DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Fossil Fuel Folly
*****************************************************
#Post#: 565--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than th
e Obvious Ones!
By: AGelbert Date: December 16, 2013, 8:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
EROI PART 1 OF 2 PARTS
The purpose of this post is to discuss a term near and dear to
the heart of any investor in energy products. That is the term
EROI. It is important because we all need to know how cost
effective any energy product technology is.
In a sane society, if an energy product is found to have a
higher EROI than what is presently popular, subsidized by
government or simply enjoys monopoly price control, then it
would be a no-brainer that the new energy product should, of
course, replace the one with a lower EROI. The natural tendency
for energy corporations to try to extract maximum profit by
externalizing costs aside for a moment, let's compare EROI on a
few energy products and also explain the concept of EROI:
Snippet 1:
[The most recent summary of work and data on the EROI of fuels
was conducted in the summer of 2007 at SUNY ESF and appeared on
The Oil Drum website and in a readable summary by Richard
Heinberg. This paper summarizes the findings of that study, and
also those preceding and subsequent to it where available. It
also summarizes issues raised by some concerning the findings of
these studies and with the calculations within.]
Snippet 2:
[Oil and conventional natural gas are usually studied together
because they often occur in the same fields, have overlapping
production operations and data archiving.]
Snippet 3:
[.. authors also estimated through linear extrapolation that the
EROI for global oil and conventional natural gas could reach 1:1
as soon as about 2022 given alternative input measurement
methods (Figure 2).]
Snippet 4:
[The authors of this EROI study note that they exclude the
interest paid on debts to purchase foreign oil. Including that
cost presumably would decrease EROI. As can be expected, the
EROI of imported oil to the U.S. is mostly a reflection of the
price of oil relative to the price of general goods and services
at that time ::) :) :evil4:(Figure 3).]
The authors note that the differences in EROI can sometimes be
attributed to differences in system boundaries and technologies.
However, overall there is a lack of empirical information on the
subject. ]
Snippet 4
[Wind energy is one of the fastest growing renewable energies in
the world today, although it still represents far less than one
percent of global or U.S. energy use. Since it is renewable
energy, EROI is not calculated the same as for finite resources.
The energy cost for such renewable systems is mostly the very
large capital cost per unit output and the backup systems
needed, for two thirds of the time the wind is not blowing.
As a result, the input for the EROI equation is mostly upfront,
and the return over the lifetime of the system—which largely is
not known well.
For renewable resources a slightly different type of EROI is
often used, the “energy pay back time” (EPBT). EPBT is the time
it takes for the system to generate the same amount of energy
that went into creating, maintaining, and disposing of it, and
so the boundaries used to define the EPBT are those incorporated
into the EROI. ::)
Although the SUNY ESF study did not calculate EROI for wind they
were able to use a recent “meta-analysis” study by Cleveland and
Kubiszewski [27].
In this study the authors examined 112 turbines from 41 analyses
of both conceptual and operational nature. The system boundaries
included the manufacture of components, transportation of
components to the construction site, the construction of the
facility itself, operation and maintenance over the lifetime of
the facility, overhead, possible grid connection costs, and
decommissioning where possible, however not all studies include
the same scope of analysis.
The authors concluded that the average EROI for all systems
studied is 24.6:1 and that for all operational studies is
18.1:1. The operational studies provide lower EROIs because the
simulations run in conceptual models appear to assume conditions
to be more favorable than actually experienced on the ground.
The authors found that the EROI tends to increase with the size
of the turbine. They conclude that there are three reasons for
this. First, that smaller turbines are of older design and can
be less efficient, so despite a larger initial capital
investment larger systems compensate with larger energy outputs;
second that larger models have larger rotor diameters so they
can operate at lower wind speeds and capture more wind energy at
higher efficiencies year round; and finally because of their
size, larger models are taller and can take advantage of the
higher wind speeds farther above ground. ]
Snippet 5:
[The use of Solar photovoltaics (PV) are increasing almost as
rapidly as wind systems, although they too represent far less
than 1 percent of the energy used by the U.S. or the world.
Similarly, they are a renewable source of energy and thus the
EROIs are also calculated using the same idea. Although there
are very few studies which perform “bottom up” analysis of the
PV systems we are familiar with today, we can calculate the EROI
by dividing the lifetime of a module by its energy payback time
(EPBT). Like wind turbines, PV EPBT can vary depending on the
location of production and installation. It can also be affected
by the materials used to make the modules, and the efficiency
with which it operates - especially under extreme temperatures.
The SUNY ESF study looked at a number of life cycle analyses
from 2000 to 2008 on a range of PV systems to determine system
lifetimes and EPBT, and subsequently calculated EROI [28]. The
system lifetimes and EPBT are typically modeled as opposed to
empirically measured. As a result, EROI is usually presented as
a range. Typically the author found most operational systems to
have an EROI of approximately 3–10:1.
]
HTML http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/stock/thumb_smiley-sign0105.gif[img<br
/>width=45
height=100]
HTML http://images.ame4u.com/Animated_Clipart/Animated-Solar/sun_shining_solar_panel_hg_clr__st.gif[/img]=or><br
/>THAN 20:1!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
Snippet 6:
[The SUNY ESF study estimated that one wave energy project could
have an EROI of approximately 15:1 [34]. ]
Snippet 7:
[ 13. Discussion
There has been a surprisingly small amount of work done in the
field of EROI calculation despite its obvious uses and age. From
this review it can be inferred that there are only a handful of
people seriously working on the issues related to energy return
on investment. As such it does not come as a surprise that the
information is scarce and unrefined at best–although perhaps not
in the case of ethanol. :evil4: Additionally there is a great
deal of rather misleading material presented in the media and
very few with the training to cut through the fog or deliberate
lies. We have presented what we believe to be virtually all of
the data available until this special issue.
Since the 1980’s the energy information required to make such
calculations have become even scarcer, with the possible
exception of some European life cycle analyses. This is a
terrible state of affairs given the massive changes in our
energy situation unfolding daily.
We need to make enormously important decisions but do not have
the studies, the data or the trained personnel to do so. Thus we
are left principally with poorly informed politicians, industry
advocacy and a blind but misguided faith in market solutions to
make critical decisions about how to invest our quite limited
remaining high quality energy resources. Our major scientific
funding agencies such as the National Science Foundation and
even the Department of Energy have been criminally negligent by
avoiding any serious programs to undertake proper EROI,
environmental effects, or other studies, while our federal
energy data collections degrade year by year under misguided
cost cutting and free market policies.
As stated by Murphy and Hall [15], there needs to be a concerted
effort to make energy information more transparent to the people
so we can better understand what we are doing and where we are
going. Given what we do know, it seems that the EROI of the
fuels we depend on most are in decline; whereas the EROI for
those fuels we hope to replace them with are lower than we have
enjoyed in the
past.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif
This leads
one to believe that the current rates of energy consumption per
capita we are experiencing are in no way sustainable in the long
run. At best, the renewable energies we look toward may only
cushion this
decline.]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif
Sustainability 2011, 3, 1796-1809; doi:10.3390/su3101796
www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
-------------
What does all the above mean to you and me? It means EROI math
has great difficulty measuring renewables and, due to the
boundary framework established for upstream and downstream costs
including the EXCLUSION of environmental costs, has the
potential to produce some fairly happy numbers for fossil fuels
and nuclear. [I]Yet even by the present computation convention,
EROI is headed downwards for fossil fuels and nuclear. [/i]
Let's explore EROI some more:
-------------
Snippet 1:
[Measuring the EROEI of a single physical process is
unambiguous, but there is no agreed standard on which activities
should be included in measuring the EROEI of an economic
process. In addition, the form of energy of the input can be
completely different from the output.]
Snippet 2:
[How deep should the probing in the supply chain of the tools
being used to generate energy go? For example, if steel is being
used to drill for oil or construct a nuclear power plant, should
the energy input of the steel be taken into account, should the
energy input into building the factory being used to construct
the steel be taken into account and amortized? Should the energy
input of the roads which are used to ferry the goods be taken
into account? What about the energy used to cook the
steelworker's breakfasts? These are complex questions evading
simple answers. A full accounting would require considerations
of opportunity costs and comparing total energy expenditures in
the presence and absence of this economic activity.]
Snippet 3:
[Conventional economic analysis has no formal accounting rules
for the consideration of waste products that are created in the
production of the ultimate output. For example, differing
economic and energy values placed on the waste products
generated in the production of ethanol makes the calculation of
this fuel's true EROEI extremely difficult.]
source:
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested
-------------
And what about environmental degradation costs? Don't they
matter in the "real world"? Can we so narrowly define a process
like EROI that we deliberately exclude costs that aren't
immediately quantifiable? Why are fossil fuel or nuclear energy
corporations the first to bray and warn that all new
technologies need to have the precautionary principle of science
applied to them but get quite huffy when you question EROI
numbers for their products? If that's the "real world', then we
have a rather serious objectivity deficit in play with EROI
math.
Here is an interesting article about a study of algal biocrude
EROI. I bring this to your attention because it shows a very
serious and responsible approach to determining EROI which I
believe is sorely lacking in fossil and nuclear fuels:
-------------
ENERGY RETURN ON INVESTMENT FOR ALGAL BIOCRUDE
Snippet 1:
[Over the last year a student (Colin Beal) at the University of
Texas, Austin, has been characterizing the experimental set-up
at the Center for Electromechanics for testing an algae to
bio-oil process. The process stops short of converting the
bio-oil into biodiesel, and he presented the results at a recent
conference: Beal, Colin M., Hebner, Robert E., Webber, Michael
E., Ruoff, Rodney S., and Seibert, A. Frank. THE ENERGY RETURN
ON INVESTMENT FOR ALGAL BIOCRUDE: RESULTS FOR A RESEARCH
PRODUCTION FACILITY, Proceedings of the ASME 2010 International
Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition IMECE2010 November
12–18, 2010, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada,
IMECE2010-38244.]
Snippet 2:
[the stage of development of the entire technology and process
of inventing new energy sources and pathways. It is important
that we understand how to interpret findings “from the lab” into
real-world or industrial-scale processes. To anticipate the
future EROI of an algae to biofuel process, Colin performed two
extra analyses to anticipate what might be possible if
anticipated advances in technology and processing occur: a
Reduced Case and Literature Model calculation.]
CONTINUED IN PART 2
#Post#: 566--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than th
e Obvious Ones!
By: AGelbert Date: December 16, 2013, 8:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
EROI PART 2 OF 2 PARTS
Snippet 3:
[What Colin discovered was that the EROI of the Reduced Case and
Literature Model were 0.13 and 0.57, respectively. This shows
that we have much to learn for the potential of making viable
liquid fuels. Additionally, Colin’s calculations for the
experimental set-up (and Reduced Case analysis) show that 97% of
the energy output resides in the biomass, not the bio-oil. For
his idealized Literature Model, 82% of the energy output was in
the biomass.
While these results seem discouraging, we do not have much
ability to put these results into context of the rate of
development of other alternative technologies and biofuels. How
long did it take to get photovoltaic panels with EROI > 1 from
the first working prototype in a lab? We have somewhat of an
idea that it took one or two decades for the Brazilians to get
reasonable EROI > 1 from using sugar cane for biomass and
biofuel production (Brazilian sugar cane grown and processed in
Sao Paulo is estimated near EROI = 8 ). ]
Snippet 4:
[Let’s hope others join in in trying to assess the EROI of their
experimental and anticipated commercial processes for
alternative energy technologies.]
Source:
HTML http://environmentalresearchweb.org/blog/2011/01/the-eroi-of-algae-biofuels.html
ALL ABOUT DUCKWEED:
Snippet 1:
[Researchers at North Carolina State University have found that
a tiny aquatic plant can be used to clean up animal waste at
industrial hog farms and potentially be part of the answer for
the global energy crisis. Their research shows that growing
duckweed on hog wastewater can produce five to six times more
starch per acre than corn, according to researcher Dr. Jay
Cheng. This means that ethanol production using duckweed could
be "faster and cheaper than from corn," [/i]says fellow
researcher Dr. Anne-Marie Stomp.
"We can kill two birds – biofuel production and wastewater
treatment – with one stone – duckweed," Cheng says. Starch from
duckweed can be readily converted into ethanol using the same
facilities currently used for corn, Cheng adds.]
Snippet 2:
[The duckweed system consists of shallow ponds that can be built
on land unsuitable for conventional crops, and is so efficient
it generates water clean enough for re-use. The technology can
utilize any nutrient-rich wastewater, from livestock production
to municipal wastewater.]
Snippet 3:
[Cheng says, "Duckweed could be an environmentally friendly,
economically viable feedstock for ethanol."
"There's a bias in agriculture that all the crops that could be
discovered have been discovered," Stomp says, "but duckweed
could be the first of the new, 21st century crops. In the spirit
of George Washington Carver, who turned peanuts into a major
crop, Jay and I are on a mission to turn duckweed into a new
industrial crop, providing an innovative approach to alternative
fuel production."]
Source:
HTML http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/yournews/38605
Duckweed for electricity at 3 CENTS per kwh:
Snippet 1:
[It's a little, water-born plant that doubles in mass every 24
hours. The ducks really like it," Behrens said. Two pounds of
duckweed seed in a 32-foot tank in Philadelphia grew to a depth
of 2 inches in 10 days, he said.
"It's very easy to harvest," Behrens said. "That was the undoing
of a lot of algae concepts. You can't spend too much energy
removing fuel from water, otherwise on your balance sheet you
haven't made any energy."
Duckweed is smaller than a grain of rice, but a million times
bigger than an algae cell, he said. The duckweed is harvested
with a nylon mesh, similar to screen doors, then dried.
In many ways, it's similar to wood-products waste, another type
of biomass, which is used to generate electricity in White City
and other places around the country.
"Trees don't grow fast enough, so we found something that grows
faster," Behrens said. "The key is growing fuel on site, because
shipping it in is too costly. We just had to find a fast-growing
plant -- and there are plenty of those -- and then create an
artificial environment that optimizes plant growth."
The artificial environment -- BioEnergy Domes -- is where
Pacific Domes comes in. There are four sizes of BioEnergy Domes,
ranging from a backyard-sized, 5,000-kilowatt version that can
supply energy for one home to a commercial-size,
60-foot-diameter unit, such as the initial unit in a
Philadelphia industrial park. The generating unit sits outside
the dome and runs silently.
Behrens said it costs about $750,000 to $800,000 to install the
largest BioEnergy Domes, and the payback time is only two years.
"You are able to generate electricity at the cost of 3 cents per
kilowatt hour, the same as coal or nuclear plants," Behrens
said. "It's completely controllable, unlike wind or solar power,
and generates on demand like a fossil-fuel plant."]
HTML http://www.kgw.com/news/Ore-company-uses-duckweed-to-generate-electricity-117942849.html
-------------
While I laugh at the idea that the actual cost of coal or
nuclear power is just 3 cents per kwh because the EROI numbers
on those two poisonous energy products exclude massive subsidies
and environmental costs, I see no reason to doubt that the 3
cents per kwh is bona fide with duckweed. Since nuclear has an
official EROI of 10.0 and coal has an official EROI of 80.0 then
duckweed is somewhere in between. Even if it is only in the wind
EROI range of 18 it is still a far better alternative than, for
example, natural gas as of 2005 which was 10.0 because there are
zero pollution costs associated with it and less transportation
costs as well because duckweed infrastructure would be
decentralized and local.
EROI figures for nuclear, coal, and natural gas 2005 and wind
source:
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested
Now I bring this low corn ethanol EROI to your attention. I am
certain the EROI would be much higher for ethanol if duckweed
was the biomass source rather than corn. Of course that would
cut chemical fertilizer and pesticide corporations out of the
loop. It would also reduce fossil fuel costs in harvesting
because duckweed is not a crop requiring tilling and grows
several times faster than corn simply with animal feces in
stagnant water. A mechanized netting operation for monthly
harvests (shorter intervals are possible depending on climate)
would vastly exceed corn biomass in addition to ultimately
cutting out fossil fuels from the farm machinery because they
would run on ethanol.
CORN ETHANOL EROI
Snippet:
[They found that the EROI range for corn ethanol remained low,
from 1.29–1.70
]
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif
source:
HTML http://www.countercurrents.org/murphy100810.htm
Furthermore duckweed can be pelletized and used as food for
tilapia fish farming or fuel in furnaces.
sources:
HTML http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/22406406/1260766168/name/duckweed++final.pdf
HTML http://www.permies.com/t/13500/stoves/you-burn-duckweed-rocket-heater
What about those that claim that renewables like duckweed, wind,
photovoltaic, etc. are just niche energy markets and will never
actually replace fossil fuels as number one?
Snippet 1:
[4. Clean energy investment has surpassed investments in fossil
fuels
2011 was the first time global investments in renewable energy
surpassed investments in fossil fuels.
The global market for clean energy was worth a whopping $250
billion.
The United States (as of 2012 before China passed us) is
currently leading in corporate R&D and venture capital
investments in clean energy globally, and last year retook the
top spot in overall investment with a 33 percent increase to
$55.9 billion.]
As to the current EROI figures on fossil fuels, please consider
that YOU paid for a lot of the R&D for them as well as current
and past subsidies BEFORE the EROI figures are calculated.
Snippet 2:
[6. Fossil fuels have gotten 75 times more subsidies than clean
energy
To date, the oil-and-gas industry received $446.96 billion
(adjusted for inflation) in cumulative energy subsidies from
1994 to 2009, whereas renewable energy sources received just
$5.93 billion (adjusted for inflation).
Renewable energy investments should be put in proper historical
perspective. According to the Energy Information Agency,
“focusing on a single year’s data does not capture the imbedded
effects of subsidies that may have occurred over many years
across all energy fuels and technologies.”
The U.S. government is showing a smaller commitment to
renewables than it showed in the early years of the oil-and-gas
industries. A study showed that “during the early years of what
would become the U.S. oil and gas industries, federal subsidies
for producers averaged half a percent of the federal budget. By
contrast, the current support for renewables is barely a fifth
that size, just one-tenth of 1 percent of federal spending.”]
Snippet 3:
[Here are the top six things you really need to know:
Clean energy is competitive with other types of energy
Clean energy creates three times more jobs than fossil fuels
Clean energy improves grid reliability
Clean energy investment has surpassed investments in fossil
fuels
Investments in clean energy are cost effective
Fossil fuels have gotten 75 times more subsidies than clean
energy]
Source:
HTML http://idigmygarden.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53750
Given all these real world facts about the main energy
investment trends and the promise of EROI increases from
renewables such as wind, photovoltaic and duckweed free of the
environmental hazards of fossil and nuclear fuels and the
prospect of much reduced government energy subsidies that
we-the-people will benefit from, isn't it folly to cling to the
concept that centralized power systems will remain dominant in
the energy markets?
[quote][font=times new roman]" One can judge from experiment or
one can blindly accept authority.
To the scientific mind experimental proof is all important and
theory is merely a convenience in description to be junked when
it no longer fits.
To the academic mind authority is everything and facts are
junked when they do not fit theory laid down by authority."
Robert Heinlein[/font][/quote]
#Post#: 567--------------------------------------------------
The End Polluter Welfare Act of 2013
By: AGelbert Date: December 16, 2013, 8:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Legislation to End Fossil Fuel Tax Breaks Introduced by Sen.
Sanders, Rep. Ellison
Friday, November 22, 2013
WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 – As House and Senate budget negotiators
look for ways to lower deficits,
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.)
today introduced legislation to eliminate tax loopholes and
subsidies that support the oil, gas and coal industries.
The End Polluter Welfare Act of 2013 would remove tax breaks,
close loopholes, end taxpayer-funded fossil fuel research and
prevent companies from escaping liability for spills or
deducting cleanup costs. Under current law, these subsidies are
expected to cost taxpayers more than $100 billion in the coming
decade.
The White House budget proposal for next year calls for
eliminating several of the same provisions that the legislation
by Sanders and Ellison would end.
“At a time when fossil fuel companies are racking up record
profits, it is time to end the absurdity of American taxpayers
providing massive subsidies to these hugely profitable fossil
fuel corporations,” Sanders said.
“The five biggest oil companies made $23 billion in the third
quarter of 2013 alone. They don’t need any more tax giveaways,”
Ellison said. “We should invest in the American people by
creating good jobs and ending cuts to food assistance instead of
throwing tens of billions of taxpayer dollars at one of the
biggest and most profitable industries in the world.”
The five most profitable oil companies (ExxonMobil, Shell,
Chevron, BP and ConocoPhilips) together made more than $1
trillion in profits over the past decade.
The Sanders and Ellison legislation is supported by
environmental groups including Friends of the Earth, Oil Change
International and 350.org.
The fiscal watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense, which has worked
for nearly two decades to eliminate wasteful energy subsidies,
also supports the bills.
HTML http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/legislation-to-end-fossil-fuel-tax-breaks-introduced-by-sen-sanders-rep-ellison
#Post#: 850--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than th
e Obvious Ones!
By: AGelbert Date: March 2, 2014, 5:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
PP said,[quote]All part of the great upward wealth funnel
ponzi.[/quote]
Yep. People like you and I that see behind the charade are
slowly but surely increasing in number. I hope it is not too
late. These hallmarks of mendacity a minute that rule over us
have planted so many false assumptions about who pays for what,
and actual costs of resources and energy, including corrupting
the very language to the point that "conservation" means
resource rape and impoverishment of native peoples living
sustainably (followed by large masses of poor with a degraded
biosphere) followed by blame the victim BS that we must assume
Mens Rea is the daily bread of the 1%. Orwell knew what was
coming because it was MOSTLY ALREADY THERE. So it goes. >:(
#Post#: 885--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than th
e Obvious Ones!
By: guest16 Date: April 1, 2014, 3:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The quagmire that faces industrialised civilisation is much of
it was built using cheap fossil fuels which were not only
subsidised directly but in nearly all cases the externalities
were never factored in so the damage and costs associated with
fossil fuel were lugged to the general
population/wildlife/environment.
The other important thing is energy especially cheap energy acts
as an enabler of other resources. This means if it is cheap to
procure energy then the costs of getting other resources lessens
and when you reduce the price of any commodity you encourage its
consumption. As consumption increases you not only encourage
more wasteful consumption but you also make it viable to mine
big fields that could only be economic under the current regime
of fossil fuels. Think of all those gold mines or other rare
metal mines that need to be treated with harsh chemicals. None
of those projects would be viable if there was no cheap energy
so this is another hidden associated cost of fossil fuels.
#Post#: 886--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than th
e Obvious Ones!
By: AGelbert Date: April 2, 2014, 12:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Agreed.
#Post#: 1932--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than th
e Obvious Ones!
By: AGelbert Date: September 27, 2014, 6:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=agelbert link=topic=3164.msg57501#msg57501
date=1411861194]
[quote author=MKing link=topic=3164.msg57482#msg57482
date=1411848787]
[quote author=Golden Oxen link=topic=3164.msg57461#msg57461
date=1411829157]
Might I pose the question that if we peak oilers are correct
about fracking being a ponzi scheme; that major cracks should
start appearing soon in this house of leverage and constantly
required drilling or fracking of costly wells.[/quote]
Tight/shale oil and gas wells aren't expensive, the most recent
range of numbers provided to the public by the Texas BEG are in
the 3-10 million each range, drilling and completing, I
confirmed this independently after I last spoke with Tinker and
his group a month or two back.
These kinds of numbers are nearly insignificant when compared to
conventional oil or gas production in places like the North
Slope or GOM, North Sea, anywhere in the Arctic, and are less
than half the cost of doing the SAME thing in Argentina, China,
or Russia.
As far as hydraulic fracturing itself being a ponzi scheme, it
has been going on for 60+ years, I don't think it has much to do
with overall financial performance myself, but more with the
relationship between price, cost and well performance.
For example, using financial reports on public companies allows
interesting analysis of the aggregate, but not the distribution
of profitability at the well level of resolution.
For example, lets take two oil companies in the Bakken. One of
them is run by a bloviating amateur, he drills and completes a
$10M well, pays $1500/month to have someone operate it for him,
and requires a nice office building, a staff of sycophants to
blow smoke up his ass, all of these things cost money, and the
overhead for this company is $100K/month.
This company will probably lose money, and badly, trying to
recoup not only the initial CapEx but the $101.5K month nut they
have created.
Whereas another company, requiring only one person to achieve
the same result, and wanting a modest income of $2k month from
this well, will probably make money.
No difference in anything other than the overhead sitting on top
of the well's performance.
Fortunately, when the first company goes bankrupt, the second
will buy the discounted cash flow of the first companies wells
(doesn't give a crap about the building, let the bank foreclose)
and make their money off expected increases in price as peak oil
takes hold and the price of oil increases as Malthusians expect.
The combination of these three things at the detail level, and
aggregate, is important. Amateurs don't tend to know the
difference, in part because they don't see how the performance
of private companies works, and how they are just salivating
right now, waiting for someone to fall, that their assets might
be acquired at a discount.
[quote author=Golden Oxen]
Shouldn't financing and borrowing problems be arising
already?[/quote]
They certainly might be.
My connections with Wall Street money says that they are still
looking to get in, you can barely get them to bite on 1/4B
deals, they really want 1B deals right now, and can easily come
up with 10B for the right deal.
So the money does not seem to have dried up yet.
[/quote]
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-026.gif<br
/>
To paraphrase Samuel Clemens in regard to some of his
experiences with people that make holes in the ground to get
stuff out of and sell to us for "profit", a FRACKING site is a
hole the ground with a bunch of LIARS on top.
Here's an article MKing will disagree with and ridicule as
"garden variety" or "irrelevant" or disdain with some other
pejorative bit of puffery.
The only part of the article he will agree with is that the Oil
and Gas industry ACTUALLY gave solar power technology
development a boost back in the 70s because PV supplied power to
very remote locations the fossil fuelers tend be located for new
profit over planet piggery. ;D
The FULL story of how we-the-people have supported these fossil
fuel and nuclear welfare queens is there from the start until
this day. The appearance of profitability ignores our tax money
for research and continuous subsidy.
Fossil fuelers have an amazing ability to ignore, not just
externalized costs, but the giveaways from we-the-people! They
have the brass balls to compute those subsidies as part of the
ROI. That's a blatant accounting falsehood. Without subsides
they are not profitable, period. But MKing will continue with
his fantasies, come hell or high water. So it goes. :P
SNIPPPET 1:
[quote]The bias against renewable funding and support is clear.
Recent analysis found that over the first fifteen years an
industry receives a subsidy, nuclear energy received an average
of $3.3 billion, oil and gas averaged $1.8 billion,Fto and
renewables averaged less than $0.4 billion.
Renewables received less than one-quarter of the support of oil
and gas and less than one-eighth of the support that nuclear
received during the early years of development, when strong
investment can make a big difference. Yet even with this
disparity, more of our energy supply now comes from renewables
than from nuclear, which indicates the strength of renewables as
a potential energy source.[/quote]
SNIPPET 2:
[quote]
The momentum behind renewable development came to a rapid halt
as soon as Ronald Reagan was elected president. Not only did he
remove the solar panels atop the White House, he also gutted
funding for solar development and poured billions into
developing a dirty synthetic fuel that was never brought to
market.[/quote]
Unnatural Gas: How Government Made Fracking Profitable (and Left
Renewables Behind)
HTML http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/unnatural-gas-how-government-made-fracking-profitable-and-left-renewables-behind
HTML http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/unnatural-gas-how-government-made-fracking-profitable-and-left-renewables-behind
[/quote]
#Post#: 1956--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than th
e Obvious Ones!
By: AGelbert Date: September 30, 2014, 11:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Let’s Even the Playing Field for Renewable Energy
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/cowboypistol.gif
Bill Ritter
Energy
Invest in Renewable Energy
Renewable Energy
Stock Market
BILL RITTER: What is the most cost-effective way to subsidize
investment in renewable energy sources? The word “subsidy” is
loaded with connotations that the government is “picking
winners” when it provides support to certain energy industries
and not to others. Instead, the question should be, “What is the
most cost-effective way to level the playing field for renewable
energy?”
It is important not to demonize well-designed energy subsidies
when they are clearly in the national interest. There has been
no time in modern history that the federal government has not
provided tax breaks and other benefits to one energy industry or
another, going back to land grants for timber and coal
production in the 1800s. In principle, targeted subsidies are
warranted when an important emerging energy technology cannot
achieve commercialization without help.
There is another way, however, that government can stimulate
investments in a wide variety of energy resources. This type of
fiscal policy provides tax incentives for private capital to
flow into the energy resources that investors believe offer the
highest returns or the greatest potential.
Two examples that have drawn attention recently are real-estate
investment trusts (REITs) and master limited partnerships
(MLPs). Both provide tax advantages and access to low-cost
capital for fossil-energy investors. Until recently, neither
extended the same benefits to renewable energy.[/I]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/swear1.gif
In May, the Obama administration used its executive authority to
allow REITs for certain types of solar-generating equipment.
That was a first step to what we might call “investment parity”
in federal policy. The next logical step is to give
renewable-energy investors the same access to MLPs as
fossil-energy investors have.
Legislation to do this, the Master Limited Partnership Parity
Act, has bipartisan support in Congress, but it reportedly has
stalled.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp
<br
/> Some members have conditioned their support on the eliminatio
n
of the production tax credit (PTC) for wind energy and the
investment tax credit (ITC) for solar energy. According to one
report, these members argue it would be redundant to open MLPs
to renewable-energy technologies while targeted solar and wind
tax credits remain in place.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp
Yet, fossil fuels enjoy a variety of targeted tax benefits as
well as MLPs. [img width=100
height=045]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg[/img]<br
/>Denying the same mix to renewable energy investors
[i]perpetuates federal policies that have long picked fossil
fuels as the winners.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__burp.gif
The
PTC/ITC and MLPs should not be an either/or issue. Both belong
in an intelligent mix of tax policies that create more robust
market competition on a more level playing field. [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.clker.com/cliparts/c/8/f/8/11949865511933397169thumbs_up_nathan_eady_01.svg.hi.png[/img]<br
/>
In addition, opening MLPs to renewable-energy investment is
consistent with the “all of the above” energy strategy advocated
both by President Obama and the Republican Party. I am confident
that as various renewable energy technologies become ready for
full-scale commercialization, they will compete very well.
In the absence of access to MLPs, private investors and state
governments are creating other ways to capitalize emerging
clean-energy technologies. Renewable-energy bonds, green-energy
banks, crowdfunding and “yield cos” are among recent
innovations.
Nevertheless, a great deal of private capital remains sidelined,
waiting for stable and equitable federal energy policies. If we
really believe in letting all market-ready energy options slug
it out in robust competition, then we shouldn’t ask that federal
policies fix the fight. But that is what happens when
renewable-energy investors are barred from the tax incentives
that investors in fossil fuels enjoy.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
Bill Ritter served as Colorado’s 41st governor. He is currently
the director of the Center for the New Energy Economy at
Colorado State University.
HTML http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2014/09/30/lets-even-the-playing-field-for-renewable-energy/
[img]
HTML http://collapseofindustrialcivilization.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/oil.jpg?w=529[/img]
Serious Hangover for Fossil Fuelers coming soon. :icon_mrgreen:
#Post#: 1957--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than th
e Obvious Ones!
By: AGelbert Date: October 1, 2014, 12:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://media.giphy.com/media/HjPbLbmep2aJO/giphy.gif
#Post#: 2013--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than th
e Obvious Ones!
By: AGelbert Date: October 9, 2014, 10:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/MGalleryItem.php?id=1566[/img]
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-260914180633.png[/img]
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page