Thank you. There were so many parts of that post that were so ignorant, from supply and demand, to extracting hydrogen. I was going to post, but then I figured he wouldn't approve my message. Glad you responded though.
You can get an idea of the energy balance of energy out to energy in to extract hydrogen from water from Kenneth Deffeys. In one of his books he says the optimal process for extraction through electrolysis uses a voltage of 1.7 volts and the fuel cell produces .7 volts.
I can't believe these people who think that fuel cell cars produce no pollution, the cars don't but the production of hydrogen sure does whether that production is from electrolysis or the breaking of bonds in natural gas.
I saw Senator Bill Nelson of Florida saying that we shouldn't drill off the coasts or in Anwar because we had all of these alternative energy sources right around the corner and pure hydrogen cars were here. The example he gave was just the day before Honda had introduced a "mass produced", his words, fuel cell car. Well his concept of mass produced is certainly different than mine. The papers said that Honda would bring in something like 200 over the next two or three years. It was not clear to me if Honda would sell them or only lease them, I kind of think the latter.
The first was leased to the actress Jamie Lee Curtis. Is this a comment on the financial resources needed to lease or buy one of these fuel cell cars?
"While the supply of oil is finite, the demand for oil is ever expanding."
The supply of oil under the ground is finite, meaning mother nature is likely not producing any more. But the supply at the gas pump can be increased by extracting oil from the ground at a greater rate. He exhibits a fundamental lack of understanding of supply vs demand, and commits the beginning physics student's common error of mistaking energy with power.
Current world-wide consumption of oil (i.e. "demand") is about 87 million barrels per day. Current world-wide production of oil (i.e. "supply") is about 84 million barrels per day. Thus the "rate of use" (demand) exceeds the "rate of production" (supply) by about 3.5%. Those who must have supply bid and willingly pay higher prices to insure they get it, and so prices rise.
This is a dynamic condition. Supply can be made to exceed demand, resulting in lower prices, by: 1) reducing the rate of usage, (i.e. reducing demand); or, 2) increasing the rate of production (i.e. increasing supply); or, 3) doing both at the same time.
Oil prices are determined (in the near term) by the rate of production from the ground and the rate of usage. The amount left in the ground and the rate of production from the ground determine when it will all be gone, and most assuredly will have an effect on prices when that time comes near. But that time is not near, indeed it is many decades away.
So, lowering prices is easy. Just pump oil from the ground at a higher rate, which means from more places at once. No, that will not solve the price problem forever, and it will hasten the day when the oil runs out. But we face the oil running out in any case, and we need not pay such high prices, nor should we have to send so much money to foreign countries, while we work to find alternate sources.
No, I didn't post this comment there. I have no Google account, and don't otherwise have a need for one.
The supply of oil under the ground is finite, meaning mother nature is likely not producing any more. But the supply at the gas pump can be increased by extracting oil from the ground at a greater rate.
You're assuming that this has not already been done. The Cantarell field in the Gulf of Mexico was lagging until it was put under nitrogen injection; production surged, but now it's crashing at 20% or so per year. The North Sea was produced at very high rates to pay the expense of the sea platforms; it peaked in 1999. And the massive Ghawar field in Saudi Arabia has been under water injection for a very long time.
There are 8 oil fields in the world which produce 1 million barrels/day or more. The question is whether 7 of them are past their peak production, or all 8 (the only one not acknowledged to be declining... yet... is Ghawar). Smaller oil fields have less oil and generally less favorable reservoir characteristics (permeability, ultimate recoverability), so the "elephant" fields determine the shape of the world production curve. That curve is now on a bumpy plateau, at best.
The amount left in the ground and the rate of production from the ground determine when it will all be gone, and most assuredly will have an effect on prices when that time comes near.
Why do you think the price effect will take so long? The short-term elasticity of oil consumption is very low, so we would expect any shortage (even relative to immediate expectations) to have a very large effect on prices. If the oil supply stops rising, prices will increase to the point where people stop buying thirstier cars, adopting longer commutes, and all the other trends we've been seeing for the past 25 years. That is what "supply and demand" means.
So, lowering prices is easy. Just pump oil from the ground at a higher rate, which means from more places at once.
If it's so easy, why don't you do it?
All you have to do is look at history to see it isn't easy. In fact, it's impossible. After the 70's oil price shocks, the USA went on a drilling spree. Total producing wells went from 497,000 in 1973 to 647,000 in 1985, while US oil production sank from 9.2 million barrels/day to 9.0 (and that includes Alaska; lower 48 production declined to 7.2 million bbl/day in 1985).
So, the Richmond Democrat got fewer things wrong than Kevin (mostly, RD bought into the hydrogen propaganda being pushed by our government... why the US goverment is doing this is a subject for another day). The course RD would steer is much closer to what we need than Kevin's. If we really mean "Wahhabism Delenda Est", we have to quit financing the Wahhabis. This means:
- Eliminating our use of their product, and
- Prompting the rest of the world to do the same, by promoting both purchases and production of non-oil technologies.
Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing and expecting a different result. The USA radically increased its oil-production efforts past its 1970 peak, and could not arrest the decline. Now Kevin wants to do it again, only harder... and I shouldn't have to point out how ironic this is.
Me:The supply of oil under the ground is finite, meaning mother nature is likely not producing any more. But the supply at the gas pump can be increased by extracting oil from the ground at a greater rate.
Engineer-Poet:You're assuming that this has not already been done.
No, I am assuming that it can be done some more. World oil production has ramped up almost monotonically for about a century and a half. Why the hell would I assume that it hasn't been increased before? Really, dude, ...
You are cherry-picking when you write of fields whose production has peaked. Try considering areas that have not yet produced at all, areas where Congress won't let anyone drill now, such as off our west coast, off our east coast, off the west coast of Florida, off the south coast of Alaska, and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Me:The amount left in the ground and the rate of production from the ground determine when it will all be gone, and most assuredly will have an effect on prices when that time comes near.
Engineer-Poet:Why do you think the price effect will take so long?
Why do you jump to the conclusion that I think it will take so long? I neither stated nor implied any such thing. My statement was simply that the oil running out will most assuredly affect its price when that happens. This statement is true. The unstated cliché that is implied is, "You think prices are high now, just wait until the oil is nearly gone."
Words matter, dude. I suggest you not read words that aren't there. (Now, where have I heard that before?)
Engineer-Poet:The short-term elasticity of oil consumption is very low, so we would expect any shortage (even relative to immediate expectations) to have a very large effect on prices.
Yup. As I stated, "Oil prices are determined (in the near term) by the rate of production from the ground and the rate of usage." When supply exceeds demand, then sellers compete with each other for sales and prices fall. When demand exceeds supply, then buyers compete with each other for purchases and prices rise. That is what the law of supply and demand predicts. We are seeing it happen with oil.
Me:So, lowering prices is easy. Just pump oil from the ground at a higher rate, which means from more places at once.
Engineer-Poet:If it's so easy, why don't you do it?"
Because I am not in the oil production business. Why do you ask such a childish question?
Engineer-Poet:All you have to do is look at history to see it isn't easy. In fact, it's impossible." (emphasis added)
So, you would have us believe that it's impossible (your words) to produce oil at a faster rate than it's being produced now? Are you aware that the Saudis have agreed to do so? I love this quote from that article: "... Saudi Arabia said Sunday it will produce more crude this year if the market needs it." Their willingness to do so implies their ability to do so, does it not? Now, what do they know that you don't?
"This means:
- Eliminating our use of their [the Wahhabis'] product, and
- Prompting the rest of the world to do the same, by promoting both purchases and production of non-oil technologies.
"Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing and expecting a different result. The USA radically increased its oil-production efforts past its 1970 peak, and could not arrest the decline. Now Kevin wants to do it again, only harder..."
Kevin is keenly aware of human nature, especially of the extreme depths of human stupidity. He is also an engineer who is keenly aware that reality is a bitch about whom most people have little understanding. He is also aware that this country does not produce oil at a rate that can sustain our use, and that if it could and we used it exclusively, our proven reserves would be exhausted in about four years. And, finally, he is aware of how difficult it is for this country to convince any other country to do anything. Thus, he is keenly aware that we cannot simply stop buying foreign oil.
So, he states:
"Face it: The only technology that's going to help any time soon is nuclear power. (More mining.) It can help ease the transition away from oil - but in the near term we need more OIL, and we'd better start drilling SOON."
Advocating that Congress do something right, now that does border on insanity. It seldom ever works. But what Kevin advocates is dead right, namely increasing the pace of the transition away from oil, and producing oil at a higher rate to lessen the rate of flow of dollars to the Middle East during the transition. And you would have us believe this is insanity?
Worthless fucking HaloCrap says "Your comment contains too many links and will not be added", so most of the references have been shoved to footnotes and de-linkified.
You're assuming that this has not already been done.
No, I am assuming that it can be done some more.
You've changed the subject. Congress can't do squat about oil production in Uzbekistan, it can only change the permissions and incentives for the USA. Only US oil extraction counts for the US economic and strategic situation. We've drilled the USA like mad, and we're pumping about 5.1 million bbl/day[1] compared to 9.2 million in 1970.
World oil production has ramped up almost monotonically for about a century and a half.
And every part of the world which has produced oil long enough has had that production peak and decline due to geological factors. Sooner or later this must happen to the world as a whole. What proof do you have that this is not happening now? If you have it, spit it out; lots of people would love to have it, including me.
My statement was simply that the oil running out will most assuredly affect its price when that happens.
Implying that it wouldn't change things much until then.
I think you're dead wrong about that, BTW. The price of oil will eventually decrease as it is replaced in most or all of its various uses. There are efforts going on to replace oil as a motor fuel ($1/gallon quoted cost of conversion for various biofuels) and as a chemical feedstock. I don't expect to live to see this myself.
So, you would have us believe that it's impossible (your words) to produce oil at a faster rate than it's being produced now?
The USA now imports over 13 million bbl/day of oil [2]. The peak production from ANWR would be on the order of 780,000 bbl/day; the peak production from the Bakken shale, perhaps 200,000. We could go on a program of putting carbon capture on coal-fired powerplants and injecting supercritical CO2 into all our old oilfields from Pennsylvania on, but that still won't get us anything close to 13 million barrels/day. If we are going to make a significant dent in imports, it is not going to occur by increasing domestic oil supplies. The big fronts in this battle are efficiency and conversion, not production.
So, he states:
Face it: The only technology that's going to help any time soon is nuclear power. (More mining.) It can help ease the transition away from oil - but in the near term we need more OIL, and we'd better start drilling SOON.
Even that's incomplete as written. Nuclear replaces other sources of electricity, not energy in general. Only about 1.5% of US electric generation comes from oil [3] (and a fair amount of that is probably in peaking plants and places like Hawaii). Nuclear cannot replace oil without electric vehicles (EV, PHEV).
I've ridden with Kevin in his truck. As of two years ago, he wanted something with a BIGGER engine (I haven't seen him express a preference lately). He hasn't grasped that we need to use less. The US light vehicle fleet averages about 25 MPG; if you could wave a magic wand and replace it with Europe's 35-MPG fleet, we'd cut gasoline consumption from about 9.1 million bbl/day to 6.5 million. That's a savings of 2.6 million bbl/day, or more than 3 ANWRs. We could do considerably better than that; the Prius gets 50 MPG, and the Chevy Volt will get INFINITE for the distance travelled on electricity and about 50 MPG thereafter. The low-hanging fruit is all on the consumption side.
But what Kevin advocates is dead right, namely increasing the pace of the transition away from oil, and producing oil at a higher rate to lessen the rate of flow of dollars to the Middle East during the transition.
He radically overestimates what we can do on the production side, which is why he gets the prescription wrong. I'm all for doing what we can to pump more, but we have to recognize up front that we can do but little and drastic changes on the consumption side are now critical, and will soon be a matter of survival.
I've ridden with Kevin in his truck. As of two years ago, he wanted something with a BIGGER engine (I haven't seen him express a preference lately).
And I did! I now own an '06 Toyota Tundra with the 4.7L V8. Right now I get about 16MPG/19 HWY.
WRT domestic production, see the post currently at the top of the page.
And hey, I'm all for electric vehicles if we get to charge them up from Nuke plants. But, again, I'm expecting the Greenies to have a serious ass-ache over the mining required to get the resources and the plants required to refine those resource so we can make super-efficient batteries and ultra-capacitors so that those all-electric vehicles actually are affordable.
How're you enjoying $5/gallon diesel in your VW, BTW?
Diesel? The truck stop on the corner is down 4¢ to $4.659, and my SHO Taurus would never have averaged the 34 MPG I get in commuting, let alone the 49 MPG I got on the freeway last Monday night. So yeah, it's still working out for me just fine.
Worse comes to worst, I can do a greasel conversion and fill up for $2.00/gallon or so, if I have to pay for it at all.
20% of $135 is $27. $27/bbl times 6 million bbl/day is $208 million/day, $1.45 billion/week. Can you deliberately add anything to your petroleum consumption and still say "Wahhabism Delenda Est"?
I've ridden with Kevin in his truck. As of two years ago, he wanted something with a BIGGER engine
<Tim Allen> Raaahh raaaah raaaaah </Tim Allen>
I recently moved to a bigger engine. Actually gets better gas milage. ('89 Nissan 3.0L - best I saw was 21 MPG Hwy. Now I'm in an 05 Xterra, 4.0L, 100 more horsepower, and I've seen it get 22 MPG HWY.)
<Tim Allen> Raaahh raaaah raaaaah </Tim Allen>
He hasn't grasped that we need to use less.
I don't know if he's not grasped that, or you're insisting upon it despite all evidence that it's damned unlikely to happen.
The US light vehicle fleet averages about 25 MPG; if you could wave a magic wand and replace it with Europe's 35-MPG fleet,
And it would take a magic wand, that's for damn sure. But we're not dealing in magic.
Even if we *could* start to push toward 35 MPG across the board - as new car purchases are! You're talking a very slow process.
Plus, gasoline consumption is 1 metric. But there are many others, as well.
we'd cut gasoline consumption from about 9.1 million bbl/day to 6.5 million.
If we had magic.
That's a savings of 2.6 million bbl/day, or more than 3 ANWRs.
So, if the choice is magic, or drilling, I guess we'd better start drilling!
We could do considerably better than that; the Prius gets 50 MPG,
That's a misleading average. 60/40. I got to test drive the prototype years ago. It was an Echo with all the hybrid drive stuff in it. The Echo, which got 45 mpg Hwy was $12k. The Prius they were estimating was going to debut at $25k.
At $1.50, $13k buys *a lot* of gas. Even at $4, that's 3250 gallons. How much gas do you use annually? I'm using about 30 gallons a month, right now. Mostly "city" driving, a hybrid would be perfect for.
And I'd not pay back the Hybrid premium in 5 years. Nor be able to carry the loads and supplies that I do on a near-weekly basis.
Guy I work with has a hybrid Civic. He drives 66 miles each day. Almost all highway. So his hybrid gets him at wee savings over a standard Civic. And he paid over $10k for the privilege.
and the Chevy Volt will get INFINITE for the distance travelled on electricity and about 50 MPG thereafter.
Except we don't have the electrical infrastructure to all plug in Chevy Volts. And as for performance particulars, I'm going to wait and see until you know, they actually SHIP.
Sorry, too many years of dealing with Microsoft Software.
The low-hanging fruit is all on the consumption side.
If all you do is count gasoline. But there are other costs associated with it, as well. Purchase price. Maintenance price (the co-worker with the civic? Had the batteries go bad 2 months ago. $8000 charge (that Honda covered under warranty, but that doesn't mean it was "free".))
Convenience price. This is the single biggest issue with petroleum - it's the best, most convenient energy storage medium we've ever discovered.
You're right, if we COULD magically ignore all the other costs and problems and *poof* magically change everything out, we'd be great.
But if you get that magic wand, how about instead, wishing for magic engine that runs on water?
My switch was from a 4.0L Ford Ranger to a 4.7L Toyota Tundra. 700CC and 100+ more horsepower, a larger bed and payload, and I "lost" about 1 mpg.
However, my weekly commute to/from work has dropped from 180 miles/week to 18 miles/week. I have, in fact, ridden a bicycle to work... twice.
I can't take a load of yard waste to the dump in the back of a Prius. I wouldn't take a Prius out into the desert to find a place to shoot, either.
As Unix-Jedi illustrates, we're not going to magically reduce our consumption of energy. Hell, I want to get my 1967 big-block Mustang back into running condition - 8MPG on Premium fuel.
I want Shell Oil and whoever extracting oil from the Green River Basin. I want ANWR drilled. I want offshore drilling run by AMERICANS rather than the Chinese. I want AZ Clean Fuels to break ground on their 2-3 BILLION $ refinery outside of Yuma, AZ.
I want to see biofuels from blue-green algae, ethanol from waste biomass, nuclear power plants running at 100% load 24/7/365 using the off-peak periods to crack water into hydrogen for fuel cells and plain combustion; crystalline, amorphous silicon and inkjet-printed solar cells on every horizontal surface.
But all that takes time, money, and incentive. We now have the incentive - $130/bbl crude oil and the realization that the price is going to stay high and go higher. Now we need the time and the money.
I could put solar cells on the roof of my home. Along with the batteries, charger, inverter, and installation labor, it would cost more than the original purchase price of the home. Payback would be a while. And my mortgage would be... stiff. Plus, about every ten years I'd need to replace the batteries (not to mention the maintenance involved.)
I want to see biofuels from blue-green algae, ethanol from waste biomass, nuclear power plants running at 100% load 24/7/365 using the off-peak periods to crack water into hydrogen for fuel cells and plain combustion; crystalline, amorphous silicon and inkjet-printed solar cells on every horizontal surface.
Oh, yeah, don't take what I was saying as that I don't want to see innovation, improvement, and inspiration.
I just don't want to rely upon it as the only plan we've got, and to think magically.
Right now, I've got the government threatening to tax the oil companies (who after years of going under are finally making a profit), while taxing petrol at 8x the rate of the "rapacious profit". The most palatable Democrat running says that oil companies aren't "bringing enough to the communities" (Uh, you mean, besides CHEAP AND CLEAN OIL PRODUCTS?)
They're taxing me to subsidize ethanol production by ADM. Tarriffing imports from Brazil, and essentially forbidding importation of sugar crops or ethanol from Brazil.
Mandating ethanol at $3.50/gallon, (not counting subsidy) inclusion into gasoline, reducing milage and increasing total fuel burn. Preventing gasoline shipment via pipelines, requiring trucks to haul each load, and increasing the volatility and decreasing the usefulness of the gasoline.
That's just to start with.
For some strange reason, I don't get a good feeling that the bright, shining lights who came up with the current taxation and demonization of working people are likely to
1) decrease price
2) increase supply
3) give up control
I set the subject by posting a comment that you responded to at length and in detail. The single sentence that you claim is an attempt to change the subject was in direct response to an erroneous statement that you made. It is the subject, and was dead on point.
I am not entirely dim, dude. Kindly don't treat me as if I were.
"Congress can't do squat about oil production in Uzbekistan, it can only change the permissions and incentives for the USA. Only US oil extraction counts for the US economic and strategic situation."
Horseshit.
The US uses about 25% of all the oil that the world produces each year, and over half of what the US uses is imported. Do you honestly think that the rate of production of foreign oil does not affect supply and demand in this country?
Here's a hint. Credibility cannot be postulated and should not be assumed. It must be earned. You're trying hard not to earn it.
"And every part of the world which has produced oil long enough has had that production peak and decline due to geological factors. Sooner or later this must happen to the world as a whole. What proof do you have that this is not happening now? If you have it, spit it out; lots of people would love to have it, including me."
Indeed, lots and lots of fields over the whole world have peaked and are in decline. But, other fields haven't yet been touched, fields which would be expected to produce well once tapped. So, once again, I'll repeat myself:
"Try considering areas that have not yet produced at all, areas where Congress won't let anyone drill now, such as off our west coast, off our east coast, off the west coast of Florida, off the south coast of Alaska, and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge."
Well, go ahead, try considering them.
Remember back to the Gulf War, when Hussein's army blew up the Kuwaiti wellheads? Remember the huge, gushing fires? Most of the wells in Saudi Arabia and damned nearly all the wells in Kuwait are artesian, meaning the difficulty is keeping the oil in the ground and letting it out in a controlled manner. Some of these wells each produce 25,000 barrels per day. In such a field, the production rate can be increased quite easily, simply by sinking more holes. All it requires is infrastructure and the local geology cooperates nicely. It hasn't been done because the current infrastructure, until fairly recently, handled their desired production rates quite well.
Me:My statement was simply that the oil running out will most assuredly affect its price when that happens.
Engineer-Poet:Implying that it wouldn't change things much until then.
NO, IT DOESN'T.
You exhibit a considerable lack of understanding of simple logic and simple language. My statement is that the oil running out "most certainly" will affect its price "when that happens." Words have meaning, dude. My statement implies NOTHING about when the prospect of oil running out will begin to affect its price. My statement is ONLY that it will CERTAINLY effect the price of oil when it happens.
Once again, you read words that aren't there. Once again, consider that credibility must be earned. You can do better than this.
"I would have you believe that it's impossible to make more than small increases at this point; as I said elsewhere, no amount of drilling or enhanced oil recovery will long offset the inexorable depletion of this half-billion-year-old accident of nature."
So, you admit that your statement that it is impossible to increase the rate of production is wrong. You simply quibble over how much it might be increased. Of course it will eventually run out, as I, too, have stated; it's a finite resource.
"Nuclear cannot replace oil without electric vehicles (EV, PHEV)."
Yup. It can do a dandy job of charging batteries and cracking H2O into H and O. Kevin agrees; read his comments.
"I'm all for doing what we can to pump more, ..."
Golly. You mean more can be pumped? But, but, oh, horseshit. Never mind.
"... but we have to recognize up front that we can do but little and drastic changes on the consumption side are now critical, and will soon be a matter of survival."
What YOU need to understand is that such changes will not happen quickly, no matter what any and all gubmints order or don't order. The overall changes that will come to pass will occur as each individual makes his own choices from his own parochial point of view. We all got into this mess by the population increasing and by everyone incrementally choosing a more and more energy-draining lifestyle. Compound growth is overwhelming, given time. So, change will occur quickly only if it occurs catastrophically; otherwise, it will take generations.
I'll give you a simple example by illustrating my parochial point of view.
My wife and I drive two vehicles, a 2000 Toyota Tundra Access Cab and a 2001 Toyota Sequoia. Both are 4.7L V8 with 4WD. We bought them brand new before retiring and moving to the mountains of northern New Mexico. Vehicles of their type were a necessity then and there, as we needed the ground clearance and 4WD for the snow, V8 engines for the alititude (8,700 feet) and, as a safety factor for my wife, the ABS, traction control, and anti-skid control of the Sequoia (which weren't yet offered on the Tundra) for the roads. During many months of the three years we lived there, we routinely needed 4WD just to get out of our driveway, and we lived in town where the roads were routinely cleared of snow.
Now, we live in the Oklahoma City area. Do we need these particular vehicles? Could we swap? Let's consider, shall we?
I will always have a truck because I use it as a truck quite often. Only today, I brought home a large load of fertlizer and compost for the yard and vegetable garden. I build stuff, which means I haul stuff. Also, my primary recreation is hunting, which I do in three states. Try hauling a dead elk, a dead hog, a dead deer, or a load of compost in the trunk of a Prius.
The Sequoia is usually overkill. A Corolla or a Camry (both of which we have owned before) would do us just fine.
Now, consider swapping them for something more fuel-efficient. We drive the Tundra about 12,000 miles per year and the Sequoia about 5,000, both at about 18 - 18.5 mpg. Both are paid for. I do not buy used vehicles, and the whole idea would be to buy new, very fuel-efficient replacements. I've crunched the tradeoff thoroughly, considering ALL the costs involved. There is no adequate replacement for the Tundra that makes any sense. The break-even time for replacing a Sequoia even with a Corolla, given our usage of it, is about thirteen years. For a Prius, well, I won't live that long.
So, we're keepin' 'em. It doesn't make economic sense not to. They are paid for, they are magnificent vehicles (in my unhumble engineering opinion), and they are astoundingly reliable and easy to maintain.
Now, consider the typical idiot who saddles himself with a huge new car payment on the grounds that the new vehicle gets 24 miles per gallon and the old one gets only 18. There is no break-even date, as the net cost per mile to drive them is higher, but they cannot or will not understand that. I've tried, as I have friends and relatives who've made such a decision, and they won't look at anything other than the higher MPG ratings.
Now, is cost in cents per mile the only factor that ought to be considered? No, not if availability of fuel becomes a prime consideration. Right now, its cost is, but its availability isn't. So, cost is what people consider, even if they do it wrong.
Such is what you face IF you advocate that everyone reform his energy habits.
Now, here's a lesson in language and logic. That statement doesn't imply that you DO advocate such, it only states what I think the result would be if you did. Capisch?
and the Chevy Volt will get INFINITE for the distance travelled on electricity and about 50 MPG thereafter. The low-hanging fruit is all on the consumption side.
Lutz also confirmed that GM is still aiming to have the range-extended electric vehicle ready for sale by November 2010 and hopes to offer it for less than $40,000.
...it is expected to get 40 miles of range from an overnight plug-in charge, followed by more than 400 miles using a gasoline generator to charge the battery.
Ok, so starting off at $40k. $15k more than my '05, new off the lot.
Or $25k over a number of 30 +mpg cars of similar style.
In order for that Volt to "pay off", I've got to save 3750 gallons of gas.
Given my current consumption rates, that would occur in... 8 years. Presuming gas stays at $4, which I don't expect. (Of course, if it goes up, then that delta would happen sooner.) And if the price drops, then it would take longer. But those cheaper cars that get 30+?
And that's presuming that Chevy can deliver them at $40k. And that's not even counting the vast number of slightly used sub-$10k cars that would be the alternative.
I've got a co-worker who drives a car he bought for $500 6 years ago. He has to fix it from time to time, it's a tiny Nissan, when the Sentra was a very small car. He has no plans to replace it with a $25k car, much less a $40k car to save $3000 in gas.
Great Britain is heading for a state of energy emergency: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4188.
DJ, what vehicle costs $40,000 and gets 40 MPG? If you replaced the Sequoia with a Jetta TDI, you'd pay about $25000 to get 50 MPG. Fuel savings even with your little driving, 178 gallons/year; at $5/gallon (which we'll be seeing soon) this saves roughly $900/year, and we may be seeing price spikes much higher.
As a guess, I could have paid about $20,000 in 2004 to get a vehicle which achieved 27 MPG highway. Instead, I got one which averages upwards of 38 MPG highway (as high as 44.6 on a tank so far). The difference over 96,000 miles so far is over 1000 gallons, somewhat over $2000 at previous prices but probably more than $5000 over the next 5 years. I'll reach financial breakeven soon (and keep going), but you know what? I hit "anti-Wahhabi breakeven" the day I drove off the lot.
BTW, my "econobox" hauled 900 pounds of trailer and another 1850 pounds of cargo and passengers up and down the Appalachians via I-77, at 65 MPH, in 5th gear. It averaged 28.6 MPG hauling that load between Bluefield VA and Perrysburg OH. If you're driving something that can't beat that mileage figure on level ground with a naked midget at the wheel, what gives you bragging rights?
Ignoring all the snide remarks and straw-man arguments for the moment (I'm out of time again), I have some reading for you:
Snide? Straw men? Where?
DJ, what vehicle costs $40,000 and gets 40 MPG?
The.. Chevy Volt, you know, the one you were touting?
$40k. And 40 MPG after you run the initial plug in charge out. Supposedly.
If you replaced the Sequoia with a Jetta TDI, you'd pay about $25000 to get 50 MPG. Fuel savings even with your little driving, 178 gallons/year; at $5/gallon (which we'll be seeing soon) this saves roughly $900/year, and we may be seeing price spikes much higher.
25000/900 = 27 years for the "savings" to pay off the purchase price.
Figure that gas will double - that's 14 years. Figure that even with that, there are other savings and incidentals and the other costs are lower - and at the very bare end of the SWAG, you're talking about "making up" the difference in 10 years.
If you're driving something that can't beat that mileage figure on level ground with a naked midget at the wheel, what gives you bragging rights?
To? How about that on a usual Saturday, I'd need to have 2 of them to haul a typical load for me?
I'm not, by the way, trying to insult your choice - Jettas are nice cars. I tried to like one I drove during a rental, but I hated most everything about it. Just how things work. But what I'm pointing out is that your math is extremely factually challenged at it's base, or at best making wild assumptions that would require magic. (Or a large application of "Do it again, HARDER")
But no matter how much you hate the dismal science, economics will always, always make you its bitch if you try and ignore her - as most big government programs do.
And in this case, spending 10 or 27 or 44 years of equivalence is hardly the economical or smart thing to do, and calls into question the rest of your conclusions.
By the way, what did you do with your previous vehicle in '04? I presume it's probably still on the road?
"Ignoring all the snide remarks and straw-man arguments for the moment (I'm out of time again), I have some reading for you:"
Snide? Straw man?
Um, credibility?
"DJ, what vehicle costs $40,000 and gets 40 MPG?"
The Chevy Volt, the one you were touting. I used a lower MPG figure than Chevy touts because their claims of economy, given that it is only a concept car at this point, are likely hyped, and when they talk of gubmint subsidized pricing, the hair on the back of my neck goes up. I'm an engineer who has learned to be highly skeptical of the claims of automobile companies.
In general, the purpose of my simple analysis was to show how to do such an analysis and to provide an example. I chose one that was in the neighborhood of what you were touting. Missed that, did you?
"If you replaced the Sequoia with a Jetta TDI, you'd pay about $25000 to get 50 MPG. Fuel savings even with your little driving, 178 gallons/year; at $5/gallon (which we'll be seeing soon) this saves roughly $900/year, and we may be seeing price spikes much higher."
It appears you didn't learn from my example. You're looking only at MPG. Making such a change isn't free; the vehicle must be paid for, and paying for it must be included in the analysis.
Now, let's try again, shall we?
If your purchase price figure is correct, then I'd be out-of-pocket $10,000 to buy it outright. Using your figures and my computation, my break-even point is 76,220 miles, or 15.24 years at 5,000 miles per year. The point is that I would spend more per year until then, on average, after which I would finally realize a net benefit per year.
Keep in mind that my analysis is quite simple and only first-order, and a more thorough analysis shows the tradeoff to be not just worse, but MUCH worse. Consider two scenarios: 1) I could pay the $10,000 outright and up front; or, 2) I could pay it over time with a payment each month. With #2, I would pay more than $10,000 because of the added interest. But, with each, I would forego whatever that $10,000 would earn, not just over the 15 years of the payout period, but whatever it would earn until I would withdraw it from my investments to live on at a much later date.
Don't scoff at such considerations. Been there, done that.
The cost you pay for something you don't need includes whatever the money you would pay could earn, because earning instead of buying is a real alternative for something you don't need. Don't think so? Imagine $10,000 doubling every six to eight years or so, as my investments do, and add it up. Wait until you retire and wish you'd saved more, then tell me I'm wrong.
I recall a story my mother used to tell from way back in the stone age about a relative who used to drive a sixty mile round trip to a grocery store in a neighboring town that sold coffee for three cents a pound less than the local store. They went there once every two weeks only for a three pound can of coffee, thus "saving" nine cents each time. They could not be convinced that they spent 33 cents on three gallons of gas in the process, thus spending 24 cents more for the coffee than they needed to.
If you can't express it in numbers that you can support, then it isn't science and it isn't engineering, it's just opinion. Opinions are like assholes; everybody has one, but they seldom withstand close scrutiny.
"If you're driving something that can't beat that mileage figure on level ground with a naked midget at the wheel, what gives you bragging rights?"
I don't claim "bragging rights", and I ain't "bragging". I claim "analysis" of my situation using aspects of it that you ignore.
And you write of straw men ...
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/06/just-wave-your-hands.html (23 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
this simply posted comment covers many arguments
cudos
Thank you. There were so many parts of that post that were so ignorant, from supply and demand, to extracting hydrogen. I was going to post, but then I figured he wouldn't approve my message. Glad you responded though.
You can get an idea of the energy balance of energy out to energy in to extract hydrogen from water from Kenneth Deffeys. In one of his books he says the optimal process for extraction through electrolysis uses a voltage of 1.7 volts and the fuel cell produces .7 volts.
I can't believe these people who think that fuel cell cars produce no pollution, the cars don't but the production of hydrogen sure does whether that production is from electrolysis or the breaking of bonds in natural gas.
I saw Senator Bill Nelson of Florida saying that we shouldn't drill off the coasts or in Anwar because we had all of these alternative energy sources right around the corner and pure hydrogen cars were here. The example he gave was just the day before Honda had introduced a "mass produced", his words, fuel cell car. Well his concept of mass produced is certainly different than mine. The papers said that Honda would bring in something like 200 over the next two or three years. It was not clear to me if Honda would sell them or only lease them, I kind of think the latter.
The first was leased to the actress Jamie Lee Curtis. Is this a comment on the financial resources needed to lease or buy one of these fuel cell cars?
"While the supply of oil is finite, the demand for oil is ever expanding."
The supply of oil under the ground is finite, meaning mother nature is likely not producing any more. But the supply at the gas pump can be increased by extracting oil from the ground at a greater rate. He exhibits a fundamental lack of understanding of supply vs demand, and commits the beginning physics student's common error of mistaking energy with power.
Current world-wide consumption of oil (i.e. "demand") is about 87 million barrels per day. Current world-wide production of oil (i.e. "supply") is about 84 million barrels per day. Thus the "rate of use" (demand) exceeds the "rate of production" (supply) by about 3.5%. Those who must have supply bid and willingly pay higher prices to insure they get it, and so prices rise.
This is a dynamic condition. Supply can be made to exceed demand, resulting in lower prices, by: 1) reducing the rate of usage, (i.e. reducing demand); or, 2) increasing the rate of production (i.e. increasing supply); or, 3) doing both at the same time.
Oil prices are determined (in the near term) by the rate of production from the ground and the rate of usage. The amount left in the ground and the rate of production from the ground determine when it will all be gone, and most assuredly will have an effect on prices when that time comes near. But that time is not near, indeed it is many decades away.
So, lowering prices is easy. Just pump oil from the ground at a higher rate, which means from more places at once. No, that will not solve the price problem forever, and it will hasten the day when the oil runs out. But we face the oil running out in any case, and we need not pay such high prices, nor should we have to send so much money to foreign countries, while we work to find alternate sources.
No, I didn't post this comment there. I have no Google account, and don't otherwise have a need for one.
[...] Oil, hydrogen and wishful thinking [...] Kevin does the work so I don't have to! Well stated, Kevin.
Quoth DJ:
You're assuming that this has not already been done. The Cantarell field in the Gulf of Mexico was lagging until it was put under nitrogen injection; production surged, but now it's crashing at 20% or so per year. The North Sea was produced at very high rates to pay the expense of the sea platforms; it peaked in 1999. And the massive Ghawar field in Saudi Arabia has been under water injection for a very long time.
There are 8 oil fields in the world which produce 1 million barrels/day or more. The question is whether 7 of them are past their peak production, or all 8 (the only one not acknowledged to be declining... yet... is Ghawar). Smaller oil fields have less oil and generally less favorable reservoir characteristics (permeability, ultimate recoverability), so the "elephant" fields determine the shape of the world production curve. That curve is now on a bumpy plateau, at best.
Why do you think the price effect will take so long? The short-term elasticity of oil consumption is very low, so we would expect any shortage (even relative to immediate expectations) to have a very large effect on prices. If the oil supply stops rising, prices will increase to the point where people stop buying thirstier cars, adopting longer commutes, and all the other trends we've been seeing for the past 25 years. That is what "supply and demand" means.
If it's so easy, why don't you do it?
All you have to do is look at history to see it isn't easy. In fact, it's impossible. After the 70's oil price shocks, the USA went on a drilling spree. Total producing wells went from 497,000 in 1973 to 647,000 in 1985, while US oil production sank from 9.2 million barrels/day to 9.0 (and that includes Alaska; lower 48 production declined to 7.2 million bbl/day in 1985).
So, the Richmond Democrat got fewer things wrong than Kevin (mostly, RD bought into the hydrogen propaganda being pushed by our government... why the US goverment is doing this is a subject for another day). The course RD would steer is much closer to what we need than Kevin's. If we really mean "Wahhabism Delenda Est", we have to quit financing the Wahhabis. This means:
- Eliminating our use of their product, and
- Prompting the rest of the world to do the same, by promoting both purchases and production of non-oil technologies.
Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing and expecting a different result. The USA radically increased its oil-production efforts past its 1970 peak, and could not arrest the decline. Now Kevin wants to do it again, only harder... and I shouldn't have to point out how ironic this is.
Me: The supply of oil under the ground is finite, meaning mother nature is likely not producing any more. But the supply at the gas pump can be increased by extracting oil from the ground at a greater rate.
Engineer-Poet: You're assuming that this has not already been done.
No, I am assuming that it can be done some more. World oil production has ramped up almost monotonically for about a century and a half. Why the hell would I assume that it hasn't been increased before? Really, dude, ...
You are cherry-picking when you write of fields whose production has peaked. Try considering areas that have not yet produced at all, areas where Congress won't let anyone drill now, such as off our west coast, off our east coast, off the west coast of Florida, off the south coast of Alaska, and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Me: The amount left in the ground and the rate of production from the ground determine when it will all be gone, and most assuredly will have an effect on prices when that time comes near.
Engineer-Poet: Why do you think the price effect will take so long?
Why do you jump to the conclusion that I think it will take so long? I neither stated nor implied any such thing. My statement was simply that the oil running out will most assuredly affect its price when that happens. This statement is true. The unstated cliché that is implied is, "You think prices are high now, just wait until the oil is nearly gone."
Words matter, dude. I suggest you not read words that aren't there. (Now, where have I heard that before?)
Engineer-Poet: The short-term elasticity of oil consumption is very low, so we would expect any shortage (even relative to immediate expectations) to have a very large effect on prices.
Yup. As I stated, "Oil prices are determined (in the near term) by the rate of production from the ground and the rate of usage." When supply exceeds demand, then sellers compete with each other for sales and prices fall. When demand exceeds supply, then buyers compete with each other for purchases and prices rise. That is what the law of supply and demand predicts. We are seeing it happen with oil.
Me: So, lowering prices is easy. Just pump oil from the ground at a higher rate, which means from more places at once.
Engineer-Poet: If it's so easy, why don't you do it?"
Because I am not in the oil production business. Why do you ask such a childish question?
Engineer-Poet: All you have to do is look at history to see it isn't easy. In fact, it's impossible." (emphasis added)
So, you would have us believe that it's impossible (your words) to produce oil at a faster rate than it's being produced now? Are you aware that the Saudis have agreed to do so? I love this quote from that article: "... Saudi Arabia said Sunday it will produce more crude this year if the market needs it." Their willingness to do so implies their ability to do so, does it not? Now, what do they know that you don't?
"This means:
- Eliminating our use of their [the Wahhabis'] product, and
- Prompting the rest of the world to do the same, by promoting both purchases and production of non-oil technologies.
"Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing and expecting a different result. The USA radically increased its oil-production efforts past its 1970 peak, and could not arrest the decline. Now Kevin wants to do it again, only harder..."
Kevin is keenly aware of human nature, especially of the extreme depths of human stupidity. He is also an engineer who is keenly aware that reality is a bitch about whom most people have little understanding. He is also aware that this country does not produce oil at a rate that can sustain our use, and that if it could and we used it exclusively, our proven reserves would be exhausted in about four years. And, finally, he is aware of how difficult it is for this country to convince any other country to do anything. Thus, he is keenly aware that we cannot simply stop buying foreign oil.
So, he states:
"Face it: The only technology that's going to help any time soon is nuclear power. (More mining.) It can help ease the transition away from oil - but in the near term we need more OIL, and we'd better start drilling SOON."
Advocating that Congress do something right, now that does border on insanity. It seldom ever works. But what Kevin advocates is dead right, namely increasing the pace of the transition away from oil, and producing oil at a higher rate to lessen the rate of flow of dollars to the Middle East during the transition. And you would have us believe this is insanity?
Oops. Pardon the big white blank in that last comment. I hit "OK" when I meant "Preview". I blame a loose nut on the keyboard again.
Worthless fucking HaloCrap says "Your comment contains too many links and will not be added", so most of the references have been shoved to footnotes and de-linkified.
You've changed the subject. Congress can't do squat about oil production in Uzbekistan, it can only change the permissions and incentives for the USA. Only US oil extraction counts for the US economic and strategic situation. We've drilled the USA like mad, and we're pumping about 5.1 million bbl/day[1] compared to 9.2 million in 1970.And every part of the world which has produced oil long enough has had that production peak and decline due to geological factors. Sooner or later this must happen to the world as a whole. What proof do you have that this is not happening now? If you have it, spit it out; lots of people would love to have it, including me.
Implying that it wouldn't change things much until then.
I think you're dead wrong about that, BTW. The price of oil will eventually decrease as it is replaced in most or all of its various uses. There are efforts going on to replace oil as a motor fuel ($1/gallon quoted cost of conversion for various biofuels) and as a chemical feedstock. I don't expect to live to see this myself.
I would have you believe that it's impossible to make more than small increases at this point; as I said elsewhere, no amount of drilling or enhanced oil recovery will long offset the inexorable depletion of this half-billion-year-old accident of nature.
The USA now imports over 13 million bbl/day of oil [2]. The peak production from ANWR would be on the order of 780,000 bbl/day; the peak production from the Bakken shale, perhaps 200,000. We could go on a program of putting carbon capture on coal-fired powerplants and injecting supercritical CO2 into all our old oilfields from Pennsylvania on, but that still won't get us anything close to 13 million barrels/day. If we are going to make a significant dent in imports, it is not going to occur by increasing domestic oil supplies. The big fronts in this battle are efficiency and conversion, not production.
Even that's incomplete as written. Nuclear replaces other sources of electricity, not energy in general. Only about 1.5% of US electric generation comes from oil [3] (and a fair amount of that is probably in peaking plants and places like Hawaii). Nuclear cannot replace oil without electric vehicles (EV, PHEV).
I've ridden with Kevin in his truck. As of two years ago, he wanted something with a BIGGER engine (I haven't seen him express a preference lately). He hasn't grasped that we need to use less. The US light vehicle fleet averages about 25 MPG; if you could wave a magic wand and replace it with Europe's 35-MPG fleet, we'd cut gasoline consumption from about 9.1 million bbl/day to 6.5 million. That's a savings of 2.6 million bbl/day, or more than 3 ANWRs. We could do considerably better than that; the Prius gets 50 MPG, and the Chevy Volt will get INFINITE for the distance travelled on electricity and about 50 MPG thereafter. The low-hanging fruit is all on the consumption side.
He radically overestimates what we can do on the production side, which is why he gets the prescription wrong. I'm all for doing what we can to pump more, but we have to recognize up front that we can do but little and drastic changes on the consumption side are now critical, and will soon be a matter of survival.
[1] http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0502.html
[2] http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0501.html
[3] http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0802a.html
I've ridden with Kevin in his truck. As of two years ago, he wanted something with a BIGGER engine (I haven't seen him express a preference lately).
And I did! I now own an '06 Toyota Tundra with the 4.7L V8. Right now I get about 16MPG/19 HWY.
WRT domestic production, see the post currently at the top of the page.
And hey, I'm all for electric vehicles if we get to charge them up from Nuke plants. But, again, I'm expecting the Greenies to have a serious ass-ache over the mining required to get the resources and the plants required to refine those resource so we can make super-efficient batteries and ultra-capacitors so that those all-electric vehicles actually are affordable.
How're you enjoying $5/gallon diesel in your VW, BTW?
Diesel? The truck stop on the corner is down 4¢ to $4.659, and my SHO Taurus would never have averaged the 34 MPG I get in commuting, let alone the 49 MPG I got on the freeway last Monday night. So yeah, it's still working out for me just fine.
Worse comes to worst, I can do a greasel conversion and fill up for $2.00/gallon or so, if I have to pay for it at all.
And which post would that be? It's not clear from where I sit.
Before I must go, I have to put a couple questions to you:
1. What is your per-mile cost compared to before?
2. How much money are you sending to the Wahhabists, compared to before?
A recent Reuters article mentions that one percent in crude demand creates a 20% change in crude price to balance the market. This means that a change of about 850,000 barrels/day—less than 10% of US gasoline consumption—could raise or lower the world price of crude by 20%.
20% of $135 is $27. $27/bbl times 6 million bbl/day is $208 million/day, $1.45 billion/week. Can you deliberately add anything to your petroleum consumption and still say "Wahhabism Delenda Est"?
I've ridden with Kevin in his truck. As of two years ago, he wanted something with a BIGGER engine
<Tim Allen> Raaahh raaaah raaaaah </Tim Allen>
I recently moved to a bigger engine. Actually gets better gas milage. ('89 Nissan 3.0L - best I saw was 21 MPG Hwy. Now I'm in an 05 Xterra, 4.0L, 100 more horsepower, and I've seen it get 22 MPG HWY.)
<Tim Allen> Raaahh raaaah raaaaah </Tim Allen>
He hasn't grasped that we need to use less.
I don't know if he's not grasped that, or you're insisting upon it despite all evidence that it's damned unlikely to happen.
The US light vehicle fleet averages about 25 MPG; if you could wave a magic wand and replace it with Europe's 35-MPG fleet,
And it would take a magic wand, that's for damn sure. But we're not dealing in magic.
Even if we *could* start to push toward 35 MPG across the board - as new car purchases are! You're talking a very slow process.
Plus, gasoline consumption is 1 metric. But there are many others, as well.
we'd cut gasoline consumption from about 9.1 million bbl/day to 6.5 million.
If we had magic.
That's a savings of 2.6 million bbl/day, or more than 3 ANWRs.
So, if the choice is magic, or drilling, I guess we'd better start drilling!
We could do considerably better than that; the Prius gets 50 MPG,
That's a misleading average. 60/40. I got to test drive the prototype years ago. It was an Echo with all the hybrid drive stuff in it. The Echo, which got 45 mpg Hwy was $12k. The Prius they were estimating was going to debut at $25k.
At $1.50, $13k buys *a lot* of gas. Even at $4, that's 3250 gallons. How much gas do you use annually? I'm using about 30 gallons a month, right now. Mostly "city" driving, a hybrid would be perfect for.
And I'd not pay back the Hybrid premium in 5 years. Nor be able to carry the loads and supplies that I do on a near-weekly basis.
Guy I work with has a hybrid Civic. He drives 66 miles each day. Almost all highway. So his hybrid gets him at wee savings over a standard Civic. And he paid over $10k for the privilege.
and the Chevy Volt will get INFINITE for the distance travelled on electricity and about 50 MPG thereafter.
Except we don't have the electrical infrastructure to all plug in Chevy Volts. And as for performance particulars, I'm going to wait and see until you know, they actually SHIP.
Sorry, too many years of dealing with Microsoft Software.
The low-hanging fruit is all on the consumption side.
If all you do is count gasoline. But there are other costs associated with it, as well. Purchase price. Maintenance price (the co-worker with the civic? Had the batteries go bad 2 months ago. $8000 charge (that Honda covered under warranty, but that doesn't mean it was "free".))
Convenience price. This is the single biggest issue with petroleum - it's the best, most convenient energy storage medium we've ever discovered.
You're right, if we COULD magically ignore all the other costs and problems and *poof* magically change everything out, we'd be great.
But if you get that magic wand, how about instead, wishing for magic engine that runs on water?
My switch was from a 4.0L Ford Ranger to a 4.7L Toyota Tundra. 700CC and 100+ more horsepower, a larger bed and payload, and I "lost" about 1 mpg.
However, my weekly commute to/from work has dropped from 180 miles/week to 18 miles/week. I have, in fact, ridden a bicycle to work... twice.
I can't take a load of yard waste to the dump in the back of a Prius. I wouldn't take a Prius out into the desert to find a place to shoot, either.
As Unix-Jedi illustrates, we're not going to magically reduce our consumption of energy. Hell, I want to get my 1967 big-block Mustang back into running condition - 8MPG on Premium fuel.
I want Shell Oil and whoever extracting oil from the Green River Basin. I want ANWR drilled. I want offshore drilling run by AMERICANS rather than the Chinese. I want AZ Clean Fuels to break ground on their 2-3 BILLION $ refinery outside of Yuma, AZ.
I want to see biofuels from blue-green algae, ethanol from waste biomass, nuclear power plants running at 100% load 24/7/365 using the off-peak periods to crack water into hydrogen for fuel cells and plain combustion; crystalline, amorphous silicon and inkjet-printed solar cells on every horizontal surface.
But all that takes time, money, and incentive. We now have the incentive - $130/bbl crude oil and the realization that the price is going to stay high and go higher. Now we need the time and the money.
I could put solar cells on the roof of my home. Along with the batteries, charger, inverter, and installation labor, it would cost more than the original purchase price of the home. Payback would be a while. And my mortgage would be... stiff. Plus, about every ten years I'd need to replace the batteries (not to mention the maintenance involved.)
Some options seem so... simple.
But they more likely resemble magic.
I want to see biofuels from blue-green algae, ethanol from waste biomass, nuclear power plants running at 100% load 24/7/365 using the off-peak periods to crack water into hydrogen for fuel cells and plain combustion; crystalline, amorphous silicon and inkjet-printed solar cells on every horizontal surface.
Oh, yeah, don't take what I was saying as that I don't want to see innovation, improvement, and inspiration.
I just don't want to rely upon it as the only plan we've got, and to think magically.
Right now, I've got the government threatening to tax the oil companies (who after years of going under are finally making a profit), while taxing petrol at 8x the rate of the "rapacious profit". The most palatable Democrat running says that oil companies aren't "bringing enough to the communities" (Uh, you mean, besides CHEAP AND CLEAN OIL PRODUCTS?)
They're taxing me to subsidize ethanol production by ADM. Tarriffing imports from Brazil, and essentially forbidding importation of sugar crops or ethanol from Brazil.
Mandating ethanol at $3.50/gallon, (not counting subsidy) inclusion into gasoline, reducing milage and increasing total fuel burn. Preventing gasoline shipment via pipelines, requiring trucks to haul each load, and increasing the volatility and decreasing the usefulness of the gasoline.
That's just to start with.
For some strange reason, I don't get a good feeling that the bright, shining lights who came up with the current taxation and demonization of working people are likely to
1) decrease price
2) increase supply
3) give up control
Part 1, due to HaloScan limits:
"You've changed the subject."
I set the subject by posting a comment that you responded to at length and in detail. The single sentence that you claim is an attempt to change the subject was in direct response to an erroneous statement that you made. It is the subject, and was dead on point.
I am not entirely dim, dude. Kindly don't treat me as if I were.
"Congress can't do squat about oil production in Uzbekistan, it can only change the permissions and incentives for the USA. Only US oil extraction counts for the US economic and strategic situation."
Horseshit.
The US uses about 25% of all the oil that the world produces each year, and over half of what the US uses is imported. Do you honestly think that the rate of production of foreign oil does not affect supply and demand in this country?
Here's a hint. Credibility cannot be postulated and should not be assumed. It must be earned. You're trying hard not to earn it.
"And every part of the world which has produced oil long enough has had that production peak and decline due to geological factors. Sooner or later this must happen to the world as a whole. What proof do you have that this is not happening now? If you have it, spit it out; lots of people would love to have it, including me."
Indeed, lots and lots of fields over the whole world have peaked and are in decline. But, other fields haven't yet been touched, fields which would be expected to produce well once tapped. So, once again, I'll repeat myself:
"Try considering areas that have not yet produced at all, areas where Congress won't let anyone drill now, such as off our west coast, off our east coast, off the west coast of Florida, off the south coast of Alaska, and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge."
Well, go ahead, try considering them.
Remember back to the Gulf War, when Hussein's army blew up the Kuwaiti wellheads? Remember the huge, gushing fires? Most of the wells in Saudi Arabia and damned nearly all the wells in Kuwait are artesian, meaning the difficulty is keeping the oil in the ground and letting it out in a controlled manner. Some of these wells each produce 25,000 barrels per day. In such a field, the production rate can be increased quite easily, simply by sinking more holes. All it requires is infrastructure and the local geology cooperates nicely. It hasn't been done because the current infrastructure, until fairly recently, handled their desired production rates quite well.
Me: My statement was simply that the oil running out will most assuredly affect its price when that happens.
Engineer-Poet: Implying that it wouldn't change things much until then.
NO, IT DOESN'T.
You exhibit a considerable lack of understanding of simple logic and simple language. My statement is that the oil running out "most certainly" will affect its price "when that happens." Words have meaning, dude. My statement implies NOTHING about when the prospect of oil running out will begin to affect its price. My statement is ONLY that it will CERTAINLY effect the price of oil when it happens.
Once again, you read words that aren't there. Once again, consider that credibility must be earned. You can do better than this.
"I would have you believe that it's impossible to make more than small increases at this point; as I said elsewhere, no amount of drilling or enhanced oil recovery will long offset the inexorable depletion of this half-billion-year-old accident of nature."
So, you admit that your statement that it is impossible to increase the rate of production is wrong. You simply quibble over how much it might be increased. Of course it will eventually run out, as I, too, have stated; it's a finite resource.
"Nuclear cannot replace oil without electric vehicles (EV, PHEV)."
Yup. It can do a dandy job of charging batteries and cracking H2O into H and O. Kevin agrees; read his comments.
"I'm all for doing what we can to pump more, ..."
Golly. You mean more can be pumped? But, but, oh, horseshit. Never mind.
Part 2, due to HaloScan limits:
"... but we have to recognize up front that we can do but little and drastic changes on the consumption side are now critical, and will soon be a matter of survival."
What YOU need to understand is that such changes will not happen quickly, no matter what any and all gubmints order or don't order. The overall changes that will come to pass will occur as each individual makes his own choices from his own parochial point of view. We all got into this mess by the population increasing and by everyone incrementally choosing a more and more energy-draining lifestyle. Compound growth is overwhelming, given time. So, change will occur quickly only if it occurs catastrophically; otherwise, it will take generations.
I'll give you a simple example by illustrating my parochial point of view.
My wife and I drive two vehicles, a 2000 Toyota Tundra Access Cab and a 2001 Toyota Sequoia. Both are 4.7L V8 with 4WD. We bought them brand new before retiring and moving to the mountains of northern New Mexico. Vehicles of their type were a necessity then and there, as we needed the ground clearance and 4WD for the snow, V8 engines for the alititude (8,700 feet) and, as a safety factor for my wife, the ABS, traction control, and anti-skid control of the Sequoia (which weren't yet offered on the Tundra) for the roads. During many months of the three years we lived there, we routinely needed 4WD just to get out of our driveway, and we lived in town where the roads were routinely cleared of snow.
Now, we live in the Oklahoma City area. Do we need these particular vehicles? Could we swap? Let's consider, shall we?
I will always have a truck because I use it as a truck quite often. Only today, I brought home a large load of fertlizer and compost for the yard and vegetable garden. I build stuff, which means I haul stuff. Also, my primary recreation is hunting, which I do in three states. Try hauling a dead elk, a dead hog, a dead deer, or a load of compost in the trunk of a Prius.
The Sequoia is usually overkill. A Corolla or a Camry (both of which we have owned before) would do us just fine.
Now, consider swapping them for something more fuel-efficient. We drive the Tundra about 12,000 miles per year and the Sequoia about 5,000, both at about 18 - 18.5 mpg. Both are paid for. I do not buy used vehicles, and the whole idea would be to buy new, very fuel-efficient replacements. I've crunched the tradeoff thoroughly, considering ALL the costs involved. There is no adequate replacement for the Tundra that makes any sense. The break-even time for replacing a Sequoia even with a Corolla, given our usage of it, is about thirteen years. For a Prius, well, I won't live that long.
So, we're keepin' 'em. It doesn't make economic sense not to. They are paid for, they are magnificent vehicles (in my unhumble engineering opinion), and they are astoundingly reliable and easy to maintain.
Now, consider the typical idiot who saddles himself with a huge new car payment on the grounds that the new vehicle gets 24 miles per gallon and the old one gets only 18. There is no break-even date, as the net cost per mile to drive them is higher, but they cannot or will not understand that. I've tried, as I have friends and relatives who've made such a decision, and they won't look at anything other than the higher MPG ratings.
Now, is cost in cents per mile the only factor that ought to be considered? No, not if availability of fuel becomes a prime consideration. Right now, its cost is, but its availability isn't. So, cost is what people consider, even if they do it wrong.
Such is what you face IF you advocate that everyone reform his energy habits.
Now, here's a lesson in language and logic. That statement doesn't imply that you DO advocate such, it only states what I think the result would be if you did. Capisch?
and the Chevy Volt will get INFINITE for the distance travelled on electricity and about 50 MPG thereafter. The low-hanging fruit is all on the consumption side.
And back on that front:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080620/BUSINESS01/806200400/1014/BUSINESS01
Ok, so starting off at $40k. $15k more than my '05, new off the lot.
Or $25k over a number of 30 +mpg cars of similar style.
In order for that Volt to "pay off", I've got to save 3750 gallons of gas.
Given my current consumption rates, that would occur in... 8 years. Presuming gas stays at $4, which I don't expect. (Of course, if it goes up, then that delta would happen sooner.) And if the price drops, then it would take longer. But those cheaper cars that get 30+?
And that's presuming that Chevy can deliver them at $40k. And that's not even counting the vast number of slightly used sub-$10k cars that would be the alternative.
I've got a co-worker who drives a car he bought for $500 6 years ago. He has to fix it from time to time, it's a tiny Nissan, when the Sentra was a very small car. He has no plans to replace it with a $25k car, much less a $40k car to save $3000 in gas.
Unix, let's expand on that for my case as an example.
According to
(X m) * ($3.69 / gal) / (18 m / gal) = $25,000 + (X m) * ($3.69 / gal) / (40 m / gal)
Solving yields X = 221,729 miles. We drive it 5,000 miles per year, so the payoff is in 44 years.
Golly. Where do I sign?
Ignoring all the snide remarks and straw-man arguments for the moment (I'm out of time again), I have some reading for you:
Norway, one of the world's major oil exporters, notes that Saudi Arabia is lying about its oil reserves and cannot readily increase production (Google translation). BTW, the anodyne conclusions are questionable; Canada won't be able to maintain oil sands production as it runs out of natural gas to extract and upgrade it.
Robert Hirsch on Peak Oil (on CNBC via YouTube).
Great Britain is heading for a state of energy emergency: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4188.
DJ, what vehicle costs $40,000 and gets 40 MPG? If you replaced the Sequoia with a Jetta TDI, you'd pay about $25000 to get 50 MPG. Fuel savings even with your little driving, 178 gallons/year; at $5/gallon (which we'll be seeing soon) this saves roughly $900/year, and we may be seeing price spikes much higher.
As a guess, I could have paid about $20,000 in 2004 to get a vehicle which achieved 27 MPG highway. Instead, I got one which averages upwards of 38 MPG highway (as high as 44.6 on a tank so far). The difference over 96,000 miles so far is over 1000 gallons, somewhat over $2000 at previous prices but probably more than $5000 over the next 5 years. I'll reach financial breakeven soon (and keep going), but you know what? I hit "anti-Wahhabi breakeven" the day I drove off the lot.
BTW, my "econobox" hauled 900 pounds of trailer and another 1850 pounds of cargo and passengers up and down the Appalachians via I-77, at 65 MPH, in 5th gear. It averaged 28.6 MPG hauling that load between Bluefield VA and Perrysburg OH. If you're driving something that can't beat that mileage figure on level ground with a naked midget at the wheel, what gives you bragging rights?
Ignoring all the snide remarks and straw-man arguments for the moment (I'm out of time again), I have some reading for you:
Snide? Straw men? Where?
DJ, what vehicle costs $40,000 and gets 40 MPG?
The.. Chevy Volt, you know, the one you were touting?
$40k. And 40 MPG after you run the initial plug in charge out. Supposedly.
If you replaced the Sequoia with a Jetta TDI, you'd pay about $25000 to get 50 MPG. Fuel savings even with your little driving, 178 gallons/year; at $5/gallon (which we'll be seeing soon) this saves roughly $900/year, and we may be seeing price spikes much higher.
25000/900 = 27 years for the "savings" to pay off the purchase price.
Figure that gas will double - that's 14 years. Figure that even with that, there are other savings and incidentals and the other costs are lower - and at the very bare end of the SWAG, you're talking about "making up" the difference in 10 years.
If you're driving something that can't beat that mileage figure on level ground with a naked midget at the wheel, what gives you bragging rights?
To? How about that on a usual Saturday, I'd need to have 2 of them to haul a typical load for me?
I'm not, by the way, trying to insult your choice - Jettas are nice cars. I tried to like one I drove during a rental, but I hated most everything about it. Just how things work. But what I'm pointing out is that your math is extremely factually challenged at it's base, or at best making wild assumptions that would require magic. (Or a large application of "Do it again, HARDER")
But no matter how much you hate the dismal science, economics will always, always make you its bitch if you try and ignore her - as most big government programs do.
And in this case, spending 10 or 27 or 44 years of equivalence is hardly the economical or smart thing to do, and calls into question the rest of your conclusions.
By the way, what did you do with your previous vehicle in '04? I presume it's probably still on the road?
"Ignoring all the snide remarks and straw-man arguments for the moment (I'm out of time again), I have some reading for you:"
Snide? Straw man?
Um, credibility?
"DJ, what vehicle costs $40,000 and gets 40 MPG?"
The Chevy Volt, the one you were touting. I used a lower MPG figure than Chevy touts because their claims of economy, given that it is only a concept car at this point, are likely hyped, and when they talk of gubmint subsidized pricing, the hair on the back of my neck goes up. I'm an engineer who has learned to be highly skeptical of the claims of automobile companies.
In general, the purpose of my simple analysis was to show how to do such an analysis and to provide an example. I chose one that was in the neighborhood of what you were touting. Missed that, did you?
"If you replaced the Sequoia with a Jetta TDI, you'd pay about $25000 to get 50 MPG. Fuel savings even with your little driving, 178 gallons/year; at $5/gallon (which we'll be seeing soon) this saves roughly $900/year, and we may be seeing price spikes much higher."
It appears you didn't learn from my example. You're looking only at MPG. Making such a change isn't free; the vehicle must be paid for, and paying for it must be included in the analysis.
Now, let's try again, shall we?
If your purchase price figure is correct, then I'd be out-of-pocket $10,000 to buy it outright. Using your figures and my computation, my break-even point is 76,220 miles, or 15.24 years at 5,000 miles per year. The point is that I would spend more per year until then, on average, after which I would finally realize a net benefit per year.
Keep in mind that my analysis is quite simple and only first-order, and a more thorough analysis shows the tradeoff to be not just worse, but MUCH worse. Consider two scenarios: 1) I could pay the $10,000 outright and up front; or, 2) I could pay it over time with a payment each month. With #2, I would pay more than $10,000 because of the added interest. But, with each, I would forego whatever that $10,000 would earn, not just over the 15 years of the payout period, but whatever it would earn until I would withdraw it from my investments to live on at a much later date.
Don't scoff at such considerations. Been there, done that.
The cost you pay for something you don't need includes whatever the money you would pay could earn, because earning instead of buying is a real alternative for something you don't need. Don't think so? Imagine $10,000 doubling every six to eight years or so, as my investments do, and add it up. Wait until you retire and wish you'd saved more, then tell me I'm wrong.
I recall a story my mother used to tell from way back in the stone age about a relative who used to drive a sixty mile round trip to a grocery store in a neighboring town that sold coffee for three cents a pound less than the local store. They went there once every two weeks only for a three pound can of coffee, thus "saving" nine cents each time. They could not be convinced that they spent 33 cents on three gallons of gas in the process, thus spending 24 cents more for the coffee than they needed to.
If you can't express it in numbers that you can support, then it isn't science and it isn't engineering, it's just opinion. Opinions are like assholes; everybody has one, but they seldom withstand close scrutiny.
"If you're driving something that can't beat that mileage figure on level ground with a naked midget at the wheel, what gives you bragging rights?"
I don't claim "bragging rights", and I ain't "bragging". I claim "analysis" of my situation using aspects of it that you ignore.
And you write of straw men ...
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>