-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
I wrote an article for Seeking Alpha the other day in which I applauded Al Gore's recent comments on the economic impact of foreign oil addiction as a positive step for him and his advocates to get what they ultimately desire: reduction in CO2 levels by reducing fossil fuel consumption. In that article I wondered aloud whether or not focusing on the economic impact of our 70% addiction on imported oil wouldn't have been a better strategy all along in order to achieve the results Gore and his followers were after (as opposed to driving the issue with global warming).
The comments I received on that article effectively proved my point: Al Gore and his presentation of climate change and CO2 levels, for whatever reason, is divisive. Many people dismiss Gore and his arguments automatically - despite, what I believe, is a mountain of science that support his assertions.
But let's not have that debate again. Let's focus on what I believe is a better argument to reduce our reliance on oil. It also happens to be a more imminent threat to the US: economics. This is what I will call the T. Boone Pickens approach. However, I have been writing (preaching?) about the same issues for years now. Every American has been affected by rising oil prices, rising inflation, and the very weak stock market. I believe this audience is ripe to hear what Pickens has to say. Hopefully, Pickens' views on the economics of imported oil will be welcomed by people who don't want to hear anything Al Gore has to say.
Pickens is describing our $725 billion dollar a year foreign tax bill as "the biggest transfer of wealth in the history of the world". He points out that this transfer of wealth will have dire consequences for the US economy, currency, and our standard of living should we continue to ignore the issue. Seeking Alpha readers know that I have been saying the same things in my articles...unfortunately, no one listens to me.
However, the commercials Pickens is now running on CNBC are fantastic! It took Pickens to run these...not the President, not Congress, and Lord knows not Paulsen or Bernanke. Sure Pickens will make money on his wind ventures...but no one should doubt that he cares greatly about his country, its security, and the quality of his children's and grandchildren's lives. That said, I believe my energy policy is a bit more comprehensive.
Pickens probably feels he will have a better chance of success if he keeps his message focused and narrow.
I hope Pickens, with his fame and easy access to the media and Congress, has better luck than I have had to date. I still can't get the Wall Street Journal, BusinessWeek, The Economist, or any other major "economic" magazine or paper to publish my energy policy and the reasons why it is so vital for the US to enact it (or at least some version of a real long-term comprehensive energy plan).
Neither have I had any substantial conversations with anyone at the DOE or Congress. What's harder to understand is their refusal to do so in spite that fact that oil has gone from $50 to nearly $150 since I began, nat gas has gone from $6 to over $13, inflation is raging, and of course the US dollar has averaged about a 7% drop per year for the last 8 years.
The result, as everyone can now see, is an S&P500 that has gone no-where in the last 10 years and an economy that could be described as anemic at best. In other words, all the predictions than any common sense economic analysis of our addiction to 70% imported oil has come true. Still, everyone wants to talk about "speculators", "manipulators", big oil (and wind-fall profits taxes), off-shore drilling, etc. etc. Everyone it seems, except Pickens and a few others (me for example), wants to talk about everything but the REAL inconvenient truth: going forward, worldwide oil supply will not be able to keep up with worldwide oil demand. It's that simple! For a country like the US that consumes 25% of the world's oil (yet has only 5% of the world's population) and imports 70% of that oil, you would think this would be the page 1 headline issue in the financial papers every day.
Yet, it isn't. It's being ignored or at least significantly marginalized. Ignored even when the dire economic consequences are staring them in the straight in the face every day. And, it's getting worse every day we continue to ignore it.
All that said, you won't be surprised to know I believe the recent sell-off in energy has been waaaaaay over done in. I suppose it's in response to falling US demand for gasoline, seasonality, the fact that Chinese drivers are now allowed to drive only every other day (even or odd license plate numbers) because of the Olympic clean air issue, and because apparently the stock piling of diesel by the Chinese has been cut back significantly.
Of course, the fact that oil has come down under $125 and natural gas has dropped below $10 hasn't helped. All that said, winter will come, the Chinese drivers will probably be allowed to drive everyday after the Olympics (although many Chinese apparently favor the cleaner air and having every other day off work), and energy demand will continue to be strong in emerging economies. Oil and natural gas stocks are at bargain prices today and great buys! I won't list all the recommendations again, you all know them.
Now, I will take my lumps and fully admit the recommendations I have made on SA in my last few submissions haven't faired too well in the last month or so. Of course, I have always said to buy and *hold* these energy stocks through short term volatility. The energy stocks will come back, stronger (and faster) than ever. Just look at the futures prices for oil and natural gas. Energy stocks will print cash faster than the Fed - and that's really saying something!
Anyone read ConocoPhillips' (COP) earnings report Wednesday? It was yet another stellar quarter that beat analyst estimates. The analysts are now predicting COP will earn over $13/share in 2008. The stock is currently at $82 and change, which is a 6 month forward PE of just over 6 (!?). On the day their earnings came out, COP traded down, and GM traded up most of the day. Crazy market indeed! Another of my favorites, Schlumberger (SLB) also had a great quarter, but Nabors (NBR) dissapointed me. Oh, and don't forget gold. Gold has weakened along with energy...pick up some bullion and bury in your backyard. If you're not able to dig or don't have a shovel, just buy some streetTracks Gold (GLD).
Disclosure: The author owns COP, SLB, and NBR as well being long gold.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 86 comments:
webofdeception.com/#pi...
My big problem with Al Gore, other than that he is a Democrat, is that he is a money sucking hypocrite. He tells us how bad we are and our carbon footprint is too big and we must do something to change, no matter the cost. But he flies in a private jet, lives in a 12,000 sq ft house and is making millions of dollars on all of the climate change hype! Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle! What hypocrisy. But shouldn't we expect that from Mr. Gore and his ilk? That's why I refuse to put any creedence in anything he says. I just wish he'd go away. Thank God he wasn't elected back in 2000!
COP at a 6 P/E?? Man, I'm glad I'm loaded up with their stock and many of their stock options and restricted shares. CHK has 90% of this year's gas sold forward at $9 and 70% of next year's gas sold forward at $9++, yet its stock goes down when gas prices drop. That my friend makes no sense. They have virtually locked in profit regardless of what the price of gas does! Yet wall street crucifies them! These are good long term buys. and COP pays a nice little dividend and will be buying back $10 billion - with-a-B - worth of their own shares!!! And the CEO of CHK buys millions and millions of the shares of his company! Gotta like those odds!
Energy independence is a great thing; I just don't want it mandated by a bunch of worthless scumbags called congressmen who thwart every effort to get more domestic production. I'm all for independence, but unfortunately dirt bag Pelosi, her sidekick Reid, the chosen messiah "0" and all the other "leaders" in congress are hurting not helping. Pickens has an idea. Now lets get more of them and try them ALL! Drilling, nukes, wind, NG, oil shale, offshore northeast Atlantic, offshore Florida, offshore California. ALL of it!
You are tackling a very worthwhile topic. The range of comments, from the trivial to the complex, show both the frustration and the careful thought this subject engenders. Personally, I believe the energy crisis could be either the vehicle of decline for our beloved country or the financial opportunity of the century. I try to discuss this in the latest post on my website.
Clear: I don't think the GOP's only solution is drill. It is one part. But they are not in the leadership of the congress; still waiting on Nanci's and Harry's solution. Long term. We do agree that ALL things need to be worked. That is common ground for you and I.
And if you are counting Arnold as a republican, you are seriously mistaken. he is not a republican, regardless of what letter follows his name! But if the states don't want drilling, then that's fine. No drilling; but give them a choice. But I also think the states that do allow drilling should have the right to reap a disproportionate share of the benefits of drilling. Like an excise tax paid by all states that don't allow drilling. Or they should get disproportionate share of funds derived from drilling. I think that's being done in the OCS with royalties and fees. La, Tx and Ms are getting extra funds as they are allowing leasing.
Now if we could just get those big gas bags up in Massachewwwwsits to put some windfarms off their beautiful pristine coasts.... but no we can't have that!
Cheney's energy policy would have actually helped with some of our current problems. Had we started work in ANWAR 7 years ago, we'd be within a year or so of getting oil out, not 8-10 years from now. Economists aren't trained in Energy Policy. They are trained at making horribly inaccurate predictions! And they are good at it. Why should Economists be asked about energy policy? Do you ask your Dentist about your prostrate health?
But the basis of your story is right on - there are alternative sources that are here, renewable and viable. An nearly everything is driven by economics - the cost to produce and hook up one wind powered generator is $$$$$$$$$, the cost to produce and hook up 1000's of wind powered generators is $$. The incentive to produce more alterative energy sources IS directly coupled to the price of the BOE. And you can take that to the bank.
per pickens and export of cash. i'm not certain that the 'export' of 700 million dollars to agents of foreign petroleum is that crucial in the context of an ump-teen trillion dollar economy.
what i do endorse is his action. there are a lot of deep problems in america which often off-set the positives. dependence on fossil fuels, or at least untreated fossil fuels, is one of these problems. our leaders are not leading the way and have a murky vision at best of global future.
Huh? How about this?
The REAL inconvenient truth: going forward, OPEC will continue to rob us blind by setting oil prices at ANY LEVEL THEY DESIRE.
Huh? How about this?
The REAL inconvenient truth: going forward, OPEC will continue to rob us blind by setting oil prices at ANY LEVEL THEY DESIRE.
Ever heard of the Ice Age? One theory that it was caused by a huge meteor. Maybe someone should be working on creating a man made one to lower the warming trend. Climate change happens all of the time.
hypratt: you got a problem with oil companies returning their profit to their shareholders...the OWNERS of the companies?? How socialist of you! And do you know who these shareholders are? Pension funds, mutual funds, IRA holders, 401-k holders, etc. These folks are then free to take those profits and invest them in anything they want, including up and coming green alternative energy companies!! Nationalize oil: what a joke! You see how well Hugo's company is doing? losing production by the day. How about PEMEX? Can't find their way into production increases. I've got it: let Congress or politicians run the oil companies! Yeah, great idea. Politicians were running Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac as they went down the tubes too. Mostly Clinton ex's who padded their pockets and then falsely boosted company earnings to gain big bonuses. Same thing as Enron except they were prosecuted because they were politically connected. So yes, lets let the inept politicians run the oil companies. That will get oil to $300 really quick!!
Maybe the messiah can come up with a solution when he gets back from Europe on his campaign swing that the taxpayers are paying for. As the annointed one I'm sure he has an idea that involves taking my money and doing something with it that I don't approve of.
> jack
Jul 25 12:14 PM
It's obvious from the comments that many of you need to come to an understanding of this chart:
static.seekingalpha.co...
Then, it should become more clear to you that Boon'es plus other's wind (and solar, nuclear, hydro...) should replace not only the natural gas in electric power generation (22% for primarily peak generation at 70% waste energy), but also the coal (50% of our power generated also at 70% waste); leave those hydrocarbons in the ground and use the free and forever readily available energy. That's the power gen side.
On the Transportation side, Boone should not only leave his NG in the ground instead of powering cars (again at 70% waste heat), but we should go fully electric to replace the actual useful work (6 Quads our of 40 Quads) in all that crude with 6 Quads of electric; a 50% increase from the 12 Quads of electric we currently produce and distribute around the USA.
So go ELECTRIC in Transportation: railroads, interstates, beltways with steel wheeled rails, EV's and hybrids with biofuels and leave all the hydrocarbons in the ground.
Don't you get it folks? Seventy percent (70%) of all the hydrocarbons we burn is WASTE!!!! Duh!!!!
> jack
> jack
We need to wean ourselves from fossil fuels because THEY WILL BE SCARCE in the future, irrespective of the global warming issue.
As to Al Gore, he really discredited himself the other day when he claimed we could switch to 100% renewable electricity within 10 years. (and then his organization proposed a 30 year spending program to implement that switchover!)
I have read a number of books on alternative energy, and the consensus is that very aggressive but achievable goals would be along the lines of 20% renewable by 2020 or 30% by 2030.
100% in 10 years? What is Al Gore smoking.
In my view the biggest issue with renewables is matching supply and demand both in time and geography.
This may not hit us too hard as we go to 20-30% renewables, but when we make the ramp up to 100% it will be in my view the biggest challenge ever undertaken by mankind.
While variable pricing (e.g. charge less when the wind is blowing) may allow some of the mismatch to be addressed by people doing non time-critical energy-consuming tasks during off peak hours, I believe that most of the mismatch will still remain.
We will either need giant batteries to store the output of power plants generated during low-demand periods in order to use the energy during higher demand periods, or we will need a massive global electrical grid so that wherever in the world energy is being generated, it can be transmitted to the place in the world where it is needed at that particular time.
The technology does not exist to implement either of those today.
We know how to build wind power plants and we know how to build solar power plants but we do not at this time have the technology to address the load-shifting issue.
That in my view will constitute the biggest scientific and engineering challenge in the history of mankind. Whether we succeed will determine whether human civilization continues.
It's just a matter of emphasis, committment, LEADERSHIP, and us resourceful Americans (with wisdom, correct vision, mission, resources, etc., - the standard mantra properly focused).
Just like France (83% nuc); Switzerland (electrified rails); Brazil (50% biofuel vehicles); Germany (40% solar), etc.....LEADERSHIP!
Or, the other kind of leadership: USA (90% hydrocarbons with 70% of that wasted.....DUH!!)
ONE THING IS FOR CERTAIN: IF WE DON'T START WE WON'T GET THERE;
ONE OTHER THING: IF WE DON'T DO IT LIKE A MANHATTAN PROJECT OR MOON SHOT WE WON'T GET THERE SOONER (which may be right on time)!
ONE MORE THING: ANOTHER 70'S OIL EMBARGO MAY BE MORE EFFECTIVE TODAY.
We have barely begun to focus on effective, efficient storage, from hydro to giant capacitors, flywheels, and other non-change-of-state high effeciency recovery methods.
I'd be more than pleased with a 100% target and get to 90% in 10-20 years, leaving the final 10% for years 20 to 30, IF NECESSARY. I believe the conversion speed would mushroom long before it peters out - hence we arrive earlier but not necessarily complete: it's not like not reaching shore, it's like having only 90 pecent converted.
We have to invert Prato's law and get 80% of it done in 20% of the time. That's the mission. Rather that 20% done in 80% of the time.
Again: only 6 Quads of useful energy goes to Trnsportation. We already generate 12 Quads annually of electricity. So beef up the power generation 50% - that's nothing new nor impossible (Boone wants to do a good portion of that with his wind). Just have to do more of it for replacing the NG and coal.
As for transmission and distributtion - we know how to do that.
Timing issues and load sharing - we can handle those required improvements too. I'm not convinced we have really studied the total electric scenerio from NON-HYDROCARBON generation to final ELECTRIFIED USE including all storage rquirements east to west, north to south. [AND I'M NOT SO SURE THAT WE SHOULD CONTINUE STUDYING IT - I'M FOR BOONE'S APPROACH AT THIS POINT IN TIME - PLACE YOUR BET; EAT A CHUNK OF THIS ELEPHANT (AND I GUARANTEE YOU, HE HAS STUDIED IT ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT IT IS A WORTHWHILE BET SINCE IT'S HIS MONEY [AND SOME OTHER FOLKS] - SO IT'S PROBABLY STUDIED EEEENNNOOOOUUUUGGGGHHH...
Nor have we addressed all the possibilities for efficent conversion to electricity via effective recovery of waste heat in biofuel burning hybrids.
Again, remember, we only use 6 Quads of useful energy in ALL transportation. We already annually generate 12 Quads of useful electric energy. There are many ways to skin this cat. Let's get on with it.
Any KWH we generate from solar or wind etc., is worth 3x or more than from any hydrocarbon be it coal, NG, crude, oil shale, tar sands, etc.
The conversion to electricity could be effective at $60 crude and $3 gasoline. There are only a few reasons we are at $130 crude and $5 gasoline, and they are not the economic and technical feasibility or the free, forever available alternatives, nor the practicality nor effectiveness of those alternatives: wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, hydro, nuclear generation use of electricty; and biofuels. It lies elsewhere, including may the fear of the above.
Yes, we have some work to do and some scientific improvements are required. Needing them will help make them happen.
We should look at wind but wind isn't a consistent source so it will always have to have back up, either in battery storage or alternative source (like nat gas or coal). Electric for cars/trucks/buses/trai... sounds good but for a while its going to be very expensive and the conversion of the entire infrastructure will take time. So we will have to wean ourselves off of gasoline/diesel and over to electric. But it is possible. But it will take time. A lot of people can't afford to go out and buy a new electric car. They'll wait until their old beat up gasoline car breaks down. Heck, I own TWO suburbans but won't trade one of them in 'cuz I won't get jack for it in trade and don't feel like shelling out $20,000 to $30,000 for a new car. I drive about 600 miles per month and even if I find a car that gets 40 mpg and gas is $5/gallon, that's less than $200 in savings per month. Not enough to justify spending that kind of cash.
Now, I'm sure the O-messiah will probably propose that he STEAL / CONFISCATE money from the rich and give new hybrid cars to all of the "working class" for free. So hey, maybe that's my ticket! Oh, I forgot I actually earn a salary so I won't be qualified as "working class" as per their definition. Just like I didn't get a stimulus check, Hope credits for education, deductions for IRA's, or full value for my tax exemptions or deductions. Marxists!
baron, CT: thank you.
bill james: i'm all for electric powered rapid transit. if not for the auto and trucking lobbyists, we'd have high speed bullet trains on both coasts. i added more to my energy policy on this due to your feedback.
User: please name some of the "real scientist" you are referring to. please leave out the MIT hack that is on XOM's payroll.
franklin: agreed.
Mmarrkk: thanks. the term "money sucking hypcocrits" could also be applied to the so-called "conservative" republicans who have milked the US treasury dry the last 8 years on their fabricated war and financial hi-jinks. you have no problem with cheney or bush making money? at least we agree on COP.
Clearlead: agreed.
jlounsbury59: your issue #1 (referring to your website) is dead on. isn't it interesting to you guys that the people supposedly responsible for US economic policy (Bernanke, Paulsen) rarely speak about oil at all but are using the current economic "crisis" to increase their socialistic (i.e. governement) control over more and more of the financial system? it's very interesting to me that so-called "conservative" republicans don't see this huge socialization of the financial system that is staring them right in the kisser.
CT: heh heh heh
oldoil: yes, we do have a few hundred years of science to help us. as an editor of EE Times recently wrote, Joseph Fourier (famous engineer who the Fourier Transform is named after) discovered the greenhouse effect in 1824. Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenious published a paper on the relationship between CO2 adn atmospheric temperature back in 1896. everybody talks about the "new" science behind the global warming discussion when in fact, it's not that new at all. what is new is the injection of massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere by man in the last 100 years. truck drivers ARE slowing down on the highways to conserve diesel (trust me, i just drove to and from colorado). btw, wind is cost competitive today in many parts of the world, and if you take into account the effects of what Pickens calls the greatest transfer of wealth in history (falling US dollar, inflation, national security), wind is a steal - and it's clean!
schminke: we agree on action, disagree that $725/billion US dollar exports to countries we supposedly are fighting on the "war on terrorism" is not "crucial".
PK de Cville: i disagree with your insinuation that OPEC can control oil prices by pumping more oil. the Saudi's main oil reservoirs have hit peak oil and the depletion rates are averaging about 6%/year. they are currently building the biggest industrial project (and most expensive) in the history of the world to get at a reservoir miles inland which has heavy and sour crude they have to pump sea water hundreds of miles and then pump it into the ground to recover this crappy oil. why would they be doing this if plentiful, abundant, and cheap crude were available? it's the same answer as behind the tar sands in canada: it's because oil AIN'T abundant, cheap, and readily available any more. therein lies the crisis for a country like the US that imports 70% of its oil and whose economy is dependent on it. thus people like Pickens and myself trying to wake up the US government, media, and citizenry. does your handle imply you own a pink caddilac coup de ville? just curious.
cal: thanks, and agree with much you said especially build out of the train tracks. remember, it was GM that bought up all the eastern seaboard trains and tracks and demolished them to force people to buy their cars. now look at the state of GM. wrt nat gas for autos, i believe Pickens is focused on fleets right now, for which the cost refueling and tank storage infrastructure issues can be mitigated. it's a start. there is no silver bullet. the energy crisis is of such a magnitude we will need ALL small solutions together. Repubs and Dems are both to blame and both almost completely useless, and have been since JFK was assasinated. we lost our soul as a country on that one and haven't gotten it back since.
naked: i'm doing the best i can man. if i had the resources of boone pickens, you'd see me doing a helluva more, that much i can guarantee you. what are you doing about it?
jerry: i agree we should be building LNG terminals on both coasts and in the gulf. it's in my energy policy:
thefitzman.blogspot.co...
hypratt: the price of gasoline never went up inline with the price of oil - if it did, we'd be paying north of $7/gallon. wrt climate change, of course it happens all the time, but that is not what the debate is about. the debate is about wether or not man is impacting the normal cyclical Earth's climate change in a drastic fashion over the past 100 years by pumping in mega doses of CO2 into the atmosphere.
barnburner: agreed, cheney is pure evil.
Mmarrkk: your last comments on the "messiah"...have you not noticed what bush has done to your US dollars, your savings, and your tax monies? wake up man! jeez...i am sooo tired of bush fans acting like he has been good for their net worth and their private investments! he has been DEATH to them. wake the heck up man.
edcava: Pickens doesnt hide the fact that he has these investments, in fact, he pounds the table on them. what is wrong with making money AND doing something good for the country. it's like the gore argument about his plane's CO2 output or whatever. it's like people can't see the forest for the trees.
Mmarrkk: yeah, and their energy plan was so good that oil went up 5x during bush's administration. so much for strategy. the problem was iraq: they took millions of barrels off the market at the same time china was ramping up imports bigtime. then, the speculators put a "geo-political" risk premium on oil due to US militarism. wait until israel of the US goes into iran if you want to see real fireworks. that will make iraq look like a day at disneyland....
cswalker: never thought of that before, thanks.
CT: i hope your optimistic view holds...but it is way too early to say we have met this challenge. i think it's a real horserace...time will tell. so far, US energy policy is a disaster and other than Pickens, i see few signs that people out there "get it", which is simply amazing when one considers the oil war, oil at $125, US dollar dropping like a rock, S&P dropping like a rock, etc. etc.
johns: i expect the oil wars will move into both poles at some point, it won't just be china...it will be russia, canada, and the good old USA.
naked: we need an electric car and electrical infrastructure in order for that to happen. i'm all for it..but it takes time...and not everyone can buy an electric car solution the day they go to market.
johnsgordon: agree with that statement. it's like when people say "boy, good thing gore didn't win" i immediately think yeah, boy, the markets, the economy, and the US dollar have done simply GREAT under bush (not!). it's like people have ideological blinders on. i personally don't know how US fiscal, foreign, and domestic policies could have been more screwed up than what bush has done if a president had TRIED to create worse policies. which the cynic in me asks the question: perhaps it ALL has been on purpose??
bot feeder: agree that target is not realizable. he gets over enthusiastic at times, which is one reason he is so divisive. the pickens approach will have a better chance.
bot feeder: agreed that technology is key. that's why i wish we had more money going to engineers and research than in the money sink-hole of iraq.
Now, I could use this same argument for alternative energy sources vis-a-vis hydrocarbons, except in this case we are looking for a paridigm shift from a problem area called wasted energy to efficient energy use (others call the argument high gasoline prices, high food prices, geo-political, world oil consumption demand, drilling restrictions, etc.,) and lose focus on what we are really about as properly envisioned by Swiss rails, French Nuc, Brazilian bio, German solar, etc.
Get out of the tails; get a grip.
Electric conversion will continue in the US as it has occured elsewhere in the world for non-grassroot implementation. For instance, it will begin in industry (in transportation: like rails, busses, transport etc., as they have proven in the past to switch to electric and NG fork trucks, delivery vans, etc., rails, where there is in essence FLEET SERVICE, and eventually down to individuals) - you normally start with the selfish individual perspective.
Same for power generation - a Boone approach, if not utility, converts the majority while individual farm windmills and thermal solar panels comes at it from the other end, where willing minds and ingenuity prevail: roadblockers get left behind (and/or then want others to do it for them!).
GOP financial hijinks...not limited to GOP...lots of blame for all parties on that one. Take a look at the wall of shame on the FNMZ and Freddie Mac scandals.
Agreeing with BUsh: I don't agree with him on everything...I think he's dead wrong on immigration...he caved in to the Demo's and the hispanic lobby not to mention the business lobby. He didn't veto near enough spending bills and allowed spending to go out of control...he didn't fight hard enough to make the tax cuts permanent. I still think the war was right...saddam was a madman and violated UN resolution after UN resolution...just going to let him keep on? And he was genocidal. Why is genocide bad in one country but okay in another...on and on. Bottom line: I don't agree with him on everything and I'm sorely dissappointed in Bush. BUT, knowing everything that has happened and given the choice between him and Gore and/or Kerry, I'd vote for him again without a blink. The other two alternatives would have been horrible.
My financial situation has improved tremendously since he got in office. My salary is way up, my stock holdings and savings are way up, even accounting for inflation and the low dollar. I'm happy with the financial situation. Now, when they try and take the tax cuts away, we'll all be in a world of hurt.
Bottom line: I don't agree with all GOP'ers and everything they do, but I do agree with them some time. I disagree with the philosophy and the actions of all democrats. So, I despise McCain but will hold my nose and vote for him because the messiah is just a horrible choice. I philosophically disagree with all my heart on his tax policy, his health policy, his energy policy, his Iraq policy, his Iran policy, his social policy, his selection of bombers and crooks as friends, etc. I think the man is a catastrophe waiting to happen as it involves me and my family and my business and my state and my country. His voting record in the Senate bears out what he will be like as POTUS and it scares the crap out of me. McCain is a little better, but not much.
biofuels for planes...i like it as long as it isn't corn-based ethanol. no more burning food for energy. that's just stupid.
GOP financial hijinks...not limited to GOP...lots of blame for all parties on that one. Take a look at the wall of shame on the FNMZ and Freddie Mac scandals.
Agreeing with BUsh: I don't agree with him on everything...I think he's dead wrong on immigration...he caved in to the Demo's and the hispanic lobby not to mention the business lobby. He didn't veto near enough spending bills and allowed spending to go out of control...he didn't fight hard enough to make the tax cuts permanent. I still think the war was right...saddam was a madman and violated UN resolution after UN resolution...just going to let him keep on? And he was genocidal. Why is genocide bad in one country but okay in another...on and on. Bottom line: I don't agree with him on everything and I'm sorely dissappointed in Bush. BUT, knowing everything that has happened and given the choice between him and Gore and/or Kerry, I'd vote for him again without a blink. The other two alternatives would have been horrible.
My financial situation has improved tremendously since he got in office. My salary is way up, my stock holdings and savings are way up, even accounting for inflation and the low dollar. I'm happy with the financial situation. Now, when they try and take the tax cuts away, we'll all be in a world of hurt.
Bottom line: I don't agree with all GOP'ers and everything they do, but I do agree with them some time. I disagree with the philosophy and the actions of all democrats. So, I despise McCain but will hold my nose and vote for him because the messiah is just a horrible choice. I philosophically disagree with all my heart on his tax policy, his health policy, his energy policy, his Iraq policy, his Iran policy, his social policy, his selection of bombers and crooks as friends, etc. I think the man is a catastrophe waiting to happen as it involves me and my family and my business and my state and my country. His voting record in the Senate bears out what he will be like as POTUS and it scares the crap out of me. McCain is a little better, but not much.
biofuels for planes...i like it as long as it isn't corn-based ethanol. no more burning food for energy. that's just stupid.
On that note, I guess it's only fair to give credit to whom it's due. The very fact that global warming is being discussed on a financial forum is a product of the work of none other than Canadian scientist David Suzuki. For over two decades, David has been one of conservation's strongest voices; he's been pioneering the study and the popularization of the notion by taking on several media projects aimed at educating people around the world. In this sense, all Al Gore did was take the words of Suzuki and other such experts and put them in such a way that would make them more palatable to American audiences. An he has obviously succeeded at that. If you are still in doubt, then think about the Global Warming Index (GWI) created by UBS last year to capture temperature variations and turn them into money-making instruments. While weather investing is hardly a novelty, it's clear that the GWI is a recent attempt at making weather derivatives trading a common practice among some of the biggest culprits of climate change. As it is, some of those trading in weather derivatives include reinsurers, hedge funds and ENERGY companies. No wonder this is now a $50 billion industry.
As Ilija Murisic, executive director of hybrid derivatives trading at UBS said, “Global warming has created much more volatility in temperatures and weather conditions, which has led to increased liquidity in the weather derivatives market”. At least in this sense global warming is VERY REAL and it is here to stay.
Given this state of affairs and the sorts of sophisticated baskets that are being engineered around the GWI, you've got to wonder if the big players in the energy sector (and their proxies on Capitol Hill) have any interest whatsoever in doing anything about climate change and reducing CO2 emissions. I mean, if you could make a tone of cash by going long on the GWI (it's the obvious choice), thereby hedging any other positions in different assets classes that may or may not be affected by changing market conditions and socio-political dynamics (i.e. the push toward more fuel efficiency in every sector), why would you even bother to reduce emissions let alone develop alternative, carbon-free sources of energy?
There's an underlying perverse logic in such things as the GWI that make me think that anything that we do on the climate change front will always be undermined by the whims of the money-hungry, ruthless interests of big capital. And it doesn't matter how you put it or the position you take on the subject, big capital will always find an opportunity to make money, whether you believe global warming is real or not...it doesn't matter! Yet ignorance and blindness are such that we can't even realize the obvious fact that even those media characters espousing the "drill, drill, drill" mantra are simply puppets in this game.
You are in good company.
1) Matthew Simmons (who has many great ideas like yourself on energy independance) was a former Energy Advisor to George W. Bush. Unfortunately, Matt was not taken too seriously despite his 35 yrs experience in the energy business.
2) Robert Hirsch who was commissioned by the Department of Energy to write the "Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management report" report with a comprehensive energy policy was also by dismissed by the current adminstration.
3) I believe T. Boone Pickens also pitched his ideas to the DOE and congress and was not taken seriously as well. I think he will have the greatest chance of success through his clever use of his media campaigns. Many people are asking "We aren't we doing this already ?"
Mmarrkk: unfortunately his policy to attack iraq WAS followed. so was his policy to regress the EPA clean air standards for coal electric generations plants, so now, instead of spewing less CO2 into the atmosphere and less mercury into our water tables, we are injecting MORE. also, the ethanol policy cheney favors (mandates) are causing food inflation that is averaging over 15%/year (!) while at the same time they keep the import tax on brazalian ethanol. it's all insane in my opinion. as far as financial hijinx, i agree both dems and reps are involved. what i can't stand is the "holier than thou" responses by republicans ideologues who, despite their savings, investments, and currency being absolutely pummelled during 8 years of george bush, continue to act as though they are the "party of the economy". nothing could be further from the truth.
tax cuts permanent during war time? wonderful, let's save everyone 5% on their taxes and then watch the currency drop 7 or 8% a year and inflation rise 10% a year. question: are you really getting ahead with this policy? answer: NO. meanwhile, the debt to your children and grandchildren will be a monkey on their backs. unless you are a multi-billionaire and involved in the profits of raping our US treasury, you'd be better off with a strong currency, low inflation, and a market that gives polsitive returns, instead of the negative returns of the bush years. think about it! your stock holdings are way up since bush got in office? what are you investing in, please be specific. you must be in commodities and US dollar hedges. as far as being in a world of hurt, look around, the US economy is in a world of hurt NOW.
Ensoph: wasn't aware of the GWI, thanks. agree with your conclusions on global warming. i still believe a much greater and more imminent threat than global warming will be the economic impact of worldwide oil supply not keeping up with worldwide oil demand. that should be the focus and impetus for getting off oil dependency and onto alternative energy sources and alternative transportation solutions. to not do so will be disastrous by 2015.
Jimbo: glad you compost and glad you ride a bike. i do the same. don't let Al Gore shape your thinking on global warming - why let one man colour your thoughts. just think for yourself and look at the facts objectively. meanwhile, keep doing what you are doing.
longoil: yes, exactly. what is even more interesting is the response i got from the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, Warren Buffet, the Google guys, etc: they all politely declined or ignored my suggestion that they address the biggest threat to the US: worldwide oil supplies not keeping up with demand. i had to laugh yesterday when the Gates foundation teamed with Bloomberg for a $500 million (yes, 500 MILLION dollar) effort to tackling a non-smoking campaign. now, imagine what $500 million dollars worth of TV commercials, magazine ads, and investments in R&D could do to help the US government, media, and citizens understand the oil problem. an unbelievable mis-allocation of "charity" funds. i even explained to Gates and Buffets how almost every endeavor they are involved in with their foundation will fail if the energy problem isn't addressed. also, have you noticed, where is the support for Pickens? other than the CEO of Dow Chemical (whose speech on CNBC related to the inflationary impact of our oil dependency was classically great), who is coming out and supporting Pickens? Gates? Buffet? Google guys? i haven't heard any of them support Pickens. damn shame. wish i had their money, i'd be pouring it into the effort. when will people look at history and figure out, if your country goes down, so does the currency and so does all your savings and investments. the only way to keep your wealth is to keep your country (i.e. the middle class) strong. otherwise, you sink into anarchy and revolution. it can surely happen here and where we're headed if we don't address energy with a sane, long-term, comprehensive energy policy:
thefitzman.blogspot.co...
freefall51: yeah, or, we could stick with the bush/cheney energy policy and see oil go up another 5x, maybe $250 by the end of mccain's first four years. i can't wait! sounds wonderful. freefall is right. our economy, after 8 years of bush economic and energy policies, certainly is in a freefall, along with our currency, our stock markets, and inversely proportional to our inflation rates and debt and interest on our debt. yup, i sure want another 4 years of this outstanding economic performance! sign me up beavis! (NOT!)
The greatest threats to America's future are apathy and complacency as illustrated by your feedback from Gates & Buffett.
I am not surprised by Gates's response. "Vista" basically sums this indiviudal in one word. However, I am surprised by the response you received by Warren Buffett. I would have expected a lot more from a wise individual like him. Who smokes anymore ??? It is banned in almost every single public place. Why is this still a problem ???
The scariest part of the "energy policys" of Obama and McCain are that they are based on voting poll surveys. (i.e. corn ethanol subsidies (for farmers), windfall taxes (for low and medium income earners), carbon taxes (for the Al Gore supporters), etc.) Even Obama's good ideas were lifted from Hillary platform. I remembered he had very little initially on Energy & Environment.
Thank God, we have T. Boone Pickens on our side.
Great revolutions only need one strong and focused leader (e.g. Paul Revere, Mathatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King jr. and Nelson Mandela)
Std Dist Curve? Normal Distribution? You do know what that is, right? Try statistics! The tails on both ends of the curve are where the 1 and 2 std deviations (<5% say) representing MINORITY positions exist (now all of this is MATH talk, not Limbaugh, etc., and if I say black hole, I mean in Space).
Well, sometimes your arguments and roadblocks (and even more so for many of your commentors) often represent the tails - they are not the norm ("about the norm", etc. - hey, go grab a statistics book and read it and then apply it to your writing AND thinking).
As for the labels, etc., divison, polarization, etc. - just calling a spade a spade instead of a shovel, ie., the truth. You may not like labels, etc; so you write what you write and I write what I write. We are a divided nation on many fronts - just recognizing reality. Often, the labels make describing reality simpler for most. Like Normal Distribution Curve is normally very clear. Tails are the minority. That's where wimps and selfish individuals exist - unless of course they become the norm.
Now, "alternative" energies are currently the "wimps" and "big oil" or "hydrocarbons" is the "norm", and I'd like to see the "wimps" win - which they will, you see; they will be the eventual winner: it's just a matter of time.
So let's go back to talk about the "selfish individual" (the wimp) vis-a-vis "common good". "Common Good" is not a "Communistic" term or label (as I define it), it refers to a Nation of free, law abiding citizens existing for the common good of all (and law breakers will be punished!). And, of course, even a neanderthal den of thieves or Communist Nation which would then be the norm also live by their set of laws for their common good (and they also punish their law breakers - and it's deadly!). So, I refer you back to the above Standard Deviation Curve discussion.
FIRST, when you discuss the honorable building out of the infrastructure (STRATEGY AND TACTICS) to incorporate your "energy policy" (the NORM) don't be misled, disruptupted, deterred, upset, etc., by the noise of the TAILS.
SECOND, make sure the elements (TACTICS) of your energy policy (STRATEGY) consistently fit the matrix for the common good and not the selfish wimp, however big or small.
And yes, sometimes the "selfish individual" is rightly permitted to be "big oil" - sometimes the Gorilla wins as we rightly try to chop down the bean stock.
We are in an energy war: chose your side.
For instance, Boone wants to generate electricy from wind; GREAT!
Boone wants to eliminate burning of NG in producing electricity: WHY? To then burn it in NG cars instead of imported oil??? Why? Because our $'s are going offshore?? Why?
Why not just generate more electrity from wind (and solar, etc.) AND not burn the NG AND OIL (AND COAL) by electrifying transportation. That's a triple win on many fronts, at least:
- No NG produced, nor burned: no hydrocarbon used; no CO2.
- No OIL Imported [or Produced], nor burned: no hydrocarbon used; no CO2.
- NG and OIL consumption decreases (and the worlds availability increases substantially);
- NG and OIL prices drop (if it's a supply/demand issue).
AND we don't care, cause we're not using it.
Common good, right? Not big oil. So tell all the drill, drill, drill guys to jump in those holes.
Choose your side wisely, be clear and consistent; right will prevail even if we're dead.
I hope this clarifies things for you and your readers.
And why no mention of nuclear energy? And why not utilize coal and promote clean coal technologies with tax incentives, same thing for natural gas? The point is to utilize what we have, in abundance--have the govt step back and allow American business to innovate. Who helped Conoco Phillips, Exxon, et al when oil sank in the mid-late 1990's, when the commodities all tanked during the currency crisis in the Pacific Rim? No one complained then when those big oil companies weren't profitable, because we were all paying $1.25 at the gas pump. That's when exploration virtually ceased.
Why shouldn't those companies reward their shareholders? That is the beauty of capitalism.
I don't care that T. Boone Pickens is making money on his investments, he's my hero. Al Gore, however, is a wretched puke.
Bless you Fitzman,you keep plugging away! How'd you like Senator Obama's foreign tour? Think the Europeans will elect him? Just kidding.
So, the Germans are more happy because they spend less energy? Hell no!
Using less energy does not save money because it must be spent elsewhere. But at least it minimizes financing some of the not so well-meaning oil or gas exporting countries. (Think about this for a second. In what other sector of the economy do you find a supplier of anything that can afford to despise his own client?)
The charm of saving energy is that it can be done with means generally available to the public. Experience however shows, that the population needs to be forced by regulation to buy into it, because energy conservation is expensive to begin with. But energy conservation measures also provide jobs, inspire invention and technological advance and they have a lasting effect too.
One of the striking differences that I faced on my transition into the US ten years ago was the construction standards of the homes in this country. Just a few thoughts from what I remember from my former life.
Unlike in the US it is hard to find a house in Germany that has single window or door panes. Normal standard are tight closing windows and doors with two or three panes.
By far most of the houses are built in brick and mortar. The materials used have to comply with a certain standard to minimize heat losses. Bricks used in new built houses are 2.5 ft thick. There is another half foot of insulation on the outside of the walls plus a layer of a mineral cover. The inside of the roof is also insulated (plus a vapor barrier to prevent condensation of humidity under the shindles). A basement and insulation under the floor and basement walls helps to restrict heat losses to the ground.
Ventilated air may be heat exchanged so that warm air leaving the house warms up incoming cold fresh air.
Houses now let for rent need to have a thermographic certificate, that proves there are no heat leaks. Else, the renter is entitled to cut its rent.
Solar technology with collectors on the roof is often being used to make warm water.
Heat pumps (the reverse of air conditioning) are sometimes used to heat houses. Heating homes is in Germany more common than cooling. Cooling is more expensive than heating and an excellent heat insulation in those houses is all the more important.
The usage of heating oil is increasingly being replaced with NG, which burns cleaner anyway. NG frees up the place for an oil tank in the home but requires connection to a local gas line or a LNG tank in the garden. The heating furnaces must have minimum efficiencies dependent on their capacity. The efficiencies measured by stack temperatures, CO2 and CO emissions are mandatorily inspected every year and the furnaces have to be fixed if they don’t comply with the regulations.
Stacks have to be insulated or made of stainless steel, since the exhaust temperatures are generally low and condensation of humidity (corrosive due to SO2 traces in gas) must be prevented.
I owned an alternative place for wood fire, that was actually designed to leave the heat in the room other than pulling the heat out of the room like any open fire place, that can be found in US houses for show only. That worked wonderfully, but made a lot of work since logs had to be cut and split and the ash removed.
Because of those standards and the way houses are traditionally built, the substance of the buildings is about 2 -3 times as expensive as a rafter house of the same size in the US.
The Americans want to be like the Europeans? Welcome to the new world.
There are obviously lots of ways to look and interprete observations. One of the problems in this discussion is that the change of the KPI ‘world temperature’ is very small compared to the daily fluctuations and its average changes only slowly if at all. This is stuff for endless investigation projects on taxpayer money.
Add ideology and you are in the middle of junk science.
It does not help the case if long terms statistics from the last 150 years of increasing temperatures are presented from stations that have been encroached by urbanization over time and a good deal of the measured temperature increase is due to reflection of heat radiation form surrounding solid surfaces.
It does not help the case if the fundamentals of heat adsorption by the ‘greenhouse gas’ CO2 are neglected. CO2 has only two discrete absorption lines in an infrared spectrum where the wave lengths range over three orders of magnitude. Meaning CO2 cannot have a meaningful effect on retaining the overall IR heat radiation from earth.
It is not enlightening to drill ice cores and correlate ancient CO2 with warm periods. We all know there were warm periods that spurred growth of plants and animals. A high activity of plant an animal life may as well be correlated with high CO2 content in the atmosphere. But was CO2 the cause of the warm period or just a byproduct?
If you believe in this or not, Al Gore and his ilk is becoming increasingly meaningless in the discussion on energy conservation. That issue has moved up the rank to a national security issue.
Investors are selling COP at 6x forward PE (!?).Crazy...
Are those selling investors dumb or smart?
It's easy to understand dumber people,but often hard, to understand people,who are smarter than oneself.
Time wil tell...
longoil: yup, i'm surprised by buffet's lack of interest as well. he seems to be a genuine american with high integrity, and his partner charlie m. has made statements that lead me to believe they understand what is happening with oil and its ultimate impact on the country they supposedly love so much, not to mention their investments. who knows. i just scratch my head. Berkshire stock is down what, almost 20% this year? with all the consumer and housing market exposure in his portfolio, wouldn't you think buffet would want a strong middle class? at least he disagreed strongly with the tax cuts for the wealthy. he at least gets that, and he benefits more than anyone from that idiotic policy.
naked: thanks for the "education" on std. distribution curves, but it was unnecessary as i am fully aware of the mathematics. what i was *trying* to get you to do was explain what in the world you were *applying* it to as your previous post was not clear at all. and to be honest, i still am real fuzzy about what you are trying to say. i wish you would take each policy issue once at a time, state your position and why you disagree with me (i think you do, but you jumble your arguments together so much, it's hard to be sure) and let's have a clear and logical debate. in other words, if you focused and simplified each issue, perhaps we could make some headway here.
wizard: as you know, i totally agree with your comment that our addiction to foreign oil, and oil in general, is the greatest economic and national security issue facing the US today, and that the global climate change issue has actually hindered the transition away from oil (because of its ideological divisiveness).
optionsgirl: yet it was ronald reagan that ripped out the nice solar panels that jimmy carter had fashioned in the white house because he believed it was "wimpy". wrt your comments on nuclear, here is a bullet from my energy policy:
• Power sources that should be financially and otherwise encouraged by the government are nuclear, wind, and solar. We will need massive amounts of electricity from these sources, and we need to begin NOW. Nuclear plants require long lead times to license and build and we should have started yesterday.
wrt clean coal, here is another bullet from my energy policy:
• The US has huge coal reserves, but coal is dirty. We need more research done in the area of coal-to-liquids and coal gasification so that we can harness the energy in coal without destroying our environment in a cost effective manner. I don't know if that is possible, but surely we need to find out. Soon.
people say they can burn coal cleanly and "sequester the CO2 in the earth", but to be honest i don't understand this. how, exactly, are such huge amounts of CO2 "sequestered" in the earth? pumped into the ground? are they what big empty spaces in the earth to hold it? how does it not seep out? that said, my biggest fear about coal is what the mercury residues are doing to our water tables. cheney and crew CUT the emission levels on coal burning in the biggets setback to the environment in decades. unbelievable.
i have never said COP shouldn't reward its shareholders (like me).
obama certainly got a great response from the europeans. they are just obviously relieved that bush will be gone. that said, since mccain has changed his mind on just about every major policy issue where he differed with bush, and anyone who has read his past writings or listened to him sing "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb iran" realizes he is just as bad (or worse) a warmonger than bush. so, they would breathe a sigh of relief in europe until obama is actually in the white house. all that said, their very cool response to obama's talk of more european involvement in afghan and "the war on terror" means, to me, that the europeans aren't exactly buying into the "terror" program....
otto: what is more socialistic than bush's huge growth in the size of the US government, the takeover of a publicly traded wall street investment bank, the current nationization of the mortgage market, and the huge takeover of the financial system by paulsen/bernanke et all? that is why i keep saying that bush is NOT a "conservative" republican..he is a RADICAL and the biggest hypocrit in the history of the presidency. do you realize we have more private contractors in iraq than military personel? and, they are paid 3x or 4x of the soldiers, and have NO line of command into the military establishment?
freefall: i've been to germany a few times and i agree that their housing, and construction in general, is of a much higher quality than in the US. europe, in general, builds things to LAST. the US builds things for short term profits. that said, the reason germany and europe have energy policies are because, in general, most eurpoean countries dont have oil and nat gas resources (UK and Norway are the excpetions). that is why europeans have been working on energy issues in a much wiser way than the US. yet still, europe is reliant on russian and north african nat gas in a big way. but, they have tried to mitigate their reliance (and currency flows) on foreign oil and are a *much* more efficient energy community than is the US. thus, the strength in the euro and the weakness in the US dollar as oil prices have skyrocketed. expect for this to continue as long as the US does not adopt a long-term, comprehensive energy policy like this:
thefitzman.blogspot.co...
freefall: how about the observations of the ice caps melting, the glaciers in "glacier national park" melting, the increase in storms (the *huge* increase in insurance claims are factual proof of this), the huge increase in fires worldwide, the increase in drought areas worldwide, and the summer temperature records being set in many cities in the US since temperature records have been kept. how about those "observations" (never mind the scientific data that supports global warming, but i forget, we don't like science in the US anymore...). it is not "enlightening" to take ice core samples from thousands of years?? global climate change is acknowledged by the vast majority of credible scientist on the planet, and even george bush has finally been embarassed into admitting as much as he has been made to feel like an idiot sitting in talks on the matter when the data has been presented. the only country that is still even debating this issue is, you guessed it, the good ole USA, the country that used to be the technological leader of the world, but is now run by ideological idiots that use religion and rush limbaugh to convince the masses to follow their idiotic policies (note how much money rush is going to make this year while all his "followers" are losing their asses in the market, on the currency, and on inflation).
asdf439: if you are saying COP is a sell, well, i just disagree with that. any company that can produce close to 4 million billions of oil a day, is printing cash, pays a 2.3% dividend, and is the biggest natural gas producer in the US deserves, IMHO, a PE greater than 6. i believe you'll see this PE expand soon. if bush or israel goes into iran, you will see it pop overnight. bigtime. i suppose that is what makes a market....dumb and smart people, and you are right, time will tell which i am. meantime, i'll take my COP returns versus the S&P500 any old time...last 5 years...last 10 years...and the next 10 years.
nakedjaybird
Jul 27 12:46 PM
Whoa Nellie!!!!
1) Nuclear is a solution - China is building 8-12 new plants; US has upwards of 15 being approved currently; don't forget France. Those that understand nuclear know that all reactors have upgraded since 3-mile Island; Chernobyl was not a commercial generating plant.
2) Even tho coal plants still waste 70% of the btu's as waste heat they are utilizing cleaner technology where desired.
3) We have not yet begun to consider hydro storage for peaking, etc., which utilizes the river feeder areas instead of the river's themselves.
4) Buning coal or crude or natural gas (CNG, LPG, etct.,,) results in 70% waste heat - loss of energy - non useful work - sure seems dumb to me. Seventy % of what we import is lost; that's like we need only 30% of the shipments!!!!!! That's like burning 70% of the money!!!!! Get it???
5) Co-generation projects up the conversion effeciency from 30% to 60%, but there is little of that in the US. Most uses are in industry process use not utility generation. No district heating in the US as in Europe.
6) Burning CNG loses 70% of the energy as waste heat, not just more than 40%.
Electrical transmission/distribut... losses are less than 10%.
7) The charge/discharge inefficiencies of battery power are losses indeed, whether from coal, nuclear, gas, cng, solar, wind, tidal. You should treat end-use losses separately from the generation equation. Of course, in solar and wind, etc., we need only convert a little more of the free stuff which is pure gain. There are basically no conversion ineffeciencies (losses) associated with solar, wind, etc.,; only conversion effeciencies (which are GAIN! Not so with burning coal, oil, gas, etc.
8) When we burn CNG in vehicles, we lose 70% of the energy as waste heat; only 30% of the energy is available for useful work. Unless of course you have a waste heat recovery device providing other useful work. Your statements are confusing.
9) When effecient solid state energy conversion devices make electricity directly from waste heat, burning NG in a can (a burner, not an engine) and all the energy becomes electricity, then we will have a super hybrid. That makes sense. And when that's available, I say let's burn biofuels and still leave the gas in the ground. See???
Why would you want to burn any natural source if alternatives provide it freely, forever, readily available??
AND FOR YOU FITZ, I WOULD NOT BURN ANY OF THEM ANY LONGER THAN ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY WHILE ELECTRIFYING AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION FROM SOLAR/WIND/TIDAL/GEO/B... GENERATION.
THAT'S THE MISSION! FULL SPEED AHEAD WITH ALL RESOURCES, EMPHASIS, .......ETC.
LEAVE ALL THE HYDROCARBONS IN THE GROUND (INTENDED CONSEQUENSES!!)
All the arguments you bring forward could have an alternative explanation. Let me pick up some:
1.) Glaciers melting
Have you recently looked at one? Have you noticed how dirty they have become almost to the point of being hardly recognizable. (I was at the Grossglockner Glacier/ Austria just two weeks ago). There is a lot of dust and dirt from air pollution that precipitates on the ice and accumulates there ove time. Those dark particles absorb a lot of heat from light or IR radiation other than white reflecting snow or ice and this effect lets the surrounding ice melt.
No connection to CO2 though.
2.) Increase of storms and insurance claims
There may be undulating active and less active periods of storm activity. I am not sure if the record taking about storm activity was all that accurate in the past. Galveston went under in the 1900 hurricane because people were not even aware that something bad was coming. I claim the accurate history of storm activity is relatively short.
A spike in insurance claims has more to do with the increasing density of the population and the idiocy to let people build homes at the shore lines of the Gulf of Mexico and even worse below the water line such as in New Orleans.
Again no connection to CO2.
3.) Increased drought
I believe that during the Great Depression the Midwest was called the dustbowl. So what has changed ever since? Again an increased population density causes more publicity and media attention today if there was a drought.
Impact of CO2? Actually I have no good grasp on droughts.
4.) High summer temperatures in cities
High temperatures were already a subject of a song of the 70’s “Summer in the City”. So this is not a new theme. You are actually confirming the point that I was making. The cities have a microclimate that is impacted by reflective radiation of solid surfaces. Some of it is picked up by temperature meter stations.
Impact of CO2?
Only if you see the same temperature increase reported in the city in the cool woods surrounding the city. Talk about that.
5.) Ancient CO2 enclosed in ice cores
Again I repeat that the correlation of CO2 with warm periods is not proof that CO2 is the cause of a warm climate. It could be a byproduct of high activity of plant and animal life. You did not make an argument against that.
6.) Acknowledgement of global warming by vast majority
I don’t give a damn about that. I have been long enough in the scientific community to understand that the goal is always to get the next investigation project funded. So you got to assume there are a couple of people whose interest is to come up with results that fit their needs and keep the fire alive, while the rest of the population is just copying.
Ever heard of the king that was naked and every one of his cronies consented, that his clothes were really nice. Only the fool dissented…..
7.) The changed opinion of GW Bush on global warming
I think you are gravely mistaken, assuming that GW has changed his mind unless you have talked to him personally and he told you that. GW is not that way, that he is wavering that easy.
However he may have recognized that he will not get any more bonus points from the world community by holding on to his opinion. At this stage of his career he is more concerned what the lasting picture of him will be in the history books. So he gives in. There is no risk for him. What has he got to loose?
Your turn.
.
freefall: agreed the glaciers are dirty. just like the ice core samples, you can see when the dirtiness began (with industrialization). did you ever stop to think where the dirt is coming from? my dad worked in pittsburg as a young man...said you could start the day off with a clean white shirt and tie and by the time you walked to and from work the shirt would be black. coal. gasoline and diesel exhaust. to say the melting of the glaciers and ice caps have no connection to the CO2 levels is simply an unscientific and inaccurate opinion.
2) well, we just disagree on this and i think the insurance claims are evidence that you are mistaken. perhaps you should look at the data a second time. the claims are on an exponential increase that, funny enough, follow the same exponential curve that the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere is following.
3) no one is saying there weren't droughts in the past (just like no one who believes in global warming thinks that winters will cease to exists). what we are saying is the *increase* in drought related problems. it's happening worldwide. there are over 1 billion people on the planet who rely on glacial run-off for a majority of their water. this runoff is in steep decline and is related to CO2 levels since it is the warming of the atmosphere that is causing the glaciers to receed.
4) so now we are going to try to weave music into a scientific discussion? funny. the glaciers and the ice caps are not located in cities, so i dont understand your point. are cities hotter because of the concrete, lack of forest, and increased burning of fosil fuels? well, of course. no argument here.
5) disagree and this is a well established and accepted scientific fact.
6) nothing like a broad international consensus to prove there must be a conspiracy...
7) i think you need to review GW's own words given in press conferences where the admission was finally pulled out of him. this was done in public, and widely reported in the papers. google it.
my last words on this subject, at least for now:
this year, the world will burn 31 billion barrels of oil, 6 billion tons of coal, and 100 trillion cubic ft of natural gas. the combustion of these fuels will produce 400 quadrillion BTUs and 30 billion tons of CO2. Scientists predict about 1/3 of this CO2 ends up in the oceans (forming a weak acid which is causing "ocean acidification" and is destroying reefs, among other critical ocean life), 1/4 is absorbed by the terrestial ecosystem, and the rest remains in the atmosphere. at this rate, within the next few decades, CO2 levels are expected to reach 550 ppm - twice the pre-industrial age levels. today, that arctic ice cap has shrunk by half since the 1950s. it is melting now at an annual rate roughly the size of west virginia. meantime china is building new coal powered plants at the rate of 4 a month. now, what would a person of average intelligence logical conclude from these facts?
Higher oil prices don't necessarily mean significantly higher profits over the long term,they only mean higher revenue.
Profit margins change for most businesses over time and are influenced by many different factors (even political,in this case).
Profit margins for Big Oil as % of revenue will be certainly lower over the next decade,compared to recent years,the market will correct the windfall-profits,which originated in the huge rise in revenue in recent years.
Declining industry margins will hit COP stock price and bottom line much harder than XOM/CVX ,because of its debt and generally lower profitability.
SOURCE ====> CONVERSION ======> USE
Where SOURCE has a number of considerations: useful unit energy content, availability, life, product costs (direct & indirect), capital and resource requirements, and then all the associated and disassociated complexities from enviornmental to remedial and waste and regulations and legal and on and on thru all the other industrial and infrastructual requirements, did I mention politcal and greed complications... (again direct, indirect, and capital be they what they may including airplanes, club memberships, vacation hideaways.....oh yes, booze and whores),...
Where CONVERSION has a number of considerations: efficiencies, ineffeciencies, technical and economic feasibilities, and then many of the same issues as stated above for SOURCE.
USE! Hmmmmm. Where do we begin? Need? Greed? Prioritiy? For sure technical feasibility. Let's burn it to keep warm at night when the sun's not doing that; that's pretty easy. Until it's too much work to gather it, be it wood, buffalo chips, oil bubbling out of the ground, surface coal, whale blubber, etc. And then .... came the wheel.....
Sorry fitz, here i go again. Have a good day.
nakedjaybird
Jul 25 02:31 PMkebu77 - there are no CO2 emissions to solar, wind, etc. CO2's come from buning natural hydrocarbons. Don't burn them.
I'm all for electrified steel-wheeled rail transport of good and people (totally electric; not diesel electric) except for in air and on water (burn biofuels).
And I have read Alan Drake's stuff: my conclusion is stop burning natural hydrocarbons AND go totally electric from free, forever energy sources like solar, wind, geo, hydro, nuclear, tidal, and biofuels; then we can still address the shipping effeciencies in transportation of Alan Drake. Again, stop using the coal and the diesel.
AND HERE'S ONE FINAL THOUGHT (FOR ALL THE GORE FREAKS):
What's the evidence show for how LOW the oceans got during all the previous ice ages???
Ronald Reagan tossed out Jimmy Carter's prophetic and brilliant Energy Independence Plan.
We will spend three trillion dollars on the Iraq Oil War, lose
4000-5000 young Americans, 400,000 Iraqis, create 3,000,000
Iraq refugees. (For the three trillion dollars, our government could
have bought 139,000,000 hybrid automobiles to give to those relinquishing their SUVs and gas guzzling autos. This would have cut automobile gasoline use by 50%.)
The Republican Political Machine is the most destructive force in America.
Kennedy, Johnson and Carter but with 20/20 hindsight I wouldn't today. All water under the bridge, energy solutions that work should not be party dependent.
select.nytimes.com/gst...
This links to a good 1948 article by Senator Malone about the necessity of holding down imports of oil. Enjoy
Derek Mueller, a polar scientist and research fellow at Trent University, in Peterborough, Ont., said the ice breaking off from the Ward Hunt Island Ice Shelf, just north of Ellesmere Island, marks the continuation of a process that has been years in the making.
"Ice shelves don't just break up. There's no karate chop," he said. "This is the result of a gradual weakening over time as a result of warming temperatures."
See the full story on www.cbc.ca/technology/...
wizard: you really need to give it up, CO2's impact on global warming is a scientifically accepted fact.
lminsky: your observation on the cost of iraq is priceless. i agree with your republican political machine comment as well. not sure if you get barron's magazine, but if you do, there is a priceless article this week by jim mctague on the bush economic hypocrisy. that is, while they profess to be "capitalist" and "MBA powered", bernanke and paulsen are busily working (with the administrations full support if not prodding) at nationalizing the entire US mortgage market as well as taking federal control of the banking and financial systems. it's pre WW2 germany all over again (i.e. facists and not capitalist). meanwhile, rush limbaugh and larry kudlow get paid millions to keep the uneducated thinking that bush is a "conservative republican" when what he really is is a "radical fascist".
wizard: if you cannot see the wisdom of jimmy carter's energy plan after all this country has suffered since bush came into office, well, then i think you should change your screen name. wizard doesn't really apply. jimmy carter was dead-on and developed the right policies (and is a fellow georgia techie).
Ensoph: yup yup, but non-believers in global warming have trained themselves to discount science and normal observation. it is an ideological position that once taken by them year ago cannot be reversed. to do so would mean that gore was right all along and they were wrong. i am sure none of them could live with theirselves if they admitted that was indeed the case. so, they prolong their denial even though, every single hour and day shows more and more that their position is simply, for lack of a better word, preposterous.