Warning: file_put_contents(content/07/11/entry071118-210503/comments/../view_counter.txt) [function.file-put-contents]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in D:\InetPub\106\blogs\conservative\scripts\sb_fileio.php on line 62
Sunday, November 18, 2007, 08:05 PM
One of our readers and bloggers raised some excellent questions on energy production. His questions and comments appear under “Crises Without End: Part II.”In directing his comments at me, he actually nailed the Liberal stance on energy, “shortsighted, inaccurate, and deliberately misleading.” Unfortunately for our economy, our national security, and our cost of living, both of our major political parties buy into much of this.
The Industrial Revolution was fueled by coal. Coal contains more energy per pound than wood or other biomass making it inexpensive to transport. Coal is more reliable than wind or a sunny day.
The switch from the steam engine to the internal combustion engine powered the second major phase of the Industrial Revolution. The internal combustion engine is crucial to our economic productivity, and it is still the most fuel-efficient way to utilize energy for conventional transportation.
The transition from the steam engine to the internal combustion engine occurred in the free marketplace without government bureaucrats charting the course. The same must be allowed to happen with the eventual transition from the petroleum fueled internal combustion engine if we are to maintain our economic strength.
Waterpower is in short supply in most areas and is not a solution for more energy production. Many on the Left want to tear down dams on rivers so salmon can have a more natural sex life.
Hydrogen presently costs at least four times as much as gasoline to power vehicles. The cost of hydrogen technology will improve. The big problem is the need for an energy source with which to produce hydrogen. Presently, the best and most economically feasible energy sources for hydrogen production are coal and nuclear fission. The current method of stripping hydrogen from natural gas drives up the price of natural gas.
Solar energy collectors work great in space. If one were to build large solar collection arrays in deserts, everything under the solar collectors would receive no sunshine and would die. Desert environmentalists would bitterly complain. Think of coal and oil as stored solar energy from plants. Plants are the most efficient solar energy collectors. Think of the fact it took tens of millions of years to collect and store this energy.
Think of the fact that diverting food crops to ethanol and biodiesel production significantly increases both fuel and food costs. Higher energy and food costs hurt the poor the most, especially in developing countries.
Wind does not blow all the time. Wind energy can be useful for pumping and desalinizing water, producing hydrogen gas, and other tasks where intermittent production can take place and a continuous supply of energy is not necessary. Electricity is difficult and very expensive to store. Wind generators kill a lot of birds, especially migratory waterfowl and raptors. One dead burrowing owl underneath a wind generator in West Texas could shut down a lot of wind generators.
Tidal energy is still in its infancy and much more predicable than solar or wind power. One of the first prototype tidal operating systems is apparently in New York’s East River.
Apparently only tidal power demonstration projects are going on in Norway, but there appear to be some good progress. Norway currently produces almost 100% of its electricity with conventional hydropower.
Norway is looking to develop its plentiful deposits of thorium for nuclear power production. How about that, Norway is also looking to go nuclear!
Nuclear energy is very safe, inexpensive, and reliable. I give credit to many on the Left who are realizing nuclear fission is really a truly “green” environmentally friendly fuel. Nuclear energy costs much less to produce than does coal, natural gas, or wind generated energy. The residual nuclear fuel and waste are small in volume and can be very safely and easily disposed of if it were not for the propaganda spread by the Left. France produces about 80% of its electricity from nuclear power as does Japan. China plans to rapidly build thirty or more nuclear power plants. Nuclear fission appears to be our best source for reliable inexpensive energy until nuclear fusion can replace it.
As of a few months ago, humanity had consumed its first one trillion barrels of crude oil. It took 125 years to use this much oil. It is estimated that there are from 3 to 20 trillion barrels of known recoverable oil remaining, with more in the USA than anywhere else on Earth. These estimates do not include the mammoth potential reserves of oil in the Artic, including the North Pole. In any case, we have enough oil reserves for at least the next fifty to one hundred years.
Mankind will switch to nuclear fusion as a major source of energy production within the next several decades, if Leftist ideology does not first send us into another Dark Ages. When mankind is enjoying nuclear fusion, fossil fuel reserves of coal, crude oil, and natural gas that would last for centuries will still remain untouched. The primary use of fossil fuels then will probably be fertilizer and plastic production.
“Conservation” is Liberal code for “rationing.” Rationing produces no energy to supply the needs of an expanding economy and growing population. It, like the hoax of human-produced global warming, is simply another Marxist strategy to decrease the availability of energy, increase the cost of energy, and ultimately weaken and destroy Capitalism.
I encourage the gentle readers and bloggers to provide URL, and other references, with their assertions. I am very interested in learning from the information sources of others, as are your fellow readers and bloggers.
Sunday, November 18, 2007, 09:05 PM
I thought we were supposed to all drive electric cars. We just plug them in and charge them up. What's wrong with that? That will save a lot of gas.
If we take SUVs and pickups off the road we will all be safe. They burn all the extra gas. There have to be laws.
Freda will set this guy straight.
Sunday, November 18, 2007, 09:11 PM
“Conservation” is Liberal code for “rationing.” Rationing produces no energy to supply the needs of an expanding economy and growing population. It, like the hoax of human-produced global warming, is simply another Marxist strategy to decrease the availability of energy, increase the cost of energy, and ultimately weaken and destroy Capitalism.
Wow. I really don't know how to respond to that. Am I to believe that there is a secret liberal cabal made up of scientists at leading universities who are plotting to overthrow capitalism by energy diversification?
I read the Front Page Magazine article. Do you have a source that isn't run by David Horowitz? He's interesting and all, but I don't know that his media outlet is the best source for definitive information on the U.S.'s natural resources position.
Sunday, November 18, 2007, 10:30 PM
Expanding nuclear power is the way to go. A former anti-nuclear activist has a great new book coming out called "Power To Save The World." Many environmentalists are coming to realize that nuclear power is the only way to stop carbon emissions that contribute to global warming.
Sunday, November 18, 2007, 11:20 PM
Dear Anthony,
The following are some additional information resources on global oil reserves. There is a lot of information, and estimates on the reserves keep growing. The upper limits are based on oil shale and oil sand reserves. The sources below do not include the Arctic reserves yet to be determined. These estimates also do not take into consideration the massive amounts of gasoline and diesel fuel that could be made from coal deposits.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/oil.html
http://www.xecu.net/thorn/PO/PO-Mar06-2007.htm
http://www.boston.com/business/personal ... ut_of_oil/
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib ... n5oil.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_reserves
Monday, November 19, 2007, 11:46 AM
First of all Dr. May, do you think you can provide an appropriate link to verify your assertion that conservation equates Marxism? I know you are not from West Texas, but if I understand you correctly, when I conserve water on my family farm, I'm a communist? Maybe you should reconsider your example.Last night while seated across a Thanksgiving supper at my church, I had a conversation with a buddy of mine who is a doctoral candidate in the Wind Engineering program at Tech. Although we did not get into a long discussion about this, I was interested in hearing about his studies and research since my family recently had several turbines erected on some farm land.
He proceeded to tell me that if the entire state of South Dakota were to be completely covered in turbines (covered meaning in an appropriately engineered grid covering the entire state) it would generate enough electricity in one day to power the US for one year at our current levels of consumption. If we reduced our consumption to that of Europe, it would be enough for a year and a half. Now of course that's a hypothetical as to the amount of turbines, but it does show the immense potential for a clean, sustainable energy source.
As to the damage to natural resources, there is always going to be an impact. Even turbines have an unknown impact on the soil from the vibrations that pulse through the ground to the birds which you mentioned. But when the Audubon Society has given their blessing to the wind energy field, I think it's safe to say that one reason the neo-cons don't like wind energy is that it might detract from the huge oil profits of Halliburton.
There is no reason that we should not research and develop a system of clean, efficient and sustainable energy. Talking to a college buddy that now works in the natural gas industry, he tells me of how when China begins to consume like the rest of the world, the oil markets are going to melt down. It’s inevitable and it’s something we can plan for. Instead of spewing out talk show platitudes, let’s have a real, intelligent discussion about the issues. I’m still waiting.
Monday, November 19, 2007, 12:44 PM
Leftman:Does it occur to you that "electric" cars get their batteries recharged by plugging them into the power grid, which mostly runs off of coal? "Electric" cars could as accurately be described as coal-burning cars. Just because the burning happens somewhere else doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Monday, November 19, 2007, 04:01 PM
kdwmson: That's why it's also important to switch the energy generated for our power grid to clean, renewable energy supplies. However, the fact that the pollution from automobile emissions would, with electric cars, happen away from the cars themselves is an important fact as well. It would make our urban spaces more livable. Imagine Los Angeles with no pollution from automobile emissions -- you might actually be able to breathe the air safely!(Sorry, Leftman -- didn't mean to steal your thunder there.)
Dr. May: I appreciate the time and thought you put into your blog post about energy, in spite of how wrongheaded I find it. I will create a reply with links that is worthy of your effort.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007, 10:13 AM
Dear Helmut,
Thank you for your comments and inquiry. I really appreciate your time and thoughtfulness.
It seems you are stating the case. When government mandates conservation, it is rationing and bureaucrats make decisions for the masses and not the individuals.
When individuals carry out conservation, it is a personal economic decision based on common sense and experience. I try to practice conservation on my farm and in my life.
As Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman said, “Nobody spends somebody else’s money as wisely as he spends his own.”
I do not think the good people of South Dakota would go for their state being turned in one giant wind farm. There would not be much room for birds to fly or for the deer and the antelope to play. The Kennedy family and other important people have blocked the construction of wind generators from areas where they live. http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnist ... =110009980
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=14954
The issue of bird safety keeps coming up. I believe there is a real danger that far Left environmentalists could use wind generators as their Trojan Horse to cripple our energy production. If a Federal law mandates that cages be built over each wind generator to prevent bird deaths, or wind generators are made to stand idle, the cost of wind generated electricity production will increase several fold.
A recent Lubbock Avalanche-Journal AP article verifies this, including possible “prison time” for some violations: http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/06 ... 7032.shtml
As you point out, there are unknown risks with wind energy. As good report on this is a recent article in Der Spiegel: http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 02,00.html
Please encourage you friend in Wind Engineering and his professors to make some comments on the blog. That would be interesting.
I have no problem with developing any reasonable source of energy production. I am of the opinion such development is best left to private investors. Governments should not be directing where the future of energy production will be. It is unfair and illogical to tax one group of energy producers to subsidize another. Such is no different than taxing people who work for a living and giving their hard earned money to people who have not adequately prepared themselves for the workforce and those who choose not to work as hard as they would if welfare did not subsidize their lack of hard work.
We do have “a system of clean, efficient and sustainable energy” that is very safe to produce and provides very inexpensive energy. It is called nuclear fission. If we do not end up in another Dark Ages due to environmentalists pushing us to try new things and expecting the taxpayers to fund them because prudent investors will not, nuclear fusion will follow and life will be good.
The increased production of oil and gas in the USA will fulfill all our needs for the next 100 plus years. China buys these commodities on the world market, as does everyone else. Supply and demand are big drivers of cost as are fears of terrorism, war, and pestilence.
If one is of the opinion that a company such as Halliburton makes a lot of money for its investors, I suspect prudent people will invest money in its stock and make more money. Even minimum wage people can do this and become rich. This formerly was called “The American Dream.” People still come to the United States for that dream.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007, 03:57 PM
I disagree that the government shouldn't be involved in energy. Energy, as you pointed out, is our economy as nothing works without it.What do you mean by "far Left environmentalists could use wind generators as their Trojan Horse to cripple our energy production"? Who are these nefarious Leftists? Are they the same Marxist strategists plotting the overthrow of Capitalism?
The goal is to diversify our energy sources. This means nuclear, wind, tidal, hydroelectric. If you've ever visited China or India and compared the air in their huge citie with our huge cities, you've seen the extremely positive impact government regulation can have. Imagine a future where fossil fuels are not the primary source of fuel, but electricity produced through renewable means is. It's not a pipe dream: The U.S. increased efficiency of autos and household/office/factory appliances and equipment throughout the 1970s and 1980s. We've slowed today, but tax rebates for house and businesses that switch, say, to compact florescent lights, high-efficiency toilets, etc. could be a powerful part of the solution to guaranteeing energy independence.
One of the blessings of high oil prices is that they make alternative energy sources cost effective.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007, 04:38 PM
Dear Anthony,
You bring up more excellent points.
My goal, as I expect is yours, is to have inexpensive large supplies of energy available. This enhances the quality of life, increases prosperity, and strengthens our national security. Low cost energy is most important for the poor and for developing countries as inexpensive energy enables them to become productive, prosperous, and to escape poverty.
High fuel prices are not a blessing for anyone. Expensive fuel results in expensive food and other necessities of life. In poor countries with evil leaders, many will die for the lack of ability to buy even the basic necessities of life. Tyrants provide no safely nets for the poor once they no longer need their votes.
Mandating the use of ethanol as a significant additive to gasoline has created major unintended consequences. Ethanol being burned with gasoline produces pollutants of greater toxicity than does burning pure gasoline.
Ethanol is more difficult to transport necessitating blending it with gasoline at the point of distribution. Ethanol has much less energy per gallon than does gasoline. It also costs more per gallon than does gasoline. The more ethanol one puts in gasoline, the greater the cost per gallon and the less mileage per gallon. As such, one can better understand why CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards are measured with gasoline and not with E85.
Current and planned ethanol production has escalated the price of corn and other grains as food supplies are being diverted into fuel production. As grain prices are higher, products made with grains are higher in price. Animal products such as meat, milk, and eggs have significantly increased in cost. This diminishes the lives of the poor and slows their progress up the economic ladder.
Higher grain prices are nice because for the present we farmers make more money. However, we farmers also buy motor fuel and food. Due to restrictions on natural gas exploration, drilling, and production, fertilizer costs have also increased significantly as much fertilizer is made from natural gas. Anhydrous ammonia has increased from the $100 per ton level a little more than a decade ago to more than $500 per ton for our recent application. I have been told it will approach $800 a ton by the spring planting season. This is devastating for agriculture in small countries.
Due to increased grain prices, many farmers take marginal and highly erodible land they would not normally cultivate and use it to raise more grain. This is not in the best interest of the conservation of our land.
I have spent extensive periods of time teaching and performing surgery in both India and China. Poverty is the primary producer of pollution. Much of the pollution in large Chinese cities is from household cooking using pressed cakes of coal. The power plants supplying most cities are placed so the pollution is outside large urban areas.
Prosperity is the key to a cleaner environment. Air and water quality in the United States, per Federal government records, has improved every decade for more than a century. Both affluent people and poor people do not want to breathe bad air and drink polluted water. Affluent people have the means to fix the problems. There is no other country than the United States where one can drink potable water from just about every faucet one encounters.
Other countries consume bottled water because their water is bad. In the United States we consume bottled water because people feel they need to have some kind of drink in one hand.
Many of the contributions of the Left are not of benefit to humanity and are generally problematic because of the unintended and unexpected consequences resulting from actions based on emotion and not logic. Why is there little apparent concern regarding the thousands of tons of mercury from compact fluorescent bulbs that are going to end up in landfills and garbage dumps? The fact that a hazardous waste cleanup is warranted when a compact fluorescent bulb is broken is also not a great comfort.
Modern toilets are another great annoyance. Flushing a toilet multiple times to accomplish what older toilets did in one flush not only wastes water it also wastes time. The automatic toilets that have not flushed after the previous user has departed detract considerably from our quality of life, particularly at restaurants. There are also automatic the toilets that flush at the wrong time spraying the bottoms of the users with toilet water. These are some of the many contributions from our governmental bureaucrats.
Restricted flow showerheads result in more time in the shower to wash off the soap. We use as much or more water and waste time.
The logical solution to energy and water shortages is to provide much more. This requires energy and provides jobs. There is plenty of water. Much of the fresh water is not where it is needed and most of the rest is too salty. Inexpensive energy is needed to move and desalinate water. The provision of adequate water supplies is one of the great engineering opportunities of the Twenty-first Century.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007, 04:52 PM
Perhaps ethanol should be mandated; perhaps it should not. But I do not believe that the U.S. should have a tariff on the product that keeps out cheaper foreign produced ethanol. Because it is less energy-rich than gasoline, cheaper imports are needed. I recall reading an article about drivers in Brazil who carry calculators to compare the price: Ethanol provides about 70 percent of the energy of gasoline, so if ethanol is more than 30 percent cheaper, consumers can save money. I've read articles on mercury in the bulbs and seen stories on television. Granted, perhaps I'm not the average reader or television viewer, but the information is out there. Slowing demand growth (i.e., reducing demand among citizens) has trade offs. CFC have mercury, and recycling programs are needed to deal with this.
There is money to be made in these endeavors, and given the right incentives--no barriers to trade, temporary tax incentives, etc.--entrepreneurs will fill the gap.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007, 04:35 PM
When you talk about compact florescent lights, don't forget they use about 1/4 the electricity as incandescents. The burning of coal (as Xcel does to produce electricity) is the primary source of mercury in our environment - tons of it. So using a CFL actually reduces the mercury levels, even if we toss it into a land fill. The average CFL contains about 2 mg of mercury, and lasts 5 to 8 years before you have to replace it.Of course, I'm for recycling CFL's - that's even better. Anyone who uses incandescents is spending $40 more than if he had used a CFL, and is creating more mercury in our environment - a lose-lose deal.
We are sorry. New comments are not allowed after 10 days.
Donald R. May
