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
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.