This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: It's Not Just Gasoline Consumption That's Tanking, It's All Energy

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by Charles Hugh Smith from Of Two Minds

It's Not Just Gasoline Consumption That's Tanking, It's All Energy

It's not just gasoline consumption that's declining--petroleum and electricity consumption are also dropping. Is that indicative of economic growth?

A number of readers kindly forwarded additional data sources to me as followup on last week's entry describing sharply lower deliveries of gasoline. (Why Is Gasoline Consumption Tanking? February 10, 2012)

The basic thesis here is that petroleum consumption is a key proxy of economic activity. In periods of economic expansion, energy consumption rises. In periods of contraction, consumption levels off or declines.

This common sense correlation calls into question the Status Quo's insistence that the U.S. economy has decoupled from the global ecoomy and is still growing. This growth will create more jobs, the story goes, and expand corporate profits which will power the stock market ever higher.

Courtesy of correspondents Bob C. and Mark W., here are links and charts of petroleum consumption, imports/exports, and electricity consumption. Let's start with a chart of total petroleum products, which includes all products derived from petroleum (distillates, fuels, etc.) provided by Bob C. The chart shows the U.S. consumed about 21 million barrels a day (MBD) at the recent peak of economic activity 2005-07; from that peak, "product supplied" has fallen to 18 MBD. The current decline is very steep and has not bottomed.

This recent drop mirrors the decline registered in 2009 as the wheels fell off the global debt-based bubble. Those arguing that the U.S. economy is growing smartly and sustainably have to explain why petroleum consumption looks like 2009 when the economy tipped into a sharp contraction.

 

A link of interest from Mark W.: Montly U.S. Product Supplied of Finished Motor Gasoline (Thousand Barrels per Day) showing gasoline "product supplied" from 1945 to 2011. This shows gasoline has declined about 700,000 barrels per day from 2007, from 9.2 MBD to 8.5 MBD in November 2011. This represents about a 13% decline.

A number of readers wondered if gasoline imports might account for lower domestic shipments. That is a good question, and Bob C. found the answer in other EIA (U.S. Energy Information Agency) charts.

Weekly U.S. Imports of Total Gasoline (Thousand Barrels per Day)

Weekly Imports & Exports of Petroleum and Other Liquids (Thousand Barrels per Day)

Exports of Petroleum and Other Liquids

Here we see that of 8.5 million barrels a day of gasoline supplied, roughly 500,000 barrels are imported. In other words, the percentage of imported gasoline is modest.

 

 

The U.S. imports and exports petroleum products, but the net result is imports of around 8 million barrels a day. The U.S. imports about 10.5 MBD and exports almost 3 MBD for a net import total of 7.5 MBD. The secular decline in net imports from the 2006 top is consistent with the view that consumption has declined as a reflection of economic activity.

Mark W.also forwarded these charts of Electrical power consumption. Not only has electrical consumption never recovered the levels of mid-2008, it peaked in mid-2011 and has begun a sharp decline in late 2011.

 

 

I marked recent recessions on a long-term chart of electrical consumption to show that the deep recession of 1981-83 barely registered, while the recessions of 1990-91 and 2000-2002 are essentially noise.

 

 

That makes the secular decline from 2006 peaks all the more striking. (It is perhaps no coincidence that the housing bubble peaked in 2006-07 along with the extraction of home equity craze.)

Clearly, electrical consumption is in a downtrend with no recent historical precedent. Those claiming that U.S. growth is sustainable and the Dow is heading for 15,000 must square their rosy projections with sharply declining energy consumption. The two simply don't match up.

As a lagniappe, here is a link from correspondent Joel M. on downward revisions to shale oil estimates. This injects a note of realism in the recent euphoric depiction of the U.S. as having essentially boundless supplies of petroleum equivalents. Substantial, yes, virtually unlimited, no.

Shale gas estimates continue downward: Energy Bulletin.

 

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 02/14/2012 - 11:53 | 2157464 battlestargalactica
Tue, 02/14/2012 - 11:55 | 2157478 redpill
redpill's picture

Smells like defeat

 

If energy consumption is tanking why are gas prices so damn high?

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 11:57 | 2157487 Conman
Conman's picture

Why is the sky blue?

Why are diamonds so expensive?

Who does a ipad cost 500 when the parts only cost 300?

 

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 12:02 | 2157517 brewing
brewing's picture

why does radio shack ask for your phone number when you buy batteries...

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 12:12 | 2157561 dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

I have no doubt the DOW is going to 15,000. My concern is whether it will be relevant as the government will be the biggest holder of everything.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 15:30 | 2158494 Spigot
Spigot's picture

Quote: "This common sense correlation calls into question the Status Quo's insistence that the U.S. economy has decoupled from the global ecoomy and is still growing. This growth will create more jobs, the story goes, and expand corporate profits which will power the stock market ever higher."

OK, here's the paint on the pig. Corporate profits ARE INDEED expanding ... because they firing a huge # of people, and are selling off chunks of their own flesh (think Bain Capital), getting massive infusions of Federal cash, etc.

The COVER STORY SPIN that the MSM and the .GOV are running here (the above story line) is to cover the bare asses of the .CORP elites who ARE making money hand over fist across the dead and dying corpses of Main St peeps.

Think about it: If everyone is suffering while the 0.01% are eating their guts and calling it "wealth" then there would be a tad increase in over all resentment by to 99.99%.

So, a cover story has been adopted. To wit "!!RECOVERY IS ABROAD IN THE LAND!!" and that's what we have been force fed for the past 3 years. Obviously.NOT!

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 16:50 | 2158971 Archon7
Archon7's picture

With the kind of inflation the Fed's cooking these days, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Dow hit 50,000

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 12:12 | 2157568 Long-John-Silver
Long-John-Silver's picture

Batteries are required for remotely controlled explosive devices. Always remember that you can be arrested and detained if you have ANY bomb making materials in your home like batteries, plumbing pipe, and electrical wire. 

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 12:30 | 2157656 RafterManFMJ
RafterManFMJ's picture

 

 

As I'm not Amish, my house is full of electrical wire as well as plumbing pipes.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:09 | 2157868 Janice
Janice's picture

Yes, energy consumption is down. I am freezing my butt off because we can't afford a $500-$600 electric bill.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:31 | 2157975 Just Observing
Just Observing's picture

Pre-pay your electric bill by putting in solar.  My bill this month was minus 14 bucks.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:33 | 2157980 Silver Dreamer
Silver Dreamer's picture

In all seriousness, consider a kerosene heater.  It will run you about $130 to buy one.  Check Tractor Supply.  Then you can run it only when you need it, and you'll save a ton of money in the end compared to the house's electrical heating system.  If the grid goes down too, you'll have an alternative heat source.  Kerosene is more clandestine compared to a fireplace or wood stove as well.  The scent is far more difficult to detect, and it does not produce a plume of smoke.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 20:26 | 2159923 engineertheeconomy
engineertheeconomy's picture

carbon monoxide is not exactly the same as breathing oxygen

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 21:48 | 2160166 Silver Dreamer
Silver Dreamer's picture

And your point is what exactly? Very few homes are sealed well enough for it to be a problem.  My father used one when I was a child, and I use one today.  It's not a problem unless you live in a bubble.

Thu, 02/16/2012 - 01:50 | 2165017 RafterManFMJ
RafterManFMJ's picture

 

 

Pretty sure we all are living in a bubble. Treasury, Student loan, faith in .gov...more bubbles than Don Ho could count.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:58 | 2158090 Esso
Esso's picture

Janice, you might want to consider a NatGas or propane vent-free fireplace, heater or log set. They're 99.9% efficient and don't require electric power to operate.

I'm a contractor and have installed six of them now, including a vent-free fireplace in my house, a blue flame heater in the basement and a portable propane heater in the shop.

My NatGas bill to heat the house and cook now runs less than $30/month in NE Indiana in the winter.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 14:36 | 2158265 trav7777
trav7777's picture

concur...direct vent NG ftw

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 15:40 | 2158562 Silver Dreamer
Silver Dreamer's picture

Do you have a natural gas tank, or is it utility provided?  I'd consider NG if I were able to install a tank.  From what I understand, most residential folks cannot afford the cost and it simply isn't done?  You'd be the expert on it, and I'd love to know what you think.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:29 | 2157964 EndTheMedia
EndTheMedia's picture

Having a beard is suspect so even the Amish are suspected terrorist.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 16:46 | 2158932 GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

And they're often seen growing their own food!

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 22:16 | 2160226 sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

Amish are a national security threat. Just ask the USDA and DOJ.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 16:56 | 2158998 Archon7
Archon7's picture

Well, if you're Amish, you're safe from the DHS, but not the FDA:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/13/feds-shut-down-amish-far...

You'd be one of those fresh-milk-selling domestic terrorists...

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 12:32 | 2157665 Silver Dreamer
Silver Dreamer's picture

I fly a Gadsden (see my icon), have months worth of food and water stored, and am heavily armed.  From a past injury, I happen to be missing part of a finger too.  They can come get me any time they want, for I apparently fulfill many of the requirements to be a terrorist without even adding "bomb making materials" to the list.  Oh, and to the government agent now reading this comment: fuck you!

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:22 | 2157933 zerotohero
zerotohero's picture

Livin' in a paranoid state o' mind? How fun is that?

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:28 | 2157961 Silver Dreamer
Silver Dreamer's picture

Paranoid? Please explain.  I do not depend on the grocery store to feed my children, so that makes me paranoid?  Have you ever heard of the Boy Scouts?  What's their motto again?  I suppose they are all paranoid too, ehh?  Is our government paranoid as well?  Wake the hell up.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 14:02 | 2158100 aerojet
aerojet's picture

I say do as you please, but reading that does make you come off sounding more than a little paranoid--maybe it's the Gadsen thing.  The problem with all those kinds of symbols is that they have been hijacked by fringe elements to promote an agenda of hate.  So as soon as you display a Gadsen or whatever, you are making an association with fringe, far-right elements of society, e.g. the paranoid fringe. 

 

Also, all the bluster about being "heavily armed."  Yeah, it's the US.  Nobody cares that you're some kind of badass.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 14:27 | 2158208 Silver Dreamer
Silver Dreamer's picture

You do not know what the hell the Gadsden even stands for let alone how to spell the word.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 14:47 | 2158321 Toolshed
Toolshed's picture

OK......now take a deep breath. Feel better now? Good........but no one cares.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 16:54 | 2158985 GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

Some of us do care. If nothing else, American citizens should understand American history and be familiar with the concepts underlying the Gadsden flag. It is a tragedy that far too many do not care. Most of them are too young or too oblivious to understand how much our liberty has decreased over the decades.

Imagine the reaction to the text on another flag popular prior to the revolution: "Appeal to Heaven".

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 14:51 | 2158335 fxrxexexdxoxmx
fxrxexexdxoxmx's picture

You need to worry about the far left much more so than the far right. The left will kill your children and then tell you it was the best thing for everuyone. The left will spend eight years screaming that you support hate and war and then when their guy is in charge tell you it is peace.

The left produces leaders who say " 6% uemployment is a disgrace", yet when their guy has over 8% the economy is the bestest ever.

The left writes laws and then demands the laws passage before you can read it.

The left what a bunch of national socialists.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 15:13 | 2158417 wee-weed up
wee-weed up's picture

 

 

"The left will spend eight years screaming that you support hate and war and then when their guy is in charge tell you it is peace."

 

Great quote!

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 16:11 | 2158743 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

fxrxexexdxoxmx said:

You need to worry about the far left much more so than the far right. The left will...[blah blah blah]

-1 for still viewing the world through left/right liberal/conservative democrat/republican blinders.

 

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 17:01 | 2159031 Archon7
Archon7's picture

The left has the disturbing Orwellian ability not only to say with utmost sincerity that black is white, up is down, good is bad, truth is a lie, etc, but also to firmly believe it in the core of their being, and are unable to imagine it ever being another way...  that is, until their Dear Leader calls on them to believe in there being another way...

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 19:28 | 2159731 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

obviously "the left" side of your reality offends thee - best cut it out/off before the "right" side notices. . .

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 14:17 | 2158167 zerotohero
zerotohero's picture

zzzzzzzzzzzz - I prefer to dream of better times not live in a bunker state of mind.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 14:23 | 2158185 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

In other words you prefer to live in a delusional state and pretend that the real world doesn't exist around you.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 14:40 | 2158284 zerotohero
zerotohero's picture

We all live in the real world - how you choose to live in it is a personal choice - dream for better times ahead or lock and load mentality - whatever turns your crank.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 22:19 | 2160240 sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

Maybe the people in concentration camps should have just dreamed of a better world while they starved to death

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 14:31 | 2158234 Silver Dreamer
Silver Dreamer's picture

You are like most, and you accept ignorance to remain blissful.  It's your choice.  The ignorance works as long as the system does, so why question it, right?  I do not have a bunker by the way, but the government has thousands of them--many newly built.  Boy Scouts make a lifestyle out of being prepared too, but those boys must all be crazy however.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 14:38 | 2158271 zerotohero
zerotohero's picture

PLEASE do not get me started on the Boy Snouts organization where grown men go to play.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 14:48 | 2158327 Toolshed
Toolshed's picture

Grown GAY men you mean.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 15:18 | 2158432 wee-weed up
wee-weed up's picture

Sandusky for Scoutmaster!

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 19:33 | 2159744 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

actually Toolshed, "gay men" are verboten in the Boy Scouts - hence the hidden abuse, rather like religious priests - but hey, what's a little abuse among men?

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 22:24 | 2160256 sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

So if they allowed gay men into the Scout there would be no abuse? It must be all the hetero scout leaders and priests who are molesting BOYS. Makes perfect sense in the politically correct world

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 02:38 | 2160793 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

makes more sense in the repressed sexuality of phallic worshipping cultures forced to use females as their go-betweens.

and I'm sure you'll find most males molesting young boys pass as hetero in their culture.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 14:33 | 2158245 Stuck on Zero
Stuck on Zero's picture

Being paranoid doesn't make him cranky.  His hemorroids are making him cranky.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 16:07 | 2158721 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

zerotohero asked:

Livin' in a paranoid state o' mind? How fun is that?

Ask Janet Napolitano.

 

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 16:59 | 2159011 GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

See Something: I saw a picture of her.

Say Something: Does the sound of gagging count as saying something?

This is not a comment about her appearance, but what she represents.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 20:39 | 2159963 engineertheeconomy
engineertheeconomy's picture

Her creepy appearance speaks volumes about the lack of integrity of HLS, NSA, FEMA, etc.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 22:25 | 2160263 sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

Maybe he's taking after the Department of Homeland Security under Mr Napolitano. See something, say something and let someone stick their hands down your pants to make sure there's no bomb in your underwear

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:27 | 2157957 knightowl77
knightowl77's picture

+1 Could not agree more

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 12:42 | 2157714 andybev01
andybev01's picture

I hide my batteries in my TV remote.

 

The wire and pipes are between the wall board and under the sink.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 12:48 | 2157747 nodhannum
nodhannum's picture

Damn, your tricky!  Just like a terrorist would be.  Behing the walls, I never thought of that.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:51 | 2158061 323
323's picture

lol

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 16:13 | 2158752 Belarusian Bull
Belarusian Bull's picture

I lol'ed.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:01 | 2157821 Dcheeth2
Dcheeth2's picture

That's me stuffed. My house has all of the above, being connected to mains water, the electricity grid and I own a torch.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 16:15 | 2158758 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

TERRIST!!!1!

 

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 19:37 | 2159758 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

your words show you to be a non-amrkn, so you're off the homeland trrrrst hook - these laws are for domestics, but know that at any moment they may encompass you, your home. . . and your torch.  beware!

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:45 | 2158035 carguym14
carguym14's picture

"arrested and detained" is soooo 20th century.

Rendition is now the preferred term.

There is no love,but love of big brother.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 17:07 | 2159097 AmCockerSpaniel
AmCockerSpaniel's picture

Do you have to show ID when buying a cell phone?

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 12:12 | 2157569 trav7777
trav7777's picture

the dirty secret is that production has declined in terms of net BTUs. There is no other choice but for consumption to decline.

Prices will maintain themselves because slack capacity is limited.

As prices stay high, people find ways like turning down the thermostat, turning off lights, consuming less, in order to decrease their outlays.  It's a self-reinforcing cycle.

What we are in right now...the world seems upside down.  That's because it is.  There is no sinister illumilateral conspiracy to kill off the world after 400 years of growth.  Aggregate energy supply has reached a maximum and it is declining.   This is what CONTRACTION looks like.  It's not a sudden crash, just a seemingly unabated malaise.  There are pockets of countertrend moves periodically but they do not abate the trend.  Every time we get a bounce, people get hopeful that we're turning the corner but the trend reasserts itself mercilessly.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 12:40 | 2157704 Xkwisetly Paneful
Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

The government is by far and away the largest user of energy,

there is no precipitous decline without the government's usage declining.

Otherwise excellent entertainment within, from cash for clunkers worked to the usual peak oil littany.

Only thing missing unless I missed it was the lack of blame the evil zionistas way,

I read so many times that the US invaded Iraq for cheap oil except that oil is now twice the price it was pre invasion and this during a global economic downturn.

 

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 12:47 | 2157736 trav7777
trav7777's picture

no, the government is not the largest user of energy, you idiot.

The largest user of oil is the transportation sector.  The government is ONE slice of that and hardly large enough to shave 2mbpd off of imports.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 12:48 | 2157748 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

although the U.S. military numbers are impressive, they use more energy than most countries.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 12:52 | 2157754 Xkwisetly Paneful
Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

the government is the largest user and there is no precipitous decline without a drastic reduction of government usage.

and it is not close either.

 BTW keep on keepin' on! peak oil is more relevant to the price than the underlying depreciating dollar,

I read it on the internets.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 12:52 | 2157766 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Peak oil?  We have unicorns to solve that problem!

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:01 | 2157818 Xkwisetly Paneful
Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

Is unicorn piss radioactive?

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 14:06 | 2158112 Esso
Esso's picture

Only Japanese unicorn piss. The Skittles too.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 17:05 | 2159071 Archon7
Archon7's picture

Unicorn piss was yesterday.  Unicorn shit is da' shit today...

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:17 | 2157888 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

Get it straight, the military is the largest using "entity" but it is only 2% of the US use.  Piss in the bucket.     

http://www.peak-oil-news.info/military-oil-usage-statistics/

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:25 | 2157950 Xkwisetly Paneful
Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

Good edit. Should have stuck with the first version.

2% which is inaccurate by the way, depending on peak-oil . com for accurate information pretty much says it all.

total  state, local and federal government consumption  is over 3% and is a MONSTER NUMBER.

Get it straight! HAHAHAHHAHAHAH sure imbecile-straight equals denying the government's usage and then minimizing it because you don't understand jackshit.

Just cannot make up this kind of stuff.

 

 

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:58 | 2158044 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

3%. That leaves 97% hmmm. Good point, we should only rely on government data. As you remind us, i'm sure it's all the radical muslims' fault 

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 14:07 | 2158120 Xkwisetly Paneful
Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

Yea only 3% that's nothing compared to the entities that use 40%.

Huge compared to those that use tenths of percent or the rest.

Supah sharp, good point.

Thanks again for playing.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 14:16 | 2158162 narapoiddyslexia
narapoiddyslexia's picture

95% of all statistics are made up on the spot. I can prove it.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 17:06 | 2159082 Archon7
Archon7's picture

... all you need to do is say that same thing 18 more times, with different percentages each time.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 14:39 | 2158280 trav7777
trav7777's picture

3% of 9mbpd is an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE LESS THAN THE DROP IN CONSUMPTION, you fucking RETARD.

Now shut the fuck up.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:24 | 2157942 Stoploss
Stoploss's picture

Thamk you, i forgot the military only uses the skittles the unicorns shit as fuel.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:34 | 2157994 EndTheMedia
EndTheMedia's picture

I thought all government employees were driving chevy volts now. They should not be using any energy all, just magic electricity that comes from a hole in the wall.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 17:07 | 2159091 GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

Reading your post brought to mind the image of Obama in a government armored limo based on the Volt. It'd serve him right.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:47 | 2158046 tmosley
tmosley's picture

ITT "big brained" tards can't tell the difference between energy and fuel.

Which explains a lot of your stupidity, actually.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:50 | 2158058 malek
malek's picture

I cannot find any clear breakdown of US energy use, which also shows heating (room and water) and cooling (room) energy use.

However I find it very hard to believe that transportation would top that in the US - for example in Germany heating uses up almost double the transportation sector (as cooling is rarely needed).

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 14:44 | 2158305 trav7777
trav7777's picture

I have a DOE graphic...it's been posted on here before.  Shows total energy usage by type and sector.

The majority of oil consumption in the USA is transportation.

35 total oil quads in '09, of which 25 went to transportation.  Most of the remainer to industrial stuff, iow petrochem.

What this means is that of all oil consumed, 18mbpd, 5/7 of that is transport.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 15:33 | 2158516 tmosley
tmosley's picture

We're talking about ENERGY, not FUEL, you idiot.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 15:51 | 2158641 trav7777
trav7777's picture

do you know what a "quad" is you ridiculous FUCK?

JFC you are stupid

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 15:54 | 2158660 tmosley
tmosley's picture

You are talking about oil and pretending that oil is the only source of energy, you logical fallacy using fuck.

Most FUEL comes from oil.  Most ENERGY comes from coal.  But you want to conflate the two.  This is not an accident.  You are a fucking liar.  GTFO.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 17:47 | 2159322 trav7777
trav7777's picture

god fucking DAMN you are stupid.

I responded to "However I find it very hard to believe that transportation would top that in the US - for example in Germany heating uses up almost double the transportation sector (as cooling is rarely needed)."

Can you fucking READ, you fucking IDIOT?

He found it hard to believe that ENERGY used for transportation would exceed ENERGY used for heating (aka, residential and commercial).  I cited a document showing that it most certainly DOES.

Now that we have established that you are stupid PLUS illiterate, let's move onto "dead fucking wrong too," shall we?

From 2009, DOE estimates on quads used (you can look up what a quad is, moron, try it sometime).  Just to make it easy for you because I am certain that basic web searches are lightyears beyond your feeble capacity, a quad is a quadrillion BTUs.  From the DOE estimates for '09, from the Livermore Lab (google them too, asshole), transportation uses 25.34 quads from oil.

How many from COAL (for all uses), where "most ENERGY" (your words) comes from?  According to the genius Cliff Mosely-Claven....let's see here.

Drum roll, please.

19.76.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, Cliff (yeah right, that'll be the fucking day), but 25.34 is MORE than 19.76.  In fact, nearly DOUBLE the amount of "energy" comes from oil as it does from coal (if we factor in other uses of oil along with transportation).  Oil totals 35+ quads.

Now, if your claim was that ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATION is majority coal, then you would have been closer to correct, but that simply is NOT what you claimed.  At any rate, coal power is NOT a majority; it is 18.3 quads out of 38.2, which is less than half.  Your notion that fuel is not energy is just so utterly fucking absurd that I cannot even wrap my brain around how dumb you are.

In summation, you are both stupid and obnoxious.  Not ONE THING you claimed was correct.

Now SHUT THE FUCK UP before I have to get REALLY abusive, ok?  Slink the fuck off like you always do after getting bitchslapped in here.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 18:15 | 2159430 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Bitch, you mad.

Yes, I was thinking of electricity, rather than total energy consumption.  That doesn't change the fact that you are presenting oil as the sum total of all energy sources, when it isn't, ie you use lots of terms of art and bluster to fucking LIE.

I don't need a thousand words to communicate that, and GASP, I don't have to open, interject, and end with insults either.  Because I am superior to you.  :)

Also, sorry you have driven away everyone you ever loved :(

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 19:22 | 2159713 trav7777
trav7777's picture

I stand by my conclusions and your concession to them is noted.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 21:18 | 2160083 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Yes, I'm sure I'll never hear the end of that.  Yes, an ACTUAL mistake that you can repeat over and over.

 

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 08:43 | 2161008 Archduke
Archduke's picture

.

 

it would be interesting to adjust this with rise in energy prices

and look instead at dollar energy expenditure,

not btu production / consumption.

 

modern energy trading has become rather sophisticated with arbitrage and

spikes in one form affect dips in an other.  In the US, this is mostly with

respect to coal/grid (dark spread/spark spread), whereas in europe it's

much more liquid relying on natural gas and even fuel-based generation.

energy providers are vertically integrated, which means they produce,

ship, and refine product, generate electricty, and trade these against each

other.  from this you'd expect more targeted and cyclical fuel use in terms

of btus, but a much flatter expenditure when factoring in generated power.

 

but hey: here's a lighter take on the subject of energetic exposure:

 

http://cryptome.org/2012-info/femen-moscow/femen-moscow.htm

 

 

 

Thu, 02/16/2012 - 04:00 | 2165126 malek
malek's picture

Link to that DOE graphic?

And even for oil, 5/7 of all oil for transportation seems a bit high... how many people are using heating oil in serious quantities? As not everyone has a natural gas line to his house, or bought a LNG tank.
(And using electricity for general heating is even worse: the electricity was generated at a plant with maybe 35% efficiency - that means 65% of the primary energy was blown out the power plant chimney!)

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 18:30 | 2159508 Matt
Matt's picture

I read so many times that the US invaded Iraq for cheap oil except that oil is now twice the price it was pre invasion and this during a global economic downturn.

Just imagine how much more expensive oil and its products would be, if oil was free to be traded in Euros and African Dinars, instead of in USD. The less USD is in demand for purchasing goods, including oil, the lower its value. That is the connection between Iraq, Libya, and "cheap oil".

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 12:51 | 2157739 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

There is no sinister illumilateral conspiracy to kill off the world after 400 years of growth. 

You are quite right.  The conspiracy is not to kill off, but to mitagate the collapse of cheap energy.  They will mask the problem until the last minute and their hope is that the Fiat Ponzi and peak oil will collapse as one with an excuse like Israel nuking some crazy country being the trigger. 

Luckily the Unicorn Brigade have pattens to make cheap energy from....well shit I am not smart enough to understand their design but they have it covered!

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 12:54 | 2157782 Xkwisetly Paneful
Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

YEa gotta save that petro dollar!

Same one that has died eight times the last 40yrs and is still somehow responsible for 65% of world commerce plummeting from 75% 40yrs ago.

Same one the whole world fled into in DEC 2008 when crap hit fan.

Save the petro dollar at all costs!

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:07 | 2157849 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Obviously the dollar plays a huge role.  And this is the problem for the oilgarchs and policy makers.  They are between a rock and a hard place.  They are raising asset prices and killing real growth and at the same time supply is tight and could drop off a cliff at any time.

So between a rock and a hard place they are, yet they likely knew where they were heading the whole time.  They are smart, well educated, but at the same time, are the clever enough to ram their plan through? 

They have mindfucked the status quo by flouridating and entertaining them.  Now they will, once again, pull the veil over the eyes of the populace.  How will they institute their Police State?  For if they don't we can have our freedom.  It is a leap of faith for the oilgarchs.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:13 | 2157884 Xkwisetly Paneful
Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

Bingo the pertro dollar needs saving! Like it has eight times since the oil embargo in the early 70's.

 and they planned Fukashima to insure no new nuke plants in the US for another 35yrs.

 

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:25 | 2157951 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Nuke plants are constantly failing because of upkeep.  It was only a matter of time before there was another Chernobyl.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:44 | 2158031 Xkwisetly Paneful
Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

Constantly failing! good one.   Right on target description. Upkeep too, afterall 3mile isle and Chernobyl failed during upkeep known as government safety testing.

Obviously part of the government conspiracy to funnel funds to nonsense bullshit alternatives like unicorn piss.

 

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 17:15 | 2159147 GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

I recently read an article about the use of Thorium rather than Uranium for reactors. It reminded me of something I learned 40-odd years ago in college. The gist of the article was this: thorium is much better for civilian reactors than uranium, but can't be used to create weapons-grade uranium or plutonium.

I wonder if that means Iran really does want to make nuclear weapons, when the safer alternative was in plain sight.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 17:52 | 2159340 trav7777
trav7777's picture

dude...you're aware that the vast majority of reactors are not used for plutonium production, right?

The issue is a lot deeper than you have been led to believe.  Thorium reactors are less proliferation prone than uranium reactors; this should NOT lead to a conclusion that uranium reactors are used BECAUSE they are more proliferation prone or that thorium reactors are better than uranium ones.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 18:35 | 2159538 Matt
Matt's picture

Or maybe Iran wants to use technology that has been in widespread use for ~50 years, rather than trying to pioneer the first commercial LFTR with limited resources.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 14:00 | 2158062 tired1
tired1's picture

With +$700 trillion is global assets and two centuries of experience (and with no perceived personal risk) what is really at stake to the top? Got a prob with fiat - doesn't matter. There are trillions of PM's on the side just waiting to help you sell your soul. As long as men can be bribed this shit will continue.

Ruin a country, ruin a continent; so what? Some folks will survive and a banker will be around to whisper in their ears. The terrible thing is that it's not complicated: simple compound interest. No system can infinatelly grow at a given rate without collapsing. The smarter among us have realized that it's just a con job and will do well. Those with a conscience, that cannot play along, well..................

I'll let you know if I am able.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:09 | 2157843 Marley
Marley's picture

Ssssssh!, you're not suppose to expose our secret society.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJFO26bOfEQ&feature=relmfu

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 17:08 | 2159102 Archon7
Archon7's picture

"Luckily the Unicorn Brigade have pattens to make cheap energy from.."

 

... unicorn shit

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:01 | 2157814 BobPaulson
BobPaulson's picture

Opposite sides of Hubbard's peak look very different.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:09 | 2157870 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Technology, a utopian's best friend, will finish off the low hanging fruit quickly, won't it?

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 14:46 | 2158317 trav7777
trav7777's picture

bbbut...bbbut...IONIC LIQUIDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

certainly those will be magic and will enable us to stripmine the athabasca much faster.  Then we will build a pipeline to Titan

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 15:56 | 2158667 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Yes, because the processes that produced methane on Titan could NEVER take place anywhere else.

Yet more biased bullshit from Trav.  No surprise to be found anywhere on that one.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 17:53 | 2159348 trav7777
trav7777's picture

if you were smart, you'd understand how irrelevant the biotic vs abiotic argument is.

You'd understand that only rate of production matters.  Reserves do not.

I routinely tell people during arguments about PO to assume reserves are infinite.  It's not even germane to the argument what reserves are or where oil comes from.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 18:18 | 2159442 tmosley
tmosley's picture

If you were smart, you wouldn't assume that technology doesn't advance in the face of necessity.

Trav sez Necessity ISN'T the mother of Invention.  And Trav took an IQ test and uses lots of capitalized words, so he must be right.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:14 | 2157897 fourchan
fourchan's picture

10 million+ people not going to work could have something to do with the numbers.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:25 | 2157949 BobPaulson
BobPaulson's picture

But..but.. Apple stock is at 500 bucks. Aren't we all rich now?

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 17:21 | 2159184 GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

Curious, isn't it, that Apples sells iPhones to wireless companies at a profit and the wireless companies sell them at a loss. I read that ATT, Sprint Nextel and Verizon actually lose money on each iPhone contract. Didn't Microsoft get in trouble for 'giving away' freebies like Internet Explorer? Imagine what would happen to Apple stock if the wireless companies were forced to make a profit or at least break even, on each iPhone sold.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 18:41 | 2159560 Matt
Matt's picture

Imagine how awesome it would be if gas stations could "lock" cars to only be fueled at their stations for the length of a contract, and then sell people automobiles at massive discounts?

New Camaro, only $999 with 10 year contract to fuel exclusively at Exxon Mobil stations!

GM sells the cars for 50 percent mark-up to Exxon, and Exxon sells them at 90 percent discount to customers! That would probably boost the crap out of GDP, for a couple years at least.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 19:56 | 2159810 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

ponder that if you apply your awareness to, say, prescription drugs, you might see that SICK are "free" to absorb toxins - via the water, air and fud supply - then are put on long-term subscription plans via insurance or dot-guv-bennies. . . the monies are made in the "long-term" subscriptions, not so much on the initial "product" (toxins). . .

also, doesn't the "accounting" game emphasise incremental monies, rather than 'lump sums"?

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:28 | 2157963 CrashisOptimistic
CrashisOptimistic's picture

I think this is a powerful effect, but another effect getting little attention is the consolidation of households.

Multiple children are moving back in  with the parents.  That's a refrigerator in a foreclosed house unplugged, the water valve shut and the heat turned off.  It will be no air conditioning of that house this summer.

It's a weekly or monthly grocery trip made in one car, not three, for the two kids households that were dissolved.

This household consolidation is likely a big energy reduction.

As for oil, we have a decrease in consumption (not the same as demand, they are NOT the same meaning words) and a price rise.  What does this say about supply? 

 

 

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 14:47 | 2158324 trav7777
trav7777's picture

It says that the rational conclusion is too scary so I will resort to devices such as conspiracy theories, potent director fallacies, and money printing or the SQUIDZEZ to blame and keep me feeling optimistic.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 14:52 | 2158342 Red Raspberry
Red Raspberry's picture

Yes along with all the empty hosues.  I know I see a lot less traffic and customers at the gas tations out here in rural Illinois.  Use to be the gas stations were packed.  Now your lucky to have two customers at a time.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 14:05 | 2158110 aerojet
aerojet's picture

You cannot grow forever.  The contraction should be accepted as natural, desirable process.  It's only because we live in a Keynesian debt system that contraction represents some kind of problem--too many promises made on too many faulty predictions.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 14:43 | 2158301 Toolshed
Toolshed's picture

Why do I have little red pimples all over my groin area?

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 15:04 | 2158388 zanez
zanez's picture

Why does it burn when I pee?

 

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 19:59 | 2159821 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

so, are you dudes a couple?  obvious parallel is obvious.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 11:58 | 2157490 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

sarcasm? you know that answer

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 12:11 | 2157550 redpill
redpill's picture

More of a rhetorical along the lines of "questions average Americans should be asking but are watching TV instead"

 

This is always a catch-22 with energy.  For maximum profit capacity always needs to be slightly less than demand, through whatever means necessary.  So people think conserving energy will cause it to become cheaper but all it does is prompt a reduction in capacity to maintain profitability.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 12:14 | 2157576 trav7777
trav7777's picture

nonsense.  Your statement is defied by 100+ years of oil production where prices were relatively dirt cheap in any kind of absolute sense.

Capacity ran way ahead of demand and that was the way people want it.  The more energy capacity, the more growth can be had, the more money can be lent and the more interest and profits made in the aggregate.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 12:22 | 2157610 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

beat me to it, what is the energetic return on investing one barrel of oil again now?  Compare that to 1940, 1950?  exponential decrease in return on investment if I remember correctly.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 12:29 | 2157643 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

In barrel terms, it started off in the hundred(s) to one, it is now easily below ten and the speed of the decline has increased. Somewher in the early eighties we started consuming more than we found. Oops, that was thiry years ago  

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 12:47 | 2157737 redpill
redpill's picture

Not only that but it also creates additional barriers to entry due to the large cost associated with startup, exploration, and extraction.  As a result, energy has never been so centralized a business, and it's getting worse.  This doesn't just end with oil, this will be the case across the board.  Don't make the mistake that increasingly expensive oil exploration and/or a peak oil scenario are the only drivers of oil prices.  The story of Enron should be ample demostration of what happens when large players decide to manipulate prices.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 12:23 | 2157611 redpill
redpill's picture

They were only dirt cheap compared to what they are now that the energy market is even more centralized.  There's a reason it's always been called "black gold" and it's not because they couldn't make money on it.

 

Or were you just trying to segue into a Peak Oil discussion?

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 12:21 | 2157598 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

not quite, better look at the cost (in terms of capital and energy) for delivering any energy to the customer today.  What's the energetic return on say, the investment of one barrel's worth of oil (and the energy therein) today compared with what it was in 1940?

Wake the fuck up dude.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 12:25 | 2157631 redpill
redpill's picture

What's the point of comparing what we do with oil now to what we did with it in the 1940s?  They are vastly different.  And as dependent upon petroleum as we were then, it was nothing compared to our dependence now.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 12:53 | 2157772 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

"And as dependent upon petroleum as we were then, it was nothing compared to our dependence now."

And you think we are less dependent now?  LMFAO!!!!  Thanks for the laugh.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:10 | 2157876 redpill
redpill's picture

I think you need to read my comment again.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:46 | 2158042 Xkwisetly Paneful
Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

Obviously, and a good thing the first commercial nuke reactor went online in the 50's making the world obviously more dependent on fossil fuels now than in the 40's.

 

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 17:33 | 2159273 Cerin
Cerin's picture

Errr... while nuke plants do provide a statistically significant chunk of the energy we use, it is dwarfed by the size of our fossil fuel usage in both the electric and transport sectors. The transport sector is uniquely extremely vulnerable to a liquid fuels crisis.

 

There will be oil, and we're not running out any time soon. But we are running out of the variety that most of us can afford to burn, and some very nice (math-based) research suggests we're going to have a problem in about 3 years on the supply side unless we see a large decrease in demand due to another recession. Since our transport sector (and thus our economy) is dependent on this (formerly cheap) liquid fuel, it's not really a surprise that we're seeing some problems.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 17:55 | 2159355 trav7777
trav7777's picture

NO YOU JUST WORSHIP BALE

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 18:19 | 2159449 tmosley
tmosley's picture

No, that is recognition of fact.  Your "there is no such thing as technological advance" is Death Worship.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 18:52 | 2159601 Matt
Matt's picture

The problem is not whether there may or may not be replacement energy technologies in the future, the matter at hand is whether there are new technologies which will takeover from oil before or after a collapse.

I do not see any technologies coming out in the near future that will work, unless Nickel-Hydrogen fusion turns out to be real.

The switch from burning trees to burning coal took place before Europe became totally deforested. The conversion from Coal to Oil for transportation began well before more than half of the world's coal was extracted.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 19:06 | 2159657 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Actually, no, the switch to coal occured only after England had been deforested, and the price on imported charcoal created the incentive to switch steel production processes.  And that is the point.  Prices rise until people either decide to do without or they invest in research and capital to provide new input sources.  The E-cat is a terrible place to put a bet, but it hasn't been proven to be a fraud yet.  But there ARE numerous other technologies, including, but not limited to 1001 different algal approaches, 1001 bacterial degradation of biomass approaches, 1001 genetic engineering of various microorganism approaches, 1001 incremental advances in solar technology, a smattering of potential game changers like mass-produced, ultra efficient, cheap as cellophane graphene solar panels, and many other unique or "out there" approaches, such as use of a space elevator made of mass produced graphene to harvest the rotational energy of the planet, or E-cat, or some other crazy thing that no-one thinks will work until it does.  Or just plain old nuclear energy, retooled to make use of nuclear waste.

But of course, the government has to get out of the way.  That will only happen with a worldwide ponzi collapse.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 19:59 | 2159822 trav7777
trav7777's picture

you forgot unicorn piss

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 21:19 | 2160090 tmosley
tmosley's picture

You are correct.  None of those existant or potential advances are unicorn piss.  Your acknowledgement of that is noted.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 12:12 | 2157498 Mercury
Mercury's picture

I think it's called inflation.
As in, the decreasing purchasing power of your dollar.

It could also be reflective of one of the finely tuned mechanisms (tax the bad/subsidize the good) by which central planners, in their infinite wisdom, incentivize the adoption of greener technologies (and all that is fair and just) .  The Success of such would also explain declining gasoline consumption.  

One or the other for sure though.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 12:13 | 2157572 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

because the U.S. (and the dollar-that you use for petrol) is becoming less relevant every day, energy consumption in the rest of the world is not declining. Bloody pods.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 18:59 | 2159629 Matt
Matt's picture

It would be nice to see a US vs world comparison. I did find world oil consumption, which appears to be plateauing at best.

http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 12:23 | 2157614 scatterbrains
scatterbrains's picture

To make up for lack of consumption? 

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:00 | 2157811 midtowng
midtowng's picture

Gas prices are so high, in nominal terms, because we are devaluing the dollar as fast as we can.

Unfortunately, you are being paid in dollars.

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:36 | 2158002 tradebot
tradebot's picture

Smells like de-feet

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:38 | 2158012 hyper-critical
hyper-critical's picture

There's also a cyclical supply issue. That + QE =?

Period 3 implies chaos...

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 14:26 | 2158204 There is No Spoon
There is No Spoon's picture

gas prices are high because they're tied to the price of crude

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 15:18 | 2158433 Jumbotron
Jumbotron's picture

Smells like defeat

 

If energy consumption is tanking why are gas prices so damn high?

 

DING DING DING DING !!!!!

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!