This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Here's How We Get to Energy Independence
Submitted by Brad Schaeffer
Here's How We Get to Energy Independence
Respected columnist and author Thomas Friedman has been among the most audible voices in warning the USA about our dependency on foreign oil and our need to end our addiction to this commodity post haste. But his latest call for a $1.00 per gallon gasoline tax to curtail our fuel consumption, the proceeds of which would go towards deficit reduction, misses the mark.
First of all, where Mr. Friedman is absolutely correct is his concern itself which is well founded. Consider: in 1970 the USA imported 30 percent of its crude oil. That figure has effectively doubled in the last thirty years to just shy of 60 percent.
Not since the ill-fated Axis powers of World War II has such a powerful nation so relied on foreign entities to supply its daily energy needs. This is a potential national security nightmare. (Indeed, as much as losses in the field, Germany and Japan were brought to their knees by choking off their energy supplies and causing their military machines to grind to a halt.)
However, Mr. Friedman’s proposal of imposing altered behavior on consumers via a $1.00 gallon gas tax, even one phased in over time, will unduly penalize many lower and middle class workers who have little choice at this time but to commute (this is not like a voluntary consumption tax on soda) and for whom their annual fixed costs would increase anywhere between $500-$1,000 depending on the location and vehicle gas mileage.
Moreover, his idea places inordinate faith in the federal government to properly spend any new tax revenues they do receive with any modicum of discipline needed to pay down the deficit.
Imposing a draconian gas tax at this time, with 15 million already unemployed, with the economy in a precarious position, is not quite the medicine needed at the moment. In fact, it could make matters much worse. I don’t think it takes an economics guru to conclude that $1.00/gallon on top of an already high $3.18 national average could negatively impact consumption in other areas (and we are still very a much a consumption-based economy).
In just one example, an interesting study done by the Center For Business And Economic Research at Ball State University simulated the impact of a $1.00 price increase from a benchmark of $3.00 gallon (not via taxes, just a market rise) on the economy of Indiana. It concluded that the economic activity in that state would be lower by almost -2% and employment by roughly -1.3 percent.
It also offered that tax revenues would decline by -.5 percent. When economic activity falls, tax revenues do as well. Human behavior is unpredictable and it is not a given that $1.00 tax on gasoline will translate into a $1.00 net increase in revenues to Uncle Sam. There is the law of unintended consequences to consider.
I admit that this is just one report in one state, but I suspect similar studies will show the same. Even though numbers can be tortured to say anything to support a policy initiative, common sense dictates that a dollar steered towards higher commuting costs will have a negative impact on the rest of consumption and thus the overall economy all else being equal.
The most far-fetched component of Mr. Freidman’s “one little gasoline tax” proposal is that the extra revenues (should they materialize) will be diverted towards “paying down the deficit.” A noble idea, but if Mr. Friedman honestly believes that Congress will take this windfall and actually use it to for its intended purpose rather than employ clever accounting tricks to steer the cash to their favorite pet projects, well, I have a Social Security “lock box” stuffed with IOUs I’d like to sell him.
Still, if there was no other alternative to Mr. Friedman’s proposal, then I would give it serious consideration. But the fact is, we do have alternatives, both to give us some short-term relief and long-term stability.
As of yesterday we need to immediately open up ANWR and the shallow off-shore regions to exploration and drilling. I love caribou as much as the next person, but this must be done. Even the most conservative estimates tell us that by 2018 if development were green-lighted today, ANWR could be producing as much as 780,000 and then slowing to 710,000 barrels a day by 2030. Also it is estimated that 18 billion barrels of crude oil are contained in areas currently off-limits to drilling for environmental reasons. No nation has denied itself so much abundance of its own domestic natural resources as has the USA.
To be sure, there are environmental risks to an aggressive drilling policy. But environmentalists need to consider the consequences of the USA being cut off from 2/3 of its energy needs...unrealistic given that friendly Canada is our single largest outside supplier, but not impossible. There is no greater killer than the effects of poverty resulting from a collapsed economy.
Rationing the transportation of goods due to lack of petrol means limited delivery of food to our cities, medicines to rural areas, heating oil for homes and businesses in the northeast during the winter, etc. The humanitarian and health consequences would soon be apparent to even the most ardent of green advocates.
Beyond “drill baby drill” our real pathway to true energy independence lies in resurrecting the Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program. This program which began with such fanfare under Jimmy Carter was cancelled under the Reagan administration.
The reasons were ostensibly that it was against free-market principles but the real factor was that oil prices had collapsed and the immediate economic peril had passed. Reagan’s vision was myopic and based on the false premise that arose from the oil glut of the 1980s that oil would be inexpensive well into the next century. But now with turmoil all across the Mideast before us, global demand expanding, and oil trading at $100bbl and climbing, we find ourselves in the position of pouring literally trillions of dollars into the coffers of some potentially hostile regimes with whom we are in an economic and military death embrace.
Although I harbor a conservative’s mistrust of government in my DNA, I do know that government does have its role. Those F-15s that give us top cover while we drive on our interstate highway system demonstrate that. Of course what do these examples have in common? They fall under the auspices of national security. And energy independence must be treated as a national security matter and at least partially funded with tax dollars as we fund our armed forces.
Consider: the USA has more coal than the Middle East has oil. Furthermore, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), an agency of the Dept. of Defense (DoD) has estimated the cost of a 100,000 barrel per day 21st Century Coal-to-Liquids (CTL) synthetic fuels plant will be about $6 billion.
Other private sector estimates place the figure higher at $10 billion. Even that higher figure is about the cost of one and a half months of the Iraq war. (A war we are waging primarily because there is oil there remember.) So for the price of the Wall Street bailout—$700 Billion—the DoD could have been on its way to building between 70 and 100 new CTL plants, which would produce up to ten million barrels of synthetic CTL fuel per day.
That is still a high price tag for initial investment. And like many national security initiatives, there is little profit to be made from being the first mover of the technology. (Although in this case the technology goes back almost a century, but it would be a new implementation in this country on a mass scale).
Thus relying solely on the private sector to innovate and invest our way out of this energy dependence problem is problematic for now. That is, unless the government subsidizes the initiative through direct investment. This could even be a profitable venture. Estimates vary as to the profitability break-even cost of CTL, natural gas to liquid (NGL) or biomass refining. Some firms show the profit point to be $45 per barrel. Other estimates vary above and below this level by roughly $10bbl.
Carbon capture technology for cleaner conversion that might be part of any legislation pushes that level even higher.
Still, unlike in the 1980s, clearly we are now above the break-even threshold and thus are the conditions ripe for a hybrid semi-public entity model that could be subsidized by the feds to make up the shortfall should the price of oil dip below that $45bbl level.
Most analysts see this as most unlikely unless the oil producing nations purposefully flood the markets to kill such initiatives to protect their franchise. But they have their own problems in their streets at the moment. If anything, as Mr. Friedman also points out, the price of crude oil will continue to rise.
The current administration is so focused on touting the merits of a ‘new green economy’ that it is missing the potential of an old fashioned synfuels economy already within our grasp. The construction and plant employment opportunities, the increase in economic activity as a new industry emerges from the ashes of our industrial blight, as well as the incredible potential windfall of a ‘mid-east oil independence dividend’ down the road by no longer maintaining a military presence in the regions from which so much of our current energy needs flow is self-evident.
Every month $20 billion of our treasury goes just to maintain our low intensity combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the staggering financial drain of supporting bases on the periphery.
And there is no end in sight to our involvement in the Mideast without first eradicating our reason for even caring what goes on there…which means an addiction to the commodity we import from the region. Unlike many other ‘shovel ready’ projects that were anything but, synfuels development presents a very real and beneficial investment on many levels.
There is historical precedent that shows the viability of a synfuels program.
But for Allied bombings, Germany was on its way to producing 60 million bbls of synfuels annually into 1946. (A small amount relative to today’s consumption, but scalability is there). Again, when South Africa was the target of punitive sanctions because of Apartheid, they implemented via Sasol a massive synfuels program out of necessity…proving that where there’s a will there’s a way.
And we need not replace all imported oil of course. We currently import a little over 3 million bbls a day from nations in the Mideast and Africa. This amount is quite replaceable by synfuels. I do not mind importing from such stable and friendly nations as Canada for example.
Rather than trust it with a satchel of new gasoline taxes, the federal government could be better utilized through the DoD. In fact, the military is already making strides in synfuels development. The Air Force has already run successful synfuels tests on converted B-52s and have put forth an aggressive goal to have 70 percent of its aviation fuel coming from coal-based sources by the year 2025. They get it. Thomas Friedman does too…even if his solution is off-sides.
Today, there are currently 700 automobiles for every 1,000 Americans; 500 for every 1,000 Europeans. There are only 30 for every 1,000 Chinese. But that figure is expected to balloon to 240 per 1,000 by the year 2035. The world’s thirst for oil is only going to increase, and with it the price. $100 crude is not an anomaly.
It is a harbinger of things to come. Increased exploration of our abundant proven reserves, combined with a sweeping synfuels program to utilize other energy resources within our borders are our surest bets to achieving attainable energy independence.
Certainly more so than a whimsical $1.00/gallon tax (a number the very roundness of which implies to me that it’s the result of whimsical caprice rather than any serious analysis) that would hamper if not kill an already teetering recovery while diverting yet more capital away from the private sector and into the black hole of “deficit relief.”
Like Thomas Friedman, I wonder if history has ever seen such a time where so much of a nation’s own capital was handed over to its enemies for them to use against it—in order to import a product it already has plenty of at home.
Taxes should not be used to change our collective behavior by weaning us off the candy through making it prohibitively expensive; this ignores just how vital oil is to our daily lives. With a more realistic viewpoint that our 19 million bbl per day appetite for oil cannot be just taxed away, I propose we simply take an existing, available and proven century-old technology and ramp it up to make the candy ourselves. More drilling and synfuels may not be sexy or hip solutions.
But they are real and, most important, a part of the here and now. Not the distant future…a future over which we will have little control should the status quo remain unaltered.
Bradley P. Schaeffer is C.E.O./Principal of INFA Energy Brokers, LLC
»
- 12438 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
don't worry about it.
This argument over peak oil to me is utterly laughable.
The reason I say so is that there are other things which have hit production peaks. Helium is abiotic and the 2nd most plentiful element in the universe, yet production of it here on earth peaked in 2002 and is now in decline.
It seems very clear to me by analogy that we cannot depend upon the reserves of He in the universe at large for our production, anymore than the methane on Titan proves there is no theoretical upper boundary to our production rate of hydrocarbons.
Production rate cannot run to infinity even if reserves are infinite.
And Haiti has a seemingly infinate amount of dirt, yet, it's not seemingly able to feed them! (yes, they have literally been eating dirt!)
Because there appears to be a lot of something doesn't mean that it's exploitable (in a meaningful way). A friend of mine, heavily influenced by bad logic (too much Limbaugh) stated that there was all kinds of land available to live on, as he noted from a drive across what is basically desert. Yeah, there's lots of land, but that land cannot be exploited (occupied) due to the excessive amount of energy required to do so: Vegas is an exception (next to the Palm Islands the most unsustainable colonization on this planet), but it will one day meet its eventual fate.
EROEI
WTF "every element decays to it"? No element decays to H2
Was I the only one who graduated college?
I did.
Non radioactive elements don't decay, there is no free H2 available on earth, most of it is available under the oxide form, namely H20 also known as water. If you want to use hydrogen you first have to reduce water to generate it, and this takes energy, where do you get it from?
You are confusing molecules and elements. All elements decay. Helium decays to hydrogen.
You are mixing something up:
http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/iso002.html
the most abundant part (more than 99.99%) of He is STABLE, it does NOT DECAY.
I don't know where you learned about physics...
Yep, I concede I fucked that up. Bow head in shame exit stage left.
I was thinking of this:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/proton.html
A free neutron will decay to hydrogen.
I considered only 'classical' physics, if indeed the model describing particle interactions is a super symetric model (which could be shown be decay of a proton), elements would decay. Fortunately for us, the half life of the proton is at least 10^32 or 10^33 years (compared to the age of the universe of around 10^10). Which makes all of this a rather theoretical discussion...
Free neutrons can be found in nuclear reactors.
I am Max Weinberg:
http://www.indyarocks.com/videos/Jim-Carrey-and-Conan-Quantum-Physics-10...
Buddy, I am usually patient, but you are making shit up on the fly...Cease and desist
with each passing moment, you make yourself more my servant.
Not sure what you mean... like, whatever.
This one was going to be a mosh pit, not my style, besides I had to take the little lady out tonight...
Some funny shit tonight, though. The fact that some people actually type some of this stuff is downright scary.
Kudos on effective use of Downing Effect. The delicious irony of not even being aware of the fact that you can't get it....
Oh... and we gotta call tmosely out...
google the quote
sooner or later you will just give up on being nice; it's fruitless.
One of the corollaries of the Downing Effect, now, is that the ego of the person shown their own incompetence leads them to reject the evidence of it. Ragnarok is unusual in that he admitted error.
re: google... a tad campy perhaps...
.
Wind.
Thanks for exhibiting to all and sundry that you have ZeroExperience.
OK, you say:
So there is "NO" and there is "MOST".
DQ, I just talked with Cas, and he sentences you to 64 weeks of self-criticism. Enjoy.
- Ned
If you had some basic chemistry you would know that hydrogen is also available in so called hydrocarbons, which you might have heard of as being oil. My only guess is, that we probably have more hydrogen in water than in oil, that's where the 'most' comes from.
PS: ZE is in relation to finance, not science...
Finance is the ultimate science. Even above theology.
That's the Goldman motto.
Hmm, is that right?
... perhaps you're on to something.
Bwa-haaa-haa. "decays to Hydrogen"----graduated from College !! Ha, Haa, Ha. You're really funny. Look up the "curve of binding energy". You are totally, and I mean, completely ignorant. but funny!
.
just make sure the permits are ligit. What does that mean? We don't need any freaking permits.
It means the regulator isn't bought off with cheap whores and that the BOPs, mud weight and cement are appropriate for those depths and pressures.
And make sure the cement doesn't turn into hydrogen when you're not looking ! OMG, now it's a mining engineer. what a riot.
I failed epically.
http://www.indyarocks.com/videos/Jim-Carrey-and-Conan-Quantum-Physics-10...
We get to engery indepence this way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfjOIoPwolg
http://www.blacklightpower.com/
Sounds nice, and an interesting idea, but seeing is believing.
When they produce a unit that can power an electric vehicle for 1500 miles as they claim in their business presentation, then I'll be a monkey's uncle.
Seems to me that there are too many groups, from utility companies to oil companies, that would have a vested monied interest in deep sixing this technology, expecially if it really works.
"Seems to me that there are too many groups, from utility companies to oil companies, that would have a vested monied interest in deep sixing this technology, expecially if it really works."
Sorry, but NO ONE is going to trump the US military. If something's viable THEY will command it. So, despite the wild speculations that someone is hiding stuff from us (holding back out toys), it's not bloody likely that they could hide it from the US military (just read the 2010 JOE Report).
Fractional reserve energy is the solution.
The solution is getting the government out of energy. Stop fighting wars, stop subsidizing oil & any other energy production, stop spending tax dollars on alternative energy that is way out of date, & stop ridiculouts IP & legal hurdles to alternative energy development. Let the market rate of oil go to where it needs to go with supply & demand & yield. The price of oil will go up and the American consumer & business have a little more money in his or her pocket which will bring in the incentive & speed of solving alternative energy on the business & consumer level (fuel cells & solar & architecural refits & efficient diesel engines). Win-win at the end of the day: individual energy independence & less dependence on oil.
LOL
My money is on a combination of leprechauns and unicorns
the Potatoes: Passive Construction
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2011/02/passive-houses-aggressively-reduce-energy/1
the Gravy: LENR
http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2011/01/17/cold-fusion-from-italy-nearly-commercial-ready/
trav7777,
if you would allow for rainbows... then we could use all the Gold found to buy more oil!
The govt. never gets out of anything, get a clue.
Word.
I wonder how much Big Oil stifles alternate energy? Between them, the environmentalists and gov't red tape, regulations and laws, absolutely nothing can be accomplished. They all need to get the hell out of the way and let innovative people find solutions.
http://www.stateuniversity.com/blog/permalink/Is-Hemp-the-Answer-To-Our-Energy-Problems-.html
Don't even hint that the Big Boyz are keeping reasonable alternatives under their hats. It tried that once only to get my head ripped off by Trav. Still hurts.
I'm sorry your head hurts Rocky, but I stand by my assertion. I have a high pain tolerance.
How anyone can look at something like the gulf oil disaster and how it was handled, and think that the Big Boyz aren't running the show to their total advantage is beyond me entirely.
it appears that that has plenty of company
"They all need to get the hell out of the way and let innovative people find solutions. "
Can't wait to see the energy product that comes out, I mean, the financial sector's innovations have been nothing short of stunning!
Again, the US govt has EVERY reason to seek sustainable energy sources. Nearly everything that you see around you today can be traced to early spy/military application. Everything was spawned by huge subsidies, and continues to be supported by same. NOTE: the US military is the single biggest consumer of energy on the planet; kind of hard to hide That elephant!
Exploitation, that's all innovation does. Without physical resources it's only thoughts/words. Action happens with energy and physical media. But the big-brained people sure can think of themselves as "innovators," because, well, because they have big brains; just ask them what that means, whether that's important and I'm sure they will tell you it is.
And a bang up job they've done! Any day now, I'm sure they're going to announce several brand new sustainable energy sources they've been working on in uber secrecy since the '70s.
let's go over that for a second again.
Big oil knows about Peak. That is because every single well they have ever drilled, every collection of wells called a field, et cetera, has peaked and declined (ok, some are still on the plateau but you get my drift).
Consequently, Big Oil is about as safe right now as a dinosaur at the KT boundary staring at a big burning fireball in the sky and going rawr. As oil production dwindles, revenues and profits will dwindle for big oil; it's inevitable.
If they want to have any relevance as companies going forward, they will have to be the ones who produce energy. They are not married to oil; it just so happens that oil is really that much better of an alternative than unicorns and magical thinking.
The proof is in the pudding. If you could produce hemp at $5/boe you would CRUSH SKULLS of muthafuckas in oil boardrooms. They could not stop you. You could charter a company to do it somewhere- energy is the power of GOD, get it? With that much hemp, not only could you get righteously roasted but also smelt steel to your heart's content into mighty battleships and all the rest of that.
Nobody is powerful enough to suppress an idea such as this and big oil would be trying to own it as they have no future once supply begins to wind down. JFC, they are struggling as it is to even hang onto current reserves against a wave of nationalization. OXY lost 9% of global reserves and 3% of annual production just on Ecuador. They have NO power, really when you look at things realistically.
I think you're missing my point.
All eggs are in one basket with oil. The problem is going to have to be solved with a broad spectrum of solutions, a multi-pronged approach, hemp being only one of many possibilities. As to hemp bio-fuels, it makes a whole lot more sense to me to use a plant that will grow just about anywhere and that requires little in the way of nutrients than to use a food crop as a source. I don't profess to know all the facts but I'd bet my first-born that it's damn near impossible to grow hemp thanks to the fed.gov, (possibly as a result of lobbying/being bought by Big Oil and Big Agra and/or the fact that they're so afraid somebody might get high).
I live one mile, as the crow flies, from the largest naval base in the world, home to a lot of small nuclear reactors that power ships and subs. I think it's insane that few have been built in the US.
Oh but the feds have just approved some wind farms off the Virginia coast; that will solve all our energy problems, right?
You do realise that synthetic fuels are made from coal don't you? Last time I heard anything from the environmentalists they were planning on killing all coal production. I fear you have not really investigated what it takes to produce synthetic fuels and oil from coal. I'll give you a hint. All that synthetic engine oil is made from coal. Go price it and compare it's cost to that of petroleum based motor oils. Synthetic fuel costs will be comparable in price.
Pretty sure you can synthesize gas or diesel from natural gas.
Talk about over consumption.
Friedman has more chins than the Hong Kong phone book.
"Respected columnist and author Thomas Friedman..." is as far as I got, fuck this flat earther, burn his fucking Lexus and hang him from the closest olive tree.
+1
Hold on, I agree with the poster and Friedman. Let's just raise the gas taxes knowing that the govt. will waste the money. On the other hand no one will be driving F-150's just like in Europe. Let's all just ride bikes like China used to. China gets the cars since they produce the goods and Americans get to ride bikes since no one produces anything anymore in this country.
America isn't quite built for bikes but bring it on I've been ready for peak oil for 7 years now. I wouldn't be suprised to see oil at 80 dollars a barrel and 7 dollar gas in the not to distant future since our currency is definitely a problem. Even though I'm a pickup truck and SUV owner I'll be glad to see them all go what a joke the last decade has been. I work from home so my suv is a nice driveway ornament.
Riding bikes is healthier. Even my fat out of shape troll ass.fits comfortably on a wide seat recumbent cruising bicycle. The cheap 66 cc epa approved engine from china.helps. on the hills. Google.66 cc.china bicycle engine. They are cheap, and no police is going to stop you and measure engine.size. So you dont have to register and get a license.
Just rig a lawnmower engine to a bike.
As cheap as the 66 cc bicycle engine is from China, and as quiet as it is, and as easy as it is to put on a bicycle you ought to look at getting one. It is probably cheaper in terms of time and money to use it instead of a lawnmower engine.
Unless one has physical ailments it's actually less efficient to use an engine on a bicycle. Having to lug that extra weight around, not to mention the costs of fuel (which WILL go up) cannot beat direct human power for efficiency. Besides, if you're going to go for an engine, then why stop there? I mean, most folks rigged as such aren't to be found at any other than fair weather times: I know what it's like to ride a bicycle year-round, did so for commuting for about 5 years straight.
Why break a sweat when you can pay someone else to burn the calories?
Faster, rickshaw boy! Faster!
Temporarily we need to drill baby drill. Cheaper energy will help us get out of our current mess. In five years if we decide to go all out green we would be in a much better position to do it, but whether or not you believe in peak oil or global warming right now we need to get out of our current financial mess first. Carbon offsets and gas taxes are less burdensome temporarily if the energy were less expensive due to lessened.supply.constraints
Agreed. lets start drilling and we also need a nuke reactor in everyone's back yard.
me first. bring it and i have a LARGE yard, might be able to fit in 3 or 4.
Check out the toshiba mini nuclear plant. It is the.future.
Ya, I can see Allstate insuring your Camry that has one in the trunk.
Maybe not in my trunk, but I would be happy to rent out my backyard if the city wanted to bury one there!
would you rent you back yard out to a quick / fast reactor? lol bill gates has a hell of an idea to pitch you!
Most sheeple in this country wouldn't know an oil well from a turnip truck.
Their wailing and moaning and we just can't do anything, woe is me,will be something to see when they are cooking their beans over a candle.
ha.
oh and freedman is a marxist clown or just a clown.
I don't care what it costs now, we need to get with it.
You won't care either if it avoids gas lines. babes.
"I don't care what it costs now, we need to get with it."
How about YOUR life? Or, what about your children's?
You're screaming about marxists and whatnot, which I'd assume means that you're a big capitalist, and you don't care to apply meaningful [capitalist] measures to the business at hand?
You know what this is? It's SUBSIDIES, which is the very thing that you're railing against when you take shots at Marxism.
You're either promoting fascism or stupidity, I'm not sure which has the greater force in your thinking...
The most disastrous energy adventure the west has engaged in over the last 20 or more years is the use of natural gas in electricity generation.
This is not quite as bad as flaring the stuff but it is close.
Electricity can be provided by multiple lower order fuels such as coal and higher density energy such as fission.
NG can and should be used for transport as well as its more tradional uses.
In many ways the UK has had the most disastrous energy policey in the western world - its infamous "dash for gas" was pursued after privatisation of the electricity provider.
Its higher petrol prices while needed to conserve were useless as the surplus created went into consumption elsewhere - there was no capital sink so therefore capital was not invested.
Gas fired power stations have a much lower capital cost - if you imagine a power operater as a bank this makes sense - both are utilities.
The lower capital requirement adds profitability on the upswing - risk is transfered to the user via probable gas rises in the future.
The banking crisis and the energy crisis are one of the same and are a result of a massive decapitalisation experiment to sustain unsustainable consumption which was accelerated in the 1980s.
The CBs need to to provide free money to newly regulated power companies so that they can engage in a huge programme of nuclear generation to replace both older coal and newer gas stations and it needs to be done now - any surplus gas can be used it the transport sector.
Gas fire powerstation are critical for one reason: they are the only ones capable of being turned on and off fast enough to compensate for lack of wind power and to keep the grid stable: for every MW of wind power, you need a MW 'shadow' gas powerstation.
Yes coal and nuclear are best for base load functions but believe it or not at least in the UK and Ireland gas is replacing the base load function as there has been no coal or nuclear for decades - this is a scam almost exactly similar to the banks leveraging their books , you see its so much cheaper to just build a modern combined cycle gas generator and claim it is super efficient then build a nuclear station that takes a decade or two to reach profitability - however in the last 3 or 4 decades of a nuclear plant it is so much more cheaper to run and over its lifetime it is also cheaper - its just that private utility companies wether banks or power companies have no strategic goal - it is a anathema to them.
The vacuum in utility investment especially from the 80s and beyond was channelled into unproductive consumption and created the Tim the tool man Taylor phenomena where guys just bought useless fucking shit.
Its all coming to haunt us now.
Anyhow wind generation does not even work that well in Ireland and believe me its a windy fucking place.
Fully agree, it's a pity to waste gas on electricity generation, it could work so easily in cars and trucks. Wind is crap: you saw it this winter in UK/IRL on the coldest days when you needed energy, there was no wind. It's also crap because you need to invest twice once for the wind turbine and once for the gas turbine. Way to go would be coal and/or fission, hopefully the chinese will show us how to make a thorium MSR, as we (the 'west') obviously is to stupid to invest into this...
Excellent thoughts from Cork. Thanks!
"nuclear station that takes a decade or two to reach profitability"
Profitable? Where? Please provide some data.
I live in an area that had a lot of old industry which contaminated the soils with a lot of arsenic. Those businesses are no longer around to pay for the cleanup. Yeah, they were profitable in passing along costs to the future generation...
Sorry, but there's not enough viable real estate to build the required number of nuclear plants (even if our power consumption were to stay stable- NOT GROW).
Strong incentive to deplete as fast as possible. The fastest the exchanges are done, the fastest one can collect wealth, the better one is able to escape the disaster that was created.
OK well EDF has a low profit margin
www.ft.com/cms/s/0/356e5cae-38e6-11e0-b0f6-00144feabdc0.html
- but if it were to increase its profits substantially it would probably have to reduce its capitalisation via reduced investment input much like banks have done over the last few decades by the use of leverage to create fictional profits.
But try to remember these are utility companies - their primary role is not profit - they are the trees of a industrial ecosystem - if they fall the economic jungle will become a desert.
Think of the opportunity cost rather then the distorted $IMF cost of today - The surplus Natural gas saved can be used for more efficient purposes - imagine if there was little or no NG electrical consumption in the states yet cars capable of using NG were on the road - the imports of oil would decrease enormously.
The dollar kings may have other objectives in their middle east policey such as denying others the oil bounty but the fact that there is not a industrial environment of technicians to build at least one new nuclear power station every two years is a scandal when you consider what such a small subsidy would cost in comparsion to the military industrial projection costs.
Humans have serious cognitive dissonance when discounting the future...
The Dork is spot on...Enron begat privitization which begat deregulation which means there is absolutely NO INCENTIVE to a for-profit company to build any new power plants (ie nukes) when the market goes ballistic as supply dwindles. And Friedman might be on to something...the fucking petrol prices in Europe are for a liter. Apply that here and we might make a dent in the consumption.
Deregulation of power companies was an idiotic money grab that benefits nobody who consumes power. A fucking utility was a regulated monopoly because it was run to deliver the cheapest power for its clients forever. Take away the ROI and we'll never get a new central station plant built in this country.
Anybody who understands LMP, the method used to price electricity, understands just how lucrative this game is for the big players.
Ceerist, thought all those windmills on the white cliffs of Dover had a purpose!
Now the banking crisis was caused by moron environmentalists?
Decapitate Libs, and problem solved.
A well thought out and written piece. I enjoyed it. Milestones
Dork,
Just to debate the issue : One of the problems of nuclear, we have the french experience since thirty years, is that the overall primary energy conversion rate from fissile material (Uranium) to KW delivered at consumer is 18%! Why? energy losses ! First, from fission thermal energy loop nearly half is not recovered, sent to the birds or to the rivers! In addition, due to fall-out hazard, Nuclear plants are far from urban centers, in theory. So transport losses can very high to end user via hi-power cables. Massive nuclear installation world wide will thus be constrained by Uranium supplies, (Areva french monopoly, is scrambling world wide to get access to sources in Africa/Asia). Until we change nuclear technology, 4th gen. or further, allowing use of poor grade uranium as feedstock.
In such a context gas fired electrical power plants make sense, PROVIDED they are COGENERATION plants, making heat loops for urban consumers as well as electrical supply.
These plants can be built much closer to urban centers and due to cogeneration have an overall efficiency of around 45-50% in terms of prime source conversion.
How's that for an argument for the future. As you know, the Russians will be pumping big amounts of gas to Europe. Not all countries are hot on nuclear, ex :Germany, for ecological reasons, as current technology does not resolve problems of waste treatment and future decommissioning of dead reactor sites. Plus the ongoing hazard during operational life!
So I see a future for gas based cogeneration plants of medium-large size in the future energy scene in Europe as elsewhere. I wonder if the UK experience you referred to involve cogeneration facilities?
Remember, gas plants are very reactive to demand, and very flexible operationally.
Your criticisms are valid to a extent - but uranium mining is a small factor in the overall cost structure of nuclear operation so a doubling of uranium price would have much less of a impact then oil/ gas rises.
But in regard to replacing the base load power plants which are primarily coal power stations with gas is crazy
The french find it hard to go beyond something like 80% nuclear load so therefore there could be a future use for gas electricity in urban centres to cater for increase/ decreases in power demand.
Check out what these lying fucktards who drill do to the environment (fracking) and you'll quickly discover the true meaning of "not in my backyard". HBO had a great documentary on the effects of natural gas (drilling, same thing) did to well water, streams, etc. I've got a buddy who works on a drill rig in western ND in the big bakken formation - the sheer number of gallons of chemicals pumped into the ground under high pressure is amazing. They only get about 1/3 of it back - but hey, we're here to drill right? If you dump a gallon of chemical "X" in the ditch outside the EPA's office they'd take away your birthday. Millions of gallons of toxic shit pumped into the ground over the years - no worries. You fuck with clean water and you will pay a price you can't imagine. That said, I've got to go fill up my 12 m.p.g. Fordasaurus.
We are kinda fucked up the ass either way. The key is to choose the smallest dildo.
Make mine with KY... please?
NO KY FOR YOU! (says the ky nazi)
no kidding...a friend of the wife has flaming faucet syndrome from fracking a mile away from her place in williamsport pa.
her water well is so contaminated its insane
not to mention how damn inefficient ng is in a car engine, and thats preached as a solution
and ,what a damn fireball they make if the vehicle crashes
a cop in niagara falls got killed via the exploding car thing
Why doesn't she heat her house with it? She can drink cokes instead.
Dad used to say "You can't get water (or oil) from a rock"
Please watch or read if you like: 8 part video lecture...basic math required.
http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy_vid...
Read if you want:
http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy_tra...
Donkeys... their not just for bachelor parties anymore.
The same Round Table psychos who set themselves up nicely in the Anglo-American intelligence communities during and immediately after WW2 have known this day would come, and they have been preparing for it for a long time.
Pray that they have squirreled away the patents and devices for energy sources as potent as oil was, and pray that they are allowed to be released. Otherwise, get ready for one long, clusterfucked emergency for the rest of your and your kids' lives.
Otherwise, just give this post a 1 star and move right the hell along.
"Pray that they have squirreled away the patents and devices for energy sources as potent as oil was, and pray that they are allowed to be released."
LOL!
They weren't even willing to play with numbers to clean up virtual (finanicial) books for the small guy and we're hoping that they actually make something with substance available?
As I've been noting, yes, the US goverment IS working on and IS interested in energy in order to sustain its military, which protects the wealthy elite. Will they share with the rest? Uh, no. Just like if they were able to develop a viable space "shuttle" to elsewhere there would only be limited flights, and it's pretty safe to say that none of our asses would be having a seat...
my spectacular genes would merit me a seat but surely it'd be too crowded with their mediocre offspring
Typical US reaction first sign of trouble: just panic and retreat into old, ugly technology and short-term thinking.
Remember this is not our planet, we are just a parasite race trying to keep one step ahead of extinction.
Burning every drop of oil we can find, how clever is that?
I hoped we were slightly further down the evolutionary road.
Not a chance -cavemen still.
There are any number of clean technologies out there, and any number of ways to reduce consumption.
We are supposed to be setting up a new fresh start, having cleaned out the Wall St. & Washington stables.
The tar sands of Athabaska, and the Alaskan wastes?
Get a fucking grip the lot of you.
How about your country lead the way? Go totally green. Be a good roll model for us. You think you are superior to us anyway. Why not prove it to us in this case? Show us dumb Americans how smart you Brits are.
I bet you ride your bike to work rain or shine dont
you? Maybe pogo stick it when you are feeling a
little cheeky!
Spoiled brat!
2/3 of the world's population lives on $3/day or less. Do you want THEM to reduce THEIR consumption? Are you going to provide some of YOUR energy for them?
They call it the American Dream for a reason- it's a dream! Fantasy land! Endless clean energy, infinite resources available, warm baths, warm food, airplane travel wherever, whenever.
Promoting growth is short-term thinking.
The issue is slightly different: how much can be collected when the lower ranks are pressured?
This explains partially the booming of world population.
People living off $100 per day require a certain number of people living off $3 per day to alleviate their sufferings when times grow harsh.
Pushing a 3$ person out of one third of its daily consumption only releases $1, 1/100th of the daily consumption of the $100 per day person.
A troublesome consequence of extorting the weak, farming the poor.
35 years after Carter I have to ask if energy independence is an actual national goal.
It's impossible. No more than another fantasy, like flying cars. More BS to stir the masses so that they chip in to keep the game going for TPTB (who don't care what racket is undertaken as long as they stay in power).
As long as growth is promoted we'll never achieve "energy independence."
As it turns out maybe we are buying up everyone elses oil until SHTF and saving our resources for critical times. I doubt it is an intentional strategy by the goons in office but may work out that way.
++
Actually, one of the all-time biggest capitalist actually said as much back in the early 70s: Forbes (which one escapes me at the moment). Funny that, when the Saudis say the same thing these days we're all over them accusing them of being socialists or something...
For those who don't believe that the US govt isn't aware of all this, all the ramifications, you need to read the 2010 JOE Report. Pretty starkly stated.
If Alaska oil is a national security resource, why would we want to use before there is an actual threat to national security? I think it is more clever that we get other nations to exhaust their oil first in exchange for electronic money that the Fed prints for free.
I like your style
That's part of the plan.
When they set the ME on fire and make oil unavailable for much of Europe and Japan they will crash the USD and Teasuries leaving SA holding their digital magic beans and thus fueling a new hate engine that will carry their order from chaos from a currency war to a energy/resource war.
But low and behold the oil from previously unproductive NA sites will flow, albeit at a premium price.
Now...who is it that is enriched by war again...?
How about 100 brand new nuclear energy plants on an environmental fast track. At only $5 billion a copy (price lowered with volume) we're talking on $500 billion which is just one QE II. Think of all the engineering and construction jobs not to mention the reduction in imported energy costs that now will stay at home. Anybody have a problem with a stronger dollar? We'll move to electric or hybrid cars quicker and it will give us a few decades of breathing space while we develop some of Nick Tesla's finer discoveries and cut oil consumption even more.
The only problem is, is that the elite Kleptocracy of America is in oil and it gives them a handle on American's so they can drain us of our lifes blood. They're a bunch of gravy sucking pigs and will deserve to be stuck with indictments and roasted at trial and served up to Big Bubba at the local pen, just where hogs ought to be.
Here's to the New American Revolution. It's on its way.
That is far too sane.... besides it smacks of Marxism... At least Glen Beck told me so.
I don't get your point. How exactly is nuclear power a substitute for oil ?
electric or hydrogen powered cars.
Electric cars with today's technology is just utopia, why? There is not enough material to build batteries, there is no infrastructure to distribute so much energy all over the place, batteries don't like low temperatures and many more. Hydrogen? you want now to convert your water to fuel? And where you find the energy to do it? Hydrogen is very dangerous and even with special tanks and refueling stations you would have a lot of boom-boom around.
Vanadium batteries. Plenty of it.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-heres-how-we-get-energy-inde...
People continue to think that the roads are for Them!
Interstate Transport was meant for commerce, for trucking (as well as provide emergency landing space).
If you can't address trucking then it's all a bust. Sadly, however, trucking is subsidized by POV (trucks can't pay enough taxes to operate the roads, without having the cost of good jacked up [I'm all for removing subsidies so we know the true costs of things, but I'm just not seeing it]).
Very simple, first step - build them, build dense network of railways for electrically powered engines, no diesel, creating jobs at the same time. Eliminate for starters all those trucks on highways and save fuel for other transportation needs (for now, until you get rid of 200 km wide and long cities), then when electricity is cheap enough (nukes,wind,solar cow shit whatever) switch to electric heat in all houses. It will require a lot of copper, steel and workers to put it in to reality but it would give you time to work on new technologies.
Underground maglev. Limited stops, very high speed comprable to aircraft speed. Underground there is no weather or animals or other crap to block the rails, impede the flow of traffic.
Engineering jobs, tunneling jobs, maintenance jobs and operating jobs. not to mention station/terminal/retail jobs.
3 tubes bored into the earth - means no train collisions, trains only travel in one direction.
roundhouses turn them around and away we go. Middle tube for maintenance.
Add 2 more tubes and run automated high speed freight 24x7 - when it absolutely has to be there by 5pm.
I think you're too smart for those "drill baby, drill" guys or hydrogen and electic cars fans, they don't want to reduce usage of oil, they want to find new sources (which is not possible, world population grows too fast). We can give them hundreds of ideas how to cut oil use and create jobs but they don't want to hear it! They love those SUV's and doghouses with granite table tops spread all over the country burning NG and oil which we should preserve until we find new economical sources of energy.
And we're to build all this, a huge parallel infrastructure, while heavily in debt?
Mr. banker, I won't be paying my mortgage for a while as I have to use my money to do some remodeling. Oh, and while you're there/here, I'd like to take out a second mortgage so I can complete this remodel.
I suppose with a big public works project, the kind that all the capitalists here love, this could be done in no time, and would only reroute money from private business, no problem!
You don't have to do it. But at the same time don't complain about food stamps, unemployment and high energy cost, add to that some funds from military spending and you will not have to borrow too much. At least you can redirect those funds to something which will improve your situation in the future. Don't you think you'll pay for all those spoon fed banks? Use those funds. And who says you have to start full speed with all those projects. You can build them up over time when some savings from other programs (SS, food stamps,energy) will start to come in. And last why it should reroute money from private business? I think private business would benefit from that greatly.
It does strike one as strange that we live in a culture where billions and trillions of dollars are "invested" in churning paper and creating nothing but electronic profits and losses, yet the populace gets their panties in a wad attempting to consider how to fund basic infrastructure.
We use the already "in place" corrupt "magic" monetarist system of creating fiat from thin air and instead of ladling it into the pockets of Wall Street to create more record breaking bonuses, we use it to finance institutions and groups which have the engineering or scientific abilities to transform this fiat into real structures that could benefit the societies in which we all dwell.
An interstate highway system for the 21st century - could be a meme to plant in those who do not have the abilities to reason and comprehend beyond the artificial world their media immersion has implanted within them.
It can be done - we have the science, we have the materials and we have the people, we don't have the political will or the media/corporate goodwill and propaganda to implement it.
We live in a world where the common good is no longer even contemplated yet alone designed and implemented. Is it by design or merely bad luck that we find ourselves in such a place, where we are surrounded by possible solutions, but the only plan is more of the same and lets double down while we are at it?
Is God malevolent or just clumsy? Substitute your favorite diety or political party or other reigning omnipotent social element for "God" in this perrenial favorite unanswerable question.
We merely need to step outside the 2 party polka, the 2 eagles engaged in mid air combat, ignorant and unaware of their imminent deadly crash into the hard ground below, neither side wishing to give, preferring death to loss or continual combat, they die entwined and with them so dies a nation.
Another big problem is the energy mix in energy surplus / exporting countries - while it may be unwise to give nuclear technology to the Muslim world at the moment to reduce their gas/ oil use in the electricity sphere - a country like Australia could easily build a half dozen nuclear stations to increase its net exports of coal.
"Another big problem is the energy mix in energy surplus / exporting countries - while it may be unwise to give nuclear technology to the Muslim world at the moment to reduce their gas/ oil use in the electricity sphere"
What happened to the libertarian thought here? It's up to us to say what other countries can or can't do?
Can you say social planning?
The higher the initial capital investment the more important planning is to the industry - its just the way of things.
If nuclear was easy we would have it already.
However if you want a agrarian existence and can survive the coming shit storm of violence then you can have your libertarian dreams - I hope you can get through this.
His main points are valid. 1) Gas Tax wouldn't work. 2) Govt couldn't spend the tax correctly anyway. 3) Not having to rely on MENA is a good thing no matter how you look at it.
As far as tapping reserves we currently have? Save it for later indefinitely. Import the rest with debt and inflate out of it. Status quo. Keep the R&D going on new tech.
Not a bad idea if we can keep fooling them into selling it to us.
Last thing to do is build any nuke plants the obvious future of energy,
none built since 1979 and none to be built anytime soon.
Let the free energy technology be released for all to have and see. It is already here. I have seen tons of it with my own eyes and no it is not solar. LET IT OUT - we already have it. It is simply disgusting that it is not released. Disgusting. We have had it for about 30 years. LET IT OUT. It IS time.
uh...another zero point energy scam? I suppose you have invented the perpetual motion machine and have single handedly overturned the laws of thermodynamics?
Yes, I said FREE. Now you have to building the buggers but once you build it - self-renewing and so fabulous. Oh it does rock.
Do tell.
It's FREE! (but in really fine print: ignore the costs!)
Denial, it's quite a powerful emotion. It can turn an otherwise functioning brain into a blob of jelly...
ANWR might give us a month or a year, but in the meantime what makes you think any alternatives will develop?
We've had decades to sort this out, and have not. Not coming.
The world will become "bigger," because everyone will be walking, and things will slow down.
I'd rather see this country reduced to canabalism than destroy the last wildernesses on Earth for more oil.
Fortunately you will never become president with that kind of platform nor win any spelling bees.
"last wildernesses" ?
I call dims' minds the vast void of darkness.....
double bogey..
With percapita oil consumption @ 12 barrels per person per year our immigration policy alone needs an additional 24 million barrels a year (assuming a 0% increase in legal & illegal immigration rates of 2 million per year) just to meet current federal immigration policy-(assuming zero domestic population growth) and this assumes no decline from current production levels.
Of course we're scheduled for lots more immigration (as proposed in every debt commission meeting I've seen), as the population grows you need more immigration to get the same immigration bump effect.
1% of 310 million people is 3.1 million immigrants, to get the same effect when we have 500 million people we'll need 5 million immigrants a year.
Thank you for pointing this important point out. GROWTH has EVERYTHING to do with it (energy).
I won't nit pick on legal vs. illegal other than to state that the US has a huge "legal" quota, and that everyone who sees an "illegal" hiding in every closet needs to be careful about painting with That big brush!
In effect the system has to have growth. TBTB builds it in, when they could as easily leave it out. The reason is twofold:
1) Growth hides all sorts of corruption (when the music stops then everyone all of a sudden thinks that corruption has just stated [with administration "X"]);
2) Demographics- the white population, preoccupied with techno-gadgets and climbing corporate ladders, failed to supply sufficient replacements; and as they age there needs to be people to do the work (and pay/subsidize the aging)- guess who? (look around at whos is cleaning white people's asses in nursing homes, etc.)
Oh, I'm sponsoring an immigrant, my wife. For those who might be pissy about this, she's employed in Canada, which means that ALL her net salary is imported to the US pie (she "took" no job [from Whitey- yeah, she's not "white").
Tyler, I just can't deal with this nonsense....
Please make the following a guest post or whatever you can do:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7460
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7522
The endless stream of industry shills and hacks is wearing thin....
I have read everything at oil drum. P.S. I didn't junk you.
It still seems we need to drill like crazy right now in order to give us relativelycheaper energy temporarliy and give us a better chance to get out of our current mess. Once we are financially stable we will be in a better position to go green.
I disagree with their time frames because we have substitutes for petroleum and we can become more efficient like Japan. That squeezes out a few more years. althought the "land export model" or whatever they call it (can't remember) does kinda scare me a bit in terms of the amount of internationally traded oil in the next ten years.
The ONLY way to get cheaper energy is to nationalize it. That's what you're in effect saying, because under most circumstances the oil goes out on to the open market. The amounts of oil that drill-baby-drill could produce wouldn't be enough to influence the open market to any real degree.
Financially stable? Have you seen what's on the Fed's books? No, nothing ever went away, we're still sitting firmly on a pile of debt! And doing so as our exports shrink and our population ages (and becomes less productive).
If you skip the facts then anything can be made to sound good. Just sayin'. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to continue to have cheap energy, but all my research tells me that that's like betting that the US govt and the financial sector will come clean (and we can have perpetual growth on a finite planet). So, I go with the odds (Marc Farber is calling agriculture, and that's where I'm placing my chips).
It is unavoidable...it is your desssstiny
Energy independence is achievable through house arrest of all Dim voters.
Keep those dips from wasting energy.
God knows, they waste enough air.
I am very keen on seeing the full constitution for the Republic of Mynhair!
Hint: bags over heads are restricted to those that require 2.
Ala, Meryl Streep, and the other fool.
por favor, vamos a el amazon con sus equipaje. Tenemos rios de aceite. And I'll bite your ass
Please, relocate to DC, bite ODummer's ass, and thereby stop the font of all wisdom from His Golfness.
ZH is becoming the mecca of asshattery. If it isn't the gold 'currency' its the 'peak oil theory'.
What part of 'Running out' don't you understand?
The solution is conservation. The inevitable outcome is conservation. Choose yr poison.
The revolution that is taking place in the ME and elsewhere is the stake through the heart of the 'Peak Demand' theory. There are 500 million new customers for SUVs, flat screens, A/Cs and Internet jobs that didn't exist a couple of months ago! Add these to the millions in southern Africa and S. America which are going start rioting for their share of the good life ... tomorrow.
Instead of the 4 or 5 new Saudi Arabias we need to lift supply we are confronted with 4 or 6 new Chinas!
What is demand: someone who stands unarmed in front of a machine gun firing live ammunition so that he can enjoy cup holders. Not too many in the US willing to do this. I'd start looking @ bicycles if I were you ...
inevitable outcome is conservation?
Did you factor in the genocide of Libs in that brief spark in the vast void of darkness?
Algore has a G2, Rush has a G550. Which one is more enlightened?
You, Sir, don't have a big enough hat to fit your ass.
Fantastic as always steve.
Sad state of general understanding or Grokking so to speak. The 5 phases of dealing with it are tough to watch happen.
I love energy topics on ZH. I always get a good handful of interesting links.
Shame those few users that genuinely seem to know what they're talking about (not just copypasting from wikipedia) expend effort and time cunting each other off instead of bouncing ideas around.
Sorry I can't find a lame stream link for you.. My stuff comes from edication
and personal experience.
Ever met a Lib worth giving oxygen to?