จำนวนการดูหน้าเว็บรวม

วันอังคารที่ 3 กุมภาพันธ์ พ.ศ. 2552

HAPPY GROUNDHOG DAY

Punxsutawney Phil saw his shadow yesterday, so the East Coast is in for 6 more weeks of winter. Yet, General Beauregard Lee of Georgia did not see his shadow, so it looks like spring will come early in the south. There is sound logic to this event, which was reasoned to have a probable correct prediction of 80% if observed early in February. However, the National Climatic Data Center reports that groundhogs (a little more than a dozen each year in various parts of the country) are only right 39% of the time. But that's because we imported this practice from the Germany, which hardly represents the weather of the average American site.

By the way, I'm now in my tenth year of retirement, and every day is like the day before, but better. Retirees largely experience the life of the movie, Groundhog Day.
-
Auto sales in the country for January were the worst in 26 years, General Motors dropping nearly 50%. GM sold more cars in China than the U.S. last month. Yet, the Dow Jones Industrials jumped 142 to 8078. World markets were mostly up. Crude oil increased 89 cents/barrel to $40.97 and gold dropped $5/toz to $899.
-
Tropical Cyclone Gael has strengthened to 52 MPH and is expected pass just north of Mauritius and La Reunion Island, become a cyclone, and head towards Madagascar. Hi to my friends on Mauritius and La Reunion. Hope this path continues.
-

วันจันทร์ที่ 2 กุมภาพันธ์ พ.ศ. 2552

DID YOU KNOW THAT....

  1. In 2008, Ford posted its worst loss ($14.6 billion) in its 105-year history. In what turned out to be a terrible year for oil, Exxon Mobil reported the greatest profit ever for a U.S. company, $45.2 billion. EM also has remaining $31 billion in cash, after distributing $40.1 billion to shareholders and spending $26 billion on capital and exploration projects. The second largest U.S. oil company, Chevron, made a mere $24 billion, more than $5 billion over 2007. Oh, yes, Wall Street executives were given $18 billion in bonuses AFTER the Wall Street rescue package was approved. Remember, the U.S. Department of Energy, since it was created in the 70’s, has not spent that total sum for renewable energy research.
  2. There were two unanimous votes last week:

    a. The U.S. House passed the $819 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, but every Republican voted against the measure.

    b. The Illinois State Senate voted 59-0 to impeach Governor Rod Blagojevich.
  3. The California mother of recent octuplets, Nadya Suleman, is, at the age of 33, now up to 14 children, but remains unmarried. A second set of octuplets lives in Texas. While there have been pregnancies up to 15 fetuses (all but one through assistive reproductive technology), there have been no survivors of multiple births beyond eight.
  4. You think you live in a tough neighborhood? Seven residents of Uttar Pradesh, India have been killed by tigers over the past few weeks. Government officials tend to hunt, tranquilize, attempt to treat the tiger for ailments (which is why it generally becomes a manhunter) and relocate it, for with 100,000 a century ago, the number is down to 1500, half what the population was only five years ago. 300,000 victims were reported between 1800 and 1900. These deaths compare with the dreaded H5N1 bird flu (254) and from vehicular incidents (more than 1 million/year, with less than 50,000 annually for the U.S.).
  5. Hawaii’s tourism fell 16.5% in 2008, the worst since the depths of the Great Depression, 1932. I have some good news and bad news. First, tourism will improve by next year, and should increase with more Chinese and Korean visitors, plus improvement of the world economy. However, the bad news is that oil prices will jump past $100/barrel sometime during the next decade, or sooner, and tourism will drop below 2008 because jet fuel prices will skyrocket. The Hawaii economy will then drop into depression, unless:

    a. We find a replacement for the jetliner or a cost-effective substitute for jet fuel. There is potential for a biofuel from microalgae, but current costs are somewhere between $125 and $1350 per barrel ($3/gallon to $32/gallon). In either case, jet fuel will still be too expensive to maintain our current level of tourism. The Hawaiian Hydrogen Clipper has been proposed, a dirigible capable of travelling up to 350 miles per hour, but if development progresses as anticipated, commercialization would probably be 25 years away.

    b. We quickly (start now to have an impact in 25 years) diversify our economy with one or more industries at least the equivalent of current tourism. My favorite is the Blue Revolution, utilizing ocean thermal energy conversion to provide electricity, freshwater, air conditioning, floating casino hotels, next generation fisheries, marine biomass plantations, green chemicals, biofuels, hydrogen and more.

    The odds of any of the above having a major impact within ten years are very remote…but if nothing is done today, Hawaii truly will be in terrible shape for the rest of this century.

The Dow Jones Industrials dropped 64 to 7937. World markets also all fell. Crude oil slipped $1.60/barrel to $40.08. Gold decreased $22.30/toz to $909.80.

-

Tropical Cyclone 13C has formed 795 miles northeast of La Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean, and now at 40 MPH, is moving west southwest.

วันเสาร์ที่ 31 มกราคม พ.ศ. 2552

The following comes from the EPILOGUE of SIMPLE SOLUTIONS for Humanity:
-
The simple solution is for each person to try to make a positive difference. It is as simple as that. Can one individual, for example, do anything about poverty?

In 2005, The Lancet reported on a study showing that $5.1 billion could save 6 million kids.163 That sum is 6% of the expenditures for tobacco products. The average smoker does a pack a day. If these individuals can smoke only one less cigarette a day, and a way is found to effectively apply that savings, poof, we solve that poverty problem, and, maybe start the process of saving your life (if you smoke or are in poverty), too. How simple can it get?

There is, of course, the other side of the coin, for most of these children live in sub-Saharan Africa, where living is torture. What is the rationale for keeping a child alive for another week when the rest of his life could well be agony? If you make the decision that any life saved for however short is justified, then, read on. If you think that curing poverty will only cause more anguish for the rescued, you miss the point, for you need to attain step one to reach the ultimate.

Jeffrey D. Sachs wrote, The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for our Time. It’s a New York Times bestseller. Says Business Week, “Sensible, often brilliant analysis of poverty’s root causes and potential solutions…leaves you with hope that this crisis is more curable than it seems.” Is Jeffrey Sachs that individual that should be crediting to ending poverty? Nope, although it takes a village, and he is an important part of the ultimate solution.

Well, consider Live 8, which occurred on July 2, 2005, as one of the most momentous concerts ever and one of the greatest political lobby ever formed, all for the cause of poverty in Africa. It was timed a week before the G8 summit in Scotland to resolve the African matter. The message was received, as these world leaders agreed on double the aid to Africa, although some quibble that this would have happened anyway.

But Live 8 was preceded by Live Aid on July 13, 1985—60 artists in London and Philadelphia, 1.5 billion television viewers in 120 countries to raise $140 million for famine relief in Africa--which derived from the Band Aid Trust organized by Bob Geldorf to record “Do They Know It’s Christmas,” which inspired USA for Africa’s “We are the World.” Is Geldorf that spark? Known for starring on screen in The Wall, Sir Bob raised three children after his wife, Paula Yates, ran off with INXS singer Michael Hutchence, but become the guardian of their (Paula/Michael’s) daughter after their accidental deaths. Real hero, right? Most definitely!

However, Sir Geldorf did not really start all this. It might have been an aid worker in Ethiopia, Claire Bertschinger. Claire, a nurse for the Red Cross, making life and death decisions on who to feed, was filmed by Michael Buerk and his BBC crew. Her clearest memory of that momentous recording day was taking an anemic baby to the hospital for a blood transfusion. “They had no blood, so I gave him one unit of mine and my diary entry was that ‘today I have done something.’.” This clip was seen by Geldorf, who was moved to also do something. Bertschinger’s story can be read in Moving Mountains.

For most, just donating blood is beyond duty to humanity. But to have done both without any thought to inspiring Live 8 or later receiving the Florence Nightingale Medal, is what each individual can do. A key point here is that, if you care, don’t stop at one good deed. Do what you can, but some element of perseverance is also necessary. Over time, someone will notice. If no one ever notices, well…anything is connected to everything else, and something you do can affect the future, what is called the butterfly effect. Every step you take, every move you make, if done with good will, will only benefit humanity over time.

This can happened in the negative too, as in Ray Bradbury’s Sound of Thunder. In this short story and movie, a tour guide some time in the future takes a couple of hunters in a time machine to shoot a dinosaur just at the moment it was supposed to die anyway. Unfortunately, one of them steps on a butterfly, and when they return home, they find a world significantly changed for the worse, different kind of butterfly effect.

Has Claire Bertschinger cured poverty? Hardly, but what she started sparked the beginning of the solution, even if she originally had no clue as to what she was doing, except with good conscience helping humanity. You do have a clue, so you should be able to be more effective.

So, if Claire and the heavy footed hunter so monumentally can change the future without even knowing what they had done, why bother? Think about that. If you do something terrible, the future will be probably be negatively influenced. But, if you do anything purposeful and good, and keep at it, the odds are that you can, and will, change the future for the better. Claire Bertschinger’s act of sacrifice brought early initial dividends. Yours might take a millennium or more, but Planet Earth is good for another 5 billion years, and probably longer.


Live Earth and Global Warming


In 2007, Al Gore borrowed Bob Geldorf’s concept to stimulate the remediation of Global Climate Warming with Live Earth, which some reported as the biggest benefit concert ever, as the kick-off point for a three year campaign for Planet Earth. TV (in Hawaii on wide-screen high definition HDUNI) and the internet carried over a 22-hour period 150 acts from twelve locations, including, after beating off the Republicans, Washington, D.C., and from all seven continents (six, if you’re from Europe, for they combine North and South into one America), even Antarctica. This was an incredible carbon light rock spectacle, interspersed with Green messages from 60 short films. Geldorf, himself, labeled this as a “hollow spectacle,” Roger Daltrey of The Who said, “the last thing the planet needs is a rock concert,” and the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals demanded that hot dogs and hamburgers not be served. Oh well, you can’t please everyone all the time. But this act helped gain Gore a Nobel Prize, but more importantly, provided a well needed galvanizing spark.

While Tipper has long served to censor music, Al, since the days of Bob Dylan’s Blowin’ in the Wind, has felt that music was an agent of change. But it was Kevin Wall, an American concert promoter, who really invented Live Earth. He was involved with Live 8 in 2005, the effort by Geldorf and Bono to pressure the G8 about African poverty. Wall saw that millions viewed Inconvenient Truth, so why not billions? But, maybe it was Wall’s secretary, or her son, who planted the idea. In any case, this is all good for Planet Earth. Listen to the critics, but move on from here. In the long term, the repercussions will be significantly positive.


Do You Believe in Miracles: The End of the Cold War

But the war on poverty has just begun and interest in the environment is but a budding concept. Many have called the end of the Cold War as the one most significant attainment to preserve civilization. Who was responsible for affecting this magnificent accomplishment?

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (founded by a group of Manhattan Project scientists in 1945) created the Doomsday Clock in 1947 to draw attention to the potential for nuclear Armageddon. In the 60 years, the time has only been reset on 17 occasions. In 1947 it was initially placed at 7 minutes to midnight, clearly meaning that in the span of 24 hours, or 1440 minutes, we were then close to the end of civilization. Today it is actually at 5 minutes to midnight, the situation is supposedly worse. However, I might mention that the clock advanced to 3 minutes after the Soviet Union exploded its first atomic bomb in 1949, then to 2 minutes in 1953 when both the U.S. and S.U. tested hydrogen bombs. The time jumped to 12 minutes in 1972 when the first Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT I) was signed and to 17 minutes in 1991 when the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty was signed. The time did not change when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. One would think, anyhow, that the world is now a far, far safer place, for Pakistan, India, the Middle East and North Korea do not evoke terminal fear or threat of MAD, mutually assured destruction. Yes, there are still sufficient nuclear weapons potentially ready to be reactivated to end civilization, but the politics of the times are such that I think the clock should be reversed, to at least 15 minutes.

The clock was at 9 minutes in the Fall of 1979, which was not a good time for the American Nation. I arrived in the U.S. Senate. Well, that was the best part. Earlier in the year, China had invaded Vietnam, the Three Mile Island nuclear disaster occurred not that far from the national capitol, the YMCA sued the Village People over their song of the same name and the second oil crisis with those interminable gasoline lines made life tedious. Just around the time the USA hockey team was being selected by their coach, Herb Brooks, the Iranian crisis happened, with 66 Americans held hostage in Teheran, followed the next month by the Soviets occupying Afghanistan. National pride was at an all time low and we felt powerless, when a miracle came to pass.

Early in 1980, the USA ice hockey Olympic victory accomplished by a bunch of college students over the supremely dominant Soviet team, triggered a return of will to the American people, embarrassed by the Vietnam War and weakened by the Iranian hostage crisis. This indelible moment in all of U.S. sports history, it is said, inspired President Ronald Reagan to, two years later, confront the Evil Empire (Ronald Reagan, to the British House of Commons, June 8, 1982). Actually the real Evil Empire Speech was given on March 8, 1983, to the Annual Convention of the National Association of Evangelicals (yikes!) near Disney World in Florida. Anyway, Coach Herb Brooks, who was the last cut on the 1960 American ice hockey team (which went on to win the gold medal in Squaw Valley that year), had this vision, delivered, and, perhaps, aided in ending the Cold War. In my estimation, this was the most crucial triumph for humanity ever, yet.

Maybe one other person set the stage for the end of the Cold War: Charlie Wilson. Charles Nesbitt Wilson went to Annapolis and graduated 8th from the bottom, going on to an assignment in the Pentagon analyzing the Soviet Union. A state legislator at the age of 27, he later served in the U.S. House of Representatives for 12 terms, and was known as “Good Time Charlie” for being an alcoholic womanizer. However, as a member of the subcommittee overseeing the Central Intelligence Agency, he single-handedly influenced the diversion of largely black (covert, secret) military funds to help the local patriots fight the Russians in Afghanistan, resulting in their ignominious retreat in 1981, the year Ronald Reagan first became president. You might have seen the movie: Charlie Wilson’s War, starring Tom Hanks and directed by Mike Nichols. Houston socialite Joanne Herring played by Julia Roberts, and Gust Avrakotos, the rogue CIA agent, by Philip Seymour Hoffman, might share some of the credit.

American actor Ronald Reagan played the most important role of his life as the 40th president of the USA, and is sometimes credited for ending the Cold War, as his purposeful confrontational defense budget beginning in 1981, particularly Star Wars, fundamentally terrified the Soviet Union into overspending on defense, leading to ultimate bankruptcy. But, should Edward Teller, who convinced Reagan about this strategy, be the hero? Or one of his staff members I earlier talked about at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory? It had to start somewhere, and inevitably this would be at some primary, if not lower, staff level. Remember, presidents, governors and legislators almost never have the time to think out simple solutions. You have to do it for them. Charlie, though, might have been that necessary spark for this difference.

When Mikhail Gorbachev rose to power in 1985, his response to Reagan was glasnost (openness to public debate) and perestroika (restructuring) policies, followed by summit offers to reduce their nuclear arms stockpile. This initiative set the mechanism in motion for arms reduction, and also to the disestablishment of the Soviet Union. Cowed, inspired, whatever, Gorbachev in 1990 won the Nobel Peace Prize. Who in Russia had the ear and mind of Gorbachev?

It is an exceptionally rare situation when the individual who gets credit actually came up with the idea. It is the leader’s position and prevailing circumstances that were essential, but someone else out there started it all. I credit Ronald and Mikhail for making the critical decisions regarding the Cold War, but nominate Herb, Charlie, the guys at LLNL, Claire and Kevin as my heroes for finding and delivering on these simple solutions for peace, poverty and Planet Earth.

There are, of course, innumerable ways to undertake your personal mission. Former president Bill Clinton wrote Giving in 2007. The book goes into vivid detail about how each of us can change the world. He wrote that six year old McKenzie Steiner organized a beach cleanup club in San Diego. Yes, 6 years old. Who knows who she will be affecting or what she will do when she turns 7.

Now, go to the various web pages. Learn a little more about the ultimate matter of your greatest interest and begin to make a difference by coming up with just one simple solution. How best to get started? Reread this appendix. Or e-mail me at PTakahas@Hotmail.com. Together, with some dedicated others, we can save Planet Earth and Humanity! Aloha, and have a great rest of your life.
-

วันศุกร์ที่ 30 มกราคม พ.ศ. 2552

I changed the title and slightly adjusted my blog of yesterday, so will repeat it today. This version was published by The Huffington Post, which can be clicked on to view comments.

First, a quick tutorial (details can be found in Chapter 1 of Simple Solutions for Planet Earth):

1. In reference to producing electricity, there is really dirty coal (remember acid rain and the Clean Air Act?), dirty coal (what is largely the practice today) and clean coal (nothing has really worked yet, but give them time). Further, along two tracks, there is the "clean" system that mines for coal but attempts to remove the carbon dioxide from the stack gas and store it underground, and the longer term option, which I worked on more than three decades ago at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, called in-situ coal gasification (and oil shale retorting), where everything happens in-situ or in place. This technology was appearing to make a comeback when oil shot pass $100/barrel, but has been understandably quiet as of recent. You think we have a lot coal? Yes, we do, but we are also the Saudi Arabia of oil shale.

2. There are two types of nuclear power: fission (think Atomic Bomb), the currently utilized process, and fusion (Hydrogen Bomb and our Sun), the so-called cleaner and safer form, which in all pathways, seems to be a decade away from breakeven, as it has been since I worked on this concept in the 1970's. Thus, the engineering and economics are at least a generation away from commercialization, unless something like heavy ion fusion can suddenly gain credibility.

What will new nuclear and clean coal-fired electricity cost? If you go to traditional fossil and nuclear sources, you will see prices between 2 cents and 3 cents per kilowatt hour. So, as the average selling price of electricity today is 10 cents/kWh, why don't we just build more of these facilities? Well, for one, that's only from old facilities. Today, there are concerns about global warming and nuclear waste/terrorism. A whole new set of requirements needs to be met. Thus, it turns out that there will almost surely be a much bigger problem: Economics.

Consulting recent studies, projected electricity costs from new nuclear and coal plants seem to have jumped by a factor of at least three and as much as ten:

1. Joseph Romm earlier this month reported the cost of electricity from new nuclear facilities at from 25 cents to 30 cents / kWh, about triple the current price of electricity in the country, citing the study of Craig Severance.

2. Romm also said last summer that the California Public Utilities Commission placed the cost of power from new nuclear plants at 15.2 cents per kWh. They also put the cost of coal gasification with carbon capture and storage at 16.9 cents per kWh.

3. In mid-2007, a Keystone Center nuclear report, funded in part by the industry, estimated capital costs between $3600 to $4000/kW, including interest. The report noted that the production cost would be 8.3 to 11.1 cents/kWh. In December 2007. Retail electricity prices then averaged 8.9 cents/kWh, so there would be no profit.

4. In October 2007, Florida Power and Light, a leading nuclear utility, presented its detailed cost estimate for new power plants to the Florida Public Service Commission, concluding that two units totaling 2,200 megawatts would cost up to $8,000 per kilowatt, more than double that reported in the Keystone Report.

Why have these nuke costs escalated so much? Time (takes ten years from announcement to operation, and therefore, uncertainties about funding), fickle fuel fees for uranium, environmentalists and negative public sentiment, higher cost of materials and labor, waste storage nightmares, fear of terrorism, and more.

So from "too cheap to meter" to something anywhere from 9 cents/kWh to 30 cents/kWh, potential new nuclear power electricity rates now rest somewhere between solar photovoltaic and solar thermal electricity. Wind power is at half those costs, or even lower, and is sufficiently below the average cost of electricity to be on the cusp of being competitive with conventional coal.

Now, if global warming is real and coal-fired electricity with carbon capture/storage and new nuclear facilities are both in the conservative range of 15 cents/kWh, the solution becomes obvious: abandon building any new uranium/plutonium and coal power plants, and install as many wind farms and residential and utility-scale solar thermal systems as fast as possible. Also toss in geothermal energy into this mix. Assist in the promised coming of solar photovoltaics, and certainly, accelerate research into ocean thermal energy conversion, for this is the only baseload marine option of major promise. Offshore wind energy conversion systems are also beginning to show potential. I worry about wavepower, but there is hope for tidal and current power at a few choice sites.
-
If global warming is a true concern, economics alone can justify this renewable electricity pathway. If you disagree, let me hear of your better solution. In any case, the more difficult problems are associated with developing sustainable fuels/systems for ground and air transportation. Several of my earlier HuffPos have addressed this challenge.
-
I never got around to this section yesterday, but to summarize, the Dow Jones Industrials fell 148 today to 8001, making this the DJI's worst January ever. Oil slipped 56 cents/barrel from Wednesday to $41.68. Gold leaped $41/toz to $928.40.
-

วันพฤหัสบดีที่ 29 มกราคม พ.ศ. 2552

ECONOMICALLY, RENEWABLE ENERGY IS OUR ONLY OPTION

First a quick tutorial (details can be found in Chapter 1 of SIMPLE SOLUTIONS for Planet Earth):
  1. In reference to producing electricity, there is really dirty coal (remember acid rain and the Clean Air Act?), dirty coal (what is largely the practice today) and clean coal (nothing has really worked yet, but give them time). Further, along two tracks, there is the "clean" system that mines for coal but attempts to remove the carbon dioxide from the stack gas, and the longer term option, which I worked on more than three decades ago at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, called in-situ coal gasification (and oil shale retorting), where everything happens underground. This technology was appearing to make a comeback when oil shot pass $100/barrel, but has been curiously quiet as of recent. You think we have a lot coal? Yes, we do, but we are also the Saudi Arabia of oil shale.
  2. There are two types of nuclear energy: fission (think Atomic Bomb), the currently utilized process, and fusion (Hydrogen Bomb and our Sun), the so-called cleaner and safer form, which in all pathways, seems to be a decade away from breakeven. Thus, the engineering and economics are at least a generation away from commercialization.
What does nuclear and coal-fired electricity cost? If you go to traditional fossil and nuclear sources, you will see prices between 2 cents and 3 cents per kilowatt hour. So, as the average selling price today is 10 cents/kWh, why don't we just build more of these facilities? Well, there are concerns about global warming and nuclear waste/terrorism. However, it turns out that there might be a bigger problem: economics.

Consulting recent studies, both nuclear and coal plants seem to have jumped by a factor of at least three and as much as ten:
  1. Joseph Romm earlier this month reported the cost of electricity from new nuclear facilities at from 25 cents to 30 cents / kWh, about triple the current price of electricity in the country, citing the study of Craig Severance
  2. Romm also said last summer indicated that the California Public Utilities Commission placed the cost of power from new nuclear plants at 15.2 cents per kWh. They also put the cost of coal gasification with carbon capture and storage at 16.9 cents per kWh.
  3. In mid-2007, a Keystone Center nuclear report, funded in part by the nuclear industry, estimated capital costs for nuclear of $3600 to $4000/kW, including interest. The report noted that the production cost would be 8.3 to 11.1 cents/kWh. In December 2007, retail electricity prices in this country averaged 8.9 cents/kWh. So there would be no profit.
  4. In October 2007, Florida Power and Light, a leading nuclear utility, presented its detailed cost estimate for new power plants to the Florida Public Service Commission, concluding that two units totaling 2,200 megawatts would cost up to $8,000 per kilowatt, more than double that reported in the Keystone Report.
Why have these nuke costs escalated so much? Time (takes ten years from announcement to operation, and therefore, uncertainties about funding), fickle fuel fees for uranium, environmentalists and negative public sentiment, higher cost of materials and labor, waste storage nightmares, fear of terrorism, and more.

So from “too cheap to meter” to something on the order of 15 cents/kWh, potential new nuclear power electricity rates now rest somewhere between solar photovoltaics and solar thermal electricity. Wind power is safely half those costs, or even lower, and is sufficiently below the average cost of electricity to be on the cusp of being competitive with conventional coal.

Now, if global warming is real and coal-fired electricity with carbon capture and new nuclear facilities are both in the range of 15 cents/kWh, or more, the solution becomes obvious:  abandon building any new uranium/plutonium and coal power plants, and install as many wind farms and residential and utility-scale solar thermal systems as fast as possible. Also toss in geothermal energy into this mix. Assist in the promised coming of solar photovoltaics, and certainly, accelerate research into ocean thermal energy conversion, for this is the only major baseload marine option of major promise.  Offshore wind energy conversion systems are also beginning to show potential.  I worry above wavepower, but there is hope for tidal and current power at a few locations.

If global warming is a true concern, economics alone can justify this renewable electricity pathway. If you disagree, let me hear of your better solution.  In any case, the more difficult problems are associated with ground and air transportation.  Several of my earlier HuffPos have addressed this challenge.
-
There will be a follow-up addition of the Dow Jones Industrials, prices for oil and gold.
-

วันพุธที่ 28 มกราคม พ.ศ. 2552

CHEAPER OIL WILL IMPROVE THE ECONOMY, BUT...

...deleteriously influence investments in next generation renewable energy systems. The U.S. uses about 20 million barrels/day of oil. In 2008, the average price of this oil was close to $100/barrel, or $730 billion/year.

However, the average price of oil is predicted to be about $43/barrel this year. Thus, if true, we will be paying only $328 billion, saving $402 billion, which then, effectively, will enter the U.S. economy. How this multiplies into lower gasoline, airline tickets, food, fertilizer, and so on is beyond my analytical capability, but there must be a multiplier effect that increases the true windfall. Thus, in addition to the upcoming Obama stimulus package seemingly headed towards $1 trillion, just on lower oil prices alone, there will be another $402 billion sum provided to individuals, companies and governments. There should probably be a meaningful multiplier, maybe sufficient to bring this unexpected benevolence to a second trillion dollars, which will again be largely repeated in 2010 because the U.S. Department of Energy predicts that oil prices will then average $54.50/barrel.

Thus, the effective stimulus of more than $3 trillion (and up to $4 billion when you add on the Bush rescue package) over the next two years will probably boost the U.S. economy well beyond expectations. Similar advances will occur world-wide. The only ones to suffer will be those oil-exporting nations. It will be interesting to see what imaginative solutions OPEC will foist on the world to again embarrass the U.S. Department of Energy, which, granted, has been woeful in predicting the future price of petroleum.

Further, about two-thirds of the oil we use is imported. Thus, there is also the matter of $220 billion that we will not be paying to foreign oil suppliers in 2009. Somehow, there is then another nice multiplied sum you can add to the above each year until the anticipated next oil shock happens. Finally, any reduced Middle East war costs will further provide enhancement. Maybe we might even now be up to $5 trillion over the next couple of years to pump up the national economy.

Yet, as the Sun will rise again tomorrow, you can expect skyrocketing crude prices sometime within the next decade, and maybe even as early as next year. After all, our Energy Informational Agency has been regularly imperfect. In the meantime, as energetic as President Obama has been in his support for renewable energy--surprising because with oil below $50/barrel, you would think that his foci would be limited to the economy and the Middle East--with generally reinforcing comments from the Congress, I can only fear that the anticipated withdrawal of major industrial investments in sustainable resource projects will result in only admirable, but insufficient, action from our Congress.

To repeat, from my HuffPo on Do It Now, Congress needs to take advantage of the moment and immediately add a $1/gallon gasoline investment surcharge. We moaned at $4/gallon gasoline when Europeans were paying more than $10/gallon. The national price for premium today is less than $2/gallon. A whole dollar only kicks the price up to $3/gallon. This fund would accrue about $125 billion/year. Work out the rebates and subsidies, but spend most of the revenues on renewable energy research, demonstration and commercialization.

Secondly, on a global scale, the G8 nations need to agree at their 2009 Italian Summit on a 1 cent/pound carbon dioxide remediation duty linked to crude oil at $30/barrel, to proportionately increase such that the levy would be 5 cents/pound carbon dioxide at $150/bbl crude. The sum collected could amount to about $200 billion/year just in the U.S. Funds should be used by each country to install smart grids and accelerate renewable energy investments. At 2 cents/pound (when oil reaches $60/barrel), coal-fired electricity would almost double, making unnecessary any renewable energy tax credits, bringing into competitiveness wind power and utility scale solar thermal power.

What are the prospects of a $1/gallon gasoline investment surcharge and a one cent/pound carbon dioxide remediation duty (both, incidentally, also known as taxes) becoming real over the next year? One or more of you reading this posting could well be that galvanizing spirit to make this happen. Just read my Epilogue in SIMPLE SOLUTIONS for Humanity and be inspired.
-
The Dow Jones Industrials jumped 201 to 8375. Except for Hong Kong, world markets were all up. Oil stayed largely unchanged at $42.24/barrel. Gold fell $14/toz to $887.

วันอังคารที่ 27 มกราคม พ.ศ. 2552

COMPARING OIL AND FUSION

One of the discussion pathways for Peak Oil and Global Warming has focused on the Hydrogen Economy. More specifically, recently, was the contention that the ultimate Hydrogen Economy will be powered by controlled fusion (there is, of course, a respectable hard core convinced that renewable energy has sufficient energy return on energy input to compete over the next few decades using conventional hydrogen gas). For those not totally aware of this, the sun fuses hydrogen, while our scientists are close (well, maybe in a decade) to attaining net positive from two isotopes of hydrogen, deuterium and tritium. Chuck Helsely has a heavy ion fusion concept different from the ITER magnetic confinement project in France and you can contact him for details. I thought it would be interesting to analyze the volumetric fuel difference of oil and fusion.

The world has thus far used a trillion barrels of oil and will probably extract, at higher cost, another trillion barrels. The Sun runs on fusion energy (you can find where the hydrogen came from by reading my Chapter 4 of SIMPLE SOLUTIONS for Humanity). Our Sun is around 5 billion years old and has about 5 billion more years of life.

A trillion barrels would fill a cube 3.4 miles on each side (38 cubic miles). According to fusion scientists, ocean water about the volume of a 200 meter cube (0.002 cubic miles) could supply the deuterium to run our society for a year. One part in 6400 of the hydrogen atoms in water is deuterium. At current consumption, the volume of oil used so far would be able to supply deuterium for 20,000 years of fusion.

Lake Geneva, it is said, can provide sufficient deuterium for about a million years of fusion. An interesting paper by J. Ongena and G. Van Oost on “Energy for the Future Centuries,” reported that there is sufficient deuterium in the oceans (a volume equal to a cube about 690 miles on each side) to supply all the energy (at some point in the future we will have 10 billion people and an annual energy consumption of 30 TWyear—this is 3 times the current usage) for 150 billion years. As our Sun is only good for 5 billion more years, there should not be a problem with Peak Deuterium.

I noticed there was a factor of ten discrepancy comparing the upscaled 200 meter cubed tally with the Ongena/Ooost number, but even if O/O were too high by a factor of ten, that would still leave 15 billion years of deuterium at three times the current energy consumption.
-
The Dow Jones Industrials climbed 59 to 8175, still about a 7% drop for the year. World markets were mixed. Crude dropped about $3.50/barrel to $42.24. Gold slipped a buck to $902/toz.
-
This was not a hurricane, but gusts up to 95 miles per hour killed 15 in Spain and France over the weekend. Otherwise, the world oceans are relatively calm.
-

วันจันทร์ที่ 26 มกราคม พ.ศ. 2552

PEAK OIL DEBUNKED

Over the weekend, there was a flurry of e-mails on the reality of Peak Oil. I guess there is almost overwhelming consensus that this maximum will be attained soon, but the issue is how soon. The following is a response to one of the inputs:
-
Dear XXXX:
-
I've long been in the top quartile of those who have been concerned about the harm Peak Oil will bring. So, to answer your question, I believe this issue is real and imminent. However, I think it is useful to gain other points of view, as, for example, to quote from Peak Oil Debunked:
-
Mills' book's greatest strength is its ability to deconstruct the most frightening of the peak prophecies and show how they are either incorrect, or at the very least, misguided. He is thorough in demonstrating, through both data, and clear, well-sourced arguments, how the extreme pessimists of the energy commentary community are generally incorrect in their arguments and assumptions.
-
I've found that, over time, my thinking has changed on a number of matters because of maturity or compelling countervailing evidence. My recollection of all our e-mails is that Peak Oil has already occurred or soon will. Mills is saying, maybe not. He has a lot more experience with this topic than any of us, and, who knows, he might be right.
-
While this sort of thinking only further delays the need to make monumental changes now, for some of you who won't have any influence on the big decisions, anyway, perhaps partial acceptance of his stance might serve a useful psychological purpose by minimizing high anxiety about the coming crash. I'm not convinced, but if true, this extra time is just another Gift for Planet Earth and Humanity.
-
Aloha.
-
Pat
-
P.S. My Huffington Post article, just published an hour ago, is on Where is Wind Energy Today?
-
The Dow Jones Industrials edged up 38 to 8116. Asia declined a bit but Europe rose. The upward movement was surprising in that Monday morning brought announcements of 71,400 job cuts. Maybe the rise in December home sales by 6.5% from the previous month was the neutralizer, or perhaps it was the Pfizer-Wyeth merger, showing that deal-making is still alive. Oil largely remained unchanged at $45.70/barrel. Gold cracked the $900/toz line, up $4 to $903.
-

วันเสาร์ที่ 24 มกราคม พ.ศ. 2552

ENERGY 2100

Thirty-six years ago, Jim Dator and I co-hosted a NASA-sponsored summer faculty workshop and public lecture series on EARTH 2020. One of our students, Phil Bossert, was then a young philosophy professor, who went on to become a university president and high tech specialist. Society in the 70’s was challenged by Limits to Growth, the Population Bomb, the Vietnam War, Acid Rain, and energy crises. Actually, that first energy crisis occurred just after we concluded the course.

A few of you, however, tell me that it is different this time. The matter of actually reaching a limit to cost-effective oil will forever change, in fact, significantly lower, our lifestyle. But for the more hopeful, until, of course, controlled fusion is attained.

Well, over the past few months we have exchanged at least a hundred e-mails, and most of you have seen, at most, half, for, in addition to Peak Oil and Global Warming, there were tangential pathways on transitional living as a survival option, the direct methanol fuel cell, the Hawaiian Hydrogen Clipper, “is there a flaw in the hydrogen economy?”, variations on biofuels from algae, the Blue Revolution and more. All those views inspired me to synthesize some of your contributions into ENERGY 2100:

The global economy will recover from the collapse. Hawaii’s tourism rate will begin to improve by the end of the year, so nothing dramatic will occur to diversify our economy. The healing process could take three years to reach a semblance of normalcy.

In the Year 2012 (the world could come to an end that year in THE VENUS SYNDROME: The Novel, but there is no reason to believe we will be right) oil prices will reach $150/barrel, for it will now be Peaked Oil. Global warming will be proven to be real, so a carbon tax of 1 cent per pound carbon dioxide will be agreed to by the G8 nations when they meet in the U.S. that year, bringing solar photovoltaics and solar thermal electricity into the mix with wind energy. The U.S. Congress will pass a $1/gallon gasoline investment surcharge, still keeping our prices a couple of dollars/gallon lower than Europe. The tourism rate to Hawaii will drop by 50% and the State will go into depression. A serious nuclear powerplant accident or terroristic act will occur, killing tens of thousands, thus eliminating fission power as a replacement option.

By 2020, non-hydro renewables will only be supplying 10% of the electricity in the world. Hybrid (battery/fuel cell) and plug-in electric vehicles will now begin to replace the internal combustion engine. The direct methanol fuel cell will be developed and the Hawaiian Hydrogen Clipper will fly. However, renewable aircraft fuels will remain non-competitive because of high production costs. While nothing will have seemingly changed in the energy balance, the reality is that renewables will be producing 20 times more electricity than today. It just takes time to get there.

The frightening thing about the above is that this is an optimistic projection. It is appearing that there is nothing Hawaii can do to avoid this scenario. A couple of hundred megawatts of wind power could be in place, and, even, a 100 MW OTEC plantship. Geothermal could reach 100 MW, so it is possible that we will be producing more renewable electricity, percentage-wise, than the world. Likewise, there should also be more hybrids and plug-ins in Hawaii than elsewhere, but the key factor is that our local economy will still be dependent on tourism.

ENERGY 2100, however, should be Hawaii as Paradise. We will be totally energy self-sufficient, and, perhaps, even exporting hydrogen. Some form of hydrogen jetliner or dirigible will be the mode of air travel. The Blue Revolution will mean that half of our visitors will be housed on floating casinos and marine-eco-tourist facilities, all powered by OTEC. We could be exporting seafood through next generation fisheries and producing biofuels from marine biomass plantations, where the production facilities will be located beyond view from land. One of the larger platforms will be communicating with the United Nations about becoming a new nation. These floating plantships will begin to gain carbon credits and environmental revenues for remediating global warming and minimizing the formation of hurricanes. Fusion will just have been commercialized, so the world will also begin a new recovery process.

It is clear, then, what we should begin to do now to accelerate the process so that Hawaii ENERGY 2100 could be Hawaii ENERGY 2050, or sooner. SIMPLE SOLUTIONS for Planet Earth provides the guidelines for this preferred future.
-

วันศุกร์ที่ 23 มกราคม พ.ศ. 2552

THE END OF WARS (Part 22)

The following is largely excerpted from Chapter 1 of SIMPLE SOLUTIONS for Humanity:

Then there is Iran

The Islamic Republic of Iran, meaning “Land of the Aryans (Indo-European),” known as Persia until 1935, has a population in the range of 65 million to 70 million, and is a bit smaller than Alaska in area. Iran is a puzzlement. Various scenarios have cast this country as being THE Middle East by 2050, first, because it has that intention, and two, because of its central location. Its neighbors are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey and Iraq. Across the Persian Gulf you will find Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. From the 9th to 11th century, Persia was the heart and mind of the Islamic Golden Age. The current goal is to seek nothing less.

In 1921, Reza Shah Pahlavi gained control of the country, but was forced to abdicate by the British and USSR in 1941 in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was more malleable...to the Western World. After WW II, in 1953, Mohammed Mossadegh won a democratic election and forced Pahlavi to leave the country. However, Operation Ajax, a British Intelligence Service led, CIA cooperated, venture, overthrew Mossadegh (who had his own ideas on how to proceed), and the Shah returned later that year.
-
Twenty-six years henceforth, in 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini led the Iranian Revolution, and the Shah again fled the country. This is when the American hostage incident took place, and lingered for 444 days. In 1980, with favorable signals from Uncle Sam, Iraq invaded Iran, initiating a war which lasted eight years and killed up to a million Iranians. It is reported that the Americans provided chemicals for weapons of mass destruction, providing a historical footnote on why there was so much certainty about Saddam still having them.
-
Is there any wonder about why the U.S. is mistrusted in the Middle East? Overthrowing a democracy and supplying materials for weapons of mass destruction? Us, the freedom fighters? I guess so.

The Supreme Religious Leader is Ali Khamenei and the President, the secular leader, is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Who is in charge? Well, there are a lot more portraits of Khamenei throughout the nation, plus, he has definite seniority.

In comparison with the U.S.:

......................Iran..........................United States

Age.............9000 years..................About 200 years

Size.............1.648 million sq km..9.826 million sq km

Population..69 million....................302 million

GDP...........$562 billion.................$13,000 billion

GDP/Cap...$8,300........................$44,000

Military
Exp...........$4.3 billion....................$528 billion

Mil. Exp.
%GDP......3.3%.............................4.1%

We spend 100 times more than Iran on our military, so why is that country a concern? From all reports, there is now a new developing axis of evil: Iran, Pakistan, and Russia. Russia is in it for oil and has the technology to share. There are some disturbing rumors about Cuba and Venezuela being courted. Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine are being funded by Iran. Then there is that nuclear issue that comes, goes, returns and continues to irritate the free world, even if we have ours and they don’t. Thus, from a "Free" World perspective, Iran is today the most prominent catalyst for evil.

What nurtures the influence of Iran are oil (second largest OPEC producer) and natural gas (second to Russia in terms of reserves). But there is a limit of how long these fossil fuels will produce, making a nuclear future understandable. One would hope, of course, that solar energy could, instead, dominate. This almost never comes up for discussion in our talks with Iran.

The notion of the entire Middle East becoming the Iranian Empire is not far-fetched. The lightening rod for unity is Israel. Everyone else in the region is an enemy of this “American satellite.” Ironically, the U.S. eliminated the Iranians two worst enemies, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. President Ahmadinejad has unwisely and royally ticked off Israel with statements like calling the Nazi Holocaust a myth and boasting of the need to wipe Israel off the map. One more provocation and a surgically precise bombing of potential nuclear or rocket launching sites by the Israeli Air Force could serve as a useful warning shot, except the latest intelligence is that they don’t really exist, yet.

On the peace front, though, on May 8, 2006, President Ahmadinejad sent an 18-page letter to President George W. Bush, the first such communication between Iranian and American heads since 1980. While the letter was generally courteous, it criticized Bush for attacking Afghanistan and Iraq, supporting Israel and other nit-picking subjects, and wondered how Jesus and his prophets would have judged these acts. Ahmadinejad simply asked Bush to justify his Middle East policies and those of his predecessors.

This would have been a golden opportunity to first question Iran’s sense of equity and freedom, but, then, state the obvious validations and propose a sincere dialogue on various important issues. As far as I know, Bush’s only response was at a press conference with Tony Blair later that month, indicating that he had read the letter but expressed distaste that the nuclear matter was not addressed. Unfortunately, but not unsurprisingly, there came no official response, further reinforcing the common belief that the U.S. blatantly ignores the concerns of the Middle East. A telling comment came from think tank Chatham House: “While the U.S. has been playing poker in the region, Iran has been playing chess.” Barack Obama has indicated an intent to communicate.

Finally, further embarrassing our intelligence experts, late in 2007 it was determined that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program four years earlier. I guess the pressure is now off, for now. Well, then, again, maybe not.
-
After dropping 200 points, the Dow Jones Industrials recovered to only a minus 45 at 8078. World markets mostly dropped, although Belgium, again, was one of the very few exceptions. Crude oil rose almost 3 bucks, and is now at $45.88/barrel. Gold jumped $43/toz to $898.
-
NAMING OF OCEAN STORMS IS ALMOST PERPLEXING. Most of the systems are alphabetical, but some are not.
-
On Sunday, Tropical Storm / Cyclone (maximum velocity of about 70 miles per hour) Eric hit the east coast of Madagascar, causing one death, and on Wednesday, Cyclone Fanale (which means this is the 6th storm of the year) at 130 miles per hour struck the west coast of Madagascar, killing 9. Seventy percent of the population live on less than a dollar a day, and for a variety of reasons, I have been told not to go there. Here are two more. La Reunion Island is located about 500 miles east of Madagascar and Mauritius is another 120 miles northeast of La Reunion. These countries are covered in Chapter 6 of SIMPLE SOLUTIONS for Humanity. The Indian Ocean is particularly warmer this season, so many more of these disturbances are expected. Australia has gone through Anika, Billy and Charlotte this season.
-
The hurricane season for the U.S. begins on June 1. The first tropical storm in the Atlantic will be named Ana, then Bill, followed by Claudette. In the Eastern Pacific it will be Andres, Blanca and Carlos. Names of typhoons in the West Pacific originate out of the Japan Meteorological Agency, and depend on where they form, for 13 countries participate in the naming. There seems to be some consensus, though, that the first one will be named Kujira. The Philippines, though, has it's own system, and uses an alphabetical order, with the first for 2009 to be called Auring. Thus, you'll note that many typhoons might have two names. Conversely, there is no system for the south Atlantic. The most recent, in 2004, was named Catarina because it made landfall in Santa Catarina, Brazil.
-