Error editing post! Your message is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 5 characters.





Just another reason for the U.S. to become energy independent.
The essential humanity of men can be protected and preserved only where government must answer--not just to the wealthy, not just to those of a particular religion, or a particular race, but to all its people.
Robert F. Kennedy
June 6, 1966





^^^ as always, a wonderful goal. Also, as always, an impossible goal to achieve in any sort of forseeable future time frame for a post-industrial society with a suburban culture and cold winters .... be that Europe or America.
The 'tin foil hat' crowd is of the opinion that Putin is laying the groundwork to gain political leverage over western european countries, who are the customers at the end of natural gas pipelines that begin at Russian gas wells. Europe of course is out ahead of America in terms of gov't 'coerced' transition to natural gas vs sulfur-laden coal and fuel oil for environmental reasons ... which of course is a wonderful idea in theory, but had the unintended side effect of making Europe almost exclusively dependent on continued operation of Russian gas pipelines for their natural gas supply needs. This puts Putin in the position of both heavily influencing Europe's natural gas pricing, and also having the ability to shut off Russian gas compressors in the middle of winter if, for example, he should become 'displeased' with European governments.
Thus western europe has far greater foreign energy dependence problems than America does - at least from the standpoint of national energy resources. Despite the fact that, at this point in time, US environmental regulations / opposition won't allow the widespread use of coal or the pumping of offshore oil and gas, America does in fact have these energy reserves. With the North Sea becoming depleted, western Europe simply does not have energy reserves available, period - thus their economies are now in effect dependent on their country's governments remaining in the 'good graces' of Vladimir Putin.
Yeah, great article on Russia and its energy cache in the The Economist magazine (last week's issue).




My neighborhood is little Russia.
I Love Life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Increased energy independence, then. Even impossible goals are sometimes worthy to shoot for. Production/consumption and conservation is always a balance, and I argue that extremes on either end aren't the best solution.




Russians are extremeists even when they don't live in Russia anymore.
I am not Russian and they don't like me.![]()
I Love Life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





Again, in theory, this is an admirable idea. However, in practice, both in Europe and in America it winds up being at odds with environmental concerns or with the 'law of unintended consequences'. The 'tin foil hat' crowd will tell you that the de-facto banning of coal and high sulfur oils by the enactment of expensive taxes or expensive scrubbing requirements is what 'coerced' power plants and industries to switch to natural gas, which in turn vastly decreased energy independence since domestic supplies of natural gas were insufficient to meet such 'new' consumption needs. Were German power plants still able to burn domestic or plentiful Polish coal rather than Russian natural gas today, Vladimir Putin would not be in the 'driver's seat' ---> (where the EU energy commissioner warned of over-reliance on Russian natural gas last May)Increased energy independence, then. Even impossible goals are sometimes worthy to shoot for.
In America's case, we actually have huge quantities of natural gas available in the form of offshore deposits, yet development is not permitted for 'environmental' reasons - so in real world economic terms the US has 'voluntarily' decided to import Canadian natural gas and offshore low sulfur oil instead.
I don't want this to degenerate into yet another non-economic discussion. However, while biofuels, wind, solar etc. all sound like good ideas, in terms of real world economic / energy impact they represent single digit percentages (or fractions of one percent) in terms of overall energy requirements, and also represent hundreds of billions of dollars worth of direct gov't subsidies, tax subsidies, and/or mandated higher costs to energy consumers. I'm not going to argue whether these are good or bad, only that these alternative energies aren't making a serious dent in terms of American energy independence - and that they aren't going to as long as populations keep growing and lifestyles keep consuming large quantities of energy per person to support 'suburban' single family houses with the associated heating, air conditioning, and transportation fuel requirements.
From an economic standpoint, the 'tin foil hat' crowd will tell you that once gasoline reaches $5 per gallon in America, and once electricity reaches 25 cents/kWh, in conjunction with a stagnation in average paychecks and rising interest rates (thus rising ARM and credit card payments), some of America's energy dependence problem will then wind up being effectively addressed at last ... but by the bankruptcy courts ! In terms of historical perspective, this portends a future 'reverse Levitttown' effect, where former suburban commuters who no longer own their suburban houses or SUV's as a result of bankruptcies will in effect be forced to move into smaller more energy efficient apartments located within train / bus / walking distance of their jobs.
~
Last edited by Melonie; 12-23-2006 at 08:11 PM.
I thought this was all related to economics. Hence the transition from, "Here's some banking advice," to, "Here's some pet editorials on geopoliticoeconomic trends." That sounds snotty, but I mean it sincerely.
Extreme environmentalists would like to jack up the price to $5/gallon in order to enforce conservation. Doomsday scenario folks predict that conservation will be reached when the price gets jacked to $5/gallon due to economic machinations. I guess that's where the extremes meet.
So if conservation and increased (not full, but increased) energy independence is a pipe dream, then I guess the answer is to be profligate in our production and use of nonrenewable energy sources, without regard to the consequences of those actions. We'll address our economic and environmental problems much more wisely that way. (OK, that was a a little snotty, but it's also sincere.)





^^^ no, this won't result in any problems being addressed on the basis of 'wisdom', on the basis of 'good steward' responsibilities, on the basis of 'strategic energy independence'. But it WILL result in problems being addressed via economic and legal 'coercion', which perhaps is the only way that 'joe sixpacks' and 'greedy businessmen' will actually be made to participate. In Europe, where the economic and legal coercion is already in place and already a significant factor, though, they still fall far short of being 'energy independent' - and have arguably become more 'energy DEpendent' than ever - as the Putin natural gas news story amply illustrates. Thus Putin is now in a position to exercise some economic and perhaps political 'coercion' of his own towards Western Europe via natural gas, just as the low sulfur oil exporting Arabs are in a position to exercise economic and perhaps political 'coercion' towards America.
Arguably, Europeans and Americans are more than willing to deal with foreign energy suppliers on a purely economic level. Also, arguably, it is the foreign energy SUPPLIERS who introduce the large political component into energy exports, thus forcing European and American customers to deal with a political component due to its back door effect on the price and potential availability of imported energy.
So, wasteful consumption is good, particularly wasteful consumption of a limited resource.
I understand the words that you're saying, but I guess we're a long way apart in our perceptions, Mel. I kinda like addressing things on the basis of wisdom and good-steward responsibilities (without the "quotes").





^^^ anyone who chooses to live in a single family suburban home and commute many miles to work - by definition - thinks that wasteful consumption of a limited resource is good ! Where are you living these days, Jay ?
Now, Mel, there are other reasons besides fuel that dictate where I live and where I work. And even if I lived in a place where I felt regret over using excess fuel to commute, there could well be other things besides fuel consumption dictating my life choices. As I said, I tend to fall between extremes.
No matter where I live, I don't think that a philosophy of wasteful use of a limited resource is good in and of itself, no matter what the resource is - food, fuel, money, water. You do, when it comes to energy. I see that as being self-defeating in the long run. You don't. We differ.
Anyway, I live 12 minutes from work, sometimes car-pooling, and drive a generally fuel-efficient car, and the motorcycle is even more so. I give up some fuel efficiency for performance. I'm not a purist. And I don't care to divulge any more than that on this site.



Just out of curiosity, would you, or anyone else participating in this discussion, know if electricity does reach 25 cents/kWh - would it make solar panels competitive to, say, run a laptop/notebook computer (which generally require less electric power than desktops) and telecommute re: work?
Of course, I don't know how much it costs to keep the phone or cable systems running so you could telecommute, and I don't know precisely which industries could have large groups of their employees using this option. Although I doubt people would be willing to give up their cars/vehicles, even if telecommuting became an economically viable option.
Last edited by PhaedrusZ; 12-24-2006 at 12:31 AM. Reason: typos





^^^ I'm no scientist, but solar panels typically cost something on the order of $4000.00 - $5000.00 per kilowatt of capacity lately - without batteries for storage or conversion equipment to make 120 volts AC from the solar panel's low voltage DC output. So (guessing) for about $800 - $1000 you could set up a 100 watt solar system to run your notebook computer and cable modem. At 25 cents per kWh, and with say four hours a day of using your 100 watt notebook computer, you're talking about a 2.5 cent per hour = 10 cents per day utility bill contribution - and an 8000 - 10000 day = 25 year simple payback period ... providing that you never need to replace batteries or otherwise spend additional money to maintain the solar electric system components. Of course, at typical electric rates actually in effect today, the payback period is more like 60 years ! For better or worse, large solar cell systems are eligible for federal tax subsidies, which thanks to the involuntary generosity of other US taxpayers will improve the solar cell buyer's after-tax payback period back down to 10 years or so.
I suspect that the residents of 10,000+ 'Levittown's' would raise exactly the same points in regard to their suburban lifestyles ! IMHO it always comes down to individual judgements in regard to whether the amount of energy a particular person is consuming is 'wasteful' or not, and 'justifiable' or not. On a global average basis, Americans (including you and me) are incredibly 'wasteful' of energy.Now, Mel, there are other reasons besides fuel that dictate where I live and where I work. And even if I lived in a place where I felt regret over using excess fuel to commute, there could well be other things besides fuel consumption dictating my life choices.
Not meaning to veer too far off the economic path, but some of the most vocal proponents of alternative energy / energy independence were recently 'called out' for consuming tens of thousands of gallons of jet A to fuel their private Learjets as they travel around the world in luxury. My only real point here is to illustrate the subjectivity and arbitrary justifications of judging who is deemed to be 'wasting energy', as well as certain energy uses being considered 'wasteful' while other uses are considered 'justified'. By this I mean that people who criticize other people who choose to buy 100 gallons of gasoline per month for an SUV may themselves be burning 100 gallons of fuel oil per month to heat their suburban home, may themselves be consuming the btu equivalent of that 200 gallons in natural gas per month but in the form of natgas generated electricity for air conditioning their suburban home etc. I'm not defending SUV's here - only trying to point out that transportation fuel is only one component of the total energy 'wasted' by the typical American suburban lifestyle.
The only objective criterion that is applicable would seem to be that essentially all Americans can afford to buy and 'waste' that energy (and for those that can't afford to do so, a social welfare program will buy it for them !) , whereas the vast majority of global residents cannot ! This of course may not continue very long into the future, though !
Ultimately, for America to have any serious chance of reducing dependence on foreign sources of energy, it is going to require that the typical energy consumption that goes along with heating and cooling a 2500 square foot suburban home and fueling a 20-30+ mile commute be exchanged for the energy consumption that goes along with a 1000 square foot apartment (which shares heated / air-conditioned walls, floors and ceilings with neighbors) and a bicycle / bus / train commute. But as I think we all can agree on, most Americans will never voluntarily make such a life choice as long as they can afford the mortgage costs and energy costs to support a suburban lifestyle instead (or at least avoid foreclosure).
However, as was the case under the 70's middle eastern oil embargo of US exports, and is now becoming the case with Putin's hand on the natural gas pipeline valve controlling European exports, the ability to pay high prices alone can and will become subordinate to incurring the 'official displeasure' of a foreign energy supplier who in turn decides to curtail oil / gas exports in response. The national security overtones stemming from such arrangements was something that was correctly deduced by former president Carter in the late 70's - who of course was unable to 'sell' the idea of significant reductions in energy use to suburban Americans at that time, just as it is impossible to 'sell' the same idea to suburban Americans today. Obviously saving 50 gallons of gasoline per month by switching from an SUV to a Honda Civic does reduce dependence on foreign oil imports to some degree, but in the grand scheme of things it constitutes a small percentage of the total.
In the meantime of course, America has shut down functional nuclear power plants and refused permits to build new ones, America has economically outlawed most uses of coal and high sulfur oil via environmental requirements, America has nixed the development of coastal offshore oil and gas deposits, all of which have made America MORE dependent on imported oil and gas than we were in the late 70's due to the fact that America's total energy consumption has continued to grow with rising population.
In fact, the only segment of the American economy which has significantly reduced energy use recently are (were) industrial users who have now outsourced or relocated their production facilities outside of the USA ! However, the 'tin foil hat' crowd would tell you that the same sort of national security concerns re dependence on imported energy are also starting to be realized re dependence on imported products / components - all of which are now exported to the USA thanks to the 'continued pleasure' of a foreign government. Thus the US gov't has not only created a 'strategic petroleum reserve' but also a strategic reserve of vital materials / components needed to produce more cruise missiles and other high-tech weaponry. This brings us back to the fundamental point of this thread ... that both Europe and America have in essence voluntarily placed ourselves in these situations of foreign dependence on supplies of vital commodities, and that such foreign dependence can easily be used for political leverage by Putin, by the Arabs, by the Chinese etc.
~
Last edited by Melonie; 12-24-2006 at 07:55 AM.



I heard this on a radio talk show a few weeks ago - the host said China has built 23 new submarines in the last 3-5 years, essentially financed by all the stuff people in the U.S. (and elsewhere) buy from them. But every once in a long while, he also states that WalMart is, at least in part, responsible for this kind of thing - for telling their suppliers they have to continually lower the wholesale prices of their products or WalMart will quit buying from these companies(which then forces the manufacturers to outsource to China and other counbtries). Which brings up an interesting point, although I realize it is off-topic here. If the U.S. ever gets into a "shooting war" with China (although as you've pointed out before, China holds enough U.S. debt instruments that they likely wouldn't find this necessary anymore), should the CEO of WalMart(and other corporations which outsource) and other upper-level management then be tried for treason?
Of course we waste energy. We waste anything that we have an real or perceived abundance of - energy, food, time, money, water, land, credit, whatever. That, it seems, is our wiring.
We have some interesting diverging thoughts now being advanced, but the discussion of the core issue (to me) of a few postings ago doesn't lead me to be persuaded to believe, "We're wasteful of a finite resource. Therefore, we should waste even more."





^^^ Jay, obviously you are not convinced to deliberately waste scarce resources. My point was that, on terms of global averages, you, myself and every other American and Western European'wastes' far more of the things that you have listed than your typical African, Middle Easterner, Asian etc. And in terms of ""We're wasteful of a finite resource. Therefore, we should waste even more."" - this is exactly what kept hundreds of thousands of US auto workers receiving fat paychecks for many decades between the 1970's oil embargo and hurricane Katrina.
I was also trying to point out that the original 'reference' to increasing energy independence doesn't only have the component of consumption. There is also a very large component of domestic supply ... i.e. America HAVING energy resources (i.e. Shoreham nuclear plant, ANWR, offshore oil & gas fields off all three coasts, coal up the ying yang etc.) but consciously choosing not to bring them into production or pricing them out of feasability via environmental compliance costs in favor of purchasing foreign oil and gas instead. Using Phaedrus' treason theory, and applying the same criteria he applied to Walmart, doesn't that mean that environmental leaders would be equally guilty of treason ? Obviously I'm being hyperbolic, but there are many shared concepts that apply to both the WalMart imported goods scenario and the environmentalist imported energy scenario as well !
For conspiracy theorists, there are some mad 'tin foil hat' 'ers who would tell you that Certain Parties are following an agenda of deliberately allowing the Arabs, the Nigerians, the Europeans, and lately the Russians, to pump out and sell off their oil and gas reserves at yesterday's and today's prices, while deliberately not allowing American oil and gas reserves to be developed. In this way 20-30 years from now, when the foreign oil and gas reserves seriously start to become depleted, and oil & gas prices are several times higher than they are today, American oil and gas will be the 'only game in town'. I'm not sure that I buy this theory, but there IS an element of classic American exploitation to it. The same mad 'tin foil hat' 'ers would add that by not allowing the development of its own oil and gas reserves, and by deliberately choosing to buy huge quantities of oil and gas on the world market, America is making development efforts much more difficult for China - by making China pay much higher prices for the oil and gas which they DON'T HAVE and thus must import. This is apparently a modernized version of the Japanese energy situation in the 1930's. It also somehow ties into the Chinese needing US dollars to buy that oil and gas from the Arabs, with the Arabs then turning around and reinvesting their Chinese US dollar denominated oil and gas profits in the United States i.e. petro-dollars - so that Americans can borrow those petro-dollars at very low interest rates in order to buy more 'cheap' Chinese products. This in turn forces the Chinese to buy yet more imported oil and gas at high world prices, along with supplying more $200 a month 'slave labor' and generating a few million more metric tons of pollution, to manufacture more 'cheap' products for export to America. In the end, America winds up with cheap products i.e. an artificially high standard of living, little pollution, but few manufacturing jobs (fewer to be lost when the world economy goes into deep recession) - China winds up with a slightly higher standard of living (after all $200 a month is better than nothing), enough pollution to poison rivers and make gas masks necessary near large manufacturing cities, and lots of unsecure manufacturing jobs (to be lost when the world economy goes into deep recession).
Regardless, America's continued decision to purchase huge amounts of oil and gas on the world markets results in vastly higher oil and gas prices which everybody, regardless of importing country, must pay.
~
Last edited by Melonie; 12-24-2006 at 12:27 PM.
But the theme that started this, at least to my view, was, "Alternative energy sources are futile. Forget them. We must keep rapidly using the primary and finite one we have now." I haven't been persuaded to buy into that one, either, not remotely.
But different things appea to different people.





^^^ I never said that !!! However it is a fact that, at least where Biofuels, Wind, Solar etc. in America are concerned that these alternative energy sources are not cost effective in the absence of huge gov't subsidies and/or tax breaks which are financed by the involuntary contributions of US taxpayers, as well as gov't mandated higher prices for blended gasoline, electric rates etc. which US residents must pay (taxpayers or not). In that sense - i.e. by being in a position to mandate the use of 10% ethanol blend gasoline, or in a position of mandating that electric utilities purchase X% windpower - the various US gov't bodies are doing exactly what Vladimir Putin is doing with natural gas ... controlling the supply and forcing a higher than necessary price be paid by the customer at the end of the line.
While you never said that directly in one statement, Mel, that was a summary of my impressions of the progression of this discussion and other discussions that we've had.
* Let's develop alternate energy sources before we use the ones we got.
* "Impossible goal."
* Let's conserve, or have greater efficiency, in order to stretch out the supplies we got.
* The response has generally been that energy efficiency efforts are futile.
It's tempting to follow the spinoff into how much gets subsidized by whom and to what ends, but that's not the thrust of my point. The core points, as italicized above, are fairly simple and common-sense to me. I haven't been talked out of them, and indeed, I don't see the controversy in them. Cure-all? No. Reasonable approaches? Yeah, I believe so.




Russian people think they are gods gift to people.
I Love Life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Have you ever been to American wedding? Where is the vodka, where's marinated herring?" - GB
"And do the cats give a shit? No, they do not. Why? Because they're cats."-from The Onion
Originally Posted by Mia M





Well it has been impossible so far at least, if you define a successful alternate energy source as one which is a reasonably cost-effective net producer of energy (rather than just a conversion of one form of energy into another form). Arguably, US corn based ethanol production consumes almost as much energy in the form of diesel fuel for tractors / farm equipment, energy input required to produce fertilizers, and truck transportation to and from refineries, as the final ethanol product contains. Wind and solar power are net producers of energy, but the non-subsidized cost effectiveness is totally out of the ballpark without the US taxpayer funding tax breaks to investors, without US utility customers paying higher than necessary prices to cover utility companies having to 'cover' the loss of a power source when the wind stops blowing or the sun goes down (not to mention the utility being forced to spend millions of ratepayer dollars to construct connecting transmission lines to wind farms in the first place etc.), and without states mandating that utilities must purchase x% of their total power sales from wind farms regardless of comparative cost levels vs fossil fuel generators !* Let's develop alternate energy sources before we use the ones we got.
* "Impossible goal."
The 'tin foil hat' crowd sometimes views the US ethanol industry in terms of what used to be a joke in the auto industry ... 'we're losing $1000 on every car we sell ? Don't worry, we'll make it up on volume'.
Well, that was certainly the case during the Carter years ! It is arguably still the case today if left to voluntary choices on the part of US consumers. After all, last year Honda and Toyota sold far more full sized pickup trucks and SUV's to American customers than they did small hybrid cars. History shows that the vast majority of Americans LIKE living in the suburbs in a single family house, and LIKE driving big vehicles that get poor fuel economy. Ultimately, energy conservation efforts WILL be successful, but as was the case with $3.00+ gasoline after hurricane Katrina the conservation efforts will be born of economic distress rather than voluntary choice. And yes, American consumers will buy energy efficient flourescent light bulb substitutes ... as long as they are produced in China with 'slave labor' pay rates and next to no pollution control costs to deal with the leftover flourescent phosphors so that the bulbs can be sold at 'affordable' prices by WalMart !* Let's conserve, or have greater efficiency, in order to stretch out the supplies we got.
* The response has generally been that energy efficiency efforts are futile.
If you want to seriously discuss alternative energy sources, the granddaddy of them all is of course Fischer-Tropsch conversion of coal into synthetic liquid fuel. The process works, and has been in daily use in South Africa for decades after first being developed in Germany in the years prior to WW2. The break-even cost falls somewhere around $50 per barrel oil ... a figure that increasingly appears to be here to stay. South Africa and Germany used this process for the exact purpose of avoiding dependence on imported oil supplies ... supplies that could be cut off if the exporter became 'displeased' with their political policies. America could be developing Fischer-Tropsch facilities right now, and in fact began subsidizing their development in the early 80's immediately after the Arab oil embargo / Carter years. However, America quickly changed their subsidy policy after a couple of years, and without subsidies the fledgling industry quickly died.
The questions to be answered of course are WHY it was important for the US government to stop subsidizing the further development of coal based synthetic fuel in the early 80's despite the fact that it was a proven feasible alternative to imported oil at prices above $20 per barrel in 1980 dollars (roughly equalling $50 per barrel in today's dollars), and WHY the world price of oil then promptly dropped like a stone from $25 per bbl to $12 per bbl in 1985 then continued to stay at levels below $20 per barrel throughout the Reagan and Clinton years.
Last edited by Melonie; 12-24-2006 at 09:31 PM.
So use it up till it's gone, and the faster the better. Not convincing.
It's more convincing, to me at least, to husband resources more carefully, just like any other resource, and develop alternatives to stretch out the supplies. Just like we would with anything else in our lives. (I have no problem with coal liquefication or other viable means, assuming that concerns other than mere energy production are adequately addressed. And energy production is always a conversion of one energy form to another.)
---------
Just as a hopefully humorous aside, Mel, I realize that the 'tin foil hat crowd' means a lot to you, because you quote it so often. But I'll confess that every time I see a 'tin foil hat' reference followed by at least six lines of paragraph, I blank out until the next paragraph. I've been with true tin foil hat types (to ward off either government mind control or alien rays, no kidding), and I have to tell you, they don't rank high on credibility for me.
Bookmarks