nerfer's Comments

Want to Cash In on Future Transport Trends? Consider These Alternative Energy Plays

Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:44:36 -0500

Aces003 - We definitely don't have more oil than the Saudi's, unless you're talking about the Colorado oil shale. However, nobody has come up with a cost-effective way to produce that oil yet. And the EROEI on that is close to 1:1, about the same as corn-based ethanol.
North Dakota has a lot of oil and it's cost effective at today's prices ($70+/barrel). It's by no means more than the Saudi's though. And the Saudi's may not have as much as they let on. If that's the case, it's a scary world tomorrow.
It's best if we get ready to use natural gas now, rather than wait for the pain.

Oil Supermajors' Resources Might Be Drying Up

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:04:25 -0500

Good read, thanks for the info. Is the Bakken field in North Dakota/Montana considered an EOR? It's a pretty rich field from what I hear, but requires horizontal drilling in a narrow layer fairly deep down.

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

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:25:57 -0500

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

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:53:47 -0500

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

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:36:07 -0500

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

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:42:41 -0500

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

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:26:19 -0500

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

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:30:43 -0500

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

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:17:04 -0500

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

Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:27:52 -0400

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

Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:38:39 -0400

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

Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:44:11 -0400

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

Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:57:53 -0400

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?

Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:46:58 -0400

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?

Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:28:45 -0400

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?

Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:20:37 -0400

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
> & 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?

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:20:01 -0400

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. "

How High Will the Price of Oil Go?

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:08:34 -0400

The $40K Chevy Volt is not the single face of our EV future. Many other companies (many small new ones, some new faces from China and elsewhere) are coming up with new innovative ideas for half the price of a Volt. The tricky part is getting past the safety crash test hurdles (several million dollars that a startup doesn't have), so more than a few are designed with 3 wheels to be classified as motorcycles. In 2011-2012 there will be a real change in options to the consumer, and the big car companies may never be the same, if they survive that long.

How High Will the Price of Oil Go?

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:03:31 -0400

I'm not so optimistic about oil substitutes. They'll take years to come online, and any disruption (like a 6-month slump in oil prices) will likely derail investments & cause the process to start over again. Ethanol was going to be the savior, but people became fixated on corn, which is the worst source of ethanol. Our green options are natural gas (a la Picken's plan), cellulosic ethanol, & electric vehicles (which can be charged overnight on the existing power grid for the first few million vehicles, after that we need to do something).
Coal unfortunately will be part of our future because it is there and it's cheap (as long as mountaintop removal and stream dumping is legal), but it's the worst option environmentally.
Geothermal (for electric grid, EVs) is an overlooked opportunity - green power, available 24/7 (for certain parts of the country). California could have all the EVs they want if they expand geothermal. That frees up natural gas for long-haul transportation.

But oil itself has a limited lifespan as a transportation fuel. I think we've already seen the peak in production. OPEC couldn't increase production in the first half of 2008 because they were at max production. With $60/barrel in a recession, when the economy starts coming back the price of oil will increase even faster. $100/barrel will be the low end in 2010, and it only goes up from there, only tempered by its braking effect on the economic recovery.

Geopolitical Energy: Centered on the Caspian Sea (Part 2 of 2)

Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:58:52 -0500

Fitzman, I haven't read the book, altho it definitely sounds interesting, so I don't know the timeline of talks with the Taliban. I'm sure funding for Afghanistan dropped significantly after the Russia pull-out however, and we couldn't ignore the terrorist aspect after 9/11. For the years in between I need more information.

WRT Iranian nukes, it's probably a combination of motivations. Close neighbors (including Israel and Shiite-run countries) are definitely part of it, but upsetting the U.S. would be a good side-affect for them.

Mythbuster - We will still use fossil fuels in the future, but the idea that the U.S. can support its current rate of use by North American supplies (let alone just U.S. supplies) is a dangerous fallacy. Efficiency and conservation are the first two steps we should take for immediate improvement, then renewables, including geothermal and improving the grid to handle varying loads of wind power. Recharge electric cars overnight. Battery R&D. These are things to improve the American economy, not thinking that drilling is our only solution.

Lithium Unicorns and Alternative Energy Storage

Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:17:30 -0500

Sounds like good news for Firefly, a spin-off of Caterpillar that makes a lightweight lead-acid based battery with better life cycle. (Apparently they're still working on a deal for a battery manufacturer to produce these batteries, but it sounds quite promising).

It would be good to get actual numbers on the cost of extracting lithium from spodumene other than that just one source claiming "very expensive".

Personally, I'm still looking at velomobiles (human-powered vehicles) for my next daily use vehicle, and keep the Prius (with NiMH battery) for longer trips.

Geopolitical Energy: Centered on the Caspian Sea (Part 2 of 2)

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:36:11 -0500

Good article, good food for thought. But I disagree on the Talibans - I think they were considered our friends while they were fighting Russia (there is the line of thought that the bankruptcy of U.S.S.R. from low oil prices during the Reagan years and their military defeat in Afghanistan is what allowed Poland and the Communist Bloc countries to break free of Russia). Once we no longer needed the Taliban to fight Russia, we lost interest (see Charlie Wilson's war), in the subsequent vacuum they joined up with Al Qaeda and bin Laden. They always treated their women and history badly, but only after 9/11 did we agree they were really terrorists and actually enemies.

Oil Won't Stay Down for Long

Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:01:38 -0500

I agree with txpenguin.

There was some speculation on the top side in the summer, but the supply/demand fundamentals still probably justified $100-$120/barrel at that time. But since it takes a long time to ramp up or down production, there's overshoot and undershoot when demand changes suddenly. Sub-$40/barrel is not sustainable, too many suppliers would get out of the market (like Canadian tar sands, which provides about 20% of U.S. imports and Venezuelan heavy crude, which also supplies the U.S.). We're seeing the end of availability of cheap oil, and only a real depression would cause oil prices to go below $30/barrel for more than a few weeks. I bet in six months oil is safely above $50 provided the economy doesn't worsen any further, and above $70 with a modest recovery.

Americans Forget High Oil Prices Too Quickly

Mon, 08 Dec 2008 11:04:58 -0500

Totally agree with a columnist, which is kind of unusual, but I have a couple comments:
1) the good years under Clinton were probably due in large part to the exceptionally cheap oil of that time. I expected a recession to come from high oil prices, but was surprised by the extent of the housing/finance collapse. (This might buy us time with oil supply). Even with today's cheap-ish oil I doubt we'll ever get back to times like the Clinton years in the next couple decades as oil prices cannot sustainably drop any lower than what they are. There was speculation on the top side in summer, now there's speculation on the low side.

2) I am continually surprised by conservatives who think the status quo is patriotic and we need to buy big American vehicles. Putting our economy totally under the will and abilities of unstable and unfriendly countries is so dangerous it should be considered un-American, even treasonous, to use an SUV for commuting to an office job.

The Electric Car Battery Battle

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:21:51 -0400

The latest I've heard is that Toyota hasn't narrowed their options yet for batteries in a PHEV. bike45, how do you come up with 1/4 of 1%? Hybrids are now 3% of new car sales (more if they could make more batteries, it's supply limited). Hybrids in general are getting about 40% better mileage than fleet average (high-efficiency hybrids sell the most), so my math shows 1.2% improvement in overall consumption from all new cars sold today. As hybrid sales go up, so does this number.
Yes, it's a small start. But we simply cannot continue the status quo - we absolutely need to switch to hybrids and BEVs and public transportation or we'll be faced with only being able to afford bikes.

The Electric Car Battery Battle

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:11:46 -0400

Also Chevron, via their part ownership of Cobasys, has long blocked the use of NiMH for pure electric vehicles, using their NiMH patents they bought up to block the large-format NiMH batteries needed for that type of application, even for companies like Toyota that get their NiMH batteries elsewhere.
Cobasys is apparently for sale though (and having $ problems), see: www.courthousenews.com....
Gee, maybe if they supplied BEVs they would be making more money?? Even a 50-mile range in a reduced-price car would be sufficient for a whole lot of people (I know I'd strongly consider buying such a car), but they think they need the full range of a gas car before anybody will buy it for their commuting needs.

Reasons to Love 3-Digit Oil

Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:22:24 -0400

sharksm, I agree with your basic points (We shouldn't mandate XOM, BP, etc. to do or not do certain things, though they may do it on their own, and we should invest in alt. energy R&D and production).
But we can't drill our way out of this problem. We simply don't have enough oil in our control (ANWR, off-shore, etc) to raise production enough to lower prices. I'm sure eventually we'll drill there anyway., but let's save it for the real crisis yet to come.
And your original post suggested electric cars are expensive & unrealistic, which I disagree with. We are going to see an explosion of new cars (finally!) in the next 4 years - hybrids, PHEVs, BEVs, due to market forces. CARB, PNGV and other government mandates tried to lead companies here proactively, but it took market reaction to get real movement. Unfortunately American companies were slower to react than others.

Reasons to Love 3-Digit Oil

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:48:35 -0400

Stockpikr has a point. Fuel cells in particular are not a magic bullet. But electric cars are more efficient than ICE, they haven't been used because of entrenched beliefs and perception about battery needs. We need to make rational changes when faced with a coming crisis (it isn't here yet, folks!). Electric cars are part of the solution, but not the only part. Unfortunately, Brahm might be more correct than we want to think.
PaulK, even if abiotic oil is true (definitely not a mainstream idea), it would be so hard to find and so far to drill to these ultra-deep sources that oil prices wouldn't be any lower than they are today. Read the above story about Brazil's ultra-deep wells.

Reasons to Love 3-Digit Oil

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:41:37 -0400

Sharksm, the energy companies (XOM, CVN, etc) are in the energy business. Their oil supplies are drying up or being taken over by nationalized corporations. They need to come up with new energy sources to stay in business, BP is not promoting itself as 'Beyond Petroleum' for nothing. Get informed.
Electric cars do not need to cost $45K, with mass production they will be equivalent to cars on the market, with a lot less maintenance and repair needed. They can be powered by unused electric capacity at night, with a very minimal increase in CO2 - saving CO2 by reducing (by attrition) the number of inefficient gas guzzlers on the road. An existing ICE vehicle is <30% efficient (converting fuel to motion), electric vehicles are about 90% efficient.
Last point - our own oil supplies will be fully tapped, I'm sure, but why not wait until we need the oil to keep our farms running, no reason to use our own oil now just to keep John Doe driving to the grocery store in his Chevy Tahoe. We don't have enough to keep ourselves powered for long at all, or we would already have done this in the oil embargo of '79.

Oil Manipulations Exposed

Tue, 27 May 2008 17:30:30 -0400

Brian Pursley - The first article trusts the middle east numbers for their oil reserves, even though there is good evidence those are politically manipulated (their country quotas are based on that) and there is no verification of any of those numbers. The last two articles don't argue for abiotic production, but do say there are large, biological sources of oil deeper down. If that is the case, they are feeding the higher sources sporadically or only in certain locations, since most sources of oil have not shown any signs of recovery, in fact many have post-peak production declines sharper than expected (North Sea, Mexico). Certainly not a 'renewable, infinite' resource as you say, and I'm hanging onto my '06 Prius for many more years.

T Stephens - good post, even with the typos. If the hedge funds/futures market were suddenly the cause for the run-up in prices like the author is saying, why not the other commodity markets, and why not ten years ago also? I'm not going to say there is no manipulation or deceit at all in the market place, but that's not the cause of our current high prices. We're hitting peak oil production, and the sooner we accept that, the sooner we can create real solutions.