Oil - Pickens Goes For The Grass Roots

[WhiskeyGirl]

More curbs on coal for electricity

By Wan Zhihong (China Daily

(snip)

Because of the soaring coal prices, China's leading power producers have all begun to eye clean energy. China Huaneng Group is now developing wind power plants in provinces such as Hainan, Guangdong, Jilin and Shandong, and the Inner Mongolia autonomous region. Huaneng is also quickening its development of hydropower and nuclear power.

The government raised the electricity tariff by 0.025 yuan per kWh from July 1. However, some analysts said the rise could not offset power companies' losses.

Some analysts said the price increase, however, could only cover 15 percent of the losses in coal-fired plants.

China's major power plants produced 1.68 trillion kWh of electricity in the first half of this year, a year-on-year increase of 12.9 percent, said the China Electricity Council.

This summer the country will see 16 gW of power shortages, according to the State Electricity Regulatory Commission.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-07/25/content_6876587.htm

Energy diversity?

[SteveDinMD]

WhiskeyGirl:

     Please, stop clinging to your "magic beans."  They won't work, and the people who sold them to you ripped you off.  Face it; you've been CONNED, but you can overcome the con artists by educating yourself, and I don't mean by re-reading the con artists' propaganda.  To discuss the issues intelligently will require a significant investment in the study of engineering and technology.  The simple fact is that large scale investment in wind power is, quite frankly, the stupidest idea on the planet.  Wind power is appropriate in only a very few, specialized applications.  It will NEVER provide anything more than an infinitesimal portion of the modern world's energy needs. 

     Solar power, at least, has the advantage of having far greater theoretical potential, with incident solar radiation approximating ~11 Watts per square foot at sea level.  The problem with solar power is technology.  While experimental photovoltaic cells approach 40% efficiency -- truly excellent -- they're nowhere near commercially viable.  The vast majority of commercial photovoltaics don't exceed 15% efficiency.  What's more, practically all photovoltaics are ENERGY LOSERS.  That's right; they consume more energy in their manufacture than they are capable of producing over the course of their operational lives.  So, ironically, by expanding the application of photovoltaic solar energy, we would actually be INCREASING our dependency on fossil fuels, with the solar hucksters laughing all the way to the bank -- at taxpayer expense. 

     Probably the most maddening thing for me is watching that slack-jawed moron Al Gore yammer on ignorantly about his "green energy" nonsense.  I say "ignorantly" because I'm convinced that Al is personally too stupid to be able to deliberately have masterminded the multi-trillion dollar hoax he's at the center of.  Listening to him, I really can't believe that he genuinely understands what's going on.  I have to conclude, therefore, that he's simply the mindless mouthpiece for the true conspirators, who've trained their ex-officio myna bird to repeat ad nauseum their nonsensical mantras in order to hypnotize the masses. 

[LouiseVargas]

Al Gore was Vice President for eight years. What were you doing during that time?

[Lala'sMom]

Let's stop all coal production in the USA.  Oh, that's a brilliant idea since that would eliminate all electricity in the area in which I live, not to mention the fact that thousands would loose their income.  I have seen first hand what the environmentalists have done to areas that offend their sensibilities.  Wind power in my area would be a limited thing since there are few areas of flat land and enough wind to produce the enormous amounts of energy needed.  So I guess then we buy from all those in Texas and beyond and what happens then?  My own power bill jumps from $300 to $600?? What happens when a tornado rips through that area and levels all those windmills? Do you think that could not happen? Texas has storms also. Yes, that's a brilliant idea.  Nuclear is in this area, yet, still not as efficient as using the natural resources around you.  I know this is not a popular idea on this thread, but how can the average person afford that new electric car?  It's too expensive and if you can't drive it farther than a hundred miles without a recharge it is useless around here.  The average person in this area drives that far to work everyday.  Do you think the employers are going to let them use their own electricity to recharge before they go home at night?  Would someone please explain that to me. How does the existing power grid handle the increased demand for electricity? What happens if your power is out and you can't recharge?  Do you call in to work and say you can't get there because of a power failure?  Also while we are at it, please explain to me how making smaller trucks will help those that use large pickups and such for their work?  How does a family of 6 get into a compact car and travel?  Who decides what is an appropriate exception and what are the punishments for using too much energy or having too many children?  Pickens is a socialistic opportunist and nothing more.  I need to clean off my rose-colored glasses now as I have spit so much in this post that they are a mess.

[WhiskeyGirl]

Let's stop all coal production in the USA.  Oh, that's a brilliant idea since that would eliminate all electricity in the area in which I live, not to mention the fact that thousands would loose their income.  I have seen first hand what the environmentalists have done to areas that offend their sensibilities.  Wind power in my area would be a limited thing since there are few areas of flat land and enough wind to produce the enormous amounts of energy needed.  So I guess then we buy from all those in Texas and beyond and what happens then?  My own power bill jumps from $300 to $600?? What happens when a tornado rips through that area and levels all those windmills? Do you think that could not happen? Texas has storms also. Yes, that's a brilliant idea.  Nuclear is in this area, yet, still not as efficient as using the natural resources around you.  I know this is not a popular idea on this thread, but how can the average person afford that new electric car?  It's too expensive and if you can't drive it farther than a hundred miles without a recharge it is useless around here.  The average person in this area drives that far to work everyday.  Do you think the employers are going to let them use their own electricity to recharge before they go home at night?  Would someone please explain that to me. How does the existing power grid handle the increased demand for electricity? What happens if your power is out and you can't recharge?  Do you call in to work and say you can't get there because of a power failure?  Also while we are at it, please explain to me how making smaller trucks will help those that use large pickups and such for their work?  How does a family of 6 get into a compact car and travel?  Who decides what is an appropriate exception and what are the punishments for using too much energy or having too many children?  Pickens is a socialistic opportunist and nothing more.  I need to clean off my rose-colored glasses now as I have spit so much in this post that they are a mess.

From memory, the problem China faces is that they built a lot of coal based power plants, but they did not add the 'scrubbers' or pollution control equipment.  I read one article recently that indicated the Chinese have an 'acid rain' problem.  That means the rest of the world is included too.  I wonder why they don't retro fit those coal based plants.

In the US, I believe that pollution control equipment has been required for some time, as are upgrades for plants that fail to make the grade.

At some point, someone has to worry about clean air, water, and the general environment.

Having electric doesn't mean a lot if there are no people left to enjoy it.  jmho

[WhiskeyGirl]

I found a web/magazine devoted to alternative energy -

http://www.aer-online.com/page.php?12

Lots of interesting ideas here - action articles.


another -
http://www.businessgreen.com/

Building-integrated solar market ready to explode
Emergence of solar tiles, cladding and windows to drive 15-fold expansion in $528m market  25 Jul 2008

Canada – it may be cold, but at least it's safe
New report finds emerging markets in Asia, Africa and the Middle East at most risk from climate change impacts  25 Jul 2008

Solar roofing enjoys time in the sun
New feed-in tariffs lead to boom in demand for solar roofing technologies  23 Jul 2008

Seems like there is a lot of brain-storming going on...   

[Lala'sMom]

I suppose that my point is this...why are we breaking our necks to try to impact the environment for the good when China and several other countries will never take the steps necessary to cleanup their side of the equation?  We can do all that is possible and still our planet will suffer the same effects if EVERY SINGLE country on the face of this earth doesn't do their part.  What do you propose we do to force their hand?  It can not be done and yet we are the ones that suffer for it with job losses and pollution.  I have no problem with cleaner and better uses of our resources.  In fact, I am certain we can never move into a society with fewer problems until we do find some alternative answers.  I do not like the fact that it is those that are older and more established that suffer from new changes.  Of course, that is because change is always going to either hurt, ruin, or destroy some one's way of life to effect that change.  It may not have any impact on me per se, but it does indeed impact someone in a negative way.  It's a catch 22 situation that yields few answers.

[WhiskeyGirl]

Falls firm helping to create energy storage system for use in Africa

By THOMAS CONTENT
tcontent@journalsentinel.com
Posted: July 24, 2008

ZBB Energy Corp. of Menomonee Falls and a California company plan to link up solar panels with a fuel-cell energy storage system, with the aim of providing renewable power to medical offices and schools in rural parts of western and central Africa.

(snip)

The companies will work together on a solar project called LifeVillage. A prototype for the project is scheduled to be completed by the companies by October in the San Diego area, then shipped to Ivory Coast in western Africa, said Robert Parry, ZBB’s chief executive.

The LifeVillage system, which is modular and deployable by truck, is designed for areas that don’t have access to electricity or are subject to severe power failures.

ZBB’s fuel-cell storage system can help address one of the drawbacks with renewable energy sources — the fact that solar power systems stop generating power when the sun is not shining, and wind farms don’t generate power when wind turbines aren’t rotating, Parry said.

The energy storage system being used in the project, known as ZESS 50, is the same one being showcased at the Future House USA renewable energy exhibit at the Beijing Olympics next month.
(snip)

read the rest of the story here -
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=776142

[WhiskeyGirl]

Doyle panel votes to cut emissions, expand use of wind power
Some say new regulations can hurt taxpayers, economy

By THOMAS CONTENT and LEE BERGQUIST
tcontent@journalsentinel.com
Posted: July 24, 2008

Gov. Jim Doyle’s panel on global warming completed 16 months of work Thursday and now faces the challenge of cutting greenhouse gases as the economy sours and energy prices soar.

Doyle’s bipartisan panel voted 26-3 for a series of measures, including a big expansion in wind power, to reduce emissions 22% by 2022.

“People in Wisconsin really are ready to take this issue of global warming on, in a very serious way,” Doyle said. “And they are ready to take some very significant steps that will help clean up the environment but will also create jobs for us along the way.”

But the package faces an uncertain future because Republicans control the Assembly and concerns about the economy are mounting.

To underscore that point, a nationwide tour criticizing global warming measures will come Saturday to West Allis, where a congressman and other officials will be on hand as organizers send a 70-foot-tall hot air balloon into the sky.

The event will be staged by Americans for Prosperity, a taxpayer watchdog group with more than 14,000 members in Wisconsin that is critical of the Doyle plan.

(snip)

Doyle said his task force is broad-based and includes utilities, businesses and Republican legislators. The panel’s final report calls for reduced dependence on foreign oil and coal.

“If we stay locked in the current path,” he said in an interview, “we know what the results are: You’re paying four and a quarter at the pump, and you’re worrying about how you’re going to heat your home — and having global warming as a result of it.”

The task force seeks to triple or quadruple the investment in energy efficiency and expand power from wind turbines and other renewable sources — partly by building turbines on the Great Lakes.

Wisconsin would generate 10% of its power from wind and solar by 2013 and 25% by 2025 under its scenario.

Other key measures include:

• A regional or national plan to cap emissions and reduce them over time by allowing parties to trade in emission credits.

• Expansion of mass transit, such as a commuter rail extension from Kenosha to Milwaukee.

• Relaxation of limits barring construction of nuclear plants.

(snip)

He said the panel should have made nuclear power a higher priority.

(snip)

read the rest of the story here -
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=776176

[WhiskeyGirl]

Global Wind 2007 Report
by The GWEC - Global Wind Energy Council

72 pages

http://www.gwec.net/uploads/media/Global_Wind_2007_Report_final.pdf

~~~~~~~~~

Mother Earth News
http://www.motherearthnews.com/

renewable energy
green homes, transportation
lots of goodies here

[SteveDinMD]

Al Gore was Vice President for eight years. What were you doing during that time?

Louise:

     Over that time, I led teams that developed a number of technical intelligence collection systems.  I also worked 3 clandestine programs, leading one.  Meanwhile, Al Gore, by virtue of being Vice-President, had almost NO official duties.  Aside from attending sundry state funerals, the only other things I can recall him specifically doing for those eight years were: 

1)  Remodeling his personal closet in the Vice-President's official residence at a cost of over $150,000.00 taxpayer dollars in 1993, and

2)  Initiating his "Reinventing Government" boondoggle that he quickly lost interst in and never again bothered with. 

He is quite probably the stupidest person to ever hold the office.  Now THAT'S saying something. 

[SteveDinMD]

Let's stop all coal production in the USA.  Oh, that's a brilliant idea since that would eliminate all electricity in the area in which I live, not to mention the fact that thousands would loose their income.  I have seen first hand what the environmentalists have done to areas that offend their sensibilities.  Wind power in my area would be a limited thing since there are few areas of flat land and enough wind to produce the enormous amounts of energy needed.  So I guess then we buy from all those in Texas and beyond and what happens then?  My own power bill jumps from $300 to $600?? What happens when a tornado rips through that area and levels all those windmills? Do you think that could not happen? Texas has storms also. Yes, that's a brilliant idea.  Nuclear is in this area, yet, still not as efficient as using the natural resources around you.  I know this is not a popular idea on this thread, but how can the average person afford that new electric car?  It's too expensive and if you can't drive it farther than a hundred miles without a recharge it is useless around here.  The average person in this area drives that far to work everyday.  Do you think the employers are going to let them use their own electricity to recharge before they go home at night?  Would someone please explain that to me. How does the existing power grid handle the increased demand for electricity? What happens if your power is out and you can't recharge?  Do you call in to work and say you can't get there because of a power failure?  Also while we are at it, please explain to me how making smaller trucks will help those that use large pickups and such for their work?  How does a family of 6 get into a compact car and travel?  Who decides what is an appropriate exception and what are the punishments for using too much energy or having too many children?  Pickens is a socialistic opportunist and nothing more.  I need to clean off my rose-colored glasses now as I have spit so much in this post that they are a mess.

The "alternative energy" hucksters will never stoop to answer your questions, because they can't.  The fact of the matter is that alternative energy represents no solution at all, and most modalities (e.g. wind power) are provably incapable of EVER providing a solution.  Yet, many, many people delude themselves into believe otherwise.  They prefer, it seems, to cling to some vague dream that somehow, someone will "discover" some as yet completely unknown energy source that will magically solve all the world's problems.  This simply isn't going to happen.  No one is ever going to dig up the likes of "dilithium crystals" from which humankind will produce unlimited energy at no cost to power the Starship Enterprise across the galaxy on its mission of discovery.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of people are scientifically ignorant, and are therefore easily deceived by those who seek to profit from the confusion and inefficiency built-in to the political process.  Take careful note of all the articles posted by WhiskeyGirl.   Not one of them is from a legitimate scientific journal.  Each one is either: 

A)  A propaganda piece written by or on behalf of one party or another seeking to profit from certain proposed Government policies,

B)  An article from a lay journal (i.e. a newspaper or magazine) predictably written as a consequence of A, or

C)  The recorded blatherings of those (politicians and their surrogates) who know nothing about the subject at all, yet wish to use it to advance their political agendas. 

They therefore have absolutely ZERO information content, which, by the way, is what you get from nearly 100% of the public discourse on the topic. 

[crazybabyborg]

I have a question. Can anyone explain to me why the price of gas suddenly shot up and is now suddenly declining? I realize that speculation is part of the answer, and that supply should impact prices, but I've never seen a concise answer to that question. TIA!

[SteveDinMD]

I have a question. Can anyone explain to me why the price of gas suddenly shot up and is now suddenly declining? I realize that speculation is part of the answer, and that supply should impact prices, but I've never seen a concise answer to that question. TIA!

The market price of any article of trade is set by the interaction of the forces of supply and demand.  The market price of crude oil and gasoline are no exceptions.  As a rule, as the price of anything increases, the quantity demanded by the market DECREASES.  Conversely, as price increases, the quanity offered to the market by suppliers INCREASES.  Plotting both quantity demanded and quantity produced against price, then, yields the supply and demand curves for the article in question.  Moreover, these curves exhibit opposite slopes.  The point where the two curves intersect is known as the "market clearing price."  Most simply, what we've seen with oil/gasoline recently have been shifts in the global supply and demand curves.  As oil productivity goes down, the supply curve shifts to the right, driving up the market clearing price while simmultaneously driving down the total aggregate quantity delivered.  As China increases industrial production, the world demand curve shifts to the right, driving up the market clearing price while also driving up the quantity delivered to the marketplace.  The interaction of both these forces can significantly drive up price while keeping total quantities delivered relatively stable. 

The supply and demand curves, however, are not completely static.  They have mostly short term significance.  Over time, many individual factors will come into play that, combined, can significantly alter the curves' shape, thus affecting both price and quantity demanded.  For example, in the short term, there's relatively little people can do to alter their individual demand functions.  I still need to drive the same distance to work tomorrow that I did today.  Given time, though, I can take action to change my personal demand function.  I can purchase a more fuel efficient vehicle.  I can car pool to work.  I can move closer to my place of employment.  I can take the bus downtown.  I can buy a more energy efficient heating/cooling system for my house.  The mix of alternatives I select will depend on their relative cost and value, and will not necessarily be the same for all people.  When you combine the individual actions of tens of millions of individuals, their overall effect on the demand curve can be profound, shifting the curve to the left, driving down quantity delivered and the market clearing price.  What we've seen in the oil and gasoline markets can be explained by these well understood phenomena. 

Understand, though, that the simple explanation above essentially describes a free and competetive SPOT MARKET.  That is, they describe a market where goods delivered must be instantaneously consumed, and a market that is unaffected by monopolies or cartels.  This is not the case with oil.  First, the OPEC cartel works to manipulate the supply curve to their advantage, seeking to adjust aggregate supply so as to maximize their collective revenue.  Second, oil is sold on both spot and FUTURES markets.  It has been skyrocketing prices on the oil futures market that have captured headlines in recent months.  It is also the futures market that is subject to speculation.  Futures markets also facilitate hedging -- a generally desirable thing -- so outlawing or severely restricting futures trading, as some (mostly) Democrats have proposed, is a very bad idea.  At any rate, futures contracts eventually come due, and the oil delivered must then be immediately disposed of on the spot market, which could then be subject to price volatility, depending on futures contract volumes, underlying shifts in the supply and demand functions, and other factors.  Futures prices, then, can be either leading or lagging spot price indicators, so one should be careful to not read too much into them.  They're certainly high right now, but they've fallen signifantly in a very short period of time.  What that bodes for the future is uncertain, and could possibly mean nothing.  On the other hand, given development of certain possible underlying conditions (e.g. a global recession), we could be witnessing the first movement toward a global oil and commodity price meltdown such as was last seen in the late eighties.  I wouldn't bet the farm on it, though. 

[WhiskeyGirl]

snip

The "alternative energy" hucksters will never stoop to answer your questions, because they can't.  The fact of the matter is that alternative energy represents no solution at all, and most modalities (e.g. wind power) are provably incapable of EVER providing a solution.  Yet, many, many people delude themselves into believe otherwise.  They prefer, it seems, to cling to some vague dream that somehow, someone will "discover" some as yet completely unknown energy source that will magically solve all the world's problems.  This simply isn't going to happen.  No one is ever going to dig up the likes of "dilithium crystals" from which humankind will produce unlimited energy at no cost to power the Starship Enterprise across the galaxy on its mission of discovery.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of people are scientifically ignorant, and are therefore easily deceived by those who seek to profit from the confusion and inefficiency built-in to the political process.  Take careful note of all the articles posted by WhiskeyGirl.   Not one of them is from a legitimate scientific journal.  Each one is either: 

A)  A propaganda piece written by or on behalf of one party or another seeking to profit from certain proposed Government policies,

B)  An article from a lay journal (i.e. a newspaper or magazine) predictably written as a consequence of A, or

C)  The recorded blatherings of those (politicians and their surrogates) who know nothing about the subject at all, yet wish to use it to advance their political agendas. 

They therefore have absolutely ZERO information content, which, by the way, is what you get from nearly 100% of the public discourse on the topic. 

Existing energy is an alternative to older forms of energy consumption.  Horse and cattle drawn wagons are rarely used in the US since the dawn of the automobile.  Lamp oil, candles, and other forms light are largely a thing of the past due to electricity. 

History shows that many were skeptical and fearful of these new gas and electric cars.  Some thought they would never find favor with the public.  Some thought they were dangerous, traveling more than ten miles per hour and would be responsible for future tragedies.

There are no magic rocks or crystals to be found in the earth.  Is uranium ore/nuclear power the answer?

Putting a Price on Nuclear Power

The question of cost is not academic. The price of any new power plant -- whether it's for coal, natural gas or uranium -- will be passed on to customers via rate increases. Progress Energy's Shearon Harris reactor, completed 20 years ago, resulted in a 16 percent rate increase and a 60-year payment plan for customers.

But the Fortune 500 company and its shareholders will face some risk. If the company's cost estimates are off, it could get stuck with excessive costs it can't justify to state regulators. That is what happened in the 1980s when the Shearon Harris plant came in at nearly $3 billion over budget, in part because of delays that put it a decade behind schedule.

"Underestimating costs and charging them to customers helped discredit nuclear power 30 years ago," said Peter Bradford, a commissioner on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who teaches energy policy at Yale University. "It would be astonishing if North Carolina and Florida regulators allowed it to happen again."

Despite cost concerns and the Department of Energy's cost projections, public officials are counting on nuclear power. To encourage utilities to build more nuclear power plants, the federal government has included risk insurance and tax credits in the energy bill enacted last year. The bill includes up to $2 billion to the first utilities that build nuclear reactors, but there's no guarantee of how much a company would eventually get in incentives.

Nuclear opponents decry the incentives as corporate welfare that will subsidize an industry that is not economical. The incentives, like any other subsidies, will be paid by all taxpayers but will benefit only a few, in this case the shareholders and customers of Progress Energy and other utilities.

"In the end, the question should be: Who takes the risk if they are wrong?" said MIT's Joskow. "If it's the supplier, good luck to them. If it's the customer, then these assumptions have to be met with some skepticism."

Nuclear critic Alan Nogee of the Union of Concerned Scientists said, "The nuclear industry has never delivered a project on time and on budget."

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/398986/putting_a_price_on_nuclear_power/index.html?source=r_science

Discussions of cost -
http://www.**/articles/2008/07/11/news/174news01nrc.txt

http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/071108/opinion_2008071100416.shtml

Congress did likewise in its 2005 energy bill. Besides giving the nuclear power industry $7 billion in research, development and construction subsidies and $7.3 billion in tax breaks, the bill contains guarantees for unlimited taxpayer-backed loans and insurance protection for new reactors.

Environmentalists center their critique of nuclear energy on safety concerns: Nuclear reactors can suffer meltdowns from malfunctions or terrorist attacks; radioactivity is released in all phases of the nuclear production cycle, from uranium mining through fission; the problem of waste disposal still hasnt been solved; civilian nuclear programs can spur weapons proliferation. But absent a new Chernobyl-scale disaster, such arguments may not prove decisive. In an atmosphere of desperation over how to keep our TVs, computers and refrigerators humming in a globally warmed world, economic considerations will dominate. This is especially so when dissident greens such as Diamond and Brand are saying that nuclear safety is a solvable problem.

The best case against nuclear power as a global warming remedy begins with the fact that nuclear-generated electricity is very expensive. Despite more than $150 billion in federal subsides over the past 60 years (roughly 30 times more than solar, wind and other renewable energy sources have received), nuclear power still costs substantially more than electricity made from wind, coal, oil or natural gas. This is mainly due to the cost of borrowing money for the decade or more it takes to get a nuclear plant up and running.

Remarkably, this inconvenient fact does not deter industry officials from boasting that nuclear is the cheapest power available. Their trick is to count only the cost of operating the plants, not of constructing them. By that logic, a Rolls Royce is cheap to drive because only the cost of gasoline matters,not the sticker price as well.

http://www.motherearthnews.com/Renewable-Energy/2006-04-01/The-True-Costs-of-NUCLEAR-POWER.aspx


Later generations in the Star Trek saga came to realize that the warp drive which allowed the Starship Enterprise and other vessels to travel 'across the galaxy on its mission of discovery' was destroying the fabric of the universe.  Dilithium crystals were never free.

They realized that "dilithium crystals" weren't really magic.  Over time, the series showed the negative effects of dilithium crystals including radiation poisoning of both planets and people.  The effects of the warp drive was killing entire civilizations and galaxies.  The use of warp drive was discouraged.

There is no magic answer.  However, I do believe there are a number of solutions available for the future.

Energy diversity.  Create an energy grid for the future.  A grid much like the internet has become for communications.  There are good and bad things about the internet.  It does make life more interesting.  The internet is a good communication tool that seems to survive a number of local and global tragedies.  I believe that is how the internet was intended to work.  I believe that is how the energy grid of the future should work.

Lay people are the simple beings that pay with their hard earned dollars.  An energy monopoly is just not good for the pocketbook. 

Why not build a future in which everyone prospers?  Why take the view that the days of cheap energy are over?  Why not make use of those things that are in abundance, like the sun, wind, and water?  Why not make energy consumers (cars, toasters, tvs) energy efficient?  Make one unit of energy do the work of two or three?

just my humble opinions

[SteveDinMD]

WhiskeyGirl: 

     You've got to stop drinking the Socialist kool-aide.  Nuclear power is verifiably the cheapest on-demand source of high volume electricity on the planet, especially over the long term.  The costs that made it uneconomical beginning 30 years ago were the costs of political opposition, i.e. the costs associated with PUBLIC IGNORANCE.  Arbitrarily imposing inordinate delay through litigation on anything will render it uneconomical.  Moreover, if the people continue in their ignorance, they will continue to elect fools, like Obama, and they will predictably suffer the consequences.  We can no longer afford to indulge a society of luddites. 

[WhiskeyGirl]

I have a question. Can anyone explain to me why the price of gas suddenly shot up and is now suddenly declining? I realize that speculation is part of the answer, and that supply should impact prices, but I've never seen a concise answer to that question. TIA!

The market price of any article of trade is set by the interaction of the forces of supply and demand.  The market price of crude oil and gasoline are no exceptions.  As a rule, as the price of anything increases, the quantity demanded by the market DECREASES.  Conversely, as price increases, the quanity offered to the market by suppliers INCREASES.  Plotting both quantity demanded and quantity produced against price, then, yields the supply and demand curves for the article in question.  Moreover, these curves exhibit opposite slopes.  The point where the two curves intersect is known as the "market clearing price."  Most simply, what we've seen with oil/gasoline recently have been shifts in the global supply and demand curves.  As oil productivity goes down, the supply curve shifts to the right, driving up the market clearing price while simmultaneously driving down the total aggregate quantity delivered.  As China increases industrial production, the world demand curve shifts to the right, driving up the market clearing price while also driving up the quantity delivered to the marketplace.  The interaction of both these forces can significantly drive up price while keeping total quantities delivered relatively stable. 

The supply and demand curves, however, are not completely static.  They have mostly short term significance.  Over time, many individual factors will come into play that, combined, can significantly alter the curves' shape, thus affecting both price and quantity demanded.  For example, in the short term, there's relatively little people can do to alter their individual demand functions.  I still need to drive the same distance to work tomorrow that I did today.  Given time, though, I can take action to change my personal demand function.  I can purchase a more fuel efficient vehicle.  I can car pool to work.  I can move closer to my place of employment.  I can take the bus downtown.  I can buy a more energy efficient heating/cooling system for my house.  The mix of alternatives I select will depend on their relative cost and value, and will not necessarily be the same for all people.  When you combine the individual actions of tens of millions of individuals, their overall effect on the demand curve can be profound, shifting the curve to the left, driving down quantity delivered and the market clearing price.  What we've seen in the oil and gasoline markets can be explained by these well understood phenomena. 

Understand, though, that the simple explanation above essentially describes a free and competetive SPOT MARKET.  That is, they describe a market where goods delivered must be instantaneously consumed, and a market that is unaffected by monopolies or cartels.  This is not the case with oil.  First, the OPEC cartel works to manipulate the supply curve to their advantage, seeking to adjust aggregate supply so as to maximize their collective revenue.  Second, oil is sold on both spot and FUTURES markets.  It has been skyrocketing prices on the oil futures market that have captured headlines in recent months.  It is also the futures market that is subject to speculation.  Futures markets also facilitate hedging -- a generally desirable thing -- so outlawing or severely restricting futures trading, as some (mostly) Democrats have proposed, is a very bad idea.  At any rate, futures contracts eventually come due, and the oil delivered must then be immediately disposed of on the spot market, which could then be subject to price volatility, depending on futures contract volumes, underlying shifts in the supply and demand functions, and other factors.  Futures prices, then, can be either leading or lagging spot price indicators, so one should be careful to not read too much into them.  They're certainly high right now, but they've fallen signifantly in a very short period of time.  What that bodes for the future is uncertain, and could possibly mean nothing.  On the other hand, given development of certain possible underlying conditions (e.g. a global recession), we could be witnessing the first movement toward a global oil and commodity price meltdown such as was last seen in the late eighties.  I wouldn't bet the farm on it, though. 

I will add the following - the oil and gas producers know they have a captive audience for their petro products - they have us by the 'cojones'.

Millions of Chinese are buying cars every year.  Chinese and Indian factories and homes are using more energy than in the past.  They are at the gateway of the good life that more developed nations have enjoyed for years.  Consumerism is a force that can't be stopped.  Many have tried, few have succeeded.

China's manufacturing strength has grown its workforce, and it's becoming a country of hungry consumers. Like the rest of us, they want a home, a car, better education for their children, and maybe even some of the niceties for themselves. This desire and growth in incomes has fueled the double-digit sales growth Yum! Brands (NYSE: YUM) and Nike (NYSE: NKE) are enjoying in China.

Auto sales in China are further proof of the healthy appetite of the Chinese consumer. With 8.8 million autos sold in 2007, China has quickly become the second-largest market in the world for cars. So far this year, China's auto sales are up more than 15%; sales could hit 10 million units this year. Car companies such as General Motors (NYSE: GM) and Honda (NYSE: HMC) have benefited handsomely from the growth, but the overall effects are muted at these giants, because China is just one of dozens of countries where they make sales. Chinese automakers and auto-parts makers such as China Automotive Systems (Nasdaq: CAAS) provide more direct exposure to this booming market.

Auto-sales growth should continue, too, because China continues to spend relentlessly on new highways to link its cities to each other, the suburbs, and their rural periphery. This build-out of roadways has a virtuous cycle that opens up distribution opportunities for additional goods, creates more income, and well ... you get the picture.

http://www.fool.com/investing/international/2008/07/26/a-value-investors-dream.aspx


Nicely does it as Chinese cars make a quiet debut
24 July 2008

The first Chinese cars have quietly – very quietly – sneaked into the London show. Silently in fact – because they’re electric cars.

The two of the pioneering green car distributors that took large display areas at Excel both had electric conversions of Chinese-built city cars on their stands. The idea is to offer something rather more substantial in terms of crashworthiness than the often-criticised quadricycle designs that both companies also offer.

Quiet Car Company, based in Lymington, showed a battery-electric conversion of the Chinese Hafei Lobo five-door hatchback, an attractive small car designed by Italian styling house Pininfarina. Priced at £12,995, the Quiet Car 2 has Lithium batteries offering a range of around 65 miles on a full, five-hour charge. Performance is strictly ‘urban’ – top speed is only 50mph. But running costs are low – QCC claims 100 miles of driving will add just £1 to your household electricity bill.

Built in China but styled again in Italy – this time by Bertone – Ze-O is a version of the Changhe Ideal, a car introduced in China in 2006. It’ll come to the UK before the year-end, says NICE, priced around £14,000. Initial versions will have traditional lead-acid batteries with a 60-mile range and a 55mph top speed, but Li-Ion versions with longer range will follow.

http://www.easier.com/view/News/Motoring/article-192297.html


Minnesota man helps design alternative vehicles

By KIRSTI MAROHN | St. Cloud (Minn.) Times
8:06 AM CDT, July 26, 2008

SARTELL, Minn. - A plaque hanging in Lee Hart's cluttered home office is inscribed with a Chinese proverb: "Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those doing it."

So when Republican presidential candidate John McCain said last month that the government should pay a $300 million reward to the inventor of a battery strong enough to run an automobile, Hart wasn't impressed.

Batteries are not the problem, Hart said, and he should know. The Sartell engineer has been helping design electric cars for decades.

The reason Americans are still driving cars fueled by gasoline -- despite the rising price of oil and concerns about global warming -- is because the status quo is difficult to change, Hart said.

Major U.S. automobile manufacturers aren't willing to give them up, he said, and small companies trying to produce electric cars have trouble getting enough capital.

...Unlike gasoline-powered cars that have been perfected through mass production, most prototype electric cars have had design glitches, he said.

 

Hart was intrigued by a solar-powered car called the Sunrise, produced in the mid-1990s by a company called Solectria. The four-passenger sedan looked like a normal car, could go 65 miles per hour and traveled 375 miles on a single charge.

"It demonstrated that an electric car can work," Hart said. "Its range was every bit as good as a gasoline car."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-mn-exchange-electric,0,8263.story

I want my next car to be an electric one.  I want to drive by turbines that harness the power of the wind, and heat my house using the sun.  Life is good and can only get better with a little help from my smart eco friends.

[WhiskeyGirl]

WhiskeyGirl: 

     You've got to stop drinking the Socialist kool-aide.  Nuclear power is verifiably the cheapest on-demand source of high volume electricity on the planet, especially over the long term.  The costs that made it uneconomical beginning 30 years ago were the costs of political opposition, i.e. the costs associated with PUBLIC IGNORANCE.  Arbitrarily imposing inordinate delay through litigation on anything will render it uneconomical.  Moreover, if the people continue in their ignorance, they will continue to elect fools, like Obama, and they will predictably suffer the consequences.  We can no longer afford to indulge a society of luddites. 

I think nuclear energy could be part of the solution, not the only solution. 

Engineer energy economical solutions for cars, appliances, homes, factories, public buildings, and other things.  The time is now.

The future is a puzzle with many pieces that need to work together.

I believe that the current generation should leave the future debt-free and in good financial and physical shape. 

In my mind, socialism is more about healthcare and welfare (in it's many forms).

Big business isn't always smart business for the common person.  Enron and the others that failed, left a lot of people with a lot less in their retirement funds and investment accounts. 

"Infinate Diversity in Infinate Combination"

imho - the words of the future, one size never fit everyone...

[A's Fever]

Wind, solar, hydroelectric, and other renewable sources of energy may not work for everyone.  I believe they may be the best solution for some people.  Real people need to find the solutions that work for their purposes and make good use of available resources.  Sometimes, people just aren't practical.

Is nuclear for everyone?  Probably not.

No energy solution will work in all situations.  jmho  I do believe there is a solution for everyone.  It will take time and effort to get started with any solution.  Every journey begins with the first steps - regardless of the destination.

Is nuclear for everyone?  Well, it's eventually going to HAVE to be for at least 90% of the people, otherwise there's going to be mass starvation.  You can count on that.  Please understand; you can't displace an energy source (fossil fuels) upon which over 98% of the world's energy needs depend with "alternatives" that combined would never approach satisfying even 5% of those same needs when developed to their maximum potential.  You can't "diversify" away from something with nothing.  You can't; period. 

What about the other "alternatives?"  Lets take a look at so-called "bio-fuels."  Now that's a real environment-friendly term, isn't it?  BIO-FUELS.  It sounds very green, but what does the term actually mean?  Simply put, it means BURNING FOOD.  This, I'm afraid, is a terrible idea.  Increasing demand for foodstuffs as a source of energy is guaranteed to cause food prices to skyrocket.  This will predictably lead to mass starvation, perhaps not in the U.S. at first, but certainly elsewhere.  Moreover, if civilization increasingly shifts from fossil to bio-fuels,  starvation will likewise increase, eventually reaching our own shores.  This is because it's impossible to grow anywhere near enough food to satisfy more than a small percentage of our enegy needs.  Government policies favorable to bio-fuel development are being pushed hard by agri-business as a way to artificially inflate commodity prices and, by extension, profits.  These policies are good for ADM (the Archer Daniels Midland Company), but terrible for humanity. 

There are over 300 million people in this country, and there's not enough space on the planet for windmills and/or solar panels, nor enough to grow crops to ferment/burn to satisfy their energy needs.  That's not even considering the other 6 billion people who live elsewhere in the world.  So, if we're going to stop using fossil fuels, either we need to start generating a whole bunch of energy or we need to consider reducing the population by at least 75%, because that's what it's going to take, and it won't be pretty, but at least we'll be able to burn the corpses, I suppose. 

Not all bio-fuel is about "burning food".  A relative of my ex is part of a team at a major midwestern university that is working on genetically modifying poplar trees to produce ethanol.  Their cell walls are rich in sugars but the sugars can't be accessed because of the presence of the polymer lignin.  So they genetically modify poplar so that lignan does not interfere and sugars can be extracted in a cost efficinet manner.  No corn or other food source is used.  That is just one example; multiply this by the research being done by thousands of universities across the country, as well as the private sector. 

Not saying that any one of these ideas is the magic answer that will solve all problems.  But let us not underestimate the value of research, or dismiss it all as phony science.  Who knows what contributions these fine minds will come up with.

[A's Fever]

Let's stop all coal production in the USA.  Oh, that's a brilliant idea since that would eliminate all electricity in the area in which I live, not to mention the fact that thousands would loose their income.  I have seen first hand what the environmentalists have done to areas that offend their sensibilities.  Wind power in my area would be a limited thing since there are few areas of flat land and enough wind to produce the enormous amounts of energy needed.  So I guess then we buy from all those in Texas and beyond and what happens then?  My own power bill jumps from $300 to $600?? What happens when a tornado rips through that area and levels all those windmills? Do you think that could not happen? Texas has storms also. Yes, that's a brilliant idea.  Nuclear is in this area, yet, still not as efficient as using the natural resources around you.  I know this is not a popular idea on this thread, but how can the average person afford that new electric car?  It's too expensive and if you can't drive it farther than a hundred miles without a recharge it is useless around here.  The average person in this area drives that far to work everyday.  Do you think the employers are going to let them use their own electricity to recharge before they go home at night?  Would someone please explain that to me. How does the existing power grid handle the increased demand for electricity? What happens if your power is out and you can't recharge?  Do you call in to work and say you can't get there because of a power failure?  Also while we are at it, please explain to me how making smaller trucks will help those that use large pickups and such for their work?  How does a family of 6 get into a compact car and travel?  Who decides what is an appropriate exception and what are the punishments for using too much energy or having too many children?  Pickens is a socialistic opportunist and nothing more.  I need to clean off my rose-colored glasses now as I have spit so much in this post that they are a mess.

The "alternative energy" hucksters will never stoop to answer your questions, because they can't.  The fact of the matter is that alternative energy represents no solution at all, and most modalities (e.g. wind power) are provably incapable of EVER providing a solution.  Yet, many, many people delude themselves into believe otherwise.  They prefer, it seems, to cling to some vague dream that somehow, someone will "discover" some as yet completely unknown energy source that will magically solve all the world's problems.  This simply isn't going to happen.  No one is ever going to dig up the likes of "dilithium crystals" from which humankind will produce unlimited energy at no cost to power the Starship Enterprise across the galaxy on its mission of discovery.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of people are scientifically ignorant, and are therefore easily deceived by those who seek to profit from the confusion and inefficiency built-in to the political process.  Take careful note of all the articles posted by WhiskeyGirl.   Not one of them is from a legitimate scientific journal.  Each one is either: 

A)  A propaganda piece written by or on behalf of one party or another seeking to profit from certain proposed Government policies,

B)  An article from a lay journal (i.e. a newspaper or magazine) predictably written as a consequence of A, or

C)  The recorded blatherings of those (politicians and their surrogates) who know nothing about the subject at all, yet wish to use it to advance their political agendas. 

They therefore have absolutely ZERO information content, which, by the way, is what you get from nearly 100% of the public discourse on the topic.