Posted on 03/11/2008 9:18:57 PM PDT by neverdem
It is certain that the United States is in for an energy price and supply shock the likes of which we have never experienced or imagined. While high prices, to a reasonable extent can be tolerated, hell will break loose if massive supply disruptions emerge. We are much closer to them than people think. Those who think that we can conserve ourselves to energy independence need not read any further. They are vastly wrong and it is pointless to argue with them.
The first proof of trouble to come is that none of the three US presidential candidates, Senators John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, have paid much attention to the fact that oil, gas and coal -- the sources that provide 87% of US energy – can, through better use of the latter two can be taken advantage of to help free us from the “tyranny of oil.” Their lack of interest is breathtaking considering that whoever gets elected will probably be confronted with $120 per barrel oil.
The candidates have mentioned energy occasionally but their preciously rare pronouncements contain only the trite mantras of conservation (something that has never played any major role in US total energy demand), the most unrealistic “alternatives” such as solar and wind and the negative-energy-balance biofuels. They have talked about technology and used allegories of sending a man to the moon, but no one showed how technology, admirable as it may be, can break the basic laws of thermodynamics: energy cannot be generated from nothing.
Second proof -- even more daunting -- is that all candidates have been Gored, accepting the most outlandish and easily discountable environmental gobbledygook and alarmism as facts and all have promised “solutions” to global climate change, carbon dioxide emissions reduction and the clearly whimsical carbon trading. The most radical and preposterous environmentalist ideologies of yesteryear have been mainstreamed, endowed with neckties and pantsuits.
Even if for the moment one accepts the most ridiculous environmentalist slogans, any substantial transition away from fossil fuels will take at least four to five decades. And this would only be in a “steady state” world, not one we live in which is characterized by the burgeoning energy demands of China, India and other developing countries.
The next four decades are good for a dozen recessions, if things were business as usual or a constant downturn if American politicos actually apply what they have been saying. especially what they seem not to worry about during this election season. I once had a secret hope that in a Hillary Clinton administration some pragmatism would be provided by her husband until he kicked sanity away by actually saying recently, “We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions.” Really and really? Is this the guy of “it’s the economy stupid?”
The US -- the world’s reigning superpower -- has come under the control of a situation generated by energy militant countries such as Venezuela, Iran and Russia. Importing more than 60% of its oil consumption while the national debate is dominated by upper middle class ideologues who are fanatically averse to exploiting America’s own resources, we have become dangerously vulnerable to oil prices that cannot be rationalized by any economic model. Except of course the irrational geopolitical components fomented by countries that have the United States exactly where they want it to be. Those same countries also can cause the far more devastating to our economy supply disruptions.
Oil supply and demand is a margin business where 0.5% of over or under supply can generate havoc on the market. There is ample historical evidence that such small discrepancy has caused huge fluctuations in the oil price, perhaps 30% or more. Imagine if ANWAR were already on line, producing as much as 10% of US oil imports. It would have a huge impact on the price of oil, regulating and dampening foreign influences and, in my reckoning, causing at least a $25 reduction in the current oil price.
The blame for the US predicament surely must also fall on the current administration. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, to both friends and foes, were supposed to be an energy-oriented administration. They were the ones who could explain to the American people the importance that energy plays on our economy and our life style. Instead, mired in Iraq and other misadventures, they failed in exactly the area they were supposed to shine. Instead they allowed themselves to be painted as stooges of big oil. I only wish that big oil had the sway it is accused of. The truth is that they have been rendered largely impotent, shut out of reserves by militant nations and non-supported by a weak government that has lost focus.
The most visible act was a Frankenstein of an “energy bill” that showcased biofuels, including the mandating of non-existent cellulosic ethanol. As of late, biofuels received the notice they deserve, most likely to be relegated to the trash heap of similar experiments.
The energy industry and the energy world are inundated with alarmisms such as peak oil and global warming, things that are in many ways philosophical, perhaps even proxies for religion. The real alarm should be whether in the very near future we can have our lights on and our transportation in place. Every indication shows that our next president will prove to be the Chauncey Gardener of energy.
Mr. Economides is editor-in-chief of the Energy Tribune.
Of course, they have slated all classes of
“useless eaters” for extermination as soon as they can get away with it.
Our President said a very dumb thing when he stated such. How could an oil man be so foolish. The man is either out of touch with reality or truly has bought into the lefts hatred of oil.
Ethanol in any form is a subsidized raping of the taxpayers. Energy independence will only happen if the left (including that idiot McCain) is utterly defeated. We must standardize and plan to build large numbers of nuclear plants, drill everywhere!! and get rid of the EPA, Dept of Energy and velvet Elvis paintings (okay not the velvet Elvis paintings)
I believe Thomas Jefferson had a solution for this problem, something about the tree of liberty needing watering from time to time. )
I understand . . .
Will get interesting . . .
Sean David Morton sp? on C2C now about the Amero . . .
claims sources in the White House etc. claim that Shrillery has been told in the White House that she’s going to be the anointed one to take over.
GRRRRRR.
LOL, presidential candidates are cluless on most topics.
that’s fine, but it case you haven’t noticed, the oil companies have had a monopoly on our energy needs...playing it up as much as possible, to the detriment of the whole economy. Any tax breaks that government can give to small and large companies to get us going on hydrogen and other much better energy sources, is good.
Peak oil is an absolute LIE. There are vast amounts of oil yet to be discovered. The energy crisis is caused by one and only one thing -- the political parasite class. As an engineer, I am appalled at how naive people are about "alternative energy." We are not running out of oil. I am utterly disgusted how the political parasite class is trying to destroy our way of life.
The overwhelmingly negative outlook presented by the MSM and our rulers is utter insanity. If we had rational, Liberty loving leaders, we would have abundant energy supplies and much higher standard of living. Everything our youth see gives them the impression that the future is bleak.... bleak, not for any real reason, but because the hatred the left has for capitalism and the U.S. Constitution.
Chapter 6 (the Energy Chapter) of NAFTA guarantees the U.S. secure access to Canadian oil, gas, coal and electricity — at Canadian prices. Canada's oil reserves are larger than Saudi Arabia's. Canada supplies more oil to the U.S. than Saudia Arabia and Iraq combined. Chapter 6 also (effectively) prevents Canada from selling oil to other countries — China, for instance, would like to buy a lot of it.
NAFTA has been a sleeping dog here in Canada — but, it has a lot of opponents. If it were reopened to squeeze out concessions to "protect" rust-belt workers (hello! can you say "China") — there's no way any Canadian government could allow Chapter 6 to remain intact. If our current (minority) Conservative government let that happen — we wouldn't have another Conservative government for several generations. And yet — and yet Obama is kicking that dog.
“conservation (something that has never played any major role in US total energy demand)”
I am in agreement with just about everything in the article but I am puzzled by the quote above.
Perhaps by conservation he means lowering your thermostat, wearing a sweater, driving less, forgoing a summer trip and the like. Presumably he does not mean EFFICIENCY as a form of conservation because I am under the impression that advances in efficiency can and have made significant contributions.
Double (even triple) pane windows, better gas mileage, more insulation, more efficient furnaces, refrigerators, washers, LEDs, compact fluorescents, timer thermostats, smart building design, aluminum recycling, advanced manufacturing techniques and many more incremental changes make energy go farther and add up to sizeable energy savings over time.
Other than that I liked the article as I am quite negative on biofuels, wind farms polluting the landscape, the global warming charade, the blocking of drilling in ANWAR etc.
It irks me that POPULATION GROWTH is seldom mentioned as part of the energy equation. How much less would we depend upon foreign oil if our population weren’t exploding via massive immigration. But for that we would have a population today of about 240 million vs over 300 million.
WOULDN’T THAT MAKE HUGE DIFFERENCE?
240 million is about what we would have extrapolated from the descendents of Americans here in 1970.
Most of the environmental orgs won’t touch that issue because they are part of the Dem coalition which prefers the remaking of America for multicultural ideology reasons and plain partisan advantage.
The silence of much of the environmental movement on US population issues is a huge scandal. Dissidents in the Sierra Club have been waging this battle for years.
Thanks for the ping. Good article. Great thread. Thanks to all contributors.
ping
Peak oil is an absolute LIE.
////////////
Notice how the Shell oil executive uses the term “easy-to-access”
“Shell estimates that after 2015 supplies of easy-to-access oil and gas will no longer keep up with demand.”
Its good to know that we’re saving all the oil... gonna need something to eat after we burn all our food in our cars...
The oil companies control very little of the oil reserves. Nationalized oil (OPEC, Russia, Venezuela, ...) control most of the oil reserves. The villains are the politicians who prevent the oil industry from developing new reserves.
If not restrained, private industry can find the proper energy portfolio (coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, ...). The industrial policy pushed in the Energy Act of 2007 is just a Soviet-style central plan that is doomed to failure. We will have high energy prices, high food prices, energy shortages, and high taxes (to pay for the subsidies).
It’s not the technology of converting this or that into fuel, it’s the ifrastructure and the diversion of resources from other uses. If food crops are not to be used it means that another crop will have to cultivated for fuel and where is it to grown? Take farm land out of production or grow switch grass in your backyard? And how much extra oil is that going to take since ethanol is at best a breakeven on energy. A better use our resources would be to use some of the natural gas that is flared off, burned, wasted because there is no way to bring it to market. How about LNG? No new technology needed just a place to off load it. Ethanol is the least good idea for energy.
planet gore
Drew Thornley
Monday, March 10, 2008
National Review
“So let’s do a quick review of the energy bill so far: environmental degradation, rampant food inflation, and a potential Third World famine due to corn ethanol; increased potential for mercury exposure from mandatory CFL bulbs; and the prospect of a ticked-off major trading partner on our northern border and an increased dependence on ever-more-expensive Middle Eastern crude.”
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDUwMGQ2ZDlmYzFkODA3MTg4YmJlMjExNGJmOTJhYWU=
This will have a domino effect on EVERYTHING in the food chain !
Farmers going for the big bucks are all planting corn. Wheat is second if at all thus bread is up 23%. Ranchers are selling off their cattle due lack of feed available thus in less than a calender year we’ll see the almighty burger and steak triple in price.
E85 may be better for the environment and the American farmer, but it has some drawbacks.
The first is price: ethanol can be more expensive than gasoline, depending on where you live. Data on fuel prices from the DOE shows that in the Midwest (where much of the country’s ethanol is produced) E85 sells for nearly 30 cents less per gallon than conventional gasoline. However, on the West Coast, filling up with ethanol would cost a driver 35 cents more per gallon. In the mid-Atlantic states, E85 had an even higher premium: 44 cents per gallon.
The higher price of E85 in many areas is made worse by ethanol’s second drawback: ethanol, regardless of the price you pay for it, contains less energy than gasoline. This means that your car won’t go as far on a gallon of E85, and your fuel economy will decrease by 20-30 percent. This is bad news for consumers because even if the price of E85 at the pump is cheaper than gasoline, using ethanol may not be less expensive in the end.
Let’s consider one example. The most fuel-efficient flexible-fuel vehicle available this year is the Chevrolet Impala. Using gasoline, it is rated at 21 mpg in the city and 31 mpg on the highway. By using E85, rated mileage drops to 16 mpg city and 23 mpg highway.
If you fill-up the Impala’s 17-gallon tank at a station in the Midwest, you’ll save $5.10 by using E85. So far, so good. However, you can’t drive as far on E85 and will have to refuel sooner than if you had purchased conventional gasoline. In fact, your cost per mile is higher using E85: 9.7 cents/mile vs. 8.4 cents/mile for regular gas.
A 1.3 cent per mile difference may not seem like much, but over the course of a year’s driving it adds almost $200 to your fuel costs.
Another other issue is that E85 is widely available only in the Midwest. The DOE lists more than 600 E85 stations in the United States, but nearly half of those are in two states: Minnesota and Illinois. Other areas, even populous ones, have little E85 infrastructure. For example, New York, California, Texas and Florida have just 15 E85 stations combined, only two of which allow sales to the general public.
The ethanol corn squeezin’s price is NOT going down. It is not a cheaper fuel. It is a different fuel. A fuel that 90% + vehicles WILL NOT run on .
... I have a great job, I make good money and live well within my means. I save, invest and carefully plan for my future and do not depend on handouts like SS or Medicare to be there when I get too retirement age. I have no desire too trust anyone for my income or care but myself .
Goobermint is pandering too those willing to stand and wait or ignore the incremental destruction of this nations infastructure. People HAVE to get in their polidiots face and their bank accounts yesterday ! They ignore me when I hollar yet want my dollar !
They can KMA !
I am not voting for one incumbant in November. Not one (1) !!!
well, that’s a good point but the american oil producers have colluded with the big auto makers to keep the mpg’s down artificially for many years now. All to maintain their huge profits and take advantage of an obvious monopoly, which is coming to an end very soon thanks to hydrogen and advanced battery and electric technology. All you have to do is look at the hydrogen generator technologies that are sold to car drivers all over the net including protium company and you will see 30-100% and more mpg gains for well under $800. Then look at the financial intertwinnings of the car makers and the oil companies and you will see a monopoly at work to keep the mpg’s down. And I guarantee you that all advanced and great energy technologies are fought by the oil companies. I aggree with you that free enterprise will provide the answers in great alternative energies and already are, but not without a fight from the greedy folks who have had a corner on the market for so long. That’s not imagination, just the facts. Business with little ethics is as bad as socialism...actually is a big cause of socialistic policies.
Yes, the candidates are clueless about scientific matters, but they are up to date on legal matters. It is clear which they view as reality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.