Reply With Quote
There's an excellent series running now on Science Channel "Future Power".
Excellent perspective on how ed the planet is in its needs for energy growth, even dirty energy growth.
If those in the petroleum industry are willing to say we are running out, then they are no better than the climatologists who are alarmists. There is no way they have probed enough of the earths geology to ethically make statements that we are almost depleted. It simply gets harder as we have to go deeper. When it comes to global warming, I have devoted a great amount of time learning real aspects on the topic.So you are both more of an expert on climate science than those who have PhDs in the discipline, and more of an expert on petroleum engineering and geology than people with PhD's in the discipline whose job it is to know.
Impressive.
I guess we can quit, because if you said it, it must be true. I am defeated.
Well played, sir. I have no reposte to "nyah, nyah, nyah".
There's an excellent series running now on Science Channel "Future Power".
Excellent perspective on how ed the planet is in its needs for energy growth, even dirty energy growth.
Damn...
Where's my cable remote. I seldom watch cable!
Fuel yes, source of energy, no. You seemed to miss that distinction.
Now you are quibbling to avoid admitting a mistake, as you often do.
No one is saying oil is 'almost depleted'. No one. We a lot of oil left to discover and exploit. That isn't the real problem, yet.
The era of increasing ROIE for oil and other fossil fuels is coming to an end. The scale and timing of the economic effects of that are debatable, but unavoidable.
You have already acknowledged that the ROIE can only go down, even in this post.
The only thing left is to determine a course of action.
You would rather cede an economic compe ive advantage to other countries, and force us into, at best, a sluggish economy for decades, than to do something.
I find that deeply irresponsible, as I find your position on global warming.
"Do nothing" you argue. "Everything will be fine, there is no possibility I am wrong, and there is no real risk".
Sounds a lot like a drunk rationalizing driving home to me.
Then oil is not a source of energy either. It stores the energy it took to make it.
Just where do you want to draw that line at?
Look...
Hydrogen is not the root source of the energy it contains. However, it contains usable energy, and is therefore, a source of energy. Just not the root source.
No action required. Let the free market work.
I don't fall prey to this fear that you are under. I trust the compe ive nature we have. Sorry you don't. You loss.
I wonder how many of those Honda Clarity hydro fuel cell vehicles were leased in California?
Well, Wiki is usually accurate; from wiki: Honda FCX Clarity:
There were reports that previous generation fuel-cell cars from Honda cost more than $1 million to build in 2005. Some estimated that Honda had cut its production costs to between $120,000 and $140,000 per vehicle.
The FCX Clarity is currently available only in Southern California in the U.S., where "fast-fill" hydrogen stations are available, and as of 2010, 19 FCX Clarity are leased for US$600 a month which includes collision coverage, zero-cost maintenance and roadside assistance. In 2010, it is reported that there are a total of 50 FCX Clarity available for lease in the U.S. and Honda intends to increase that to 200 in about a year. Honda believes it could start mass producing vehicles based on the FCX Clarity by the year 2018.It is reported in 2009 that hydrogen that made from natural gas cost about $5 to $10 per kilogram in California. Although it was more than double the equivalent amount of gasoline, fuel-cell cars have at least double the efficiency of similar models with gasoline engine. FCX Clarity averaged 60 miles per kilogram.
Prudent risk management is not about fear.
It is about mitigating loss and maximizing gain over the long term.
CEO's of large companies go sometimes go so far as to appoint executives to help with risk management for this very reason.
They used to, anyway...
arresting headline, but I'm not the wonk to suss out the analysis: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...78775312014759
Nukes?
No thanks.
After Fukushima, it seems that the costs of risk are far higher than I am willing to bear, regardless of he cost of construction.
Hmmm.
Basically they were looking for the "least cost" way of meeting a portion of our electrical demands.We modeled wind, solar, and storage to meet demand for 1/5 of the USA electric grid
If you are going renewable, go all the way was their conclusion. Their model showed that renewable power was fully capable of meeting the entire chunk of demand they studied, and then some.
Some caveats:
Fossil power is still required, albeit vanishingly small.
Renewables require geographic distribution combined with multiple sources to be effective.
Some interesting:
The resultant bit produced, at peak, up to 3 times the amount of power needed.
The outgrowth of this is that the study suggests that the larger you go, the less it costs per unit, and the more fossil fuels you can replace.
By 2014? Seems a bit quick, IMO.
Ratepayers get the shaft in San Onofre fiasco
You probably know San Onofre as the full-figured fiasco overlooking the Pacific Ocean near the Orange/San Diego county line. Beginning in 2004, Southern California Edison, the nuclear power plant's principal owner, oversaw a $770-million project to replace its two aging steam generators with new models. The new units, which were supposed to last 20 years, lasted scarcely 20 months before showing alarmingly severe wear and tear.
The plant was shut down. Neither of its two units, which are designated units 2 and 3, has generated a practical watt since the end of January 2012. They may never operate again. (The troubled Unit 1 was permanently shuttered in 1992.)
But while San Onofre's electrons are but a memory, the billing lingers on — nearly $1 billion charged to ratepayers of Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric Co., the plant's minority owner, over the last year, according to the Public Utility Commission's Division of Ratepayer Advocates. The money is still flowing out of the pockets of the two utilities' 6.4 million billed customers at the rate of more than $68 million a month. Some of that may be refunded to customers, but possibly not for years.
With so much money at stake, it's unsurprising that in recent months the question of who pays for San Onofre, how much, and when has dominated the discussions about the plant before the PUC. It's a fair bet that, in time, the volume of legal briefs on those issues will far exceed those relating to the more basic questions of what happened and whose fault it is.
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/17.../p2p-74782404/
I wonder what sort of assumptions about demand are baked in. Even if the projection proves accurate, it's just a baby step toward energy independence.
Nuclear Energy: Moniz has been embraced by the Nuclear Energy Ins ute, a lobbying group, for his long-time support of the industry. In 2011, he wrote that it would be a “mistake” to allow Japan’s nuclear disaster to “cause governments to abandon nuclear power and its benefits” due to his belief that nuclear power can be a partial solution to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions in the long-term.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...1/ernest-moniz
Seems like he "supports" everything, but as DoE guy, which will he prioritize?
Got the impression he was using the 18.5 million barrels per day figure.
not to be disdained, old-fashioned conservation:
http://aceee.org/blog/2013/03/using-...age-increased-While there is disagreement among politicians about the role of government spending and government regulations to spur cost-effective energy efficiency investments, politicians of all political stripes agree that knocking down market barriers that keep Americans from saving money is a worthy task.
Within this context, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) released a new report on Monday highlighting 16 policies that would use market forces to spur additional cost-effective investments in energy efficiency while helping to surmount market barriers that hinder these investments. In total, these policies could save consumers and businesses nearly $1 trillion over the 2014-2030 period, considering both the energy bill savings and the cost of the energy efficiency investments.
The United States has become much more energy efficient in the last few decades, but there are still large, cost-effective opportunities available to advance efficiency even further, while improving the economy at the same time. However, a variety of market failures and market barriers contribute to keeping us from fully realizing our energy efficiency potential. Examples of such market barriers include lack of information that would help would-be purchasers and tenants identify more efficient buildings, and “split incentives,” where one party (e.g., landlords) purchases equipment while another party (e.g., tenants) pays the operating costs of this equipment through their energy bills.
The new ACEEE report, Overcoming Market Barriers and Using Market Forces to Advance Energy Efficiency, discusses several targeted policies that leverage market mechanisms in order to address specific market failures, without requiring substantial spending or government mandates. For example, the development of a comprehensive building labeling and benchmarking program would allow purchasers and tenants to identify efficient homes and commercial buildings and could save consumers and businesses approximately $60 billion between 2014 and 2030. Even more impressive are the benefits gained from adjusting corporate tax legislation to remove hidden barriers in the tax code. These adjustments would encourage the replacement of inefficient equipment and remove regulatory barriers to combined heat and power projects. These two policies alone could save the economy close to $300 billion.
The report also includes policy interventions targeted at residential and commercial buildings, the industrial sector, and the transportation sector, as well as a number of policies with economy-wide benefits. For each measure, the report provides a brief description of the policy, its legislative history, general estimates of associated costs and benefits, and recommendations about future policy design. By acting on these recommendations, Congress and state legislatures can light a way forward towards a stronger economy and a brighter energy future.
http://aceee.org/research-report/e136
what's the finger in the wind detect wrt US energy demand short term? remains depressed? could it turn around?
Since that seems tied to the economy, I'd say short term remains depressed to neutral.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions