August 21, 2008Thank You Mister Stossel!I wince at quite a few things that Democrats say. But a bipartisan wince-inducer is the call for "energy independence." John Stossel points out "how ideas with no merit become popular merely because they sound good." To be for "energy independence" is to be against trade. But trade makes us as safe. Crop destruction from this summer's floods in the Midwest should remind us of the folly of depending only on ourselves. Achieving "energy independence" would expose us to unnecessary risks -- such as storms that knock out oil refineries or droughts that create corn -- and ethanol -- shortages. I ask people who champion this whether they are "food independent." "What if King Soopers decides to stop selling you food tomorrow? Your family will starve!!!" (I don't seem to get invited to as many parties as I used to...) Stossel rips this one out of the park Don't Obama and Pickens realize that we get something useful for that money? It's not a "transfer"; it's a win-win transaction, like all voluntary trade. Who cares if the sellers live in a foreign country? When two parties trade, each is better off -- or the exchange would never have been made. We want the oil more than the money. They want the money more than the oil. They need us as much as we need them. Whole. Read, Thing. The. Hat-tip: Instapundit
Posted by jk at 3:00 PM
| Comments (0)
August 18, 2008Your New Friends, Governor.We need to switch to renewable energy, but we can't build anything. Environmentalists don't want to build the transmission lines to connect T. Boone Pickens's wind farms with consumers. Even smaller scale projects are getting axed. WSJ Ed Page: Go ahead, say "It's kind of schizophrenic behavior" in your best Arnold Schwarzenegger voice -- I'll wait. My buddies on the Ed Page have discovered the real agenda: In other words, the liberal push for alternatives has the look of a huge bait-and-switch. Washington responds to the climate change panic with multibillion-dollar taxpayer subsidies for supposedly clean tech. But then when those incentives start to have an effect in the real world, the same greens who favor the subsidies say build the turbines or towers somewhere else. The only energy sources they seem to like are the ones we don't have. Let the bastards freeze in the dark!
Posted by jk at 2:12 PM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
Exactly right. They don't want "alternative energy sources;" they want "alternatives to energy sources." The only energy they'll endorse is naturally harvested sunlight and the only commercial product they won't oppose is hemp. Unlike Charlie Brown, Americans will eventually recognize that the greens keep pulling the football away. I'm seriously hoping that a majority do so before November 4th. Posted by: johngalt at August 19, 2008 3:06 PMAugust 15, 2008Roan BlownThe oil and gas lease auction for Colorado's gas-rich Roan Plateau was held yesterday and generated $114 million, just 1/20th of what some had predicted. Those who have followed the Roan process and debate know that Gov. Ritter and the Democrat legislature have been working diligently to raise taxes on energy producers, including proposed referendums and radio ads demagoging these producers. Senator Salazar has been working in Congress to increase the already-byzantine permitting process to make it simply not worth the effort. The significantly lower lease bids demonstrates that producers factored higher taxes, increased administrative costs and greater uncertainty and thus discounted their bids accordingly. Perfectly rational. Do you suppose that Ritter, Salazar (the senator who would said he would not support expanded domestic drilling at $10 a gallon) and the Dems learned a lesson in basic economics? Do you further suppose that they now understand that companies are tax collectors, not tax payers? Maybe they concluded that raising taxes leads to lower revenue? Of course not. Who did they blame? President Bush, of course. The Refugee hopes that Ritter is merely playing politics not just plain stupid. The Refugee, a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, has been pleasantly surprised by previous Democratic governors (ie., Dick Lamm and to a lesser extent Roy Romer.) However, The Refugee had low expectations of Ritter, expectations that Ritter continues to fail to achieve. This guy is terrible, and Colorado's tax coffers are suffering as a result.
Posted by Boulder Refugee at 12:01 PM
| Comments (1)
But jk thinks:
Great post; I had missed that entirely. All these same Democrats will prohibit companies from exploring and drilling -- and will then ask "why companies are not using the leases they have now?" Our state is lost, and I see little hope in the Colorado GOP or new voters' having the capacity or wisdom to resist it. I'm usually pretty upbeat. But I think brother jg is right: the state coffers are a golden goose to be fleeced by those who oppose the policies that created the gold. August 13, 2008Energy Freedom DaySign the petition created by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) calling on Congress to let the drilling bans expire on October 1, 2008. The related blog page can be accessed here. Hat Tip: Human Events via Wayne at jeremiahfilms.com
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:14 PM
| Comments (0)
August 12, 2008Pelosi blinkingA week or so after telling democrats in competitive races it's OK to blame her for congress' inaction on energy legislation she now tells Larry King she's willing to allow a vote. Pelosi, speaking Monday on CNN's "Larry King Live," said "We can do that. We can have a vote on (oil drilling)." Why the sudden change of heart? Republicans are threatening to shut down the government. In a letter from DeMint to Reid, DeMint indicates the GOP has the votes to sustain any veto of a continuing resolution that might get 60 votes. What do you call it when Republicans force a vote on lifting the drilling ban AND shut down the government in the process? I call it eating one's cake and having it too - killing two birds with one stone - bre'r rabbit getting thrown into that thar briar patch. Let's do it! Unfortunately, Pelosi wants her precious government purse badly enough that she'll cave on the energy vote. She certainly also has known for some time what is now being reported: That the offshore and shale oil drilling bans will automatically expire on October 1 unless renewed by an affirmative act of congress. Sounds to me like a vote might be required in there somewhere.
I report - you decide - The fifth paragraph of the Fox News article I cited reads as follows: This is setting the stage for a showdown in September with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and most other Demorats who oppose this drilling. I'm not making this up - that's how they spelled Democrats. Is it in their spell check dictionary that way or did they just click "ignore?" Either way, I smell a rat! :)
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:02 PM
| Comments (2)
But Wayne thinks:
Great news ... updated Jeremiah Films' House Recess Really? post and added link to your post Posted by: Wayne at August 13, 2008 2:51 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Thanks Wayne! I particularly enjoyed this Human Events article also linked from your site. Posted by: johngalt at August 13, 2008 3:14 PMAugust 7, 2008Drill, Drill, Drill and King DollarI guess it is safe to say, sadly, that I am more like Larry Kudlow than Paris Hilton after all. My comment on the Everyday Economist referenced in my Paris Hilton post engendered a thoughtful response from the EE. With his permission, here it is: 1. I mostly agree with your centrist position. We're not way apart, and he his dead on most of his points and his conclusions. I don't hold out much hope for higher interest rates and disagree that drill-drill-drill by itself is not a great step. It is my understanding that oil fields vary widely and wildly in their marginal cost; the $75/bbl figure he offers would be an average. By opening more fields, I expect they will find some that are more than 75 -- and probably some more than 150. But won't they also locate some more fields that are less than 75? Then they could pump the cheaper ones now at a profit at today's cost. They could leave the more expensive oil in the ground, discounted at his negative interest rate, against future rate increases and expectation of better future extraction technology. Though I think it would be specious, I suggested it might be good politics to open the SPR and tie additional drilling to refilling. This would silence the "won't help for 750 years" crowd, prop up the Obama campaign, and provide instant additional supply without compromising future protections of the SPR. Drain it and refill it with new production. The feds could even hold futures to fill it as part of the bill. Me, Larry, and Paris...
Posted by jk at 10:41 AM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
I fear this macroeconomics discussion is far above the heads of most of our readers. I know that some of it is over my head. I'll trust JK to ensure it's not mere obfuscation. I will go out on a limb and challenge EEs assertion that nobody is incentivized to extract oil during this period of expensive (I figured about double the typical market price) oil merely because "real interest rates remain low." I can't say much about the effect of interest rates but if I had reserves in the ground I'd be trying to get them to market right now. Posted by: johngalt at August 10, 2008 3:40 PMAugust 6, 2008I'm Just Like Paris HiltonLike Ms. Hilton, I have found a centrist position between two schools of thought on energy. School of thought #1 is well represented by blog friend The Everyday Economist. In an interesting post, Hendrickson links to "an advanced copy of Paul Davidson’s article on oil speculation prior to its publication in the July/August issue of CHALLENGE." I recommend the entire post and linked article, but the EE gives us a synopsis: As I have previously expressed, the rise in oil prices cannot be fully attributed to supply and demand because interest rates are at historically low levels (short-term real interest rates are negative). Thus there is little incentive to extract oil from the ground when the rate of interest is below the rate of growth in the price of oil. Davidson's article recommends the use of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to break speculators, who have bid up the price beyond what Davidson says is supported by supply and demand. I left a long comment on the EE site, but the short version is that I trust a vibrant international commodities market above government manipulation of supply with the SPR, and believe that a large and continuing addition to supply through drilling would have more impact on futures. School of thought #2 is represented by one Lawrence Kudlow. Drill, drill, drill! The drill, drill, drill political scenario coming out of Washington and spreading throughout the country is really helping Fed policy right now. Since President Bush launched his offensive to roll back the drilling moratorium, the oil price has dropped more than $30 from near $150 to below $120. The barrel price is actually down again today to around $118. In connection with the big oil drop, gold has fallen and the dollar has appreciated. Gas prices at the pump have come off about 25 cents. Presumably, headline inflation will moderate a bit next month. Like Paris, I don't find these positions mutually exclusive. Let's open drilling both on the Outer Continental Shelf and in ANWR. Then, let's use the SPR to speed this new production to market, releasing a significant amount with the understanding that it will be refilled from new supply sources. I'm pretty hot myself, huh bitches?
Posted by jk at 5:35 PM
| Comments (0)
July 17, 2008Quote of the DayIt's a photo caption: “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid walks from his Chevrolet Suburban (left) to attend a news conference on energy efficiency Wednesday in Upper Senate Park. Reid rode in the sport utility vehicle from the Capitol to the event, which was across the street.”
Posted by jk at 2:04 PM
| Comments (3)
But AlexC thinks:
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK." I wish I could remember who said that. Posted by: AlexC at July 17, 2008 4:26 PM
But johngalt thinks:
For those who can't tell AlexC's tongue is planted firmly in his cheek (like I was until I looked up who said this) here's the reference: Link I knew it sounded familiar! :) Posted by: johngalt at July 17, 2008 7:39 PM
But jk thinks:
The competition is quite stiff, but I think that line is my least favorite Obama quote so far (some of our bitter Pennsylvanians might feel differently). As if collectivism isn't bad enough, he has to add knee-jerk Malthusianism to the mix. This quote caused the Wall Street Journal to suggest he was running for the Second Carter Term. July 9, 2008Oil MathWay back in January 2007 some good folks at the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) published the chart below along with an explanation that proposes a "Cubic Mile of Oil" as a new unit of measurement for the vastness of world energy consumption - along the lines of the light-year for measurement of distances in space. I find it more enlightening to use it as a measure of "alternative" energy sources: One commercial wind turbine equals 0.000 000 61 CMO
Before you say, "Wow, a cubic mile of oil must be a tremendously vast amount" consider this: 1 cubic mile of oil would cover the entire state of Pennsylvania to a staggering depth of: 1-3/8 inches. The truth of the matter is that oil is an incredibly high-energy fuel. One gallon of gasoline has the same energy as 63 sticks of dynamite. An average lightning bolt, comprising 500 megajoules of energy, equates to just 3.8 gallons of gasoline. (Think about that the next time you talk on your cell phone while filling your tank!) Click "continue reading" to read the comment I posted to the IEEE article. It's still being vetted by the webmaster. I'm a little late to this conversation (and am amazed there's only 1 comment after all this time) but Mr. Rogers' comment compels me to add one of my own.
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:47 PM
| Comments (7)
But johngalt thinks:
I'm bullish on PV electric generation too, because of their passive nature and virtually zero operating cost, but its uses are limited. But be careful about comparing Moore's Law (which applied to integrated circuit density) to the efficiency of solar cells. The latter has a limit of 100% where the former related to size and not efficiency. While something can be miniaturized almost without limit, PV cell efficiency can only double about four times before it reaches the end of the line at 100 percent. At that point its CMO equivalent will be a whopping 0.000 000 000 88. Whew - almost takes my breath away. Posted by: johngalt at July 9, 2008 8:22 PM
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
Here's some more math. One cubic mile is There are 42 gallons in a standard barrel of oil. So one cubic mile of oil is 26,217,075,000 barrels. World oil production has stagnated at 85 million barrels per *day* for the last three years (and yet there are so many idiots who think there's no supply problem!!!). At current global production levels then, it takes approximately 308.436 days to pump a cubic mile of oil. So to replace what we could get from 308 days of global oil production, it would take 52 nuclear power plants 50 years. Or putting it another way, as much energy as 2600 nuclear power plants will produce in one year, or 3078 nuclear power plants in 308 days. To account for fluctuations, let's say 3000 nuclear power plants. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 9, 2008 10:05 PM
But jk thinks:
If we were on Kudlow, it would be time to bring out the boxing gloves animation -- looks like a ThreeSources Rumble!!!! I exaggerate. But I do disagree with two basic points: -- jg: TJ Rodgers has put considerable money where his mouth is on PV (JG, TJ, PV, JK...) He does not see a limit and when Mister Moore was pontificating at Intel, I would expect only the wildest of futurists imagined the chip I have in my humble little $900 desktop. There is a limit to the energy in a mi3 of oil, there is not technically a limit on how much can be collected from the sun. Whether by nanotech or some yet unseen development, I think today's solar panels will be the 4MHz 286s of tomorrow. -- Perry: You a peak oil guy? Say it isn't so. (Not the Perry I thought I --nevermind). I think the "supply" problem that you describe is a lack of will to drill by the United States, combined with a third-worldism and comfy cartelization of other suppliers. When they find a field, it always seems to produce a lot more than original guesses. New extraction technology rejuvenates legacy fields. Tar sands, anybody? I think there is sufficient oil supply. Jonah Goldberg talks about 19th Century concerns that we were going to deforest the Continental US to power trains. We solved the urban horse manure problem and the deforestation problem (and the whale shortage) with petroleum. Do we really think nothing will come along to supersede it?
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
"This is not the Perry I knew"? I do believe, firmly, that there's a supply problem. A severe one. And it's entirely man-made, because we're not drilling where we could. At this rate, we *will* have "peak oil," because of the tree-huggers. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 10, 2008 1:55 PM
But jk thinks:
Kumbaya, Brother Perry, we are on the same page after all. A self-imposed supply problem, absolutely. Posted by: jk at July 10, 2008 5:42 PM
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
I know I did that "Che" thing for April Fool's Day last year, but you should know me well enough by now! :) Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 11, 2008 2:27 PMJuly 1, 2008Casey At BatEvery few months some Democrat decides that oil companies are to blame for high prices. Except they're not. It's Democrats who are at fault. This time it's Senator Casey's turn. The federal government is so poorly staffed to investigate oil speculation and price gouging that its agents might as well be “cops going after criminals with water pistols,” said U.S. Sen. Bob Casey Jr. ... because frankly their semi-annual effort has failed. Oil and gas woes dominated the discussion with the editorial board as Casey cast doubts on what he called shortsighted proposals to expand drilling along the U.S. coastline and in the Alaska wilderness. Six months worth of oil: Lie. If we got it all out immediately and refined it and sold it our current consumption rates that's "possibly" what it would take. But you cannot drain an oil reservoir that fast (nor would you want to, you need to replace the oil volume removed with water to maintain pressure). Even the oil volume potentially produced in those six months is not true. You cannot (and the Senate damned sure cannot) forecast advances in oil production and drilling technologies. Oil that was out of reach even 10 years ago is being produced with new techniques. Who's to say what big oil companies or service companies like Halliburton or Schlumberger will develop in the coming years? Don't bet against ingenuity. The 10 years of drilling is also a lie. It does not take 10 years to drill a well. It takes weeks to drill a well... and one rig can only drill one well at a a time. So it might take years to bring more and more wells to production. But first you must do exploration... which usually amounts to dragging microphones over the surface looking for oil. We can't even do that. If we took Senator Casey's (and the Democrat) acreage complaint to heart, it would only lead to more dry holes being drilled. If you do non-invasive exploration and no oil is found, of what use would drilling into nothing be? Of no use. Once a company determines there's potentially oil under a lease, then they do exploratory drilling. If they establish there's financially producable amounts of oil beneath a lease, THEN they go into production mode. In the Alaska oilfields (an area with I have personal experience), if there is a production facility nearby, it's generally a matter of plumbing at that point. However, all of the existing leases have already been explored and re-explored. All the oil that can be found in those location has been identified. So when you hear dishonest Democrats saying "they have 80 million acres of leases"... this is true. But not every acre has oil under it! If oil is discovered, and the nearest processing facility is thirty or forty or fifty miles away, a production facility needs to be built... which means years of environmental permitting and lawsuits. It's not 10 years, it's more like 5. If five years is too far out for oil, why should we spending billions or trillions to tackle .4 degrees of global warming in fifty?
Posted by AlexC at 12:19 PM
| Comments (5)
But jk thinks:
Again, do these people do laundry or maintain their property? He is part of the 110th Congress of a 220 year-old nation. I can't see that thinking a whole freakin' decade out is too much for these people. Martin Feldstein has a great piece today on how future supply would lower today's prices. (HINT: it rhymes with Weevil Escalators...)
But johngalt thinks:
Casey's "...area available for drilling" reminds me of the old joke: What are you looking for under this street light?
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
I've heard 6 years thrown out as the time from drilling to refinement. That still begets the question, so why didn't the Democrats let us start drilling 6 years ago? Oh, they couldn't have predicted the future? Nor can they now. Good examination of the microeconomics by Feldstein, but I didn't see that he boiled prices down to a simple concept: prices reflect supply versus demand, not just in the present time, but in the *future*. All it would take is for Congress to approve drilling in ANWR, and before a single rig is set up, oil prices would start falling immediately. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 1, 2008 4:11 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Exactly right, Perry. And the fact that speculators keep pressing the price higher and higher is proof positive of their conviction that it [ANWR drilling] won't be happening anytime soon. Posted by: johngalt at July 2, 2008 7:41 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Exactly right, Perry. And the fact that speculators keep pressing the price higher and higher is proof positive of their conviction that it [ANWR drilling] won't be happening anytime soon. Posted by: johngalt at July 2, 2008 7:41 PMJune 29, 2008Quote of the DayMy response to those who say that increased drilling is pointless because it won't yield immediate results -- like Arnold Schwarzenegger --is why worry about the greenhouse effect, then? Nothing we do will cool the planet immediately. Yet we're told immediate action there is vital. In fact, we're told that by none other than Arnold Schwarzenegger, in the very same speech. -- Instapundit, Glenn ReynoldsI wonder if these people do laundry ("won't have clean clothes for hours!") or repair their homes ("guy said he couldn't come out to fix the roof 'till Tuesday -- I told him to $%&* off!")? Never have people been so proud to lack any forward thinking.
Posted by jk at 12:46 PM
| Comments (0)
A Market Price for Crude OilYves Smith asks in Slate Does Anybody Know How Much Oil There is in the World? The answer appears to be mostly "no" with various technological attempts to measure reserves throughout the world sometimes receiving the climate change slur "junk science." But there is evidence that despite International Energy Agency foreshadowing of current estimates being exaggerated, there is much more oil underground than anyone has previously been led to believe. Indeed, some old oil hands argue that the entire method for computing reserves is fundamentally flawed. Richard Pike, president of the Royal Society of Chemistry, who spent 25 years in the petrochemical industry, contends in an article in the Petroleum Review that published estimates are less than 50 percent of their actual level. As the Independent summarized his argument:Companies add the estimated capacity of oil fields in a simple arithmetic manner to get proven oil reserves. … However, mathematically it is more accurate to add the proven oil capacity of individual fields in a probabilistic manner based on the bell-shaped statistical curve used to estimate the proven, probable and possible reserves of each field. This way, the final capacity is typically more than twice that of simple, arithmetic addition. So what is the actual market-based price that oil would gravitate toward without all the meddling and misinformation on the part of so many disparate interests? Japan's oil minister said, based on fundamentals, the price of crude should be $60 a barrel, not the $130 to $140 we see today. During congressional testimony, five oil-industry CEOs each gave estimates of where oil "ought" to be, with results ranging from $35 to $65 a barrel to $90. Even the implacable Saudis are reportedly about to increase production by half a million barrels a day, a sign that they are concerned that the current price is too high. Yet BP's chief recently said current price levels are warranted, and the oil bulls at Goldman forecast a "super spike" to $150 to $200 a barrel. That last estimate is not really a "market price" figure. It is a speculator's prediction which takes into account all of that meddling and misinformation that won't be going away anytime soon. But what if it did? That's the question the others were answering. Their figures ranged from $35 to $65, or possibly as high as $90 per barrel. This is roughly half of the current "oil shock" price. Yet it's reasonable to expect such prices to return before long. Consider this graph of U.S. gasoline prices adjusted for inflation since April of 1979.
In the much more valuable dollar of 1979, premium gas cost about $1.20 per gallon in 1980 and, interestingly, is about the same price today (although it appears to be trending above that ceiling). But for nearly 20 years between the two "oil shock" periods noted the price was roughly half that - 60 cents per gallon in constant dollars. These various data points give lie to the claim that oil prices are at record highs because the world is "running out" of oil. Instead they show that petroleum based motor fuels have been and continue to be the best bargain since the Louisana Purchase - excluding the backdrop of currency inflation, and absent the efforts of those who wish oil to cost more than their own "pet alternative fuel" preference. Hat Tips: Slate article - The American Magazine; Fuel graph - johngalt's dad. Correction: I had previously titled the graph "world oil prices" since corrected to "U.S. gasoline prices."
Posted by JohnGalt at 11:05 AM
| Comments (1)
But Boulder Refugee thinks:
Very well argued, JG. The Refugee attended a computer-related speech by a Chevron exec some time ago. He said that you cannot unlink known reserves and price. In other words, if you say, "What are our reserves at $4/bbl, the answer is zero. Even the Saudi's can no longer produce oil at that price. However, if you say, 'What are our reserves at $200/bbl,' the answer is trillions of barrels. At that price, many options are economical. Recoverable capacity is a function of price." Posted by: Boulder Refugee at July 1, 2008 4:42 PMJune 25, 2008Mad As HellDrop what you're doing and click over to Eidelblog. ThreeSources friend Perry Eidlebus takes on these two adorable little girls: Welcome to the real world, girls. Welcome to the lower quality of life that's inevitable when people let themselves be ruled by environmentalists. Those are the people you should be blaming, girls, not oil companies! Oil companies would love nothing better than to supply us with more oil and gas, and at lower prices: when you do the math, lower prices mean higher sales, so they earn more profit while we consumers still benefit from cheap, plentiful carbon fuels. He even has an adorable picture of a polar bear enjoying a tasty snack. Awesome. UPDATE: Taranto links to an AP pick up of the story. It points out that Sadie "carried a sign asking drivers to honk to lower gas prices" and ends with a sympathetic supporter: "I think it's great," said Hamid Tayeb, who was walking past on his lunch break. "It's unfortunate that kids are doing it before we do."
Posted by jk at 10:47 AM
| Comments (0)
June 19, 2008President Reagan on EnergyA nice clip Larry Kudlow ran of his old boss:
Posted by jk at 6:05 PM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
Damn, I forgot how good it could be to have a conservative president who speaks deliberately and forcefully on principle. Could it have been his acting background? Is it too late to nominate a conservative movie actor for '08? Willis/Romney2008.com Can't you just see President Bruce Willis saying "Yippee Kai Yay..." to Al Gore? Posted by: johngalt at June 21, 2008 1:01 PMJune 12, 2008Drill! Drill! Drill!That's Daniel Henninger's title in today's Opinion Journal column explaining how America is the only nation on earth that refuses to harvest its petroleum reserves. More of this stuff in media on a daily basis is just what this country needs. A tidbit: Nikita Khrushchev said, "We will bury you." Forget that. We'll do it ourselves. I emailed Dan to say, "If we could just get this message onto American Idol where the majority of Americans might see it then Pelosi, Reed and Nelson (and McCain) would change their tunes in a heartbeat." The closing line - hammering McCain - is priceless. I won't copy it here. You gotta go read it.
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:34 PM
| Comments (2)
But jk thinks:
This will be a great campaign issue for November as the Democrats put their environmental and regulatory constituencies ahead of the American economy. Then, the GOP nominee can step up to the plate and...oh, wait...never mind... Posted by: jk at June 12, 2008 3:16 PM
But Boulder Refugee thinks:
This is an interesting year of cognitive dissonance for Democrats. The mantra of "The war is lost" is at odds with reality as is the "We can't drill our way out of this" platitude. The Refugee hopes that it takes Americans no more than four months to figure out that Democrats are living in an alternate (and fictional)universe. Posted by: Boulder Refugee at June 17, 2008 2:29 PMJune 8, 2008Get ready for the oil price dropAfter crude oil jumped by $11/bbl in two days, Cato Institute's Alan Reynolds writes that the price hitting $200/bbl in the near future is "quite impossible." Market analysts often claim oil prices are almost entirely determined by supply. Demand is said to be insensitive ("inelastic") to price. The standard example is that many Americans have to drive to work and most gas-guzzling SUVs will still be on the road even if the affluent few can trade theirs for a Prius. Whatever the price, we'll pay it. Reynolds goes on to explain that industrial use of oil fuels is already declining in most sectors, one of which we witnessed last week as airlines parked planes, cancelled some routes and reduced employment. But even without a US recession, Reynolds says, oil prices will still fall with industrial declines elsewhere. In the United States and Britain, industrial production is nearly flat - only 0.2 percent higher than it was a year ago. In many other countries, however, industrial production has dropped over the past 12 months. It's down by 0.7 percent in Japan, 1.1 percent in Austria, 2.5 percent in Italy and Denmark, 2.9 percent in Canada, 5.4 percent in Greece, 5.7 percent in Singapore and 13.3 percent in Spain. My college physics professor took great joy in explaining that alarming trends, such as population growth, never continue at the same rate for a very long time. The meteoric rise in the cost of oil is yet another of those trends. Hat tip: 'The American' magazine
Posted by JohnGalt at 12:24 PM
| Comments (2)
But AtTheWaterCooler thinks:
Great research, I linked to your post from Time to sell oil futures short? Posted by: AtTheWaterCooler at June 11, 2008 2:09 PM
But jk thinks:
Thanks for the link. As far as shorting oil goes, I think the old joke applies here: "The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent." - John Maynard KeynesPosted by: jk at June 11, 2008 6:58 PM June 6, 2008The Perfect Pigouvian TaxJim Glass takes Mankiw's Pigou Club to new heights. Imagine a simple, single tax that can help avert global warming, de-fund Arab terrorists, save scarce natural resources, reduce pollution AND remedy the government's approaching funding crisis for Medicare (by heading off the coming diabetes epidemic, etc.) ... save private individuals billions of dollars of medical costs from avoided heart attacks and strokes and blood pressure medication prescriptions ... make the general population lean and good looking ... and improve your sex life too! That's the Fat-Gas Tax. What's not to love? Hat-tip: Don Luskin.
Posted by jk at 11:08 AM
| Comments (0)
May 30, 2008More On AlgaeI tried but failed to sell JohnGalt on being an early adopter for Algae farmin' (or is that Ranchin'?) Just choosing which kind of algae to start with is a herculean task. There are well over 100,000 species, each adapted to grow in different environments at different rates, and each capable of producing different amounts of oil—or none at all. The government collected more than 3000 different strains from all over the world in the 1980s, 300 of which were deemed promising. Today, many algal strains have been engineered into genetically modified superplants—the secret formulas of biofuel startups—but there is, as yet, no proven winner. Not to mention, there remains the small matter of how to make the algae flourish, how to cheaply dry several million gallons of subsequent slush, and how to get the oil out of minuscule cell walls and into the metaphorical barrel. At the end, I have to think that straight photovoltaics offers a rosier path, with T.J. Rodgers saying that Moore's Law will apply to PV. Yet I still find the algae story intriguing.
Posted by jk at 2:25 PM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
"Today, many algal strains have been engineered into genetically modified superplants..." Visions of Cylon Centurions dance in my head... Posted by: johngalt at June 3, 2008 11:42 AMMay 27, 2008Democrats and Gas PricesThe truly scary thing is that Democrats might actually use their stance on energy to augment their leads in the House and Senate. Even NYTimes writers are laughing at them: The lawmakers played their parts, too — showing mostly outrage and fury. “You all are gouging the American public and it needs to stop,” declared Representative Steve Cohen, Democrat of Tennessee. Other Democratic lawmakers openly questioned whether the companies were illegally fixing prices to hoard profits and voiced suspicions that they were in cahoots with Vice President Dick Cheney to enrich the energy industry. Hat-tip: Gregory Mankiw, who excerpts Rep. Waters's quote and says "Oh Yeah, That Should Work"
Posted by jk at 6:16 PM
Wi-Fi AllergyStop the earth - I want off. Seriously, didn't most people have that same reaction to the 1970's nutjobs who wanted to outlaw drilling for oil in this country because it was "dirty?" Leave the idiots alone and look what it gets you - politicians who say things like "gasoline prices are not based on supply and demand, they're being driven up by reckless speculators and obscene oil company profits" and "we can't drill our way out of this problem" when, in fact, that is the ONLY way to bring gasoline prices down. And it makes us "less dependent on foreign oil" at the same time.
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:33 PM
May 13, 2008Cap'n TradeThe Wall Street Journal Ed Page nails all the failings of Senator McCain's proposed Cap and Trade program for carbon credits: The problem is that once government creates an artificial scarcity of carbon, how the credits are allocated creates a huge new venue for political rent-seeking and more subsidies for favored industries. Some businesses will benefit more than others, in proportion to their lobbying influence and how well they're able to game the Beltway. Congress itself will probably take the largest revenue grab, offering itself a few more bites out of the economy and soaking politically unpopular businesses. Where I am not sure they are right is the politics: But he will never be green enough for the climate-change fundamentalists. The Obama campaign and Democrats were already dinging Mr. McCain yesterday for half-measures. His concessions won't help him much in November, but they will make his governing decisions in 2009 that much more difficult if by some chance he does win. My YouTube question for the GOP Debate was to ask which, if any, of the candidates would stand up and say that climate change is not sufficiently proven to threaten disruption of the energy markets. I was looking for somebody brave enough to say that it might be "hooey." But we have the best candidate for 2008. I sure wish Senator McCain would propose something less intrusive than C&T, but I will concede that the "denier" I was looking fir would not have a chance in this "tick! tick! tick!" climate. It's Game Over and we have lost. I'd rather elect a free trader even if he is badly misguided on this issue.
Posted by jk at 11:42 AM
| Comments (2)
But Boulder Refugee thinks:
Just when I was starting to warm up to McCain, he pulls this loo-loo (pun intended). I was thinking, "Wow, we can really draw a stark contrast against Obama based on policy, because we sure aren't going to win on personality." It's a small consolation to realize that I was half-right. Posted by: Boulder Refugee at May 13, 2008 1:36 PM
But jk thinks:
It's real bad, br, I cannot dress this pig up. But, as Larry said, we all knew it was coming. It will be hard to stay enthusiastic this fall, but it is worth it for free trade and the continued existence of Israel. Posted by: jk at May 13, 2008 4:48 PMMay 7, 2008Do You See The Light?Support for Ethanol subsidies are now out of favor with the green elite. According to a WSJ editorial, the WaPo and TIME magazine have both "concluded that food-to-fuel mandates have failed." All we can say is, welcome aboard. Corn ethanol can now join the scare over silicone breast implants and the pesticide Alar as among the greatest scams of the age. But before we move on to the next green miracle cure, it's worth recounting how much damage this ethanol political machine is doing. Just because everyone now knows it's a sham, don't look for subsidies to be repealed, mandates to be lifted or tariffs on imported Brazilian sugar cane to be reduced. And that's another trouble with gub'mint solutions. Perhaps the mandates might be scaled back, but the subsidies will be around 'till the end of time. As far as I know, the Federal government still subsidizes mohair because it was a vital component in WWI military uniforms. Will anybody learn? It was clear from Senator Obama's speech last night, that the Democrats are poised to double down and harness the power of Government to "create millions of green jobs, &c..." I love Megan McArdle’s' take: Gack. Now Obama is ranting about how he's going to make the corporations give us super fuel-efficient cars, find awesome new sources of oil, make renewable energy affordable, and invent a really delicious fat-free ice cream. However did we manage to get through the first 200 years without Barack Obama to beat some progress out of the corporations that have been holding us back?
Posted by jk at 12:44 PM
| Comments (3)
But mdmhvonpa thinks:
The 17 bazillion gallons of H2O is incorrect ... corn for fuel is not irrigated like food-stock corn. Posted by: mdmhvonpa at May 7, 2008 3:11 PM
But jk thinks:
Interesting -- is fuel corn significantly different from feed corn? I'm city folk, the accent is just affectation. Posted by: jk at May 8, 2008 10:02 AM
But johngalt thinks:
Under the heading "You learn something every day" some non-irrigated hybrid corn varieties apparently can out-yield the best irrigated varieties: http://www.garstseed.com/GarstClient/GarstNews/news.aspx?NewsItem=10101 May 6, 2008Getting. Dumber. All. The .Time.Blog Brother AlexC is flying (one of them newfangled Wye-Fye planes, I guess) and sends a link to MyDD: Make it against the law for oil companies to pass the price of the windfall profits tax on to consumers, and then audit the oil companies' books. It is not a difficult accounting exercise to tax excess profits above a certain gross percentage per barrel of oil, or gallon of gas. Every major oil company has sophisticated profit segmentation reports that go to the very senior management of the company. These reports identify revenues, costs and profit at each level of the vertically integrated operation, broken down on a per barrel basis by product type, marketing region, you name it. And if they pass along the cost of this tax, we'll...
Posted by jk at 2:56 PM
1,147th. Dumbest. Idea. Ever.ThreeSources friend Everyday Economist has signed an Open Statement Opposing Proposals for a Gas Tax Holiday. Being a fair guy, he also provides a link to Bryan Caplan, who disagrees. The American people want to "do something," and Hillary's tax cut will at least do little harm. I think I'll throw my lot in with Caplan on this. I think the holiday is a gimmick and I think it will be completely ineffective and likely counterproductive and it's stupid and it will never happen. But this is campaign season with daily displays of foolish gimmicks and bad policy. I don't know that I'd pick this one to sign a petition. (In fairness, ex-guitar player would not be sufficient academic credit if I wanted to.) Having three active candidates provides a bad idea every eight hours. The summer gas tax holiday seems, like Caplan says, one of the least harmful. The discussion around it has been rather informative. Senator McCain all but admits that it's a gimmick, but he just wants to give a little guy a little break. Senator Clinton wants to "pay for it" with a big tax on oil companies. Senator Obama gets points for recognizing its gimmickry, but I take a couple off for laughing that "it will only save 28 bucks!" If you live in a $3M mansion, $28 per person may seem laughable. But to masses of bitter white trash, Senator, that's a lot of arugula down at Whole Foods. Stupid, yes. Compared to cap-and-trade for CO2, socialized medicine, re-importation of pharmaceuticals, windfall profits taxes, it seems pretty harmless.
Posted by jk at 11:10 AM
May 4, 2008Dumbest. Plan. Ever. WSJ's Take.Here's what the WSJ editorial page has to say about Obama's election year plan to lower gas prices by raising the marginal corporate tax on oil companies ABOVE it's present level of 35%: Mr. Obama is right to oppose the gas-tax gimmick, but his idea is even worse. Neither proposal addresses the problem of energy supply, especially the lack of domestic oil and gas thanks to decades of Congressional restrictions on U.S. production. And about energy policy politics in general: This tiff over gas and oil taxes only highlights the intellectual policy confusion – or perhaps we should say cynicism – of our politicians. They want lower prices but don't want more production to increase supply. They want oil "independence" but they've declared off limits most of the big sources of domestic oil that could replace foreign imports. They want Americans to use less oil to reduce greenhouse gases but they protest higher oil prices that reduce demand. They want more oil company investment but they want to confiscate the profits from that investment. And these folks want to be President? But there is hope: Late this week, a group of Senate Republicans led by Pete Domenici of New Mexico introduced the "American Energy Production Act of 2008" to expand oil production off the U.S. coasts and in Alaska. It has the potential to increase domestic production enough to keep America running for five years with no foreign imports. With the world price of oil at $116 a barrel, if not now, when? So does the AEPA have a chance of passing instead of the CREPPA? The chances may be slim but as Wayne Gretzky used to say, "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take."
Posted by JohnGalt at 1:46 PM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
Shamelessly commenting on my own post- Disregard for a moment whether either of the proposed Acts would or could actually achieve its stated goal and instead consider the competing intents: D-PA: "Reasonable" energy price protection for consumers. R-NM: American energy production. That pretty well sums it all up, doesn't it? Posted by: johngalt at May 5, 2008 3:21 PMMay 2, 2008I'll Stand Up For GrandpaThe Wall Street Journal Ed Page discusses the Rockefeller Scions who are beating up on Exxon-Mobil for, well, selling oil. One luxury of being a Rockefeller is that you are wealthy enough to live in style even if Exxon's performance starts to slide. The same can't be said of millions of pensioners and small investors for whom Exxon's profits may be the main source of a secure retirement. If John D.'s heirs aren't satisfied with Exxon, they're welcome to invest elsewhere. Our guess is that few will, given how much money they've made over the decades on fossil fuels. Companies create value for shareholders, that's their highest calling. I defended Google against freedom lovers on that account, I certainly will defend XOM against whiny, pampered heirs. Larry Kudlow tore into the scions last night: "they've never seen an oil field, they've never worked a day in their life..." (Especially Senator Jay, I'd add.) But I come to praise John D. We call him a robber baron, but he made his money bringing heat and light to poor people. Bastard! Rich folk could buy wood or whale oil and have servants to tend it. Rockefeller brought five cent gallons of kerosene to the masses, who could now read or work past dark. He used more of the harvested oil than his predecessors who cracked it for a small part and threw the rest away. Then, of course, he devoted much of his fortune to philanthropy. We should be building statues and not calling him names. And, as the WSJ says, if the grandkiddies want to invest in windmills or perpetual motion (algae maybe?) they certainly can.
Posted by jk at 1:03 PM
May 1, 2008Pretty CoolBiofuel from algae? Selective hydrocarbon out? This seems pretty cool: The highlight says "[W]e could grow all the fuel the United States needs using 1/10th of the land space of New Mexico." My musical career used to entail criss-crossing the great state of New Mexico. One tenth of its area is pretty big. All the same, it sounds more efficient than Ethanol. Maybe some of the "Big Algae" Senators will step up to the plate and subsidize this! Hat-tip: His Instyness.
Posted by jk at 1:14 PM
| Comments (5)
But johngalt thinks:
Well, if efficiency compared to ethanol is the yardstick then just about everything is an improvement. Posted by: johngalt at May 2, 2008 3:51 PM
But jk thinks:
I hear you. Though I was giving this credit for being potentially magnitudes more efficient. Instapundit once also linked to a home ethanol distiller that cost $9995 and brewed $1/gal Ethanol out of sugar. The algae project does not intrigue me about covering 10% of New Mexico. But I do wonder about making a 20' diameter silo that could sit on a fellow's farm in, say North Central Colorado that could fuel all its owners vehicles, heaters, and itself. Crazy talk? Posted by: jk at May 2, 2008 4:40 PM
But johngalt thinks:
"And itself?" Perpetual motion machine? In the video I see an electrically circulated solution being exposed to solar radiation, so I guess that's a principal input. And plants require CO2 for respiration (or whatever you call it in plants) so that's another input. But the plants I grow (various forage grass species) also require nutrients. This spring's crop just received $1000 worth of petroleum derived nitrogen fertilizer. I'll need to see the complete cycle diagram with cost inputs before I invest in this plumber's nightmare. One thing I DIDN'T see in the video was the giant vessel of "vegetable oil" produced at this quite impressively sized plant. In north central Colorado I'll also have to shut it down and winterize it in late September. For a system primarily powered by solar energy I'm still leaning toward organic photovoltaic panels. (But not until all the fossil fuels are depleted - probably not in my lifetime.) Posted by: johngalt at May 4, 2008 1:44 PM
But jk thinks:
Perhaps it's not for a sober, measured man such as yourself. I was thinking of a Randian family with some millenarian, survivalist instincts who would pony up a little extra to get "off the grid" and enjoy self sufficiency. Winter would suck (New Mexico looks better and better) but I have no problem envisioning this as viable. It's not perpetual motion; it is essentially a solar play. My memories of pond scum would suggest that they don't require too expensive a nutrient medium. I agree that I'd like to see the vegetable oil or the jet fuel before I signed up -- how complex is the extraction? Compared to Ethanol, jg...
But johngalt thinks:
Oooh, sarcasm - I LIKE it! But I've already told you how I'm going to get off the grid: http://www.threesources.com/archives/005036.html And I can use the waste heat to warm my wife's new riding arena in the winter. I do need to work on a large capacity electrical storage system though. Electrochemical batteries are so passe. Hey, I know: hydrogen fuel cells! Posted by: johngalt at May 5, 2008 3:29 PMApril 29, 2008Global Food CrisisNot content with helping Senator Obama to a victory in Pennsylvania, Senator Casey turns to solving the global food crisis. How? President Bush had previously requested $350 million for the year. Durbin and Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-Pa.) held a press conference Monday calling for an additional $200 million in food aid to be added to the upcoming war supplemental bill. Oh, and let's give it to the UN, of all people. A model of efficiency. The President doesn't escape blame, but is anyone in government willing to look at the real cause of the global food crises? Government. ... specifically the US and EU mandates for Ethanol production and consumption. When it pays better to burn food for fuel than it does to sell it for food, is anyone, outside of Democrats and liberal do-gooders, really surprised?
Posted by AlexC at 2:58 PM
April 19, 2008OutgassingInsty links to a topic near and dear to my heart: where does oil come from? We all learned in school that it's rotten dinosaurs, everybody knows that. When everybody knows something, look out. When I was in college, I was in a band with a PhD candidate in Physics (who was a pretty good guitar player as well). He had me over for dinner one night with the former President of the school, Dr. Sterling Colgate. Colgate has forgotten the cube of the physics I'll ever learn and was a fascinating personality. This was in the late 70s when world oil supplies were a concern, and Dr. Colgate was adamant that the Earth, like most every other celestial body its size, was kicking out more hydrocarbons than we puny humans could ever be expected to burn. I was young and took the word of my intellectual betters. For better or worse, I have believed this ever since. The core of the planet "outgasses" small hydrocarbons and the pressures in the crust produce larger molecule versions. I never hear this discussed at any level. Until today: What does Gold have to do with the recent Brazil oil find? In 1999, Gold published "The Deep Hot Biosphere," a paper that postulated that coal and oil are produced not by the decomposition of organic materials, but in fact are "abiogenic" -- the product of tectonic forces; i.e., deeply embedded hydrocarbons being brought up and through the earth's mantle and transformed into their present states by bacteria living in the earth's crust. I feel like a 9/11 truther or something, but I find this theory a lot more believable than the dead dinosaurs.
Posted by jk at 12:03 PM
| Comments (1)
But pquist thinks:
I recall reading Gold's theory in the late 70s or early 80s in the WSJ. Like you, I have never been able to totally discount the idea. The view that oil derives from fossils is dominant, but I do not believe that it can be proven. Posted by: pquist at April 20, 2008 4:02 PMMarch 3, 2008I'm Thinkin' 't He's Drinkin' 'tRobert Zubrin did a podcast with Glenn Reynolds a while back, and I am thinking that he slipped a bit of biomass ethanol into the good Professor's drink. Glenn has since run about 754 positive blurbs about "The Zubrin Plan" to mandate that new cars sold in the US can run on gasoline or ethanol. "You had me up until 'mandate,'" says I. The proponents wash over the mandates with the assumption that these will replace other and worse pieces of legislation. The way Professor Mankiw sells his carbon tax as being better than cap and trade, The Zubrin Plan is always better than some other government abomination -- yet there's very little evidence our benighted 535 won't give us both. Reynolds and Zubrin claim it is better than CAFE standards and are likely right. But how bad would increased CAFE standards and mandated flex-fuel capability suck? Zubrin defends himself from the mean old attackers at Science Magazine and the WSJ Ed Page -- and Reynolds dutifully links. Where Reynolds likes biomass ethanol, Brother Zubrin is still pretty pleased with the corn ethanol subsidies. By his math they provide a 600% ROI: Let's start with the allegedly misbegotten incentives. The United States invests roughly $3 billion a year through a 51-cent per gallon credit to promote the production and use of renewable fuels like ethanol. The return on that investment? Taxpayers are saving approximately $6 billion that would otherwise be spent on counter-cyclical crop price supports, plus an additional $15 billion reduction in the country's petroleum import bill. "The attacks continue." "That, not a blind and dangerous reliance on the status quo, should be our course." Defensive much? It's like watching Senator Clinton complain about getting the first question at debates. I remain pretty excited about biomass. But I don't want to mandate solutions onto car manufacturers. Mr. Zubrin does his cause no favors with a petulant essay.
Posted by jk at 3:00 PM
WSJ: Supply-Demand Thingy Works!As crude-oil prices climb to historic highs, steep gasoline prices and the weak economy are beginning to curb Americans' gas-guzzling ways. The article then points out that a rally in crude prices has kept this from feeding back into lower gas costs, so don't reprint the textbooks just yet. I point it out because I see a new promising free market solution to our soi disant oil addiction every week, and yet the insane calls for gub'mint solutions come every day. I think Economics textbooks will be updated in a few years to include the folly of subsidizing corn-based ethanol. A corn-producing state has two powerful Senators, one in either party, so the government throws [insert magnitude here]s of dollars at a "solution" which costs more, requires more energy, and emits more greenhouse gases -- a policy trifecta!
Posted by jk at 11:24 AM
February 15, 2008A Green HeroFree market deity, T.J. Rodgers, is bringing Moore's Law to Solar Power. He wants to save the world and make a pile of cash. What a guy! I had a brief and very unsuccessful stint in my younger days selling ad space for "Photovoltaics Magazine." My problem was that I was not a good closer; the PV industry's problem was that it competed for Silicon with the likes of Intel and Texas Instruments. One sold a square inch for $300 and one sold 4 x 8' sheets. You get the idea. Rodgers saw a similarity others did not: Moore's Law. It was a semiconductor industry and the advances in chip fabrication would pay off in solar power. He bought a power company with his own money when his board would not go along and now "SunPower is rapidly becoming a more important business to Cypress than semiconductors themselves." So, it goes without saying that when the word "green" comes to mind, T.J. Rodgers, the ultimate free market libertarian, is probably the last person you'd ever think of. And yet, here he is, at the absolute epicenter of the Green Revolution, helping lead the charge that will likely very soon make solar power as inexpensive as other sources of electricity. These are from a great piece by Michael Malone on abc.com. Read it all and send a copy to your favorite Democrat.
Posted by jk at 3:29 PM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
A fledging Loveland, Colorado company named AVA Solar is on the verge of pilot production of a new type of low-cost photovoltaic panel. They claim to have an infrastructure cost comparable to the same kwh generating capacity using fossil fuels. The difference, of course, is that operating costs for solar photovoltaic are virtually zero since there is no fuel cost. I believe a German company is already in production with a similar technology. It appears that solar electric generation is on the cusp of an energy economy revolution that will make ethanol, biodiesel and methane composters seem like just a bad dream. You may have noticed that hydrogen fuel cells are missing from my list of failed energy gambits. That is because hydrogen is not a fuel, and fuel cells are not engines. Instead they are analogous to batteries and have the capability of being "charged" by solar photogenerators. I'm not endorsing this, just saying that it will remain a competitor for future energy storage applications. (At least until the first "Hinden-yugo" explosion on an urban motorway.) February 7, 2008A Physics HossI am linking to a one hour and 35 minute video. It's a huge investment. But I know we have some geeks around here and I encourage each to ignore politicians and pundits and spend some time with a true genius. (Hat-tip: Samizdata. Dale Amon says "For those who have not spent a lifetime watching the world of Physics, Dr. Bussard is one of the elders of the field. He is no outsider and no crank. He is one hell of a serious physics dude." The talk is all Physics, but quite a bit of politics and economics unwittingly enters. ABSTRACT This is not your father's fusion reactor! Forget everything you know about conventional thinking on nuclear fusion: high-temperature plasmas, steam turbines, neutron radiation and even nuclear waste are a thing of the past. Goodbye thermonuclear fusion; hello inertial electrostatic confinement fusion (IEC), an old idea that's been made new. While the international community debates the fate of the politically-turmoiled $12 billion ITER (an experimental thermonuclear reactor), simple IEC reactors are being built as high-school science fair projects. Have fun: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606
Posted by jk at 12:11 PM
January 15, 2008Jeremy!It is probably too late to start a draft Jeremy Clarkson for President campaign, Especially since we would need to amend the Constitution to allow the foreign born star of Top Gear to hold the position. And his general contempt for America and her people would be a PR challenge. But I still wonder: A couple of weeks ago, plans for a wonderful new coal-fired power station in Kent were given the green light and I was very pleased. Senator McCain he ain't! Hat-tip: Samizdata
Posted by jk at 5:11 PM
January 4, 2008Uniquely AmericanYou see one of these "Cold Fusion" stories every month or so. I'm still waiting for the nation to be powered by the scraps from the Tyson poultry plant. Yet I hope that this one is true because it represents a uniquely American solution. “Check it out. It's actually a jet engine," says Johnathan Goodwin, with a low whistle. "This thing is gonna be even cooler than I thought." We're hunched on the floor of Goodwin's gleaming workshop in Wichita, Kansas, surrounded by the shards of a wooden packing crate. Inside the wreckage sits his latest toy--a 1985-issue turbine engine originally designed for the military. It can spin at a blistering 60,000 rpm and burn almost any fuel. And Goodwin has some startling plans for this esoteric piece of hardware: He's going to use it to create the most fuel-efficient Hummer in history. Goodwin takes the largest American cars and fits them with electric drive and a fat burning jet 60KRPM jet to recharge supercapacitors. "Like a Prius on Steroids," he says. Well, Mr. Goodwin, I know Steroids. Steroids are a friend of mine. And your solution goes beyond steroids. Let our beloved, European allies buy smaller and less powerful cars. Whether Goodwin's approach ever sees an integral market share or not, this is the way for Americans to beat the "fuel crisis:" with big, fast, mighty cars, If it indeed runs on french-fry grease, we might just get energy-independence after all. Hat-tip: Insty
Posted by jk at 4:22 PM
October 28, 2007Imagine..."Imagine if a two hundred and fifty year supply of energy were right here at home." "Black hydrogen" never looked so good. Hat tip: Blog brother Cyrano.
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:14 PM
| Comments (1)
But jk thinks:
I'm sold on coal. Posted by: jk at October 28, 2007 5:16 PMSeptember 30, 2007Did somebody say bubble?The NYTimes reports an ethanol "glut." Only last year, farmers here spoke of a biofuel gold rush, and they rejoiced as prices for ethanol and the corn used to produce it set records. We did talk about an alternative energy bubble last week. As long as Senator Grassley breathes, however, I think ethanol providers are safe. And the article makes clear that the problem is not a lack of demand as a lack of distribution, so I am not flying my schadenfreude flag just yet. UPDATE: The WSJ weighs in as well:(paid link) Financing for new ethanol plants is drying up in many areas, and plans to build are being delayed or canceled across the Midwest, as investors increasingly decide that only the most-efficient ethanol plants are worth their money.
Posted by jk at 1:43 PM
| Comments (4)
But mdmhvonpa thinks:
Watch for an interesting flux in the (corn) feed futures. Posted by: mdmhvonpa at October 1, 2007 10:32 AM
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
I wonder when the American corn industry will do as French winemakers have, and demand more government subsidies so they don't lose money from the glut that government subsidies created in the first place. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 1, 2007 1:18 PM
But jk thinks:
The WSJ article goes on to say that ADM and the big players will still do well, so I think you have a Baptists & Bootleggers alliance that will keep Grassley and Harkin out. ADM will use the downturns to buy the little guys. Posted by: jk at October 1, 2007 3:27 PM
But TrekMedic251 thinks:
Well,..there may be a good side to this. With a corn glut, tacos will be cheaper in Mexico and that should decrease the flow of illegals into the US,....um,....right?? Posted by: TrekMedic251 at October 2, 2007 10:15 PMSeptember 22, 2007The Power of RegulationProfessor Reynolds links to this as good news: "The economist reports that Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) systems that capture and focus the sun's rays to heat a working fluid and drive a turbine, are making a comeback. Although the world's largest solar farm was built over twenty years ago, until recently no new plants have been built. Now with the combination of federal energy credits, the enactment of renewable energy standards in many states, and public antipathy to coal fired power plant, the first such plant to be built in decades started providing 64 megawatts of electricity to Las Vegas this summer. Electricity from the Nevada plant costs an estimated 17 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh), but projections suggest that CSP power could fall to below ten cents per kWh as the technology improves. Coal power costs just 2-3 cents per kWh but that will likely rise if regulation eventually factors in the environmental costs of the carbon coal produces." To be fair, Instapundit doesn't give it a glowing endorsment, but the link asks "A BRIGHT FUTURE for large-scale solar farms?" I expected to read of a technological breakthrough in Photovoltaics, inspired by nanotechnology -- or something. Instead I read that Federal regulation and "public antipathy" are now deemed sufficient to rethink a process that is six times less efficient than existing mechanisms. Oh boy. Where can I go long public antipathy? I think that's a growth market.
Posted by jk at 5:08 PM
August 30, 2007Big Oil CollusionAre you sure about that? Big oil companies did not conspire to raise U.S. gasoline prices last summer, as it was high crude oil costs and supply problems that caused the spike in pump prices, government investigators said on Thursday. So what they're saying is that fluctuations in supply and demand cause prices to go up (and down?) Not some cabal of evil white men? Get outta here.
Posted by AlexC at 3:33 PM
| Comments (4)
But jk thinks:
They buried the lede: 25% was caused by ethanol mandates (government intrusion). It was evil white men, ac -- Sen Harkin, Sen Grassley, Sen Lugar, Sen Durbin... Posted by: jk at August 30, 2007 4:09 PM
But johngalt thinks:
OK, I'll be your conspiracy theorist. Ever notice how gasoline prices rise quickly and fall slowly? My hypothesis is that the retail price rises immediately whenever the wholesale price goes up, but when the wholesale price drops the retailers only lower their price as much as they have to as dictated by their nearby competition. Not everyone plays this game, however. While 91 octane premium still commands 3.13 to 3.35 per gallon (north Denver metro) Costco gasoline has been selling their Sinclair wholesaled 91 octane for 2.99 for at least a month. Posted by: johngalt at August 30, 2007 11:55 PM
But TrekMedic251 thinks:
JK,..I direct you to this piece on ethanol: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/pa/20070828_Kudos_to_kudzu_as_source_of_energy.html Posted by: TrekMedic251 at September 1, 2007 1:05 PM
But jk thinks:
I liked it just fine until they suggested genetically modified kudzu. I'm no Luddite, but one can easily see GMK taking over and destroying all life on Earth. I'm actually very keen on biomass energy and have long been intrigued with generating power from poultry offal and by-products. Just as long as it's neither subsidized nor mandated, sign me up. July 24, 2007No War but the Price WarA price war with the Hess station across the intersection at Union Boulevard and Airport Road had seen gas prices down more than a dollar a gallon. The margins on pump gas are so incredibly low (pennies per gallon to the retailer) that the majority of the station's profit is generated from burnt coffee and old hot dogs. But losing a buck a gallon doesn't seem like it could go on very long.
Posted by AlexC at 1:48 PM
July 21, 2007Drilling Ordered to StopA federal appeals court has ordered Shell Oil to stop its exploratory drilling program off the north coast of Alaska at least until a hearing in August. Oil is at $75 per barrel in case you missed it.
Posted by AlexC at 12:05 PM
| Comments (2)
But jk thinks:
The Ninth Circuit -- wow, that will never be overturned... Posted by: jk at July 21, 2007 12:48 PM
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
I can't help but wonder what's in these judges' portfolios... September 07 crude was almost $76.50 on Friday, the day after the announcement. August 07 gasoline was over $2.15 -- the wholesale price, mind you. Prices have dipped a little since, but only a little. And then you have all the idiots who cry "gouging" when it's the courts that **** things up like with this bull**** ruling. From a purely business standpoint, there's no such thing as raising prices only when the more expensive shipment arrives. Gas stations have to raise prices *today* so they can afford to buy the next shipment. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 24, 2007 4:26 PMJune 22, 2007Again, Bullwinkle?That trick never works. So say Senators J. Bennett Johnson and Don Nickles in a guest editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal. (Paid link, TNSTAAFE[ditorial]) If the American people are suspicious of bold pledges from Washington about energy independence and reform, they have good reason to be. Since the first energy crisis almost 35 years ago, our nation has had a very expensive education in such matters. Whether it was President Nixon's Project Independence that called for the elimination of foreign oil imports, or President Carter's mandate that 20% of all domestic energy be supplied by solar technologies -- both of which were set to be achieved by 2000 -- projects have come and gone to no avail. They then enumerate a frightening list of Congressional intrusion: price-gouging, alternative energy mandates, renewable fuels standards, windfall profits tax, &c. The bipartisan team, to be fair, hails from the oil states of Oklahoma and Louisiana. But they puncture each mandate and ask the current Congress to "recognize and act upon the difference between hope and reality."
Posted by jk at 12:15 PM
June 20, 2007Thirtieth BirthdayA project to which I quite literally owe my livelihood to celebrates it's 30th birthday today. Figurin' that I'm about thirty years from retirement, here's hopin for another thirty!
Posted by AlexC at 7:57 PM
| Comments (1)
But jk thinks:
I'm hoping for 30 years of ANWR oil as well. Posted by: jk at June 21, 2007 9:42 AMJune 4, 2007Regulating Gas PricesYeah, this will work. State Rep from Washington County Mike Solobay wants to regulate gasoline like milk, and wants to duplicate a bill California drafted years ago. "It basically set up a board similar to our Milk Marketing Board, but it gave the authority to a public utility commission to regulate the pricing and cost of what the pricing could be for fuel and processing of gasoline and different oil products." Did anyone notice that milk, like cigarettes are sold at state minimum prices? Those prices are act as an artificial floor for cigarettes and milk. The government of Pennsylvania is actually costing you money. Milk and smokes could be cheaper. Really. Think of the millions of poor who are overpaying for those sundries. What "needs" to be done is setting a state maximum price for gas... which always leads to shortages. If the high cost of fuel is really a problem, surely the state could forsake it's cut of your gallon of gas. They didn't drill for it. They didn't produce it. They didn't refine it. They didn't deliver it. They didn't store it. They didn't even sell it! Pennsylvania collects $0.32 per gallon of gas. How much would that save you per week? He's a Democrat, btw...
Posted by AlexC at 12:19 PM
May 25, 2007Gouge 'emThe lead WSJ Editorial today suggests that Congress look in the mirror if it wants to know who is causing "excessive" gasoline prices. The big anti-gouging law will only enrich a few lawyers. What does "gouging" mean anyway? No one on Capitol Hill can answer that question. The House bill prohibits energy companies from charging a price that is "unconscionably excessive." There's a precise legal term. It further explains that it shall be a crime whenever "the seller is taking unfair advantage of unusual market conditions" or "the circumstances of an emergency to increase prices unreasonably." Now that this law has passed, prices are sure to plummet. UPDATE: link changed to free site -- thanks to johngalt.
Posted by jk at 7:11 PM
| Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:
The link was public this morning: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010132 Posted by: johngalt at May 28, 2007 12:04 PM
But johngalt thinks:
The line that caught my eye, and sent me looking for the story, was this one: "Now that this law has passed..." What? Did the Senate vote on it? Has the president signed it? No, it appears that only Pelosi and Soros' House of Representatives has passed it. Once actual grownups begin debating this measure, sponsored by the aptly named "Bart Stupak" (D-MI) someone is sure to point out that it will cause gasoline shortages during price spikes. Faced with the government imposed alternatives of selling their product at a loss or comitting a felony, retailers will do neither. Instead they'll just turn off the pumps and wait for the government to cave. Bart STUPak needs to read this cartoon and the 'Who is Gouging Whom?' excerpt that follows it. Posted by: johngalt at May 28, 2007 12:15 PMMay 21, 2007Sounds like my diet...I have had this story in a browser window all day. I don't know what to say but it is too good not to share. The Wall Street Journal details (paid link, sorry) what pig farmers are feeding their livestock as corn is being diverted to Ethanol production. GARLAND, N.C. -- When Alfred Smith's hogs eat trail mix, they usually shun the Brazil nuts. Of course, if we did not provide 50 cents a gallon subsidies for Ethanol and apply 51 cent tariffs to a gallon of Brazilian Ethanol -- never mind, you know the rest. My wife just hopes they don't find a way to make biofuels out of coffee.
Posted by jk at 7:31 PM
| Comments (1)
But TrekMedic251 thinks:
...are downing cookies, licorice, cheese curls, candy bars, french fries, frosted wheat cereal and peanut-butter cups. Sounds like the desk of the lieutenant at the firehouse! ;-) Posted by: TrekMedic251 at May 21, 2007 10:47 PMMay 8, 2007Chuck Schumer: Feel the LovePerry at Eidelblog refers to the Senior Senator from New York as:
What a great post! Seriously, one of his constituents on a blog points out what no newspaper or magazine will dare. The good If Schumer wants to know the fundamental problem with American refineries, he need not look anywhere but a mirror. The New York Times reported two years ago that "Over the last quarter-century, the number of refineries in the United States dropped to 149, less than half the number in 1981." Worse, the United States hasn't seen a new refinery built since 1976. Every time a company would like to build one, they can't get past the hurdles that Congress, and state and local governments too, made to satisfy the tree-huggers. The blame falls mainly on Democrats, but also on "environmentally minded" Republicans who'll court any vote to win elections. Well done.
Posted by jk at 12:29 PM
| |