Global.....Cooling?

[Brooke]

Brooke,
This has been a nice convo, tanx for not getting smarmy with a lesser brained mortal.

Thanks for the conversation from you, too; and I don't at all doubt that you know a lot more than I do about a great many things, so thank you for not getting smarmy with me! 

[Changeup]

One of the singularly, most successful technologies is GTL (gas to liquids).  Taking Natural gas, converting it to liquid base stocks and then refining to fuels.  Clean, plentiful, creates tons of employment and cheap.  The S Africans pioneered it and Shell perfected it.  There is a 4B plant being built in LA right now with the support of the LA state government. 

Look for this option.  If this goes wide market, crude dependency will be reduced by 88% worldwide by 2030.  This does include jet fuels and is one of the single, finest options because it does two things:

1.  Reduces oil demand which will reduce prices
2.  Increases supply stocks which will keep natural gas prices down.

It will not hurt the major oil companies because they would be gaining a solid revenue stream from a plentiful raw material that has little demand.  This extends fossil fuels for 300 years based on current natural gas exploratory compositions.

[LCADolby]

I heard about that from a friend of mine that worked for Shell in Holland. Back 2008 he was on about Shell re-pressurising North Sea oil fields converting to gas.
At the time I didn't think much about it.

[nrshida]

Oil is also solar power. The human race is just burning up the stored energy at a much faster rate than it was deposited therefore it is not sustainable.  

The question is can the human race exploit this burst of energy and industry sensibly and redesign its abstract economy to co-operate globally to distribute resources and find a new sustainable energy paradigm before it makes its own biosphere uninhabitable for itself.

[MADe]

I just saw a little diddy where a German Company has developed electric airplanes. Elektro One. 5 hrs flight time on a single charge, charged by solar photovoltaic.

Another Euro company is using wind and solar, solely, to provide power for an entire island community. A 100% decentralized grid approach.

Some nations who do not have access to oil as we do, are moving forward with 100% clean renewable power sources. Granted these are smaller area places, with less power demands in general but.........................m ake a concerted effort and it can be accomplished. Will it be EZ, no. Will it require effort and expense, yes.

The greatest nation on the planet is being held back by corporate lobbiests, corrupt politicians, money. Billionaires that want to be Trillionaires.
As long as the American citizens continue to allow the perpetuation of super wealth to the super wealthy we will be in this dilemma.

Call me socialist, call me communist, call me anything you want. Its up to us to do something about it. If we allow ourselves to be told that things are not possible reqarding power generation and transportation, that there is only one way to do it, by those who profit the most, then our great country will fall to foreign interests and off shore corporations.

Make no mistake, the congressman and women, Democrat and Republican, we currently send to Washington are not representing us , the American citizen. They instead are enriching themselves out this nations expense.
I will name it for what it is treason.

So now flame away. I wish I was wrong.

[Brooke]

Liquified natural gas is an excellent fuel for many applications, including trucking and perhaps even automobiles.  One problem today is that the US government is heavily restricting US companies from exporting LNG.  This is a shame, as it would bring money into the US, provide the financial incentive for US companies to provide and promote natural gas (as opposed to do nothing much with it because the prices are so cheap it's not worth it), and help the world start using more natural gas in more applications.

[Brooke]

The greatest nation on the planet is being held back by corporate lobbiests, corrupt politicians, money. Billionaires that want to be Trillionaires.
As long as the American citizens continue to allow the perpetuation of super wealth to the super wealthy we will be in this dilemma.

We are being help back by politicians/government, not corporations.  Corporations sell you what you want to buy, and competition among corporations dives prices down and supply up over time.  If you want things to be cheaper and more plentiful, companies are not your enemy, government overregulation is.

Call me socialist, call me communist, call me anything you want.

Socialism and communism are highly effective at destroying the process that makes goods and services cheaper and more plentiful.  This has been proven clearly and without any doubt by a multitude of historical examples.  Given what you seem to be advocating, you should be an anti-socialist and an anti-communist and in favor of capitalism and free markets.  Capitalism and free markets have lifted human beings and nations out of grinding poverty.

Its up to us to do something about it.

Yes.  People should start by reading "Basic Economics", by Sowell or "Economics in One Lesson", by Hazlitt.  That gives any reader a solid foundation in economics.  If more Americans did that, they would be less likely to put in place politicians who do exactly the opposite of the right thing for the nation economically and thereby work to ruin our nation.  It's a few hours investment from all the hours in your life to read Hazlitt's book, for example.  Not a very high price.

[Changeup]

Liquified natural gas is an excellent fuel for many applications, including trucking and perhaps even automobiles.  One problem today is that the US government is heavily restricting US companies from exporting LNG.  This is a shame, as it would bring money into the US, provide the financial incentive for US companies to provide and promote natural gas (as opposed to do nothing much with it because the prices are so cheap it's not worth it), and help the world start using more natural gas in more applications.

It isn't so much the exportation as its the lack of domestic infrastructure to support it.  The City of Norman, OK has converted all of their municipal fleet (1700 vehicles) to CNG but they had to build a 6M fueling depot to do it.  With that investment it will take them 17 years to recover the initial investment because of the cost of transitioning their existing fleet to CNG.  Total cost: 12M.  Sounds cheap...except its a city that is supported by a small tax base.  The University of Oklahoma doesn't pay taxes sooo...but uses the services.

[guncrasher]

We are being help back by politicians/government, not corporations. 

wrong about this one.  it's all about money and somebody is paying somebody to stop something.  only ones with enough money to ante are corporations.


semp

[Hajo]

Liquified natural gas is an excellent fuel for many applications, including trucking and perhaps even automobiles.  One problem today is that the US government is heavily restricting US companies from exporting LNG.  This is a shame, as it would bring money into the US, provide the financial incentive for US companies to provide and promote natural gas (as opposed to do nothing much with it because the prices are so cheap it's not worth it), and help the world start using more natural gas in more applications.

Brooke I agree.  Problem is since fuel is big business the energy companies would raise the price to US consumers because of lower availability if we export it.

One thing I've learned in the many years in management is that......greed....yup the company has to make money.  Fuel exporters would benefit financially in two ways.

Selling to foreign customers, and squeezing the American Public.  Always has been that way and I assume it will continue.  Have to make the shareholders' happy first.

Alas.....that will be the downfall of mankind in the end.  What's in it for me is the ultimate question, not how many will benefit.

[smoe]

George Carlin On Global Warming Scam:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGOBm2J4tn0

[Brooke]

It isn't so much the exportation as its the lack of domestic infrastructure to support it.

I think that exportation has a major impact.  Investment happens only if there is enough profit in it.  Without the ability to export natural gas, natural gas prices in the US are enormously depressed to the point where there isn't nearly as much financial incentive to invest in increased distribution, use, production, storage, etc.

It is expensive to build the distribution infrastructure.  However, such infrastructure can be staged, first being deployed for a particular companyies' local truck fleets, for example (with cost of build shouldered by the company, not a government) then more fleets, then increasingly for cars.  Also, the cost of infrastructure might not be best estimated by a government project.  Government projects often (I would bet almost always) are many times what it costs private industry to do the same, and so some things that are quite affordable end up looking to be totally unaffordable.

Some examples include just about every transportation I've ever looked at.  Here's one example (among many).  In Seattle, they are building a replacement for the 520 bridge over Lake Washington.  It (and buildout of surrounding expressways) was built in 1968 for a cost in 2012 dollars of $161M.  Seattle is building a replacement for $4B ($2B for surrounding expressway buildout and $2B for the bridge itself).  Yes, it is 6 lanes vs. 4, but the new project is 25 times more expensive than the one it replaces.  Even if you discount all of the new expressway buildout, the new bridge just alone is 12 times the cost of the old bridge plus all of its buildout.  The new bridge costs $268,000 per foot -- $268,000 for every single foot of length of the new bridge.

So, when folks talk about what a city or state or federal government pays for some infrastructure item, I suspect that real cost if it were done not by a government is probably 1/10th that and might take half the time.

[Triton28]

The University of Oklahoma doesn't pay taxes sooo...but uses the services.

The lesson, as always... OU is evil.

 

[Changeup]

I think that exportation has a major impact.  Investment happens only if there is enough profit in it.  Without the ability to export natural gas, natural gas prices in the US are enormously depressed to the point where there isn't nearly as much financial incentive to invest in increased distribution, use, production, storage, etc.

It is expensive to build the distribution infrastructure.  However, such infrastructure can be staged, first being deployed for a particular companyies' local truck fleets, for example (with cost of build shouldered by the company, not a government) then more fleets, then increasingly for cars.  Also, the cost of infrastructure might not be best estimated by a government project.  Government projects often (I would bet almost always) are many times what it costs private industry to do the same, and so some things that are quite affordable end up looking to be totally unaffordable.

Some examples include just about every transportation I've ever looked at.  Here's one example (among many).  In Seattle, they are building a replacement for the 520 bridge over Lake Washington.  It (and buildout of surrounding expressways) was built in 1968 for a cost in 2012 dollars of $161M.  Seattle is building a replacement for $4B ($2B for surrounding expressway buildout and $2B for the bridge itself).  Yes, it is 6 lanes vs. 4, but the new project is 25 times more expensive than the one it replaces.  Even if you discount all of the new expressway buildout, the new bridge just alone is 12 times the cost of the old bridge plus all of its buildout.  The new bridge costs $268,000 per foot -- $268,000 for every single foot of length of the new bridge.

So, when folks talk about what a city or state or federal government pays for some infrastructure item, I suspect that real cost if it were done not by a government is probably 1/10th that and might take half the time.

Here's why it's not as impactful:

Refineries control pump prices by controlling production.  Period.  All exportation opportunity losses are mitigated by slowing production of fossil fuels of all kinds.  If export restrictions cost X$, refineries will simply slow productivity in order to shrink supply. They control price by controlling supply.  Their economy of scale controls costs (which virtually no other industry can do), revenue and supply simultaneously.

LNG revenue is obtained...just not in a traditional revenue model because we're all paying for LNG whether we use it or not.

[Brooke]

Here's why it's not as impactful:

Refineries control pump prices by controlling production.  Period.  All exportation opportunity losses are mitigated by slowing production of fossil fuels of all kinds.  If export restrictions cost X$, refineries will simply slow productivity in order to shrink supply. They control price by controlling supply.  Their economy of scale controls costs (which virtually no other industry can do), revenue and supply simultaneously.

LNG revenue is obtained...just not in a traditional revenue model because we're all paying for LNG whether we use it or not.

That's why exportation does have an impact.  Supply and demand always matter.  Reduce demand, and supply gets adjusted, just as you point out.  Adjusting demand or supply or both by government regulation has a large impact on economics of an industry, its products, its investment choices, and prices and availability to you as a consumer.