The May 30 issue of BBC News says Germany will completely eliminate nuclear energy by 2022. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/world-europe-13592208?SThisEM
Germany's eliminating nuclear energy is great news for the US!. Germany has no significant coal, no oil, no gas, and
so-called "renewable" sources are uneconomical. Energy costs will skyrocket, as will all German manufactured goods. America will be able to easily compete, even with many of our stupid government policies.
There is one danger. With the eventual economic decline of Germany, its people will likely find another dictator like Bismarck or Hitler to start World War III, in an effort to restore German economic rights and perhaps the old saw of "Lebensraum". Unfortunately, we will be obliged to keep NATO in existence and powerful.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Sunday, May 29, 2011
The IPPC Is on the Wrong Track in Promoting Renewable Energy
In the May 16 issue of C&E News, Cheryl Hogue reviews the latest report from the IPCC. You may recall that the IPPC is part of the Interlocking Directorship that started the cult on global warming.
The IPPC's latest report is pushing pushing development of renewable energy. The article shows a graph of world energy sources in 2008. I wonder why they couldn't get more recent data. The energy sources of biomass, hydropower, wind, direct solar, geothermal and ocean activity add up to 13% of all energy sources. 10% of that is biomass, which makes the others almost insignificant. The theme of the IPPC report was that government policy should speed up renewable deployment.
The IPPC report is based on the assumption that we should have renewables. That is an incorrect assumption. The correct assumption is that we should have cheap energy sources. The cost of usable energy from each source should be calculated using a complete cost analysis, which involves capital investment for equipment, operating costs including downtime for unavailability, such as when the sun is not shining, and the cost of neutralizing waste products to ecological acceptance.
While such cost calculations would be extensive, it is a practical mathematical project. Some assumptions and estimations would likely be necessary, but we should beware of injecting fear factors, which would be based on suppositions without scientific confirmation. An example of this would be the need to capture CO2 from any fossil burning generating plants. There is absolutely no scientific data to support the need for CO2 capture. Global warming based upon CO2 concentration increases in the atmosphere is a myth.
I predict that if such calculations are made, they will clearly show the advantage of using fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas as long as supplies exist and new reserves uncovered
The IPPC's latest report is pushing pushing development of renewable energy. The article shows a graph of world energy sources in 2008. I wonder why they couldn't get more recent data. The energy sources of biomass, hydropower, wind, direct solar, geothermal and ocean activity add up to 13% of all energy sources. 10% of that is biomass, which makes the others almost insignificant. The theme of the IPPC report was that government policy should speed up renewable deployment.
The IPPC report is based on the assumption that we should have renewables. That is an incorrect assumption. The correct assumption is that we should have cheap energy sources. The cost of usable energy from each source should be calculated using a complete cost analysis, which involves capital investment for equipment, operating costs including downtime for unavailability, such as when the sun is not shining, and the cost of neutralizing waste products to ecological acceptance.
While such cost calculations would be extensive, it is a practical mathematical project. Some assumptions and estimations would likely be necessary, but we should beware of injecting fear factors, which would be based on suppositions without scientific confirmation. An example of this would be the need to capture CO2 from any fossil burning generating plants. There is absolutely no scientific data to support the need for CO2 capture. Global warming based upon CO2 concentration increases in the atmosphere is a myth.
I predict that if such calculations are made, they will clearly show the advantage of using fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas as long as supplies exist and new reserves uncovered
Saturday, May 28, 2011
No Residential Explosive Hazard from Present Natural Gas Drilling Techniques
The May 16 issue of C&E News has an article entitled, "Methane Fouls Well Water". The basic question is whether present drilling methods for natural gas are leading to contamination of water wells. A Duke University group sampled a number of wells in the vicinity of natural gas drilling and found no drilling fluids in the well water. However they did find an increased concentration of methane in the well water. The level was 19.2 mg per liter on average
The secondary question was then whether this is a dangerous level of methane in well water. Most seemed to agree that methane is not a physiological poison. The only open question was whether the release of methane from the contaminated water within a domicile could lead to a concentration of methane, which would be dangerously explosive.
Fortunately, we always have at our disposal some simple mathematics, which can bring out the perspective of most problems. Let's do it now.
19.2 Mg of methane in a liter water is 0.0012 moles. Since a mole of gas occupies 22.4 L volume, the 19.2 mg of methane in one liter water would be 0.027 L of methane. Converting liters to ft.³ , gives 0.00094 ft.³ of methane, if all of it is released from one liter of water.
A small house might be 2000 ft.². With an 8 foot ceiling, the total volume would be 16,000 ft.³.
The lower explosive limit for methane in air is 5%. That is, an explosion could occur only if the methane concentration is at least 5%, with 95% air. In a 16,000 ft.³ house, that would require 800 ft.³ of methane.
If well water containing 19.2 mg per liter of methane were allowed to release all its methane within the house, it would require 850,000 L of well water to give 800 ft.³ of methane. That is also 224,000 gallons. No single household uses 224,000 gallons of well water in a reasonable time, and the concern about explosive possibility is not significant.
The secondary question was then whether this is a dangerous level of methane in well water. Most seemed to agree that methane is not a physiological poison. The only open question was whether the release of methane from the contaminated water within a domicile could lead to a concentration of methane, which would be dangerously explosive.
Fortunately, we always have at our disposal some simple mathematics, which can bring out the perspective of most problems. Let's do it now.
19.2 Mg of methane in a liter water is 0.0012 moles. Since a mole of gas occupies 22.4 L volume, the 19.2 mg of methane in one liter water would be 0.027 L of methane. Converting liters to ft.³ , gives 0.00094 ft.³ of methane, if all of it is released from one liter of water.
A small house might be 2000 ft.². With an 8 foot ceiling, the total volume would be 16,000 ft.³.
The lower explosive limit for methane in air is 5%. That is, an explosion could occur only if the methane concentration is at least 5%, with 95% air. In a 16,000 ft.³ house, that would require 800 ft.³ of methane.
If well water containing 19.2 mg per liter of methane were allowed to release all its methane within the house, it would require 850,000 L of well water to give 800 ft.³ of methane. That is also 224,000 gallons. No single household uses 224,000 gallons of well water in a reasonable time, and the concern about explosive possibility is not significant.
Friday, May 27, 2011
No Money for Yemen
EIN News says, "Dozens Killed in Gun Battles As Yemen Lurches Closer to Civil War Dozens of Yemenis were killed in overnight gun battles in the capital, a government official said on Thursday, as fighting aimed at toppling President Ali Abdullah Saleh threatened to ignite civil war. (theglobeandmail.com)".
Yemen is at the southeast corner of the Arabian Peninsula. It has strategic importance in that it can control all shipping passing out of the Persian Gulf, through the Arabian Sea, the Red Sea, the Suez Canal, and into the Mediterranean. This is the oil route to Europe and the US.
Traditionally, we have recognized the strategic importance of Yemen, but Yemen is no friend of the US. It spawns many terrorists, and pirates have been operating on a small scale in the Gulf of Aden.
Present military disruptions or Civil War would not be contrary or beneficial to US interests. Yemen has no significant military or naval capability. It would be convenient if we could retain some naval bases in Yemen to patrol the oil route and assure continued oil availability to the US. However, this is not an absolute necessity. Other potential bases are available in the area.
Let us not also fall into another trap of thinking that if we support rebels with money and military aid, we will achieve greater respect and support from a new government. This is pie-in-the-sky thinking, unjustified based on track record, and we can't afford to borrow more money for such operation. I just heard this morning that the G-8 will supply Egypt with $30 billion, most of which will come from the US through loans from China. If China ever decides to foreclose and obtain collateral, we will be facing another military conflict based on economic problems.
Yemen is at the southeast corner of the Arabian Peninsula. It has strategic importance in that it can control all shipping passing out of the Persian Gulf, through the Arabian Sea, the Red Sea, the Suez Canal, and into the Mediterranean. This is the oil route to Europe and the US.
Traditionally, we have recognized the strategic importance of Yemen, but Yemen is no friend of the US. It spawns many terrorists, and pirates have been operating on a small scale in the Gulf of Aden.
Present military disruptions or Civil War would not be contrary or beneficial to US interests. Yemen has no significant military or naval capability. It would be convenient if we could retain some naval bases in Yemen to patrol the oil route and assure continued oil availability to the US. However, this is not an absolute necessity. Other potential bases are available in the area.
Let us not also fall into another trap of thinking that if we support rebels with money and military aid, we will achieve greater respect and support from a new government. This is pie-in-the-sky thinking, unjustified based on track record, and we can't afford to borrow more money for such operation. I just heard this morning that the G-8 will supply Egypt with $30 billion, most of which will come from the US through loans from China. If China ever decides to foreclose and obtain collateral, we will be facing another military conflict based on economic problems.
Being Outmaneuvered on Energy Supply
EIN News says, "Shell, Rosneft Discuss Arctic, Black Sea With Putin Deputy Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Europe's largest oil company, discussed possible projects to explore for oil and gas in Arctic and Black Sea waters with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's deputy in charge of energy. (bloomberg.com)".
They will find lots of oil and bring it to market. The EU will profit greatly. Energy prices for Western Europe will fall and the EU will be more competitive on the world market for all manufactured goods. Russia will become an economic powerhouse.
The United States will be sitting on its hands, unable to compete on manufacturing costs because of high energy cost related to the fact that US oil reserves were not developed. This will be the outgrowth of a government that has fostered alternate energy and denied local production of oil. This is on top of the negative attitude toward business in general.
When government makes fundamental errors in the philosophy of governing, all subjects suffer for many years to come. We have started ours.
They will find lots of oil and bring it to market. The EU will profit greatly. Energy prices for Western Europe will fall and the EU will be more competitive on the world market for all manufactured goods. Russia will become an economic powerhouse.
The United States will be sitting on its hands, unable to compete on manufacturing costs because of high energy cost related to the fact that US oil reserves were not developed. This will be the outgrowth of a government that has fostered alternate energy and denied local production of oil. This is on top of the negative attitude toward business in general.
When government makes fundamental errors in the philosophy of governing, all subjects suffer for many years to come. We have started ours.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Natural Gas Pipeline from Alaska to the Lower 48 Is Uneconomical
EIN News says, "BP/Conoco Phillips Scrap $35 Billion Alaska Pipeline Oil giants BP and Conoco Phillips have abandoned plans to build a $35 billion pipeline to carry natural gas from Alaska to the lower 48 U.S. states because of weak customer demand. (myfoxhouston.com)
This is probably a misrepresentation of the true reason why BP/Conoco Philips have abandoned the pipeline project. Remember that the latest information on U.S. natural gas is its availability in very large quantities from the Bakken Shale Formation in North Dakota and Montana, through a fracturing process. This would make importation from Alaska uneconomical, since it would be available in the lower 48 without the long distance pipeline.
This is probably a misrepresentation of the true reason why BP/Conoco Philips have abandoned the pipeline project. Remember that the latest information on U.S. natural gas is its availability in very large quantities from the Bakken Shale Formation in North Dakota and Montana, through a fracturing process. This would make importation from Alaska uneconomical, since it would be available in the lower 48 without the long distance pipeline.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Pres. Obama's Misguided Energy Plan
EIN News says, "U.S. President Obama Immune to Louisiana's Oil Moratorium Misery Since the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico last April, the oil industry in Louisiana has been decimated. The Obama administration instituted a moratorium on any new deepwater drilling projects and a de facto moratorium on shallow-water prospects. In response, thousands of Louisiana jobs were lost, and valuable rigs were sent overseas. (humanevents.com)".
Congratulations to humanevents.com and EIN News. They hit the nail right on the head. No further comment is necessary.
Congratulations to humanevents.com and EIN News. They hit the nail right on the head. No further comment is necessary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
