Slashdot Mirror

Enhanced Geothermal energy has the potential to replace almost all US baseload electricity generation except hydro and serves as an excellent counterpoint to wind and PV. Total system levelized costs are overall are quite low - as low as coal, nuclear; some types of natural gas are cheaper now but not the more eco-friendly sort. It requires no fuel so fuel supply cost issues are of no concern, nor a national security or global policy risk. There is no gas pipeline that might rupture and burn down an entire neighborhood. There are no nuclear proliferation issues. It's a closed loop and does not generate CO2, nor toxic coal ash, nor spent nuclear fuel to be rid of. There is no risk that it will blow up. The energy driver is residual fission occurring in the Earth's core (80%) that is in no danger of being depleted ever. The plants themselves can be unobtrusive and small.

It has utility almost everywhere in the world, as the only question is really how deep you must drill to get to the hot rock. There is hot rock under everywhere. Some of it is impractical to reach right now though. It is of most economical use notably on the "ring of fire" - the western edge of North and South America, the Eastern edge of Asia. And Iceland of course, where they are eagerly exploiting the resource already - 87% of building heating and 26% of electrical energy from this source. Shoot in Iceland it's so cheap and plentiful they defrost streets and sidewalks with it - even a beach.

The problem is that the costs are all up front. It takes years to dig the hole, so a long lag time between starting the investment and yielding a return. You have to drill the hole, buy the generators, build the plants and so on before you get the first watt-hour. After that it's free power, essentially forever. Every 30 years you have to refurbish or replace the turbines. Once a year the gear has to be inspected. Somebody's got to man the gate to keep kids from spraypainting the condenser. That's about it.

It is the lack of a need for ongoing fuel supply that is perhaps the problem. Over the lifespan of an electrical plant the ongoing revenues from providing its fuel is a bigger motivator for the fuel supplier than the plant operator. The fuel costs more than the plant. Naturally fuel providers are going to be opposed to this radical notion of continuously generating baseload power for the whole life of the plant without paying them money. It's bad for jobs.

As for natural gas being cheaper, this is true but it may not always be true. LNG is also useful for powering internal combustion engines and may become a valuable export to improve our balance of trade or make us less dependent on other forms of portable energy import. It's a resource with global demand and that global demand introduces the risk that market rates for the fuel may go up. This portability factor makes the use of natural gas in generating electricity when you don't have to a waste of a valuable resource better used another way.

Enhanced Geothermal energy has the potential to replace almost all US baseload electricity generation except hydro and serves as an excellent counterpoint to wind and PV. Total system levelized costs are overall are quite low - as low as coal, nuclear; some types of natural gas are cheaper now but not the more eco-friendly sort. It requires no fuel so fuel supply cost issues are of no concern, nor a national security or global policy risk. There is no gas pipeline that might rupture and burn down an entire neighborhood. There are no nuclear proliferation issues. It's a closed loop and does not generate CO2, nor toxic coal ash, nor spent nuclear fuel to be rid of. There is no risk that it will blow up. The energy driver is residual fission occurring in the Earth's core (80%) that is in no danger of being depleted ever. The plants themselves can be unobtrusive and small.

It has utility almost everywhere in the world, as the only question is really how deep you must drill to get to the hot rock. There is hot rock under everywhere. Some of it is impractical to reach right now though. It is of most economical use notably on the "ring of fire" - the western edge of North and South America, the Eastern edge of Asia. And Iceland of course, where they are eagerly exploiting the resource already - 87% of building heating and 26% of electrical energy from this source. Shoot in Iceland it's so cheap and plentiful they defrost streets and sidewalks with it - even a beach.

The problem is that the costs are all up front. It takes years to dig the hole, so a long lag time between starting the investment and yielding a return. You have to drill the hole, buy the generators, build the plants and so on before you get the first watt-hour. After that it's free power, essentially forever. Every 30 years you have to refurbish or replace the turbines. Once a year the gear has to be inspected. Somebody's got to man the gate to keep kids from spraypainting the condenser. That's about it.

It is the lack of a need for ongoing fuel supply that is perhaps the problem. Over the lifespan of an electrical plant the ongoing revenues from providing its fuel is a bigger motivator for the fuel supplier than the plant operator. The fuel costs more than the plant. Naturally fuel providers are going to be opposed to this radical notion of continuously generating baseload power for the whole life of the plant without paying them money. It's bad for jobs.

As for natural gas being cheaper, this is true but it may not always be true. LNG is also useful for powering internal combustion engines and may become a valuable export to improve our balance of trade or make us less dependent on other forms of portable energy import. It's a resource with global demand and that global demand introduces the risk that market rates for the fuel may go up. This portability factor makes the use of natural gas in generating electricity when you don't have to a waste of a valuable resource better used another way.

Except the big problem in the recession has been too little inflation

Try telling that to anyone who actually gets out of the basement to buy food and fuel. They will laugh at that idea, but inside they will be extremely upset.

The price at the pump is determined by the world price for oil (which is world supply and demand, and the strength of the US dollar). And gas prices have yet to hit pre-meltdown levels, hell, just yesterday I was driving by gas stations surprised at how cheap it was, and I can also remember the prices in '07 and '08 that are higher than anything I've seen since.

As for food it's risen about 1.8% in the past year. Sure you can cherry pick a few items that have gone up more, but there's others that have stayed the same or even gone down. (my grocery bill has definitely gone down, but I've also grown smarter with my shopping habits)

Less Power: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=27&t=10

Eating Hoses: http://riderinfo.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-6668.html

And yes gas is a non-polar solvent. My point is that older vehicles are not designed with ethanol in the fuel mix.

Net Energy Balance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_energy_balance.

I guess my information was dated on that one, so you are right. You are producing more energy than is consumed.

Finally, I have no idea what the perfect fuel is. Gas and ethanol are decent fuels. I do know that mixing the two fuels was a bad idea.

Your installation cost for a residential system is extremely cheap !

Not especially. $4/watt installed is pretty much the going rate this quarter, in Wisconsin.

On average in the USA a 3kW system would be a $17000 investment [1]. Also your annual savings are quite incredible: with the average household cost of electricity in the USA at 11.72c per kWh [2],

I've already stated twice that the on-peak rate with WE Energies on a tier-2 time of use is $.25/KWh, and that the utility buys the power back at retail (and resells it at a premium to people who subscribe to green power). Your adversarial attitude is both misplaced, and puzzling. I have no reason to make this shit up, feel free to go look up WE Energies billing rates.

it would mean that your system produced around 13413 kWh [12x(163-32)/0.1172] over a year ! For a 3kW system this would mean that your magic installation as a capacity factor of 51% !!!! [13413/ (3 x 24 x 365)].

If your math wasn't based on an assumption based on the wrong cost per KWh. Lose the attitude, sparky, you're boring me, I'm trying to share facts, and you're just spouting insults.

So yes, I don't know if you're delusional but you have been most likely lying by forgetting to speak about the subsidies you received for the installation and feed-in tarif.

WTF is a "feed-in tarif"? The raw cost of the install (the bill from the electrician) was $12,000. This is for (10) 300W Helios 9T6 panels, a Fronius 3000W synchronous inverter, meter, pedastal, associated wiring, and installation. Tax rebate plus "Focus on Energy" subsidy brought the out of pocket expense down to $7,000. I don't know how much more specific I can be.

Oh and if you want to prove your case, please state your location and the supplier of your system...

What is far more annoying than your convenient omission of subsidies is all the idiots solar fanboys moderating you informative when they have absolutely no clue about the real cost of Solar PV energy....

[1] http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/RE_Technologies_Cost_Analysis-SOLAR_PV.pdf [2] http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_03

So yeah, I can't speak to whatever idiot fanboi whatever this or that you complain about, but your use of emotionally charged namecalling in the face of simply stated facts that I have direct personal experience with, makes me not all that interested in trying to convince you of _anything_. So here you go - yeah, you're right man, it's all an illusion. Installed systems at $4/watt are impossible, and, there's no way it'll ever payback the investment. Burn more coal! Woo!

Your installation cost for a residential system is extremely cheap ! On average in the USA a 3kW system would be a $17000 investment [1]. Also your annual savings are quite incredible: with the average household cost of electricity in the USA at 11.72c per kWh [2], it would mean that your system produced around 13413 kWh [12x(163-32)/0.1172] over a year ! For a 3kW system this would mean that your magic installation as a capacity factor of 51% !!!! [13413/ (3 x 24 x 365)].

So yes, I don't know if you're delusional but you have been most likely lying by forgetting to speak about the subsidies you received for the installation and feed-in tarif. Oh and if you want to prove your case, please state your location and the supplier of your system...

What is far more annoying than your convenient omission of subsidies is all the idiots solar fanboys moderating you informative when they have absolutely no clue about the real cost of Solar PV energy....

[1] http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/RE_Technologies_Cost_Analysis-SOLAR_PV.pdf
[2] http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_03

While the USA have reduced the CO2 footprint, most people believe it is due to economic reasons (slow economic).
If you look at official graphs: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=7350
You see they are barely at the level of 1992 now ... not something to be proud about. When next year the economy is souring again you will be back on increasing your footprint.

IIRC, by the year 2018, China will account for over 1/2 of CO2 emissions of mankind.
By 2022, it is expected that China will account for 1/2 of all CO2 that mankind has emitted.

Two more reasons to do something, instead of putting the head into the sand.

The average US house uses about 1.3kW averaged over time. Obviously it can spike up to several kW or over 10kW when lots of appliances and any heating/cooling is turned on, but the batteries can handle spikes in load.

Source: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=97&t=3

The unratified Kyoto carbon emission treaty stipulates cutting carbon emission to 5% below 1990 levels. Right now we have turned back the clock to 1992 levels. This was primarily due the Great Recession cutting energy consumption plus converting about a quarter of coal electricity to natural gas. Another large chuck of electricity generation will be converted to natural gas the rest of this decade. Combined with Bush/Obama energy efficiency laws, the US will reach the Kyoto limits before the end of the decade.

Similar cause, different fuels.

Right now we import 45% of our petroleum. Adding 1.5 million barrels of production to regain worlds largest producer status would cut this to 30%. Optimistic projections are that further production increases plus conservation plus green energy might make US energy independent around 2030.

In fact, I don't shoot from the hip much. Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil
Move on to here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_the_United_States
And here: http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/crudeoilreserves/ (Warning, these may be "political" numbers).
And here: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=33&t=6

You might also try one of those new-fangled "calculator" things.

By 2100, it's highly unlikely we'll still be using significant fossil fuels.
True, as in "none." That doesn't make it a good idea.

But today, and for the next 20-30 years, we will be relying on fossil fuels, and a lot of it is going to be from shale (and tar sands). Get used to it.
Also completely true. Especially, if the natural gas numbers approach reality and we can transition in time. We will, of course, be paying up the nose for it.

In the long run, it's nuclear and batteries that don't suck, or a distinct drop in our level of civilization.

In fact, I don't shoot from the hip much. Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil
Move on to here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_the_United_States
And here: http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/crudeoilreserves/ (Warning, these may be "political" numbers).
And here: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=33&t=6

You might also try one of those new-fangled "calculator" things.

By 2100, it's highly unlikely we'll still be using significant fossil fuels.
True, as in "none." That doesn't make it a good idea.

But today, and for the next 20-30 years, we will be relying on fossil fuels, and a lot of it is going to be from shale (and tar sands). Get used to it.
Also completely true. Especially, if the natural gas numbers approach reality and we can transition in time. We will, of course, be paying up the nose for it.

In the long run, it's nuclear and batteries that don't suck, or a distinct drop in our level of civilization.

Oil demand in the U.S. (and the OECD more broadly) has declined and flatlined following the "Great Recession". Even in light of the recovery, petroleum consumption has remained essentially flat, with maybe even a slight decline from 2009. The economic shock of 2008's oil prices has violently reoriented the economy in some ways, and it's hard to think of a reason that oil consumption will ever tick back up as new CAFE standards come into effect. The use of oil for heating and power generation has been in decline for decades--the remaining demand is for transportation and petrochemicals. EIA US consumption data here: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WRPUPUS2&f=W

why is it that:

* the country which uses 50% of the world's resources yet has only 12% of the world's population

"Resources" is pretty general--the U.S. uses about 20% of the world's energy.
We also produce "approximately a fifth of global GDP at purchasing power parity."
We are less than 5% of the world's population, not 12%, where'd you get that number from?

So: 5% of the world's population produces 20% of the world's economic output, using about 20% of the world's energy. The only thing we are guilty of is being highly productive.

Surely you can see that, right?

The US Energy Information Administration claims that the US dependence on oil from The Persian Gulf is approximately 22%, so even if they dropped off the face of the planet (ie immediately/suddenly, tomorrow) it would not make all that much of a difference.

Surely a US government agnecy could not possibly so stupid. Nothing on the website supports your ludicrous claim that they think "t would not make all that much of a difference.".

The US Energy Information Administration claims that the US dependence on oil from The Persian Gulf is approximately 22%, so even if they dropped off the face of the planet (ie immediately/suddenly, tomorrow) it would not make all that much of a difference.

Sure it'd be a massive PITA for maybe as much as a month, then we'd all get over it and wonder what the fuss was about.

You're way under the average for the U.S. then. In 2010, the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer was 11,496 kWh

Wow! I just got my yearly bill yesterday, my consumption in the last 12 months was 959 kWh. (I'm in Germany, this is electricity from pure renewable sources (mostly hydroelectric), I'm paying 22 Euro a month). OK, no AC here, no electrical heating either (except for water). I've been fairly power-conscient since moving last year though, mostly LED lighting, hardly any standby power for anything and I got rid of nearly all electrically powered kitchen utilities etc.

You're way under the average for the U.S. then. In 2010, the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer was 11,496 kWh

He posted 3.5k/month, you're talking about annual averages while he's talking about monthly. He's using about four times the US average.

You're way under the average for the U.S. then. In 2010, the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer was 11,496 kWh

One step at a time...

Didn't it have some quite obvious maths that showed that if all cars in the USA were converted to electric, it would require 7,000 GWh of electricity just to charge them every day?

7,200 billion watt-hours versus 134 billion gallons of gasoline per year, which is equivalent to 12,372 billion watt-hours of energy per day (33,700 watt-hours per gallon!). Not including all the processing, handling and transportation energy which the DOE figures is 83% efficient, so net energy expenditure is closer to 14,900 billion watt-hours daily.

Velomobiles have several significant drawbacks compared to full sized electric cars: Single person occupancy is the ONLY option, can't carry anything in the way of cargo, not suitable for many people (only able-bodied persons need apply), not suitable for a wide variety of weather and terrain conditions, etc etc... Nice idea but to seriously suggest that everyone should use them is a fucking joke.

what that velomobiles article didn't also cover is that it's highly unlikely that the world has enough lithium and neodymium to go round to supply all those vehicles.

There is 29.7 million tons of lithium on reserve (meaning readily extractable with current infrastructure), and the total quantity of lithium on the planet being something like 3 million billion tons (only a fraction is actually accessible, of course). Lithium is about as plentiful as nickel.

If you need 140 grams of lithium per kWh of battery then today's typical electric car will need 3.4 kg of the stuff, meaning you can make 588 million such cars per million tons. Right now there are only about 600 million cars in the entire world. Advances in technology notwithstanding, roughly 1/30th of our currently available lithium supply will satisfy the entire global automotive market.

Plus, you can recycle Lithium batteries if you need to - currently not economical, but you can do it.

As for neodymium and other rare-earths? You dno't actually need those materials to make electric motors. They're very useful at making good, cheap motors - but you can make good, slightly more costly motors without them. If by some happenstance we run out of "rare earth" elements (which are actually about as rare as dirt but economically viable deposits are what's rare) then we'll manage.

i've *done* the analysis and the designs (http://lkcl.net/ev) and if EVs are to be the success that people really really WANT them to be...

Nothing on your website supports the claim that such a design is required to be successful (if it is, you have hidden it very well). In fact, I'm pretty sure that such a design - while very efficient - has absolutely no market potential to speak of. This is mostly because efficiency and cost are not actually the primary reasons most people buy cars.

Your shitty Geocities throwback of a site also incorrectly links the Chevy Volt fire to the lithium content. The actual reason for the fire was the battery coolant system was not drained after a crash test, and a week later the concentrated glycol residue from the leaking coolant caused a short. A short which, incidentally, can (and often does) happen in any car's electrical system. Even your proposed design can burst into flames without warning.

or am i missing something here?

Facts, mostly... facts and perspective.
=Smidge=

but I think the problem is that most people in the U.S. do not actually live in their homes for a long enough time. I've been here 13 years, but I've been looking to move for the past five or so

This shouldn't really matter, as any unrealized value of the PV panels would presumably be recouped by increased resale price of the house.

The hang-up is up-front costs. The average home in the U.S. uses 11,500 kWh in a year. So at a constant power draw that's 1311 Watts. Factor in PV solar's average capacity factor o 0.145 and that means you need 9050 Watts of nameplate capacity installed to (on average) zero out your electricity bill (in reality it's a bit less because peak electric prices are during the middle of the day when nobody's home but the panels are generating the most).

If panels are $1/Watt, that's a $9k up-front cost the homeowner has to pay, plus several thousand more for installation, mounting, inverters and regulation, etc. That's simply out of the reach of most homeowners unless they can somehow roll it in with their mortgage.

in the USA real consumer prices for electricity have fallen slightly over the same period!

So much for "this is a world problem" that the governments kept telling us

"Capacity" is inherently about quantity.

Not in this context. "Quality" refers to the capacity of a single refinery, "Quantity" refers to the number of refineries. Total refinery capacity is the sum of all the individual refinery capacities, yeah? Well if I double the capacity of each refinery (improve quality) I can decommission half my refineries (reduce quantity) while keeping the same total capacity.

I'm sorry I had to explain that.

According to the data I linked earlier, the US has ~17,000,000 barrels per month refinery capacity. This is about the same as it was 5 years ago. However we have five fewer refineries now as we did in 2007 and we're down a total of 11 if you count refineries that are sitting idle. Yet capacity is the same.

Here's an alternate hypothesis for why ND doesn't have enough refinery capacity for the oil it produces: They refined products aren't needed in ND. It makes no sense to refine locally then ship the products out when you can just ship the raw material out for less cost. Sorry if you don't "buy that" but one truck/pipe carrying one product is easier than ten trucks/pipes carrying ten different products.
=Smidge=

No new refineries in the US, and yet refinery capacity is nearly at an all-time high.

It's about quality, not quantity.

"Capacity" is inherently about quantity.

There are no new refineries being built because we've been improving the existing ones so much.

I wonder who else really believes that? When one actually looks at refineries built in the past 45 years, it is remarkable how little has been done. There's a simple explanation. Regulation has driven up the cost of building a new plant so much that it is cheaper to expand an existing plant than to build a new plant of the same capacity.

Consider this, there's apparently only one refinery in North Dakota at Mandan, ND. That refinery processes almost 60,000 barrels of oil a day. In comparison, the state is producing over half a million barrels of oil a day. That's almost a factor of ten difference between production capacity in the state and refining capacity in the state. I just don't buy that it's somehow cheaper (outside of regulatory considerations) to funnel all that oil down to a distant refinery operating near capacity rather than opening up a refinery near the location on cheap land to add value prior to moving the oil elsewhere.

Over 40 percent of total U.S. petroleum refining capacity is located along the Gulf coast, as well as 30 percent of total U.S. natural gas processing plant capacity.

http://www.eia.gov/special/gulf_of_mexico/

The prices go up as you move away from the gulf.. that's all the map shows.

Hey.. I have an idea... where are your facts for your wild conspiracy theory?

Don't have any? you don't say...

Utilization rate for the refineries is around 90%, and has been hovering around 90% for decades. Refinery capacity has increased more than fuel demand while utilization has remained roughly constant, yet prices continue to rise. There's something else at play here. Our capacity to refine the petroleum has pretty much kept pace with demand.

And the "Mr. Coward" quip had more to do with lack of any other handle to address the poster by, rather than anything derogatory. Though creating an account is easy enough so maybe you, too, should consider risking your reputation on a public forum - if only a pretend reputation.
=Smidge=

Utilization rate for the refineries is around 90%, and has been hovering around 90% for decades. Refinery capacity has increased more than fuel demand while utilization has remained roughly constant, yet prices continue to rise. There's something else at play here. Our capacity to refine the petroleum has pretty much kept pace with demand.

And the "Mr. Coward" quip had more to do with lack of any other handle to address the poster by, rather than anything derogatory. Though creating an account is easy enough so maybe you, too, should consider risking your reputation on a public forum - if only a pretend reputation.
=Smidge=

The United States in 2010 spent over 130 billion dollars on new cars alone.[1] [2] Preliminary reports suggest the total for 2011 was higher.[3] Also in 2010 Americans spent $479 billion dollars on gasoline.[4] [5]

There are about 250 billion cars in the US[6], using a very rough estimate of $10,000 per car[7], that's $2.5 trillion dollars' worth of passenger vehicles. I'm not even going to get into the costs of road maintenance.

I would post statistics on fuel efficiency/energy use per passenger mile but I suspect that you're not a complete idiot. A 2002 APTA study put total public transit costs at ~$39 billion annually.[8][pdf]. Do you see how the one number is a couple orders of magnitude lower than the other one?

I can keep hauling out statistics, but [8] is a pretty comprehensive overview of the subject. Among the other BTS statistics? The "hidden tax" I mentioned is on average 10% of annual income. Other sources claim double this number. As with medical care, no other country on Earth comes close to spending as much money per capita. That above $2.5 trillion figure is more than the US annual federal revenues. The US spends as much money on new cars annually as the national budget of Greece -- which has the 24th largest budget (by expenditures).

In summation, given the roughly two orders of magnitude difference between spending on personal vehicles and mass transit, my previous statement was entirely correct.

For further comment on Libertarianism, see here.

The United States in 2010 spent over 130 billion dollars on new cars alone.[1] [2] Preliminary reports suggest the total for 2011 was higher.[3] Also in 2010 Americans spent $479 billion dollars on gasoline.[4] [5]

There are about 250 billion cars in the US[6], using a very rough estimate of $10,000 per car[7], that's $2.5 trillion dollars' worth of passenger vehicles. I'm not even going to get into the costs of road maintenance.

I would post statistics on fuel efficiency/energy use per passenger mile but I suspect that you're not a complete idiot. A 2002 APTA study put total public transit costs at ~$39 billion annually.[8][pdf]. Do you see how the one number is a couple orders of magnitude lower than the other one?

I can keep hauling out statistics, but [8] is a pretty comprehensive overview of the subject. Among the other BTS statistics? The "hidden tax" I mentioned is on average 10% of annual income. Other sources claim double this number. As with medical care, no other country on Earth comes close to spending as much money per capita. That above $2.5 trillion figure is more than the US annual federal revenues. The US spends as much money on new cars annually as the national budget of Greece -- which has the 24th largest budget (by expenditures).

In summation, given the roughly two orders of magnitude difference between spending on personal vehicles and mass transit, my previous statement was entirely correct.

For further comment on Libertarianism, see here.

No new refineries in the US, and yet refinery capacity is nearly at an all-time high.

It's about quality, not quantity. There are no new refineries being built because we've been improving the existing ones so much. We have the capacity to refine more fuels now than at any point in the past 30 years.

Try again, Mr. Coward.
=Smidge=

The price of Gas is not reacting to a Supply vs Demand price rise. 2005 remains the peak of oil consumption in the U.S.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTUPUS2&f=M

On the other hand, we are producing more oil. Why hasn't the price fallen?

We have embarked on QE3 (after QE2 and QE1). We are printing money and injecting it into the Financial Institutions on Wall Street. Obviously countries who have been producing products for the United States (like oil) for decades and decades know that the value of the dollar is going to slide. Not saying crash necessarily, but there isn't any doubt in the world it is going to slide.

What do you do if you are such a country? You raise your prices. Because the dollar isn't going to be worth as much going forward.

This is the stated goal of Paul Krugman. Get Inflation up to 5 percent or 6 percent even. That is going to increase (he claims) employment. But prices lag the actual inflation, and wages lag the actual inflation even more.

So the result is going to be higher prices and lower real wages, less ability to buy goods (because we increasingly uses foreign components and raw materials even in domestic goods).

We are proudly following Japan into 20 years of dragging economic activity. And I think that is the up side.

Since over 50% of US electrical production is from coal

50%? More like 40%...

"Now, we have the opposite problem -- an administration who issues oil leases but no permission to actually drill and fights all efforts to build any additional oil refineries"

Nice troll, but the US _exports_ gasoline of which it has a surplus.
There is also no refinery capacity problem.

The global market is willing to spend MONEY to buy US gasoline and diesel. They even pay to refine crude in _US_ refineries for export elsewhere.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mgfexus1&f=m

http://zfacts.com/node/426

"U.S. oil and natural gas production in July was the highest since 1999, according to the Energy Department. That increase has allowed the U.S. to "meet 81 percent of its energy needs last year, the most since 1992." And, the U.S. took on the role of a net exporter of refined products for the first time since World War II.

Countries such as Venezuela and Brazil, petro dynamos in South America, both increased imports of U.S. refined products from last year.

Loder reported that gasoline has become more expensive because of rising world oil prices. The fact that U.S. refiners can turn a bigger profit by sending refined products out of the country should give us pause to think what would happen if we adopted policies to promote greater domestic crude production.

As long as markets for refined oil products overseas continue to grow, it only makes sense for U.S. refiners to tap these profitable opportunities.

"Drill Baby Drill!" won't necessarily lower gas prices as long as customers in China, India and other developing markets are willing to outbid U.S. motorists in the global gasoline price wars."

Incidentally, building pipeline for Canada to export their tar sands oil through US refineries in Foreign Trade Zones isn't going to help US consumers either, because it "un-landlocks" oil which was going to US customers in the first place.

http://247wallst.com/2012/03/07/valero-looks-forward-to-export-opportunities-vlo-trp-tso-mpc-hfc/

"The Keystone XL pipeline, with its projected delivery of 800,000 barrels/day of heavy, sour crude from Canada, figures prominently in Valeroâ(TM)s plans to boost its profits. The higher volume of Canadian crude will widen the differential between Brent and other imported heavy, sour crudes by pushing prices down on imports.

For US drivers, this scenario does not mean that gasoline will be cheaper. It does mean that Valero will be able to capture bigger profits even as US demand for gasoline falls. The only thing that will push down pump prices is for Brent crude to fall significantly with respect to WTI. That is not part of either TransCanadaâ(TM)s or Valeroâ(TM)s plan."

Sorry to derail another anti-Obama attack (I don't like Omney OR Robama!) but the White House does not run the oil industry!

You made references as if I was in Europe. I'm not. Read the first two letters of my name, or my sig for a better hint of where I am.

Heh, talk about coincidence- I'm in Fairbanks. In any case, I didn't want to make any allegations. As far as I knew you had an unhealthy obsession with Harry Potter, or 'AK' were your initials. I normally pay no real attention to sigs.

After that, let me let you in on a little secret. I'd bet there are more PV panels per capita in Alaska than Nevada.

I know of 2 installs here in Fairbanks. I'm willing to bet there's a lot more down in Nevada, even per capita, though the remoteness and low population density which makes our electricity bloody expensive makes PV attractive here, at least in the summer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_consumption The EU has more population and lower oil consumption. Thus savings measures will have a greater effect in the USA than Europe. Thus, EVs *should* be adopted in the US before Europe.

You live in Alaska and you don't know that there are more uses for oil than simply burning it in automobiles? I use approximately equal measures in my truck and house! If I had a family and the house was occupied more I'd be seriously looking at wood.

In any case:
Fewer cars? False. Though if you include 'all' 4+ wheel vehicles, we take the lead again(though it's still around 75% as many vehicles per capita).
Fewer miles? 14k km(9k miles), vs ~15k miles, though latest DOT is closer to 13k. So about 50% more. Your earlier assumption of 8k km was therefore only slightly above HALF of what the statistics actually say about average driving over in Europe, and is still less than if you misstated and meant miles. Plus Americans are driving less as well.
Better Economy: True, but I never disagreed with you there. On average, US vehicles use 32% more fuel. Still, Europe averaged €1.59/liter vs USA's $3.85. A US gallon is 3.79L, And 1 Euro =$1.28. Making European gas $7.71/gallon. Adjusting for the average superior mileage of European vehicles, they're still falling behind at $5.84/gallon equivalent. Raise prices that much and Americans drive less.

Again: My statement was merely trying to state that EV adoption should be quicker over in Europe.

1, The battery is the single thing that drives the cost of an EV higher than a traditional gasoline vehicle.
2. An EV driven less doesn't need as large of a battery.
3. A denser average population also means that potential charge points are also more common.
4. The cost of fuel is far higher in Europe

Conclusion: Small EVs should be quite popular over there(if they were 'almost' economical in the USA), but they're not, so they're not really that close yet.

Most of the land in Alaska has no access to any utilities at all.

True; though if you want water it's more 'dig a well' or 'drive into town once a week/month to fill up a big tank in the back of your truck' and most of our population IS collected around population centers where utilities(at least electricity) is available.

Still, just to fact check:
Alaska: .1 MWp. 723k people, .00014 MWp/person. Only 10 registered installs?.

I heard the other day that our oil exports now exceed our oil imports.

If what you heard is talking about CRUDE oil, which is what counts, then what you heard is WRONG. It is astonishing that anyone would believe such an absurd claim.

For the 4 week period ending September 14, crude oil trade was:
    imports, 8.986 million barrels per day
    Exports, 0.040 million barrels per day
    Net, 8.946 million barrels per day IMPORTS

What you heard was probably talking about oil PRODUCTS, which were indeed a net outflow:
    Imports, 2.206 million barrels per day
    Exports, 2.838 million barrels per day
    Net, 0.632 million barrels per day EXPORTS

reference

Oil products are gasoline, blending components, distillates, kerosene, jet fuel, propane, and so on. Almost the entire volume of these products comes from, you guessed it, crude oil. So the USA imports crude oil, processes it, and exports a large proportion of the resulting products. Corporations are making money by importing the raw material (crude oil), refining it and processing it into various products, and selling these products overseas. Economics 101, to be sure, but what it means is that some substantial portion of the USA crude oil imports (far from the major portion, however), are not necessitated by domestic use.

We haven't built a new major power plant in a long, long time and we aren't likely to do so anytime soon either.

Look at figure 95 on this page.

    http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/sector_electric_power_all.cfm#powergen

    In the accompanying text, the DOE estimates the total new capacity additions to our electric system between 2011 and 2015 will be between 166 and 355 gigawatts.

Bullshit? Aren't basic super computers (pick any from the Top 500) massively better than estimates for human computation? Isn't there consumption measured in the kilowatts/low megawatts? Total US power production is in the gigawatts. You are off by several orders of magnitude.

And where, oh sage, are your proven domestic reserves that exist in reality and not only on paper?

LMFGTFY.

It's been well known for some time we have a lot of shale oil, that fracking now renders usable. If you seriously doubt we have huge oil reserves in the U.S. you have not been paying attention to the industry for the last five years.

Regarding Keystone, you are aware that this particular project is not domestic in any meaningful sense?

Except for domestic jobs to build it, and the domestic jobs at there refineries the oils goes to. So I guess you're right, no value whatsoever. *rolls eyes*

The UK is oil independent - It doesn't need imports.

That has changed.

EIA

Energy Bulletin

Google "Average US electricity Use'. EIA reports the average as 11,496 kWh/year.

Tennessee was highest at 16,716 kWh and Maine the lowest at 6,252 kWh, for state averages.

From these two documents, it seems mostly a matter that you in the Netherlands use a huge amount less electricity for space heating and cooling, combined with fewer energy-intensive appliances such as dryers, and when you do have them, they're more efficient.

The documents also showed that, on average, electricity use is tending up in the Netherlands, while it's tending downwards in the USA.

If climate change is real and man-made, the human race isn't mature enough to react to it in time.

I guess I can understand the need to identify a cause for global warming - if we can arrest anthropogenic sources of change then it follows we can perhaps slow or stop climate changes induced by people.

If much of the change is related to us burning fossil fuels I think we're basically screwed. Fossil fuels accounts for about 85% of the United States's energy use (see EIA Renewable Energy). With a number that high can anyone imagine a social policy change or technological advance that would reduce the amount of CO2 we're dumping into the atmosphere? The US can't pass a bill to save it's postal service - what chance is there in something like the Manhatten Project or Apollo project were science and business collaborate to create something historic and game changing?

A 1930 Model A Ford owner reports getting 20 miles per gallon, for christ's sake. Today the Ford Explorer gets 20 - 28 miles per gallon. In almost 100 years we basically have the same thing in a more deadly model getting roughly the same mileage? Nah ... if that's the best we can do it's time to stock up on dry ice and sun screen.

I don't know if it has more to do with fuel efficiency in cars or not, but it seems that fuel usage in the US has gone down at least from 2006-2011... maybe US citizens are just driving less == fewer accidents? No idea.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_sum_snd_d_r10_mbblpd_a_cur-5.htm

...from fracking, but something else.

I'm still skeptical about any pro-fracking news. There has been some evidence that fracking and the sequestration of the fracking fluids is causing some problems. So my impression is the pro-fracking interests need some good press.

Taking a quick look at some other sources, it looks as if coal still plays a big part in power generation and isn't letting up any time soon.

Political and investment

Those links do not absolutely refute the possibility that fracked gas has helped nor do they suggest it has. They do suggest coal is doing okay despite some EPA controls re emissions.

It just seems more likely to me there is a cumulative effective of better emission controls on cars, high-efficiency heating systems, and emission controls on industry operations (eg, power generating stations) over a period of years.

I just checked the emissions of a nearby coal-fired plant. Between 1999 and 2003, emissions dropped by more than half and have been held there ever since. It looks as if the EPA regs are having a positive impact in our area.

From the U.S. Energy Information Agency ... http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=7350

The grandparent is incorrect, not insightful. Household energy usage in the US is trending down. See http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=6570

I don't have a house so I haven't looked into all of the details. So I'm wondering. How many kilowatts does a house use at any given time? From what I can tell the average is around 1.3 kw (958 kWh per month divided by ~720 hours). That's divided over 24 hours so I'm sure when people are awake in their house that it's more.

Home Depot sells 280-watt solar cells for $448. They have a 25 year warrant on >80% power output.

By my calculations 20 would cover roughly 420 square feet. That would cost about $10k and yield as much as 5.6 kw. So I'm wondering how much you can sell your surplus back to the grid to help pay for when you might need to draw more? I'm thinking during the day when at work you can sell your surplus. At night and when it's cloudy you'll have to buy back from the grid. How much is installation and can it be done yourself? Is there other equipment (mounting, wiring, transformers?) and/or associated labor that makes it so expensive? Getting a peak of 11.2 kw for $20k and 840 square feet of real estate seems like a lot of electricity unless I missed a decimal somewhere.

My knowledge on the matter is limited to just quick Google references. Given people are not even spending $450 to add one of these each year I know I'm missing something.

There is a lot more to energy than just petroleum. Petroleum, as an energy source, is used primarily as a transportation fuel and as a chemical feedstock for producing other things. But we consume a lot more energy than just the fuel that moves our cars, boats, and airplanes. We heat and light our buildings and homes, we run electrical machines great and small, we crunch numbers and watch TV, we grow and process crops and livestock to feed ourselves, and we produce a lot of stuff.

All of these things require energy, a lot of which comes from fossile-but-not-petroleum fuels: coal and natural gas. For the U.S., here is the breakdown of where we get and where we use energy.

So I don't buy for a moment that peak oil will get us out of this mess. As petroleum wanes, we'll make it up using other sources, and coal and natural gas are still the cheapest and most abundant.

As I've stated, not only does the title seem correct, but the colums in the spreadsheet itself are titled CO2. And again, where do these numbers come from? That seems to be something you haven't dealt with nor acknowledged.

Yes, the columns are titled CO2 and the accompanying graph labels the units as "Million Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent". If you're going to believe the numbers you should also believe the units. Accepting one as more reliable than the other really is selective thinking.

Here is a little brochure put out by the DOE and I linked this earlier. http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html [eia.gov]

First, that pamphlet appears to be about 12 years old. Second, did you read the headings on the graphs? They say "Million Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent". That's carbon equivalent not CO2. You have to convert carbon to CO2 to compare numbers and it just so happens that 9 billion tons of carbon equivalent is around 33 billion tons of CO2.

Molar mass of C: 12 g/mol
Molar mass of O: 16 g/mol

Weight of CO2 to C: 3.7:1
Converting Carbon to CO2: 9 billion tons of carbon is approximately 33.3 billion tons of CO2.

Every piece of evidence you have cited to support your view has only served to undermine it, because each explicitly contradicts the views that you hold. That's an amazing display of confirmation bias and scientific illiteracy.

We also happen to know how much of that turns into CO2 (about 19lbs per gallon). So, anyone can figure out how much CO2 was created in the US. And guess what? The numbers seem to correspond closely to your spreadsheet.

See my previous comment on the multitude of errors in your calculation.

I also liked your selective reading above on the analysis of the eruption of Mt St. Helens. First you denied that 60% per volume of the magma can be converted to CO2/SO2, then I shot that one down. Now, your new one is that a sampling of the eruption (one data point) is all the gas that was emitted. But that is just par for the course with you. Read it more carefully next time.

It's your evidence that you are claiming is unreliable. The same "data point" produces both numbers. If you're going to throw out their calculation for the total amount of CO2 released, you shouldn't rely on their calculation for the percentage of magma converted into CO2 either for the same eruption. Once again you're engaging in selective thinking.

1 cubic mile of magma converted at that rate emits a tremendous amount of CO2/SO2. Since one cubic mile of magma weight about 45 trillion pounds, it doesn't take much mathematical ability to realize how enormous the OVERALL eruption is (on the scale of 100's of billion of tons of CO2/SO2).

As I previously noted, you don't know how much magma was converted to CO2, you have applied an estimate of the percentage of magma converted to CO2 from a separate eruption to an earlier eruption, you have decided that more magma was converted to CO2 than was actually exposed during the eruption and you have decided that your estimates are more accurate that what the experts say actually occurred.

You opinion seems to be based on misreading a pamphlet and a rough estimate of what you think probably should have occurred.

As I've stated, not only does the title seem correct, but the colums in the spreadsheet itself are titled CO2. And again, where do these numbers come from? That seems to be something you haven't dealt with nor acknowledged. There is only so much fuel burned in the US and magically we know what that number is. In the US, it is about 140 billion gallons of gasoline for example. We also happen to know how much of that turns into CO2 (about 19lbs per gallon). So, anyone can figure out how much CO2 was created in the US. And guess what? The numbers seem to correspond closely to your spreadsheet. Ah, the magic of mathematics.
Here is a little brochure put out by the DOE and I linked this earlier. http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
Magically, they think about 6-7 billion tons of CO2 was created. That is a little shy of the 9 billion tons you cited, but ok - let's go with that.
I also liked your selective reading above on the analysis of the eruption of Mt St. Helens. First you denied that 60% per volume of the magma can be converted to CO2/SO2, then I shot that one down. Now, your new one is that a sampling of the eruption (one data point) is all the gas that was emitted. But that is just par for the course with you. Read it more carefully next time. Also, math helps here too. 1 cubic mile of magma converted at that rate emits a tremendous amount of CO2/SO2. Since one cubic mile of magma weight about 45 trillion pounds, it doesn't take much mathematical ability to realize how enormous the OVERALL eruption is (on the scale of 100's of billion of tons of CO2/SO2).

The the best estimate of CO2/SO2 emissions from the Mt St Helen's eruption was estimated during a series of presentations on the erupation at about 0.2 gigatons (200 BILLION tons). http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm05/fm05-sessions The world-wide estimate is about 6 BILLION tons. http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html The problem with you quacks is your numbers aren't based in reality. You are literally a bunch of quacks who live in a word of fantasy. Your number aren't based on any real esitmates or scientific data.