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
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.
@ur momisugly 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
@ur momisugly 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.