nerfer

The Oil Casino: SEC Heading for Monte Carlo, Part I

Good information Alan! Lots of stuff to digest here, but the first question is, is the general industry going to follow the SEC definitions for 'proved reserves' or are we going to have two standards floating around?

Algae Biofuels Have a Promising Future

Do you have any supporting evidence for the $2.2 billion figure? EVnow's interesting and informative link states "The US Department of Energy (DOE) from 1978 to 1996 devoted $25 million to algal fuels research at NREL". Even if the total number is in the single billions, that is less than government-subsidized research into coal gasification or hydrogen research.
Algae takes power from the sun, but doesn't have the daily variations that wind or solar has (personally, I prefer geothermal for electric production). Since it can be grown intensively, using waste water, it can theoretically provide much more energy per acre than other, larger crops. (Much better than corn ethanol, even better than sugarcane ethanol, which is a feasible crop). I really don't see what all the fuss about "real-time" energy creation is for. All bio-mass is real-time (renewable). With the end of cheap oil upon us, we need to put real money into things that have real promise, if we want any kind of decent economy in the future. Obviously algae is not the only solution, but there won't be a single solution to replace oil, it's been so versatile and critical we will need every tool we can use going forward.

On Nov 13 12:09 PM User 471168 wrote:

> We have spent over $2.2 billion dollars on algae research for the
> last 35 years and nothing to show for it. Algae has been researched
> to death at universities for the last 50 years in the US. The problem
> is as long as the algae researchers can say we are 3-5 years away,
> its too expensive and they need more research they get the grant
> money. Nothing will ever get commercialized at the university level.
>
>
> The question you need to be asking is " Does the US really want to
> get off of foreign oil or do we want to continue to fund the algae
> researchers at the universities."
>

The Global Oil Scam: 50 Times Bigger than Madoff

Interesting stuff, interesting responses.
Even if higher prices are the result of manipulation and not the evaporation of the excess oil supply (see chart near end of actual article), this manipulation only works if we keep buying gasoline and other oil byproducts at high rates. O/w the volume of sales go down and the producers won't be happy.

If we worked to reduce our gallons of gasoline consumed and developed functional alternatives (including nat. gas powered vehicles), this wouldn't happen. We don't have the capability to drill enough of our own oil - off-shore and ANWR both will add about 3% of our needs a decade after being green-lighted, hardly an end-all solution. Oil shale won't be productive as it has an EROEI of about 1:1 (same as corn-based ethanol). Hydrogen fuel cells are still way too expensive, but all other solutions need to be pushed thru, for our national security. (If I was president, this would include removing large SUVs from people commuting to desk jobs).
It will take a decade or more for real change to occur, and by then we'll really be in peak oil, so it's best for our economy to get used to high prices now.

Don't Believe Long-Term Oil Forecasts

You're referring to Jevons Paradox. There's two points I'd like to make on that:
1) This holds well if there is an indefinite supply limited primarily by cost of production. If oil is in decline, the cost of production will be going up, and overall consumption may not rise after all.
2) Regardless of overall consumption, if each unit produced is used more effectively, more work will get done with the same amount of units consumed. More people get to work, more things get made, more relatives are visited, etc. Increasing efficiency is still a good thing and a worthwhile goal, even if overall usage doesn't go down.

On Nov 10 12:59 PM Blair wrote:
> The basic issue regarding oil is that it is a high density energy
> material. No doubt we can reduce consumption per unit, however, there
> will be more units to consume the energy. Consequently, the issue
> is simple - overall consumption will increase, with all of intended
> (and unintended) consequences.

Don't Believe Long-Term Oil Forecasts

Thanks, I agree 100% with your comments. The poster you replied to apparently hasn't looked at oil production & discovery charts. 150 years ago oil was barely relevant, in the 70's U.S. production of oil was indeed peaking, now it's the world's turn for peak oil. There's still oil out there, but pumping it at the rates we want won't be cheap. Since U.S. dollars are backed in oil (no longer gold), any increase in the price of oil makes everything else more expensive for Americans.

"Geology rules, and Mother Nature bats last." That should be a bumper sticker.

Also, I was looking for the article on inflated numbers from the EIA, I heard a comment on the radio, but hadn't seen anything else about this today.

On Nov 10 04:00 PM User 391256 wrote:
> Well, 70% of the petroleum geologists at the Petroleum Geology Conference
> in London believe that peak oil is a concern. (www.theoildrum.com/nod...).
:
> We are heading onto the downslope of oil production just as we headed
:
> there are no scalable alternatives in the way of portable
> transportation fuels available... not talking about hypotheticals
> here or wishful thinking about human ingenuity. The world uses around
> 80 million barrels (=3,360,000,000 gallons) A DAY mostly for transportation.
> The current state of alternatives is a drop in the bucket. The most
> recent figure for global decline in production is between 6% and
> 7% per year with discoveries having peaked about 40 years ago. Price
> will likely go up and down as tight supplies drive it up and then
> recession drives it down in a long stairstep descent into a lower
> energy economy. Geology rules, and Mother Nature bats last.
>

> [Edit] After writing this comment I discovered a reference to this
> article: www.guardian.co.uk/env...
> casting doubt on the IEA reporting even though their forecasts are
> getting more reality based than they have been in the past.

International Oil Companies: The Challenges Ahead

Interesting read, although I'm not sure what the recycle ratio is. I heard on the news radio this morning about the EIA overstating future supply in recent years due to political pressure. Big surprise there.

Cash-For-Clunkers Reveals Weakness Among Detroit Brands

I'd rather send my money to Japan than to OPEC. (About the same amount of money over the lifetime of a small car, but only one recipient wants to blow us up. And no, we can't drill our own oil to solve the problem, we don't have anywhere near enough of the <$80/barrel stuff.)

I always said I'd buy American when they produced a reasonably priced car that got at least 40 mpg. Finally Ford makes the Fusion hybrid which does essentially that, so next time I'm in the car market, I'll definitely look at Ford. (Their Escape Hybrid isn't bad either).

Geothermal Is Getting Red Hot, Part I

Davewmart - I would think they would typically use a closed-loop system for hot water pipes to houses, ie. transfer the heat from the well water to the water piped to residences, but it's not the same water. I'm not sure if radioactive materials would get transferred as well, but I would think it would be pretty minimal.

Chevy Volt Claims 230 Miles Per Gallon in City Driving

market ace - either you're being sarcastic or you don't understand the Volt. When charged, it will go 40 miles on electric power, after that the gas engine needs to run to charge the batteries, but the car continues to run as normal.
The Prius (without aftermarket kits, as sold today) is not a plug-in, so all the power comes from the gas tank, directly or indirectly. A plug-in hybrid like the Volt allows additional energy to be stored from the electric grid, which is more effiicient and reduces our economic dependency on unstable and unfriendly oil producing countries.
The Prius can be converted to be a plug-in for several thousand dollars, and then it can run for many miles on all-electric energy.

Crude Oil Supply and the Future: Putting Arguments in Proper Perspective

Dennis Atuanya, thanks for laying out the facts and pointing out the speculations. Whether or not a person accepts all of the peak oil scenarios, it is clear we have seen the end of cheap oil

Jer13xxx - Why bring that up? Climate models are not part of this discussion. Energy security is, and relying on petroleum supply staying like it has will surely lead to economic/national security problems. It would be interesting to see how cap & tax would affect that.

Pickens: World’s Biggest Wind Farm No Longer on Drawing Board

It's not that simple. The transmission grid can't handle changes in supply and demand (wind dies down in one part of the state but picks up in another), or for moving from one section of the country to another. Converting plants is very expensive, basically you need to build new plants. Doesn't come out to a generation cost of zero in my book.


On Jul 09 12:21 AM nakedjaybird wrote:

> Someone should check to see how many counties in the US DO NOT already
> have transmission lines running across them already...DUH!!!!!
> Hey, convert the gas and coal plants to wind and solar and all the
> transmission stuff is already there.......DUH AGAIN!
> And the generation cost will be almost ZERO...... HAT TRICK DUH!!!!!

The Pickens Plan: Where Are We One Year Later?

F. Banks:
For claiming to be a Picken's expert, it's apparent you haven't read his website for awhile. Windmills are not out, they are there to replace/supplement the national electric grid. This frees up natural gas for trucks and long-haul vehicles (in-city and commuting cars can be electric powered). Wind and gas have both been part of his plan for a couple years now and that hasn't changed (I read about it well before his commercials were aired).

What is your proposal for not keeping our economy under the reins of unstable and unfriendly countries? We can't drill our way out of this problem, and we can't take over another oil-producing country.

On Jul 10 10:12 AM Ferdinand E. Banks wrote:

> in the world cap on at the time, and declared this a loser. Ditto
> on his wind corridor from the Rio Grande to the Canadian border,
> which it seems that he has now decided against. Now its talk about
> large amounts of natural gas being used as motor fuel. According
> to some people on this site, this should be a major component in
> a national energy policy.
>

The Pickens Plan: Where Are We One Year Later?

Red Raider,
I agree with most of your post, but nuclear is not at all obvious. Uranium is a limited resource, and what do we do with the waste? Nuclear has never been cost-effective unless the government pays for building the plant.
There is no one solution, and limited nuclear may be useful, but we need to do what is practical for each location. I think geothermal is a vastly underestimated resource, particularly for all of the mountain/west states. Unlike solar and wind, it operates 24/7.

On Jul 10 10:27 AM Red Raider wrote:
>
> The obvious answer is nuclear in the long term, natural gas in the
> near term.

The Pickens Plan: Where Are We One Year Later?

Fuel cells are not zero CO2. Their operation is, but not generation of hydrogen (most of which comes from natural gas today). The fuel cells are expensive (6 figures is standard for something that could power a car), the storage and transportation of H2 is still problematic. We'd need multiple practical breakthroughs before we could start making a manufacturable car. We can't wait 10-20 years for that to happen.
Plus, on an EROEI perspective, it makes more sense to store electricity in a battery than to turn the electricity into hydrogen, transport the hydrogen, put it thru a fuel cell and get back some of the original electricity to power the car.
I was once a fuel cell believer, but became educated and realized there are better alternatives.

On Jul 10 09:45 AM Longinvestor wrote:
>
> Letting cars alone use gasoline and converting semi's and trains
> to hydrogen makes more technical sense to me. The little drop in
> CO2 emissions with natural gas is not going to get any of my investment
> money. I would prefer to use wind and solar power to make hydrogen
> &amp; oxygen gases. These stored gases would then run zero CO2
> emission fuel cells 24/7 per the recent MIT invention.
> web.mit.edu/newsoffice...
>

How High Will the Price of Oil Go?

Thanks for the feedback.
Range doesn't concern me so much. Most people commute less than 40 miles a day, and electric vehicles easily go double that distance. Recharge conveniently at home for pennies per mile (but upfront costs are more significant, as you mention). Have a hybrid or rent a car for your long trips & save money overall.
Tata is also experimenting with making an electric version of their small car, or a car powered by compressed air (probably noisy to refill). But the Nano is just too small and too slow for common American tastes, a used small car would be more attractive.
Fuel-cell vehicles (hydrogen) are a complete boondoggle, at this time, IMO.

Some of the established manufacturer's EV plans:
www.bloomberg.com/apps...
In China, Chery is an automaker to watch (may actually partner with Chevy), they have a proposed $15K electric car. Some more about China's auto plans:
evworld.com/news.cfm?n...

Living4Dividends wrote:
"I am not impressed by the US's lineup of EV. All are expensive like the Volt. I don't know about China's EV offering. Still 20,000 seems like a lot of money for a vehicle that only goes a short distance. The Tata Nano is $2500 for the fully loaded Indian version. Let's say the world model, with airbags & western safety features costs $5000. That is an inefficient car with superb gas mileage. "