Chevy Volt: The Enviro-Friendly Way Of Destroying Value [View article]
This is a dumb article. When the Prius was first introduced Toyota lost a huge amount for each car sold. They needed to move down the learning curve and it took over five years before Toyota broke even on each Prius sold. GM is just starting on the learning curve and as volume goes up in five to ten years there will be a turn around. It takes a lot to introduce a new product and create a new market. It is not introducing a smart phone into an existing infrastructure.
Any projection of peak oil in the 2010 tp 2040 time line fails to account for heavy oil reserves, deep sea oil drilling, and significant improvements in oil recovery from the relatively low levels today. In addition we have coal that can be coverted to transpotation fuels equivalent to oil, and natural gas that can be used in many applications as equivalent. So effectively we have oil, or oil equivalents for 50 to 150 years, plenty of time to develop cost effective alternatives. Only those who want to create fear need to be feared
ExxonMobil (XOM) knew in 1984 that adding the chemical MTBE to gasoline to make it burn more thoroughly would triple incidents of groundwater contamination, lawyers for New Hampshire say at the opening of an $800M trial. XOM says the federal Clean Air Act overrides the state claims, and it was complying with a U.S. mandate to supply fuel that would burn more cleanly. [View news story]
I have some knowledge of this. Exxon provided information to the state and federal governments that MTBE was not a desired agent to add to gasoline. The State of California was most forceful in rejecting Exxon's information and insisting that the oil companies use MTBE. Other states, including NH followed in lock step. The suits and claims today are kind of hollow excuse for a best intentioned government screw-up
Problems are more likely on 2050 time scale than what is cited by the author. The exploration tools have become much, much better than they were 20 years ago. The cost of exploration is higher, and where the large private companies can expore is more limited due to geopolitical forces and the national oil companies self interest. But, despite all the nay sayers they are finding "elephants" frequently enough to conclude that peak oil is a bit off. They are also moving toward unconventional oil, such as heavy oil in Canada. Sort of the Saudi Arabia next door. Oil shale in the US is on the same scale. Look carefully at ExxonMobil and you will not be finding them firing geologists and petroleum engineeers, etc. but hiring as fast as they can find them. Shell, Chevron and BP ditto. Conoco has other problems.
Energy Storage Performed Poorly in Q4 [View article]
I suspect that there is growing awareness that energy storage is going to be slow, long treck before real money can be made and that it is so much tied to the vagaries of government management of the industry and the economy. That, at least in part may explain why the Chinese companies have done so much better. The Chinese government support is broad and sustainable, the US government support is finecky, marred by favoritism and funding those with best connections.
I appreciate the thoughtful analysis. Very few people really understand Exxon and its operations. Lets look at the acquisition of XTO. Most focus on the US side of the business, which XTO focused on primarily. But, XOM R&D&E has been developing new tools and capabilities for producing gas and oil in tight formations, but did not have the commercial operating experience to implement them as rapidly as they do now, with XTO expertise in hand. Second, with XOM's financing and global activities it can deploy their proprietary technology, as well as XTO experience and expertise globally. This will start showing up in deals with Russia, China, and many other countries. It may also enable XOM to export oil from the US, rather than import to the US. In my judgement XOM is on a good positive track.
Algae Biofuels Have a Promising Future [View article]
Algal biofuels are down the road perhaps. Now these are substantially research projects. Don't confuse promise and potential with reality. At best one in 10, and more likey one in a 100 of promising research projects lead to a commercial success. Thermodynamics does rule. Fossil fuel production energy was invested over a long period of time (millions of years) and we did not make the investment, nature did. Photosynthesis does it real time, slow and steady and nature makes the investment. When we manipulate for profit all kinds of issues come to light as we learn reality. Despite Senator Boxer's or any other politicians wish, and investmentf our tax dollars it will take time to learn how it works, and if it is a sink for dollars or the source of a return. One of the problems we now face is that venture capitalists who used to risk their own money are mixing it up with politicians to force policy decisions in their favor and are now leveraging their own investments with our tax dollars. Not a good thing in my view
Solar Market Declines for First Time Ever [View article]
Certainly obvious from the two comments posted that the story is not what they want to hear. Shoot the messanger while most of solar stock are sinking in the market. Wow Similar to the story on ethanol plants.
Hydrogen-Fueled Cars Become a Thing of the Present [View article]
If you have natural gas in your house you can make H2 by a simple reformer. Toyota, Honda and a number of other companies store H2 at 10,000 psig on board vehicle and have already demonstrated 500 miles driving range as well as six months of operation in cold Alaska. They are more ready to deliver a FC vehicle in 2015 than an EV. Secretary Chu has refused to talk to the OEMs before he made his decision, or since then. He is a Noble Laurate and he knows it best.
On Nov 03 12:07 PM GhostOfSpec wrote:
> Hydrogen is a loser technology in the near-term future. Steven Chu > is completely correct. There are WAY too many problems: > 1) There are no hydrogen mines or wells. Hydrogen is an energy storage > system not a source. To create hydrogen we reform natural gas or > do electrolysis of water. Well, it would be better to simply burn > that natural gas or use that electricity in EVs. > 2) There is no hydrogen distribution infrastructure. But every house > does already have a source of electricity. > 3) Hydrogen is very difficult to store and transport. It is the smallest > element and thus leaks through even very small holes. And great pressures > are needed to store a reasonably quantity. > 4) Fuel cells are still expensive and use expensive previous metals. > Fuel cell experts Ballard Power abandoned the mobile fuel cell market > . . . that should tell you something. > > The less money we waste on the hydrogen pipe dream, the better
NYT examines the next big opportunity in the U.S. energy market: turning natural gas into liquid fuel. South Africa-based Sasol (SSL), whose plant in Qatar makes 32K bbl/day of liquid fuels, plans to spend up to $14B to build the first gas-to-liquids plant in the U.S. But opinions vary widely: Exxon (XOM) doesn't see GTL as a relevant source of fuels for another 20 years. [View news story]
Simply put Methanol is highly toxic and introducing it huge quantities into the fuel market is dangerous. It is the reason why it was dropped from consideration gloablly as a fuel cell fuel. So I hope that Bobwyman's suggestion will not prevail.
Total (TOT) warns energy companies against drilling for crude in Arctic waters, the first time an oil major has publicly spoken out against offshore oil exploration in the region. The risk of an oil spill in such an environmentally sensitive area is too high, CEO Christophe de Margerie says: “A leak would do too much damage to the image of the company." [View news story]
It is entirely appropriate for TOT to stay away from drilling in areas they consider dangerous. They actually don't have the technology expertise to safely undertake such an effort. That does not mean that others who have the expertise should not be allowed to try, as long as they are prepared to handle emergency issues.
David Wren, focusing on the US only the fueling business, i.e owning and running service stations has been a money loosing proposition for major oils and this has led to two trends, first is that by replacing service bays with retail stores that are designed for quick shopping for convenience foods, cup of coffee or other refreshments the stations can make money, but most of the money comes from the retail store not from selling fuels. The second trend has been the growth of independents, those brands that buy wholesale fuel from refiners and sell it at a lower price, and often a lower quality fuel. But, by and large fuel has become a commodity, shipped via pipelines and intermingled. So refiners, such as ExxonMobil, Shell, etc. put their fuel into the pipeline, meeting pipeline specs and at vatious points fuel is drawn from the pipeline by distributors, the addpacks for each brand are added to the fuel, often while the distribution tanker truck is being filled. More and more major brands are retaining only the additive design, and all else is outsourced, in fact creating new businesses in the process. The logical conclusion of this is that more and more major oil companies are getting out of the business of retail gasoline and diesel sales at company owned service stations. Major big box retailers have stepped in in many parts of the country to sell gasoline and diesel, buying off-brand fuels at the lowest cost and retailing at the lowest cost. This is probably good for the customers, since these places care about customer satisfaction and probably go to greater length to ensure fuel quality than other off-brand retailers. BUT, the majors are not likely to add natural gas sales to their branded stations, that has to be done by the owners, most of them owning a single to several stations. In addition self service stations are the dominant force in the country, NJ and I think Oregon may be the only hold outs.That would work for natural gas fleet sales, where professionals are doing the filling, but much harder in individual retail stores. Hope this is useful.
NYT examines the next big opportunity in the U.S. energy market: turning natural gas into liquid fuel. South Africa-based Sasol (SSL), whose plant in Qatar makes 32K bbl/day of liquid fuels, plans to spend up to $14B to build the first gas-to-liquids plant in the U.S. But opinions vary widely: Exxon (XOM) doesn't see GTL as a relevant source of fuels for another 20 years. [View news story]
From an energy efficiency point of view converting to liquids reduces the energy content of equivalent natural gas in the conversion process. Since the technology is around for running diesel engines, including heavy duty diesels on natural gas directly that is the preferred route. The trade off is to retain use of distribution network or add natural gas to the fueling system network. The investment required in GTL plants is huge, and to maximize value of the liquids produced you probably want to segregate the higher quality GTL fuel. In the end it is a judgement call, but benefits of going to GTL is far from obvious.
It's too early to tell which lighter-weight materials will become dominant in carmaking as tough new federal fuel-efficiency rules take hold, NYT reports. The Energy Department says reducing a car’s weight by only 10% can improve fuel economy 6%-8%; technologies showing promise in lightening vehicles are supported by $8M in awards the agency has doled out to the likes of GM, F and CAT. [View news story]
I don't understand why DoE is funding GM, F, Chrysler to do this. Under the Clinton administration the DoE paid over $2 Billion to get car makers to develop and use light weight materials, and funded the National Labs to partner with OEMs. They developed and demonstrated diesel hybrids for each brand which Detroit never built, they developed light weight strong materials of which one made it to market as a component for running board for trucks. With the high fuel standards set and car makers committed to meet the market place is where this should be done and stop borrowing more money to give them help.
Electric small trucks, using batteries do have a role in limited routes, with frequent stops such as in- city delivery service. Total driving range of around 100-150 miles. Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles for transportation are also used, city bus fleets are already here, by 2015 most of the major automakers will have FCEVs for sale, but what is missing is the Hydrogen Highway promised by politicians during the Bush administration. So the refueling business is facing the challenge of too many different fuels that need to be supplied. The traditional three grades of gasoline, clean diesel fuel, natural gas and hydrogen. Perhaps not at service stations, but elsewhere electric recharging stations. Wow! This is on the least profitable section of the fueling business! Relatively few major players, mostly small to medium size businesses. Something has got to give. One question that needs to be addressed: do we actually need this degree of diversity of fuels and vehicles? Advanced engine design are bringing fuel economy significantly up, also are integrating the design of diesel and gasoline engines into a single design. much of Europe is already on the more efficient diesel engine system. So if we could be weaned off gasoline engines and move to diesel for fuel economy for passenger vehicles, natural gas for big trucks and passenger vehicles, drop all electric vehicles, and use natural gas reforming to make hydrogen fuel at the service station we could have a major transportation fuel simplification and the lowest cost, most efficient fuel use. Perhaps even make the refueling business profitable in 15-20 years.
Chevy Volt: The Enviro-Friendly Way Of Destroying Value [View article]
Oil: The Clock Is Ticking [View article]
ExxonMobil (XOM) knew in 1984 that adding the chemical MTBE to gasoline to make it burn more thoroughly would triple incidents of groundwater contamination, lawyers for New Hampshire say at the opening of an $800M trial. XOM says the federal Clean Air Act overrides the state claims, and it was complying with a U.S. mandate to supply fuel that would burn more cleanly. [View news story]
Officials Wake Up to Peak Oil [View article]
Energy Storage Performed Poorly in Q4 [View article]
Analysts Are Wrong About Exxon [View article]
Algae Biofuels Have a Promising Future [View article]
Solar Market Declines for First Time Ever [View article]
Hydrogen-Fueled Cars Become a Thing of the Present [View article]
On Nov 03 12:07 PM GhostOfSpec wrote:
> Hydrogen is a loser technology in the near-term future. Steven Chu
> is completely correct. There are WAY too many problems:
> 1) There are no hydrogen mines or wells. Hydrogen is an energy storage
> system not a source. To create hydrogen we reform natural gas or
> do electrolysis of water. Well, it would be better to simply burn
> that natural gas or use that electricity in EVs.
> 2) There is no hydrogen distribution infrastructure. But every house
> does already have a source of electricity.
> 3) Hydrogen is very difficult to store and transport. It is the smallest
> element and thus leaks through even very small holes. And great pressures
> are needed to store a reasonably quantity.
> 4) Fuel cells are still expensive and use expensive previous metals.
> Fuel cell experts Ballard Power abandoned the mobile fuel cell market
> . . . that should tell you something.
>
> The less money we waste on the hydrogen pipe dream, the better
NYT examines the next big opportunity in the U.S. energy market: turning natural gas into liquid fuel. South Africa-based Sasol (SSL), whose plant in Qatar makes 32K bbl/day of liquid fuels, plans to spend up to $14B to build the first gas-to-liquids plant in the U.S. But opinions vary widely: Exxon (XOM) doesn't see GTL as a relevant source of fuels for another 20 years. [View news story]
Total (TOT) warns energy companies against drilling for crude in Arctic waters, the first time an oil major has publicly spoken out against offshore oil exploration in the region. The risk of an oil spill in such an environmentally sensitive area is too high, CEO Christophe de Margerie says: “A leak would do too much damage to the image of the company." [View news story]
A Broader View Of Clean Energy [View article]
NYT examines the next big opportunity in the U.S. energy market: turning natural gas into liquid fuel. South Africa-based Sasol (SSL), whose plant in Qatar makes 32K bbl/day of liquid fuels, plans to spend up to $14B to build the first gas-to-liquids plant in the U.S. But opinions vary widely: Exxon (XOM) doesn't see GTL as a relevant source of fuels for another 20 years. [View news story]
It's too early to tell which lighter-weight materials will become dominant in carmaking as tough new federal fuel-efficiency rules take hold, NYT reports. The Energy Department says reducing a car’s weight by only 10% can improve fuel economy 6%-8%; technologies showing promise in lightening vehicles are supported by $8M in awards the agency has doled out to the likes of GM, F and CAT. [View news story]
A Broader View Of Clean Energy [View article]
One question that needs to be addressed: do we actually need this degree of diversity of fuels and vehicles? Advanced engine design are bringing fuel economy significantly up, also are integrating the design of diesel and gasoline engines into a single design. much of Europe is already on the more efficient diesel engine system. So if we could be weaned off gasoline engines and move to diesel for fuel economy for passenger vehicles, natural gas for big trucks and passenger vehicles, drop all electric vehicles, and use natural gas reforming to make hydrogen fuel at the service station we could have a major transportation fuel simplification and the lowest cost, most efficient fuel use. Perhaps even make the refueling business profitable in 15-20 years.