... and judging by posts hereabouts on crude prices the past few months,
that a goodly percentage of wRec participants are more capable than congress
of making valid judgments regarding the why's and wherefores of national
energy policy:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080910/ap_on_go_co/oil_speculation
IOW, all the asses in congress, combined, have failed to exhibit enough
judgment to make a single pimple on a wooddorkers butt.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> writes:
>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:03:07 -0500, Swingman wrote:
>
>> ... and judging by posts hereabouts on crude prices the past few months,
>> that a goodly percentage of wRec participants are more capable than congress
>> of making valid judgments regarding the why's and wherefores of national
>> energy policy:
>
>Well, we may not agree on a lot of things, but we have proven we're
>literate :-).
>
>I saw an ad on TV this morning for an auger to drill holes in your garden.
> Order it and you got a free "high-power" cordless drill. Had a "value of
> $1??.00 for only $19.95 plus (unspecified) S&H".
>
>Consider that the marketeers felt there were enough customers out there to
>more than pay for the cost of the ad.
>
>Should people stupid enough to fall for that ad be allowed to vote?
>Should we force the "it slices, it dices" crowd to provide their customer
>lists and use them to purge the voting rolls? Hmmmm - I may be on to
>something here :-).
>
For most of those items, the S+H charge covers both the S&H costs plus
the wholesale cost of the item. What you pay then is pure profit, and
even if you send it back, all they're out is the profit, they still have
the S+H and the original item which can be resold.
scott
"dpb" wrote:
> I'd guess this unit was probably 40 yr old when Lew visited and that
> was probably around that long ago as well making it somewhere near
> many moons since it was new.
That plant was long in the tooth when our class visited which was '58
time frame.
My guess is that it passed the century mark several years ago.
That utility was strictly a belt and suspenders bunch.
Their engineering dept considered 50 year old technology as break
thru.<G>.
Lew
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>
>> IOW, all the asses in congress, combined, have failed to exhibit
>> enough judgment to make a single pimple on a wooddorkers butt.
>
> We already knew that :-)
>
> Does anyone have any info on new refining capacity under construction
> or in the process of being brought on line in the near future?
Saw this mentioned in a TV commercial yesterday
Marathon is spending $3.2 billion on the project that will expand the crude
oil refining capacity by 180,000 barrels of oil per day
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4200/is_20070308/ai_n18712309
Rod
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:39:07 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Frank Boettcher" wrote
>
>> I'm not saying speculation is not a factor, just saying speculation
>> can only exist within the supply/demand trends as it is the key
>> driver. All those mutually exclusive potential events you mention
>> above get assigned a probability factor and in the face of
>> significantly falling demand, they become meaningless.
>
>However, it is inarguably "speculation" when the mere rumor of a storm
>hitting the Gulf a week in advance is enough to drive up prices within 24
>hours; likewise it is such speculation that keeps prices, already falling on
>your valid "supply and demand" issues, from falling further.
>
>IOW, the effect of "supply and demand" on prices has demonstrably been
>trumped by "speculation" in this regard.
>
>Most will agree that "supply and demand" generally takes some bit of time to
>effect prices, but the effects of "speculation" on prices, driven by
>innuendo, rumor, greed, and fear, take effect before you wake up the next
>day.
>
>To declare that "supply and demand" is not part of the big picture is as
>equally foolish as blaming it all on speculation, but it's been clear for
>sometime that the driving force in the past year has been fear/greed based
>speculation, and with much of the speculative index trading done on margin.
>
>It's amazing how little "speculation" there is when you have to put up your
>own cold hard cash to practice it.
>
No doubt requiring "some skin in the game" would go a long way toward
curtailing speculation. Would also have helped in the
mortgage/housing/banking crisis. You have to get to the very end of
the financing "pass it on chain" before anyone has any skin in the
game and, as we have seen, by the time you get there the taxpayers are
left holding the bag.
>That is one of the controls I would like to see the CFTC take an interest in
>installing.
>
>All the above notwithstanding, my original point was the planned paralysis
>of the corrupt bastards supposedly leading this nation.
On Sep 14, 1:43=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Fred the Red Shirt" wrote:
>
> >I used to work for Stock Equipment company, though sadly, not until
>
> after Arthur Stock had sold the company.
>
> Are you still in the Cleveland area?
>
> Lew
No, but I frequently come back to visit.
--
FF
"Frank Boettcher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
>>I looked at the charts earlier this year. World consumption is down
>>compared to 3 or 4 years ago. 3rd world countires are using more but
>>over
>>all the world demand is lower.
>
> As of December the IEA was forecasting a worldwide increase in the
> demand for crude. In May they revised that figure down, but still an
> increase, based on slowing economies. I think, most recently because
> of the worldwide economic slowdown, the demand is actually predicted
> to fall.
The key work you used here Frank is "forcast". A forcast is not a sure
thing. The figures I was looking at were not forcasts rather actual figures
for the last several years. IIRC the percentage of increase of 3rd world
countries has been up significantly ofer the last 10 years where as the
usage by large industrial nations has been dropping for 4 or 5 years. I
will say that I don't recall the source of those figures, probably "MSNBC"
however the article that included that actual world usage chart was actually
trying to explain that the rising oil and gas costs were a direct result of
supply and demand. I suspect a 2nd year college drop out was piecing
together information he found on the internet. While supply and demand is
certainly a part of the pricing/any product pricing actually, I would say
it has about 10% effect on the current situation.
>
> Yes, if you go back in history, anytime there has been an economic
> slowdown demand drops. A slice in time. That's what is happening
> now.
Here in the US drop in demand has been going on for the last 4 or 5 years/
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ... and judging by posts hereabouts on crude prices the past few months,
> that a goodly percentage of wRec participants are more capable than
> congress of making valid judgments regarding the why's and wherefores of
> national energy policy:
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080910/ap_on_go_co/oil_speculation
>
> IOW, all the asses in congress, combined, have failed to exhibit enough
> judgment to make a single pimple on a wooddorkers butt.
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 8/18/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
I have said this time and again. When the oil companies started to merge
they cut out 1/2 the competition. If pricing was truly the result of supply
and demand we all would have been sitting in lines to gas up like we did
back in the 70's.
Speculation and "What the market will Bare" is what's going on here. US oil
consumption was down 6 months before prices shop up to $4.00 per gallon.
The demand began it's decline in the fall of last year.
Hey, if you are willing to pay $4.00 per gallon there is certainly plenty to
go around, same goes at $3.25 per gallon.
dpb wrote:
> Leon wrote:
> ...
>> While the dollar is strengtening, oil prices began dropping befor the
>> dollar went up. Oil prices going down will strengthen the dollar.
> ...
>
> Which is a positive feedback mechanism...
An interesting observation - and, by implication, a serious warning.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Swingman wrote:
> IOW, all the asses in congress, combined, have failed to exhibit enough
> judgment to make a single pimple on a wooddorkers butt.
We already knew that :-)
Does anyone have any info on new refining capacity under construction or
in the process of being brought on line in the near future?
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
dpb wrote:
> dpb wrote:
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>>> Does anyone have any info on new refining capacity under construction
>>> or in the process of being brought on line in the near future?
>>
>> There's a new refining facility planned in SE NE (because our intrepid
>> Governor is so anti-business the developers moved it out of NE KS :( ).
>>
>> It'll be sizable and include a new large capacity pipeline to collect
>> crude from central US and distribute at least some product.
>>
>> Exact timeline I'm not sure of...I'll see what I can dig up; I sorta'
>> lost interest when they moved out of state.
>
> OK, what I learned is it is probably going to be in SD just across the
> border from NE if it goes--they have bought land there and had a
> successful rezoning. There's questions on the viability of their
> financing, however, apparently. The plan is for the Alberta shale oil
> pipeline to be the primary source. The project would be roughly $8-10B
> if it comes off.
Thanks. I was hoping that there might already be a couple in the works.
It would appear that we might be in for a bit of discomfort if even just
one or two are taken out of service due to hurricane damage. :-(
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Morris Dovey" wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have any info on new refining capacity under
>> construction or in the process of being brought on line in the near
>> future?
>
> You are probably not going to like this response, but it is reality.
>
> There has not been a "grass roots" refinery built in the USA in over
> 30 years, and hopefully, there will NEVER be another built, at least
> until after some usable form of alternate energy is developed.
> Time to get up off our dead and dying, and get to work.
Cut me a little slack, Lew. I've been working for a little over six
years to help make it happen - first with solar heating panels to keep
people warm up here in "cold country", then with direct solar-powered
(non-electrical) stationary engines for pumping and (if I can get the
@!%# pump running the way I think it should), direct solar-powered
air-conditioning to keep people cool in "hot country". I'd have taken on
more but my resources were a bit on the thin side.
The government and industry don't appear to be interested in any
technology that doesn't produce ongoing revenues capable of providing
mega-salaries to top execs and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of
campaign contributions.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
dpb wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
> ...
>> The government and industry don't appear to be interested in any
>> technology that doesn't produce ongoing revenues capable of providing
>> mega-salaries to top execs and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of
>> campaign contributions.
>
> I don't believe that for a minute.
>
> You talked to EPRI or responded to DARPA or DOE RFPs on Advanced
> Technology? You sent concept proposals to the National Labs for
> cooperative research? You talked w/ various research
> centers/deans/department heads at State universities? Looked at the
> various Foundations who sponsor advanced research? There are zillions
> of options for funding but it does takes work to go find them.
Eh? I'm not in business to produce concepts. If I were, then your
suggestions would make sense.
The national labs want me to pay them. Hell - if I could afford to pay
them, then I wouldn't need them at all. :-)
I've already been the university route once. It cost $80K (in 1978
dollars), resulted in proprietary technology being leaked into the
public domain by people who wouldn't/couldn't respect intellectual
property, and never did produce the contracted- and paid-for result. I
guess I should mention that the project ran almost a year over the
promised schedule and terminated because there was no way to continue
funding the (unproductive) effort. Ugh - I'm not interested in repeating
that experience. It's a "doesn't work in the real world" because the
people involved don't have any skin in the game.
There /are/ a zillion options for donating both what I already have and
what I'm working on - and bloody few for promoting what's already
completed and for accelerating development of proven concepts into
finished (marketable) products.
My projects aren't the point though, it's the entire approach to the
alternative energy that's incredibly inadequate, and I've lost hope that
anything will change significantly until there is a bona fide crisis. We
just don't have enough Pickens-types to get the job done.
I'll keep at it until I burn out, then dumpster the works and enjoy the
retirement I should have started in July of 2007.
I haven't minded the work to find options, but finding is the easiest
part - it's the overhead they bring with them that's the killer.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Morris Dovey" wrote:
>
>> Cut me a little slack, Lew. I've been working for a little over six
>> years to help make it happen - first with solar heating panels to
>> keep people warm up here in "cold country", then with direct
>> solar-powered (non-electrical) stationary engines for pumping and
>> (if I can get the @!%# pump running the way I think it should),
>> direct solar-powered air-conditioning to keep people cool in "hot
>> country". I'd have taken on more but my resources were a bit on the
>> thin side.
>>
>> The government and industry don't appear to be interested in any
>> technology that doesn't produce ongoing revenues capable of
>> providing mega-salaries to top execs and hundreds of millions of
>> dollars worth of campaign contributions.
>
> Taking on a project as committee of one is like pushing on a rope.
>
> It's a tough process.
Tell me about it! Still, I've managed to push a couple of pieces of this
rope farther than I expected when I started.
> Have you tried to seek out R&D funds from private foundations or
> gov't research grants?
Private foundations - no. Government grants - yes, until it was made
clear that I'd need to spend more than half of my time providing proof
that I was sticking to a well-defined action/budget plan that had to be
nailed down before the funds would be made available - and until I
learned that any deviation (for example, shifting resources from an
activity that needed less to complete than budgeted to another that
needed more than budgeted) from that plan could land me in prison. Two
other items that couldn't be covered by the grant were construction
(necessary for testing) and advertising (essential to
commercialization). I said thanks and backed away.
> Lots of digging req'd, but funds are out there.
I don't have a lot of time available for digging, but I'm sure you're
right. So far, the sources I've found have all had an associated
overhead that would slow, rather than accelerate, the work to be done. I
figure I'm already going slow enough.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Morris Dovey" wrote:
>
>> I don't have a lot of time available for digging, but I'm sure
>> you're right. So far, the sources I've found have all had an
>> associated overhead that would slow, rather than accelerate, the
>> work to be done. I figure I'm already going slow enough.
>
> At this poimt in time, what is your objective?
[1] Produce an inexpensive, maintenance-free, extended-service,
multi-horsepower engine that performs direct conversion of solar
radiation to mechanical energy.
[2] Use that technology to implement an inexpensive, maintenance-free,
extended-service pump capable of moving air and/or fluids using only
direct conversion of solar radiation to mechanical energy.
[3] Use both of the above to implement an inexpensive, maintenance-free,
extended-service cooling/refrigeration system using only direct
conversion of solar radiation to mechanical energy.
> Has it changed from when you started?
The original goal was to identify practical ways to improve availability
and quality of food and shelter worldwide using already known technology
which did not depend on the existence of any energy infrastructure.
That goal diverged into two fairly broad 'sub-problems':
[1] Keeping dwelling temperatures within some reasonable temperature
bounds, and
[2] dealing with the problem that the food-supply depends highly on
water - and that the water is all too frequently in the 'wrong' place.
The only universal energy source I could identify was solar. The first
goal made the obvious split into:
[1a] Solar heating, and
[1b] Solar cooling.
The first of these has been solved with a passive solar panel that is so
efficient it could be labeled "stealthy" - it eats radiant energy at all
wavelengths from UV to HF radio (I don't have a way to test LF and VLF)
with a remarkable efficiency - and it'll do that without moving parts,
without electricity, and without fuel anywhere between the Arctic Circle
and the Tropic of Cancer, and between the Tropic of Capricorn and the
Antarctic Circle.
Interestingly [1b] and [2] appear to be so closely related that their
solutions can use not only the same technology, but much of the same
hardware. Anyone who's interested in getting a glimpse of how this stuff
is shaping up is invited to browse through the pages linked below.
HTH
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/Stirling/
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Sounds like you need what we used to call a "Rabbi", AKA: Someone who
> can give you air cover and tell you where the "bombs" are planted.
>
> If you have put together a good game plan, somebody like P Allen
> (Microsoft founder) might be interested.
>
> He has been supporting Rutan and his companies space research here in
> SoCal.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Today, a private foundation might be the most productive.
Perhaps. Thanks for your thoughts.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
dpb wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> Today, a private foundation might be the most productive.
>>
>> Perhaps. Thanks for your thoughts.
>
> Which was also one of those in previous sources of funding I gave... :)
I noticed that - and I appreciate your thinking as well. As happens
sometimes when there's a sudden wealth of ideas, I find myself more than
just a bit distracted by the possibilities...
> I'll reiterate EPRI (their actual name these days but the entity
> formerly known as the Electric Power Research Institute) is always
> looking for good ideas to fund. They're self-funded by (mostly) member
> electric utilities. Spent quite a number of years w/ them as primary
> client altho my specialty was I&C-related as pertained to advanced
> controls/instrumentation of interest to the utilities. Last project
> before retiring back to the family farm after Dad died was pulverized
> coal flow measurement via turbulent noise and unique signal processing.
> The intent is to go from concept to the device--at the time I left and
> passed the work to colleagues, DOE had just picked up a sizable fraction
> of the next step to fund a series of tests at the coal flow facility
> EPRI was building. All again to indicate there's $$ for ideas w/ merit
> and that have an end payoff.
You've worked on some interesting projects! (Recalling what you said in
the cyclone separator thread, back when, and adding this...)
One aspect of the private foundation route would seem to be the need to
identify those whose interests align with the hoped-for results - I
can't help but wonder how enthusiastic an energy industry related
foundation is likely to be for developments intended to shrink their
markets...
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
On Sep 13, 5:58=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote:
>
> Well, Lew... now you're into my area of expertise. The bulk of
> pulverized coal turns into 'fly-ash' and is caught by electrostatic
> precipitators. The clinkers are a minimal product of most coals burned
> for power generation.
> That doesn't mean I disagree with the possibilities of using fly-ash
> as fillers for road contructuon, etc, but the mineral remnant is
> notoriously weak in structure and is hard to bind with anything cheap.
> ...
>
I used to work for Stock Equipment company, though sadly, not until
after Arthur Stock had sold the company. The bread and butter of
our business was gravimetric feeders.
As I am sure you know, like coal itself fly ashes have enormous
variation in their properties. Something like 10 - 15% are
pozzolanic,
meaning they set like cement.
A few years ago utilities were experimenting with adding materials
to their scrubbers to produce, on the fly, useful materials like
(IIRC)
gypsum.
A major impediment to this sort of innovation is that Electric
power companies are in the business of producing electricity,
not 'stuff'.
A worse impediment to cost savings and especially fuel savings
measures in general is the economic regulatory structure.
Utilities typically have two sources of funding. Investors,
and ratepayers. The Public Utility Commissions (affectionately
referred to as pukes) typically restrict expenditures for capital
improvements to invested dollars, while allowing ratepayer
dollars to be spent on operational costs. Rates (with some
limitations) are allowed to go up and down with fuel usage
and costs. Investors expect a relatively short term return
on their investment. Consequently, when I was in the business
a utility would not make any improvements not required by law
unless they expected a return on the investment within nine
months.
That problem is by no means unique to the power industry and
is a major reason for why our economy has largely become
a house of cards. No long term investment.
So, while conversion from volumetric to gravimetric feeders
would typically reduce coal usage by 15% a number of utilities
would not do it.
Sometimes a utility would receive permission from their puke
to invest ratepayer money in a capital improvement. This
was typically reported in the Press as "charging customers
for electricity they had not yet generated", though that particular
phrase was more often used in the context of investing rate-
payer money in nuclear plant construction.
--
FF
"Robatoy" wrote:
Well, Lew... now you're into my area of expertise. The bulk of
pulverized coal turns into 'fly-ash' and is caught by electrostatic
precipitators. The clinkers are a minimal product of most coals burned
for power generation.
That doesn't mean I disagree with the possibilities of using fly-ash
as fillers for road contructuon, etc, but the mineral remnant is
notoriously weak in structure and is hard to bind with anything cheap.
I am sure of one thing though. the first guy to find a use for fly-ash
will be a bezillionare over-night.
Good old fly ash.
Have some fly ash customers who like our solution for continuous fly
ash silo level measurement.
It is not an easy application.
Lew
On Sep 10, 4:03=A0pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> IOW, all the asses in congress, combined, have failed to exhibit enough
> judgment to make a single pimple on a wooddorkers butt.
That observation could only be compounded by the facts uncovered in
this report:
http://tinyurl.com/6k4juz
Nothing like a little drilling in the afternoon, eh?
It is a shame, but I know the folks involved probably won't even get
much more than a reprimand for their crimes. (If you are knocking off
some hide having some lobbyist practice the kazoo on the tax payer's
dollar, you are breaking the law.)
Those folks sure sound like the professionals I want overseeing
standards, policies and contract placement in the extremely tough
times for Americans fighting energy costs.
They should nail the doors shut on their office building and turn on
the gas. (Little energy pun, there..)
At any rate, if anyone still believes (like some politicians do) that
the profiteers speculating on the oil business didn't drive pricing
up, look at today's prices in context of our global situation.
Wednesday, OPEC announced it was going to CUT production, yet oil fell
another dollar despite this. In the heavy days of speculation, this
would have caused a $4-$5 rise per barrel.
A recent spate of storms and hurricanes have caused temporary
shutdowns of not only Gulf of Mexico drill platforms, but refineries
as well. Yet, despite total shut downs of the wells, the price of oil
continues to go down.
Threats by Iran to cut our oil have caused outright panic before
causing a few dollars a day increase when it looked like they might do
it. And yet, with the USA threatening military action against Iran
for continued flirtation with nuclear power, their threats to cut off
our oil are now largely unnoticed. Oil continues to drop in price.
So, read Swing's reference.
If all the situations listed above that SHOULD affect oil prices go
completely ignored, what is left? Why, when in the direct and
immediate face of these threats to the supply does the price of oil
continue to go down?
It's pretty easy. The speculators have their fill of easy cash now,
the market has been raped, and they are on to greener pastures. All
this was to them was a bonanza.
I'd like to thank the government for being as usual the last to know
about this situation. And in keeping with their fine tradition of
doing nothing in the face of adversity, I appreciate the fact they did
absolutely nothing about this whole speculation business except talk
about it between vacations.
Robert
Robert
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> If we don't get serious and start developing alternative energy
> sources NOW, our $700M+/month expenditure for foreign oil will just
> get larger.
When it gets too large, alternatives should pop up like wild maple
trees. I say "should" because government involvement can always throw a
monkey wrench in the gears of the free market.
> BTW, the source of that $700M+/month number comes from T Pickens.
> He may have his own axe to grind, but he is in the neighborhood.
If he has his own ax to grind, why would his figures mean anything?
I saw him on TV pimping natural gas, so I figure he is selling natural
gas? Not that there is anything wrong with him selling gas or using
natural gas, but for some reason, I think he has more invested than save
the world, save the country type stuff. Am I wrong?
> I don't know what you call it, but I call it a $700M+/month TAX being
> paid to offshore countries, most of which, don't particularly like us.
That is a nasty tax, but our own country taxes the hell out of that
$700M also. Watch what happens when all that tax money goes away and
everyone is driving "cheap" electric cars. Do you think your wonderful
government will simply eat that huge (windfall profit) tax loss?
> If I'm going to pay that $700M+ TAX every month, would jut a soon see
> it paid in the USA to develop alternative energy.
There is already a ton of alternative energy, and much more on the way,
particularly if big brothers stays out of the way.
> $4-$5/gallon gasoline is a bitter pill to swallow, but it seems the
> only way to get at our oil gluttony problem.
True, but then the cost of gasoline doesn't need to be artificially
inflated. Normal supply and demand will take care of it all, just as it
has for most products not controlled by government and monopolies.
Microsoft comes to mind first and fore most when thinking of getting
screwed by a monopoly...
> Our economy has been built on cheap oil.
> The gays of cheap energy, especially oil, are history.
Depends on your definition of "cheap". If the government taxes the
shit out of each gallon of gas you buy, and pays you to run inefficient
solar or wind power, things can get out of whack in a hurry. On the
other hand, if Morris comes up with an efficient solar panel, or wind
turbine or anything that is better than oil, it will be available simply
do to supply and demand that always works well over the long run, with
minimum government involvement.
> Time to get up off our dead and dying, and get to work.
That time seldom needs defined by Big Brother.
> Now, if we can only get an alternate energy policy established by our
> gov't to create and nurture alternate energy development.
The only time you need government to get involved in this crap is if
someone monopolizes things (like Microsoft has the OS market) Otherwise,
there are plenty of capitalists willing to take the risk of getting rich
on alternate energy systems that make sense.
> Without a stable environment over the long haul, private capital will
> NOT invest the billions needed to solve the energy problem(s).
Private capital is always right around the corner, looking for ways to
get rich making you happy.
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
On Sep 13, 3:57=A0pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > While still a student, our thermo class got to take a tour of a local
> > coal fired utility plant.
>
> > Still remember, the boilers were at least 5-6 stories tall.
>
> > The coal was pulverized finer than face talcum, then blown into the
> > boilers at the top and burned as it fell to the bottom.
>
> > The clinker that was formed at the bottom of the boilers was almost
> > like glass chards.
> ...
> > Did the industry ever solve the clinker/chard problem?
>
> Don't suppose you recall the particular plant, perchance--or, if you
> remember who and where it was, if I don't know it already I can easily
> find it and answer specifics of that unit more accurately.
>
> But, from the description, that would be an usual design for a
> pulverized-coal fired unit--in fact, I'm not aware of any top-fired unit
> that isn't stoker-fired. =A0
You have just been disqualified. Stoker units died a death many moons
ago. Many.
On Sep 13, 3:23=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "dpb" wrote:
> > Last project before retiring back to the family farm after Dad died
> > was pulverized coal flow measurement via turbulent noise and unique
> > signal processing.
>
> While still a student, our thermo class got to take a tour of a local
> coal fired utility plant.
>
> Still remember, the boilers were at least 5-6 stories tall.
>
> The coal was pulverized finer than face talcum, then blown into the
> boilers at the top and burned as it fell to the bottom.
>
> The clinker that was formed at the bottom of the boilers was almost
> like glass chards.
>
> It couldn't be used for road bed or anything else useful at the time.
>
> Was told by our professor that a lot of research money was available
> to find a use for this clinker.
>
> Since you have been involved with the utility industry, let me ask the
> question:
>
> Did the industry ever solve the clinker/chard problem?
>
> Lew
Well, Lew... now you're into my area of expertise. The bulk of
pulverized coal turns into 'fly-ash' and is caught by electrostatic
precipitators. The clinkers are a minimal product of most coals burned
for power generation.
That doesn't mean I disagree with the possibilities of using fly-ash
as fillers for road contructuon, etc, but the mineral remnant is
notoriously weak in structure and is hard to bind with anything cheap.
I am sure of one thing though. the first guy to find a use for fly-ash
will be a bezillionare over-night.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "dpb" wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, the best thing the gov't provides is the uncertainty of
>> what will they do next?
>
> The alternate energy problem is IMHO, so complex that it is beyond the
> ability of the free market economy to solve it in the foreseeable future.
>
> It is so large that it is going to require the everybody in the entire
> country to get involved and devote a part of their energies to solving
> this problem.
>
> Seems to me the definition of gov't is to provide the means to accomplish
> those things that we as individuals can't achieve.
>
> I'm certainly not qualified to comment on the nitty gritty of how you
> structure gov't to achieve a solution; however, the necessity of gov't
> leadership in a project of this magnitude is obvious.
>
> Lew
The problem is that there are no leaders in government. As I heard it put
recently, do you think the "alphas" of our society go into politics?
(By the way, if you nominate Obama for the job I'm going to puke on my
shoes). You want to know what you get when you put the government in charge
of alternate energy? Ethanol from corn. I'm from a corn state, and it's
the stupidest idea I've ever heard. Putting the goverment in charge these
days gets you political solutions instead ones that make economic sense.
What's the solution, then? It beats the hell out of me, but I bet it isn't
going to be more government involvement.
todd
"Frank Boettcher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:41:51 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
>
>>
> Uh, I think before you draw the conclusions you have drawn above, you
> may want to look at the global demand charts. As is intended in the
> free market, supply and demand , continue to be the major driver in
> the price of crude. For the first half of this year U. S. demand was
> lower, but the impact was not felt because non western economies were
> offsetting the drop causing a world wide demand increase. All of a
> sudden the demand prediction for those economies dropped off the chart
> and the price has responded. Of course the down side is global
> recession.
I looked at the charts earlier this year. World consumption is down
compared to 3 or 4 years ago. 3rd world countires are using more but over
all the world demand is lower.
>
> I'm not saying speculation is not a factor, just saying speculation
> can only exist within the supply/demand trends as it is the key
> driver. All those mutually exclusive potential events you mention
> above get assigned a probability factor and in the face of
> significantly falling demand, they become meaningless.
Demand has been down for over a year, supply this summer has been
interrrupted by hurricanes. Many refineries still do not expect to be back
up and running to capacity for several more weeks because of Gustov and
price of oil and gas continues to drop.
>
> And you fail to mention the strengthening dollar, a major factor in
> the price of any commodity that is used globally but priced in
> dollars.
While the dollar is strengtening, oil prices began dropping befor the dollar
went up. Oil prices going down will strengthen the dollar.
>
> With regard to the part I snipped, it is my view, that any transfer of
> money, privelege or power put in the hands of any government agency is
> guaranteed to drive corruption on both sides of the transfer.
> Guaranteed.
Agreed.
"Frank Boettcher" wrote
> I'm not saying speculation is not a factor, just saying speculation
> can only exist within the supply/demand trends as it is the key
> driver. All those mutually exclusive potential events you mention
> above get assigned a probability factor and in the face of
> significantly falling demand, they become meaningless.
However, it is inarguably "speculation" when the mere rumor of a storm
hitting the Gulf a week in advance is enough to drive up prices within 24
hours; likewise it is such speculation that keeps prices, already falling on
your valid "supply and demand" issues, from falling further.
IOW, the effect of "supply and demand" on prices has demonstrably been
trumped by "speculation" in this regard.
Most will agree that "supply and demand" generally takes some bit of time to
effect prices, but the effects of "speculation" on prices, driven by
innuendo, rumor, greed, and fear, take effect before you wake up the next
day.
To declare that "supply and demand" is not part of the big picture is as
equally foolish as blaming it all on speculation, but it's been clear for
sometime that the driving force in the past year has been fear/greed based
speculation, and with much of the speculative index trading done on margin.
It's amazing how little "speculation" there is when you have to put up your
own cold hard cash to practice it.
That is one of the controls I would like to see the CFTC take an interest in
installing.
All the above notwithstanding, my original point was the planned paralysis
of the corrupt bastards supposedly leading this nation.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"todd" wrote:
> Duh! You think? Like I said...politics.
Face it, politics or AK47's at 10 paces.
Tyhe present tactic of confrontation for confortation's sake is about
like failing at windmills per Don Quoite.
It doesn't get it done in a civilized society.
> And that's about as smart as using corn. Can they be coverted to
> cellulosic ethanol production? IF ethanol can be a viable fuel,
> it's not going to be made from grain. IMO, all of it is stop-gap
> until we can get all-electric vehicles.
Don't think anybody thinks it is an end all, but it is a start.
> How about we reestablish the idea of a limited federal government
> that actually follows the powers enumerated to it in the
> Constitution? I know...that's just crazy talk.
You said it.
Lew
"dpb" wrote:
> Don't suppose you recall the particular plant, perchance--or, if you
> remember who and where it was, if I don't know it already I can
> easily find it and answer specifics of that unit more accurately.
The Illuminating Co, E72nd & Shoreway, Cleveland
The coal was from strip mines in SE Ohio.
> Although as I read the question again, perhaps that isn't what you
> mean by "solving" the problem, I don't know...
You end up with a clinker/chard pile of waste.
Other than haul it to a land fill, did the industry ever find a use
for it?
Lew
"dpb" wrote:
> Unfortunately, the best thing the gov't provides is the uncertainty
> of what will they do next?
The alternate energy problem is IMHO, so complex that it is beyond the
ability of the free market economy to solve it in the foreseeable
future.
It is so large that it is going to require the everybody in the entire
country to get involved and devote a part of their energies to solving
this problem.
Seems to me the definition of gov't is to provide the means to
accomplish those things that we as individuals can't achieve.
I'm certainly not qualified to comment on the nitty gritty of how you
structure gov't to achieve a solution; however, the necessity of gov't
leadership in a project of this magnitude is obvious.
Lew
"dpb" wrote:
> No indication this unit still on the books according to the 1995
> Directory of Electric Power Producers so can't determine anything
> more about what it actually was, specifically. Probably pretty
> small, perhaps an early cyclone unit to hazard a complete guess.
>
> Interestingly, we did some of the early test work on the coalflow
> instrumentation project at the East Lake plant.
>
> A fair amount of ash is used for aggregate--concrete, block,
> asphalt, etc., ... As long as unburnt C is <0.4-5% it's suitable.
>
> Ash disposal is an issue although I'm still of the opinion there's
> no real reason that which isn't used might as well go back into the
> hole from which it came...
Doesn't surprise me, it was an old plant back then.
The majority of the generation came from Avon Lake and Eastlake.
Eastlake will live in infamy as the plant that took the east coast
down a few years ago.
Lew
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "dpb" wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, the best thing the gov't provides is the uncertainty
> > of what will they do next?
>
> The alternate energy problem is IMHO, so complex that it is beyond the
> ability of the free market economy to solve it in the foreseeable
> future.
...and you believe government can solve the problem?
> It is so large that it is going to require the everybody in the entire
> country to get involved and devote a part of their energies to solving
> this problem.
...and you believe in fairies, too?
> Seems to me the definition of gov't is to provide the means to
> accomplish those things that we as individuals can't achieve.
No, the purpose of government is to do exactly what the Constitution
says it should do. It is *not* to tell me how to live my life. I
would hope that you believe in liberty, as well.
> I'm certainly not qualified to comment on the nitty gritty of how you
> structure gov't to achieve a solution; however, the necessity of gov't
> leadership in a project of this magnitude is obvious.
No, it is not obvious. People are flawed, by nature. Government is
simply an extension of people, just as flawed and a *lot* more
powerful. That is a very dangerous combination.
--
Keith
In article <[email protected]>, jbstein2
@comcast.net says...
> Frank Boettcher wrote:
> > Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
> >> Either way, it's going to require gov't involvement to provide a
> >> stable environment for private industry to to the job.
>
> > Those are without a doubt the scariest words I've read here in quite
> > some time.
>
> Amen to that. Unless of course he meant governments responsibility to
> keep terrorists and others from traipsing across our borders to blow
> stuff up, or insuring that all business is on a level playing field,
> taxed equally and not monopolizing markets or simply invading our
> country to change it's capitalistic nature, or not printing money
> whenever it feels like it needs to spend another trillion on stupid,
> unneeded projects...
>
> Somehow I think he is closer to thinking government should seize control
> of business and decide for us what is best as private business and the
> individual are too stupid to figure out whats works best.
>
> I'm probably reading too much into it, what the heck...
From reading Lew's previous comments, I think you're pretty much
right on the money.
--
Keith
In article <e450b639-e4b0-482b-a6a2-a764d888ad14
@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
> On Sep 13, 5:15=A0pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Lew Hodgett wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > Eastlake will live in infamy as the plant that took the east coast
> > > down a few years ago.
> >
> > My recollection is that while the incident started there, it was a
> > failure to disconnect elsewhere in the grid that actually was the cause
> > of the widespread outage. =A0I'd have to review the incident reports
> > again, however, to be positive of the sequence.
> >
>=20
> My mother who lives jsut outside of Cleveland was online reading
> her email when he PC went dead. She assumed she did
> some thing wrong, but couldn't figure out what. Abandoning the
> computer she then discovered that the lights in her house didn't
> work later. That really worried her. Breaking the computer
> was one thing, but the house lights?
>=20
> To make a long story short she figured out what had happened
> before she blamed herself for the loss of power to the entire
> Eastern US.
Sheesh, how naive. It was obviously Window's fault the Eastern US=20
crashed.
--=20
Keith
"dpb" wrote:
.
> That's sheer stupidity...to not process shale or sand oil while
> waiting on some yet-to-be-discovered magic "alternative" fuel would
> be asinine.
Who said anything about not processing known reserves?
A new "grass roots" refinery is not required.
> And, of course, while that's true on building "clean site" refinery
> capacity, actual capacity has more than double in that time frame by
> combinations of expansion and process improvement.
That works as a short term solution.
> "alternative energy" will become available as it becomes
> economically viable, not before, in large quantities, anyway.
If $4-$5/gallon doesn't get the job done, maybe $8-$10/gal will.
Either way, it's going to require gov't involvement to provide a
stable environment for private industry to to the job.
Bottom line..............................
If we don't get started, one of these days we are going to wake up
broke and with the boot of some sheik planted squarely on our Adam's
apple.
Lew
"Morris Dovey" wrote:
> Does anyone have any info on new refining capacity under
> construction or in the process of being brought on line in the near
> future?
You are probably not going to like this response, but it is reality.
There has not been a "grass roots" refinery built in the USA in over
30 years, and hopefully, there will NEVER be another built, at least
until after some usable form of alternate energy is developed.
Why?
If we don't get serious and start developing alternative energy
sources NOW, our $700M+/month expenditure for foreign oil will just
get larger.
BTW, the source of that $700M+/month number comes from T Pickens.
He may have his own axe to grind, but he is in the neighborhood.
I don't know what you call it, but I call it a $700M+/month TAX being
paid to offshore countries, most of which, don't particularly like us.
If I'm going to pay that $700M+ TAX every month, would jut a soon see
it paid in the USA to develop alternative energy.
$4-$5/gallon gasoline is a bitter pill to swallow, but it seems the
only way to get at our oil gluttony problem.
Our economy has been built on cheap oil.
The gays of cheap energy, especially oil, are history.
Time to get up off our dead and dying, and get to work.
Now, if we can only get an alternate energy policy established by our
gov't to create and nurture alternate energy development.
Without a stable environment over the long haul, private capital will
NOT invest the billions needed to solve the energy problem(s).
Lew
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
<snip>
>
> I'm having a hard time buying that definition of "successful". The
> highest electric and gasoline costs in western Europe makes them
> successful?
>
Yes, it makes them independent of outside energy sources. Denmark is still
a successful economy, albeit small.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:yrFyk.58$Yw1.24@trnddc03...
>
> "todd" wrote:
>
>> The problem is that there are no leaders in government. As I heard it
>> put recently, do you think the "alphas" of our society go into politics?
>
> That's why we have elections on a regular basis.
>
> With all the crap a candidate and their family has to endure, there is
> little incentive to run for political office.
Thanks for making my point.
>> (By the way, if you nominate Obama for the job I'm going to puke on my
>> shoes).
>
> You seeem to have a problem controlling body functions.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperbole
>> You want to know what you get when you put the government in charge of
>> alternate energy? Ethanol from corn. I'm from a corn state, and it's the
>> stupidest idea I've ever heard.
>
> Since less than 5% of the corn is converted, before being returned as
> animal feed suplement, maybe the ethanol program is not such a bad call
> after all.
>
> BTW, think you will find the lobbying of ADM, ConAgra, Cargill, et al, may
> hve had something to do with implementation of the ethanol program.
Duh! You think? Like I said...politics.
> It was exactly a lack of leadership from congress but rather the lobbyists
> that lead to the environment being established.
>
> BTW, it is my understanding that corn was just a stop gap.
> Those plants can be converted to other feed stocks on short notice.
And that's about as smart as using corn. Can they be coverted to cellulosic
ethanol production? IF ethanol can be a viable fuel, it's not going to be
made from grain. IMO, all of it is stop-gap until we can get all-electric
vehicles.
>> What's the solution, then? It beats the hell out of me, but I bet it
>> isn't going to be more government involvement.
>
> IMHO, we need a major change in leadership to among other things,
> reestablish the reputation of gov't not to be an ATM for the privileged
> few, but a servant of the many.
How about we reestablish the idea of a limited federal government that
actually follows the powers enumerated to it in the Constitution? I
know...that's just crazy talk.
todd
On Sep 15, 11:54=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
>
>
>
> > dpb wrote:
> >> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> >> ...
> >>> You are probably not going to like this response, but it is reality.
>
> >>> There has not been a "grass roots" refinery built in the USA in over
> >>> 30 years, and hopefully, there will NEVER be another built, at least
> >>> until after some usable form of alternate energy is developed.
> >> ...
> >> That's sheer stupidity...to not process shale or sand oil while
> >> waiting on some yet-to-be-discovered magic "alternative" fuel would
> >> be asinine.
> >> And, of course, while that's true on building "clean site" refinery
> >> capacity, actual capacity has more than double in that time frame by
> >> combinations of expansion and process improvement. =A0So, while it's
> >> important that new refinery capacity be built, the significant factor
> >> of the proposed facility is that it will be processing shale oil.
>
> >> "alternative energy" will become available as it becomes economically
> >> viable, not before, in large quantities, anyway.
>
> > It is worth noting Denmark's successful energy independence
> > program......following the original oil price shocks of the 70's they
> > embarked on a very serious plan to avoid foreign energy sources(a then =
99%
> > dependency). With little doubt they succeeded in freeing from the grip =
of
> > the OPEC oil cartel......They now lead in windmill technology (20% of
> > domestic electricity production) and use other renewable including sola=
r,
> > biomass and thermal ......Drilling for North sea oil did help just a
> > little since they now export oil and they do have the highest electric =
and
> > gasoline($10 gal) cost of western Europe. Houses have fewer appliances,
> > families have fewer cars and mass transit is very popular in their tiny
> > country. People there do a remarkable job of conserving energy, somehow
> > with that choice between heating ones home and eating......food usually
> > wins. Rod
>
> =A0 =A0I'm having a hard time buying that definition of "successful". =A0=
The
> highest electric and gasoline costs in western Europe makes them
> successful? =A0
>
> --
> If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Give it up, Mark. People are laughing behind your back.
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:41:51 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>At any rate, if anyone still believes (like some politicians do) that
>the profiteers speculating on the oil business didn't drive pricing
>up, look at today's prices in context of our global situation.
>
>Wednesday, OPEC announced it was going to CUT production, yet oil fell
>another dollar despite this. In the heavy days of speculation, this
>would have caused a $4-$5 rise per barrel.
>
>A recent spate of storms and hurricanes have caused temporary
>shutdowns of not only Gulf of Mexico drill platforms, but refineries
>as well. Yet, despite total shut downs of the wells, the price of oil
>continues to go down.
>
>Threats by Iran to cut our oil have caused outright panic before
>causing a few dollars a day increase when it looked like they might do
>it. And yet, with the USA threatening military action against Iran
>for continued flirtation with nuclear power, their threats to cut off
>our oil are now largely unnoticed. Oil continues to drop in price.
>
>So, read Swing's reference.
>
>If all the situations listed above that SHOULD affect oil prices go
>completely ignored, what is left? Why, when in the direct and
>immediate face of these threats to the supply does the price of oil
>continue to go down?
>
>It's pretty easy. The speculators have their fill of easy cash now,
>the market has been raped, and they are on to greener pastures. All
>this was to them was a bonanza.
>
Uh, I think before you draw the conclusions you have drawn above, you
may want to look at the global demand charts. As is intended in the
free market, supply and demand , continue to be the major driver in
the price of crude. For the first half of this year U. S. demand was
lower, but the impact was not felt because non western economies were
offsetting the drop causing a world wide demand increase. All of a
sudden the demand prediction for those economies dropped off the chart
and the price has responded. Of course the down side is global
recession.
I'm not saying speculation is not a factor, just saying speculation
can only exist within the supply/demand trends as it is the key
driver. All those mutually exclusive potential events you mention
above get assigned a probability factor and in the face of
significantly falling demand, they become meaningless.
And you fail to mention the strengthening dollar, a major factor in
the price of any commodity that is used globally but priced in
dollars.
With regard to the part I snipped, it is my view, that any transfer of
money, privelege or power put in the hands of any government agency is
guaranteed to drive corruption on both sides of the transfer.
Guaranteed.
>
Frank
>
Frank Boettcher wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> Either way, it's going to require gov't involvement to provide a
>> stable environment for private industry to to the job.
> Those are without a doubt the scariest words I've read here in quite
> some time.
Amen to that. Unless of course he meant governments responsibility to
keep terrorists and others from traipsing across our borders to blow
stuff up, or insuring that all business is on a level playing field,
taxed equally and not monopolizing markets or simply invading our
country to change it's capitalistic nature, or not printing money
whenever it feels like it needs to spend another trillion on stupid,
unneeded projects...
Somehow I think he is closer to thinking government should seize control
of business and decide for us what is best as private business and the
individual are too stupid to figure out whats works best.
I'm probably reading too much into it, what the heck...
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com
On Sep 13, 5:15=A0pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > Eastlake will live in infamy as the plant that took the east coast
> > down a few years ago.
>
> My recollection is that while the incident started there, it was a
> failure to disconnect elsewhere in the grid that actually was the cause
> of the widespread outage. =A0I'd have to review the incident reports
> again, however, to be positive of the sequence.
>
My mother who lives jsut outside of Cleveland was online reading
her email when he PC went dead. She assumed she did
some thing wrong, but couldn't figure out what. Abandoning the
computer she then discovered that the lights in her house didn't
work later. That really worried her. Breaking the computer
was one thing, but the house lights?
To make a long story short she figured out what had happened
before she blamed herself for the loss of power to the entire
Eastern US.
--
FF
dpb wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> ...
>> You are probably not going to like this response, but it is reality.
>>
>> There has not been a "grass roots" refinery built in the USA in over
>> 30 years, and hopefully, there will NEVER be another built, at least
>> until after some usable form of alternate energy is developed.
> ...
> That's sheer stupidity...to not process shale or sand oil while
> waiting on some yet-to-be-discovered magic "alternative" fuel would
> be asinine.
> And, of course, while that's true on building "clean site" refinery
> capacity, actual capacity has more than double in that time frame by
> combinations of expansion and process improvement. So, while it's
> important that new refinery capacity be built, the significant factor
> of the proposed facility is that it will be processing shale oil.
>
> "alternative energy" will become available as it becomes economically
> viable, not before, in large quantities, anyway.
It is worth noting Denmark's successful energy independence
program......following the original oil price shocks of the 70's they
embarked on a very serious plan to avoid foreign energy sources(a then 99%
dependency). With little doubt they succeeded in freeing from the grip of
the OPEC oil cartel......They now lead in windmill technology (20% of
domestic electricity production) and use other renewable including solar,
biomass and thermal ......Drilling for North sea oil did help just a little
since they now export oil and they do have the highest electric and
gasoline($10 gal) cost of western Europe. Houses have fewer appliances,
families have fewer cars and mass transit is very popular in their tiny
country. People there do a remarkable job of conserving energy, somehow with
that choice between heating ones home and eating......food usually wins.
Rod
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:55:58 -0500, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> ... and judging by posts hereabouts on crude prices the past few months,
>> that a goodly percentage of wRec participants are more capable than
>> congress of making valid judgments regarding the why's and wherefores of
>> national energy policy:
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080910/ap_on_go_co/oil_speculation
>>
>> IOW, all the asses in congress, combined, have failed to exhibit enough
>> judgment to make a single pimple on a wooddorkers butt.
>> --
>> www.e-woodshop.net
>> Last update: 8/18/08
>> KarlC@ (the obvious)
>
>
>I have said this time and again. When the oil companies started to merge
>they cut out 1/2 the competition. If pricing was truly the result of supply
>and demand we all would have been sitting in lines to gas up like we did
>back in the 70's.
Since I was one of those working in the industry and became part of
the "competition" that was eliminated, I would agree wholeheartedly
>
>Speculation and "What the market will Bare" is what's going on here. US oil
>consumption was down 6 months before prices shop up to $4.00 per gallon.
>The demand began it's decline in the fall of last year.
I still think you are confusing crude supply/demand curves with
refined product costs. U. S. Oil consumption is only one part of the
demand curve. When you buy that Chinese whatever in Walmart, you are
living in the USA and driving up crude demand in China.
When the consumer quit driving, U. S. Demand went down. When the
consumer quit spending, worldwide demand went down.
>
>Hey, if you are willing to pay $4.00 per gallon there is certainly plenty to
>go around, same goes at $3.25 per gallon.
>
"Morris Dovey" wrote:
> Cut me a little slack, Lew. I've been working for a little over six
> years to help make it happen - first with solar heating panels to
> keep
> people warm up here in "cold country", then with direct
> solar-powered
> (non-electrical) stationary engines for pumping and (if I can get
> the
> @!%# pump running the way I think it should), direct solar-powered
> air-conditioning to keep people cool in "hot country". I'd have
> taken on
> more but my resources were a bit on the thin side.
>
> The government and industry don't appear to be interested in any
> technology that doesn't produce ongoing revenues capable of
> providing
> mega-salaries to top execs and hundreds of millions of dollars worth
> of
> campaign contributions.
Taking on a project as committee of one is like pushing on a rope.
It's a tough process.
Have you tried to seek out R&D funds from private foundations or gov't
research grants?
Lots of digging req'd, but funds are out there.
Lew
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:5bae1a8c-6c18-4a99-b3e5-d4c4c9eabc57@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 10, 4:03 pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> IOW, all the asses in congress, combined, have failed to exhibit enough
> judgment to make a single pimple on a wooddorkers butt.
Garfield has the answer....
http://alaskagranny.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!B52546EB824C7CE5!273.entry
Morris Dovey wrote:
> dpb wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>> ...
>>> While the dollar is strengtening, oil prices began dropping befor the
>>> dollar went up. Oil prices going down will strengthen the dollar.
>> ...
>>
>> Which is a positive feedback mechanism...
>
> An interesting observation - and, by implication, a serious warning.
True, if were only feedback/controlling mechanism.
It works both ways, too, of course. It's actually _a_good_thing_ in
this period of high prices on the way back down to help accelerate that
which has to be good overall for the entire world economy, not just the
US. OTOH, the declining dollar did exacerbate the the rise in oil
prices and that wasn't a good thing...
I've not researched it, but I suspect there have detailed analyses that
attempt to break out portions of rises that can be attributed to various
factors--I'd guess this one isn't in the noise but isn't the dominant,
either, but somewhere in the middle of the pack.
--
Leon wrote:
...
> Here in the US drop in demand has been going on for the last 4 or 5 years/
Not according to EIA data...
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wrpupus2w.htm
There has been roughly a 1.5%/yr increase in total petroleum products
supplied (which equates to usage as very little percentage-wise is
stored long term) over the period from 1991 thru 2007; from approx 16.5
M(illion)B(arrels)/D(ay) to about a 21 MB/D peak in roughly the end of
the 3rd-Q of '07. Since then it has backed off slightly to about the
level at the beginning of 2004. That is roughly 20.0 MB/D, still 20%
higher than that at the beginning of the '90s.
--
Leon wrote:
...
> Well I probably blur the lines occasionally however my son has been studying
> world economies in college and has learned that China has been hoarding oil
> for the Olympics. Thier demand should deminish. Either way I see and have
> seen no shortages of any thing oil related.
...
Their demand isn't going to diminish unless the world economy goes into
a far deeper recession than it has so far. Their "hoarding" for the
Olympics has been accomplished in large part by rationing the consumer
market. Once that has returned to pre-Olympic status the demand for
more vehicles and their continuing expansion of electricity production
will more than make up for small drops in consumer goods production for
the short term and longer term their demand will only continue to
skyrocket (as will India and the rest of SE Asia).
While there haven't (at least yet) been severe restrictions in supply,
that supply is extremely tight is clear if one looks at overall world
production/consumption data.
Last I looked, US production was still flat at best if not slightly
decreasing. The higher prices have brought some old production back
online that was marginally or unprofitable before, but new production
hasn't yet increased significantly enough to really make a big impact on
turning around the longtime trend of lowered production from mature fields.
If prices will stabilize at a level that isn't recession-inducing yet
still above the "do-nothing" inducing values of the previous 20 years,
we should gradually see the positive impact of increased production.
The difficulty is, of course, that there's always the risk of the
"boom/bust" cycle if, for example, OPEC were to flood the market as some
have asked them to do.
--
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>
>> IOW, all the asses in congress, combined, have failed to exhibit
>> enough judgment to make a single pimple on a wooddorkers butt.
>
> We already knew that :-)
>
> Does anyone have any info on new refining capacity under construction or
> in the process of being brought on line in the near future?
There's a new refining facility planned in SE NE (because our intrepid
Governor is so anti-business the developers moved it out of NE KS :( ).
It'll be sizable and include a new large capacity pipeline to collect
crude from central US and distribute at least some product.
Exact timeline I'm not sure of...I'll see what I can dig up; I sorta'
lost interest when they moved out of state.
--
dpb wrote:
...
> http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wrpupus2w.htm
>
> There has been roughly a 1.5%/yr increase in total petroleum products
> supplied (which equates to usage as very little percentage-wise is
> stored long term) over the period from 1991 thru 2007; ...
Intended to make an additional note--the above link has weekly data
plotted--if select the 4-wk average, the weekly variations are smoothed
significantly and the effects on demand of the economic contraction
following 9/11 are vividly evident as is the shorter downturn at the
beginning of 2000.
--
dpb wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> Swingman wrote:
>>
>>> IOW, all the asses in congress, combined, have failed to exhibit
>>> enough judgment to make a single pimple on a wooddorkers butt.
>>
>> We already knew that :-)
>>
>> Does anyone have any info on new refining capacity under construction
>> or in the process of being brought on line in the near future?
>
> There's a new refining facility planned in SE NE (because our intrepid
> Governor is so anti-business the developers moved it out of NE KS :( ).
>
> It'll be sizable and include a new large capacity pipeline to collect
> crude from central US and distribute at least some product.
>
> Exact timeline I'm not sure of...I'll see what I can dig up; I sorta'
> lost interest when they moved out of state.
OK, what I learned is it is probably going to be in SD just across the
border from NE if it goes--they have bought land there and had a
successful rezoning. There's questions on the viability of their
financing, however, apparently. The plan is for the Alberta shale oil
pipeline to be the primary source. The project would be roughly $8-10B
if it comes off.
--
Morris Dovey wrote:
...
> Thanks. I was hoping that there might already be a couple in the works.
> It would appear that we might be in for a bit of discomfort if even just
> one or two are taken out of service due to hurricane damage. :-(
No hope for that in today's business climate. :(
It's possible it just _may_ be beginning to change, but it's going to be
hard slogging and nobody's gonna' do nuttin' 'til after electioneering
is over now, of course, in order to see which way that wind blows.
It's likely there's going to be some damage altho the track they've got
it on should be south of the largest concentrations so hopefully nothing
too severe.
Of course, that's a hope for everybody in the path, for what little good
that is... :)
--
dpb wrote:
> dpb wrote:
> ...
>> http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wrpupus2w.htm
>>
>> There has been roughly a 1.5%/yr increase in total petroleum products
>> supplied (which equates to usage as very little percentage-wise is
>> stored long term) over the period from 1991 thru 2007; ...
>
> Intended to make an additional note--the above link has weekly data
> plotted--if select the 4-wk average, the weekly variations are smoothed
> significantly and the effects on demand of the economic contraction
> following 9/11 are vividly evident as is the shorter downturn at the
> beginning of 2000.
One last note on these data...any conclusion that demand has tapered off
over the last several years could only be drawn by blindly looking at
the numbers pre- and post- 9/11. If only the values were in front of
one, it's possible one might draw a conclusion to that effect, but the
graph clearly shows what happened was a significant retraction over the
period of roughly a year or so after which the growth was again at
essentially the same rate as previously.
This continued until a new peak demand was reached in the 2006/07 time
frame and has since tapered off owing to the high prices and associated
economic slowdown.
Really quite a revealing graph...
--
"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Does anyone have any info on new refining capacity under construction or
> in the process of being brought on line in the near future?
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USA
> http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Morris,
There is a new refinery being built in Douglas, WY and also one in Tulsa,
OK.
I'd like to comment on the "no new refineries have been built in the last 30
years" line. What is being left out is that existing refineries have
expanded so as to be equivalent to having built ten new refineries.
Also, the "let's build new refineries" line needs some consideration. Let's
not build too many. What happens when a scarce resource (crude oil) is
sought by 'x' number of businesses (refineries) and then several new
businesses come along wanting to have that same scarce resource. That's
right! The bidding begins and the price goes up.
I won't get into 'the oil companies know we are in a post-peak oil period
and don't want to build refineries that will soon not have enough resources
to operate at near maximum capacity."
(Is peak oil my hobby? Yes. I read Matt Savinar and James Howard Kunstler;
and Energy Bulletin and Running on Empty2 (Yahoo groups) and Energy
Resources (Yahoo groups). I've read Twilight in the Desert, The Road, and
World Made by Hand.)
Lew Hodgett wrote:
...
> You are probably not going to like this response, but it is reality.
>
> There has not been a "grass roots" refinery built in the USA in over
> 30 years, and hopefully, there will NEVER be another built, at least
> until after some usable form of alternate energy is developed.
...
That's sheer stupidity...to not process shale or sand oil while waiting
on some yet-to-be-discovered magic "alternative" fuel would be asinine.
And, of course, while that's true on building "clean site" refinery
capacity, actual capacity has more than double in that time frame by
combinations of expansion and process improvement. So, while it's
important that new refinery capacity be built, the significant factor of
the proposed facility is that it will be processing shale oil.
"alternative energy" will become available as it becomes economically
viable, not before, in large quantities, anyway.
--
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "dpb" wrote:
> .
>> That's sheer stupidity...to not process shale or sand oil while
>> waiting on some yet-to-be-discovered magic "alternative" fuel would
>> be asinine.
>
> Who said anything about not processing known reserves?
>
> A new "grass roots" refinery is not required.
...
I'd believe it is to handle shale oil--afaik there's no existing
facility that has the capability which is why there's interest in doing it.
...
> Either way, it's going to require gov't involvement to provide a
> stable environment for private industry to to the job.
All the government really needs to do is get out of the way and it will
happen in the most economically viable fashion far better than some set
of suits in DC can try to forecast what should be done.
--
Morris Dovey wrote:
...
> The government and industry don't appear to be interested in any
> technology that doesn't produce ongoing revenues capable of providing
> mega-salaries to top execs and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of
> campaign contributions.
I don't believe that for a minute.
You talked to EPRI or responded to DARPA or DOE RFPs on Advanced
Technology? You sent concept proposals to the National Labs for
cooperative research? You talked w/ various research
centers/deans/department heads at State universities? Looked at the
various Foundations who sponsor advanced research? There are zillions
of options for funding but it does takes work to go find them.
--
Lew Hodgett wrote:
...
> I envision gov't involvement to involve setting some goals and
> insuring that those who invest their money will not be left high and
> dry before they see a return by insuring continuation of the program,
> then getting out of the way and let it happen.
...
That's the wrong way -- if it turns out to be an uneconomical choice for
whatever reason, money should be lost and the particular technology
should go away posthaste in place of whatever else happens to be the
winner. That should be determined by the markets not the government.
What the government needs to do is to set a fixed set of rules and leave
them unchanged for a significant length of time rather than twiddling
them around all the time by changes in tax credits or additional taxes
or different emissions controls standards, etc., etc., ...
--
Frank Boettcher wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:46:22 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Either way, it's going to require gov't involvement to provide a
>> stable environment for private industry to to the job.
>
>> Lew
>>
>
> Those are without a doubt the scariest words I've read here in quite
> some time.
>
> Frank
Yeah, the last part is correct but undoubtedly it will require more
_dis_-involvement to provide anything close to stability.
Unfortunately, the best thing the gov't provides is the uncertainty of
what will they do next?
--
Morris Dovey wrote:
> dpb wrote:
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> ...
>>> The government and industry don't appear to be interested in any
>>> technology that doesn't produce ongoing revenues capable of providing
>>> mega-salaries to top execs and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of
>>> campaign contributions.
>>
>> I don't believe that for a minute.
>>
>> You talked to EPRI or responded to DARPA or DOE RFPs on Advanced
>> Technology? You sent concept proposals to the National Labs for
>> cooperative research? You talked w/ various research
>> centers/deans/department heads at State universities? Looked at the
>> various Foundations who sponsor advanced research? There are zillions
>> of options for funding but it does takes work to go find them.
>
> Eh? I'm not in business to produce concepts. If I were, then your
> suggestions would make sense.
>
> The national labs want me to pay them. Hell - if I could afford to pay
> them, then I wouldn't need them at all. :-)
>
> I've already been the university route once.
I was talking the incubation centers more than paid research from
either...there are at least 30 new startups in the Oak Ridge, TN, area
that are a byproduct of guys w/ ideas w/ the UT/ORNL incubation process
that are going concerns.
--
Jack Stein wrote:
...
> I saw him on TV pimping natural gas, so I figure he is selling natural
> gas? Not that there is anything wrong with him selling gas or using
> natural gas, but for some reason, I think he has more invested than save
> the world, save the country type stuff. Am I wrong?
...
No, you're not wrong... :) (or, :(, I'm not sure, actually which...)
The side effect of wind generation is that one will need far more
reserve generation owing to the unsteady nature of the fuel source (the
wind).
Now, guess what's the most likely/convenient/lowest-initial-cost
generation capacity w/ the facility to have the required very rapid ramp
rates????
--
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "dpb" wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, the best thing the gov't provides is the uncertainty
>> of what will they do next?
>
> The alternate energy problem is IMHO, so complex that it is beyond the
> ability of the free market economy to solve it in the foreseeable
> future.
I think that's not so...the transition _to_ oil was done w/o government
intervention and the transition away will occur in that manner too _IF_
the government doesn't screw it up, that is.
> It is so large that it is going to require the everybody in the entire
> country to get involved and devote a part of their energies to solving
> this problem.
>
> Seems to me the definition of gov't is to provide the means to
> accomplish those things that we as individuals can't achieve.
>
> I'm certainly not qualified to comment on the nitty gritty of how you
> structure gov't to achieve a solution; however, the necessity of gov't
> leadership in a project of this magnitude is obvious.
Not to me it isn't--in fact what is obvious to me is that whoever tries
to mandate a particular solution or set of solutions will undoubtedly
not be prescient enough to foresee all the problems in their chosen
paths nor nearly capable enough to predict all the other technologies
that will spring up if not prevented from doing so by artificially
propping up less successful favorite sons (so to speak).
Again, businesses on both ends will look to make the most prudent
choices for their own success--both ends means consumers of energy and
producers. If there's an opportunity to make a new widget, somebody
(Morris is a prime example on a small scale, there are thousands of
others like him and virtually every company involved in the most remote
way is also) will give it a shot. Not all will succeed, of course, but
the chances of finding the most effective solution(s) are far better if
there's incentive other than artificial ones.
That said, there's a role government can play and that is to judiciously
fund research and deployment of proven technologies and they do. The
problems arise when the policy mandate for specific technologies
overrides the competitive market forces so people react to those
influences instead.
I think the German emphasis on solar and wind now is just one
example--their conversion is sizable but the extremely high
subsidization rates are the cause. If not careful they're going to end
up w/ an infrastructure based on non-economic technology that will hurt
the overall economic competitiveness for a long time to come.
Similar issues arise here w/ the mantra of wind power--examination of
output from the large wind farms installed so far show they have at best
40% average capacity factors and periods of only 20% even when built in
the most advantageous areas of the country. That means it takes from
2.5X to 4X the target generation capacity as installed capacity which is
a very expensive capital investment solely for the privilege of using a
free fuel. And, as has been noted elsewhere, that the wind isn't as
reliable a fuel source as any conventional, there's the added need for
spinning reserve at a far higher percentage of grid capacity than for
other forms of generation. And, unfortunately, the only really suitable
form right now and for the foreseeable future to provide that reserve
capacity is the gas turbine which is about the most illogical use we can
make of dwindling natural gas supplies.
In short, the market will do a far better job of determining what and
when alternative sources are available if allowed to do so. Of course,
besides the government often being a hindrance more than a help, there's
the problem of the anti-development crowd, no matter what the
alternative. In the end, if fear it may be that which is the most
limiting factor in responding in a timely manner, even over government.
The problem as I see it is to too great an extent we have shifted from a
decentralized "bottom-up" society to one that expects that every problem
must be solved by a central government. That despite ample
demonstration that rarely if ever does a real solution to a problem come
from that end.
W/ that, finis...
--
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
...
>> Today, a private foundation might be the most productive.
>
> Perhaps. Thanks for your thoughts.
Which was also one of those in previous sources of funding I gave... :)
I'll reiterate EPRI (their actual name these days but the entity
formerly known as the Electric Power Research Institute) is always
looking for good ideas to fund. They're self-funded by (mostly) member
electric utilities. Spent quite a number of years w/ them as primary
client altho my specialty was I&C-related as pertained to advanced
controls/instrumentation of interest to the utilities. Last project
before retiring back to the family farm after Dad died was pulverized
coal flow measurement via turbulent noise and unique signal processing.
The intent is to go from concept to the device--at the time I left
and passed the work to colleagues, DOE had just picked up a sizable
fraction of the next step to fund a series of tests at the coal flow
facility EPRI was building. All again to indicate there's $$ for ideas
w/ merit and that have an end payoff.
--
Morris Dovey wrote:
...
> One aspect of the private foundation route would seem to be the need to
> identify those whose interests align with the hoped-for results -
Yes, that's key when writing proposals -- they need to be directed. One
of the assets the local or university incubator centers bring into play
is knowledge in that area of where to go for seed money -- not only do
they know the well-known players (The Gates Foundation, Paul Allen,
etc., that everybody knows about), they know and have contacts w/ the
lesser-known and those who specialize in specific areas.
I don't know exactly where DeSoto is, but even here in very rural SW KS
we're fortunate to have a Community College which has a Corporate
Development Division and a budding incubator program in cooperation w/
K-State. I would expect there would be similar resources near you.
> can't help but wonder how enthusiastic an energy industry related
> foundation is likely to be for developments intended to shrink their
> markets...
Very.
Change your point of view--you're not actually shrinking their markets;
in reality you're expanding them only with an alternate generation
source. You're too close and thinking your fighting against them rather
than look at the big picture of "where do we go from here?".
EPRI has had involvement in alternate energy sources "for since
forever", long before country---err, make that green was cool.
There was a demonstration combined wind/solar project w/ TVA as the
prime utility near Kingston where the I&C Center is 15 years or more
ago. They've put quite a lot of funding into fuel cell and hydrogen as
well and that's just the tip of the iceberg. If there's anything
whatsoever to do, however remote, w/ generation and transmission, EPRI's
interested.
As I emphasized in the sidebar w/ Lew, these are energy companies and
their objective is MW on the grid at reasonable cost and at the
necessary reliability. It's those last two little tidbits that are all
too often being ignored in the present discussion. The objective isn't
"green" generation--that, after all, is actually a fairly trivial
problem if that's the only ultimate objective. It's getting it at an
acceptable cost point and particularly, making it a portion of an actual
operating grid that is 24/7 that is the hard part.
That's where I worry about falling into the German trap of
over-committing too early to a particular technology and getting a large
infrastructure in place that is simply not cost-effective. That has the
very high risk of making the entire country even more at a disadvantage
in the global economic picture and it is, despite anybody's wishes
otherwise, a global economy and competitive position therein is and is
going to remain significant.
I've not looked at what DOE has in their Advanced Generation funding
programs for current RFPs for quite some time. That's where the coal
flow test loop funding came from after EPRI had put in about $1.5M over
roughly six years looking at initially five alternate technologies
before eventually choosing the one to continue with. A couple of the
others w/ other vendors are still continuing w/ other funding sources
(either internal or other backers than EPRI).
While that focuses on the general grid generation issue, there's great
interest in the niche markets as well. I personally think your concepts
would be well received.
--
Lew Hodgett wrote:
...
> While still a student, our thermo class got to take a tour of a local
> coal fired utility plant.
>
> Still remember, the boilers were at least 5-6 stories tall.
>
> The coal was pulverized finer than face talcum, then blown into the
> boilers at the top and burned as it fell to the bottom.
>
> The clinker that was formed at the bottom of the boilers was almost
> like glass chards.
...
> Did the industry ever solve the clinker/chard problem?
Don't suppose you recall the particular plant, perchance--or, if you
remember who and where it was, if I don't know it already I can easily
find it and answer specifics of that unit more accurately.
But, from the description, that would be an usual design for a
pulverized-coal fired unit--in fact, I'm not aware of any top-fired unit
that isn't stoker-fired. Not to say there aren't some I've not run
across as, as I said earlier my primary area is in I&C and I'm a
transplanted NucE to the fossil side, anyway... :)
But, to answer the actual question, I'd say for the most part, yes. The
answer/solution is basically in controlling the coal types and quality
for the specific furnace. That's not to say there still aren't times
when a furnace will slag or form clinkers, but it's a livable level of
problem in general as long as don't try to change coal properties too
drastically.
That, of course, is a continuing experiment by all utilities to continue
to push the envelope on coal, in particular the Western low-sulfur,
low-rank coals that do have a much lower heating value and higher
intrinsic ash content thus requiring far more actual material to be
processed.
Although as I read the question again, perhaps that isn't what you mean
by "solving" the problem, I don't know...
--
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "dpb" wrote:
>
>> Don't suppose you recall the particular plant, perchance--or, if you
>> remember who and where it was, if I don't know it already I can
>> easily find it and answer specifics of that unit more accurately.
>
> The Illuminating Co, E72nd & Shoreway, Cleveland
>
> The coal was from strip mines in SE Ohio.
>
>> Although as I read the question again, perhaps that isn't what you
>> mean by "solving" the problem, I don't know...
>
> You end up with a clinker/chard pile of waste.
>
> Other than haul it to a land fill, did the industry ever find a use
> for it?
Relatively few liquid slag units still; most have been retired and newer
units are dry ash.
No indication this unit still on the books according to the 1995
Directory of Electric Power Producers so can't determine anything more
about what it actually was, specifically. Probably pretty small,
perhaps an early cyclone unit to hazard a complete guess.
Interestingly, we did some of the early test work on the coalflow
instrumentation project at the East Lake plant.
A fair amount of ash is used for aggregate--concrete, block, asphalt,
etc., ... As long as unburnt C is <0.4-5% it's suitable.
Ash disposal is an issue although I'm still of the opinion there's no
real reason that which isn't used might as well go back into the hole
from which it came...
--
Lew Hodgett wrote:
...
> Eastlake will live in infamy as the plant that took the east coast
> down a few years ago.
My recollection is that while the incident started there, it was a
failure to disconnect elsewhere in the grid that actually was the cause
of the widespread outage. I'd have to review the incident reports
again, however, to be positive of the sequence.
--
Robatoy wrote:
...
> You have just been disqualified. Stoker units died a death many moons
> ago. Many.
Yes, as did this unit...although I didn't say it was; only that a
top-fired downfired pulverized unit would have been unusual and
something I personally hadn't ever seen. Of course, I also noted
there's stuff out there I've not seen as I'm mostly I&C and a
nuc-transplant to the fossil side.
I'd guess this unit was probably 40 yr old when Lew visited and that was
probably around that long ago as well making it somewhere near many
moons since it was new...ymmv if you know something specific about that
particular unit it would be interesting to know.
--
"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Thanks. I was hoping that there might already be a couple in the works. It
> would appear that we might be in for a bit of discomfort if even just one
> or two are taken out of service due to hurricane damage. :-(
More refineries could not hurt but there are several that are still off line
because of the storm that hit LA last week. Gas prices were still going
down until the threat of Ike became evident.
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
>
>> dpb wrote:
>>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> You are probably not going to like this response, but it is reality.
>>>>
>>>> There has not been a "grass roots" refinery built in the USA in over
>>>> 30 years, and hopefully, there will NEVER be another built, at least
>>>> until after some usable form of alternate energy is developed.
>>> ...
>>> That's sheer stupidity...to not process shale or sand oil while
>>> waiting on some yet-to-be-discovered magic "alternative" fuel would
>>> be asinine.
>>> And, of course, while that's true on building "clean site" refinery
>>> capacity, actual capacity has more than double in that time frame by
>>> combinations of expansion and process improvement. So, while it's
>>> important that new refinery capacity be built, the significant factor
>>> of the proposed facility is that it will be processing shale oil.
>>>
>>> "alternative energy" will become available as it becomes economically
>>> viable, not before, in large quantities, anyway.
>>
>>
>> It is worth noting Denmark's successful energy independence
>> program......following the original oil price shocks of the 70's they
>> embarked on a very serious plan to avoid foreign energy sources(a then
>> 99%
>> dependency). With little doubt they succeeded in freeing from the grip of
>> the OPEC oil cartel......They now lead in windmill technology (20% of
>> domestic electricity production) and use other renewable including solar,
>> biomass and thermal ......Drilling for North sea oil did help just a
>> little since they now export oil and they do have the highest electric
>> and
>> gasoline($10 gal) cost of western Europe. Houses have fewer appliances,
>> families have fewer cars and mass transit is very popular in their tiny
>> country. People there do a remarkable job of conserving energy, somehow
>> with that choice between heating ones home and eating......food usually
>> wins. Rod
>
> I'm having a hard time buying that definition of "successful". The
> highest electric and gasoline costs in western Europe makes them
> successful?
>
It was very clearly successful....the are energy independent from foreign
sources of energy (by drilling ironically) and lead in renewable including
windmills.....that they have the most unaffordable energy in the western
world is a small price (apparently) to pay for this success. As the approx.
model of the Dems energy program (without the drilling) I think this on
going expensive "success" should be clearly explained<G>......I do
personally find it odd that the Dems solution to expensive gas/oil is more
expensive alternatives and a clear aversion to increasing said supply of
domestic oil........Rod
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
> dpb wrote:
>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> ...
>>> You are probably not going to like this response, but it is reality.
>>>
>>> There has not been a "grass roots" refinery built in the USA in over
>>> 30 years, and hopefully, there will NEVER be another built, at least
>>> until after some usable form of alternate energy is developed.
>> ...
>> That's sheer stupidity...to not process shale or sand oil while
>> waiting on some yet-to-be-discovered magic "alternative" fuel would
>> be asinine.
>> And, of course, while that's true on building "clean site" refinery
>> capacity, actual capacity has more than double in that time frame by
>> combinations of expansion and process improvement. So, while it's
>> important that new refinery capacity be built, the significant factor
>> of the proposed facility is that it will be processing shale oil.
>>
>> "alternative energy" will become available as it becomes economically
>> viable, not before, in large quantities, anyway.
>
>
> It is worth noting Denmark's successful energy independence
> program......following the original oil price shocks of the 70's they
> embarked on a very serious plan to avoid foreign energy sources(a then 99%
> dependency). With little doubt they succeeded in freeing from the grip of
> the OPEC oil cartel......They now lead in windmill technology (20% of
> domestic electricity production) and use other renewable including solar,
> biomass and thermal ......Drilling for North sea oil did help just a
> little since they now export oil and they do have the highest electric and
> gasoline($10 gal) cost of western Europe. Houses have fewer appliances,
> families have fewer cars and mass transit is very popular in their tiny
> country. People there do a remarkable job of conserving energy, somehow
> with that choice between heating ones home and eating......food usually
> wins. Rod
I'm having a hard time buying that definition of "successful". The
highest electric and gasoline costs in western Europe makes them
successful?
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"Morris Dovey" wrote:
> The first of these has been solved with a passive solar panel that
> is so efficient it could be labeled "stealthy" - it eats radiant
> energy at all wavelengths from UV to HF radio (I don't have a way to
> test LF and VLF) with a remarkable efficiency - and it'll do that
> without moving parts,
Sounds like you need what we used to call a "Rabbi", AKA: Someone who
can give you air cover and tell you where the "bombs" are planted.
If you have put together a good game plan, somebody like P Allen
(Microsoft founder) might be interested.
He has been supporting Rutan and his companies space research here in
SoCal.
Just a thought.
Today, a private foundation might be the most productive.
Lew
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:10:20 -0500, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Frank Boettcher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>>>
>>>I looked at the charts earlier this year. World consumption is down
>>>compared to 3 or 4 years ago. 3rd world countires are using more but
>>>over
>>>all the world demand is lower.
>>
>> As of December the IEA was forecasting a worldwide increase in the
>> demand for crude. In May they revised that figure down, but still an
>> increase, based on slowing economies. I think, most recently because
>> of the worldwide economic slowdown, the demand is actually predicted
>> to fall.
>
>The key work you used here Frank is "forcast". A forcast is not a sure
>thing. The figures I was looking at were not forcasts rather actual figures
>for the last several years. IIRC the percentage of increase of 3rd world
>countries has been up significantly ofer the last 10 years where as the
>usage by large industrial nations has been dropping for 4 or 5 years. I
>will say that I don't recall the source of those figures, probably "MSNBC"
>however the article that included that actual world usage chart was actually
>trying to explain that the rising oil and gas costs were a direct result of
>supply and demand. I suspect a 2nd year college drop out was piecing
>together information he found on the internet. While supply and demand is
>certainly a part of the pricing/any product pricing actually, I would say
>it has about 10% effect on the current situation.
Forecast demand is what current price is built around.
for actual world demand through 2007
World Total 63,113.57 60,943.79 59,543.24
58,778.20 59,815.17 60,085.13 61,808.95
63,095.12 64,965.31 66,077.79 66,689.10
67,295.81 67,489.45 67,609.63 68,930.00
70,133.12 71,670.75 73,426.90 74,052.94
75,727.16 76,711.90 77,443.55 78,089.42
79,660.39 82,407.67 83,818.93 84,948.77
Read across then down, figures in thousands of barrels per day
>
>>
>> Yes, if you go back in history, anytime there has been an economic
>> slowdown demand drops. A slice in time. That's what is happening
>> now.
>
>Here in the US drop in demand has been going on for the last 4 or 5 years/
>
Well not quite.
The U. S. figures are
United States 17,056.00 16,058.00 15,296.00
15,231.00 15,725.61 15,726.42 16,280.63
16,665.05 17,283.31 17,325.15 16,988.50
16,713.84 17,032.86 17,236.73 17,718.16
17,724.59 18,308.90 18,620.30 18,917.15
19,519.34 19,701.08 19,648.71 19,761.30
20,033.50 20,731.15 20,802.16 20,687.42
20,680.38
Large spike up in '04, increase in '05 two years of very slight
declines 2006 and 2007, and more than likely 2008 will come in as a
decline because of the reaction to high gas prices and the slowing
economy, so by year end three years, but made up for up till possibly
this year by the world demand.
Keep in mind this in the shadow of "forecasted"declining production
which affects the supply side of the equation and also puts pressure
on pricing.
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:05:03 -0500, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Frank Boettcher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:41:51 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
>>
>>>
>> Uh, I think before you draw the conclusions you have drawn above, you
>> may want to look at the global demand charts. As is intended in the
>> free market, supply and demand , continue to be the major driver in
>> the price of crude. For the first half of this year U. S. demand was
>> lower, but the impact was not felt because non western economies were
>> offsetting the drop causing a world wide demand increase. All of a
>> sudden the demand prediction for those economies dropped off the chart
>> and the price has responded. Of course the down side is global
>> recession.
>
>I looked at the charts earlier this year. World consumption is down
>compared to 3 or 4 years ago. 3rd world countires are using more but over
>all the world demand is lower.
As of December the IEA was forecasting a worldwide increase in the
demand for crude. In May they revised that figure down, but still an
increase, based on slowing economies. I think, most recently because
of the worldwide economic slowdown, the demand is actually predicted
to fall.
Yes, if you go back in history, anytime there has been an economic
slowdown demand drops. A slice in time. That's what is happening
now.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> I'm not saying speculation is not a factor, just saying speculation
>> can only exist within the supply/demand trends as it is the key
>> driver. All those mutually exclusive potential events you mention
>> above get assigned a probability factor and in the face of
>> significantly falling demand, they become meaningless.
>
>Demand has been down for over a year, supply this summer has been
>interrrupted by hurricanes. Many refineries still do not expect to be back
>up and running to capacity for several more weeks because of Gustov and
>price of oil and gas continues to drop.
You better check your facts, worldwide demand has not been down for
over a year.
Refineries have to do with the price of refined products not with the
price of crude, although if refineries are down for a lengthy period,
and unrefined crude stacks up that could temporaily lower the price of
crude by raising unrefined inventories.
>
>
>>
>> And you fail to mention the strengthening dollar, a major factor in
>> the price of any commodity that is used globally but priced in
>> dollars.
>
>While the dollar is strengtening, oil prices began dropping befor the dollar
>went up.
I believe you are mistaken.
> Oil prices going down will strengthen the dollar.
I would suggest that you've got that backwards.
>
>>
>> With regard to the part I snipped, it is my view, that any transfer of
>> money, privelege or power put in the hands of any government agency is
>> guaranteed to drive corruption on both sides of the transfer.
>> Guaranteed.
>
>Agreed.
>
>
>
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:03:07 -0500, Swingman wrote:
> ... and judging by posts hereabouts on crude prices the past few months,
> that a goodly percentage of wRec participants are more capable than congress
> of making valid judgments regarding the why's and wherefores of national
> energy policy:
Well, we may not agree on a lot of things, but we have proven we're
literate :-).
I saw an ad on TV this morning for an auger to drill holes in your garden.
Order it and you got a free "high-power" cordless drill. Had a "value of
$1??.00 for only $19.95 plus (unspecified) S&H".
Consider that the marketeers felt there were enough customers out there to
more than pay for the cost of the ad.
Should people stupid enough to fall for that ad be allowed to vote?
Should we force the "it slices, it dices" crowd to provide their customer
lists and use them to purge the voting rolls? Hmmmm - I may be on to
something here :-).
"dpb" wrote:
> Last project before retiring back to the family farm after Dad died
> was pulverized coal flow measurement via turbulent noise and unique
> signal processing.
While still a student, our thermo class got to take a tour of a local
coal fired utility plant.
Still remember, the boilers were at least 5-6 stories tall.
The coal was pulverized finer than face talcum, then blown into the
boilers at the top and burned as it fell to the bottom.
The clinker that was formed at the bottom of the boilers was almost
like glass chards.
It couldn't be used for road bed or anything else useful at the time.
Was told by our professor that a lot of research money was available
to find a use for this clinker.
Since you have been involved with the utility industry, let me ask the
question:
Did the industry ever solve the clinker/chard problem?
Lew
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:46:22 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Either way, it's going to require gov't involvement to provide a
>stable environment for private industry to to the job.
>
>Lew
>
Those are without a doubt the scariest words I've read here in quite
some time.
Frank
"dpb" wrote:
> All the government really needs to do is get out of the way and it
> will happen in the most economically viable fashion far better than
> some set of suits in DC can try to forecast what should be done.
As the saying goes, people far above my pay grade must be looking at
this.
I envision gov't involvement to involve setting some goals and
insuring that those who invest their money will not be left high and
dry before they see a return by insuring continuation of the program,
then getting out of the way and let it happen.
Put another way, have gov't provide goals which may include rewards to
create a research skeleton, then get the hell out of the road and let
it happen.
Lew
"Morris Dovey" wrote:
> I don't have a lot of time available for digging, but I'm sure
> you're right. So far, the sources I've found have all had an
> associated overhead that would slow, rather than accelerate, the
> work to be done. I figure I'm already going slow enough.
At this poimt in time, what is your objective?
Has it changed from when you started?
Lew
"todd" wrote:
> The problem is that there are no leaders in government. As I heard
> it put recently, do you think the "alphas" of our society go into
> politics?
That's why we have elections on a regular basis.
With all the crap a candidate and their family has to endure, there is
little incentive to run for political office.
> (By the way, if you nominate Obama for the job I'm going to puke on
> my shoes).
You seeem to have a problem controlling body functions.
> You want to know what you get when you put the government in charge
> of alternate energy? Ethanol from corn. I'm from a corn state, and
> it's the stupidest idea I've ever heard.
Since less than 5% of the corn is converted, before being returned as
animal feed suplement, maybe the ethanol program is not such a bad
call after all.
BTW, think you will find the lobbying of ADM, ConAgra, Cargill, et al,
may hve had something to do with implementation of the ethanol
program.
It was exactly a lack of leadership from congress but rather the
lobbyists that lead to the environment being established.
BTW, it is my understanding that corn was just a stop gap.
Those plants can be converted to other feed stocks on short notice.
> What's the solution, then? It beats the hell out of me, but I bet
> it isn't going to be more government involvement.
IMHO, we need a major change in leadership to among other things,
reestablish the reputation of gov't not to be an ATM for the
privileged few, but a servant of the many.
Lew
"Frank Boettcher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
>>I have said this time and again. When the oil companies started to merge
>>they cut out 1/2 the competition. If pricing was truly the result of
>>supply
>>and demand we all would have been sitting in lines to gas up like we did
>>back in the 70's.
>
> Since I was one of those working in the industry and became part of
> the "competition" that was eliminated, I would agree wholeheartedly
>>
>>Speculation and "What the market will Bare" is what's going on here. US
>>oil
>>consumption was down 6 months before prices shop up to $4.00 per gallon.
>>The demand began it's decline in the fall of last year.
>
> I still think you are confusing crude supply/demand curves with
> refined product costs. U. S. Oil consumption is only one part of the
> demand curve. When you buy that Chinese whatever in Walmart, you are
> living in the USA and driving up crude demand in China.
Well I probably blur the lines occasionally however my son has been studying
world economies in college and has learned that China has been hoarding oil
for the Olympics. Thier demand should deminish. Either way I see and have
seen no shortages of any thing oil related.