I have been a fan of Robert Bryce’s writing for a long time. His style is witty and entertaining, and he is a debunker-extraordinaire. His newest book, Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence,
If you aren’t familiar with Bryce, he is the Managing Editor of Energy Tribune, a cornucopia of energy news and analyses (and a regular stop for me), as well as the author of several other books topical to energy. For more, here is his biography from Amazon:
About the Author
Robert Bryce is one of America’s foremost energy journalists. He is currently the managing editor of Energy Tribune and a contributing writer for the Texas Observer. The author of Pipe Dreams: Greed, Ego, and the Death of Enron,
and Cronies: Oil, The Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America’s Superstate,
he lives in Austin with his wife, Lorin, their three children, and a hyperactive bird dog named Biscuit.
In the book, Bryce takes on many of the myths that are ingrained in the collective psyche of politicians and the general public. He explains why we are so attracted to the idea of energy independence, but then spends the bulk of the book arguing that the idea of energy independence is delusional. He targets the delusions of both Democrats and Republicans, suggesting that neither major party is serious about addressing America’s energy needs. As Bryce states (and this would be a good description of my own position): “I am neither Democrat nor Republican. I am a charter member of the Disgusted Party.”
Thoroughly researched, with hundreds of references, the book is full of thought provoking and interesting facts. One of the most interesting bits to me was a table showing just how dependent the U.S. is on a wide range of strategic materials. We are at the 100% dependence level on quite a few of them. But the book’s real strength lies in the myth-busting. The book debunks such energy independence myths as: 1). We can farm our way to energy independence; 2). We could abandon the Persian Gulf if we achieved energy independence; 3). Energy independence would reduce the flow of money to terrorists. For a flavor of Bryce’s writing – including some of the themes he tackles in the book, see his Washington Post editorial:
5 Myths About Breaking Our Foreign Oil Habit
In this editorial, Bryce writes:
With oil prices still flirting with $100 a barrel, everyone is talking about the need for “energy independence.” Late last year, President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007; Sen. John McCain has declared, “We need energy independence”; and Sen. Barack Obama has called for “serious leadership to get us started down the path of energy independence.”
This may all be good politics. But the idea that the United States, the world’s single largest energy consumer, can be independent of the $5 trillion-per-year energy business — the world’s single biggest industry — is ludicrous on its face. The push for energy independence is based on a series of false premises. Here are a few of the most pernicious ones…
While you will often find yourself nodding in agreement while reading the book (or thinking “I did not know that”), there will be things in the book you disagree with – and perhaps sharply. You may raise your eyebrows at Bryce’s assertion that energy independence is not desirable. I read that, and I thought “Not achievable any time soon? Sure. But not desirable?” Some won’t like his take on Peak Oil. Some will feel that some of his writing on terrorism is a digression. I disagree with him on the subject of carbon taxes (more on that below). And corn ethanol supporters will need to round up an army of lobbyists to address his chapter on ethanol.
The ethanol chapter alone is greatness. [Full Disclosure: Bryce referenced me a number of times in the book, but especially in the ethanol chapter. You could thus argue that I have a conflict of interest in this book review – if that makes you happy ;)]. Bryce goes further than I ever have by tying all of the arguments up in one neat package. He covers the subject from angles I have barely touched upon. I can probably now retire from ethanol debunking, because after reading the ethanol chapter I thought “There’s nothing left to debunk.” (In fact, progress on the ethanol FAQ I have been working on ground to a halt after I read Bryce’s ethanol chapter. He covered everything I covered, and more.)
This is not a Peak Oil book. Peak Oil is covered over just a few pages, and the subject is treated agnostically – or maybe even slightly atheistically. The Oil Drum does get a mention in this section, as well as peakoil.com and hubbertpeak.com. But if you are expecting a long discussion of peak oil, that’s not what this book is about.
There was a time when I couldn’t see an iota of difference between Bryce’s positions on various energy topics and my own. It seemed we agreed on everything – right down to small details. However, Bryce gradually abandoned his position that we needed higher carbon taxes, and this is an issue upon which we now clearly diverge. And it took me a while to really pin down why we now disagree on this issue.
I am looking at the issue of carbon taxes through Peak Oil lenses. I see carbon taxes as a way individuals and individual countries can ramp down their energy usage so they are less impacted by supply shocks. I think Bryce is less concerned about these sorts of supply shocks, and is looking more at policies that will increase energy supplies, rather than those that reduce demand. This became clear to me when reading his chapter on energy efficiency. Bryce also feels like it will be impossible to make the tax revenue neutral such that it isn’t regressive. He feels like the U.S. will be putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage to the rest of the world if we pass higher carbon taxes.
However, to that I say that Europe already has very high carbon taxes, and I don’t believe it is a coincidence that they drive much more fuel efficient cars, don’t have a lot of suburban sprawl, have excellent public transportation, have about half the per capita energy consumption of the average American, and yet still enjoy a very high standard of living. They are more insulated from price shocks than we are, because they are less dependent on fossil fuels than we are in the U.S. But because of the fossil fuel usage habits of the U.S., enabled by a long history of cheap fossil fuels, the world will approach peak oil much more quickly. I see high carbon taxes as a way of slowing down that approach and subsequent decline.
Furthermore, I don’t believe Bryce is consistent on this issue. At one point in the book, he writes “Motorists respond to high fuel prices”, and then he gives examples of how sales of fuel efficient vehicles have taken off as fuel prices crept higher. Isn’t this something we should have been encouraging all along with higher fuel prices? He reiterates this in a section on Brazil, when he points out that Brazil imposes much higher fuel taxes, and this helps explain why their per capita usage is so low. If Brazil can deal with higher fuel taxes, I expect that we can as well in the U.S.
Concluding, I highly recommend this book. It is the best overall book on the reality of the energy situation in the U.S. that I have read in a long time. In fact, specific to that topic, it is probably the best book I have ever read. There are some minor errors (e.g., Saudi’s claimed oil production capacity was reported as their oil production), and even after reading the book I still feel the attraction of energy independence. But I didn’t find a whole lot to quibble with as I read the book.
I read the Washington Post Article and what my interpretation is that he is pushing for more of a world view of energy by Americans, rather than the current “Energy Independence” banter. I agree.
It’s not just energy products, local US politics and the size of the US economy continually causes problems in other parts of the world. There is no global vision and it comes off looking like Americans think they are somehow more important that people in other parts of the world. Hidden grain subsidies, softwood lumber and the BSE (Mad Cow) beef embargo were/are a few examples of local lobbying contradicting NAFTA. Not to get into those issues, but they are spawned from not having a world view. Us and Them.
Even outside of OPEC, the oil situation means that Canada, Mexico and Russia have real political sway in the US. The continuation of the “We are Special, We deserve more of the Pie” attitude is what is causing the terrorist problem, not “ending dependence on foreign oil”. When I type that statement I picture the American Idiot saying it, and it’s totally offensive. Does that mean Canada? or just some other foreigner’s oil? Us and Them mentality. Obama and Clinton peeped about ripping up NAFTA to try and win some local votes, and quickly got informed that wouldn’t work out so well for the USA if Canada stopped shipping oil under the NAFTA agreement.
How much Canadian history does an US student take in school? It’s amazing that a country that was as recently settled as the US by people from all over the world developed such a narrow understanding and view of the global economy.
The USSR imploded, the USA will just run out of gas if some attitudes don’t change.
Whoa Bob – did you get out of the wrong side of bed this morning?
NAFTA is getting a lot of play because of presidential politics and Ohio. In Ohio NAFTA is a convenient scape goat for their job problems. The Democrats are pandering to get votes. We don’t hear anything about it in Texas. Thank God the primaries are over for us tomorrow. We are getting 6-10 phone calls a day here in Texas, mostly robo calls, but my wife spoke got a call from an Obama supporter in California, a single mom. I think by the end of the call my wife converted her. The supporter couldn’t name a single thing that Obama had accomplished.
You should like McCain then, in Iowa he told people that ethanol was a boondoggle. In Michigan he called Romney on pandering over jobs that wouldn’t be returning. He does play up the terrorist angle with energy suppies a bit, but he is preaching “energy security” rather than “energy independence”.
I don’t think we are about to abandon our friends in Canada. (I agree with you, our school children are taught much more about Mexican history than Canadian history. We should change that.)
Robert Rohatensky-
if memory serves me well, you are citizen of Canada. as citizen of USA, i agree that many of our citizens lack global perspective. the concept of globalization escapes many of us[trade,energy,military/economic sustainence being only a few].
i have no immediate proposed solution[ it’s an education/cultural thing–societal/familial in nature].
your observation accepted. the political pandering on such things as NAFTA is a clear indication of a systemic illness. no citizenry of any society likes to “face the facts”.
hit often enough by 2X4, hope remains eternal.
fran
Robert — if there is one thing that politicians should have taught us (even if they never learn it themselves), it is the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Yes, there will be unintended consequences — Always! (See, for example, ethanol). Yes, the unintended consequences are often larger than the intended consequences.
Carbon taxes are a great example. The intended consequence is to make people poorer — other people, of course.
The unintended consequence is what it will do to the willingness of the relatively few countries with the potential to maintain/increase capacity to make the necessary huge investments.
Carbon taxes are quite likely to cut oil supply faster than they cut demand, while at the same time hobbling coal, pricing “renewables” out of the market, and doing nothing to increase nuclear energy supply.
If we raise our eyes above default anti-Americanism and instead engage brain, the world has a supply side problem with energy. We, the human race, need more energy. Carbon taxes will not accomplish that, and in fact will likely make the supply problem worse.
Kin – I am beginning to believe that a carbon tax may actually decrease oil prices.
One of the best ways to increase crude oil production is CO2 flood enhanced oil recovery. CO2 works differently than other methods becaue at very high pressures it acts like both a liquid and a gas in the reservoir. CO2 EOR projects are limited today by the availability of CO2. Today mostly natural sources of CO2 are used for EOR. If applied correctly, a carbon tax could be used to support building of an anthropegenic CO2 infrastructure that could breath new life into aging oil fields in LA, TX and OK, puting billions of barrels of oil on the market that aren’t economical today.
This tertiary oil recovery would mean extracting 2/3 or more of the crude from old fields like the massive Burbank field in Oklahoma.
I didn’t know Canada had a history. Did anything happen there?
Whoa Bob – did you get out of the wrong side of bed this morning?
I didn’t mean for my comment to sound as bitchy as it does when I read it back. I guess I didn’t title a book “Gusher of Lies” either.
What I meant was that what I understood from the book review and the article was that Robert Bryce is saying that the energy product supply problem requires a global solution and a USA centered approach is going to cause more problems than it solves.
There is a rather good presentation on the Oil Sands on the Globe and Mail site.
To quote Red Green:
“Keep your stick on the ice and remember:
I’m pullin’ for you.. we’re all in this together.“
“Kin – I am beginning to believe that a carbon tax may actually decrease oil prices.”
I’ve long suspected this as a possibility. Or that prices would stay at similar levels, with money going into different pockets.
Bob, I descend from Canadians!
(The distance of my descent is left to the reader.)
BTW, I see predictions above about what carbon taxes would or wouldn’t do. We don’t know of course. The only thing we do know is that they would open the door to change. People would search for new efficiencies and alternatives.
… you know, in my latest evolution of thought I’ve come to see peak oil fundamentally as a cult of prediction (and not just the doomer bits).
The whole world knows oil will run out someday, and quite a few mainstream voices have said peak oil might even be now. But they, the mainstream, have not settled into a single view of the future as a result. They remain open and flexible (even in procrastination).
The contrast to peak oilers (and doomers) is that they have a prediction. They think they see a future to be feared or avoided.
I dropped by TOD to watch their recent video. I was a little shocked that they bound TOD to Olduvai quite so tightly … but at least in the end they said “there is still a chance” but here is the key “to avoid this future.”
What future are we avoiding? One we see around us? Or one that someone has modeled, dreamed?
I’ve taken to saying lately:
“When someone says “I can predict the future,” why isn’t “no one can predict the future” sufficient answer?“
Peak oil may be real, but the predictions may not really be that useful.
(That is why I think the “Gusher” author avoids them.)
Kin – I am beginning to believe that a carbon tax may actually decrease oil prices.
There are lots of possibilities, King — most of them unintended & unanticipated!
But I seriously doubt that, technically, carbon taxes and CO2 EOR would increase the supply of oil/decrease demand enough to reduce the price of oil paid to producers.
EOR (in a whole variety of flavors) has been a subject of intense investigation in the oil industry since the First Oil Shock in the early 1970s. It suffers from the ‘Maraflood’ effect.
Marathon’s Maraflood process involved injecting chemicals to increase oil recovery. Technically successful, but not economic when the price of oil was low. However, when the price of oil increased, so did the cost of chemicals made using oil. Maraflood process was still uneconomic. Same thing is probably going to happen to a number of ‘renewables’.
Remember also how carbon taxes look from the point of view of the small number of key national oil producers. Economic imperialism! Those damn Euro and Norte-Americano governments want their people to pay more for oil & gas, but they don’t want to share the revenues with us producers.
King, you mentioned the large potential benefits from wider use of tertiary (EOR) techniques in North American oil fields. The staggering thing is that there are major oil fields in the Middle East where National Oil Companies have barely scratched the surface of secondary recovery. If we want to keep fossil supplies up while we engage in the multi-decade task of replacing 90% of our current energy supplies, we have to make sure that those exporters have an incentive to keep producing.
But that is just one man’s view.
Economic imperialism! Those damn Euro and Norte-Americano governments want their people to pay more for oil & gas, but they don’t want to share the revenues with us producers.
Point taken.
However, what can they do about it? Note that most of those key national oil producers have economies that depend entirely on oil exports. Stop exporting the oil? It will hurt the producer before it hurts the importer.
And the Europeans have shown that it can work.
Peak oil is an immense opportunity in many ways.
Odograph: “Bob, I descend from Canadians!” Does that mean that you have Canadian ancestry or that you tend to end up underneath them? ;-b
It’s a mixed history of Canadian gold miners, counterfitters(*), music teachers, and streetcar conductors.
* – Revenue labels during the US prohibition, but my Granddad was proud of his reckless youth.
Stop exporting the oil? It will hurt the producer before it hurts the importer. And the Europeans have shown that it can work.
Remember Simmons’ discussions about oil production decline rates? Unless ‘the world’ invests very substantial amounts over the coming decade(s) to replace declining capacity, global oil production will plummet. The only part of ‘the world’ which has access to resources to make those investments on a significant scale is a subset of OPEC (+ Russia). If they don’t invest, global production goes down & price goes up. It will hurt everybody … but the importers most of all.
If imperialist western governments are robbing the exporters of the true value of their irreplacable patrimony, what incentive would those exporters have to invest in maintaining export capacity? Yet the west depends on the exporters making those investments. After all, Mercedes-Benz & Airbus would be worthless without those exporters’ oil.
The status of the Europeans is interesting. My guess is that they will turn out to be the weakest link in the carbon tax chain.
The EU today is by far the world’s largest fossil fuel importer — including much oil & non-fungible gas from Russia. So much for the benefits of high taxes!
At a time of Russia’s choosing (some mid-winter), Russia could make a reasonable (but non-negotiable) demand that Euro-govs rebate part of the taxes they collect on products from Russian oil back to the Russian government …. ‘to help pay for investments in Russian export capacity the EU so desperately needs’.
Our technological aim ought to be to drive carbon out of the marketplace by providing lower-cost post-fossil methods of meeting energy needs. That was how mineral oil drove whale oil out of the market — and enriched countless lives in the process. Carbon taxes are a step in the wrong direction.
On solutions: I wrote a blurb a couple of years ago about replacing diesel farm equipment with electric as part of my grander scheme to build location independent renewable electricity generation.
Reading it today, it’s still relevant. In the 200-300hp diesel tractors we used, we would fill the tires up to 1/2 full of calcium chloride tire fluid to increase the weight for traction. This is in a tractor that already has a 20 tonne GVW. Due to battery weight and travel speed, electric cars are a way off, but moving agriculture to electric equipment is feasible in a relatively short term. The transportation fleet and biofuels are going to be a fact of life for a while, producing them with renewable energy is a big step forward. Solar/Nuke/Hydro generated NH3 or even cracking coal gas rather than NG is also a relatively short timeline implementable solution. Converting mining trucks to battery swap electrics and rail to plug-in hybrids can also be done.
All that these solutions will take is for the price of oil/diesel to take a few more big jumps and it will make economic sense for these industries to move away from diesel.
OK,
That reply made no sense at all. For example:
1. If they don’t invest, global production goes down & price goes up. It will hurt everybody … but the importers most of all.
The importers will simply have to pay more for the priviledge. The exporter who failed to make the necessary investment would be left with NO income. Which hurts more: expensive oil or NO income?
2. The EU today is by far the world’s largest fossil fuel importer — including much oil & non-fungible gas from Russia. So much for the benefits of high taxes!
Here’s the benefit you seem to be missing: Europeans use about half the oil Americans use. The fact that that still leaves them importing much of their energy just shows how much energy we all use.
3. Carbon taxes are a step in the wrong direction.
Huh? Carbon taxes would make fossil fuels more expensive, and alternatives cheaper by comparison, thus meeting your requirement for lower cost.
Carbon taxes would also reduce overall demand, thereby increasing system wide efficiency. The reduced demand would be a key part of enabling renewable energy to meet demand.
4. After all, Mercedes-Benz & Airbus would be worthless without those exporters’ oil.
As recent reports from Venezuela confirms, it is PDVSA that would be worthless if it were to stop exporting oil.
Keep watching Venezuela, Kin, it is going to prove very educational!
At least word is getting out. Took a while, but even the MSM is getting there. Here’s the New York Times having a go at the stupidity of FOOD -> FUEL in an editorial.
I gotta agree with RR again. Maybe I will just become an RR acolyte.
I also agree that energy independence — or at least getting a lot closer to it — is a great idea.
There are always naysayers who cannot see beyond the status quo. Of course, with PHEVs, and cellulosics, we can radically reduce our demand for crude oil, and this imported oil.
If we spent $1 trillion on such a goal, we would obtain it.
$1 trillion? We just spent that in Iraq, so don’t say we can’t afford it.
optimist wrote:
That reply made no sense at all.
That’s OK. Some seeds fall on stony ground.
You really didn’t get Simmons argument about decline rates, did you? If the handful of major exporters choose not to invest continuously in new wells & facilities, oil production declines. Does not go to zero immediately — simply drops 5 – 10% every year. Supply/demand means that price goes up. If price goes up 5 – 10%, exporters have as much income as before, while importers are in a world of hurt.
And remember those Sovereign Wealth Funds that people talk about? That’s the big OPEC exporters too. They can endure the pain longer than the importers.
On one level, you are right. Exporters need to export oil as much as importers need to import it. That’s why even Chavez, the socialist dictator of Venezuela, continues to sell oil to the evil US. But the key exporters have a bit less urgency about selling than the importers have about buying.
The tectonic plates of the economic world are moving. China makes the high-tech gear, Iran builds nuclear weapons, and economic development in the Middle East passes comprehension. Europe & North America have been coasting for the last few decades, while other parts of the world have been accelerating into the future. Hence Robert Rapier’s recent surprise that Dubai is building the first carbon-free city. The West is just not where it’s at anymore.
But while some things change, other don’t. No society in history has ever taxed its way to prosperity or mandated its way to technological breakthroughs. There is no reason to expect that carbon taxes or “renewable” mandates will break that trend.
I hope the book is a lot better than his editorial. His “five myths” arguments are shallow and/or disingenuous.
1. Energy independence will reduce or eliminate terrorism
Nice strawman. It’s about making us less of a target, which we become when we prop up despots to keep the oil flowing. And why does it matter that we buy some oil from Canada and Mexico? He later admits oil is a global commodity. It’s not where we buy that matters, it’s how much.
2. A big push for alternative fuels will break our oil addiction.
He only addresses biofuels, completely ignoring electricity. A silly omission since major carmakers say future drive trains will be electric.
3. Energy independence will let America choke off the flow of money to nasty countries.
His dumbest argument yet. We buy 30% of exported oil. Removing that demand won’t impact the supply/demand balance and reduce oil exporter revenues? Sheesh.
Many hostile countries rely on oil exports. We are the largest buyer of oil exports. If we stop buying it hurts them. It’s not a difficult concept.
4. Energy independence will mean reform in the Muslim world.
OK, I agree this statement is not correct. But it’s hardly a “myth” since no one (except Friedman) promulgates it.
5. Energy independence will mean a more secure U.S. energy supply.
Of course it will. The US relies on imports for only one energy source — oil. Imported oil exclusively fuels one sector of our economy — transport. Electrifying our transport sector diversifies its energy sources from imported oil to domestic coal, natgas, nuclear, wind, hydro, etc. A multitude of domestic energy sources is dramatically more secure than a single foreign source. Only a fool would argue otherwise.
He later admits oil is a global commodity. It’s not where we buy that matters, it’s how much.
His view there – and this permeates throughout multiple lines of argumentation (choking off oil flow to nasty countries, improving efficiency, increasing fossil fuel taxes) – is that it won’t matter for long as strong growth around the world means we can’t possibly hope to dent the flow of cash into those countries. Bryce believes that any oil we save will be gobbled up, which is why he has taken the position he has on carbon taxes and efficiency. I don’t agree with his arguments there. He could be right, but still, I prefer to see the U.S. in a more secure energy position. I don’t think the position we are in now is desirable.
Cheers, RR
My post yesterday about prediction was a ramble. The shortest way to recast it is “we are IN an energy transition.”
Some of the reasons are dumb and some of the solutions are dumb, but this is clearly not status-quo.
The “race condition” is how current change will meet future events. That is unknown.
I prefer to see the U.S. in a more secure energy position. I don’t think the position we are in now is desirable.
Agreed, wholeheartedly! The obvious way to get to a more robust energy position would be to have other energy sources which are lower cost than oil.
The problem with current political discussion is that it ignores the need to provide energy more cost-effectively. And so ‘alternate energy’ descends into just another Rob Peter/Pay Paul lobbyist extravaganza, where ordinary people are the losers.
Sensible policy would be:
(a) eliminate subsidies (direct & indirect) and mandates.
(b) support multiple lines of research seeking self-standing cost-competitive technological breakthroughs.
(c) lower regulatory barriers to large-scale energy sources.
(d) as an interim measure, expand domestic fossil & nuclear energy production.
He only addresses biofuels, completely ignoring electricity. A silly omission since major carmakers say future drive trains will be electric.
And where does the electricity come from?
I agree with everything doggydogworld said. In fact, this book is just stupid. I say that having not read a word, but I felt like saying it.
Scientific American magazibe says we can go solar for $400 bil. That’s about 40 percent of what we spent in Iraq…just so far.
PHEVs can mean radical reductions in oil demand.
Surely, radically reduced imports translates into greater energy security.
4. Energy independence will mean reform in the Muslim world.
OK, I agree this statement is not correct. But it’s hardly a “myth” since no one (except Friedman) promulgates it.
I tend to agree with Friedman on that one (has anyone here read Friedman’s columns on the topic?). In the late 90s, even Iran showed some encouraging signs of reform. Anybody remember their moderate president Mohammed Khatami? Compare him to the current madman. Same thing happened in Russia. Oil money allows these countries maintain the corrupt status quo. In Saudi Arabia Uncle Sam works hard to help the corrupt House of Saud stay in power. No wonder then that many young Saudis are extremely angry with us.
5. Energy independence will mean a more secure U.S. energy supply.
Of course it will.
I think two issues are getting confused here: energy independence and energy diversity. At the rate that the US uses energy I think energy independence is a pipe dream. And that should not be a problem, as long as you acknowledge it, and plan accordingly. The US would not try to be steel independent, or manufacturing independent. Why chase the unattainable goal of energy independence?
Energy diversity is a good way to minimize the risks of a supply interruption. The more suppliers (and types of supply) you have, the less likely an interruption from one supplier is going to hurt you.
Conclusion: buy all the ethanol that Brazil will sell us, among other things.
That’s OK. Some seeds fall on stony ground.
Gotta love that conservative confidence! Cute!
On one level, you are right. Exporters need to export oil as much as importers need to import it.
No, there is a key difference. Most of the suppliers rely almost exclusively on oil. Notice how a low oil price destroyed the Soviet Union. These guys need to sell oil, because they (most of them, anyway) don’t produce anything else.
The importers depend on oil, but they do no depend on oil exclusively. That’s a key difference. Keep oil prices high, for a long time, and the importers will learn to use much less of it. As Benny “peak demand” keeps reminding us, it happened before and it will happen again.
The tectonic plates of the economic world are moving.
True. We seem to disagree on the way they are moving, though.
China makes the high-tech gear, Iran builds nuclear weapons, and economic development in the Middle East passes comprehension.
China makes high-tech? LOL! You must have meant India makes high-tech gear. China makes the low-tech gear, and do so by exploiting its peasants. It works for a while. And then you get rebellion. Mark my words.
For Benny:
Stiglitz Says Iraq War Totally Financed With Borrowing
Mar. 3 (Bloomberg) — Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel economics laureate, and Linda Bilmes, a researcher at Harvard University, spoke with Bloomberg’s Tom Keene in New York on Feb. 29 about their new book “The Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict,” funding for the war, and the implications for veterans and future generations of Americans.
Podcast here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/tvradio/podcast/ontheeconomy.html
Straight to the mp3:
http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/BBRECON/vO23Y4_fCA5w.mp3
“on the economy” is a pretty good feed, BTW
(on the other does “energy independence” make more sense as simply the converse of “energy dependence?”)
Stiglitz Says Iraq War Totally Financed With Borrowing
<drumroll…..rimshot>
$100 oil, $4 gas
(just check supply/demand when it was $50 oil/$2 gas)
Oh yeah, and these guys have done a remarkable job of pushing up oil futures while generating blogads revenue.
“EIA Administrator Guy Caruso on Tuesday predicted crude prices will fall to $57 a barrel by 2016 as exploration and development expands, bringing new supplies to the market.”
you can’t be serious! is this guy getting paid to say this?
CTA:
Read the WSJ today, and editorial by Nansen G Saleri. He absolutely crushes the Peak Oil crowd.
Oil may not only hit $57 a barrel, it may hit $20 a barrel, and in just a few years.
Due to a speculative bubble, we might even see a lower price than that, in something of a reverse spike. When all the speculative taders in oil face a lsoing season, they will have to dump their positions..and who to sell to?
Read the WSJ today, and editorial by Nansen G Saleri. He absolutely crushes the Peak Oil crowd.
Don’t think so. It is always good to see someone advance less popular arguments — helps guard against complacency. But Mr. Saleri misses a few points.
First, he treats all barrels as equal — a barrel of Enhanced Oil Recovery oil or tar sand oil is worth as much in his accounting as a barrel of flush production from a new conventional oil field.
This completely ignores the “Net Energy” issue — the production process might take only 1% of the energy in a barrel of flush production, whereas it might take 50% of the energy in a barrel from the tar sands. This has a big effect on gross energy demand, which therefore tends to be underestimated.
Second, Mr. Saleri assumes that recovery factors will be much higher in the future. That is really not probable, because of the realities of the physical forces trapping residual oil globules in microscopic pores in rock. Where Enhanced Oil Recovery is possible, it runs into the same “Net Energy” issue of the energy demand for energy production.
Interesting that the former head of reservoir engineering in Saudi Aramco now is CEO of a Houston company. What does that say about opportunities for improved oil recovery back home in Saudi Arabia?
And where does the electricity come from?
Not from madrassa-funding despots.
I want it to come from wind, since that’s our cheapest source of electricity. Intermittency doesn’t bother smart PHEVs and wind gets us CO2 brownie points. Scale is not an issue; we’re on track to be installing more wind than PHEVs will require by about 2013.
Kinua:
I wonder — but, Saleri makes sense braodly. We are getting better, not worse, at extraction. Therefore, greater percentages are recoverable from any particular field.
I still think the huge, huge, huge story — bigger even than Paris Hilton — is that crude oil demand is falling. At these prices, we have seen Peak Demand. I suspect it wll fall faster than production (actually, even some doomers say production will keep rising towards 95-100 mbd).
In 2007, Californians used less, not more, gasoline, than in 2006.
No onwder OPEC is thinking about cutting production.
Yeah, yeah, Peak Oil. It is so peak that OPEC is cutting production, even while Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Venezuela, Libya, and Mexico are run by thugs and lunatics, and production is falling due to sheer stupidity.
It is Thug Oil.
In 2007, Californians used less, not more, gasoline, than in 2006.
California is a crying shame. One of the greatest spots on the face of the planet — ruined by the people who live there.
Californians have ruined their economy with high taxes, with enviro-extremism, and with more resource-consuming lawyers than they have any need for. Of course Californians are using less gasoline … that will happen when people destroy their economy.
But look at the bigger picture. Global demand for oil has been on an upward trend since the end of World War II, albeit with a few bumps along the way. California is history. China & India are the future — and their growth in energy demand is far from over.
Hmmm. I get 50 mpg, and make more money than I did when I got 25 mpg … and certainly more than when I got 14 mpg.
How can that be K?
Shouldn’t I be ruined by my loss of energy?
A good article on commodity prices:
“The strength of demand in emerging economies does not entirely explain the rise in commodity prices. Mandates to produce biofuels have also had an impact on demand for some agricultural commodities. Also important have been constraints on supply: bad harvests, inadequate investment and higher costs. The rising price of energy is itself a big reason why agricultural production has become far more expensive. Speculation seems not to be that important. If it were, inventories would be soaring. But they are not.”
Well, “good” in the sense that it reinforces my belief that bifuels, while a contributor, are not necessarily a principle cause.
Forget about wind, solar.
Ocean wave energy has the best factors. Read this overview:
http://oceanenergy.epri.com/attachments/ocean/reports/WGA_Ocean_Energy_White_Paper_12-15-05.pdf
The strategy almost all current attempts to convert wave energy into electricity embrace is wrong. That strategy is to convert as soon as possible the wave motion to electricity. By analogy, imagine hydropower done by gathering rain in one-hundred foot diameter pools, and running little generators from each pool! It would be laughable. Look at the necessary scale for hydropower to be an effective contributer. The same scale is needed for wave energy.
In addition, instead of “robot war” competitions, there should be some serious “offshore robotic” work going on. Sure, there is some, but compared to… take your pick! Laughably small. All offshore work will have to be done by robots, not humans, if wave energy conversion is to be viable.
I am convinced it will be viable over wind, solar, and eventually, hydro and petroleum-based energy. But right now, the ocean wave energy business is about where commercial air travel was in 1930.
Yes, but…
I just don’t understand how any sentient North American can accept the fact that the source of our energy is countries whose religious infrastructure publicly calls for our DEATH. They want us IN THE GROUND.
If our economy depends on Middle East oil, then calls to accept this situation, and deal with energy “interdependence”, are the equivalent of closing your eyes at a murder.
To ATTEMPT anything less than total freedom from this tyranny is irresponsible because islam is not going to change anytime soon.
“Interdependence” is just another word for serfdom.
Either convert to islam or produce alternative technology… no matter what the damn experts say.
Yes, but…
I just don’t understand how any sentient North American can accept the fact that the source of our energy is countries whose religious infrastructure publicly calls for our death. They want us IN THE GROUND.
If our economy depends on Middle East oil, then calls to accept this situation, and deal with energy “interdependence”, are the equivalent of closing your eyes at a murder.
To attempt anything less than total freedom from this tyranny is absurd because islam is not going to change anytime soon.
“Interdependence” is just another word for serfdom.
Either convert to islam or produce alternative technology… no matter what the damn experts say.
Energy “interdependence” is the idea of an oil expert with a vested interest in buying oil from the middle east. Don’t be fooled by his proclamations of objectivity. You want objectivity? Just follow the gusher of money from the oil companies to the bank account of our intrepid author.
Accepting the insecurity of islamic radicalism/terror in the name of energy “interdependence” is positively gutless behavior. It’s appeasement. Are we men… or what?
Just as soon as you say something can’t be done… well, you know the rest.
With options like nuclear, wind, solar, tidal and deep sea methane, there is NO WAY to label energy “interdependence” as anything but a coward’s way out of a difficult conumdrum, in my not so humble opinion…