Green energy takes a back seat

[marks2065 0]

http://news.thomasnet.com/green_clean/2011/10/07/oil-boom-good-for-north-dakota-bad-for-green-tech/

I guess the enviromentalists are going to have a tough time pushing their green energies with the large oil finds in the west.

[marks2065 0]

Hey Bilvon, what happened to your claim that we didn't have enough oil in the US for more than 30 years? Why are the green energy people lying about the amount of oil in the US?

[lawrocket 3]

From the article:

Quote

“He turned to me and said, ‘Oil and gas will be important for the next few years. But we need to go on to green and alternative energy. [Energy] Secretary [Steven] Chu has assured me that within five years, we can have a battery developed that will make a car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon.’”

A couple of things: (1) I'll bet that billvon will play a major role in the development and perfecting of that battery; and (2) It's not necessarily a bad policy statement by the President.

The problem is to me that the markets will respond to the expense. Bill has often said the same thing. Once oil becomes more expensive than solar, people will flock to solar and development will increase. The government keeps subsidizing "green" energy and making fossil fuels more costly but it STILL isn't enough. Why?

Because when energy is made expensive it makes it worthwhile to sink investment into finding more of it.

Google Julian Simon Paul Ehrlich bet. Paul Ehrlich said that we would run out of materials, food and resources because of increases in use and population. Julian Simon made a bet to choose any five resources he wanted and any date at least a year out and bet they'd all be cheaper. So Ehlich and his pal John Holdren picked five metals, made buys of $200 each, and Simon said that inflation-adjusted prices would be less. Ehrlich sent Simon a check for almost $600 in 1990 (the combined $1000 investment by Ehrlich was worth just over $400 - prices fell by over 50%).

Note - John Holdren is the current Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Which can perhaps explain current white House policies....

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[charlie5 0]

Alarmists have been claiming that the US would run out of oil for decades.

The feather butts bounce off ya like raindrops hitting a battle-star when they come in too fast...kinda funny to watch. - airtwardo

[marks2065 0]

Quote

From the article:

Quote

“He turned to me and said, ‘Oil and gas will be important for the next few years. But we need to go on to green and alternative energy. [Energy] Secretary [Steven] Chu has assured me that within five years, we can have a battery developed that will make a car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon.’”

A couple of things: (1) I'll bet that billvon will play a major role in the development and perfecting of that battery; and (2) It's not necessarily a bad policy statement by the President.

The problem is to me that the markets will respond to the expense. Bill has often said the same thing. Once oil becomes more expensive than solar, people will flock to solar and development will increase. The government keeps subsidizing "green" energy and making fossil fuels more costly but it STILL isn't enough. Why?

Because when energy is made expensive it makes it worthwhile to sink investment into finding more of it.

Google Julian Simon Paul Ehrlich bet. Paul Ehrlich said that we would run out of materials, food and resources because of increases in use and population. Julian Simon made a bet to choose any five resources he wanted and any date at least a year out and bet they'd all be cheaper. So Ehlich and his pal John Holdren picked five metals, made buys of $200 each, and Simon said that inflation-adjusted prices would be less. Ehrlich sent Simon a check for almost $600 in 1990 (the combined $1000 investment by Ehrlich was worth just over $400 - prices fell by over 50%).

Note - John Holdren is the current Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Which can perhaps explain current white House policies....

what I thought was interesting in the article was that the entire state of conneticut would need to be turned into a wind farm to just supply New York with electricity. I think we need clean energy but we need to transfer to it much more slowly while the technology grows. All of the green energy sources are at this time not efficient enough to replace oil and gas and won't be for years to come. Using our own oil and gas will put our economy back on track and reduce our trade deficit.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Alarmists have been claiming that the US would run out of oil for decades.

and with the data they used they would have been correct. unfortunately they have been using flawed data. Wonder how the flawed data about AGW changes their predictions on that subject?

[DanG 1]

I'd love to read a less biased piece about this issue. The one you linked is not news, it is commentary and opinion. When it says things like, "Heck, they just found out that Einsteininan physics is probably wrong as regards the speed of light. If that’s not “settled science” certainly temperature measurements of one or two degrees over hundreds of years are in play." it makes me question the rest of their facts.

- Dan G

[billvon 3,090]

>Hey Bilvon, what happened to your claim that we didn't have enough oil
>in the US for more than 30 years?

Sorry, that claim is based on math, not rhetoric.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>Hey Bilvon, what happened to your claim that we didn't have enough oil
>in the US for more than 30 years?

Sorry, that claim is based on math, not rhetoric.

math that had the wrong numbers

[billvon 3,090]

>math that had the wrong numbers

OK. Why don't you post the "right" numbers that prove your point?

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>math that had the wrong numbers

OK. Why don't you post the "right" numbers that prove your point?

this is interesting read and graf top help you out.
http://www.radford.edu/wkovarik/oil/

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>math that had the wrong numbers

OK. Why don't you post the "right" numbers that prove your point?

In a command economy, bill would be right. In a free market economy you either: (1) never run out; or (2) run out only when there is a suitable replacement.

I like to use the example of Whale Oil. Back through the 1800s, whale oil was a prime source of illumination for lamps, wax for candles, and all kinds of other uses. It also spawned the career of Herman Melville. Whale oil was a fine product for these uses. I killed a lot of whales, but no business wanted them all dead. The whales were ultimately saved by kerosene and petroleum. Demand for kerosene and petroleum increased and demand for whale oil decreased. We never ran out of whale oil – we just don’t use it because other stuff is less expensive.

I suspect the same thing will eventually happen with petroleum. Whales were not saved by government action but rather via private ingenuity. Had the government banned whale oil in 1820, what would have been the alternative? It’s what we’re doing now.

We won’t run out of oil. Alternatives will develop before that happens. And then oil will be cheap again. Until people start digging for it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,117]

The true economic cost of fossil fuels is not apparent to consumers, because a lot of the costs are hidden, ignored or subsidized. It's not JUST about running out.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

>math that had the wrong numbers

OK. Why don't you post the "right" numbers that prove your point?

In a command economy, bill would be right. In a free market economy you either: (1) never run out; or (2) run out only when there is a suitable replacement.

I like to use the example of Whale Oil. Back through the 1800s, whale oil was a prime source of illumination for lamps, wax for candles, and all kinds of other uses. It also spawned the career of Herman Melville. Whale oil was a fine product for these uses. I killed a lot of whales, but no business wanted them all dead. The whales were ultimately saved by kerosene and petroleum. Demand for kerosene and petroleum increased and demand for whale oil decreased. We never ran out of whale oil – we just don’t use it because other stuff is less expensive.

I suspect the same thing will eventually happen with petroleum. Whales were not saved by government action but rather via private ingenuity. Had the government banned whale oil in 1820, what would have been the alternative? It’s what we’re doing now.

We won’t run out of oil. Alternatives will develop before that happens. And then oil will be cheap again. Until people start digging for it.

Driving numerous species of whales to the brink of extinction... had nothing to do with it

[billvon 3,090]

>this is interesting read and graf top help you out.

Thanks!

The article you linked to listed 397 billion barrels as "recoverable and unconventional" reserves in North America, of which about half is in the US. (The rest are primarily Mexican oil and Canadian tar sands.) The recoverable reserves mean that if every single well we drill really hits the reserve (i.e. we can get to it and it's really there) that's the amount of oil we will have. It's the equivalent of stating that your economic plan is to win the lottery every year.

But let's be optimistic and go with that. If we use up all our proven, unproven and unconventional resources in the US, we have 27 years worth of oil at current consumption rates.

27 is less than 30. And that's winning the lottery.

So the question becomes - why are the anti-environmentalists lying about oil reserves? Do they need to lie to be taken seriously?

[jonstark 8]

When oil is found it may or may not be economically feasible to get out of the ground. If it takes $200/barrel to get it is that smart? It may be there but is it worth going after NOW? What would be the environmental impact of the exploration and extraction? Still worth it? Sit on this field until both the economy, technology and real need collide. Do NOT stop developing alternative energy as business and ethic.

jon

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The true economic cost of fossil fuels is not apparent to consumers, because a lot of the costs are hidden, ignored or subsidized. It's not JUST about running out.

I agree. Plenty of the costs are hidden and distributed, such as pollution, storage, ets. The pollution cost was ignored for a long time, but government stepped in to help limit that cost by passing it on to the consumers of the fuel. for example, lead was no longer used (which led to things like MTBE to be used - ).

There IS a place for regulation. Government should be there to manage common resources - like air. Such a management is understandably on a cost/benefit analysis. It's also highly political, which bars consistency in how it is done.

I do understand your point. But right now, it seems, even with the all-inclusive costs of petroleum, it's still cheaper than alternatives. Coal is cheaper even with all the scrubbing equipment used for emissions. And note - all of these alternative technologies have costs of their own. Windmills are considered noisy and ugly and deadly to animals. Solar collection sites are also very detrimental to the local environment.

I see minimal hidden costs in home installation of solar, but the up-front financial cost is prohibitive to most. These are other costs - opportunity costs - that are highly visible.

Once these become less expensive and more readily available to the general population I think they'll grow. But the involvement of the government is itself a cost - spread out to others for it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,090]

>even with the all-inclusive costs of petroleum, it's still cheaper than alternatives.

With everything (all externalities included) natural gas is about the cheapest fuel we have. Oil is pretty close. Nuclear comes next due to the high price of fuel/waste handling, and coal comes in last due to the high societal costs of its waste. (Even lowball estimates of additional cost come to an additional 9 cents/kwhr.)

[lawrocket 3]

You're correct. I had been vague and thought of natural gas as a petroleum product.

And with the statements from the Republican debates, Nuclear power is not getting cheaper any time soon.

My wife is hotter than your wife.