ART005

Why Is Congress Agnostic About Natural Gas?

Wisdom vs.: You are referring to step changes in demand that won't occur vs. supply curve and price stability. Your insults really don't apply. Energy sources that are under utilized based on price and availability vs. their value to use that become a bigger part of the energy supply pie help reduce pressure on the rest of the pie. While supply to the pie gets more manageable, time allows new solutions to the supply pie while time also works on the demand pie. Technology and conservation help reduce pressure on the demand curve, global increasing standards of living add pressure back to the demand curve. Arbitrarily undermining supply pie components due to some personal agenda of a long off utopia destroys the time value benefit of those components which undermines the likely success of getting to the utopia.

The path to the energy Utopia the Greens dream of requires time and less green sources of energy to maintain productivity so the accomplishments leading to the utopia can be realized.

Why Is Congress Agnostic About Natural Gas?

mpherson: my comment got chopped off. I also mentioned that you're right about the lack of gasoline taxes being a big one but the gov could go after that via much higher registration fees for CNG vehicles. I suspect lack of gasoline taxes was part of the EPA putting the squash on aftermarket CNG conversions.

Why Is Congress Agnostic About Natural Gas?

mpherson: It's much simpler than you think. The at home Phil station comes in different models that operate at different speeds. I have the pleasure of living in communities where neighbors would be willing to share a Phil amoung 1 or 2 households and simply pay the operator as needed, the machine and vehicle have meters on them. Multi car families know which vehicle range accomodates which travel patterns. The EPA has just about wiped out conversions in the U.S. so the Italian experience will not be common.

How Natural Gas Can Save the U.S. Economy

Elliot, you are completely missing the point. The Volt can be rated at 2,300 mpg (no typo) and gasoline free for the lifetime of the car and it has the performance of a 25 mpg car at best. It is virtually useless. It's technically useless compared to vehicles having an on board generator and compared to other E.V. without on board generators it horribly underperforms. It is the worst of both worlds, hybrid and E.V.

You are repeating the baseless headlines. The Volt is only 230 mpg if you assume infinite life of the battery and all other costs of the car similar to conventional cars. In the real world the Volt will struggle to achieve over 25 mpg equivalent. You and the headlines assume the battery is a magic free box in which you charge electrons and when you need energy you just discharge what you need. Then you can say use of the charged electrons in the E.V. is more efficient than use of the fuel to charge those electrons if you use the fuel directly in a vehicle as thermal energy to drive a non E.V. Halleluiah, the world will be saved by EV, NOT!!

Every energy aspect of the battery has to be accounted for when evaluating the efficiency of the Volt. It's energy to manufacture, it's lifecycle, it's cost. The yachting industry is very intense in it's true evaluation of deep cell batteries whether they are charged by wind turbine, water turbine, solar PV, shore (grid) or diesel generator. The yachting industry currently factors about $1/kWhr battery cost not including the cost to generate the power going into the battery. Compare that to the real cost to use grid power ~$0.11/kWhr. The battery increases the cost of electricity around 10X. You and the headlines (230 mpg) can ignore it until you buy a Volt and then you'll have to pay for it!! Look at the Volt and CNG Camary discussion above. Counting added engine life, a CNG vehicle is about 90 mpg equivalent, the Volt is under 25 mpg equivalent.

How Natural Gas Can Save the U.S. Economy

Elliot, you are not taking into account the cost of the battery for a full service elec. car with on board generator. You are refering to a misleading definition of efficiency based only on electrons. If you include storage efficiency costs the picture changes dramatically!! See the Camry analyses above (was that your negative vote?)

Elec. vehicles are great for specific dedicated use where an on board generator is not necessary and overall weight of the vehicle can be very small compared to the load. Such as elec. scooters, fork trucks and such. These type of vehicles can easily be charged during their down time and make it through their daily use cycle without having to be recharged during use. Battery powered 4 passenger vehicles with 75+ mph, 300+ mile range are a poor application of E.V. The best answer today for that vehicle is CNG and for city drivers add the Hybrid technology. Actually 300 mile range is a stretch for CNG but quick fill options address most of the shortcoming.

How Natural Gas Can Save the U.S. Economy

Another natural gas vehicle fact not getting much press is how much longer the engine is likely to last burning CNG rather than gasoline. I think the CNG engine lasts twice as long as gasoline engine. Say 400,000 miles vs. 200,000 miles. If a 30 mpg Camry costs $20,000 and uses 6,700 gallons of gasoline (200,000 miles at 30 mpg) @ $2.50/gal = $17,00 lifetime fuel or about the same cost as the car. So if the CNG Camry engine lasts twice as long, that savings discountes the $$/gal(equiv.) another 25%.

How Natural Gas Can Save the U.S. Economy

Good job Fitzman! From the department of the media using headlines to distract population with worthless reporting:

Yesterday Chevy announced 230 mpg Volt with no specifics except $40,000 car available late 2010, the battery should last 10 years, they are making 10 per month or week or something like that....

I would love to get help confirming this but I think the replacement Volt battery costs $15,000. 10 years at 15,000 miles/yr = $0.10/mile battery costs. AT $2.50/gal gasoline the volt is a 25 mpg(equivalent) vehilce if all of its future fuel (gasoline + elec.) were free!! Yeah Chevy technology, the world is saved, NOT, morons!!!

I'm just here to help with the reporting.......

The 'Peak Oil' Myth: New Oil Is Plentiful

Anaconda,
It seems that a critical issue is determining an estimate of the rate of production of Abiotic Oil. Possibly some function of the size of the reaction zone, the kinetics of the materials finding each other, the velocity of products to within reach of the surface, etc.

That would establish an ongoing expectation of new oil supply (with additional drilling as necessary.) If it's lower than forecasted demand that would explain oil fields being depleted (the peak oil crowd.) The amount that it is lower becomes the basis for the future energy build out program for the world. There would be a target for timing of various amounts of additional energy supply going forward. Based on confidence of technology, economics and lead time you can choose from: Nuclear, Coal, Wind, and others.

Astrology types make predictions about when a star is going to burn out. Seems like a similar system to model. The reaction has already been demonstrated in the lab. Do you know if the Abiotic Oil crowd is working on that estimate?

The 'Peak Oil' Myth: New Oil Is Plentiful

I don't understand the strength of arguing that things that take time are not worth doing because there's no immediate value. Availability of natural resources is like a revolving door. When the size and rpm of the door matches the taffic everyone is happy. Then when it can't keep up there is unrest while an additional or faster door is installed. It'd be nice if new door capacity was always in the pipeline but often deliberate barriers prevent it. Heck I would say there are people that make a career of preventing new capacity.

All of the informed comments add up to saying future oil is available. Supply/demand imbalances suggest difficult times in the future. While it's uncertain that oil will always be able to serve world expansion of its current energy market sectors. Moving forward, alternatives will replace some of oil's energy sectors. Every year allows more opportunities to evolve to help recover the balance. Consumption will be pressured by supply imbalances which will help recover the balance. The next 5 years could be difficult but doing nothing is probably a death sentance.

Demand for gas and such is dropping faster and further than ever before. Time will tell where it goes. Look at the options already available at local level:

* $3K to $5K solar water heater saving about $200 to $400 per year. China is using thousands of them.
* 40 to 50 mpg cars compared to typical 25 mpg cars. Making the switch brings the effective price of gas down from $4 to $2.5.

And known but a little further down the road:
* Suppliers of big industrial wind turbines are sold out with 4 year lead times. A weak estimate of new annual capacity is the equivalent of 2400 bbl/day/year of oil. I would love to hear of an accurate estimate if someone can provide. Maybe in 5 years they can get to 25,000 bbl/day/year.
* Nuclear and coal to electric have lots of additional capacity potential to service evolving electric transportation and geothermal heat pumps displacing those energy demands from the gas/oil side.
* Coal to gas.

And still out of sight but maybe someday:
PhotoVoltaic and who knows what else.

I think the presented static review of the oil numbers is less than half the picture. Improvements in oil with whatever lead time will simply be part of the basket of solutions. But I agree the future looks to have some difficult times to compensate for the complacency of the past.

An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited

Flyer,

Fun fact. Without considering the cost of collection. Over a cow's lifetime, the methane it produces is worth more than the meat.

An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited

Poet,
You celebrate the benefit of low digit percent annual improvement in gas mileage and how its compound effect over years slowly amounts to something significant but you belittle the benefit of small continuous improvements in the U.S. and world's production of oil. Have you heard the saying that things are priced at the margin? A small growing decrease in demand along with a slow growing increase in production can have a huge price impact in a relatively short time.

Why do people need tax incentives to choose a vehicle with higher gas mileage in exchange for other performance issues? Fortunately different performance levels are competively priced. The Prius is not the answer for everyone. Highway distance drivers do not benefit much from Hybrids. Towing capacity is not available in Hybrids. Many people will benefit from Hybrids. Where the benefits exsist the market has options.

By voting against filling the Strategic Oil Reserve you are voting that oil prices will be coming down soon. Is that what you're complaing about? If your concern really is oil prices will continue higher, then filling at $125 vs over $125 is smart right?

Have you ever traded futures? Are you suggesting someone is cornering the oil futures? If everyone is acting independently then the futures market protects oil prices. You are free to open a futures account and buy or sell oil contracts as you please. The futures market is so open that you can buy or sell regardless of whether you have a supply or a means to take delivery. A huge intent of the futures market is meant for people with no intent of delivering or taking delivery. Is that the group you plan to regulate? Enron did not ruin the futures market, the futures market outed Enron as a poor company bordering a pyramid scheme.

Current oil prices are protecting the world's future energy supply not impeding it. Have you ever designed an oil rig or refinery or other productive piece of machinery that you're qualified to insult the time it takes knowledgeable people to get these things done?

The world has many fortunate energy input options to protect its future. If you're not technically qualified to help make that happen, stay out of the way.

An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited

Tom,

While more people bidding for oil contracts they don't plan to take delivery on probably has a tendancy to increase contract price the liquidity and competition they offer the market is stabilizing. If only the entities taking delivery of oil were allowed to set the price there is more of an environment for price fixing. The more people bidding buy/sell for something the more likely to eventually have a fair price. Imagine how the global exposure of Ebay provides better pricing for everything compared to neighborhood garage sales. Better means higher for the seller when he has access to more bidders. Most of us are on the buyer side of oil so those better prices mean higher prices which doesn't feel better. But it means oil is priced at a sustaining price to provide for the future of oil as demand changes. The Fitzman article says prepare for that price to become unsustaining to the U.S. standard of living and political stability. Fairly priced alternatives brought to market can stabilize everything. That's what the U.S. and the rest of the world need to work on. $5 gas might be horrible, but doing nothing could result in $10 gas. Eliminating liquidity in oil is not a long term solution.

Somewhat related, the gov. researched the role of short sellers in the 1987 correction and found they were not a destabilizing factor.

A combination of rationing and taxes might be productive. Imagine current gas tax rate on your first ~40 gallons per month used and then steeply increasing taxes to purchase more gas. The same could be applied to natural gas, heating oil, etc. I got 40 gal/mo from 12,000 miles/yr in a 25 mpg car but any minimal basis could be used. Additional taxes used to assist alternative developments.

An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited

Poet1,
I've worked in the chemical and oil industry for over 20 years. 500 days is often how long it takes to get something significant done. You can't legislate that more be done in less time and you can't trivialize what does get done in 500 days.

If one finger plugs one hole for 500 days then another finger plugs another hole for another 500 days and then maybe in 1000 or 2000 days there is some improvement that an initial finger can be moved to a new hole is how technology and industrial improvement moves. It might seem painfully slow but it is what it is and therefore along with oil, time is a very valuable commodity to be utilized smartly.

The whole industrial complex has layers of improvement, discovery, set backs, successes, ongoing operations, etc. Sometimes just holding on is part of the solution. Not overinvesting resources in a bad path is as important as finding a better path.

Way back at the beginning, Fitzman made a good list of suggestions. All possible paths of progress need a chance to be evaluated. That requires time!

An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited

Pursley,

With your enthusiasm for deep inorganic oil, has that camp ever tried to estimate the daily steady state supply? Maybe some factor of the volume or surface of the "reactor" in connection with the velocity of its path upward to within reach of the surface. Does that camp suggest deep oil is quite universally available or does drilling still need to be strategic to find the vents/seems at the deep depths? Does deep inorganic oil concede there will always be geopolitical oil pressure? What specifics going forward does deep inorganic oil believe?

Paulk,

I meant to say Cudos about your 500 day comment! Then add Deep Inorganic Oil potential and maybe you get a couple more hundred days....not to mention U.S. $$ staying home for a change.

My plans for next 500 days are helping domestic refiners make improvements, getting a tiny geothermal heat pump running, finishing process design of a medium size WVO to Biodiesel plant and maybe just beginning start-up, retrofitting insulation and radiant barrier in an older home, and getting the first harvest from recently planted fruit trees....... I'll take 500 days of breathing room anytime!!

Here's to the next 500 days, make 'em good ones :-)

Galewhitaker, there are so many conservation opportunities, if you know people not participating do what you can to motivate them. Point them to Fitzman's work, team up with them, change out incadescent lightbulbs, plant a tomato plant, anything.....

An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited

Paulk: My Uranium observation was not about world supply/cost but a follow up to an earlier post that the U.S. imports most of its Uranium. I am not familiar with $/watt nuclear though I have read Cradle to Grave analyses that say utility customers pay high prices. If a nuclear expert says nuclear holds its own I'm not really qualified to challenge that one. Some of the theme of this thread is domestic energry program and imported Uranium might not fit the bill. Maybe the U.S.'s nuclear program is the supply of U.S. mined Uranium going to Canada. There's a fun investment guideline of how the most consitent profiters of the old gold rush were the guys selling picks and shovels.

I hope threads like this get growing exposure, like Fitzman says, more so than B. Spears exposure. Slamming the Greens might not be good with that exposure. Many Greens I know are highly capable/informed people pursuing viable solutions as encouraged here. Their greenness is their motivation not their fear. Other less capable Greens are the say no to everything group and think they're accomplishing something preventing change.