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 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.
@ur momisugly 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: @ur momisugly 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.