|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
There actually is no "solution" to the current fossil fuel
replacent contest. There are instead several solutions. No
one alternate is the global panacea but each has its place as an cost
effect , technological, and enviromental alternative in its own
niche. The fact there are multiple solutions is both good and
bad.
At today's energy prices of approximately $92.00 per boe (barrel of oil
equivalent) there are existing technologies for synthetic crude from coal
(used since the 1930s by Germany and South Africa to power their war
machine during WWII), coal gasificiation (the conversion of coal to
methane by combining it the carbon with hydrogen), current solar cell
technologies that now are being manufacutured with a 40%+ conversion
efficiancy factor, Geothermal, Nuclear (with waste disposal added
in).
Nukes can't be put in a car and used as to fuel transportation readily
(without added cost of batteries, etc which raise the total cost to
non-competitive to BOE), solar is limited somewhat in like manner, coal
conversion has some enviromental issues such as mining land restoration
and the long term issues associated with all hydrocarbon pollution.
Further, a 20% reduction/replacement of conventional hydrocarbon demand
will result in the collapse of oil prices and therefore a change in the
"economic alternative price of a BOE". The lowest
sustainable BOE is the cost to lift and refine a barrel of oil.
This is currently about $16 for Saudi Arabia. So, once one more
more equivalents reach 20% BOE replacement then they trigger their own
demise as economic alternatives. It is this tripwire that has
delayed the widespread development of these existing alternate
technologies. The solution was pointed out in a 1979 CIA study of
world energy supply and demand where it concluded that at some point it
will be strategically neccessary to destroy the productive capacity of
the middle east so as to enable the global emergence of alternate
energy. Either this will continue to advance into an irresistable
economic and geopolitical reality as has begun (with the energy wars of
kuwait and iraq) or alternates will remain widely at arms length until
the production demand vs supply capacity consistantly falls below .82
. This is the magic number and should be our
strategic goal for achieving energy (and therefore geopolitical)
security, economic independence, inflicting servere compeititive
disadvantage on the Chinese economy as they find themselves locked into $
Trillions in long term conventional energy investment in global
exploration, development, production, transportation, and refining of
conventional BOE. Some of the 1st generation
alternatives (solar, etc) and many 2nd generation will also address
enviormental concerns such as green house gases, acid rain, and other
current major enviromental concerns.
The future is clear but like any medicine it will be painful to swallow
and no one phramacuetical company (or energy alternate) can be targeted
for success. The key is to invest broadly in technologies and
delivery systems with attention to those who hold or are likely to
develop key patentable components to the emerging future (hydrogen
extraction and storage systems, coal resources, major infrastructure
construction managment, etc). Invest slowly and wisely and
the future will be yours. There are at least 15 future Microsofts
of the energy world out there, miss them and you will lose. Find at
least 5 of them and they will pay for your 30 mistakes and reap you a
generous long term ROI as well.
Dick Beger (boater 805)
At 04:51 PM 2/24/2008, you wrote:
The latest scam being brought
down on us is the ethanol nonsense which has raised food prices and will
continue to do so until someone steps up and explains that ethanol costs
more to produce than fossil fuel and it pollutes worse than
gasoline. We need to begin building nuke plants again and do so
without regard to who wants what in their backyard. Next, we need
to figure out what we're going to do with the waste. (I suggest an
island in the Bering Sea). Then, we need to put some serious money
into hydrogen fuel cell development and add as much solar and wind power
as is reasonably possible. Farmers may be getting rich
off ethanol but most of us are just paying for a political game when we
shop at the grocery store. Worse, the game is destined to fail and
fail at our expense. Surprise!
Bob
At 06:57 PM 2/24/2008, you wrote:
Here are some
interesting facts from today's paper. With the mortgage default
rate rising there are more and more people living off of their credit
cards. I can imagine, I just paid $4.85 for a loaf of bread that
was less than $2,00 a year ago.
Total credit card debt in the U.S. is $943 billion
The number of credit cards is 1.2 billion
The number of credit cards per person is 7
The Average debt per household is $9,840
The annual debt service cost per household is $1500
Only 7% or the households have no credit cards
Only 32% pay their bill monthly
8% of the card holders owe more than $25,000
The U.S; Savings rate is 0.5%
Not a really good picture for a consumer driven economy.
Ira
www.delta100.com
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.0/1296 - Release Date:
2/24/2008 12:19 PM
__._,_.___
![]()
__,_._,___
|