Old Wizard

Energy Secretary Chu Wimps Out Again

Fitz, I believe that the administration is starting to realize that the energy plan,and I am being diplomatic, on which it has embarked does not address the country's fundamental problem, it.s increasingly negative operating cash flow. Since importation of oil accounts for anywhere from 33 to 50 %, negative trade balance with China accounts for about 33% and the rest with various other countries, the path they had started offers little promise for oil reduction before 2030 the potential for Chinese electric battery production and even ultimately cheap PHEVS , more advanced vehicles from Germany than the Volt and a near term failed job creation from their energy plan, they should be nervous. Hence the 2.5 b investment in petrobras, the rethinking on fleet vehicles and natural gas and at least keeping their options open. As I said before,goals like doubling electrical energy from wind and solar in 3 years and clean coal, 25 % of cars being electric by 2030 have no urgency and relatively little affect on our most pressing economic problem.

China Repeats U.S. Energy Policy Mistakes

Freya, I don't know enough about what Brazil is doing with flex fuel other than they use sugar cane derived ethenol. It is curious, however, that their state-owned oil company wants to deep drill for oil. If they are that successful with alternate fuels and if the USA's energy policy will materially impact oil usage, why are they doing so. Could it be that 1] our energy policy won't materially impact oil usage here and 2] the Brazilian government understands that having their country's operating cash flow be 0 or greater is in the best interests of the country's well being? In a previous comment you said that the ex-im bank's investment in Petrobras was misunderstood. You didn't respond to my reference to the ex-im bank official's statement. Can you elaborate? A short term energy plan that drives our current account toward 0 is ,I believe, sorely required if the USA is going to solve our economic problem. It should be addressed with a sense of urgency and can't wait to 2020 or2030. If flex fueled cars can solve the problem, I'm all for it. I only require that we make significant progress in 5 years and constrain the solution to reducing the current account balance at least 220b in 5 years and approach a current account yearly balance of 0 or greater in ten.

China Repeats U.S. Energy Policy Mistakes

Freya, The local paper carried a letter from an ex-im bank official, yesterday, that stated it was an investment in Ameican jobs because Petrobras would buy American equipment and services. He also asserted that it would cost the taxpayer nothing, since the investment would be covered with interest. I have a problem with the logic of our making an investment in a very profitable company to help them do deep drilling in the ocean for oil, while our government continues to have a stated policy not to do so here for environmental reasons. The simple fact is that more oil from Brazil will only provide more oil for everyone including China which has also invested in this company and to the extent the US imports it, will contribute negatively to our operating cash flow when compared to our drilling for oil off our own coasts. Relative to the use of natural gas, We certainly could start converting all bus,truck and pooled vehicles and providing natural gas drops to their home garages and terminals, followed by gas stations in major cities, etc. An assertion that we can solve the electrical refueling and the electric grid control problem faster needs some facts to back it up. Natural gas buses are already in operation in some of our cities and companies like AT@T have announced plans to convert their fleet to natural gas. The solution to reducing our negative current account has to include reducing our importation of oil. Electric cars do this but unfortunately the countries with the leading battery candidates and lower labor rates do not include the US. It would be refreshing to embark on an energy solution that uses our resources, our labor force and our brain power and know how to solve our economic problems. What ever happened to enlighted self interest?

China Repeats U.S. Energy Policy Mistakes

Freya, The investment in the Brazilian Oil Company was discussed in the Wall Street Journal,this week. I don't remember which day and was carried by some of the media yesterday. The administration is the current one, since it was just announced. Technically, I believe it is through the import export bank and is money the US government guarantees, when it is borrowed or provided by that agency, which is an agency of the federal GOV. The Soros investment is also discussed in the same article and has been covered by some media channels. The press secretary was apparently asked about the gov. investment at a press conference this week and the official response is that the gov. is looking into it. The UAV announcement is contained in excerpts from the submarine league's newsletter and probably can be found by googling NRL. If not,if you give me an address,I will forward the newsletter to you. I still would like you to respond to the challenge of delineating a comprehensive energy plan, that achieves measureable and significant results in 5 years and provides positive progress on all four problems, I discussed, simultaneously. Some of us have tried to put forth such a plan and have inevitably been led to the natural gas-driven option as the most viable for the next 5 to 10 years, while the more promising other techniques mature and are implemented. I, personally believe that the switch to wind and solar is underwhelmed by the stated investment and the drive to force electric car production so quickly will only increase the trade imbalance with China. The investment strategy we are following as a nation seems not to be coherent as the investment in Brazil implies and since it comes by borrowing massive amounts of money from folks who don't necessarily like us, is a dangerous situation for our country's future well being. A constructive discussion where we attempt to be as objectively analytical as possible should be not only our aim on seeking alpha, but what we should demand from our Government decision makers. I'd like to see the coherent plan with actual milestones as a function of time and with the measures of performance being less imported oil, less co2, and the number of US jobs created. My suggestion is 5million barrels of oil less imports in 5 years and 10 less in ten years, 10% less co2 emissions in 5 years and 25% less in 10 years, 1 million new american jobs in 5 years and 3 million in 10 due to our energy plan. Anyone who says they have a solution should put it up for discussion in these terms so that we can carry on a meaningful and constructive dialougue.

China Repeats U.S. Energy Policy Mistakes

Fitz, I believe I have read just about all of your posts and it is obvious that you have clearly made the distinction between less co2 emmissions between natural gas and coal and natural gas and gasoline as you have stated above. Any one who really looks at the total problem of the country's increasingly negative operating cash flow, the need to create real and lasting jobs, the strategic shortcomings created by our dependency on imported oil and our desire to decrease air pollutants couldn't help but want to create a solution that materially solves each of the above with a comprehensive energy policy that led to significant and measurable results, simultaneously, to all of the above in the near future. A sense of urgency borne of our economic dependency on China and other friendly? country's requires such results to occur in 5 years and each year thereafter. Rather than argue about specific technologies and alternate energy approaches, I challenge all of those descenters to your articles to put forth an energy plan that produces significant progress in 5 years which does not include natural-gas deriven transportation. As I have commented in the past, realistically, ev's won't do it, alternate energy sources per the president's own stated goals will provide 15% of current electric generation by 2020 and that assumes a doubling of such sources every 3 years and given what is happening in nuclear power plants, we will be fortunate to maintain the capacity we have now in 5 years. By the way,Fitz, just to reinforce your thinking, the administration just authorized a 2b+ investment in Petrobas to drill off the Brazilian coast for OIL! Of course, I won't read too much into this with regard to policy, but it is roughly the equivalent to the announced battery investment. As another aside the US Naval research center unveiled a new unmanned aerial vehicle[UAV] that is powered by a fuel cell made by an american company in Ma.. The announcement stated that battery power was discarded because it did not afford suffient pay load. Keep up the fight for natural gas-driven transportation, because it's the right near and intermediate term solution for our country's well being. By the way if you want an investment tip invest in Petrobas. George Soros invested over 8oom in it just before our Government made its investment.

Profiting from the Pickens Plan: FAN, Clean Fuels, Fuel Systems

These comments illustrate why we can't get an agreement on a comprehensive energy plan. Pickens is right about the economic problem.We can't have a negative 800B DOLLARS/yr cash flow as measured by the current account out of the country much longer and not have to sell our country. From a cash flow point of view it is still better for the US to produce a kilowat, or 'x' btu's at the same cost as we pay to produce it from imported oil. Moeover,any one solution will not get us there in time to avoid a financial disaster for a good share of our citizens. Wind and solar have a part to play. Copenhagen gets 20% of its electrical energy from 26 windmills in the approach to their port. Near term increases in our domestic oil and gas supplies is a necessity and so is a crash program to get wind power on line with accompanyind infrastructure where it makes the most contribution. By the way does GE have a significany role in wind power?