going green.....35 years late & more than a dollar short
Thu Apr 24, 2008 11:51 pm
in 1973 i was 12 years old. i vividly remember no gas at many fuel stations when driving with my parents. now within the last year " going green" is "hip" world wide. i'm watching jay leno & mr 1st owner of a hummer gas hog governor schwarzenegger is on being mr green jeans. what a crock of 
every international power should be kicked in the butt for not embracing alternative fuel technology since 1973. the know it alls predicited this would happen right on schedule. now everybody is in the panic mode. the u.s. holds a 3 year strategic supply of oil. if the faucet were cut off now we could still function as a nation for a good while, let alone the other leading world powers who all probably have the same emergency plan in place. every major world power ignored the warnings, now were paying the price. if we had 1/2 as more foresight as hind sight we'd be a lot better off. we are being held as hostage by the arab emirates who live in opulance with solid gold sinks on their 737 jets while the their common people live in squalor while they, the potentates, reap the profits. all of our military muscle means nothing.
every international power should be kicked in the butt for not embracing alternative fuel technology since 1973. the know it alls predicited this would happen right on schedule. now everybody is in the panic mode. the u.s. holds a 3 year strategic supply of oil. if the faucet were cut off now we could still function as a nation for a good while, let alone the other leading world powers who all probably have the same emergency plan in place. every major world power ignored the warnings, now were paying the price. if we had 1/2 as more foresight as hind sight we'd be a lot better off. we are being held as hostage by the arab emirates who live in opulance with solid gold sinks on their 737 jets while the their common people live in squalor while they, the potentates, reap the profits. all of our military muscle means nothing.
Fri Apr 25, 2008 12:59 am
Tom,
I have had this question in my mind for a long time:
Do you think, that given the discovery and employment of any new source of energy, that the source or the energy would be cheap?
My bet is, that the usual culprits will corner the market, have legislation enacted in their favor, and the prices that we will have to pay for whatever it is, hydrogen cells, fuel cells, electrical, whatever, is not going to be cheap.
What do you think?
Saludos,
Tulio
I have had this question in my mind for a long time:
Do you think, that given the discovery and employment of any new source of energy, that the source or the energy would be cheap?
My bet is, that the usual culprits will corner the market, have legislation enacted in their favor, and the prices that we will have to pay for whatever it is, hydrogen cells, fuel cells, electrical, whatever, is not going to be cheap.
What do you think?
Saludos,
Tulio
Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:39 am
35 years of past research would have reaped many benefits by today
Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:02 am
If we want to be energy independent, we need to bring back nucular energy for buildings and work more on finding and using the oil and other fuels locaated within our boarders and not worring about being so PC or eco friendly to some areas, while strip minning others to the ends of the earth.
Kurt
Kurt
Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:21 am
Food for thought... (pardon the pun)
In this week's issue of The Economist there is a great article about how the push for biofuel development is raising world food prices. It seems that because everyone is so keen to jump on the biofuel bandwagon, many people who live with less than modest incomes can't afford to feed themselves. A billion people in the world live on $1.00 per day. Since January, the price of rice has jumped 141%, while one type of wheat has risen 25% per day. This is largely due to the push towards biofuels by many countries. The EU recently enacted legislation providing capital for research and development of biofuel programs. With millions of people starving already, how will the West react when that number doubles? triples? Not meaning to sound like a t.v. advertisement for World Vision, but the lesson yet to be learned is that people can't have their cake and eat it at the same time (again pardon the pun). The lesson is that people do not simply need to lower their oil consumption, but to lower their energy consumption as well.
While countries are trying to be more energy independent (Sweden has stated they will become independent of foreign oil by 2020), the thirst for energy is growing at an unconscionable rate. People have already stated their objections to nuclear energy, and environmentalists won't allow tidal or wind farms to be built on the Pacific seaboard because either a) the birds will fly into them, or b) it will spoil the view. Europe has gone to great lengths with wind and tidal power, and people in North America need to take more effective action in telling the government and big corporations that they are tired of fueling the Arabs' gold-plated jets. Also, in reference to Tom Friedman's post, it is not just the Arabs riding around in gold-plated jets. I work at one of the FBOs at CYVR, and you would be surprised at the number of non-Arab people from places like Russia and Texas riding around in jets with equally as much gold on them. While they are not depriving a nation of food or infrastructure, they are still contributing to the rising oil prices by loading up their G-V to fly one or two people from California to the Caribbean for holidays. Besides, without the willingness of people to shell out the big bucks for a tank of gas, certain warbird collections would not exist.
So the question is: how do we shift our energy focus to something that will be acceptable to everyone? Is there a form of energy that we can realistically develop and harvest that will satisfy our (growing) needs while at the same time not creating problems for one group or another?
In this week's issue of The Economist there is a great article about how the push for biofuel development is raising world food prices. It seems that because everyone is so keen to jump on the biofuel bandwagon, many people who live with less than modest incomes can't afford to feed themselves. A billion people in the world live on $1.00 per day. Since January, the price of rice has jumped 141%, while one type of wheat has risen 25% per day. This is largely due to the push towards biofuels by many countries. The EU recently enacted legislation providing capital for research and development of biofuel programs. With millions of people starving already, how will the West react when that number doubles? triples? Not meaning to sound like a t.v. advertisement for World Vision, but the lesson yet to be learned is that people can't have their cake and eat it at the same time (again pardon the pun). The lesson is that people do not simply need to lower their oil consumption, but to lower their energy consumption as well.
While countries are trying to be more energy independent (Sweden has stated they will become independent of foreign oil by 2020), the thirst for energy is growing at an unconscionable rate. People have already stated their objections to nuclear energy, and environmentalists won't allow tidal or wind farms to be built on the Pacific seaboard because either a) the birds will fly into them, or b) it will spoil the view. Europe has gone to great lengths with wind and tidal power, and people in North America need to take more effective action in telling the government and big corporations that they are tired of fueling the Arabs' gold-plated jets. Also, in reference to Tom Friedman's post, it is not just the Arabs riding around in gold-plated jets. I work at one of the FBOs at CYVR, and you would be surprised at the number of non-Arab people from places like Russia and Texas riding around in jets with equally as much gold on them. While they are not depriving a nation of food or infrastructure, they are still contributing to the rising oil prices by loading up their G-V to fly one or two people from California to the Caribbean for holidays. Besides, without the willingness of people to shell out the big bucks for a tank of gas, certain warbird collections would not exist.
So the question is: how do we shift our energy focus to something that will be acceptable to everyone? Is there a form of energy that we can realistically develop and harvest that will satisfy our (growing) needs while at the same time not creating problems for one group or another?
Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:12 am
ANWRwarbirdcrew wrote:Is there a form of energy that we can realistically develop and harvest that will satisfy our (growing) needs while at the same time not creating problems for one group or another?
The same radical environmentalist (meaning emotional rather than fact based) forces tried to derail the Alaskan pipeline which has turned out to be a non-event ecologically.
Sat Apr 26, 2008 9:08 am
This is a touchy subject. I will be watching it to make sure it doesn't get out of hand. Play nice. 
Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:21 am
Oil is not traded like other commodities - it is not truly supply & demand because the supply is artificially "controlled" by OPEC. Add to that the politicizing of oil in the form of political carrots that we, the largest (or maybe second largest) consumer of oil uses & it compounds the problem.
We do a lot of state-level dealing with many countries that includes promises to buy certain amounts of oil from them. That's why who we buy our oil from varies to a great deal in any given year.
Add to this the fact we drill & cap wells daily, or pull just enough oil out of them to maintain the wells and it appears to me we're using everyone else's oil & conserving ours for the days when there truly is no oil.
The Alaskan pipeline runs at ~30% capacity and we sell almost all of that oil to Russia - we did this during the cold war too. Carrot & stick. Carrot to Russia & run enough through the pipeline to keep it solvent & mildly profitable.
The Baaken formation in SD, ND, MT, & Canada has probably as much oil as the great Saudi fields.
ANWR, Gulf of Mexico, Everglades - all have relatively large, untapped reserves.
The oil crisis of the early '70s had absolutely nothing to do with a lack of oil, it had everything to do with OPEC artificially controlling the supply. We also did not dip into our strategic reserves to ease motorists pain. I too remember when gas jumped that twenty cents from $0.33/gal to $0.55/gal and I remember again in the late '70s when it went to $0.79/gal and everyone freaked out. By the time I could drive, it had gotten over $1/gal and I remember very clearly the first time I bought gas for less than $1/gal (and the pump calibration was off because I put 17.1 gal into a 16gal gas tank!).
One of the many reasons oil is high because worldwide, oil is priced in dollars and the dollar is in near freefall (but may have a small rebound here) - look at gold, gold recently crested $1K/oz & has been between $925-985/oz for several months now (down below $900/oz for first time this year currently). Look at the Pound, Euro, & Yen - all at record highs against the dollar. That's part of the problem - if your currency is half as valuable, it's going to take twice as much of it to buy any given item.
The short-term answer is to eliminate OPEC & run oil on truly supply/demand mode in a free market. Oil will come down as suppliers undercut each other. But so long as we have OPEC and so long as we use oil purchase as a political carrot, it will never be a true commodity.
As an aside, one of the (many) reasons Southwest Airlines is doing so well right now compared to other airlines - even low-cost airlines - is because they purchased fuel on futures for 5 years - so cost is the same as whenever they first purchased the fuel. Now this will eventually catch up with them, and their prices have already risen, but it was a very smart move.
There's just so much more to oil than supply/demand and our dependence on it. As for alternative sources, I believe fuel cells are the current best technology...
We do a lot of state-level dealing with many countries that includes promises to buy certain amounts of oil from them. That's why who we buy our oil from varies to a great deal in any given year.
Add to this the fact we drill & cap wells daily, or pull just enough oil out of them to maintain the wells and it appears to me we're using everyone else's oil & conserving ours for the days when there truly is no oil.
The Alaskan pipeline runs at ~30% capacity and we sell almost all of that oil to Russia - we did this during the cold war too. Carrot & stick. Carrot to Russia & run enough through the pipeline to keep it solvent & mildly profitable.
The Baaken formation in SD, ND, MT, & Canada has probably as much oil as the great Saudi fields.
ANWR, Gulf of Mexico, Everglades - all have relatively large, untapped reserves.
The oil crisis of the early '70s had absolutely nothing to do with a lack of oil, it had everything to do with OPEC artificially controlling the supply. We also did not dip into our strategic reserves to ease motorists pain. I too remember when gas jumped that twenty cents from $0.33/gal to $0.55/gal and I remember again in the late '70s when it went to $0.79/gal and everyone freaked out. By the time I could drive, it had gotten over $1/gal and I remember very clearly the first time I bought gas for less than $1/gal (and the pump calibration was off because I put 17.1 gal into a 16gal gas tank!).
One of the many reasons oil is high because worldwide, oil is priced in dollars and the dollar is in near freefall (but may have a small rebound here) - look at gold, gold recently crested $1K/oz & has been between $925-985/oz for several months now (down below $900/oz for first time this year currently). Look at the Pound, Euro, & Yen - all at record highs against the dollar. That's part of the problem - if your currency is half as valuable, it's going to take twice as much of it to buy any given item.
The short-term answer is to eliminate OPEC & run oil on truly supply/demand mode in a free market. Oil will come down as suppliers undercut each other. But so long as we have OPEC and so long as we use oil purchase as a political carrot, it will never be a true commodity.
As an aside, one of the (many) reasons Southwest Airlines is doing so well right now compared to other airlines - even low-cost airlines - is because they purchased fuel on futures for 5 years - so cost is the same as whenever they first purchased the fuel. Now this will eventually catch up with them, and their prices have already risen, but it was a very smart move.
There's just so much more to oil than supply/demand and our dependence on it. As for alternative sources, I believe fuel cells are the current best technology...
Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:39 pm
All's fine and dandy; interesting comments and reasoning.
BUT, my original question was not addressed, so here I go again:
Do you guys think, that given new sources of energy, it will be cheap and accessible for everyone?
I think that corporations will continue socking it to us, justifying R&D costs and fluctuations in the market, to justify ever increasing prices for energey, whatever the source will be.
What do you think?
Saludos,
Tulio
BUT, my original question was not addressed, so here I go again:
Do you guys think, that given new sources of energy, it will be cheap and accessible for everyone?
I think that corporations will continue socking it to us, justifying R&D costs and fluctuations in the market, to justify ever increasing prices for energey, whatever the source will be.
What do you think?
Saludos,
Tulio
Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:04 pm
Well said T2. One more thing, "Prices rise because the amount demanded exceeds the amount supplied at existing prices. Prices fall because the amount supplied exceeds the amount demanded at existing prices" Quoted from Thomas Sowell's book "Basic Economics". It should be required reading for ALL politicians.
Sat Apr 26, 2008 9:52 pm
I think any new energy source will have to be heavily subsidized by the government to succeed.
It will have to be subsidized to build the infrastructure, it will have to be subsidized to keep the initial costs down (R&D absorbtion) so consumers will use it, it will have to be subsidized so major corporations will accept it, & it will have to be subsidized so companies can implement it.
Unless oil absolutely vanishes, people will be slow to accept anything that costs more - green or not. Many folks talk about being green, or wanting to be green, but when push comes to shove (ie - dollars come out of the wallet), it's hard to continue paying twice what everyone else is paying.
Hybrid cars are still more fashion statement than ecological concern simply because they're stupidly expensive.
I remember the Mother Earth news in the '70s showing how to build compost piles, use windmills to generate electricity, and even build hybrid cars using briggs-stratton engines & electric motors (and huge banks of 12V lead acid batteries)!
It will have to be subsidized to build the infrastructure, it will have to be subsidized to keep the initial costs down (R&D absorbtion) so consumers will use it, it will have to be subsidized so major corporations will accept it, & it will have to be subsidized so companies can implement it.
Unless oil absolutely vanishes, people will be slow to accept anything that costs more - green or not. Many folks talk about being green, or wanting to be green, but when push comes to shove (ie - dollars come out of the wallet), it's hard to continue paying twice what everyone else is paying.
Hybrid cars are still more fashion statement than ecological concern simply because they're stupidly expensive.
I remember the Mother Earth news in the '70s showing how to build compost piles, use windmills to generate electricity, and even build hybrid cars using briggs-stratton engines & electric motors (and huge banks of 12V lead acid batteries)!
Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:28 pm
So T2, you don't think this has to do with the markets being gamed again? Like it was a few years ago...you'll remember the Enron Scandal that forced California to due rolling blackouts and drove up electricity prices to the point where old people were dying of heatstroke because they could no longer afford electricity for air conditioning?
I'd say our high prices are due today to foks making hay while the sun shines. Being from an oil family, I KNOW they are. The supply of oil is still there. We could easily pull more out if we wanted. We could styill earn the same amount of iuncome off it, pulling more out. We don't because there is no problem with fuel shortages. The problem is in the markets right now. And the lack of refineries because the government has allowed the big oil companies to shut refineries down, because the smnaller number of refineries helps keep prices high.
It;s a big old circle: those with power own power. Then they make it a priceless commodity so they can make lots of cash, which gives them power, with which they control the power...
I awlays wondered what happened to that plan to pave large stretches of the American desert (leaving holes between the pavement for naturalfauna) and using that to generate power? We have lots of sun and desert...and no solar powerplant in the desert...Anybody remember taht one?
I'd say our high prices are due today to foks making hay while the sun shines. Being from an oil family, I KNOW they are. The supply of oil is still there. We could easily pull more out if we wanted. We could styill earn the same amount of iuncome off it, pulling more out. We don't because there is no problem with fuel shortages. The problem is in the markets right now. And the lack of refineries because the government has allowed the big oil companies to shut refineries down, because the smnaller number of refineries helps keep prices high.
It;s a big old circle: those with power own power. Then they make it a priceless commodity so they can make lots of cash, which gives them power, with which they control the power...
I awlays wondered what happened to that plan to pave large stretches of the American desert (leaving holes between the pavement for naturalfauna) and using that to generate power? We have lots of sun and desert...and no solar powerplant in the desert...Anybody remember taht one?
Sun Apr 27, 2008 12:34 am
How could they not afford it? The price was fixed!muddyboots wrote:...you'll remember the Enron Scandal that forced California to due rolling blackouts and drove up electricity prices to the point where old people were dying of heatstroke because they could no longer afford electricity for air conditioning?
Maybe you should blame this on your elected officials rather than Enron, who were merely opportunists (along with some others).
Actions of the California legislature were the root cause that allowed companies such as Enron to manipulate prices.
Democratic State Senator Steve Peace, the chair of the energy committee and the author of the bill that caused deregulation, is often credited as "the father of deregulation". Wilson admitted publicly that defects in the deregulation system would need fixing by "the next governor".
Due to price controls, utility companies were paying more for electricity than they were allowed to charge customers, forcing the bankruptcy of Pacific Gas and Electric and the public bail out of Southern California Edison. This led to a shortage in energy and therefore, blackouts. Rolling blackouts began in June 2000 and recurred several times in the following 12 months.
Energy price regulation forced suppliers to ration their electricity supply rather than expand production. This scarcity created opportunities for market manipulation by energy speculators.
When the electricity demand in California rose, utilities had no financial incentive to expand production, as long term prices were capped.
The crisis, and the subsequent government intervention, have had political ramifications, and is regarded as one of the major contributing factors to the 2003 recall election of Governor Davis (D).
So part of the Democrats "deregulation" scheme was to allow energy price regulation, causing the utilities to go bankrupt. Niiiiice work!
Sun Apr 27, 2008 5:30 am
somebody mentioned increasing the amount of nuclear power plants. while nuclears runs efficient & clean while in use, the fuel rods eventually have to be replaced, & where do they put those spent fuel rods?? in the ground!!! where it takes hundreds of years for them to become safe from radiation. i don't want those rods in my back yard. i've seen so many innovative alternatives on the news over the years, such as the guy who runs his cars on old cooking oil that he gets from restaurants & diners for free. that idea for 1 should be expanded on.
Sun Apr 27, 2008 10:37 am
Right where the nuclear material originally came from! There are storage areas deep underground used especially for this purpose. You probably don't want an airport in your backyard either, so don't move next to one!tom d. friedman wrote:somebody mentioned increasing the amount of nuclear power plants. while nuclears runs efficient & clean while in use, the fuel rods eventually have to be replaced, & where do they put those spent fuel rods?? in the ground!!!
Restaurant owners pay to get that stuff hauled away now, so obviously the market is not such that you can make money manufacturing biodiesel from it. That may change if fuel prices keep rising.tom d. friedman wrote:i've seen so many innovative alternatives on the news over the years, such as the guy who runs his cars on old cooking oil that he gets from restaurants & diners for free. that idea for 1 should be expanded on.