Thank consumers for high gas prices

[Colleen Thomas]

That is a long time away, doll, like thousands or hundreds of thousands of years, and we can still go out into space to get more.

Also, I suppose certain people are more liable to forget about breeder reactors.

(Double , because I don't know enough about the subject to say whether that is a real solution.)

Breeder reactors don't breed more fissionables, they breed enriched fissionables. Basically, they burn the more common isotopes, so when they are done, the whole is depleted of the more common isotopes and what you are left with is the more radioactive, but rarer isotopes. Unless I've lost my mind, which is highly possible. I have one hell of a migrane right now.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

i have a brilliant mechanic that owes me big time. And it's being driven into the ground.

What i've got is a 94, so it's not all that old, and had low mileage when we got it. The only reason it was so cheap was because it had to be registered with a 'damaged' title - meaning it had been in a wreck at some point. i'm actually the third owner.

Now, if you would point out exactly where i've made a mistake in accounting for all of the costs involved with this particular vehicle, i would like to see it. i checked the records for this car. Everything is correctly stated. Insurance is approximated, since there are two vehicles on the policy, but it's still low.

And there is no typo. As of today (filled up and figured it out) my car gets 22.3 mpg. When we got it, it averaged about 24 mpg. Figure a steady decrease in gas mileage and come up with 23 mpg. We put about 100k miles on the two vehicles every year. The car is more fuel efficient and the truck is out of commission at the moment, so i figured 100k miles on the car. That makes the figure for gas less than actuality. Now take 100,000 and multiply by 3, then divide by 23, and you will get just over $13k.

i know my math. i know honesty and accountability. And i know that, in my particular case, it's proving your theory that the rising cost of gas not having a significant effect on anything is bullshit. Now quit being a know it all winking bitch and have a nice day.

" Now quit being a know it all winking bitch and have a nice day."
The first part of that would require suicide (wink).

Here's your typo:
"fuel for 10 years (23 mpg, 100k miles a year, $3 a gallon): just over $13k"
If you have stated that correctly the 10 year fuel cost should be $130k, not $13K.

It's clear now you meant fuel for 1 year.

Here is one place where your accounting is off: "Brilliant mechanic who owes me big." The value of that is very high, even if you "got a good deal" on it, perhaps through some noble deed.

Here's the main point, though: The experience you describe is extremely unusual. If you have accurately described it then I congratulate you for really excellent frugality. But you have to admit that probably no one who reads this could come close to matching those figures, and that the numbers I cite are much more typical.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Breeder reactors don't breed more fissionables, they breed enriched fissionables. Basically, they burn the more common isotopes, so when they are done, the whole is depleted of the more common isotopes and what you are left with is the more radioactive, but rarer isotopes. Unless I've lost my mind, which is highly possible. I have one hell of a migrane right now.

Hug Sympathy Virtual cool cloth on your forehead

Like I said, I don't know much about this subject. Specifically, whether the material that is "bred" is useable as fuel.

 

[ishtat]

When you make a statement like this which is clearly completely wrong it does tend to undermine what is otherwise an argument with some validity. The three biggest middle eastern oil exporters are particularly stable. Saudi Arabia has had the same government for ages, Iran has had stable government since they booted the Shah in 1979. and Iraq had been stable for 30 years until some dangerous clown decided to invade it. Nasty brutish and vicious they all are but they have a history of extraordinary stability.

Nigeria is certainly very unstable and Venezuela relatively so but if you are looking for sources of instability maybe we should look closer to home first.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

When you make a statement like this which is clearly completely wrong it does tend to undermine what is otherwise an argument with some validity. The three biggest middle eastern oil exporters are particularly stable. Saudi Arabia has had the same government for ages, Iran has had stable government since they booted the Shah in 1979. and Iraq had been stable for 30 years until some dangerous clown decided to invade it. Nasty brutish and vicious they all are but they have a history of extraordinary stability.

Nigeria is certainly very unstable and Venezuela relatively so but if you are looking for sources of instability maybe we should look closer to home first.

I think you will agree that they are unstable at least in the sense of being perfectly capable of saying to consuming nations and the world economy, "Screw you guys, I'm going home - and keeping my oil locked up there for a while."

. . . if you are looking for sources of instability maybe we should look closer to home first.

Yes, I too worry quite a bit about Canada.

 

[Pure]

Where are the facts about alternatives to oil?

" Bio-fuels are little more than bribes to farmers in return for votes." -- Roxanne A.

P: The cavalier dismissal of alternative energy is not based in fact.

"Henry Ford designed the famed Model T Ford to run on alcohol -- he said it was "the fuel of the future". The oil companies thought otherwise, however -- but the oil crisis of the early 1970s gave ethanol fuel a new lease of life.

The US now uses more than 15 billion gallons of cleaner, ethanol-blended petrol a year, totalling 12% of fuel sales in the US. Most of it is a 10% blend, but 85% and even 95% blends are now being tested.

Ethanol blends are increasingly used in South Africa, while Brazil, the world leader, produces four billion gallons of ethanol a year: all Brazilian fuel contains at least 24% ethanol, and much of it is 100% ethanol (engines can be designed to run on 100% ethanol).

Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors all recommend ethanol fuels, and nearly every car manufacturer in the world approves ethanol blends in their warranty coverage.

Over two trillion miles have been driven on ethanol-blended fuels in the US since 1980."
From the website named below, from which I reproduce a part of a paper on energy efficiency.

http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol.html

Is ethanol energy-efficient?

One of the most controversial issues relating to ethanol is the question of what environmentalists call the "net energy" of ethanol production. Simply put, is more energy used to grow and process the raw material into ethanol than is contained in the ethanol itself?

In the US most ethanol is made from corn (maize). A US Department of Agriculture study concludes that ethanol contains 34% more energy than is used to grow and harvest the corn and distill it into ethanol. "Estimating the Net Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol", by Hosein Shapouri et al., US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Office of Energy and New Uses, Agricultural Economic Report No. 721, July 1995 --

"Studies conducted since the late 1970s have estimated the net energy value of corn ethanol. However, variations in data and assumptions used among the studies have resulted in a wide range of estimates. This study identifies the factors causing this wide variation and develops a more consistent estimate... We show that corn ethanol is energy efficient as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.24."
http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm

"The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update", by Hosein Shapouri and James A. Duffield, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, and Michael Wang of the Center for Transportation Research, Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory. Agricultural Economic Report No. 813:

"Corn ethanol is energy efficient... For every BTU dedicated to producing ethanol there is a 34% energy gain... Only about 17% of the energy used to produce ethanol comes from liquid fuels, such as gasoline and diesel fuel. For every 1 BTU of liquid fuel used to produce ethanol, there is a 6.34 BTU gain."
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pr020801b.html

Full report (Acrobat file, 176 kb):
http://www.usda.gov/oce/oepnu/aer-814.pdf

In "How Much Energy Does It Take to Make a Gallon of Ethanol?", David Lorenz and David Morris of the Institute for Local-Self Reliance (ILSR) state: "Using the best farming and production methods, the amount of energy contained in a gallon of ethanol is more than twice the energy used to grow the corn and convert it to ethanol."

A 1992 ILSR study, based on actual energy consumption data from farmers and ethanol plant operators, found that the production of ethanol from corn is a positive net energy generator. In this updated paper the numbers look even more attractive: more energy is contained in the ethanol and the other by-products of corn processing than is used to grow the corn and convert it into ethanol and by-products.
http://www.carbohydrateeconomy.org/ceic/library/admin/uploadedfiles/
How_Much_Energy_Does_it_Take_to_Make_a_Gallon_.html

"Ethanol production is extremely energy efficient, with a positive energy balance of 125%, compared to 85% for gasoline. Ethanol production is by far the most efficient method of producing liquid transportation fuels. According to USDA, each BTU (British Thermal Unit, an energy measure) used to produce a BTU of gasoline could be used to produce 8 BTUs of ethanol." -- American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE): see "Energy / Trade Benefits":
http://www.ethanol.org/Information/ethanol_information.htm

New study confronts old thinking on ethanol's net energy value, 3/28/2005 -- Ethanol generates 35% more energy than it takes to produce, according to a recent study by Argonne National Laboratory conducted by Michael Wang. The new findings support earlier research that determined ethanol has a positive net energy balance, according to the National Corn Growers Association.

That research was conducted by USDA, Michigan State University, the Colorado School of Mines, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and other public and private entities. A USDA study released in 2004 found that ethanol may net as much as 67% more energy than it takes to produce. Argonne is one of the US Department of Energy's largest research centers.
http://www.agriculture.com/ag/story.jhtml?storyid=/templatedata
/ag/story/data/agNews_050328crETHANOL.xml&catref=ag1001

Report on the new study :
http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/PDF/03_28_05
ArgonneNatlLabEthanolStudy.pdf

What standard farm?

In fact it's a very theoretical question. A "standard" farming procedure is a myth, and even if it wasn't, what would that have to do with a homesteader with a good supply of waste wood to burn and no better way of using it, and a large supply of past-their-use-by cakes from a bread factory that he's rescuing from the waste stream? (An actual case.) The cakes could go to a pig farm instead, but they don't. There are many such niches -- spoiled fruit from farms that ought to have pigs but don't, and so on and on. Such factors never get calculated.

And what would all that have to do with this? "We are looking at a very interesting integrated distillery approach being developed by the Brazilians, where instead of going for the large 300,000 litres per day plants, a fully integrated approach is taken with a 1,500 ha area, farmed by small growers, and feeding sugarcane and sweet sorghum into a 20,000 litres per day plant, with cattle feedlots at the distillery, the manure going into [biogas] digesters with the stillage, producing enough energy for the distillery, leaving the bulk of the bagasse to be used for power generation to supply the surrounding areas." (Energy projects in Africa.)

Once you start looking at the local level and at integrated approaches to crop production and wastes, and include energy production and use, a very different picture emerges that leaves these broad energy in/energy out generalisations without much meaning.

There's yet another way of looking at it. This is from Offgrid-Online, April 5, 2000.

http://www.offgridknowhow.com/

"Will we get out more energy than we put in? Does it matter? Generally a scheme that did not create more energy than it consumed would be useless, but in this case we might have a different view. Since we are after a portable fuel, we might be willing to spend more energy to get it, so long as we used a non-portable fuel to do so. For example, suppose we use wood-fired heat to make alcohol. Wood is a poor fuel as far as portability in general is concerned and is nearly useless for internal combustion engines. So what if we have to spend 2 BTUs of wood heat for each BTU of alcohol fuel produced? That might still be a good deal if we had lots of wood and gasoline was (that is, continues to be) highly priced."
http://www.homesteadtechnology.com/newsletters/20000405.txt

The Sierra Club in the US has a different objection to ethanol. They see the whole issue as clouded by the high levels of nitrogen fertilisers used to grow the maize, and the terrific eco-damage the N-runoff causes. But that's an objection to US factory farming, not to ethanol. In a more rational system there's no need for nitrogen fertilisers, and no loss of yield through not using them.

One 15-year study found that organic farming is not only kinder to the environment than "conventional", intensive agriculture but has comparable yields of both products and profits. The study showed that yields of organic maize are identical to yields of maize grown with fertilisers and pesticides, while soil quality in the organic fields dramatically improves. (Drinkwater, L.E., Wagoner, P. & Sarrantonio, M. Legume-based cropping systems have reduced carbon and nitrogen losses. Nature 396, 262–265.)

None of this considers the fact that ethanol is a much cleaner fuel than gasoline, reducing air-pollution, nor that it is a renewable fuel made from plants -- unlike fossil-fuels, manufacturing it and burning it does not increase the greenhouse effect.

It also has an important role in biodiesel production: ethyl esters biodiesel is cleaner and more rational than methyl esters biodiesel made with methanol, which, unlike ethanol, is toxic, derived from fossil fuels, and you can't make it yourself.


Ethanol under fire

In August 2001 Cornell University's Prof. David Pimentel attacked the economics of corn-to-ethanol production. In an article published in the Encyclopedia of Physical Sciences and Technology, Pimentel asserted that ethanol production is uneconomic: "The growers and processors can't afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. US drivers couldn't afford it, either, if it weren't for government subsidies to artificially lower the price."

"Ethanol fuel from corn faulted as 'unsustainable subsidized food burning' in analysis by Cornell scientist", August 6, 2001 -- "Neither increases in government subsidies to corn-based ethanol fuel nor hikes in the price of petroleum can overcome what one Cornell University agricultural scientist calls a fundamental input-yield problem: It takes more energy to make ethanol from grain than the combustion of ethanol produces."
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug01/corn-basedethanol.hrs.html

In a detailed analysis of Pimentel's research, Dr. Michael S. Graboski of the Colorado School of Mines says Pimentel's findings are based on out-of-date statistics and are contradicted by a recent US Department of Agriculture (USDA) study.

"Comparison of USDA and Pimentel Net Energy Balances" -- "The USDA analysis clearly shows, contrary to the Pimentel paper, that US farming and ethanol manufacture are very energy efficient, and that the energy content of ethanol delivered to the consumer is significantly larger than the total fossil energy inputs required to produce it. USDA estimates that ethanol facilities produce at least 1.23 units of energy as ethanol for every fossil BTU included considering all energy inputs related to corn farming, corn transport, ethanol production, and distribution and transport of finished ethanol."

Full report:
http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/issues/2001/ethanol/08_22_01b.htm

 

[Xelebes]

That is a long time away, doll, like thousands or hundreds of thousands of years, and we can still go out into space to get more.

Also, I suppose certain people are more liable to forget about breeder reactors.

(Double , because I don't know enough about the subject to say whether that is a real solution.)

If we replaced all our electric generators with nuclear generators there is a chance that we may run out just as quickly as we would with oil. Also, breeder reactors - if they were to be used to re-supply - would need to be fusion reactors to get us unstable uranium or other unstable elements to produce heat. Fission doesn't do us much good as it slowly breaks up all the uranium into lead.

And right now fusion reactors are making steps forward - they can still last only 1/10 000th of a second. They would, however, convert steel (nickel and iron) and tungsten into heavier metals. Just not large quantities like we would need to get it working. And even if we did have the capacity to produce that much, we would be scrapping nuclear fission technology altogether and switch over to fusion reactors.

Fission is not the way to go.

 

[Pure]

the fusion reactor runs on electricity, no? how many billion watts does it take to get this 1/10,000 of a second reaction to happen?

 

[entitled]

" Now quit being a know it all winking bitch and have a nice day."
The first part of that would require suicide (wink).

Here's your typo:
"fuel for 10 years (23 mpg, 100k miles a year, $3 a gallon): just over $13k"
If you have stated that correctly the 10 year fuel cost should be $130k, not $13K.

It's clear now you meant fuel for 1 year.

You are correct. i apologize.

Here is one place where your accounting is off: "Brilliant mechanic who owes me big." The value of that is very high, even if you "got a good deal" on it, perhaps through some noble deed.

No, my accounting is not off there. i've kept track of every expense having to deal with him. It's been counted in. The main thing that he does is give us discounted labor.

Here's the main point, though: The experience you describe is extremely unusual. If you have accurately described it then I congratulate you for really excellent frugality. But you have to admit that probably no one who reads this could come close to matching those figures, and that the numbers I cite are much more typical.

Unusual for you, maybe. Or perhaps for the entire area you live in. VERY typical for here. VERY typical for people in this area who have been losing jobs to migrant workers that will work for less than minimum wage, which means less espense for the employers - and completely screws over any chance of any of us actually getting ahead.

As for me admitting it's not? Uh uh. No. Won't happen. Simply because it's perhaps more typical than you would like to think.

 

[amicus]

Some alternatives have a place for "niche" uses, such as photovoltaic in places where grid power is not available. In general they are a joke, though, and have more to do with politics than energy. "Bio-fuels" are little more than bribes to farmers in return for votes. Wind turbines have a payback period of, well, infinity, because the maintenance costs are prohibitive.

There is an incredible amount of ignorance, foolishness and fantasy surrounding the whole energy issue. Alternative fuels are NOT a wise investment, because except for certain niches they will always cost more than fossil fuels or nukes. The ozone "threat" is hugely over-rated. We're not "destroying the environment," but cleaning it up in developed countries, and as wealth increases around the world the poor countries will be able to afford to do the same.

Fossil fuels won't "run out," but as they become scarcer in a generation or two nuclear power will become more cost effective, and they will be used more as feedstock for industry than fuel. Our economy will become electric-based as a result. We can use electricity to manufacture portable fuels for uses where that is convenient (like airplanes). Humans can sustain energy intensive industrial civilization indefinitely. We won't return to agricultural village life, or to hunter-gatherer bands.

ANWR is a sideshow. We can probably suck the oil out without "destroying" the wilderness, but whether we do that now, or 50 or 100 years from now is irrelevent.

"I'm not quite used to $3 gas." That's exactly it - we're become accustomed to lower prices. But we can afford higher ones without sacrificing our comforts and conveniences. Who doesn't prefer to pay less than more for any product? It's just not that big a deal in the big economic picture, either for individuals or society.

Global warming? The earth is in an ice age. We happen to be in an interglacial period, but that won't last forever, and eventually the glaciers will advance again. For most of the history of life on earth it's been much warmer. So what if it gets a little a little warmer over time? New York below sea level? Hell, New Orleans is below sea level, and it required a 100-year storm and 100 years of political corruption to upset that little acheivement. Bangladesh will disappear? It's disappearing anyway - we should send U-Hauls to the residents. I note that few speak of the benefits that higher temperature would bring. There would be many.

I'm not trying to be callous or cute, but just pointing out that these "end of the world" scenarios are nothing of the sort. The only sure prediction is that things will change. If you define that as "the end of the world," well - it's not. Over time the world will get warmer, and colder, and there is nothing humans can do about either. There will be costs and benefits to both (probably warmer is better on balance). Life will go on. Unless we behave really foolishly life will certainly get better for all humans in every way imaginable.

~~~~~~~~~

For both posts Roxanne, picture Amicus daintily dancing about it a tutu applauding your really keen words and very sharp mind. Well done!

Amicus...

 

[Pure]

thoughts on reading amicus, et al.

Here's what I don't get:
1) While old ways have many merits, why are some conservatives unable to contemplate new ideas? (Did they, in 1910, dismiss dreams of an automobile age as 'foolishness and fantasy'?)

2) If 'economic conservatives' are devoted to 'free enterprise', why do they defend the least free markets (oil) and ignore the entrepreneurial possibilities of new enterprises, like those below?

"There is an incredible amount of ignorance, foolishness and fantasy surrounding the whole energy issue. Alternative fuels are NOT a wise investment, because except for certain niches they will always cost more than fossil fuels or nukes."

Roxanne Appleby
=====

http://www.coastalguide.org/windpower/galambosi.html

If the policies are right, wind power becomes a feasible energy alternative

Leiden, 23 November 2000. As the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change are concluding their meeting in The Hague on ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, one of the key issues on the agenda was the promotion of renewable energy sources, with wind power among the most favoured solutions.

According to Wind Magazine, the magazine of the European Wind Energy Agency, the total installed wind capacity world-wide was 13,250 MW at the end of 1999. Wind power globally is growing annually at a rate of 38 percent, making it the fastest growing energy industry in the world. Denmark produces close to ten percent (ca. 1,900 MW) of its electricity with wind power.

Germany's only ten-year old wind industry has pushed its capacity to more than 4,600 MW this year, nearly double the total capacity in the US. Germany produces approximately two percent of its electricity from wind power, but some regions such as Lower Saxony and Schleswig Holstein cover over 10 percent of their demand with wind power and it is estimated that the UK could generate up to 20 percent of its electricity from wind power. The EU in total has about 10,000 MW installed capacity. However, despite bright outlooks there are several financial and legal obstacles preventing the global breakthrough of wind power so far.

The terms of power purchase agreements are crucial for the development of the wind power and other renewables. The wind power boom that took place in Denmark and Germany in the early 1990s was mainly the result of granted renewable energy feed tariffs (REFITs).

A REFIT is a statutorily guaranteed fixed price for all private producers of electricity from renewable energy sources which utilities are obliged to pay. The price is calculated on the basis of the average electricity rates. Since the Danish government changed their REFIT-regulations in the beginning of 2000, not a single wind turbine has been ordered!
The European Commission realised the problem and its White Paper for Renewable Energies introduced minimum standards for REFITs. But apart from effective REFITs paid, the high rate of installation is only possible when coherent planning policies and a high share of private and local developers interact tightly. Nevertheless, strong commitment is needed from all stakeholders.

One of the biggest problems with wind power is the initial capital cost. For instance, a well-sited wind farm with 20 turbines each rated 600 kW conservatively estimated at 2000 full-load hours a year, result in 24 million kWh - enough to provide electricity for 6,000 homes (provided average consumption is 4000 kWh/year). The initial investment by the developer is around 12 million euro. But once up and running, a wind farm has little maintenance costs.

However, planning restrictions or local opposition can further hinder the project. Local opposition is often caused by limited involvement of the local population, or by limited profits for the local communities. They often get the impression that only a few people benefit from the power generated on their land.

Thus, based on the experiences gained in Denmark and Germany, smaller scale wind production on a co-operative bases is usually much more accepted than the present quota or tendering systems found in many other countries. Those systems favour big companies over small projects with community involvement that cannot compete on a mere cost basis. If a favourable system with favourable tariffs that are granted by law was introduced instead of quota and tendering systems, it would contribute further reduce costs and increase mass production because of higher demand. This is exactly what happened in Denmark and Germany.

A report, commissioned by Greenpeace and released a week before the The Hague Conference, says that harnessing the North Sea's wind power would be of significant help for individual countries to meet their Kyoto Protocol emission reduction targets - 39 industrialised countries committed themselves to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5,2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-2012.

The German Wind Energy Institute estimates that Germany, UK, Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark have an offshore wind resource that is three times their total electricity consumption. According to the report, 6,5 million new homes each year could be provided with wind electricity, 160,000 people could be employed and five coal plants could be shut each year. Furthermore, these five North Sea countries could save 186 million tonnes each year in CO2 emission rates. All this could be achieved if only one percent a year of the offshore resources was harnessed for wind power.

And truly, some are already taking action. The Dutch government has approved an offshore wind farm that will provide electricity for 100,000 homes. The UK and Belgium are planning offshore wind farm projects for the future. The advantages of building a wind farm in the sea are huge. Average wind speeds can be 20 percent higher, and the resulting energy yield up to 70 percent greater than on land. With no natural obstacles the wind is also more reliable. Moreover, building offshore eliminates the problem of finding good sites for wind farms in usually densely populated coastal areas. The technology for offshore wind power is ready, claims the Greenpeace report. All what is needed is political will power.

Political will power is also needed to create a level playing field for all energy sources. Until now, billions of - both direct and hidden - public subsidies are being spent each year to support conventional energies. In Germany for example, nuclear power has received more than 35 billion DM of direct public support during the past 20 years, says the government. Ten billion DM is spent every year for German coal through indirect subsidies. And just few million DM is given to renewables every year. Big money is at stake, but climate change is on the other side of the scale. Ambitious targets can be achieved when ambitious legislation is being introduced.

Others say that if anybody can make the energy revolution happen, it will be the industry giants. Big energy companies such as Shell, BP Amoco and Exxon Mobil have lacked appeal to investors in recent years because of heavy regulation, low growth and a tendency for markets to be highly unstable - as seen when crude oil prices went up to 35 US$ a barrel earlier this year. Renewables offer a potential growth territory. "This is not an ethical investment opportunity, it's a straightforward business opportunity", said Merrill Lynch's Robin Batchelor in an interview with Reuters. Wind power is an especially attractive target of investment. The technology is tried and proven and it is already commercially competitive - the best performing wind farms are as cheap as gas power and all of them are competitive with coal and hydro.

Wind energy is already a booming international business. Global sales of wind turbines reached 1,5 billion US$ in 1997. On current growth rates, the value of the market is expected to increase eight times by 2002. The trend is to build off-shore wind farms because of obvious advantages - they are not only more productive, but also reduce environmental side effects such as bird deaths and landscape interference.

Author: Levente Galambosi, EUCC International Secretariat, Leiden, the Netherlands

Editors: Dirk Vansintjan & Dirk Knapen, Ecopower, http://www.ecopower.be

 

[neonlyte]

"The rising demand for electrical power generation sources is fueling the robust growth in international markets of installed solar electric systems. In the U.S., this demand is anticipated to grow substantially from less than 0.4 GW in 2003 to 200GW by 2030. This growth in installed solar systems would equate to the same amount of new solar electrical production by 2030 as building 40 new large nuclear facilities. For an approximate comparison, a large nuclear power plant generates about 5GW of power."

What is this? A thin film substrate applied to glass, window glass, any and all window glass, and acts as a photovoltaic collector.

Read about it here

If you want updated info on wind, for example: • Record Year for Global Wind Energy - According to figures released by the Global Wind Energy Council for 2005, the installation of 11,769 megawatts (MW), which represents a 43.4% increase in annual additions to the global market, was up from 8,207 MW in the previous year. (Renewable Energy Access; Feb. 27, 2006) read about it here

 

[gauchecritic]

"I'm not quite used to $3 gas." That's exactly it - we're become accustomed to lower prices. But we can afford higher ones without sacrificing our comforts and conveniences. Who doesn't prefer to pay less than more for any product? It's just not that big a deal in the big economic picture, either for individuals or society.

Take one operational cost and apply it only to retail consumers and say we don't sacrifice any comforts or covenience and that it's not that big a deal in the big economic picture.

Which economic model are you using to state that fuel costs are insignificant in industry?

Ask Ronald MacDonald which is one of his largest incremental overheads and how many cents extra his burgers will cost at $5 dollars a gallon for gas and I guarantee he won't say flour.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Take one operational cost and apply it only to retail consumers and say we don't sacrifice any comforts or covenience and that it's not that big a deal in the big economic picture.

Which economic model are you using to state that fuel costs are insignificant in industry?

Ask Ronald MacDonald which is one of his largest incremental overheads and how many cents extra his burgers will cost at $5 dollars a gallon for gas and I guarantee he won't say flour.

In 1980 paying for gasoline took up 4.5 percent of US GDP and 7.2 percent of consumer expenditures. In 2005 the figures were 2.6 percent and 3.7 percent, respectively. The figures are comparable for other fuels, and for Ronald McDonald. I suspect labor costs are the largest component of Ronald's expenses, but that is just a guess.

That said, I take your point about higher energy costs percolating through the economy. The impact is half what it was a generation ago, though, because energy's share of GDP is half what it was then.

 

[gauchecritic]

In 1980 paying for gasoline took up 4.5 percent of US GDP and 7.2 percent of consumer expenditures. In 2005 the figures were 2.6 percent and 3.7 percent, respectively. The figures are comparable for other fuels, and for Ronald McDonald. I suspect labor costs are the largest component of Ronald's expenses, but that is just a guess.

That said, I take your point about higher energy costs percolating through the economy. The impact is half what it was a generation ago, though, because energy's share of GDP is half what it was then.

Don't have time right now, but you're playing with figures 25 years apart and calling 2.6% of GDP now half of 4.5% then is a statistic, the third worst kind of lie.

And I did say incrememental overheads. not startup costs.

 

[neonlyte]

In 1980 paying for gasoline took up 4.5 percent of US GDP and 7.2 percent of consumer expenditures. In 2005 the figures were 2.6 percent and 3.7 percent, respectively. The figures are comparable for other fuels, and for Ronald McDonald. I suspect labor costs are the largest component of Ronald's expenses, but that is just a guess.

That said, I take your point about higher energy costs percolating through the economy. The impact is half what it was a generation ago, though, because energy's share of GDP is half what it was then.

The UK's largest consumer business, supermarket chain Tesco, announced this morning it is setting aside £100 million per annum to bring energy efficiencies to its business, small change in £2,25 billion of profits, but clearly its energy bill gives the company cause for concern.

 

[Pure]

the electricity companies, including in our area are starting to stress efficiency, and reward it.

from the short term entrepreneurial POV, energy is like burgers, the more you sell the better.

AFAIK, except for some efforts of BP, economy and efficiency of use are not in the oil companies' lexicon. You would never hear them call for raising mpg standards for cars. for, in the short term, if more efficient cars were built, the demand pressure for gas would lessen. (this is like the problem of McDonalds trying to sell healthy meal combos.) if jet planes were built that ran on alcohol, even partly so, the demand for the companies' 'gasoline' would diminish.

the company's ability to raise prices without protest would be affected.

it would take some really 'forward' and socially minded thinking in oil co. executives, for oil and gas issues to be dealt with. somehow I don't think Texas oil companies are going to want to solve this 'problem'. indeed, from those companies' POV, what IS the problem with $3.25 or $3.50 gasoline??

as an example of another kind of corporate thinking, i believe Phillip Morris tobacco is doing some interesting moves around 'quitting smoking.' whether it's just marketing, I can't be sure. you get the ironic goal of moving people beyond your own product (a bit like BP).
IF a truly visionary approach was available, the company would position itself for 100 years from now, not just 10 or 20.

 

[Pure]

Deathbed conversion?

from a recent speech:

"The long-term strategy is to power our automobiles with something other than oil," Bush said, "something other than gasoline, which is derived from oil."

The fastest way to replace foreign oil is to expand the use of ethanol, Bush told the appreciative industry association. He asserted that the United States is "on the threshold of major breakthroughs" because of investment in fuels such as ethanol.

"Ethanol has got the largest potential for immediate growth," he said, adding that most vehicles now can use 10 percent ethanol, a flammable chemical compound that in the United States is made mainly from corn. Bush also asserted that "without much cost," automobiles can be converted to burn 85 percent ethanol.

Some critics say the United States cannot produce enough corn to make ethanol a viable alternative fuel. Another obstacle is the expense of producing, shipping and pumping ethanol.

The National Corn Growers Association harbors no such doubts, however. "Our message is that we can grow enough corn, and we will take ethanol industry to the next level," said association first vice president Ken McCauley, who participated in today's Renewable Fuels Association conference.

 

[amicus]

Interesting...

As a free market advocate subsidies and tarrifs trouble me as the government takes from one section of the private sector and gives to another, of course, always for a 'good' purpose, of course.

Tax on imported ethanol is currently $.55 per gallon to enable even the 'subsidized' producers of ethanol from corn in the United States is not competitive on the open market.

But...that is not quite accurate either as Brazil's ethanol production from sugar cane is is also government run and subsidized.

There is another factor also, that corn products are heavily used for human and animal food and a great percentage of total US production is exported to hungry people around the world.

Food for fuel? The midwest is a great corn and wheat belt, one of the most productive arable land in the world. To change the production from food to fuel, may well create its own set of problems.

I am loathe to see government intervene in the market place, even the dithering Bush as he fumbles with: "Oh, Duh, well, we gotta eat some corn, we can't make ethanol from all of it..." (paraphrase for my own entertainment, I could have quoted precisely)

If only you, Pure, and others of course, had to courage to 'trust' the function of the market place to solve problems, things would be a lot easier for everyone.


amicus...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

In 1980 paying for gasoline took up 4.5 percent of US GDP and 7.2 percent of consumer expenditures. In 2005 the figures were 2.6 percent and 3.7 percent, respectively. The figures are comparable for other fuels, and for Ronald McDonald. I suspect labor costs are the largest component of Ronald's expenses, but that is just a guess.

Don't have time right now, but you're playing with figures 25 years apart and calling 2.6% of GDP now half of 4.5% then is a statistic, the third worst kind of lie.

And I did say (McDonald's) incrememental overheads. not startup costs.

Why are these statistics a lie? They indicate that our society is richer today than it was 25 years ago, and so the percentage of our income we need to spend for fuel is less, because incomes are higher. In a similar way, 100 years ago buying and producing food took up a much larger portion of family income and GDP. The fact that these things consume a smaller amount of family budgets is a good thing.

I don't get your point about Ronald, either. I said nothing about start up costs. I don't know, but I'm guessing labor is the largest component of McDonald's operating expenses. I'm willing to bet it's a much larger component than energy expenses.

 

[Pure]

Am I am loathe to see government intervene in the market place,

P: You say this in a discussion of the oil industry? There are massive government interventions in both the oil producing and oil consuming countries. Even Bush is talking of reducing some of the more recent 'gifts' --tax advantages-- to the industry that do not seem to be paying off in research, refinery building etc., despite record profits.

A: to 'trust' the function of the market place to solve problems,

P: in relation to the oil industry, its international cartels, political alliances, "marketplace" simply does not exist. IF it existed, you might persuade me to trust it-- as is occurring in the offering of long distance phone service.
---

Please answer this: why do you, who celebrates human inventiveness, daring, and entrepreneurship argue only for the status quo in oil consumption, automobile standards and use, transportation for the masses etc? where is your Randian vision of human possibility? all i see from you and Roxanne is spew from the Texas oil industry about the fine status quo.

 

[uksilverlining]

It's near enough £1 a litre in the UK - ouch !!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Pure]

Note to gauche,

on the figures supplied by Roxanne. These were picked up by various new services from a Goldman Sachs report of last spring. The report, stating the fine opportunities for investors in oil, calculated that prices would have to hit $4.00 gallon for demand to be blunted. In other words that would be the peak of a 'superspike.' Contrary to the drift of Roxannes analysis, this is hardly reassuring for consumers!

Here is the reference and an excerpt at one point. It's pdf doc, hence the weird line breaks.

http://www.oilcast.com/pdfs/superspike.pdf
report of march 30, 2005
excerpts from pp 19-20

Raising super spike upside to $50-$105/bbl from $50-$80/bbl for WTI oil

Our previous estimated super spike range of $50-$80 per bbl WTI spot oil was based on the simple assumption of repeating the $50-$80 per bbl real oil price environment of 1979-1985. However, our surprise at what has been very strong oil demand even in the face of higher energy commodity prices has caused to us to look deeper at the relative
position of energy and energy prices in the 1970s.

During 1980-1981, gasoline spending in the United States corresponded to an average 4.5% of GDP, 7.2% of consumer expenditures, and 6.2% of personal disposable income (see Exhibit 17).

Our new $50-$105 per bbl super spike range perhaps conservatively corresponds to gasoline spending in the United States that reaches 3.6% of forecasted GDP, 5.3% of consumer expenditures, and 5.0% of personal disposable income (see Exhibit 18). If we were to assume that gasoline spending needs to reach the heights of the 1970s, our upside super-spike estimate would be $135 per bbl for WTI.

In contrast to the 1970s, industrial oil consumption is today a much smaller piece of oil demand in the United States (see Exhibit 19). In our view, rising oil demand in China and India perhaps is equivalent to the industrial consumption that used to occur in the United States in the 1970s.

The issue, though, is complicated by the fact that end prices tend to be far more regulated in China and India, potentially muting the impact of higher spot WTI oil prices. In addition, China, in particular, has the potential to revalue its currency upward, which could also mute any further increases in WTI oil prices measured in US dollars.

We note that China’s trading partners like the United States have been calling for an upward revaluation of its currency, which is currently pegged at a fixed rate to the US dollar. To the extent an upward revaluation occurs, we believe the need for demand destruction falls back on gasoline consumption in the United States.

At what gasoline price will Americans stop buying SUVs? $4/gallon could do it


Perhaps the ultimate answer to high how oil prices need to go before demand destruction occurs is derived from knowing when American consumers will stop buying gas guzzling sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and instead seek fuel efficient alternatives. Based on our analysis of gasoline spending and the economy noted above, we estimate that US
gasoline prices may need to exceed $4 per gallon (see Exhibit 18).


Even under perfect conditions, adding supply is a 5-10-year proposition


Why can’t supply solve the problem? It is our observation that even if perfect conditions existed—where future areas of opportunity were open for mass investment today—that it would still take 5-10 years to bring major new quantities of supply on line.

Although the expectation of future supply gains could help dampen long-dated WTI oil prices even in the face of cost inflation in traditional areas of activity, the reality would be that supply/demand would remain tight until the new supply actually materialized. As such, the world would still be very exposed to geopolitical turmoil and the potential for supply
disruptions in major oil exporting countries, the probability of which would be higher if
oil prices were lower.


Supply conditions are not perfect: Middle East demographics are not favorable


It is important to remember that the Middle East has been one of the few areas in the past 30 years to experience massive population growth, on the order of 2%-3% per annum.
The combination of rising populations, a lack of a diversified economic base, and the existence of governments that are not representative of or responsive to underlying populations all point to ongoing geopolitical turmoil and an inability to meaningfully add to oil supply.

The fact that oil prices have remained high for an extended period of time undoubtedly serves to increase the probabilities that existing governments in key oil exporting countries will remain in power. With that said, such countries have yet to take the necessary steps to allow for large increases in investment in oil supply, either by their state-owned oil companies or by foreign oil companies. Until new investments are made, we believe demand destruction will be needed to recreate a spare capacity cushion in order to return to a period of lower energy prices.


Supply growth expected, just not enough to recreate a spare capacity cushion


We believe investors need to differentiate between growth in supply and growth in spare capacity. The former we think is likely in the years ahead. The latter we think is unlikely without demand destruction. Given that we do not believe the world is running out of oil, we do not see a supply crisis per se as much as we see a lack of growth in spare capacity.

Our base-line forecasts continue to call for growth in both OPEC and non-OPEC supply in the years ahead. However, the rate of growth, in our view, is consistent with the rate of growth in oil demand, rendering no change in spare capacity (see Exhibit 20).

 

[cantdog]

the fusion reactor runs on electricity, no? how many billion watts does it take to get this 1/10,000 of a second reaction to happen?

Dear Sir,

Any power plant process which is only being sustained for nanoseconds is, clearly, still experimental. The fact is, yes, fusion plants are not yet online. So please give the researchers their billions of watt-hours, and let 'em work.

Because in nature, fusion works fine. We use it for all our energy, in a sense, right this minute. The sun is a gigantic fusion furnace, converting hydrogen (largely) into helium (largely) at a temperature of millions of degrees, just like in the song. What we are trying to do is develop a usable replication of that kind of nuclear shenanigans, one we can place where we need it, the output of which we can direct and control to our uses.

The fusion reactor, when we have it, will have to make more energy than it takes to run it, or it won't be any use. Building one which didn't would mean more research was needed, yes?

cantdog

 

[cantdog]

Solar power is not loved much by the electrical moguls of today, because it currently works best in small, distributed systems as opposed to large networks with centralized large plants. Boat owners can tell you there have been enormous strides in solar panels, and there's a goop now being tried out that you apply to plain glass, any glass. If a million consumers meet their own electricity needs, as a lot of boats do, right now, with solar, what owner of a large plant and wiring network can make a dime off it?

There are dozens of how-to books and articles published every year, telling us all how to become a contributor to the electricity net instead if a consumer from it. It's not hard, just a bit costly as a retrofit. But you hear the same lies about how it won't ever work.

Ethanol is a growing sector of the fuel picture, right now. They are doing it, and it's working, and they are planning confidently to do more of it. The higher petrol prices climb, the more successful they will be at it. I am glad to see something being done, frankly. Give us ten dollars a gallon, and we'll see some scrambling to conserve and a boost for alternatives!

Mass transit is best accomplished with electric trains, anyhow. That's the way it's being done. This administration is composed of oilmen and their sycophants, and they have dramatically cut back on support for mass transit systems, and for rail in general, because both these things reduce demand for petrol. That doesn't make rail or mass transit wrong.

Much of the cost we see at the pump now is taxes, anyhow. Do you hear them offering to drop prices by a temporary cut in those taxes? No. They propose instead to pollute the air and water more, to protect the profits of the petrol companies. Makes you tired to hear them, but we elected them all the same.