AlexS

Total Rating:
+7 / 0

173 Comments

    • Sun Apr 27th 20:06 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      California's Fuel-Efficiency Battle and Peak Oil
      These conversations end up being variations of kicking the can down the road. Mike likes natural gas, Econ says natural gas is about out too and points to electricity. But electricity is not free either, and in the main is generated by coal (dirty dirty), with new plants from natural gas, so it begs the question. Nuclear. Three problems. 1. Fear from the public, exacerbated by lots of politicians. 2. Jimmy and the Congress outlawed breeder reactors back in the 70's, so existing uranium supplies only last a couple hundred years. 3. because spent fuel cannot be reprocessed, nuclear waste ends up being 50 times greater than if you could reprocess it. So where to put it and how to secure it? Plants are just putting it out back. Yucca Mountain, the best technical answer, is opposed by some powerful politicians, who will probably be even more powerful in the next 4-8 years (if the polls are right). Heck, they're even talking about banning nuclear in some states and some countries. Plants need time to be built. Politicos just keep kicking that can. Someone needs to pick it up. The road is ending.
      View article »
    • Sun Apr 27th 14:37 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      California's Fuel-Efficiency Battle and Peak Oil
      I will add something about the technical aspect of calculating fuel economy. If GM makes a flex fuel vehicle, the fuel economy of the vehicle is calculated assuming E85 is the fuel in use (although of course they mostly use standard gasoline) and the fuel economy is calculated on the gasoline part of the fuel only. Thus a large vehicle, if it gets, say, 15 mpg (like a Hummer), if it is flex fueled that is counted as a 40 mpg vehicle, for CAFE purposes. The auto makers are using this to store up credits for future "tightening" of fuel economy numbers. It's true that the latest energy bill lessens the use of this E85 fudge factor in the future. Time will tell of course if the politicians choose instead to extend it if their constituents are cool to very small vehicles. Beware of calculations in the hands of the politicians. As my sixth grade teacher used to say, "Figures never lie, but liars figure."
      View article »
    • Sun Apr 27th 14:23 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      California's Fuel-Efficiency Battle and Peak Oil
      OK, Mike. Actually I left significantly more political comments on your previous discussion, so I won't repeat them here. I have read your energy policy and I basically agree with it. I don't particularly like a lot of what the Republicans have done but I recognize that the last 7 years have always included either a Democratic Senate majority or one that could filibuster successfully, and so I don't blame just Bush for every missed opportunity. He's sounding a lot like the Dems now anyway (ethanol, fuel efficiency. etc.). As for my November vote, like you I recognize the biggest issue is running out of supply and so I will vote for the candidate who is undeniably for nuclear energy. As you say, you can support whoever you want.
      View article »
    • Sun Apr 27th 13:19 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      California's Fuel-Efficiency Battle and Peak Oil
      Time to stop applauding politicians for setting goals that only take effect long after they are gone. It is not more commendable, for instance, to say we are going to cut global warming emissions by 50% by 2050 instead of 40%. The politicians are just laughing as the media takes this BS seriously (actually the journalists are laughing too, if they have any brains at all).

      California has two problems. One is that they are doing essentially nothing about supply other than talk of pie in the sky. Nuclear is out, coal is out (clean or not). Their answer is to prescribe clean power plants built in another state. Is that courageous or what?

      Their other problem: just look at the LA highways. Millions of people driving by themselves to work. No car pooling. No mass transit. You can keep prescribing small and smaller cars for the people, but what they will do is buy comfortable cars for their 2 hour commute. They will buy the smaller cars, and loan them to their kids to go over to their friend's house 5 minutes away.

      We should support politicians who are for nuclear power (McCain as opposed to the other two). We should support politicians who are for drilling in ANWR or the OCS (most of them are Republicans, unfortunately so far not including McCain). We should oppose politicians (Obama and Clinton) who want to cripple the ability of oil companies to find more oil supplies. We should support mass transit in highly populated cities, and do it seriously. We should stop using clean energy as an excuse to throw big funding to our favorite universities and our favorite loyal professors.
      View article »
    • Fri Apr 25th 12:36 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      ConocoPhilips Screams Past Street Estimates
      I see that Nancy Pelosi has sent John Boehner a letter outlining what her Congress has done to reduce gas prices, etc. Their bills are:
      1. HR2264 - have DOJ sue OPEC.
      2. HR1252 - have the FTC investigate big oil.
      3. HR5351 - take away tax credits from big oil for domestic oil production.
      4. Market manipulations part of Energy Act of 2007 - have the FTC investigate market manipulations of energy.
      5. This just in - Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wants the White House to tell the Saudis, etc. we won't sell them weapons unless they lower oil prices. I mean, it's not like they could buy weapons from Europe or Russia or China, right, Chuck?

      What a great plan, he said sarcastically.
      View article »
    • Fri Apr 25th 11:21 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      ConocoPhilips Screams Past Street Estimates
      But, getting back to energy and candidates, if we accept Peak Oil, and accept the energy paradigm as I've laid out, we have to see what they think of nuclear power as a large deciding factor. On this McCain I think has been a consistent supporter of nuclear power. He's against ANWR drilling, like the others, which I think is a mistake. But on nuclear he's good. If you read Obama's stand on nuclear (from his web site), he says he's for safe nuclear as long as .... and then you get four conditions unlikely to be fulfilled. He's against using Yucca Mountain, for what he says are technical reasons, but we all know really it's because Harry Reid is against it. His answers to energy questions are to convene meetings of all the world leaders ...... etc. And lots of rhetoric about 21st century, safe, reliable ... etc., ... and lots of buzz words that no one could possibly disagree with. A lot of empty phrases. Unfortunately, if he is elected, he will have a Democratic Congress that is in tune with his proposed inaction. If McCain is elected, well, there will still be a fight, but at least one of the major players in the Presidency and Congress will be for developing nuclear power. We may not be able to solve this until the anti-nuclear people are gone from Congress. We may not be able to solve it in time. With McCain there's a chance. Unless Obama has some thoughts in his head that are at odds with everything he's said and voted for/against up till now, and unless he turns out to be an actual leader in contrast with what he's done with his life up until now, with Obama we will have 4 or 8 years of wasted time. If people think the Jimmy Carter years were bad (high energy prices, high inflation, high unemployment, high "misery index") just wait till they see what Obama and a Democratic Congress bring.
      View article »
    • Fri Apr 25th 11:09 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      ConocoPhilips Screams Past Street Estimates
      As for your discussion of the candidates, I'll just say that the President's power is not as great as you present. The Federal Reserve is essentially independent. Spending bills originate from Congress. There has been a relative standoff recently because we have a Democratic Congress (which we surely will have after 2009) and a Republican President. George Bush hasn't been nearly as conservative (or as libertarian) as I would have preferred. So, for instance, last year Bush signed what I think is an awful energy bill, as well as an awful student loan bill. Two examples. A more conservative politician would have nixed them both.
      View article »
    • Fri Apr 25th 11:05 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      ConocoPhilips Screams Past Street Estimates
      As for energy, here we use two basic kinds of energy. Solar power in some form, and nuclear. We have a little tidal production (from gravitational energy) but solar and nuclear predominate. Solar in this case includes oil, gas, direct solar, wind, biofuels. Our energy rich society is made possible by fossil fuels, laid down over millions of years as a result of decaying plants and animals (that got their energy from solar power). The energy was laid down over millions of years but we've used it in hundreds of years. Therein lies the replacement problem. Solar energy itself is diffuse, seasonal, varies by the hour and day, and needs a lot of land (or sea) area to collect a substantial amount. Collecting it in one form or another is possible but doesn't yield much, and the land area required is great. We've only had an energy rich society because each year we use what is essentially hundreds or even thousands of years of ancient stored solar power. We can't replace this by anything that represents solar power from a year's production (like biofuels). We can't go from using a thousand years worth of stored solar power to a single year's worth of solar power, regardless of whether we try to do that with crops, trees, wind, direct solar, etc. Thus, the short (and probably long) terms answer is nuclear power.
      View article »
    • Fri Apr 25th 10:56 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      ConocoPhilips Screams Past Street Estimates
      Mike. OK, briefly. Global Warming. From what I understand the ice core data shows higher CO2 concentrations along with higher earth temperatures. The common explanation is that the CO2 caused higher temps. I think it more likely that higher temps caused more atmospheric CO2. This and some other ideas are set forth in books, dvds, etc., but these are not well covered by the media. The reason they are not is that the mainstream media as I can see it is almost unanimously politically liberal. Unfortunately, the politically liberal side of politicians sees Global Warming as a chance to raise taxes on anything that produces CO2. If it were taught that global warming is produced because of lesser or more sunspots (a theory I agree with), then there really wouldn't be anything to tax, so for liberal politicians the theory must go the way it's been presented in order to have higher taxes. You can see some of the alternative explanations in, for instance 1) a dvd - The Great Global Warming Swindle, 2) magazines - National Review, the Weekly Standard, 3) newspaper - Washington Times, 4) web sites - Senator Jim Inhofe's (R-OK) site, Investors Business Daily (IBD), National Review and Weekly Standard online, Michael Crichton's speeches, demanddebate.com, 5) books - The Satanic Gases, anything by Bjorn Lomberg. If you want to check into these you'll see the other side, the other side from what is presented by Al Gore, the New York Times, Associated Press, ABC, Time magazine, Yahoo, etc.
      View article »
    • Thu Apr 24th 14:44 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      ConocoPhilips Screams Past Street Estimates
      No, that's not what I meant about global warming. I am the one who doesn't take global warming seriously. In part because we can do very little about it. In part because I think warming is more a function of sunspots than CO2. And in part because I am a scientist and for Al Gore and the media to say the science is decided is almost personally insulting. But I agree with you that Peak Oil is much more of a problem, and a solution to one will help the other. Politically I don't have faith that Obama will accept that he needs the oil companies more than they need him. After all, Congress (except for the Gingrich Congress) for the last 30 years has thought that we don't need to drill ANWR or the OCS, with the results that we see today. And the politicians still say (and the media echos) that the solution is for George Bush to give the Saudis a good talking-to, to have more Congressional hearings, and to burn our food. I think it'll just get worse (perhaps much worse) under Obama (consider that the price of crude has gone up $60 in the 15 months since the Democrats took office after their 2006 big win). But for now, I'm just thinking about what it means in terms of oil investments.
      View article »
    • Thu Apr 24th 12:15 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      ConocoPhilips Screams Past Street Estimates
      Michael, I was curious what you think about the upcoming election and if Obama or Clinton wins it, in terms of all their dislike of big oil (threats of more taxes, etc.). I'm also long on COP and other oils. One of my favorite sectors. But it won't be my favorite if Obama etc. use it as their cash cow.
      View article »
    • Thu Apr 24th 12:06 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      ConocoPhilips Screams Past Street Estimates
      Basically agree with you. I don't take Global Warming (GW) seriously. GW and the rest are Al Gore's ticket to money and prizes (he's got a trading/credits firm with a Goldman Sachs buddy - lots of money in trading). Congress loves GW because they love taxes and this gives them a rationale. Peak Oil is much more of a problem. If you can show Congress how they can get tax money from Peak Oil then they'll believe in that too. As for the media, most of them are leftist lemmings. I mean, what does a journalism degree mean, anyway? It's not like a degree in science. It basically means you took some courses in how to write things so you don't get sued. What has that to do with writing about anything with intelligence?
      View article »
    • Thu Apr 24th 11:55 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      An Energy Policy that Makes Cents (and Sense)
      I think the simplest solution is a radical carbon tax, to replace a lot of the taxes we already pay. The market will take care of the rest. I don't really agree with some of the specific suggestions (i.e. a tax on a big vehicle), etc. I'd prefer not to micromanage. But politicians love to micromanage, as it permits them to reward their supporters (or potential supporters) at the expense of others. For this reason we'll never get the tax system we need. I agree with peak oil. I don't think we'll really solve it because the solutions are so different from how the politicians/bureaucrat... want to work. We're headed for a crisis, I think.
      View article »
    • Thu Apr 24th 11:19 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      ConocoPhilips Screams Past Street Estimates
      Thanks, Michael. Don't know if you keep up with Investor's Business Daily. Great cartoons. Article today about Global Cooling www.ibdeditorials.com/...
      View article »
    • Tue Apr 22nd 12:49 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Emerging Markets' Oil Appetite to Exceed U.S. This Year
      Jimmy, I don't mind the Republican Revolution. My big worry is that Obama wins the Presidency and gets to spend the next four years playing with his new power and our resulting crashing economy.
      View article »
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»