‘Last Post’ in letter to editors in our national newspaper The Australian
Saudi Arabia’s council of ministers are obviously not big Beatle fans. The first track on Rubber Soul clearly states: ‘Baby you can drive my car.” GH, Mt Isa, Queensland.
You should see what’s on c-span right now the Common Wealth youth parliament debate everyone of these brain washed kids are calling for100%. Carbon emissions reductions in the next50 years. I can’t believe they are completely sold on this garbage . They actually believe they can stophurricanes from ever happening again.
Oil is still a bargain at $100 per barrel. Compare price of gold to oil–roughly 10:1 in the 1920s and 1930s, oil looks a bit cheap now. The real problem is our weak dollar policy–i.e. the GW Bush and Obama policy of making us rich by beggaring us with high cost imports from Canada, Mexico, Asia, Europe and the Middle East. I have no quarrel with OPEC countries trying to sell what they have, in some cases the only thing they have, for what the market will bear. We Americans have a lot more than anyone, we have the most advanced manufacturing in the world, we are highly educated even considering recent troubles, we are innovative and risk-takers. Now, if we can just get the gang in D.C. to stop making everything a felony and get outta’ the way.
Jessie,
My last post was over the top. I was just upset by this.
No one has come up with anything better than Rudolf Diesel’s “slow combustion engine” in 115 years. Please email me when that happens. Batteries? An expensive and heavy joke.
Best,
J.
There is too much emphasis on Chu, here. Holdren is, in my mind, the guy who should never hold executive power. He is not moderate or reasoned in any sense of the word. Not often correct, but never in doubt.
kwik says:
October 1, 2011 at 3:39 pm
upcountrywater says:
October 1, 2011 at 2:28 pm
“THIS JUST IN: : Unobtainium find just discovered, promises to make batteries as energy dense as gasoline, should be ready for sale in 5 years.”
Unobtanium? Never heard about that before? This is great news! Where can I get it?
————–
It is found on the periodic table right next to upsidasium which is mined on Mount Flatten.
http://youtu.be/qv95GxYeAb8?t=19s
Actually,I misspoke the 100% reduction is by 2050. 30yrs from now. Wow is all I can say, I just heard them say “our current behavoir is nothing short of global anarchy “. These people are extreme. However kudos to Australia’s representative for for representing the skeptical youth.
zac @ 3:09 asks about windup cars the hook into windmills.
Good idea zac.It’s proven technology as can be seen at the following link.
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/3020639/1955-nash-metropolitan
(click on images to enlarge)
The left lives in a dream world of fairy tales. They will not be deterred by reality. This is why CAGW proponents can be shown mountains of contrary information and it will never mean anything to them.
Marxism and Malthusian Pantheism are Religious Cults. Reason and logic have no role in their thought process. These obsessions are all consuming. Every facet of Marxist life except one is devoted to furthering the cause. From what they eat for dinner to where and how they vacation. Everything….. except making gobs of money. They’ll carry a cloth bag of organic snacks onto a Private Jet bound for the Azores and tell themselves they did their part.
If a path to Billions required selling seal pups for slaughter, I don’t think they would hesitate. Gore pulls his rental car up to a venue to deliver a speech and leaves the vehicle running. Only the dream is important. Reality doesn’t matter.
As Bugs Bunny says, “what a maroon!”
I echo the comments made by others before me when I ask what’s going to charge this miracle battery if it were to ever exist? Renewables? It isn’t happening. Given the evolution of battery technology, five years to produce a 135 Mpg battery (whatever that is) is a genuine pipe dream if I’ve ever heard of one.
I’ve said it before. These academic ideologists have no understanding whatsoever of what I call the “Tarzan Principal.” It deals with a basic concept that when you’re swinging from vine to vine through the jungle canopy it is vitally important to not let go of the vine that’s carrying you before you have the next vine firmly in grasp. We don’t have renewable energy firmly in grasp yet but these idiots are telling use we need to just let go of oil.
I’ll let go of oil when technology produces a viable cost effective and broad scope replacement. Until then, I won’t encourage or join them in their delusion.
Jeff L says:
October 1, 2011 at 2:22 pm
“we have the capacity to produce enough oil to enable America to replace OPEC”
———–
Thanks Jeff, you have answered my question.
So it seems we have crazy electric battery and crazy oil people advising the president of the USA.
Kevin Kilty
Stop burying your head in the sand.
See: US Oil Production and Imports
OPEC is already reaping $1 trillion/year. Unless massive efforts are taken by Non-OPEC countries, OPEC will systematically buy up control of most other foreign assets, increasing the tribute they are imposing. We are being slowly boiled.
This needs concentrated action to break free regardless of what the “gang in DC” does.
Oh, we have a five year plan, how sweet, how somewhat familiar, I seem to rember other 5 year plans elsewhere…
Now, showing that car stuck in Ireland was an unnecessary jab at Michelle, and the suspension manufacturer.
pdtilman says
If Bakken does hold 20 billion barrels of recoverable oil, it would be among the planets top ten oil fields:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_fields
And, as crude oil recovery technology improves ….
Which means these hypothetical oil recovery technologies have the same problem as hypothetical battery technologies. We have no idea if they are practical or how much they will cost,
REPLY: Oh please. There’s nothing hypothetical about drilling for oil there. Bakken is already producing.
And if you are going to cite Wikipedia, at least learn to cite a page that contains some information about the oil field we are talking about, note at top:
This article is outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. Please see the talk page for more information. (November 2010)
Here’s actual information on Bakken:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_formation
A landmark paper by Dow and a companion paper by Williams (1974) recognized the Bakken formation as a major source for the oil produced in the Williston Basin. These papers suggested that the Bakken was capable of generating 10 billion barrels (1.6×109 m3) of oil (BBbls). Webster (1982, 1984) as part of a Master’s thesis at the University of North Dakota further sampled and analyzed the Bakken and calculated the hydrocarbon potential to be about 92 BBbls. These data were updated by Schmoker and Hester (1983) who estimated that the Bakken might contain a resource of 132 BBbls of oil in North Dakota and Montana.
A research paper by USGS geochemist Leigh Price in 1999 estimated the total amount of oil contained in the Bakken shale ranged from 271 billion to 503 billion barrels (8.00×1010 m3), with a mean of 413 billion barrels (6.57×1010 m3).[13]
While others before him had begun to realize that the oil generated by the Bakken shales had remained within the Bakken, it was Price, who had spent much of his career studying the Bakken, who particularly stressed this point. If he was right, the large amounts of oil remaining in this formation would make it a prime oil exploration target. However, Price died in 2000 before his research could be peer-reviewed and published. Nevertheless, the drilling and production successes in much of the Bakken beginning with the Elm Coulee Oil Field discovery in 2000 have proven correct his claim that the oil generated by the Bakken shale was still there. New estimates of the amount of hydrocarbons generated by the Bakken were presented by Meissner and Banks (2000) and by Flannery and Kraus (2006). The first of these papers tested a newly developed computer model with existing Bakken data to estimate generated oil of 32 BBbls. The second paper used a more sophisticated computer program with extensive data input supplied by the ND Geological Survey and Oil and Gas Division. Early numbers generated from this information placed the value at 200 BBbls later revised to 300 BBbls when the paper was presented in 2006.”.[14] In April 2008, a report issued by the state of North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources estimated that the North Dakota portion of the Bakken contained 167 billion barrels (2.66×1010 m3) of oil.[5]
So I guess it boils down to who are we going to believe:
1. Some cantankerous anonymous kid from Australia who goes by the handle “Lazy Teenager”.
2. A professional oil explorer with 30 years of experience and a proven track record for production.
– Anthony
“But we need to go on to green and alternative energy. [Energy] Secretary [Steven] Chu has assured me that within five years, we can have a battery developed that will make a car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon.’”
The level of stupidity in that statement is flabbergasting. Why the “need” to go on to “green” energy? How is it better? Most certainly it will cost more. And the idea that a battery can “make” a car is absurd beyond belief. What kind of car? How big? What will it cost to produce and to operate?
Green pipe dreams are expensive.
Smokey says:
October 1, 2011 at 7:05 pm
Jessie,
My last post was over the top. I was just upset by this.
=========================================================
But, Smoke, you knew what abject scumbags they were before that……….. no worries, every once in a while I get to feeling numb to it all, and then, something like that happens, and it reminds me why I feel obligated to participate. Every time I think the moral corruption of the totalitarian collectivists is complete, I get shown differently.
Smokey says:
“Jessie,
My last post was over the top. I was just upset by this.”
Smokey – I read your post before it was snipped – it was not over the top. Not over the top at all.
Dont be cowed by the snip – I guess somethings still cannot be said. But I think you’re right on the button.
Smokey says: October 1, 2011 at 7:05 pm
Yes I would understand very clearly that one Smokey. Thank you
‘Instead of reporting, however, they are complicit. They have chosen to acquiesce to a clear and obvious evil, an aberration of our most basic values. They are no longer watchdogs, but docile sheep.’
I have not fully read Willis E post today which looks to be very promising, but Furedi (UK) who generally writes well from a sociologist’s view, wrote, to my mind, an interesting article.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/clear-and-present-danger-in-the-vainglorious-pursuit-of-freedom-justice-and-transparency/story-e6frgd0x-1226154101219
source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion
‘
Behold the arrogance of ignorance.
Clearly illustrates that Chu is scientifically illterate and/or such a bad politician that he doesn’t see the transparency of his lies. He’s probably offered to repeal Ohm’s Law to make it happen while mandating that the batteries be recharged overnight using solar power.
Besides, it’s a nonesensical assurance. You’d get that efficiency NOW, but only for the first few kilometres/miles. After that, you need to stop and recharge.
As others have mentioned, the 130 mpg figure doesn’t mean a damn thing for mobility. People want to be able to drive as far as they need/like, without having to stop for long intervals to refuel, and at a price that they can afford — in refuelling, maintenance and purchase costs.
There is nothing on the horizon that indicates some way of overcoming the limits of electrolytic storage (battery) in terms of energy density (by mass and/or volume), stability (safety), operability in a road vehicle, recharge time, life cycle and overall cost. The energy density of electrolytic storage is a small fraction of that in chemical bonds available in conventional fuels.
With available batteries, one can squeeze 100 kWh of battery into a small car and drive 600 km (370 miles) under ideal conditions. One cannot however recharge such a battery in 6 minutes (comparable to a conventional car) – which is what one proponent/sponsor of the exercise suggested. THINK ABOUT IT! That’s a megawatt of electric power before inefficiencies. The statement went unchallenged by the media, for most of them understand even less about technology. It’s only their role to publish press releases as “reports”.
To extend electric vehicle range, one adds more batteries, which makes the car heavier, increasing its rolling (and climbing) resistance and therefore the energy required for a particular journey. In modern cars, fuel consumption doesn’t depend heavily on aerodynamics until one is doing more than about 80 km/h (50 mph).
The other electric vehicle delusion is that electric motors are almost 100% efficient. They are only that efficient under a narrow operating range of speed and load (torque). It is not unusual to see a highly-efficient electric motor operating with less than 60% efficiency because the speed and/or torque aren’t in the “sweet spot”.
In the world of yesterday, we used to have the Irresistable Force and the Immovable object.
All that gives way to the new paradigm: Renewable Energy will fill up our Renewable Batteries in Perpetual Green Motion. Your mileage may vary under the new Green Energy Plan.
We will then be energy self-sufficient to the tune of available energy being insufficient and expensive.
There will be plenty of jobs available, and a high demand will go out for stone masons, mudbrick mixers, straw house framers, clay pot spinners, etc.
Might be OK for inner city driving, but 130 miles is zilch in Australia. Would hardly get me to our nearest big town Tamworth, about 70 miles away and up hill all the way home. I attended a Green meeting a few years ago where Sen.John Kaye attended.(He’s in the State NSW senate,actually he is a counciller ie. Member of the Legislative Council, MLC, upper house but called a senator). I was invited by a Green party state and federal candidate, who happens to be a friend of mine. Sen.John Kaye was against coal fired electricity generation, and also electric cars for the reason they have to be charged up by electricity. He was against solar panels, electric cars and wind turbines too. But he was for solar thermal. Panels are there to make the manufacturers wealthy. And they both require to be backed up by grid electricity. Inefficient completely.
rbateman says:
October 1, 2011 at 8:33 pm
In the world of yesterday, we used to have the Irresistable Force and the Immovable object.
All that gives way to the new paradigm: Renewable Energy will fill up our Renewable Batteries in Perpetual Green Motion. Your mileage may vary under the new Green Energy Plan.
We will then be energy self-sufficient to the tune of available energy being insufficient and expensive.
There will be plenty of jobs available, and a high demand will go out for stone masons, mudbrick mixers, straw house framers, clay pot spinners, etc.
=============================
Repeated for effect. Brilliant.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
This item is worthy of a timely reply from an article in the Fall isue of “The Bent of Tau Beta Pi” – “Benjamin Franklin: Philadelphia, Serendipity, and a Summer Storm” by Dr. Bryen E. Lorenz. Quoting at length in response to the British Board of Ordinance effort in 1776 to protect its gunpowder from lightning strikes:
The question eventually became whether a pointed or blunt lightning rod end should be used in this application. Franklin, who was appointed a member of the committee, recommended a pointed end which was based on his earlier kite experiment. One dissenter on the committee had opted for a blunt end. Nevetheless, the committee’s recommendation was for a pointed end. King George III angered by Franklin’s political views, had asked Sir John Pringle, president of the society, to give an opinion in favor of the blunt end. Pringle replied that, “The laws of Nature were not changeable at royal pleasure.” To this the King indignantly responded, “…by the King’s authority that a president of the Royal Society entertaining such an opinion ought to resign.” Pringle promptly resigned. The London gossip soon found an apt verse to relish the moment.
End quote.
@ David L. Hagen at October 1, 2011 at 5:14 pm
You wrote: “The “peak oil” problem is in the geological and technological limits on the rate of production for each hydrocarbon TYPE, REGION and TECHNOLOGY. Each “peak” is inevitable. Consequently, our challenge is in the RATE of adaptation to alternative resources.
With current lack of investment and CARTEL constrained OPEC production on top of geologically constrained NON-OPEC production, we are facing a rollercoaster in our transition to alternative fuels.”
I disagree. Peak Oil is not a local phenomenon, as you indicated it is. Peak Oil is a catastrophic, dooms-day “OH-MY-GOD What-will-we-ever-do-NOW!!!!” sort of story to scare the children. The transition to alternative fuels must wait, and wait, and wait yet again for the day when oil finally begins its gradual price increase due to scarcity or increased costs of production, if and when that ever happens. Thus far, the opposite has happened. Oil technology has improved far faster than even the curtailed supplies from OPEC have increased the price.
The only reason that oil is expensive is because the cartel holds back production. Does that reality sound like a shortage, a Peak Oil problem of production, to anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Of course, each oil well or oil field has a peak in production, and goes into a decline. This is basic oil field engineering. Artesian wells become artificial lift wells. Secondary production methods are employed somewhat later. Tertiary means are employed even later. Eventually, the cost to produce more oil is not worth the incremental recovered oil and the well is abandoned. Until somebody, someday, develops new technology to go back, drill for and produced the dregs. It happens. Then, another oil field is discovered. There are literally dozens of unexplored sedimentary basins around the world, each containing vast amounts of oil.
As I wrote in my blog article on Peak Oil, it is a myth. A phantom. It shares much with AGW. There is a small kernel of truth but the overall concept has been disproved and blown far out of proportion by failing miserably, spectacularly, and repeatedly in its dire predictions. How many times has Peak Oil supposed to have caused calamity in the world? Twice? A dozen? Every ten years since 1950?
When the data does not match the model, the model is busted and it’s time to get a new model. This applies for Peak Oil. It has never happened, and never will because those who believe fervently that it will, do not understand the oil business at all.
As to the US Energy Policy, it is of course true that Presidents are briefed on the oil situation upon being sworn in. It probably irks some of them to realize they can never open up vast areas of the US to drilling and exploration and production, because we really will need that oil some dark day. And by the way, many other countries adopted the same stance. Reserve their oil for their own use, should the dire need ever arise.
As I wrote on my blog and discuss in my speeches, we in the US maintain a viable domestic oil industry so that rapid expansion is possible. We also maintain good records of where the oil is, and we have a pretty good idea how much is there, too.
The history of oil is primarily of its strategic importance, that is, one must have oil to succeed in a war. Having Oil is not sufficient to succeed, but it is certainly necessary. This is extremely evident and made very clear in the Pulitzer Prize winning book, The Prize by Daniel Yergin.
Barry Woods says: @ October 1, 2011 at 1:56 pm
“There is no design to destroy the West, just the not very bright advicing thr scientifically illiterate..
No plan to destroy the west, they genuinely beloeve they are doing good work. Saving the Planet”
There is too much evidence that shows that there is a design to destroy the west and it is a long term, plan.
In the 2002 Rockefeller autobiography “Memoirs” on page 405, Mr. Rockefeller writes: “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents… to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world … If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
Two articles among many:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates14.html
http://www.opednews.com/articles/History-HACCP-and-the-Foo-by-Nicole-Johnson-090906-229.html
Jessie says:
October 1, 2011 at 6:39 pm
Smokey says: October 1, 2011 at 6:15 pm
[snip – Anthony]
Smokey, you got snipped!
==========================
So what the hell is your point??? Who cares???
So Smokey pushed the envelope a little bit.
Best look at what he says the other 99.99999999 % of the time.
Most always unsnippable.
But always damn smart.
Get em Smokey.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
The only way to accept the notion of a 130mpg equivalent battery in five years is as an act of faith. How ironic that the greenwashed left loves to accuse skeptics nee denialists of being flat earthers and creationists and yet is so devout in their eco-beliefs that they refuse to accept modern physical and engineering limits.
David L. Hagen says:
October 1, 2011 at 2:31 pm
US 48 states oil production peaked in 1970. , UK about 2000, Norway in 2005.
Tough to compete with the Saudi’s. First they raise production to cut the price and drive everyone out of the market, then cut supply to drive up prices. When competition starts to pick up, they raise production and drive everyone else into bankruptcy once more.
Yes and the Saudis, they have heaps of untapped oil deposits. A very similar thing with diamonds, if they released their surplus the price would plummet. Accept we don’t depend on diamonds to get from A – B to Z.
ferd berple says:
“Tough to compete with the Saudi’s. First they raise production to cut the price and drive everyone out of the market, then cut supply to drive up prices.”
And they massively buy and sell futures puts and calls ahead of the changes, easily sucking many $billions out of Western pockets every year.
“To those that have shall be given and to those that have not, even that which they have shall be taken away.”
Name that quote!
The world’s poor are made poorer by the enviro-dictators. Power is all that matters to them. “Environmentalism” is a smoke screen for dictatorship.
Smokey says:
October 1, 2011 at 10:14 pm
The world’s poor are made poorer by the enviro-dictators. Power is all that matters to them. “Environmentalism” is a smoke screen for dictatorship.
=====================================
These are grave words, but they are true.
Why? What does it matter if it’s a US based multinational corporation or one based in some other country?
I never cease to be amazed at claims of peak oil calamity-to-come. While it”s always possible history will prove me wrong, given it’s been ‘peak oil’ since at least 1919 I’m not too worried. http://www.chemcases.com/fuels/fuels-07.htm#_ednref1 “…According to a 1919 article in Scientific American, the automotive industry could not ignore the fact that only 20 years worth of oil was left in America…” It’s particularly amazing to me when USA production rates are used as some sort of evidence of peak oil concerns. USA, and world-wide production rates are a function of how much exploration is occurring based on the current and near term expected price of oil, and politics – not a representation of how much oil actually exists. This would seem pretty clear to me, considering all of the limits on continental drilling, gulf drilling now also, Alaska drilling, etc.
Estimates on Canadian tar sands alsone are massive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHD4U2q_p4c Stossel on 20/20 in 2008 from various experts: “175-315 Billion barrels of oil are recoverable at $15 a barrel in the Oil Sands of Alberta, Canada. With a remaining potential of 1.7-2.5 Trillion barrels using advanced recovery techniques. Who knows what they’ll discover tomorrow, but we know today, that in Canada’s oil sands alone, the supplies will last over 100 years.”
What it seems so many folks don’t realize, is that the USA is extimated to have two trillion barrels in oil shale resources. A significant amount of that is thought to be not only recoverable, but competitive at approx. present day prices. See the 2004 national report: Strategic Significance of America’s Oil Shale Resource (link below). It’s been a long time since I’ve read it, but IIRC, it was estimated that we have enough oil to cover 100 years of USA oil needs at 2003 levels. The only thing stopping us from not only freeing ourselves from foreign oil, but gaining all the associated jobs and revenue, is politics and a gross lack of understanding on the part of the general public.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffossil.energy.gov%2Fprograms%2Freserves%2Fnpr%2Fpublications%2Fnpr_strategic_significancev1.pdf&rct=j&q=strategic%20significance%20of%20americas%20oil%20shale%20resource&ei=1vGHTvmsG8aftgezzs0u&usg=AFQjCNHfiEL4TrV0XUVM1p9QX0ePX5mJVQ&cad=rja
Just hope you guys are aware of the latest media tricks. Ignoring Ron Paul and Santorum. Minimizing Herman Cain’s momentum and maximizing the push for Chris Christie. [Christie is a firm CAGW believer and supporter of gun control. Imagine that.] The media is also playing up Romney and Perry as faulty zillionaires. And…
Gov’t backs 4 more solar loans as deadline looms
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110930/D9Q355EO0.html
40 years of USA Presidents call for independence from foreign oil during State of the Union Addresses… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50gJcZnExmE
“Juice says:
October 1, 2011 at 10:21 pm
America is still going to use oil in 5 years, but I’d rather it be domestic than foreign, wouldn’t you?
Why? What does it matter if it’s a US based multinational corporation or one based in some other
country?”
Dumbest post so far, Juicy. Have you heard of things such as jobs? trade imbalances? balance of payments deficits? national security?
I should have said, MAXIMIZING the push for Chris Christie.
JamesD says:
October 1, 2011 at 4:10 pm
“Check out Eagle Ford shale oil”
James, here’s the link to Eagle Ford production from the Texas RRC for you to check out :
http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/eagleford/eagleford-oilproduction.pdf
If you calculate the daily rate for 2011, it works out to about 19,000 BOPD or 0.4% of our OPEC imports. So you will need to increase production by 250x to cancel out OPEC. Sorry but the Eagle Ford is a proverbial drop in the bucket.
Smokey says:
October 1, 2011 at 10:14 pm
“To those that have shall be given and to those that have not, even that which they have shall be taken away.”
Name that quote!
===============================================================
Mine has a slightly different translation, but that’s Matthew 13:12
“For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.” (KJV)
As to Chu’s competence – I lost all respect for him when a couple of weeks after his appointment, after he gave a speech to a group of utility regulators, and with a major OPEC meeting coming up, reporters asked him if OPEC should cut production. Chu replied that the issue was “not in my domain.” How can anyone who’s worked for years in energy related areas, even the ivory towers such as BNL theoretical physics, not realize that dealing with oil issues is one of the primary responsibilities of the Sect. of Energy? How can anyone accept appoinment to a position of that magnitude, without bothering to first conduct the most basic due diligence with regard to what the position entails?? How do they wind up giving speeches to utility groups while still that clueless? Not to mention, what sort of President appoints someone who is so ignorant to that sort of position? (well, ok, I know – the answer is probably far too many of them, but Obama seems to have a real penchant for it). See: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123508025907226643.html
I do give Chu a few bonus points for having the honesty to quickly publically admit to his error and naivete – but those bennies weren’t nearly enough to make up for the hole he’d dug himself into with this one.
I should have added, there are many interpretations as to what that means.
A consideration……… possessing something doesn’t necessarily mean possessing money or something of monetary value. For instance, I am rich, but have little money.
re:
As the Chinese have done and are doing with rare earths now. Well, I’ve no idea if they’re playing the future’s too, but would be surprised if they weren’t. The boost the Western push for ‘alternative energy’ has probably made them estatic all the way around. Limit the rare earths necessary, build all the parts, scoop up Western real estate (or at least USA real estate) with all the profits!
Thank you, James Sexton. I am not a Mormon [or anything else, although I have my personal and sincere beliefs], but the quote I gave above was from the Book of Mormon. Mathew 13:12 gives essentially the same message. I believe both are instructive. The rich UN is taking from the world’s poor… despite their mendacious claims to the contrary.
Nominated for the WUWT ig-nobel quote of the week:
A large majority of vehicles could easily be converted to run on natural gas (CNG).
Here in Perth every petrol station has one or two natural gas bowsers and filling a car with NG takes not much longer than filling a petrol car.
NG is also safer as a fuel and produces fewer harmful emissions.
It is a scandal that billions are being wasted on electric car nonsense, but no vehicle manufacturer anywhere has volume production of NG cars for developed world markets, although Honda is close.
Developing countries are far ahead; Worldwide, there were 12.7 million natural gas vehicles by 2010, led by Pakistan with 2.7 million, Iran (1.95 million), Argentina (1.9 million), Brazil (1.7 million), and India (1.1 million).[1] The Asia-Pacific region leads the world with 6.8 million NGVs, followed by Latin America with 4.2 million vehicles.[1]
Forrest says:
October 1, 2011 at 6:00 pm
“Regardless lets take the 4 – 5 Billion… ”
FYI, Prudhoe Bay had an initial reserve of 15 Billion – 3x your number, so we better hair cut Bakken Peak production by 3x , to be fair. Peak production from Prudhoe was 2 million BOPD so peak production for the Bakken , given your reserve # would be ~ 0.667 million BOPD – you are still short by over 4.2 MMBOPD or by a factor of 6.3. … but that’s assuming similar reservoir quality, which is a bad assumption because the Bakken is a crappy reservoir compared to the Ivishak reservoir at Prudhoe.
So what’s the Bakken doing now ? See this link from the state of North Dakota :
https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/newsletter/nlsummer2010/The%20Oil%20Potential%20of%20the%20Bakken%20Source%20System.pdf
Check out the graph on p2 & convert it to a daily # : that’s 0.190 MMBOPD – or a factor of 3.5 lower than the number listed above. Not surprising given the poor quality of the Bakken reservoir compared to the high quality Ivishak reservoir at Prudhoe.
So, now all you have to do is get the other 4.7 MMBOPD to replace OPEC – or increase Bakken production by a factor of 25x…. sorry, but again, the Bakken is but a drop in the proverbial bucket.
Rational Debate says:
October 1, 2011 at 11:16 pm
Nominated for the WUWT ig-nobel quote of the week:
Juice says: October 1, 2011 at 10:21 pm
America is still going to use oil in 5 years, but I’d rather it be domestic than foreign, wouldn’t you?
Why? What does it matter if it’s a US based multinational corporation or one based in some other country?
=========================================================
Don’t be too hard on him……. he has a point. Wrong thinking, but he has a point.
Juice, if the oil is produced in the U.S., then odds are people in the U.S. are going to work the fields. That’s not a tricky concept. This would do much for our people. Further, the impetus would be to sell such oil here. In that the cost to transport it would be prohibitive to a point.(depending upon the supply/demand elsewhere)
As to your point about multinational corporations, you’re spot on. It is past time that we quit allowing the parasites to reap the benefits this nation offers only to off-shore our money. If they want to enjoy the protections of this nation, then it is only fitting we benefit from the protections. Land right enforcement, patents, foreign trade agreements, etc………… this comes with a caveat. WE COME FIRST! If they can’t do that, then I suggest we find someone that can. With a little boost, I imagine that there would be a line of people and entities just waiting for the exclusive opportunity to sell the U.S. their wares.
Mr Chu, Mr Chu, Mr Chu. Over here Mr Chu. Have I gotta a deal for you Mr Chu. You want a battery? I’ve gotta battery like you’ve never seen before Mr Chu.
The EESU® (Electrical Energy Storage Unit) is a supercapacitor with the ability to store far more electrical energy in a given space, and at a far lower cost, than is possible with any current technology. Although the EESU® is not yet being sold, EEStor, Inc. claims to be ramping up to mass produce them Mr Chu.
Theoretically, the EESU® is a “disruptive technology” which will make stored electric power easily available anywhere. Among other uses, it could replace batteries, make electric cars practical and affordable, and make night-time storage of solar power practical and affordable. If it truly is a disruptive technology, it will affect everyday life in ways we cannot yet imagine Mr Chu.
A capacitor, also called an accumulator or (confusingly) condensor, is a device which stores electricity efficiently. It differs from a battery in that it does not generate electricity, but can be charged and discharged very quickly. And unlike a rechargeable battery it can be used over and over without wearing out, thousands or millions of times. A supercapacitor, also known as an ultracapacitor, is simply a capacitor which can store a great deal of electricity. More on capacitors can be found at the WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. Good eh Mr Chu? Trust me Mr Chu, only half a billion dollars to you Mr Chu. Trust me Mr Chu, Would I lie to you Mr Chu? C’mon Mr Chu, it’s a steal. Read the website below Mr Chu. What have you got to lose Mr Chu?
http://www.freewebs.com/eestorfaq/
Philip Bradley says:
October 1, 2011 at 11:16 pm
A large majority of vehicles could easily be converted to run on natural gas (CNG).
Here in Perth every petrol station has one or two natural gas bowsers ………
===============================================================
Yes….but Phillip, I’d ask you to understand the scope that would be necessary for the U.S. Further, what you use for fueling your vehicle, you must understand that you’re losing for your heating and cooking. Natural gas is a wonderful thing. But, like oil, there are limitations as to how much one can take out of the ground for a given time. I suggest, that NG be used for heating and cooking. It is easily used for such ventures. But, using it of other machinations, while being sufficient, only causes the cost to increase on the heating and cooking. It comes in pretty handy for peak electric usage, as well.
Mind you, I’m not a peak freak in that I believe we’ve met our limit on using such thing, its just that I believe there are things best put to use in one manner over the the other. NG does well when you just put a match to it.
Mark says:
October 1, 2011 at 3:29 pm
Mark,
Thanks for that!
MtK
James Sexton,
NG prices in the USA have fallen 70% in the last 5 or so years.
Huge amounts are flared ever day from N Dakota oilfields, because low prices make it uneconomic to bring it to market.
http://bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view/2011_1002natural_gas_pains
Its fair to say there is a NG glut in the USA.
There is clearly sufficient supply to run millions of vehicles on CNG.
The problem vehicle manufacturers not making them and post factory conversions are needed, and distribution infrastructure.
The latter happens surprisingly fast. Here it took only 5 or 6 years to go from hardly any service stations selling CNG to most service services stations having a CNG pump.
And I’ll note all without a single cent in subsidies.
Even more reality (Norwegian type):
Statoil med gigantisk oljefunn
Beskrives som det største funnet på ti år.
http://www.na24.no/article3122749.ece
In English: The Norwegian state oil company StatOil has made a ‘gigantic’ oil discovery, the biggest in 10 years.
Google translation to English
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.na24.no%2Farticle3122749.ece&sl=no&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8
What’s with the Saudi oil? We get over half our imported oil from our northern cousins – why? Because the Canadian socialist experiment joined other past socialist experiments in failure so the current conservative government gained influence resulting in Canadian and U.S. oil salvation and Canadian economic stability.
The U.S. has similar resources, and more. Although we may have to survive until 2013 to follow Canada’s recent lead we must continue to formulate a successful strategy for U.S. energy resurgence that is not based upon only a few sources, but all as they may suit the situation.
Suffice it to say that we have enough energy resources to thrive, let alone survive. Batteries, of any form, are not energy sources. Solar and wind sources are not reliable, sustainable or sufficient by any means. Algae and other sources may help while oil, gas, coal and nuclear have been, and are, the basis for our evolutionary success and will continue to be as we proceed to the imagined and the unimagined.
The created toxicity of CO2 has been, and is being, misused worldwide to “save the planet”, undermine the greedy big energy exploiting capitalists, to again attempt a socialist, maoist, marxist, jihadist, fascist or whatever other anti-democratic, anti-representative, anti-constitutional anti-republic that can be dreamed up, and/or for whatever other reason. This must not happen.
I believe the skeptics/realists who participate at WUWT, etc. will not allow the above to result. Science, liberty, individualism and earned respect must be preserved. Enjoy the challenge, and good luck.
Similar article in today’s Sunday Telegraph by Christopher Booker about our Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne MP who, states Mr. Booker, is into climate change but is completely clueless about energy.
David L. Hagen says:
October 1, 2011 at 2:31 pm
“For a dose of hard reality:
US 48 states oil production peaked in 1970. , UK about 2000, Norway in 2005.”
And Norway still exist on the map. Not removed in the famous Atlas yet. No Doom, no Gloom.
As Margaret Thatcher told the Soviet Central Commitee;
If you stop worrying of the price of eggs, you could find time for the foreign policy.
Same with “Peak Oil”. The Stone age didnt end because of Peak Stone. And there was no Central Comittee in the Stone Age either. I hope.
Leave it to Free Enterprice.
300 mpg from a diesel / electric hybrid is on the road from Volkswagen.
Batteries in cars will serve as a transition technology to improve efficiency and recover energy from braking. Formula 1 cars are set to allow a ten fold increase in the use of KERS where a car can recover energy from braking and reuse it to accelerate again.
Volkswagen have a concept car that uses this technology to deliver (in practise) over 300 mpg from a diesel hybrid.
http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/255101/
Technologies such as this are a far more practical way forward than idiotmills (windmills), and will allow time for fuel cell technology to develop and take us to the next level of efficiency.
A GOP candidate could use this information to slaughter Obama in the coming election. It would also put a stake through the heart of the green agenda. Millions of jobs and access to cheap energy. This is what America needs, not dumb windmills. A simple strategy of showing Global Warming as the fraud it is and showing the American citizens how America could be energy independent. The creation of millions of jobs at a time of serious need. An advertising campaign showing AGW as a fraud and showing Obama as preventing America from creating jobs and the potential of being energy independent. Who ever picks this up and can create a decent campaign strategy would be hard to beat. The strategy will give people a visible hope, a very powerful message.
Galane says:
October 2, 2011 at 12:55 am
What’s the fastest way to increase American oil production? Put pumps on all the wells that have been drilled, oil found, then capped. There’s also plenty of wells where oil has been found then the hole plugged and abandoned.
Why the bleep do oil companies put huge amounts of money into drilling wells they have no plans to use immediately, or never use at all? Is this all busywork to keep union labor happy?
Couple of practical reasons. A few other “national energy security” reasons – but – realistically, those are just incidental and happenstance.
Oil drilling (natural gas drilling) is a very risky industry: Few wells drilled are actually productive. Wrong place at the right depth. Wrong place, wrong depth. Wrong depth but the right place. Wrong pressure below at the right place at the right depth. Salt water below at the right depth at the right place …. Too much sulfur. Too much hydrogen sulfide to sell. Etc.
Oil, but too little to be practical at today’s price.
Oil, but no pipeline from the well yet.
Oil, but the company has too little money to finish.
Oil is promising, but nothing found yet and there’s no money to keep drilling.
Anyway, the oil companies and independent producers have to balance what they can get “right now!” against what they “might get” in a few years from every discovery. In a few months. In a decade. Natural gas, for example, is overproduced in the Penn State area right now and so it is not as profitable as it used to be to keep exploring – except as a hedge against future uncertain times. Against this is the need to explore so the company CAN maintain that future production twenty years from, now. Getting a long-term lease to allow drilling now under somebody’s land may be less expensive (less risky) than gambling that all exploration will be banned by some future EPA – as happened across the Gulf Coast last summer. Everything shut down by fiat and decree.
Often, if they can prove oil (natural gas) is really present in producible amounts in a specific place, they DON’T want to begin producing in that area until adjacent plots and leases can be negotiated. (Why tell a competitor where you know there is oil and he doesn’t?) But, if you have evidence of oil, you may not get money to produce it until bank loans are set. Or until the price goes up. Or enviro reg’s change.
Anyway, “found oil” IS money in the bank for your company. Undiscovered oil is useless and worth nothing. Except a few hundred dry holes and many millions (billions offshore) of probably wasted dollars looking for it in places where it isn’t. (Or you are looking at the right place but at the wrong depth…..) So, if you can prove to a bank that you have found oil in one place, you can get a loan to drill again nearby. But you may not produce from either well until prices go up far enough to build a pipe from both to a regional pipeline. Or from a dozen wells or a hundred wells to that national pipeline.
Nationally, “found oil” (oil that is not pumped out yet) is a national resource worth preserving IF the war breaks out and and the oil tankers are sunk offshore/blockaded in the enemy’s port offshore. Once oil is found, it can be pumped relatively easily and piped to a refinery at no risk later. Money is needed. Time to build the pipe. Material. But the hard part (finding the oil) has been done.
If Obama believes for one minute that they can make a car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon he is barking mad.
As some noted during the ramp up of Climategate – it wouldn’t stop the warmist. If anything, after a brief pause and regrouping, it’s all in again. If anything, the screeching is louder this fall than anytime in the past.
And actually, Obama might achieve his goal of no imported energy using an old tried and true method. On the trajectory he’s going with his economic and energy and business actions, we’ll be like the Germans in the 1920s.. The exchange rate in Dec 1923 was 4.2 trillion marks to one US dollar. Germans used the mark for fuel. This link has a photo and explanation:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/germany/crisis1923rev_print.shtml
this one as well. There won’t be enough zeros in you computers to buy a barrel of oil from Chavez, provided he lives through his cancer treatments.
Energy in German in the 1920s was plentiful but completely unaffordable. And it happens quickly. The Gernman CPI jumped from 100 in July 1922 to trillions by Dec 1923.
Obama has plenty of time to revert the US back to the Stone Age emissions levels.
Carsten Arnholm – I assume you were pointing out that with this one find, Statoil would have deferred global peak oil by … 6 days … if discoveries like that weren’t already factored into peak oil calculations.
I note that a number of commentators are treating the concept of peak oil with complete contempt, and talking as though their point of view was so totally obvious that there was no need to actually check the evidence. Well to my mind, Hubbert’s paper was brilliant for its time (I have read it), and he got it spot on. His logic must apply equally to any limited resource such as global oil, gas or coal. Of course, the dates may be quite different for each, and predictions of those dates are subject to error because they include unknowns like discovery rates and technology advances.
In spite of all new oil discoveries, including the Gulf of Mexico (say 2006, 15bn bbls?), Bakken (1951 but say 2007, 5-7bn?), Tupi (2007, 5bn?), Eagle Ford (1970s but say 2008, 5bn?), etc, there is little happening which has the potential to defer peak oil much past today. Every 5bn bbl find – and they aren’t happening very often now – defers global peak oil by no more than 2 months, and in reality by zero if it is already in the predicted discovery rate. The four finds I just mentioned have deferred global peak oil by no more than one year, and in reality by zero because the global discovery rate didn’t actually change much. Our favourite source of information here, Wikipedia, says : “The peak of world oilfield discoveries occurred in 1965[47] at around 55 billion barrels (8.7×109 m3)(Gb)/year.[48] According to the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO), the rate of discovery has been falling steadily since. Less than 10 Gb/yr of oil were discovered each year between 2002-2007.[49] According to a 2010 Reuters article, the annual rate of discovery of new fields has remained remarkably constant at 15-20 Gb/yr.[50]” and “World wide oil discoveries have been less than annual production since 1980“. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_consumption#Demand_for_oil
No matter how you cut it, global peak oil is real and is either here now or is not far away. The IEA says it was in 2006 (for conventional oil). Bear in mind that it would take a new discovery of 30bn bbls over and above the regular 15-20bn bbls pa discovery rate, to defer global peak oil by a single year. I’m happy to work through figures with anyone who thinks otherwise, and (unlike AGWers) I would be very happy indeed to be proved wrong.
Philip Bradley says:
October 1, 2011 at 11:16 pm
“It is a scandal that billions are being wasted on electric car nonsense, but no vehicle manufacturer anywhere has volume production of NG cars for developed world markets, although Honda is close.”
See
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erdgasfahrzeug#Serienfahrzeuge
List of car models with CNG installed by the manufacturer. Find the list starting with “BMW: 316g Compact, 518g”.
All the cash cow volume models come as CNG variant if you want one.
savethesharks says: October 1, 2011 at 9:21 pm
Jessie says:
October 1, 2011 at 6:39 pm
Smokey says: October 1, 2011 at 6:15 pm
[snip – Anthony]
Smokey, you got snipped!
==========================
So what the hell is your point??? Who cares???
So Smokey pushed the envelope a little bit.
Best look at what he says the other 99.99999999 % of the time.
Most always unsnippable.
Have read what Smokey he/she saysand I was interested to know from him. If as you state he got snipped 01.00000001% of the 99.99999999 % then that is a fine observation by you.
I wanted to know what the heck was written that got snipped.
It must have been ……….precise…………. good….. antagonistic……straight to the pointt……………….analytical………….not part of an agenda………off the mark……………….plain crap …. as per criteria of Anthony and his great mods. So yes, I cared to question this.
Smokey provided the link to what got snipped. That was fine. And answered my question to him/her.
Thanks muchly. And much appreciated, as I was interested in having a response to my question … having read Smokey’ comments previously in many discussions and appreciating his/her input.
Jessie,
Thanks for that Dusty Springfield video. She got my teenage hormones rushing back in the ’60’s! [and yes, I’m a red blooded, hot blooded American man].
And I’m very appreciative of savethesharks support. I always pay attention to savetheshark’s prescient, intelligent comments. But Anthony is The Man, and what he says goes.
There is no one like Anthony on the skeptics’ side. He walks the talk, doing experiments, holding the alarmists’ feet to the fire. I support Anthony because I truly believe we’re making a difference. The CAGW lie has to be exposed, and WUWT is in the vanguard. It’s a long, hard process, but we have the truth on our side.The opposition is tough, and backed by big money. We only have the truth. But in the end, the truth is all that matters.
The very same people do not want you to cut a tree to make green energy, though why they support ethanol is beyond me since it takes up farmland…
Smokey says:
October 1, 2011 at 7:05 pm
Jessie,
My last post was over the top. I was just upset by this.
When you add these stories to the mix it really get scary Smokey. For those who think the questionable actions of the US government are due to the “Peter Principle” I think this series of articles put a very different light on the subject esp. given Smokey’s article. The greed for control of every aspect of our lives is a better explanation.
A “reason” is needed to grab more control and these articles illustrate how a “Reason” is manufactured. CAGW follows the same pattern. Problem-Reaction-Solution based on the Hegelian Dialectic method.
Out of one side of her mouth: Napolitano: terror threat may be highest since 9/11
US government’s actual actions:
Ms. Napolitano attempts to justify to lawmakers a 30 percent budget reduction for U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Administration Will Cut Border Patrol Deployed on U.S-Mexico Border
Napolitano Cancels Virtual Border Fence Project..1/14/2011
Local Officials: Border Crime On The Rise
Three of the four border states are losing their National Guard troops – Are Legalized Civilian Militia Groups the Answer to Arizona’s Border Security Problems?
While Minuteman civilian patrols are keeping an eye out for illegal border crossers, the U.S. Border Patrol is keeping an eye out for Minutemen — and telling the Mexican government where they are (They watch and report to the border patrol BTW They do not engage the border crossers themselves.)
Radical Islam makes inroads among Latin America’s Native peoples
The “Patriot Act” itself talks of the Canadian border but says not one word about the Mexican Border. http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html
I forgot to credit my source when I posted earlier. Here is the original information. I changed a few numbers based upon wikipedia data that I found. I also copy and pasted from the article.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080927100559AAq4lTM
So what your implying is, it is cheaper to take oil out of the ground in Saudi Arabia and haul it across the ocean than it is to pump it out of our own backyard? Really? … Without the regulatory expenditures in the way (as you said to put aside) this seems to me to be quite impossible to pump and ship oil from the Middle East cheaper than pumping in my own backyard.
Didn’t you tell us that you do this for a living .. you said “remember, I do this for a living” .. pfffffftttttt… yah, whatever…
I look forward to the day when I can power a vehicle without having to burn something. But the hard facts of economic reality mean we must burn liquid hydrocarbons fuels. And in the US, 52% of our electricity comes from burning coal. It will take a long time, and a lot of money we do not have to convert from coal to something that pollutes less.
I would find the big push for electric vehicles to be more honest if government was doing all it could to develop walk-away-safe nuclear power, and especially thorium-based power.
The “green” Alternate energy is available but only if the morons would get out of the way and let us develop and implement the technology. This will never occur because if you have a stranglehold on energy you have a stranglehold on industry. This is all a part of the plan.
“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,” using the “Free Market” that is the World Trade Organization, NAFTA and other “Free Trade” agreements. Holdren put it very bluntly. “The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.” …interview this week, White House Office of Science and Technology Director John P. Holdren…
A workable solution to energy independence is called Thorium and China, not being hampered by “Political Correctness,” ….is leading the way with thorium…
The intriguing part is the sealed micro nuclear plants. Toshiba’s Micro Nuclear Reactor “…The new reactor, which is only 20 feet by 6 feet, could change everything for small remote communities, businesses or even a group of neighbors who are fed up with the power companies and want more control over their energy needs….”
Hyperion has come up with Underground nuclear power plants no bigger than a hot tub… Measuring about 1.5 meters across and is part way through the approval process.
We already know that nuclear subs have been around for a long time, so nuclear powered ships and possibly rail should not be that much of a technological leap.
The only reason long haul trucking was able to compete with rail in the USA was because of unions and monopoly making it cost ineffective and customer unfriendly. (Dispatchers spend a lot of time screaming at unresponsive Rail employees while trying to find out where their shipments are.)
♫ Dreamer
Nothing but a Dreamer
Can you put your hands in your head
Oh No… ♫
I just called Obama to ask him about that battery thing. He was on the golf course, so I told him to call me later. He said he could talk, he was just standing around with his club in his hand, because a foursome of #@%&^*****ing Republican Congressmen ahead of him were deliberately playing at a snails pace, and refusing to let him play through.
Anyway, he said he remembered the conversation with the oil man, but that he didn’t get to finish telling him about the great new fossil fuel replacement technology, because the POTUS had to excuse himself to go to the toilet. Our President told me that the battery is just part of it. That gets the vehicle started and up to speed, then the windmill on top takes over and generates electricity to run the motors and recharge the battery. I said, “Uh, huh?”. He excitedly continued to explain that it could be used on all sorts of transport: buses, trucks, trains, it’s great for airplanes. The windmills double as propellers. And it will create millions of jobs in construction alone, as bridges, overpasses, train tunnels, etc. will have to be reconstructed. I said thank you to our President, and to myself I said, “It’s worse than we thought.”
Capping a well and sitting on it is simply not possible. It is a persistent myth.
Oil and gas leases are written for 1 to 10 years. ALL leases, whether federal, state, or private are limited term and revert to the owner after the primary term, unless they are “held by production”, meaning one can hold the lease beyond the primary term if production is established.. Once production ceases, they expire and can be re-leased to a different company.
Even during the primary term, on a federal lease, you’ll end up paying shut in royalty if you have a viable well and don’t produce it—that is you pay the government for oil you should have produced but didn’t.
Sure, there are short term clauses for maintenance, transportation issues etc., but any claims of oil companies shutting in wells to run up prices is a fine indicator of general ignorance of how the business actually functions.
Galane says:
October 2, 2011 at 4:20 am
“…but the truth seems to be that the majority of good wells have been capped to save them for a rainy day…”
Not much different than having water in a dam. When to let it out and cash in? Will be automatically adjusted in a free marked.
Mike Jonas-
As seductive as all those peak oil curves seem they have a fatal flaw—they ignore price.
Oil prices have been fairly flat in constant dollars through the development of those curves. Higher prices have made reserves and production possible which formerly were not. These increased reserves are in new and old fields, from conventional and unconventional sources. The effect is that all those curves are being warped beyond recognition. Texas, which should be the oldest, most peaked out place on the planet, has reversed the decline is increasing both oil and gas production.
If you really want to see just how faulty the science of Hubbert and his disciples is, google up “peak gas”, then look at what is being found and produced today.
J Martin says:
October 2, 2011 at 2:28 am
300 MPG for real cars is perpetual motion. Not physically possible, except by adding energy that you didn’t count, such as hydrodynamic. Recovering energy from braking helps only a little. Racing cars might recover a bit more energy than average, but you don’t brake that violently. And even so, I don’t think you will find many Formula 1 cars at 30 MPG, let alone 300. More like 3.
Jessie says:
October 2, 2011 at 4:04 am
savethesharks says: October 1, 2011 at 9:21 pm
============================
My apologies, Jessie. I completely misinterpreted, and should not have jumped to conclusions.
All the best,
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
We need to get this dreamer out of office!
This is ridiculous. Obama is open to domestic oil production, but it hardly makes him a bad person or an irresponsible leader because he wants to reduce our dependency on oil and produce less GHGs. Quite the contrary, actually.
Reducing oil use, by definition, reduces the demand for Middle Eastern oil, so it’s hypocritical to argue AGAINST green investment while simultaneously arguing FOR reduced demand for ME oil. It’s always so interesting to hear a righty pick and choose the numbers that support their case.
A high school student who’s sat through just a few hours of introductory economics can tell you that pollution – which relatively simple science has shown, with very high levels of confidence, leads to climate change – is an externality, and that products and processes that are energy/pollution intensive should be taxed or regulated to reflect their true social costs. Any serious economist will agree with this.
And in response to some of these “corrupt Democrats” comments, please, please don’t get me started. That’s an argument the right will ALWAYS lose.
Ant and Grasshopper
Fell in a deep and dark hole.
Modify my lease.
==========
Dear Mr. Chairman Zero Emission,
I suppose you will blame this very early season snow (not snowing at the moment), rime ice (see it on the trees), and 11 AM temperature of 30 degrees in NORTH CAROLINA….on global warming, right? Or climate change….or climate disruption….or whatever the devil it is the Apparatchik are calling it these days.
Check out North Carolina on this October 2 at 5000 feet. That rime ice is gonna make for some good fall color in the beech trees, for sure. Ya’ll come, ya hear?
http://www.highcountrywebcams.com/webcameras_beechparkway.htm
http://www.highcountrywebcams.com/webcameras_BeechOZRUN.htm
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Galane says:
October 2, 2011 at 4:20 am
*****
The oil companies cap wells only when they are not profitable. When the price of oil rises again, they work over the wells and produce oil again. More government regulations aren’t necessary and in fact are undesirable. The companies know when and when not to produce from old wells. Why do people always turn to the government to make things happen that happen naturally by themselves? When you ask the government to do everything for you and take care of you, the government owns you – you are no longer free.
Matthew says:
October 2, 2011 at 8:17 am
*****
Matthew – you conveniently ignore the many and huge positive externalities. The entire society – every last member of it – have benefited from oil production. It has made us what we are today! You and your high school students don’t consider the positive “externalities” because your brainwashing didn’t, conveniently, include those. You need to think for yourself.
“Pollute me more” the
Plants cry out and dance about.
Animals chew cud.
=============
Galane
Did you ever think that the logical business approach in remote areas is to first find the oil, determine if it is economic, and then construct a pipeline to bring the oil/gas to shore. In the interim the site needs to be made safe. Only a person with government menality would reverse the process, build the pipeline then look for oil.
I suspect the permits to build the pipeline to bring the oil ashore are also likely time consuming and costly requiring environmental impact studies and years of litigation. Just look at how the enviros and the EPA are trying to stop the Keystone pipeline and that is over land!!!.
Also I suspect that good business practices would try to consolidate one or more well sites to construct a minimum amount of lines to bring the oil ashore. Business works on an economic strategy not like the DOE and Chu shoveling $$ out the door based on cronyism.
Are you in this business and know something that is not obvious?
Matthew says:
October 2, 2011 at 8:17 am
“A high school student who’s sat through just a few hours of introductory economics can tell you that pollution – which relatively simple science has shown, with very high levels of confidence, leads to climate change ”
I agree with you that GCM’s are “simple science”; as only a simpleton can earnestly believe that these models successfully predict anything even over a very short time into the future.
To be more precise, they have exactly NO MORE predictive skill over one year than a model that simply says “in exactly one year, the weather will be exactly like today”.
Just look at Hansen’s guess from 2010 that we will have a strong El Nino in 2011 – this is practically the INVENTOR of GCM’s talking and see how pityful he performs.
Oh Matthew, and if your “relatively simple science” alludes to the infamous “CO2 in a bottle” experiments, and you hold that as evidence that CO2 in a planetary atmosphere leads to such-and-such a climate change, then that proves that you know nothing about dynamic systems, feedback AND chaos, so if you really mean it THAT way, then you should educate yourself about the concepts I mentioned and try to apply them to climate. A good start are always Willis Eschenbach’s essays, e.g. this one
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/28/sense-and-sensitivity/
concerning the “green” efforts by the Govn’t:
“Never ascribe to malice that can be directly attributed to incompetence.”
“Napoleon Bonaparte.”
“Using global warming as one of the mechanisms to accomplish objectives just make the leaders look ruthless, like blatant propagandists and educated fools.”
Even if their motives were so pure, dishonesty will always fail them in the long haul. It’s been a disservice to humanity. A net waste of a lot of good minds.
Moving forward, assuming we will run out of cheap fuel one day (perhaps our grandchildren), the hope (and likelihood) is that market forces will cause us to use energy more efficiently. That’s where the bright minds should be working.
On the supply side, just over the past 10 years the known reserves have increased dramatically thanks to some bright mindes working R&D (ex. fracking). Bright minds are also working on conversion of natural gas to more portable liquid fuels. That will bring a lot of relief near term IMHO.
I’m not the least bit worried for my grandchildren. We humans are at the top level of adaptability.
Smokey says:
October 1, 2011 at 10:14 pm
“And they massively buy and sell futures puts and calls ahead of the changes, easily sucking many $billions out of Western pockets every year.”
Good point. Insider trading all the way. They know exactly when they are going to cut/raise supply, and can thus trade futures without risk.
There is a strategy the US could follow to solve oil supply and the deficit overnight, but of course will not. Set a minimum price for oil and put a 100% tax on the difference. Adjust the minimum price based on percentage of domestic production. If domestic production drops, raise the minimum price (tax). If domestic production increases, reduce the tax.
Overnight there would been massive investment in US oil exploration with tons of jobs created doing something that actually generates wealth, and speculators would be driven out of the market. Their would be a massive worldwide oil glut and prices would fall, and as they did US tax revenues would soar.
While this could be challenged under GATT, the US could claim it was done for strategic reasons, which allows a GATT exemption.
(SarcOn) Obama remembers his youth and those endless days on the beach building towering sandcastles. He also remembers that one of his most enlightening experiences came to him one Saturday morning while watching cartoons on TV and those old, old B&W reruns of the Our Gang Kids from the 1920’s. He swore to himself that when he was King of the World everyone (even pets) would have their very own Infinite Energy Generator (IEG) capable of generating all the energy they ever needed.(SarcOff)
Pics of Patented IEG Models awaiting EPA final approval for $500T investment packages administered by DNC Mules –
1. Senior IEG :
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mSuZSnBhAVk/SVBo6t4AiSI/AAAAAAAAAfE/H_4uZi7ADgI/s320/ronald_weinland_in_propeller_beanie_hat.gif.
2. Marlboro Man IEG :
http://www.centurynovelty.com/catImages/092-037_large.jpg
3. Pet’s IEG :
http://smalldogmall.com/store/images/hats/propeller_hat_lrg.jpg
jim says:
October 2, 2011 at 8:37 am
****
No, you ignore the fact that the positive-negative distribution of historical externalities has shifted very substantially – and very quickly. Sure, 100 years ago the postive effects of burning fossil fuels far outweighed the negative effects, but today (and especially with what we know now vs. what we knew then), it doesn’t make sense to stay on the business-as-usual path.
Onion says on October 1, 2011 at 2:55 pm :
“The battery will get recharged by a solar-powered windmill
There is nothing wrong with the science”
===
That’s right! You tell ‘em the facts! – Its ideal for people like Tom in Florida who wants to open an “electric filling station”. All he needs is a propeller – com – generator set up on each filling point (oh – and maybe a solar cell or two as back up just in case …)
– And think of the spin-off – he’ll be able to operate a thriving camping site business right there at the filling or “charging” station.
And – do take into consideration – “Car theft” will be a “thing of the past” – Well, my computer model says so.
DirkH says:
October 2, 2011 at 8:52 am
*****
That’s the problem with “skeptics” like you, Dirk. Why don’t you take a look at the past, say, 130,000 years of palaeoclimatic data and get back to us.
Do they realise that they will need to double or treble the number of power stations, to generate enough power for transport?
And what form of power generation? If it is fossil, then we gain absolutely nothing, because a battery car will use the same amount of energy as a diesel.
The only wat to make battery vehicles make sense, is through nuclear power – preferably of the Thorium variety.
.
Matthew says:
October 2, 2011 at 8:17 am
=====================
Matthew, every paragraph you wrote was ridiculous.
1. Obama is irresponsible NOT because he wants to reduce America’s dependency on oil, but because he wants to, yet introduces useless policies that have no effect – like a $535 million loan guarantee to a solar power company that builds expensive offices and then goes bankrupt laying off 1,100 people. Why not place limits on the minimum fuel consumption allowable for commuting traffic and stand back and watch as people dump their trucks and SUVs for more efficient gas and diesel powered autos (not useless battery powered ones).
2. Reducing oil use may reduce reliance on Middle East oil, but developing green energy doesn’t necessarily reduce oil consumption (as many countries such as Norway are finding out because reliable energy must be on stand-by to pick up the slack from unreliable solar and wind).
3. Your few hours of high school science mixes up energy and pollution. There is a big difference. Tax pollution by all means (as long as the tax goes toward reducing it), but why the need to tax energy (why do we feel we have to punish people for using energy)?
4. This is not a right-left issue any more. Higher energy costs out-live governments. Green energy is only adding to these costs. Where does the money come from to pay for higher energy costs? And what is the carbon footprint and pollution component on the extra money that is needed to support a part of the economy (green jobs) that can only survive on subsidies?
My government raised my hydro bill by 18% last year. Then this year (an election year) they gave me a clean energy rebate of 10%. The government is in serious debt and after the election will have to raise more revenue. They will most likely eliminate the clean energy rebate on the basis that they can no longer afford these subsidies. But wait a minute. They increased my hydro bill by 18% before they gave me 10% of it back. I bet they don’t teach that in high school.
.
>> Depending upon a middle east which is unstable for energy is mentally challenged.
Doubly so, when you realise that much of that Middle Eastern money comes back to the West in the form of terrorism. Saudi Arabia spends about $30 billion a year on Wahabi ‘education’, and you can bet your bottom dollar that that ‘education’ is not of the quadratic equational kind.
.
Matthew says:
October 2, 2011 at 9:30 am
No, you ignore the fact that the positive-negative distribution of historical externalities has shifted very substantially – and very quickly. Sure, 100 years ago the positive effects of burning fossil fuels far outweighed the negative effects, but today (and especially with what we know now vs. what we knew then), it doesn’t make sense to stay on the business-as-usual path.
What negatives have actually occurred? People have never been healthier and living longer. There is more food worldwide than at any time in history. Billions of people have been raised up from poverty.
Low cost energy has been the solution. 1 person can only produce so much in a day. So, in the past to generate wealth we needed thousands of serfs for every wealthy person. However, by using energy as a multiplier, each person can now produce much more. As such, for every wealthy person you need many less serfs. Thus the creation of the middle class.
We have billions of people on earth living lives that princes and kings could only have dreamed of a few hundreds of years ago. We also have billions of people that need to be raised out of poverty. Look at China and India. They are following the same formula used by the west (COAL) and getting the same positive results. Contrast this to Africa, where most of the economy is renewable, not based on fossil fuel (CHARCOAL and DUNG).
Wind mills in CA have already proven themselves to be a technological and economic fraud. So exactly how are all those electric cars going to be recharged?
How much asphalt for roads is made out of electricity? How much plastic, solvents, fertilizers, etc?
DirkH says:
October 2, 2011 at 8:57 am
****
Cute. Maybe with some hand-waving and Ron Paul 2012 stickers, we’ll solve everything!!!!11!
DirkH says:
October 2, 2011 at 8:52 am
To be more precise, they have exactly NO MORE predictive skill over one year than a model that simply says “in exactly one year, the weather will be exactly like today”.
Just look at Hansen’s guess from 2010 that we will have a strong El Nino in 2011 – this is practically the INVENTOR of GCM’s talking and see how pityful he performs.
The GCM’s are very skillful at predicting what the model builder’s believe will happen. If they were not, the model builders would change them until they did. Thus, what the models predict is what Hansen and Gavin already believe. It is a form of “mind reading”. The most successful fortune tellers are those that tell you want to hear. In climate science the most successful models are those that tell the climate scientists what they want to hear.
Thus, climate models do not predict the future, they “predict” something that is already known. The models “predict” what their builder’s believe will happen in the future. If the models predicted anything else, they would be modified, because the builders would think the models were in error and change them.
ferd berple says:
October 2, 2011 at 9:47 am
*****
You beat me to it, Fred. The so-called poor in the US have color TVs, computers, cell phones, air conditioning, and free food. It’s not exactly like we reverted to the pre-oil daze. The so-called negative externalities are not proven. The huge cost of CO2 mitigation will be a huge negative externality for everyone that could lurch us back into the 16th century. The cost (or benefit) of doing nothing isn’t well established.
pat says:
October 2, 2011 at 9:48 am
So exactly how are all those electric cars going to be recharged?
They will be recharged at night from the down welling IR energy from CO2, which according to climate scientists like Trenberth and the IPCC actually radiates more energy back to the earth than does sunlight.
Climate scientists plan to erect huge reflectors to catch this down welling IR radiation and use it to heat water to drive steam turbines and recharge all the electric cars at night. These companies will be financed by government guaranteed loans, granted to whoever makes the biggest political contributions to political re-election campaigns.
Steve from Rockwood says:
October 2, 2011 at 9:42 am
*****
No. In order:
1. You can’t regulate anything in this country because of Republican/Tea Party nutjobs screaming about personal liberty. That sounds like a cop-out, but just look at people like Joe Barton in TX and his ridiculous tyrade against lower energy lightbulbs. Also, respect yourself more than using one hyped-up instance of green corruption to discredit the whole idea of renewable energy.
2. Actually, green technology does reduce dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Even if oil is used as a “stand-by”, oil consumption will decrease at least a bit for every solar panel or windmill that’s installed. It’s silly to suggest we ignore new technology just because it’s not perfect.
3. I don’t know what science books you’ve been reading, but energy production in America is extremely dirty. How you can be for a tax on pollution (or would it exclude pollution that results from energy production?) and against energy taxes? At least cut some of the subsidies? Middle ground?
4. Like I said earlier, considering the way energy is produced in America, higher energy costs reflect more accurately the actual social costs of energy-related pollution. IDK how to say it a different way…
>>Too little, MPG or vision, the Aptera series 2 electric version should
>>hit the streets at 200MPG equivalent, the gasoline hybrid version should
>>get 130 MPG on gasoline only.
Yes, but these are toys, not cars. Where is the room for the wife and kids, and supermarket swag?
And if you want to make comparisons, then pay fair and compare like with like. The “VW 1Liter”, which is similar to the Aptera, does 280mpg – on good old diesel.
As I said before, battery vehicles make absolutely no sense (except to Greens and Presidents), unless you have nuclear power. Only then, will the extra efficiencies of a battery-electric motor combination begin to shine. But be prepared to have three times as many nuclear power stations, as the current number of fossil power stations.
.
ferd berple says:
October 2, 2011 at 9:47 am
*******
Funny, when I lived in China, I couldn’t jog outside because it tore my lungs up. I had to buy a (very expensive) gym membership where I can run in a room with purified air. Cancer rates are through the roof and the economic consequences for China’s rural class has been disastrous. And you really want to point to India as an economic miracle of fossil fuel usage? Visit a slum in Delhi and see if you’re still willing to stand by that…
Yes, in the PAST, low cost energy (and a disregard for its negative implications) allowed us to create and sustain a middle class. It might be time to reconsider that a bit, though.
Matthew says:
October 2, 2011 at 10:04 am
*****
“Like I said earlier, considering the way energy is produced in America, higher energy costs reflect more accurately the actual social costs of energy-related pollution. IDK how to say it a different way…”
Unfortunately, the higher energy costs are in part due to market distortions introduced by the government. If the government would get out of the way of the petroleum industry, we would be awash with cheap energy. Longer term, nuclear energy can provide energy – but we need to get started building now. Nuclear is an area where some government regulation is necessary, but not to the point that the plants can’t get built.
Matthew says:
October 2, 2011 at 9:50 am
“Cute. Maybe with some hand-waving and Ron Paul 2012 stickers, we’ll solve everything!!!!11!”
It’s difficult to understand what you want to say with that, and how it relates to what I said. Don’t forget I’m German, so I’m always glad to learn more about the various political factions in America.
Matthew says:
October 2, 2011 at 9:32 am
“That’s the problem with “skeptics” like you, Dirk. Why don’t you take a look at the past, say, 130,000 years of palaeoclimatic data and get back to us.”
I recommended that you learn a little about dynamic systems and feedback; so why not start right here.
A core argument of the warmists is, as past climatic changes were too big to be explained by TSI changes, they must have been amplified, so the climate must have net positive feedback.
BUT they overlook that the climate is pretty stable as well, so the positive feedback MUST be overwhelmed by a LARGE negative feedback when it hits the buffers – together this means a NONLINEAR feedback, slightly positive for small changes and GREATLY negative beyond small changes.
If you don’t agree with that, I would be very thankful for a reasoned argument. If the term “negative feedback” is unfamiliar to you, just say so and I’ll be glad to explain more.
jim says:
October 2, 2011 at 10:09 am
******
Something we agree on: nuclear power.
Something we disagree on: “If the government would get out of the way of the petroleum industry, we would be awash with cheap energy.” Just…I don’t even…
Matthew says:
You can’t regulate anything in this country because of Republican/Tea Party nutjobs screaming about personal liberty.
So you oppose personal liberty. Got it. And FYI, the Tea Party [which I’m not a member of] got started because of the $trillions in wasted new spending. What have we got to show for that?
And:
Actually, green technology does reduce dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
Yes, by 1% – 2%, at enormous cost. A more stupid waste of money would be hard to imagine.
And:
…energy production in America is extremely dirty.
You’re not only a fool if you believe that, but it is contradicted by your own post at 10:09 above.
And:
…higher energy costs reflect more accurately the actual social costs of energy-related pollution.
Read jim’s response above. He is right and you are wrong.
Matthew says:
October 2, 2011 at 10:04 am
4. Like I said earlier, considering the way energy is produced in America, higher energy costs reflect more accurately the actual social costs of energy-related pollution. IDK how to say it a different way…
That means that everyone in America gets their goods and services for a lower cost than if they paid the full “social cost of energy-related pollution”. There is no free lunch. Companies don’t pay to clean up pollution. They either:
1. pass the costs along to consumers
2. deduct it from their taxes (and thus pass it along to consumers)
3. Go out of business (consumers pay unemployment costs of laid off workers)
4. Move to another country with less regulation (consumers pay unemployment costs)
Sure, you can have 100% pollution free energy. That will make the cost of goods and services produced in the US the highest in the world and China with some of the lowest energy costs in the world will eat your lunch. Within 1 or 2 generations the Chinese will own the US means of production and in effect America will be working for the Chinese. Events are already far along this road, as uncertainty over energy production and supply is at the heart of the US and world financial crisis.
313 mpg Volkswagen.
@ Roberto
As the car has been built and driven by journalists, then it would seem that 300 mpg is not perpetual motion. 313 mpg in fact.
Although to get that headline fuel consumption figure relies on the right mix of driving and charging of the batteries. Even so, without the use of the batteries the car reputedly gets 110mpg from it’s diesel. That’s twice what I get from the diesel car I drive.
Such a car will inevitably have a range of drawbacks compared to current well specified vehicles, not least price, unless it goes into mass production. But of course they’ll never sell any in the USA unless they produce a pick-up truck version or a Chelsea Tractor version (SUV). Though Anthony Watts might perhaps be tempted to replace his electric car with one of these.
You guys should stop worrying about energy, the Germans will keep you mobile, and the Chinese will provide you with Thorium power plants.
Here are two critical reviews from journalists who have driven it;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/car-manufacturers/volkswagen/8293372/Volkswagen-XL1-review.html
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/carreviews/firstdrives/262954/volkswagen_xl1.html
Smokey says:
October 2, 2011 at 10:22 am
*****
Ok, this barely warrants a response, but I’ll take a crack at it anyway…
I didn’t contradict myself at all at 10:09, unless you think by implying Chinese energy production is dirtier than American energy production somehow makes the US “cleaner.” If that’s where you got confused, let me rephrase. China’s energy production is very, very dirty. America’s is very dirty. For your reference, from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States (sorry, I didn’t check conservapedia…).
“Yes, by 1% – 2% at enormous cost. A more stupid waste of money would be hard to imagine.”
No. Just…no.
You’re a sassy little thing, aren’t you?!
Someone raised the nuclear power argument (again).
Why anyone would want to build those overly-expensive, radiation-spewing, and future-disaster-creating power plants is beyond me.
Even the Saudis have started an ambitious program to build 16 reactors in 20 years, at a cost of more than $7 billion per reactor. Yet, they have no environmental groups to impede them. No NRC, no armies of attorneys to tie them up in court for a decade or more. Heck they probably don’t even require massive construction loans but can pay each billion as it comes due out of the ready-cash account.
Electric power from such plants must be sold for at least 25 cents per kWh, and more likely 35 cents (US dollars), unless the power is subsidized. How this can be acceptable when natural gas is readily available – especially in the Middle East – is beyond comprehension. A combined cycle gas turbine power plant has an efficiency of approximately 59 percent, depending on the ambient air temperature and a few other factors. The cost to build is low, and the operating costs with cheap natural gas are also low.
For more, see http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/saudis-to-build-nuclear-plants-at-7.html
and the source article at http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110928-711935.html
Secretary Chu just does what he is told to do as seen in the Solyndra loan affair. He is more a money bag man than a science advisor.
Matthew says:
“You’re a sassy little thing, aren’t you?!”
That’s a typical response from someone who has no facts. Matthew also says: “No. Just…no.” Again, fact-free emotion. Matthew is regurgitating the spoon-fed propaganda he’s been told, and which he now believes.
Matthew’s own link to Wackypedia states: “…the energy required to produce the increase in US consumption of manufactured equipment, cars, and other goods has been shifted to other countries producing and transporting those goods to the US with a corresponding shift of green house gases and pollution.”
That directly contradicts Matthew’s mistaken belief that American energy production is “very dirty.” Orwell called that state of mind “doublethink”. Today it’s known as cognitive dissonance; keeping two contradictory thoughts in mind at the same time. It is a hallmark of the alarmist crowd, and it is rarely curable.
>>Why anyone would want to build those overly-expensive, radiation-spewing,
>>and future-disaster-creating power plants is beyond me.
Because wind and solar power will relegate mankind to a new Dark Age of increadibly expensive and unreliable power, that will destroy entire nations and civilisations. Whereas, nuclear power will allow us to maintain our technology, standards of living, and eventually reach for the stars.
Please also explain why using nuclear power directly is evil, while using nuclear power by proxy is virtuous and Green? I have never understood this concept, unless it is an offshoot of pipe-dream Ludditism.
.
Matthew says:
October 2, 2011 at 10:09 am
Visit a slum in Delhi and see if you’re still willing to stand by that…
Slums existed long before industrialization. Centuries before. To date two solutions have been found to get rid of slums:
1. The Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot/ solution – get rid of the people
2. Industrialization.and mass production using low cost energy.
You cannot get rid of slums through high cost energy because it is beyond the price the folks in the slums can afford. Which is why there are slums. Folks don’t live in slums because they want to. They do so because it is all they can afford. The alternative is death.
Industrialization with low cost energy and mass production techniques reduces the costs of goods and services to the point where those people living in slums can afford the goods and services outside of the slums, and thus they are not forced to choose between living in a slum or dying.
Matthew says
“A high school student who’s sat through just a few hours of introductory economics can tell you that pollution – which relatively simple science has shown, with very high levels of confidence, leads to climate change – is an externality, and that products and processes that are energy/pollution intensive should be taxed or regulated to reflect their true social costs. Any serious economist will agree with this.”
Matthew, your high school level of understanding economics, energy, and pollution will not carry much weight here in WUWT. I have always been impressed at the level of knowledge, experience, and expertise expressed by many of those who participate in this forum. Although I have several engineering degrees, I am not a climatologist and I continually learn more and more every day thanks to Anthony and his team who continually present stimulative and factual articles for information and discussion.
I have over 45 years of experience in the energy business an Obama has not even acquired a grade school level of understanding energy. Remember the outlandish claims he made regarding how much gas we could save by inflating our tires and getting tuneups. Or why is he not pushing the Chu claim re how effective painting roofs white woul be?
Let’s be honest, Obama hates fossil fuels based on a total lack of uunderstanding energy and the benefits to our society as explained by others. His going in plan was to kill coal, oil, and gas but as we see with cellulosic ethanol non of the alternatives meet the expensive promises.
Reality has begun to slowly set in and he reluctanly realizes that our economy is dead without conventional fossile resources. Why is he subsidizing foreign oil production in Brazil and Columbia while attacking domestic sources?
The green energy via corn, bio, solar and wind will never supply sufficient energy to drive our economy. Only a fool buys that line. And most of these are not clean and withour significant pollution as our high school students are led to believe.
Ralph says:
October 2, 2011 at 10:48 am
Please also explain why using nuclear power directly is evil, while using nuclear power by proxy is virtuous and Green? I have never understood this concept, unless it is an offshoot of pipe-dream Ludditism.
Well, in Australia it is BAD to burn coal and create CO2, so the Ozzies are going to be taxed big time on that.
However, if you take that same coal and ship it to China and create CO2, that is good and the Ozzies will not be taxed on that.
Which is doubly good as the Ozzie jobs that would have been created by burning the coal in Oz will have moved to China along with coal, so there won’t be Anyone in Oz with a job to pay the taxes.
However, the wind will blow the CO2 from China back to Oz, so in the end the Ozzies will at least have something to keep them warm at night, huddled around their solar panels.
.
I forgot there is more http://www.aftenposten.no/okonomi/innland/article4200193.ece
“Oil discovery probably much larger than anticipated
– Not since the mid-eighties has there been any equivalent discovery in Norway, says Statoil.”
Google translate:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aftenposten.no%2Fokonomi%2Finnland%2Farticle4200193.ece
“The discovery of oil Aldous and Avaldsnes in the North Sea is much greater than initially anticipated. While the initial estimates was for between 200 and 400 million barrels of oil equivalent, adjusted figure now between 500 and 1200 million barrels of recoverable oil equivalents.”
“The third major discovery in 2011
The discovery in the North Sea is the third major oil discovery for us this year. In April, about 250 million barrels of found in Skrugard field in the Barents Sea, and soon after was between 150 and 300 million barrels found in South Peregrino field in Brazil. ”
With these recent examples, no doubt there is more.
Matthew says:
Funny, when I lived in China, I couldn’t jog outside because it tore my lungs up.
If you go inside of any preserved dwelling from centuries ago in any temperate or cold climate you will find the walls and ceilings are thick with black soot. This is from long before industrialization. Chimneys were for the very rich. The average person was much to poor to waste energy by letting smoke escape up a chimney, before it had warmed the room.
Contrast this with the air quality inside almost any house in the west today, where the air quality is typically quite high. Many cities ban burning wood in fireplaces completely, because it is too dirty. Fossil fuels are used instead because they are cleaner. Industrialization is what has paid to clean up the environment in the west, and it will do so in China and India as their wealth increases.
Waste is a by product of all living creatures. Oxygen is plant waste that is highly corrosive and toxic to many living things. In the past plants nearly caused the extinction of all life by producing too much oxygen. Luckily humans came along and figured out how to turn this back into CO2 to help the plants. Prior to industrialization CO2 levels were so low that plants could barely carry out photosynthesis and there was a real risk of ice ages killing billions of people.
When Barbara Streisand sings “Send in the Clowns…. Don’t bother, They’re here!”, you can be certain THAT is a ‘teaching moment’…..
kwik
“Leave it to Free Enterprice” (sic)
Yes we can AND environmental regulations are a major barrier.
The US EPA has been the primary barrier to commercial after market conversions to bi-fuel or flex-fuel vehicles. The EPA’s regulations can cost up to $200,000 per engine family.
On March 21, 2011, the EPA issued slightly less onerous requirements for vehicles over two years old. See: EPA Announces Final Rulemaking for Clean Alternative Fuel Vehicle and Engine Conversions
The EPA’s bureaucracy still remains a major constraint on rapid conversion to bi/flex fuel vehicles.
“Paul says:
October 1, 2011 at 5:00 pm
“He turned to me and said, ‘Oil and gas will be important for the next few years. But we need to go on to green and alternative energy. [Energy] Secretary [Steven] Chu has assured me that within five years, we can have a battery developed that will make a car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon.’”
Too little, MPG or vision, the Aptera series 2 electric version should hit the streets at 200MPG equivalent, the gasoline hybrid version should get 130 MPG on gasoline only. The Leaf is getting 99 MPG equivalent and the Volt gets 93 MPG-e today.”
______
Paul, wouldn’t the discussion about battery output be more relevant if stated in terms of of miles/per/battery charge? Then too, output must be qualified to account for impact of temperature variability. Batteries suck in cold weather.
Joe Spencer
October 1, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Has anyone ever seen and battery operated 18-wheeler, locomotive, or passanger/cargo airplane?
There is more to transportation and just family cars.
###
In addition, has anyone seen a battery lubricate a wheel bearing?
There is more to petroleum then fuel.
@Galane re: BP well being “plugged”…….
The well was being prepared to be “temporarily abandoned” while the plans and platform needed to produce the oil were being drawn up and/or finalized. Production platforms are not ready on demand as soon as a discovery is made!!! Most production platforms take several years to build. In the interim, the companies may be drilling deliniation wells to determine how big the accumulation is.
@skeptic re: production up as soon as Obama took office….
Obama had nothing to do with production increasing as the projects coming on production were planned and drilled LONG before Obama took office.
Wendy…oil and gas industry employee
Roger Sowell says:
October 2, 2011 at 10:32 am
Electric power from such plants must be sold for at least 25 cents per kWh, and more likely 35 cents (US dollars), unless the power is subsidized. How this can be acceptable when natural gas is readily available – especially in the Middle East – is beyond comprehension.
Because your 25-35 cent per KWh number is ridiculously high.
If you want to claim something it always helps to provide a link from a ‘reputable’ organization.
How’s the International Energy Agency for ‘reputable’ for you?
You might want to review figure ES.1 – Nuclear is cost competitive against all other technologies with a 5% interest rate. The last I checked the major middle east oil and gas exporters were awash in cash so they don’t have to concern themselves with ‘borrowing costs’, unlike California which seems to be teetering on bankruptcy.
Figure ES.1: Regional ranges of LCOE for nuclear, coal, gas and onshore wind power plants
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/ElecCost2010SUM.pdf
@ Joe Spencer, and DesertYote
Any battery-operated 18-wheeler, etc…
Unfortunately, I must answer Yes. Here in Crazy California, at the port near Los Angeles, we have such a thing. Quoting the article, “The heavy-duty electric short-haul drayage truck — the first of its kind at any port worldwide — can pull a 60,000-pound cargo container at a top speed of 40 mph, and has a range between 30 to 60 miles per battery charge.”
http://www.portoflosangeles.org/environment/etruck.asp
Also, DesertYote, exactly right. No nuclear power plant has ever lubricated anything, nor produced feedstocks for plastics, or for petrochemicals, nor any asphalt, nor any waxes. Oil refineries produce all these things.
Sorry Mr President, but the Air Force One doesn’t fly without oil. Your teleprompter also needs it because many parts in it are made from it. Petroleum products are quite important in daily life.
Roger Sowell
“Peak Oil is a catastrophic, dooms-day “OH-MY-GOD What-will-we-ever-do-NOW!!!!” sort of story to scare the children.”
You but raise and fight a strawman.
I laid out an explicit technical definition of PEAK LIGHT OIL for individual fields and collectively for global peak light oil. This is NOT a “scare the children” scenario but a “look at the hard facts” issue.
Economist James D. Hamilton, in Historical Oil Shocks, February 1, 2011, shows that oil shocks led 10 of 11 post war recessions.
Robert Hirsch (slide 12) shows that changes in Global GDP directly correlate with increases/decreases in oil supply.
Hirsch shows (slide 13) shows that natural consequences of decline in oil production will be a direct and at least proportionate decline in world GDP.
If we do NOT provide for alternatives to meet the inevitable declines, we will inevitably cause a corresponding decline in our GDP until we do provide alternative fuels.
That is directly called “unemployment”, “recession”, and then “depression”. That is the hard reality.
For a reality check, see:
Is Peak Oil Real? A List of Countries Past Peak The Oil Drum July 18, 2009
This is a guest post by Praveen Ghanta.
Country- Peak Production – Current production – Decline from peak – Peak Year
“United States 11297 7337 -35% 1970
Venezuela 3754 2566 -32% 1970
Libya 3357 1846 -45% 1970
Other Middle East 79 33 -58% 1970
Kuwait 3339 2784 -17% 1972
Iran 6060 4325 -29% 1974
Indonesia 1685 1004 -41% 1977
Romania 313 99 -68% 1977
Trinidad & Tobago 230 149 -35% 1978
Iraq 3489 2423 -31% 1979
Brunei 261 175 -33% 1979
Tunisia 118 89 -25% 1980
Peru 196 120 -39% 1982
Cameroon 181 84 -54% 1985
Other Europe & Eurasia 762 427 -44% 1986
Russian Federation 11484 9886 -14% 1987*
Egypt 941 722 -23% 1993
Other Asia Pacific 276 237 -14% 1993
India 774 766 -1% 1995*
Syria 596 398 -33% 1995
Gabon 365 235 -36% 1996
Argentina 890 682 -23% 1998
Colombia 838 618 -26% 1999
United Kingdom 2909 1544 -47% 1999
Rep. of Congo (Brazzaville) 266 249 -6% 1999
Uzbekistan 191 111 -42% 1999
Australia 809 556 -31% 2000
Norway 3418 2455 -28% 2001
Oman 961 728 -24% 2001
Yemen 457 305 -33% 2002
Other S. & Cent. America 153 138 -10% 2003*
Mexico 3824 3157 -17% 2004
Malaysia 793 754 -5% 2004*
Vietnam 427 317 -26% 2004
Denmark 390 287 -26% 2004
Other Africa 75 54 -28% 2004*
Nigeria 2580 2170 -16% 2005*
Chad 173 127 -27% 2005*
Italy 127 108 -15% 2005*
Ecuador 545 514 -6% 2006*
Saudi Arabia 11114 10846 -2% 2005 / Growing
Canada 3320 3238 -2% 2007 / Growing
Algeria 2016 1993 -1% 2007 / Growing
Equatorial Guinea 368 361 -2% 2007 / Growing
China 3795 3795 – Growing
United Arab Emirates 2980 2980 – Growing
Brazil 1899 1899 – Growing
Angola 1875 1875 – Growing
Kazakhstan 1554 1554 – Growing
Qatar 1378 1378 – Growing
Azerbaijan 914 914 – Growing
Sudan 480 480 – Growing
Thailand 325 325 – Growing
Turkmenistan 205 205 Growing”
This is the reality we have to deal with.
For those of you with your lives ahead of you, take a close look at these issues. They will dominate your future.
I’ve heard about the logical fallacy “appeal to authority” before, but I believe you have discovered another one: Appeal to the Stupid.
David L. Hagen, you reference The Oil Drum, a place where Peak Oil believers congregate and scare each other. Boo!!!
I live in the real world, not some fantasy where boogey-men jump out and scare the children.
Get the facts, as I’ve demonstrated on my link. Oil reserves are growing, despite increased annual productions. Does that sound like we are running out? Technology is improving rapidly for finding and producing oil. Oil prices are still where they were in 1980, after adjusting for inflation. Does that sound like a commodity is in scarce supply? Do the laws of economics not apply to oil? High price equals scarcity? The only reason oil today is priced at $80 per barrel is that the Saudis chose $32 per barrel in 1980 – and that was the most they could obtain without triggering the US converting our coal to liquids projects.
In a world where there is ample, ample, abundant supply of a commodity, why would anyone ever choose to bring more to market just to depress the prices? That is exactly where we are with oil, and will likely be for hundreds more years. The Earth’s crust is like a stack of pancakes, and our oil exploration thus far is like sticking a fork into only the top-most pancake. There is plenty of oil, and plenty of places not yet explored for oil. Ask any petroleum geologist who works for an oil company. Many of my friends do exactly that, and they know.
It is amazing to me how much faith the greenies put in future technology development for non-fossil energy: nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, but have so little faith in the proven success of oil and gas technology.
You might be able to scare the children with talk of oil running out and Peak Oil. But not the grownups in the oil industry. We know better.
Matthew says:
October 2, 2011 at 9:50 am
“Cute. Maybe with some hand-waving and Ron Paul 2012 stickers, we’ll solve everything!!!!11!”
DirkH says:
October 2, 2011 at 10:12 am
“A core argument of the warmists is, as past climatic changes were too big to be explained by TSI changes, […]”
Looks like I lost Matthew. But I’m here to help; so maybe an MIT professor can explain it better. Former IPCC lead author Dr. Richard Lindzen:
J Martin says:
October 2, 2011 at 10:25 am
>>It’s a 313 MPG VW.
—-
No, it isn’t 313 MPG. Their factory claim is 313 MPG combined. If I read this marketing-speak correctly, what it means for a 2.2 gallon tank is that you should get 650 miles from a fully-charged 120 pounds of batteries plus a teeny tank of gas. On gas alone you get considerably less.
Also, read your own story. It reports getting 340 miles total out of the lot, not 650 miles. that’s under 150 MPG on gas alone. What would you get out of a California street-legal version at real speeds and loads? Less than 100, I suspect.
But there have been real production light-duty 90+ MPG vehicles for decades. This is nothing new. Check out Messerschmitts from 1955 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_KR200 ). Or motorcycles, for that matter. Airplane expertise always helps.
But real cars you can get 300 MPG out of? That is a claim only a salesman could love.
Smokey says:
October 2, 2011 at 10:40 am
******
Again, just because we are less dirty than developing countries does not make us clean. I don’t understand what’s difficult about that. I’m not some spoon-fed hippie who’s “regurgitating” information I’ve read on some Greenpeace activist’s blog. I’m not actually that radical. I never suggested that we cut our oil consumption to zero – just that investing in cleaner technologies isn’t a bad thing just because it’s usually the Democrats who suggest it. Also, pollution haven hypothesis is barely supported by the available data, and it’s just as easy to suggest that it doesn’t actually exist. See Michael Porter at Harvard for more on that. Maybe he’s uninformed and ignorant, too, since he doesn’t agree with you…
————————
Catcracking says:
October 2, 2011 at 10:55 am
******
You’re being silly. It’s obvious that what I was saying was that even a high school student who’s taken an economics class understands that pollution is a negative externality and that it’s absurd to argue otherwise. A byproduct either has to be good or bad. What are the “positives” of CO2, sulfates, methane, etc etc? Enlighten me, please.
reply to:
Ferd is exactly right. The more cheap abundant energy a society has, if not overly fettered by government, the higher the standard of living for all in that society. Pull enough up high enough, and now they’ve got the time, inclination (we all want better environments to live in) and the money to begin worrying and doing something about pollution. Before that point, it’s all you can do to scratch out a minimal living any way possible – even if that involves creating a lot of pollution. And of other’s actions create a lot of pollution, you either don’t have the time to worry about it or perhaps it even directly or indirectly keeps you from starving or dying of exposure, so where’s the choice?
Raise the standard of living high enough, and people can send their children for more years of education – rather than the kids having to go to work ASAP in order to help keep from starving – or help get out of that dire slum. Raise the level enough, and now extended education becomes desirable and possible, there is a lessened need for physical labor, lower levels of infant and child deaths occur because you/the society can afford health care, and family size begins dropping.
What allows all of that, what spurs those changes? Cheap, abundant, energy.
David Hagen
Maybe the reality you need to consider is provided in the link below
Anyone who is aware of the reality in the US knows that the oil production is restricted by the political process not the resources that are availble to us. The production capability is artificial constrained by pure politics. The lisl of locations in the US that are declared off limits by those who want to restrict our oil production is beyond belief, then they turnaround and claim peak oil. . The creativity of the anti oil lobby and politicians to manufacture excuses is unbounded. The technology in the fossil fuel discovery/development is really incredible and more and more fossi fuel discoveries are realized every day versus the scant energy development via the biofuels and other renewables.
check this out:
http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/N-American-oil-output-could-top-40-year-old-peak-2193837.php#loopBegin
“North America appears headed for an oil renaissance, with crude production expected to hit an all-time high by 2016, given the current pace of drilling in the U.S. and Canada, according to a study released by an energy research firm this week.
U.S. oil production in areas including West Texas’ Permian Basin, South Texas’ Eagle Ford shale, and North Dakota’s Bakken shale will record a rise of a little over 2 million barrels per day from 2010 to 2016, according to data compiled by Bentek Energy, a Colorado firm that tracks energy infrastructure and production projects.
Canadian crude production is expected to grow by 971,000 barrels per day during the same period, with much of the oil headed for the U.S.
Combined, the U.S. and Canadian oil output will top 11.5 million barrels per day, which is even more than their combined peak in 1972.
Goldman Sachs has estimated the U.S. could move from being the No. 3 oil producer behind Saudi Arabia and Russia to the No. 1 spot by 2017”.
This does not even consider the potential in Alaska and off shore Atlantic.The other consideration is that Countries like Venzuela are declining in production because of Chavez and his socialistic government that has killed new production of their vast resources. Recent articles have indicated that all the talent and expertise have moved on to Colombia and they have been very sucessful in increasing their oil production from rich heavy oil fields adjacent to the Venzuela Orinco belt.
http://www.lbhcolombia.com/viewnews/liquids/colombia-could-become-major-oil-producer
Finally what country is stupid enough to restrict offshore drilling in their waters while Cuba, using the Chinese are sucking all the oil out of a rich oil site? Sounds suicidal to me.
DirkH says:
October 2, 2011 at 1:17 pm
******
Yeah, I suggest you take a look at the Fourth Assessment Report. Here’s a link to the summary: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
“Palaeoclimatic information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century
is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years. The last time the polar regions were signifi cantly
warmer than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6 m of sea level rise.”
Do you want me to find a famous professor to tell my side of the story, too? Stop calling me names, friend. I’m at least as “educated” as you.
Wendy is exactly right. And for a serious reply to Juice, see: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/22/study-picking-up-the-gulf-oil-permitting-pace-could-result-in-230000-jobs/
A few excerpts:
[since the Obama drilling moratorium] “There is what we call an activity gap under the new regulatory environment and this activity gap is created by the difference in the capacity of oil regulators to oversee oil exploration and development activity and the industry’s capacity to invest. What we found is congestion in the regulatory capacity that is holding back the creation of jobs and domestic oil production in the Gulf of Mexico.”
Specifically, compared to historical trends, pending oil exploration plans are up by nearly 90 percent, but approvals are down by 85 percent — and the approval process has slowed from an average of 36 to 131 days. Over the past year or so, the backlog of deepwater plans pending approval has increased by 250 percent. Drilling permits for both shallow- and deepwater have declined by 60 percent.
Aligning the permitting process with the industry’s production capacity could result in 230,000 American jobs and more than $44 billion in U.S. gross domestic product — all by 2012.[emphasis added, and other articles address the billions in lost tax revenues – and the Obama permitting slowdown is not only for the gulf, but across the industry]…
Since 1998, new discoveries in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico have, on average, contributed more than one billion barrels of additional oil reserves each year. Thanks to the moratorium and the slow pace of permitting, no new discoveries were made in the past 12 months. Discoveries that might have been made would be contributing to production for future years. The lack of discoveries will have significant implications for future supplies from the Gulf of Mexico (and, presumably, for oil and gas prices)….
Wow!
Congratulations!
reply to: Roger Sowell says: October 2, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Nope, but they do what they are designed to do – produce electricity – beautifully. In the USA, they’ve safely, reliably, and with virtually no pollution produced about 20% of our nation’s electricity for decades now. In France it’s about 80%, also for many decades. It’s clear you don’t favor them from your comments, but the fact is that they are one of, if not the, safest way to produce electricity when the full lifecycle is considered, including coal, oil, wind, solar, and hydro. And yes, that’s still true including Chernobyl, Fukushima, and TMI. (even tho including Chernobyl is sort of apples and oranges). All of which is even more amazing when considering that the plants responsible were based and built on 60 to 40 year old designs and technology.
Modern “advanced reactors” are vastly improved, including in terms of passively safe emergency design. Then as someone else has already mentioned, there are micro reactor designs that hold great promise for some situations. Some of those are such that they are self contained, require no maintenance, and sealed so they could be used in places where the population doesn’t have the education or technical know-how to safely run a reactor. There are also small reactor designs that are somewhere inbetween.
For where we (e.g., the world) stand with ‘advanced’ designs – some of which are already built and operating – see http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.html
For info on “small” and “medium” reactors” see http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.html
Those are a good start for solid technical information, and there is, of course, more information on that site and you can branch out from there.
Doug October 2, 2011 at 7:57 am – “As seductive as all those peak oil curves seem they have a fatal flaw—they ignore price.”
Before we get deeper into the discussion, can we first check that we’re working from the same definition of Peak Oil : “Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline”.
Under this definition, to avoid “Peak Oil” the rate of extraction has to reach new highs from time to time, ie. in simple terms it has to keep increasing. It doesn’t mean we physically can’t produce oil faster, just that we don’t actually produce oil faster.
Yes, price is important. Just about everything ends up being counter-balanced in the price. [As technology improves, the cost of production comes down, thus potentially reducing the price, which can lead to more demand, which in turn puts upward pressure on the price. If the price stays high enough, then new more difficult exploration areas can be developed, thus potentially increasing supply, thus …….]
Yes, we have been brilliant at finding new fields, developing new technologies, etc. There is undoubtedly a massive amount of oil still to be found. But the new oil tends to be more expensive to produce than the old oil was (that’s basically why the old oil got produced first). On top of that, the production rate of the old oil is declining, so the bar is being raised all the time (we have to produce new oil faster just to stand still). Then, at some point, other sources of energy become economically competitive for some uses, and raise the bar even further. In the end, Peak Oil may indeed be determined by price – the price of oil relative to the price of other sources of energy.
I am not claiming that we are at Peak Oil right now (although I do think that we probably are), just that Peak Oil has to occur at some time. In the case of oil, the peak surely cannot be too far off – though I’m open to arguments that have numbers in them. In the case of coal and gas I have no real idea but suspect that their peaks may be very many decades away, maybe even a century or more.
@ Roberto
What the salesmen eventually claim for the mpg will be restricted to the government mpg test which are the only figures a car company and it’s adverts and salesmen are legally allowed to quote once the vehicle goes on sale. We can but wait until then (2013 ?).
I see that the Volkswagen website are quoting .9 litres per 100km, that translates to 260 miles per US gallon, and 313 miles per UK gallon. I get 55 miles per UK gallon from my diesel car, that’s about 45 miles per US gallon.
How likely is it that a German car manufacturer is going to lie about the test mpg of one of their on the road test vehicles ? and if they did what do you think that would do to their credibility and subsequently their sales.
No doubt Mr and Mrs average driver won’t see those consumption figures, but no doubt a keen magazine test driver might. It’s a free World (sort of) and you can be sceptical. Me, I’ll wait with an open mind and see what the official test figures turn out to be. I doubt that I’ll ever buy one, especially if it is going to cost £30,000 for that you can get a Jaguar XF.
The word “combined” in the UK at least, refers to one of the standard UK miles per gallon tests, a combination of urban driving and motorway driving or something along those lines. I always get better than the official fuel consumption figures.
http://www.volkswagenag.com/vwag/vwcorp/info_center/en/themes/2011/01/Volkswagen_XL1_Concept.html
@Rational Debate on October 2, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Re nuclear power for electricity.
You have apparently swallowed the pro-nuclear line of “nuclear is good.”
I disagree, and for the good reasons I’ve long written about on my blog, and at times, in comments here on WUWT.
In short, EVEN IF nuclear power were safe, did not produce deadly and very long-lasting toxic byproducts, it is still far too expensive to ever consider building such power plants in a rational world. I’ve read just about all the literature over the years, and followed the arguments pro and con, and can see clearly that those who advocate running nuclear power plants because they are “safe” and “designed properly” are very badly mistaken. I’ve been on an engineer-guided tour of a nuclear power plant and have seen the thing close at hand. I’ve had the classes in nuclear technology in undergrad engineering. I’ve worked with and helped design various power plants over the years.
And I’ve written quite a bit about it on my blog.
The fact is that natural gas is a far superior fuel for generating electricity, especially when compared to nuclear power. For more on my views, please see
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/reconsider-nuclear-power-is-it-ever.html
For what it’s worth, I’m all for the Navy to have nuclear propulsion systems.
Matthew says:
Again, just because we are less dirty than developing countries does not make us clean. I don’t understand what’s difficult about that.
You must still be wet behind the ears to believe the nonsense you’re spouting here. I recall when the air in Pittsburgh was so smoggy you couldn’t see across the rivers. Cleveland’s river, the Cuyahoga, was so polluted it caught fire. Today the air around Pittsburgh is clean and you can see for miles. The EPA has stated that fish caught in the Cuyahoga are now safe for human consumption. The U.S. has cleaned up over 99% of its pollution since the 1950’s. That makes the U.S. a clean country. Sorry you have a need to see the glass as being half empty.
Finally, you ask: “What are the ‘positives’ of CO2, sulfates, methane, etc etc? Enlighten me, please.”
Enlightenment coming up. [I’ll just stick with CO2, because the entire AGW scare is based on demonizing “carbon”.]
First off, there is no testable evidence, per the scientific method, showing any global damage or harm from the added CO2. None. Therefore, by definition, CO2 is harmless. QED.
More CO2 is a positive benefit to the biosphere. More is better. Agricultural productivity has substantially increased due to the added CO2:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
Inescapable conclusion: CO2 is harmless and beneficial. More is better.
I’m sure someone in this big list of comments pointed out that the car still has to be charged with something.
Roger Sowell
Re: “talk of oil running out”
Again you misquote with scare tactics. Oil production models show the peak production rate occurs at about 50% to 55% of ultimate resource. That is NOT “running out” – but HALF WAY out. That is where average production begins to decline.
You are avoiding the fact that 60% of oil producing countries are PAST PEAK LIGHT OIL as shown by the published data.
Re: “Oil reserves are growing, despite increased annual productions.”
Only in the rarified SEC definition of “proven resources” (or with the equivocation that bitumen = light oil It takes about $100,000 per bbl/day to upgrade “bitumen” to a syncrude equivalent of light oil.)
See Jean Laherrere of TOTAL Backdating is the key on the difference between “current” increases versus “backdated” to the original date of discovery. Yes 1 P “proven” reserves show ongoing increases. However, when you backdate the “technical” resources of 2P “proven plus probable” to the original discovery, we see that most crude oil discoveries were in the mid 1960s. See Jean Laherrere
Global oil reserves peaked about 1980. Since then, we have been drawing on previous discoveries with production exceeding discovery. Global discoveries are currently only about half of production. That results in an inevitable down hill slide for that light oil resource with that technology.
“No economy grows, nor can it grow, at much above 3 percent per year for very long. A temporary growth spurt might occur of 7 or 8 percent for a year or two, but this is not sustainable.”
The USA GDP in constant $2000 grew at 3.3%/year from 1950 to 2005. See above: Tad Patzek Hubbert Peaks
However, oil production grew 9.1%/year from 1980 to 1940.
China grew 9%/year for the last decade.
Strategic Transitions:
When OPEC used its “oil weapon”, causing the 1973 & 1978 Oil Crises, France took the strategic decision to convert it’s oil driven electricity production to nuclear power. Consequently it now obtains 80% of its electricity from nuclear power, and none from oil. Denmark similarly converted its electricity production from being 80% on oil to natural gas.
What is now needed is the national gumption to make these strategic
In your post: Saudis to Build Nuclear Plants at $7 Billion Each you say:
Please enlighten us as to how you arrive at that conclusion. Please show where your assumptions are different from internationally published costs at: The Economics of Nuclear Power where electricity costs are on the order of $0.03/kWh to $0.06/kWh internationally for new nuclear power.
Nancy Noonan challenges: Once Upon a Time in America: A troubled nation needs a real leader, not a storyteller.
The availability and price of oil hurts the poor the most. The poor in the lowest quintile spend twice as much on energy as those with median income, and four times those in the rich in the top quintile. See: Poverty up? Blame oil prices.
The oil crises strongly increased those in poverty. See: Energy Poverty American Style
Life is Like a Broken Record
When all the coal and oil run out
We’re just going to have to find
Another tiny winy envelope
And crawl inside
And start pushing
All over again.
@ David L. Hagen on October 2, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Ok, you asked. You shall receive. Work out the required price for electricity for any power plant, regardless of fuel type, that produces 1,000 MW of power, a capital cost of $9 billion plus interest on construction loan of 10 to 15 percent per year, and an 8 to 10 year construction period. A prominent nuclear-knowledgeable CPA did just that, by the name of Craig A. Severance. I wrote on his work on my blog. I would cite you a link for the Severance paper, but it was apparently only published on climateprogress, Joe Romm’s old blog and now defunct. Perhaps someone else knows of a link.
I will offer you the same challenge I have long offered others: Go to any financing source, a bank, a multi-billionaire, whomever you like, and attempt to obtain financing for such a project. Tell them you have contracts lined up to sell electricity for, what was it you used? 3 to 6 cents per kWh. Use the high end of 6 cents per kWh. Tell them you will borrow $7 or $8 billion to get the project rolling, and you won’t be finished with construction for at least 8 years. You are willing to pay them interest on the loan at a reasonable rate of 15 percent per year. Tell them you are quite willing to pay back the loan amounts plus interest with the proceeds of power sales, and from no other source. Let us all know how you make out.
Finally, here’s another challenge for you. Tell me why small islands don’t use nuclear power plants to bring down their costs of electricity. There are many islands that presently pay far, far more than 6 cents per kWh, typically 25 cents. Why don’t they install a nuclear power plant and bring their costs down? see http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/nuclear-plants-on-islands-nutty-idea.html
This challenge does not consider large islands such as Taiwan, nor the UK. This is limited only to islands with populations of approximately one million.
If what you advocate were anywhere close to being true, that nuclear power plants sell power for 3 to 6 cents per kWh, then we should see a utility rate request for a LOWER rate whenever a nuclear power plant is built. The fact is, that never happens. Instead, what you are quoting is the variable cost of nuclear power, fuel plus maintenance plus labor, not the fully-costed number that includes cost to construct.
Roger Sowell says:
October 2, 2011 at 5:12 pm
Well, let’s see Roger … this is one area where Chinese competition actually matters.
See …
First Shipment of AP1000® Nuclear Reactor Vessel to Sanmen Power Plant in China Is Complete
PITTSBURGH, July 29, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — Westinghouse Electric Company, its consortium team member The Shaw Group Inc., China’s State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation (SNPTC) and Sanmen Nuclear Power Company Ltd., today announced that the first AP1000 nuclear reactor vessel successfully arrived at the Sanmen nuclear power plant in China’s Zhejiang province.
Doosan Heavy Industries & Construction manufactured the reactor vessel, which weighs approximately 340 tons and measures 4.5 meters in diameter by 12.2 meters in length. The reactor vessel successfully arrived at Sanmen after a long journey from Doosan’s in-house port at its Changwon Plant in the Republic of Korea. The vessel, when installed in the Sanmen Unit 1 AP1000 plant, will undergo installation and operational testing before starting commercial operation in late 2013.
Senior Vice President, Westinghouse Nuclear Power Plants, Deva Chari said that the successful shipment of the reactor vessel shows that Westinghouse, its partners and Chinese customers, are committed to bringing China’s first four AP1000 units online in a timely and safe manner.
“All key project milestones of the Sanmen project were met in 2010, and the project continues to work towards successfully completing all 2011 key project milestones this year,” he said.
Executive Vice President Habang Kim at Doosan Heavy Industries & Construction said, “By successfully producing the AP1000 reactor vessel for the first time in the world, we have demonstrated our world-class technology in the main facility field.”
Westinghouse and The Shaw Group Inc., signed landmark contracts with Chinese customers to provide four AP1000 pressurized water reactors in China, two in Sanmen in Zhejiang, and another pair in Haiyang in Shandong province.
The first AP1000 unit at Sanmen will become operational in late 2013. The remaining three units are expected to come online in 2014 and 2015.
http://westinghousenuclear.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=286
Why are the Saudis building nuclear plants?
The biggest problem with all energy projects is that no one really knows how much oil Saudi Arabia actually has (as well as the rest of OPEC). And therefore what oil will cost in say 20 years time.
The Saudis themselves will have a better idea and presumably they are confident electricity from nuclear will be cheaper than from oil/gas in 20 years time.
” …… equivalent to 130 mpg”
balderdash, poppycock and just plain BS. Gasoline delivers about 600 watt hours per pound to the drive wheels. Lead-acid batteries deliver less than 10wh/lb and cost about $2/lb. Li-ion may deliver 20 wh/lb (real data is hard to obtain.) at a cost of $20/lb. A small all electric requires at least 500 lbs of Lead-acid batteries. A semi-electric like the Ford Focus uses about 65 lbs of li-ion. The Volt apparently employs about 500 lbs of li-ion. And CO2 is much less of a problem than preached by the IPCC.
Roger Sowell
Georgia Power accepts Vogtle loan guarantee
DOE Delivers Its First, Long-Awaited Nuclear Loan Guarantee
i.e. $14 billion for 2200 MW (2×1100 MW) for the Vogtle project or $6,360/kW (vs the $3000/kW for 2008).
As of November 2010, the US EIA formally published: Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2011 projecting $0.1139/kWh in 2016 for “Advanced Nuclear”.
For interest, the prime rate is currently 3.25% That seems a bit lower than 10-15%. Yes increasing the interest rates by three to four times would probably increase costs! Even the stock market only expects 15% long term – when 70% or more of the project is on a loan with say prime plus 2%.
Regarding “an 8 to 10 year construction period”, see:
Economics Nuclear Power:
Yes doubling the construction time would substantially increase costs.
Yes engineers seek practical solutions, rather than dragging projects out and increasing risks for projects. Perhaps as a lawyer you could give us examples of how lawyers are strenuously working for the common good by strongly reducing delays in construction, expediting application processes, and minimizing the risks of major risks from subsequent lawsuits? (or is national interest no longer a a motivating factor?)
Re island usage, scattered populations, low incomes, low average usage. Typically diesel driven with fuel costs much higher due to transportation.
Maybe that would be a good application for Bill Gates’ small nuclear systems.
PS Keep up your good work on global warming issues and Pierre LaTour.
reply to: Roger Sowell says: October 2, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Roger, I haven’t swallowed any pro or anti line – nor do you have any basis to make such a claim. Apparently you just don’t like the idea that anyone with serious knowledge of the issue could believe other than you do, so you try to denigrate them as naive. From what you note here, however, both my education and experience with the industry far outstrips yours. Attempts at arguments from authority such as that don’t pull much weight, particularly when it turns out your authority is less than the person’s you’re using the ploy on. Nor do your $$ numbers wrt nuclear costs seem to add up.
The facts simply aren’t with you on this one, which is why numerous countries are building or planning to build more nuclear power plants. Obviously any estimate of cost per unit energy will vary depending on exactly what is or isn’t incuded and with various base assumptions (particularly with regards to fuel costs for coal and gas), yet study after study, including from different countries, finds the price per kWh of nuclear power to be far lower than you’ve quoted, and anywhere from actually lower than fossil fuels to a bit above coal and gas but still far below wind and solar – and that’s including construction, eventual decommissioning, and waste storage charges, fuel, O&M, etc., but without any CO2 cost. Obviously if you factor in any cost per ton CO2, nuclear looks even better. Several of those studies are noted in this article: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
Also, of course, with the recent developments in frakking, I would think that gas (and hopefully before too long oil) costs will come down even more, which shifts the equation further in their direction. That very issue, however, is also a downside to fossil fuel power plants – the cost per kWh is far more dependent on fuel costs than with nuclear, where even a large increase in the price of uranium would have little effect.
As to safety – you seem to have fallen into the trap of not considering nuclear’s safety record in perspective with the options, and their far worse safety records. Far more people are injured and killed during the fossil fuel life cycle, and that’s a simple fact. With regard to operational waste and pollution – at least with nuclear it’s small volume, under control, and easy to handle. In other words, it’s not a scientific or technological problem – just a huge disgusting political football.
kwik
“Leave it to Free Enterprice” (sic)
Yes we can AND environmental regulations are a major barrier.
The US EPA has been the primary barrier to commercial after market conversions to bi-fuel or flex-fuel vehicles. The EPA’s regulations can cost up to $200,000 per engine family.
On March 21, 2011, the EPA issued slightly less onerous requirements for vehicles over two years old. See: EPA Announces Final Rulemaking for Clean Alternative Fuel Vehicle and Engine Conversions
The EPA’s bureaucracy still remains a major constraint on rapid conversion to bi/flex fuel vehicles.
“U.S. oil production in areas including West Texas’ Permian Basin, South Texas’ Eagle Ford shale, and North Dakota’s Bakken shale will record a rise…”
Recently, by viewing oil & gas E & P companies conference presentations, I learned that there are a number of overlaying formations in N.D. (“stack of pancakes” in a previous comment).
Not only are there 2 Bakken oil-shale formations (Upper & Lower), but under (or between?) those is the Three Forks Formation. Under 3 Forks there are at least 4 other named shale formations. There is a crap-load of oil in N.D and recovery technology (by experimentation) is rapidly changing. Zipper Fracks is one of the newest.
Another example, Brigham Exploration (BEXP) is now drilling 4 wells from 1 pad, 2 to one Bakken layer and 2 to Three Forks. I can see that expanding in the near future.
BEXP has hit oil in 88 consecutive horizontal wells, increasing the number of fracks and decreasing frack spacing, while the boe/d increased. They have the top producing wells in the Bakken, using cutting edge techniques (some borrowed from others).
All the explorers now use 3-D seismic, pioneered by BEXP.
Technology will beat Peak Oil.
I’m very long BEXP, as well as Abraxas (AXAS) and Kodiak (KOG).
All are in the Bakken / 3 Forks / etc.formations of the Willison (sp?) Basin.
And with the price of oil dropping like a rock, I’m getting a haircut.
I suspect it’s temporary – 13 months?
Rational Debate, you can believe anything you wish. I’ve been there. Done the numbers for very, very large projects for a number of years. I’m a recent attorney, was and still am a chemical engineer. Your cost of construction loan shows naivete. As Severance noted, and I’ve since verified to my satisfaction, a utility issues bonds for raising capital, as well as equity. The equity typically is in the form of preferred stock, paying on the order of 10 percent annually. The cost of the bonds is also rather greater than the 3 percent you tossed out, typically much higher and especially so for a nuclear construction project.
And as to costs, the South Texas Nuclear Project expansion cost was published as $18 billion, but that was before any ground is broken. Of course the cost will be much, much higher than $18 billion, as I wrote above, more likely $22 to $25 billion. These are facts, not my simple misunderstanding as you implied. The attorneys and anti-nuclear groups in this country have waited a long, long time for a new nuclear plant to be built. There are far more sophisticated attorneys and their clients now compared to 30 years ago. No nuclear plant will be built on schedule and on-budget in this country.
You can disagree, but let’s just sit and watch and see who turns out to be right.
@roger Sowell – the two blog articles of yours that I’ve read, “Reconsider Nuclear Power – Is It Ever Safe? ” and the island one are both unfortunately filled with twisted logic and FUD. Not to mention a lot of ad hominems towards anyone who might possibly disagree with your point of view. You are doing nothing but spreading misinformation, false logic, and unsupportable fear mongering.
Just a couple of examples, paraphrasing here of course and adding in a few facts you conveniently left out. Spent fuel has been stored safely, for 50 decades now, at more than 100 sites around the nation, transferred at times to different storage methods such as from spent fuel pools to dry cask, some of it reprocessed, a few power plants decommissioned, and all without a single injury or illness from the associated radiation, but golly gee, one of these days we might shift that spent fuel around again, and other plants will be decommissioned, and then I promise you there’ll be mass illness and deaths from all that horrible radiation! Obviously it’s inevitable!
Or islands – golly gee, clearly islands that pay high electricity rates would put nuclear in if it were lower cost. Let’s just limit that, however, to only islands with PEAK loads that match a typical SINGLE nuclear power plant. Clearly you know that nuclear power plants are best suited to meeting base load, yet you try to pawn off this travesty of supposed ‘logic?’ Yes, and hammers are worthless and too expensive because they can’t set a screw, and screwdrivers likewise are worthless and too expensive because they can’t also drive a nail efficiently. Plus, of course, every nuclear plant has to periodically shut down to refuel. In the USA, that’s typically once every 18 months, for about 30-40 days. So to make any real world sense, you’d have to select islands with sufficient population to have a base load large enough to use nuclear in the grid and be able to cover outages. You’d also obviously have to have a population with enough resources to have the construction materials (or factor in the cost of importing appropriate materials), and a workforce with sufficient technological training and ability to actually run the plants. In other words, there is obviously a lot more involved than just what the peak load of the island happens to be, yet you try to pretend that there isn’t, and pretend that peak load is somehow a reasonable measure to use. None of it is real world reasoning – but it certainly is reasoning aimed to come to the foregone conclusion you prefer. WUWT??
For delivered costs of new nuclear power in the US, data from California Energy Commission, levelized costs, Table 5 line 8, from
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-200-2009-017/CEC-200-2009-017-SF.PDF
Nuclear Westinghouse AP1000 (2018)……..960 MW….34.24 ¢/kWh
I don’t make this stuff up, as some here on WUWT seem to believe.
Nuclear power is just about the most expensive power on the planet. Not to mention dangerous, toxic, creates bomb-making material, and a very long-lasting toxic legacy for which future generations will not be thanking us. They will be cursing us, and with good reasons.
reply to: Roger Sowell says: October 2, 2011 at 8:40 pm
You are mixing me up with someone else’s comments.
So, Rational Debate, let’s just be clear: you would rather poison the planet with radioactive spent fuel rods, room for which is growing ever-more scarce, leave the clean-up and decommissioning to future generations (thanks a lot, they say), AND bring the current generations some of the most expensive power that can possibly be produced?
Do you not have a care for the elderly, the poor, and those on incomes that allow them to just barely scrape by from week to week? So, you would like to increase the USA’s nuclear generation to 80 percent of all power, just to be like France? Have you any concept of how expensive the average electric bill would be in that case? What are those vulnerable groups supposed to do, sit in the dark and freeze to death because they choose to buy food and pay the rent but cannot afford electricity?
No, the facts are on my side in every instance on this one. Nuclear proponents try and try to get around the basic facts, but facts are stubborn things. No amount of twisting or arguing will change a fact. Nuclear power plants use fission. Fission produces plutonium and other deadly, toxic materials that endure for many, many centuries. Nuclear power plants are unsafe due to seismically poor designs, proximity to tsunamis and inadequate seawalls, plus many are very close to large population centers. The fuel rod storage areas are also very vulnerable to terrorist attacks. All it takes is to rupture the wall that contains the cooling water, and the fuel rods will do a Fukushima.
If I sound less than accommodating to your ideas, it is because I grow very frustrated with the inability of nuclear advocates to see the facts. Not all nuclear power plants are run efficiently, safely, and orderly. There are near-misses all the time. Even the Japanese power plants were poorly designed and run. The grim lesson from Fukushima is that even the Japanese, with their superior technology and superbly trained engineers, failed miserably when it really counted. What country in the world could, or would, do better than the Japanese did? Whose engineers are better than the Japanese? Heck, if they couldn’t handle it, what possible chance does the rest of the world have when it’s their turn in the international spotlight of yet another nuclear disaster?
Another negative point regarding new nuclear power plants, again referring to the California Energy Commission’s report (same link as above).
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-200-2009-017/CEC-200-2009-017-SF.PDF
From Table 14, which gives a bar chart of fixed costs vs variable costs for several technology types, it is very obvious that the vast majority of a nuclear plant’s total cost is fixed costs. That means that, no matter what happens, the plant must maintain a very high price for its power sales.
In contrast, the natural gas-fired power plants have the potential for lower total costs, as the price of natural gas continues to fall with supplies increasing world-wide. Nuclear plants have zero chance of their power prices decreasing.
Note also that, from Figure 18 in the reference document, nuclear power costs have a high-end range of 93 cents per kWh. The 34.2 cents is for an average set of assumptions on interest rates, financing costs, etc. Only three technologies are more expensive than nuclear, and those are all based on simple-cycle natural gas turbines, used only for emergency peaking power production when the grid is in danger of failure due to high temporary loads. Nuclear power plants are not affordable. Even the state of California has published this in their documents.
When I worked for an oil company in Abu Dhabi in the early 1970’s, I understood the Zakum field to have 6 separate reservoirs – ie. oil at 6 different depths – and that one of those reservoirs contained more oil than the whole of Texas’ known reserves.
I also understood that all production came from other reservoirs in Zakum, because the big one was more difficult.
Now we’re 40 years on, and I thought it might be interesting in light of the Peak Oil debate here, to see what happened to Zakum.
Well, it seems the big reservoir is now called ‘Upper Zakum’ (though from memory it wasn’t the top reservoir), and it contains 50bn bbls http://www.emirates247.com/business/energy/uae-has-world-s-4th-largest-oilfield-2010-11-08-1.314757. I think the US has reserves of about 20bn bbls, with Texas having about 25% of that, so Zakum certainly has more than Texas. (Correct me if I’m wrong).
There is a major effort underway right now to increase Zakum production by around 250,000 bpd, at a cost of $US13bn. http://www.gulfoilandgas.com/webpro1/MAIN/Mainnews.asp?id=9514
That’s $US52,000 per bpd. I don’t know how that compares with other places in the world, but this 2000 document http://www.responsiblenergy.org/booksummary/colorofoil.asp cites costs of $3,500, $7,500 and $15,000 per bpd, and an implied $1,000 per bpd in the US’s Gulf of Mexico. So, as expected, the Zakum costs are high – otherwise they would have developed it earlier. [I really don’t know, but I suspect that the report might have slipped a decimal place, in which case the figure is $5,200 per bpd. Still much higher than the Gulf of Mexico figure.]
And I think this is an example of how easily one can be misled by big numbers. At 50bn bbls, it’s a huge oilfield. When you see a number like that, you think that it’s going to produce oil at a phenomenal rate – after all, the US produces 9m bpd from a 20bn bbl reserve. http://exclusiveeconomy.com/2011/03/top-15-world-oil-reserves/
Yet Zakum is such a difficult field that its target production rate is just 750,000 bpd.
A barrel here is not the same as a barrel there. Zakum illustrates how it can be getting increasingly difficult and expensive for the world to keep increasing production.
[Note: I tried to check that all the figures I quoted were from reasonably recent years, but I haven’t tried to update/convert bbls, $s, etc to a consistent base.]
Roger Sowell – It appears there may be a problem with the model energy costs cited in the document you referred to http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-200-2009-017/CEC-200-2009-017-SF.PDF
On page H-13 it can be seen that the cost of nuclear doubled between their 2007 and 2009 reports, because they switched from a generic nuclear reactor to a specific model that they thought might be “most likely to be implemented within” California. I see no reason for this decision, and presumably the cost of nuclear can be halved for other places.
Certainly the model figures in the document are out of kilter with some other studies, eg. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html – “A detailed study of energy economics in Finland published in mid 2000 was important in making the strong case for additional nuclear construction there, showing that nuclear energy would be the least-cost option for new generating capacity. The study compared nuclear, coal, gas turbine combined cycle and peat. Nuclear has very much higher capital costs than the others –EUR 1749/kW including initial fuel load, which is about three times the cost of the gas plant. But its fuel costs are much lower, and so at capacity factors above 64% it is the cheapest option.
August 2003 figures put nuclear costs at EUR 2.37 c/kWh, coal 2.81 c/kWh and natural gas at 3.23 c/kWh (on the basis of 91% capacity factor, 5% interest rate, 40 year plant life)”
A further advantage of nuclear in an inflationary world is that the electricity price is less sensitive to fuel cost than gas or coal.
Smokey says:
October 2, 2011 at 3:48 pm
*****
Yet again, you’ve ignored the parts of my response that’s difficult for you to respond to.
Firstly, it’s been shown countless times that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere, and suggesting that CO2 has no harmful effects is ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as claiming that there’s no science to back it up. See http://paleolands.com/pdf/cenozoicCO2.pdf for example, where they find that “early Cenozoic pCO2 levels were often several times modern values, and that a strong greenhouse effect probably contributed to global warmth at that time.” Actually, the whole concluding paragraph of that article is pretty straightforward. I realize that CO2’s contribution to radiative forcing is thousands of times less than some other pollutants, but it’s also one of the most (maybe the most?) highly concentrated GHGs in our atmosphere. Also, I never went about “demonizing” carbon, which is apparent since I also included sulfates and methane in the list. They were conveniently ignored, though. I guess none of your “scientists” want celebrity status bad enough to contradict all the research that says they’re detrimental to the planet, as is CO2. With luck, Michele Bachmann and her ilk will start screaming for more methane emissions. “Beans, beans, they’re good for your heart…”
Finally, your links (“proof”, I presume, for your argument?) do nothing to contradict what I said. Sure, increased CO2 emissions are better for plants. I’m sure everyone on this forum is aware that CO2 is necessary for plants to grow. But is that a good trade-off? Decreased human welfare so that plants can grow a little bigger? I’m sure they’d appreciate a warmer atmosphere, too. Guess they’ve come to the right place, eh?
savethesharks says: October 2, 2011 at 7:58 am
No need at all to apologise, but appreciate the post.
Heck, I used to curse you sharks when you chomped through my hard wrangled trevally caught when trolling off the NT coast.
Glad the hormones are still hot Smokey. But then Dusty is (was) some girl.
We Aussie gals give lip and swat to our men.
It’s our larrikin heritage! 😉
(apparently) http://www.convictcreations.com/culture/comedy.htm
Ferd Berple – Love your logic. Got any more of those observations.
.
Mathew at 1am. When you start quoting the Cenoizic period, you are showing how you manipulate data to suit your argument. CO2 makes up only 4% of GHS, (Less than 1% human enhanced) yes with cloud cover it does help to trap warmth coming from the land, trap, not cause, get my gist. That’s why frost doesn’t form when there is cloud cover in winter. Gosh mate during the Cenoizic period, the continents hadn’t separated. Of course the atmosphere was heavier and more humid. Big continents the further from the sea they are into their interior the lessening of rain fall. CO2 component in pollution is very low, it is sulphur dioxide, nitreos oxide
carbon monoxide that cause problems and also heavy particles that do the damage, (ash and dust from volcanoes) straight CO2 does no harm on its own and is a natural gas we need for our bodies as well as all other carbon based organic beings to function. Next you will be saying the herbivores/ruminants/humans cause pollution from methane emissions, think yourself lucky we weren’t around with the dinosaurs.
reply to: Roger Sowell says: October 2, 2011 at 9:03 pm
However, from your blog:
You provide zero justification for that price leap. Sure sounds like making it up. So you found one source that is apparently flawed as a previous poster has noted – I’ve yet to dig thru it and doubt I’ll waste the time – we’ve all seen some of the horribly incorrect estimates and projections that come out of the California government (at least one has been the issue of a post here at WUWT). We pointed you to multiple studies, by different independent organizations and governments, which found estimated costs to be far lower. You’ve failed to address those what-so-ever. Meanwhile, currently operating nuclear power plants already have containment structures that would withstand the impact of a commercial jet, at least in the USA: http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/aircraftcrashbreach. That’s been well known for several decades.
reply to: Roger Sowell says: October 2, 2011 at 9:17 pm
Feel better now that you’ve had your little fantasy rant that’s utterly unrelated to anything I actually said in my post? I have to say the bit about running out of room for spent fuel rods is particularly ironic, since we could easily fit all of the existing spent fuel rods, not only from our nuclear power plants but also military applications, and all the rest of our existing high level waste, safely encased in dry casks, stored for future use if desired or retrieval for whatever reason, underground almost 1000 ft, and more than 1200 ft. above the water table, all on a tiny fraction of the edge of the Nevada Test Site (where much of our atomic testing was conducted, both above and below ground) effectively out in the middle nowhere in a massive desert. Pleanty of other locations could be suitable also, but that’s one we already know and have spent quite a bit of effort studying and developing.
So what would I ‘rather?’ Well, I prefer considering lifecycle cost/benefit and impact issues – ALL of the major issues, such as deaths involved in coal mining, atmospheric pollution and fly ash issues, drilling issues, people displaced and environment destroyed to make hydro reservoirs, deaths from dam bursts, and so on – and then going with the best option possible. As far as I’m concerned, CO2 shouldn’t be a factor included in the calculations, because at least so far it’s not been shown to be a real issue or problem with any solid scientific (not model ‘projections’) data. Now if you want to throw in CO2, that of course makes nuclear look all the better.
In other words, I prefer to have cheap, safe, abundant energy for everyone from technologies that we currently have (not pie in the sky ‘only with a bit more R&D we could…’ types) – and that means different types and mixtures of power plants according to the location, resources, technical abilities, and so on, that exist at each region. They all have advantages and disadvantages that have to be rationally, not emotionally, considered (which pretty much knocks out solar and wind for the vast majority of large scale power generation locations/needs). Nuclear is a good fit in some places, competitive in others, and over priced compared to other options in some cases. There’s no question that in 50+ years of use for commercial power, it has caused far less death and injury than the other alternatives. Pointing out flaws in your claims and logic regarding nuclear power doesn’t mean anything else, let alone the disingenuous hyperbole you launched into.
reply to: Matthew says: October 3, 2011 at 1:00 am
First, water vapor is a greenhouse gas – present in massive amounts compared to the trace gas CO2 and swamping any postulated GHG effect of CO2. Simple fact. Second, something you breath out in every breath, and plants survive on and use to create the very oxygen we survive on, isn’t a pollutant. Catagorizing it as such is just grossly dumbing down or Owellianizing the language (to make up a word of my own, but the meaning ought to be crystal clear to pretty much anyone).
ferd berple says: October 2, 2011 at 10:58 am
Nope, the great centre and north of Australia, where the once fine but now extinct pioneers of olde will forever be watching over these new merchants, these new merchants will be exchanging the new blow in the wind crwedits of carbon. Or is that carbon dioxide? That exchange in the form of; replanting as credit for the real work of productive mining and industry, $ for education and training the state was meant to deliver to improve human capital is now debt on the cash register of guilt… kerching goes the cash register keys. And the debt of [ill]health, mostly what was, as education was meant to be, the responsibility of the parent(s) to pursue has become the new credit to be exchanged. And so Australians have to pay for this grand experiment in lost development, gross human waste and death.
Some day Aussies will wake up and really feel, I mean really feel the deceit, the 40 years, that is 40 years of kids who died the most atrocious deaths imaginable. Kids who lived shocking lives of deprivation and loneliness for the benefit of southerners want for art and culture, for schemers and their grand plans of communal lands: that they were pieces of child and teen flesh, sold off, by means foul and never fair, as sacrifice for this great venture. Tax premised on air and a history which calculated bargaining of human child horror is never easy for some in our nation.
ferd berple says: October 2, 2011 at 10:49 am
Matthew says:October 2, 2011 at 10:09 am
Visit a slum in Delhi and see if you’re still willing to stand by that…
________________
Slums existed long before industrialization. Centuries before. To date two solutions have been found to get rid of slums:
1. The Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot/ solution – get rid of the people
2. Industrialization.and mass production using low cost energy.
Matthew…….you lived in a slum and DIDN’T MENTION THE caste system? What type of anthropologist are you?
“The demand for sons among wealthy parents is being satisfied by the medical community through the provision of illegal services of fetal sex-determination and sex-selective abortions,” SV Subramanian from the Harvard School of Public Health wrote in an accompanying commentary.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/millions-of-indian-baby-girls-aborted/story-e6frg6so-1226062269164
“The financial incentive for physicians to undertake this illegal activity seems to be far greater than the penalties associated with breaking the law,” S.V. Subramanian of the Harvard School of Public Health said in a commentary, also in The Lancet.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/millions-of-girls-aborted-in-india-study/story-fn3dxity-1226062115737
Tea Party (actually TEA Party), Taxed Enough Already, are all about fiscal responsibility, limited government and Constitutionalism. We definitely contain lots of conservative folks, and many republicans, democrats, libertarians and indies too. The first words out of your mouth betray your utter lack of comprehension of this loosley-knit, decentralized broad-based return to Constitutionality. Matthew, freedom and the Constitution is your enemy, you simply lack the courage to state this outright, so I said it for you.
Although you are a lost cause, I will state this for the record anyway. Legislating light bulbs is about the most insane and harmful idea to scientific advancement imaginable. All it would result in is thwarting further evolution and refinement of light sources, freezing the technology into the current, very young state of LED development. The best thing that could happen to LED (and CFL) development, and for lighting and heating sources as a whole, is for there to be lots of competition. Your boneheaded idea of picking one now is the worst possible outcome, it gives a monopoly to immature technologies and opens the door to yet another wave of crony favoritism to the manufacturers positioned to replace that ‘horrific’ Edison bulb.
The much-derided ‘wasted’ heat thrown off by incandescent lights is often NOT wasted at all! There are many situations when the efficiency of an incandescent bulb approaches 100%, for example in lights that are at lower height levels like lamps where the heat warms the air and rises. This efficiency is obviously less for lights up in the ceiling, and all the heat is wasted when the lights are outdoors (although small animals and insects may debate this). It is in this situation the incandescent bulb actually exceeds the efficiency of an LED because *all* of the light and *all* of the heat is put to use, 100% of the cost is well spent. The LED is less useful because it’s wasted heat is sinked away (as it always is because it is necessary by design) and never gets used to heat the room space.
So, replace the Edisons with LEDs and guess what, you run to crank up the thermostat to nudge the perceived room temperature up, causing a cascade of inefficiency because the oil or electric heat will not only warm that specific space, but most of the entire house! Incandescents are great space heaters because we place them where we actually are. Placing incandescents where the people live and where heat is useful is the logical idea, and this cannot be legislated. People can choose of their own volition to use LED in summer and incandescents in winter for efficiency, or not. Yeah Matthew, those TEA partiers are just horrible blocking the totalitarianism that fools like you would invite in the door.
Moreover, the quest for 100% efficiency is where your problem lies. Were this actually important to you leftists, all optional recreational lighting and heating would be banned long before we encroach on the private property of the citizenry by allowing government into their bedrooms to select their light bulbs. For example, NYC and Las Vegas and Los Angeles are covered in outdoor decorative lights, not one of which is ‘necessary’. Everywhere there is electricity and human beings will contain huge amounts of optional, decorative, inefficient and unnecessary waste of light and heat. Why would you start in our homes? We know where you’re coming from though, get this stupid draconian law in place and then with the precedent they can go after Christmas lights and many other inefficient scapegoats.
You know Matthew, there is nothing stopping you from going Amish, or joining a commune. So why are you still here? And why are you wasting energy right now using a non-essential recreational device, the computer and internet? Have you no shame?
Clearly you were assimilated. Resistance was futile.
All modern Presidents end up living in a bubble controlled by those who surround them.
The most consequential thing any President does at the beginning of his term is to pick his advisers.
This President has selected a group of advisers who have no experience in actually running anything larger than a lab or bank branch.
Most of them have been either political activists working academia or political activists working as ‘community organizers’.
Or else they have simply been political animals completely.
When the advice is bad enough, a President can be in effect living in a fantasy world not connected to reality.
When it comes to environmental energy and climate issues, this President is far removed from reality.
He is carefully surrounded by people who have no actual understanding of how energy is produced or its impacts on the environment or climate.
The conversation this thread is based on demonstrates this really well.
Roger Sowell
Building Nuclear power where there is a very high risk of earthquakes would a priori make the costs of nuclear power in California much higher than anywhere else. Using air cooled towers in Nevada and transmission lines would probably be less expensive – Oh I forget – “green” Californians do not want to spoil the view even for “green” power – – GREEN californians would rather pay two to three times as much for power. C’est la vie!
Now in the rational world, nuclear was premised on being able to reprocess the “spent” fuel as in France, or at least bury it as in Yucca mountain. Even better is to further react the residual uranium to more power. See TerraPower
Instead, alas and alack, we have the “green” movement with their ever friendly NIMBY lawyers preventing both. Consequently utilities are forced to keep the “spent” rods in glorified swimming pools near populations. Consequently a major portion of the Japan nuclear problem was from cracks in the cooling pools from the earthquake, and loosing cooling water.
However, our major challenge is NOT electricity but growing shortages of fuel. So lets focus back on how to deal with this looming fuel shortage. Even if we don’t use the term “P . . . O . . .” to save your children from nightmares, adults still need to address this very serious impending and strongly increasing issue. See summary references: Oil Supply Crunch: 2011-2015
Lloyds of London is warning of global shortages in the 2012 to 2015 time frame. See: Lloyd’s and Chatham House report “Sustainable energy security: strategic risks and opportunities for business”.
So despite the wailings of the faint at heart, when Lloyd’s issues such a serious warning of major business risks ahead, conservative business leaders should take notice.
Everyone here who is ridiculing the idea of “equivalent to 130 MPG,” and those fewer who are approving it, seems to be missing the clear, likely possibility that Chu was using the EPA definition of MPG equivalence, which ignores “upstream” costs, such as the energy used to generate the electricity that charges the battery. EPA “MPG equivalence” is basically a measure of miles driven per unit of energy.
It’s a good question whether Obama knew that’s what Chu was using. If he did, his remark to Hamm was the next best thing to a non sequitur. And it’s a good question why physics Nobelist Chu would be using the EPA definition. 🙂
But I say that WUWT-ers ought to do less assuming, and more homework. Why not first assume that Obama was talking about something that might be true?
[snip. Enough with the political rants. They are becoming too frequent in your posts. And don’t bother arguing, your rant is gone. ~dbs, mod.]
Rational Debate says:
October 3, 2011 at 3:41 am
*****
This barely merits a response, but here goes:
By that logic, everything’s that produced naturally is alright, i.e. not a pollutant. Fecal matter is natural, but it’s a pollutant when it’s in your drinking water. SO2 is emitted naturally by volcanoes, but it makes acid rain the same way as SO2 emitted from coal-fired energy plants, ergo, POLLUTION. Cows give off a lot of methane, which has one of the highest radiative forcing rates. Again, pollution. The earth can handle a certain amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and obviously it’s necessary to sustain life on Earth, but we’re exceeding the natural capacity that can be absorbed by various natural processes, and to argue differently is to ignore some pretty clear science.
Obama & Chu got this claim from some old GM PR from 2007 put out about the then concept Chevy Volt. It was a fanciful claim then, and it’s still a fanciful claim 4-5 years later.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-01-07-volt_x.htm
Mathew,
You sound a lot like David Appell. Anyway your claim that we are exceeding some arbitrary limit of CO2 in the atmosphere is an articicial construct of your social/political pardigm. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been much higher in the past without human input. Also If the CO2 equilibrium in the atmosphere is always so perfectly and finely balanced how do you account for the fact that there is so much carbon sequestered in the ground, which must have originally been on the Earth’s surface and/or in the atmosphere.
So I can’t say anything about the TEA Party, but they can call me every name under the sun? Go figure. Enjoy life on the fringe, morons.
REPLY: Note the WUWT policy page, are you certain your supervisor at the LSEPS would approve of the use of your time to hurl insults? You aren’t even in the USA, so I doubt the Tea Party has anything to say about you. – Anthony
Matthew, Your response barely merits a response, but here goes also:
Science is pretty clear that we are not exceeding the natural capacity of the atmosphere to handle CO2. Concentrations have been much higher in the past, in times of enhanced biodiversity and increased vegetation. There is no evidence that increased CO2 will cause any other outcome. We are currently near a historic low CO2 concentration (geologically speaking). You need more than some hand-waving.
Also, fecal matter is pollution in your drinking water, but is also a natural fertilizer which is essential to the circle of life. Simply pointing out that it can be a “pollutant” in the wrong place, adds nothing to the discussion. Gaia needs it.
“Only 14 out of 54 countries in the world continue to increase production while 30 are definitely past their production peak, and the remaining 10 appear to have flat or declining production.”
That was 2009. Here’s something I posted on another site today:
The production from horizonally drilled and fractured shale has gone from some gas wells in Texas to oil and gas worldwide.
Take Ohio. Oil was discovered in 1860, a few months after Pennsylvania. Production peaked in 1896 at 65,000 BOD. By 2009 it had declined to 14,000 BOD (so much for the symmetrical Hubbert curve).
Chesapeake just completed three Utica shale wells. The initial flow from the three wells is 3,420 bod of liquids and several mmcf of gas.
Meanwhile a thick and rich section of gas charged shale has been found in small corner of England. Estimates are 200 TCF in place, with 10-30% recoverable.
China, India, Poland, are all finding new reserves. We are looking at a total game changer.
Perhaps it is true that conventional light oil from easily defined structural traps, producered for $2.00 a barrel has peaked. That is about as relevant as saying production of ’57 Chevys peaked in 1957
MikeP says:
October 3, 2011 at 9:35 am
*****
You should read the post that prompted my response before posting. The guy claimed that CO2 isn’t considered a pollutant because we breathe it out and plants use it. To quote him, “Second, something you breath out in every breath, and plants survive on and use to create the very oxygen we survive on, isn’t a pollutant.”
Judging from your response, you disagree with that logic, as well, right?
Doug
Fuel is priced based on the marginal cost of production. When you cannot supply sufficient light crude, then heavy oil, very heavy oil, bitumen, and coal to liquids must be called on. etc.
See the marginal cost of production
Especially Fig 8 page 13 in Marginal Oil What’s driving oil companies dirtier and deeper?
taking the figure from the IEA Resources to Reserves 2010
Current marginal costs are already in the $60 to $80 category, rapidly pushing into the $80 to $100 categories. We are about half way through light crude oil ultimate resource which is why the major increases in costs and the scramble to develop alternatives.
If these alternatives are not brought on board in time, then we are facing a major roller coaster downhill economic ride. Despite what thrill seekers say, this will not be pleasant.
We need to face up to the facts that we are strategically dependent on transport fuel, and the critical portion of that is controlled by unfriendly unstable regimes bent on extracting as much value as they can from the West.
Nice chart David. From what planet did they get their data? It shows Canadian oil sands at $80 in 2007, when good companies produced for less than 20.
Have you noticed that oil prices have been been creeping down, while natural gas is staying dirt cheap, as in equivalent to $25 oil? You doomsdayers never quit.
The thing here is that there is rather a lot of history to Obama’s ‘end dependency on Middle East for oil’ – there never was a dependency, America deliberately began buying oil from Saudi in the early seventies by agreement and not caring about its own domestic production in great money game – to make the dollar the world’s reserve currency. It succeeded. From that time oil had to be traded in dollars. Oil prices went up when America decided it was advantage for its own purposes in this, it was ‘held to ransom’ by OPEC.. If you don’t know any of this history quite a lot in this very good piece mainly written pre Iraq, will come as a surprise, I hope it doesn’t shock you too much. The reason for going into Iraq was because Saddam had changed from dollars to euros. As for ‘peak oil’, the US now has total control of the world’s second largest oil deposits, you’re not going to run out any time soon.
Before that move by Nixon, America was the envy of the world, you had all the stuff our common oik dreams are made of, plenty of work and abundance of good life to go with it – in the fifties in England we still had rationing remember..
Since the move to make the dollar the world’s reserve currency your industries are surplus to requirements, your great industrial centres run down now and all that comes with it, because what is best for the people is no longer on the agenda, as England’s industries were closed down from then too, the money game has its own interests. No one can understand their own goverments’ domestic policies in the US or Europe without understanding this money game being played out around the world. Obama isn’t going to do anything to rock that boat for the US. Bear in mind, both the dollar and the euro are controlled by the same people, so don’t take this dollar/euro war as if it matters.. The countries that didn’t understand this, like Greece, have a choice now, sell their country to the big bwankers (through the IMF takeover), or not repay the loan…
reply to: Matthew says: October 3, 2011 at 10:31 am
It seems pretty clear that Matthew did read the post in question, and his reply is exactly right – and you should think things thru more thoroughly before you reply. Perhaps take a biology class or two. Should atmospheric CO2 levels ever become high enough to be directly toxic to animals or humans, or somehow on balance damage plants, or be shown by empirical evidence – not hypotheses and “just so story” computer models – to actually be causing detrimental effects, then and only then can CO2 be classed as a pollutant. So far we appear to be a very very long way away from those sorts of levels. IIRC, submarines are sometimes run with atmospheric CO2 levels in the neighborhood of 5,000 ppm or even 10,000 ppm with zero harm to crew, and toxic levels are far higher than that. Until we hit such levels, all you are doing is polluting the language.
Meanwhile, you want to delve into paleoclimatology to ‘prove’ that CO2 drives global warming, then you had best stop cherry picking and learn enough to recognize that historically, CO2 increase lags temperature increases by approx. 800 years. You’ll also have to explain the 8,000 years in the Emian when temperatures plummeted even tho CO2 levels remained around 300ppm. You’ll have to explain why there were times that CO2 levels were an order of magnitude higher than present day, but we were in an ice age. Closer to home, you’ll have to explain why mankind flourished during the three periods of the Holocene that were warmer than present day temperatures, and struggled in between.
Either you, or some other commentator appeared unable to comprehend CO2 benefits. Try asking any large greenhouse operator. A statement was made along the lines of what good is increased plant growth when humans are harmed – a non-sequitur, as if the two are inextricably linked together. Increased plant growth means more FOOD for all life. Better crop production, higher yields, increased drought resistance, etc., increased forest growth, longer growing seasons, increased plant growth of all types. All of which means more food available for less work, not only for man, but for all life – which of course, means less starvation, less malnutrition. Again, not just for man, but for our livestock, and for wildlife. It means more biodiversity, long lifespans or healthier lives. Plants flourish, and so does pretty much everything else. That includes ocean life as well.
I suspect you won’t bother – you seem to be a CAGW True Believer, rather than someone actually interested in the science involved. But there is always hope that someone like you will decide to actually learn.
LSEPS?
FFS! I wouldn’t have bothered reading any of Matthews screed if I’d known that earlier.
London School of Economics and Political Science!
Want the USA to be totally free of foreign oil imports and see the price of crude plummet overnight?
Reinstate the Oil Depletion Allowance!
David L. Hagen says:
October 3, 2011 at 10:50
David, you need to go back and read the original article referenced
by Anthony rather than trying to sell the propaganda from a green environmental group or the IEA outdated and biased report.
The latest mantra from the anti oil group, since numerous new threatening oil/gas resources have been found, is that the Resources are too expensive and difficult to produce so we need to be alarmed and spend billiond of $$$ on likes of Solyndra and Pelosi’s relatives.
News flash, I worked on a major tar sands project that was justified with oil at $ 12/bbl in the late 70’s. I can only believe that technology has improved since then. If the investors want to risk their dollars, are the enviros really afraid it is a bad investment??? It clearly is a threat.
Read the article
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204226204576602524023932438.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
“Harold Hamm, the Oklahoma-based founder and CEO of Continental Resources, the 14th-largest oil company in America… He came to Washington last month to spread a needed message of economic optimism. With the right set of national energy policies, the United States could be “completely energy independent by the end of the decade”.
“President Obama is riding the wrong horse on energy,” he adds. We can’t come anywhere near the scale of energy production to achieve energy independence by pouring tax dollars into “green energy” sources like wind and solar, he argues.”
” But since 2005 America truly has been in the midst of a revolution in oil and natural gas, which is the nation’s fastest-growing manufacturing sector.”
Hamm was the original discoverer of the gigantic and prolific Bakken oil fields of Montana and North Dakota that have already helped move the U.S. into third place among world oil producers.
“The official estimate of the U.S. Geological Survey a few years ago was between four and five billion barrels. Mr. Hamm disagrees: “No way. We estimate that the entire field, fully developed, in Bakken is 24 billion barrels.”
“When it was Mr. Hamm’s turn to talk briefly with President Obama, “I told him of the revolution in the oil and gas industry and how we have the capacity to produce enough oil to enable America to replace OPEC. I wanted to make sure he knew about this.”
The president’s reaction? “He turned to me and said, ‘Oil and gas will be important for the next few years. But we need to go on to green and alternative energy. [Energy] Secretary [Steven] Chu has assured me that within five years, we can have a battery developed that will make a car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon.'” “I truly believe the federal government could over time raise $18 trillion in royalties.”
“A few months ago the Obama Justice Department brought charges against Continental and six other oil companies in North Dakota for causing the death of 28 migratory birds, in violation of the Migratory Bird Act. Continental’s crime was killing one bird “the size of a sparrow” in its oil pits. The charges carry criminal penalties of up to six months in jail.”
This, while Windmills reportedly kill thousands times as many birds each year.
The Administration is opposed to development of oil, this is hurting the economic development of the USA and the EPA is the weapon.
Doug
Re: “It shows Canadian oil sands at $80 in 2007, when good companies produced for less than 20.” That was an oil company graph.
Note the IEA’s range of $40 to $80.
Can you provide any better references, or links?
“A graph in hand is worth two in the bush”!
Your <$20/bbl That could be operating costs of extraction alone.
However, did you include "upgrading" to syncrude? Does it include paying the loans and the return on capital? e.g. extraction plus upgrading capital is about $100,000/bbl/day, or $270/bbl/year. Straight line depreciation at 20 years alone comes to about $14/bbl.
See Suncor slide 8 for actual ranges for different products.
Roger Sowell
Re Yergin, perhaps you should test the accuracy of his predictions.
Three strikes and you are out by Jeffrey Brown.
I’ll take his prognostications and equivocations with a grain of salt.
Errata: Three strikes and you are out by Jeffrey Brown. http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2011/10/three-strikes/
@ David L. Hagen on October 3, 2011 at 6:00 pm
You can believe any old thing you like. Don’t let facts get in your way.
Predicting crude prices is a difficult thing. My point about Yergin’s book, The Prize, stands: it accurately shows the overwhelming strategic importance of crude oil. Do you dispute this? If so, please give your reasons.
The EIA data for US crude stockpiles shows Yergin was correct. Stockpiles did increase to unprecedented levels.
The supply of oil has been more than adequate to meet world demand, so again Yergin is correct.
David, if you gave the complete and fair picture, it would indicate that absolutely no one has been even close at predicting long range the price of crude, and that includes all the high paid experts employed by the major oil companies (you know those who fix prices). The politicians and our Government has been even worse in their predictions.
As far as I can remember back to the late 70’s the predictions have been way off.
$100/bbl was a certainty even back 30 years ago in the predictions when Colony shale was on the boards. Technology developments, speculators, and the nature of OPEC make it impossible to predict accurately long range.
Anyone who puts much faith in the oil price predictions is a fool.
To confuse the issue even more just look at the huge price differential between the NY and mid west exchanges.
Why be harsh on just one of the challenged price predictors?
Who would predict that oil today would be almost the same as 1981??
“The economic incentive for producing oil shale has long been tied to the price of crude oil. The highest price that crude oil ever reached — $87/bbl (2005 dollars) — occurred in January 1981. Exxon’s decision to cancel its Colony oil shale project came a year and half later, after prices began to decline and newly discovered, less-costly-to-produce reserves came online. . . . . oil had become plentiful, with about 8 to 10 million barrels per day in excess worldwide capacity, and the trend in rising oil prices had reversed after early 1981. “