Save and Conserve

In a post last week that discussed a survey showing that Americans think we have a LOT more oil in the US than we actually do (we actually have less than 3% of total proved world oil reserves), some commenters mentioned that we have billions of barrels trapped in shale rock and therefore we have more reserves than the 3% of proved figure would indicate.

This is madness. The oil shale reserves, if you can call them that with a straight face, are not liquid. They are hydrocarbons trapped in rock. In order to turn them into liquid, you have to apply lots of heat to accelerate the reaction process that occurs over millions of years in nature.

A Denver Post article explains how low oil companies (and by extension, the American people who drive demand) are willing to go to get another massive oil fix:

Chevron scientists are working with researchers at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico to determine which chemicals work best for converting shale to crude oil.

Shell engineers are burying hundreds of steel rods 2,000 feet underground that will heat the shale to 700 degrees Fahrenheit, a temperature at which Teflon melts.

The heat will be applied for the next four years to convert the hydrocarbons from dead plants and plankton, once part of a prehistoric lake, into high-quality crude that is equal parts jet fuel, diesel and naphtha, the main ingredient in gasoline.

Irving, Texas-based Exxon Mobil plans to shoot particles of petroleum coke, a waste byproduct of oil refining, into cracks in the shale. The coke will be electrically charged to create a subterranean hot plate that will cook the shale until it turns into crude. The company declined to discuss the progress of its oil-shale tests.

Raytheon Co., the maker of Tomahawk missiles and the first microwave ovens, is developing a process that would use radio waves to cook the shale.

I'd love to know what type of energy input it would take to inject and then heat hundreds of steel rods deep underground for four years. Oil shale is totally unproven and appears to be completely and utterly insane. What's most disgusting though is the tone of the article. It doesn't question the logic of heating shale in situ over the course of years. It doesn't stop to ask: Is this the best option? It just wraps up with a blurb about potential ROI bla bla bla.

Sick.

Posted by tom c. at 10:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

How leveraged against petroleum is our first world society? The short answer is: very. Two lists of petroleum-based products follow below. Reminds me very much of that scene from Kentucky Fried Movie when the housewife realizes how important zinc oxide is to her daily routine ...

First list found on Ranken-energy.com:

ammonia
anesthetics
antifreeze
antihistamines
antiseptics
artificial limbs
artificial turf
aspirin
awnings
balloons
ballpoint pens
bandages
basketballs
bearing grease
bicycle tires
boats
cameras
candles
car battery cases
car enamel
cassettes
caulking
cd player
cd's
clothes
clothesline
cold cream
combs
cortisone
crayons
curtains
dashboards
denture adhesive
dentures
deodorant
detergents
dice
diesel
dishes
dishwasher
dresses
drinking cups
dyes
electric blankets
electrician's tape
enamel
epoxy
eyeglasses
fan belts
faucet washers
fertilizers
fishing boots
fishing lures
fishing rods
floor wax
folding doors
food preservatives
football cleats
football helmets
footballs
footballs
gasoline
glycerin
golf bags
golf balls
guitar strings
hair coloring
hair curlers
hand lotion
heart valves
house paint
ice chests
ice cube trays
ink
insect repellent
insecticides
life jackets
linings
linoleum
lipstick
luggage
model cars
mops
motor oil
motorcycle helmet
movie film
nail polish
nylon rope
oil filters
paint
paint brushes
paint rollers
panty hose
parachutes
percolators
perfumes
petroleum jelly
pillows
plastic wood
purses
putty
refrigerant
refrigerators
roller skates
roofing
rubber cement
rubbing alcohol
safety glasses
shag rugs
shampoo
shaving cream
shoe polish
shoes
shower curtains
skis
slacks
soap
soft contact lenses
solvents
speakers
sports car bodies
sun glasses
surf boards
sweaters
synthetic rubber
telephones
tennis rackets
tents
tires
toilet seats
tool boxes
tool racks
toothbrushes
toothpaste
transparent tape
trash bags
tv cabinets
umbrellas
upholstery
vaporizers
vitamin capsules
water pipes
wheels
yarn

Second list found on Gasprices-usa.com:

air conditioners
ammonia
anti-histamines
antiseptics
artificial turf
asphalt
aspirin
balloons
bandages
boats
bottles
bras
bubble gum
butane
cameras
candles
car batteries
car bodies
carpet
cassette tapes
caulking
cds
chewing gum
combs/brushes
computers
contacts
cortisone
crayons
cream
denture adhesives
deodorant
detergents
dice
dishwashing liquid
dresses
dryers
electric blankets
electrician’s tape
fertilizers
fishing lures
fishing rods
floor wax
footballs
glues
glycerin
golf balls
guitar strings
hair
hair coloring
hair curlers
hearing aids
heart valves
heating oil
house paint
ice chests
ink
insect repellent
insulation
jet fuel
life jackets
linoleum
lip balm
lipstick
loudspeakers
medicines
mops
motor oil
motorcycle helmets
movie film
nail polish
oil filters
paddles
paint brushes
paints
parachutes
paraffin
pens
perfumes
petroleum jelly
plastic chairs
plastic cups
plastic forks
plastic wrap
plastics
plywood adhesives
refrigerators
roller-skate wheels
roofing paper
rubber bands
rubber boots
rubber cement
rubbish bags
running shoes
saccharine
seals
shirts (non-cotton)
shoe polish
shoes
shower curtains
solvents
spectacles
stereos
sweaters
table tennis balls
tape recorders
telephones
tennis rackets
thermos
tights
toilet seats
toners
toothpaste
transparencies
transparent tape
tv cabinets
typewriter/computer ribbons
tires
umbrellas
upholstery
vaporizers
vitamin capsules
volleyballs
water pipes
water skis
wax
wax paper

Posted by tom c. at 10:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Although I shouldn't be, I find myself continually astounded by the results of surveys and polls here in the USA. The most recent one, conducted by the Consumer Federation of America, is a case study on misconceived notions, assumptions, and perceptions about America's relationship with black gold:

More than half (55%) of Americans mistakenly believe the nation holds more than twenty percent of the world’s oil reserves. In fact, the U.S. has less than 3% of this oil. Those who overestimate domestic oil reserves also are most likely to think “we can produce enough oil to reduce our dependence on oil imports.”

Slightly more than half of Americans (51%) think "we can produce enough new oil in the U.S. to reduce our dependence on oil imports,” with 46% disagreeing.

This optimism is clearly related to the widespread belief that the nation contains far larger oil reserves than it in fact has. More than half (55%) of Americans think we hold at least one-fifth of the world's oil, with nearly one-third (32%) thinking we hold over 30%. Only 3% of Americans think that we hold less than 5% of the world's oil reserves, which is the correct answer, since the nation holds less than 3% of the world's oil reserves.

Domestic U.S. oil reserves equal just three years of current annual U.S. consumption and 12 years of current annual U.S. production.

I guess the obvious question is: why do so many Americans think we have so much oil in this country? Where do they get this stuff from? Why are they so wrong?

Posted by tom c. at 9:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (8)

The sub-headline for this WaPo article on the influence of gas prices on driver's behavior is "Confounding the Experts, A Poll Finds Prices Must Go Way Higher to Alter Driving".

Why are the experts surprised that gasoline demand is basically inelastic? I thought they were the so-called experts, yet they seem to miss the fact that American daily life is utterly tied to the automobile. People don't move around on public transportation. They don't walk or cycle. They jump in their car and drive, Mr. Expert!

I doubt that a tipping point exists at $4/gallon either. If gas prices continue to rise, consumers will consume less of other stuff. They won't stop buying gas because that would mean they stop their life.

The media coverage of gas prices is already starting to annoy the hell out of me. Congress wants to blame oil companies. Right wingers want to blame environmentalists for preventing refinery construction. Nobody is talking about the real problems: tight energy supply and US car culture.

Posted by tom c. at 9:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The New York Times Magazine last Sunday was all about the environmental movement. The elite are going green ... too bad the herd hasn't caught on yet.

The McPaper is reporting that drivers cut back on the number of miles driven for the first time in 26 years! The reasons for the downshift? They cite soaring gas prices, re-energized urban communities, and old people. Huh?

Interesting piece about a NASA-developed plasma torch oven that cooks garbage to more than 10k degrees F and outputs gases that can be used to power turbines and produce electricity. Shit fire! But wait ... what powers the 10,000 degree plasma torch? Flux capacitor?

And finally, pretty neat looking rain catch barrels from a dude named Aaron. Love that Whisky Barrel. If you're in the market and looking to conserve use of water, this site is worth checking out.

Posted by tom c. at 7:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saving money is like so 1982. Why save when I still have over $1000 available credit on all of my cards? It doesn't like make sense to not buy stuff or travel to like see friends just for trying to save some spare money. I just transfer my balances around to whoever offers the lowest rate. It's all good ...

Is it now?

• In 2006, the [credit card] industry mailed out nearly 8 billion credit card offers, up from 3.5 billion in 2000.
• Credit card debt, less than $8 billion in 1968 (in current dollars), now exceeds $880 billion, more than tripling since 1988, adjusting for inflation, according to the Federal Reserve Bank.
• Penalty fees alone cost consumers $17.1 billion in 2006 — up from $12.8 billion in 2003, adjusted for inflation, according to R. K. Hammer, a bank card advisory firm.
• At the same time, as banks have moved from fixed interest rates to variable rates, the ability of borrowers like the Moellerings to move balances from one card to another, or from credit cards to lower-interest home equity loans, can have as much impact on their finances as whether they get a raise or trim household expenses, said Greg McBride, senior financial analyst at Bankrate.com.
• But the array of loans has become so complicated that many consumers fail to understand the different interest rates, financing charges and penalties they now face, Ms. Perry said.

Posted by tom c. at 11:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Lately, I've been thinking a lot about personal carbon footprints. In my own case, my footprint is probably below average ... I rarely fly, I commute 12 miles one way in a Honda Accord, and I make an effort to use public transportation when possible. I also like to cycle and think walkable communities make great sense for both reduction of energy consumption and improvement of personal health.

When that news came out about Gore's electric bill a few months back, I was pretty pissed. I understand that an international figurehead like Al Gore is going to burn through a lot of fossil fuel as he globe trots - he is spreading the global warming message so that seems like an acceptable trade. But, at the same time, it doesn't sound like he's made a personal commitment to lowering his carbon footprint outside of his public, professional life. That rubs me the wrong way.

I recently booked honeymoon tickets for Hawaii and I actually felt a twinge of guilt because I thought about the huge amount of jet fuel those flights would consume (New York to Phoenix to Hawaii). On the other hand, my guilt strikes me as pretty unwarranted. In the grand scheme of things, my honeymoon trip isn't going to make an ounce of difference. Maybe. Or maybe not? Hard to know.

Well, after reading this Forbes article about ChIndias ever-increasing appetite for coal-fed power plants, I think I have a better sense for the answer.

Here's a few lines from that report, if you don't feel like clicking through ...

Coal consumption in China and India is forecast to increase by 3% a year between 2006 and 2030, compared with an increase of 0.6% a year for the developed countries that belong to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, according to S&P analysts.

India doesn’t believe it has contributed to excessive greenhouse gases and wants developed countries to explicitly address the issue before it does anything, the report says.

Much of its expected growth will come from the Indian government's plans to add about 100,000 megawatts to the country's existing installed capacity of about 140,000 MW to meet its goal of "power for all" by 2012. "To meet this target, the government has proposed at least seven coal-fired ‘ultra-mega power’ projects,” S&P said.

Yeah ... I don't think I really need to worry. Maybe Gore was onto something.

Posted by tom c. at 5:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

It's a good thing that the US is seriously ramping up its solar manufacturing capabilities, because the military is starting to get renewable religion.

Nellis Air Force base outside of Las Vegas has broken ground on the largest solar power system in North America. That's right ... your military might not be able to win the war against terrorism, but you can be comforted by knowing they have the smarts to install 70,000 (sun-tracking) solar panels over 140 acres of heretofore unused Nevada desert.

By the time the system is installed and pumping electric current to (likely thousands) of inverters, Nellis will be generating up to 25% of its electricity needs during the summer months. I shudder to think what a system like this will cost to install.

Posted by tom c. at 1:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Now that it's become common knowledge that the Earth's poles are melting rapidly and undergoing dramatic ecological shifts, tourism is booming (at least near the North pole).

I'm not sure how to react.

On the one hand, I'm disheartened to hear that people want ringside seats to view their own destruction. Do they see the irony in their actions: likely concerned about climate change, they proceed to take a long, unnecessary journey that increases their personal carbon footprint and contributes to the problem? Maybe while they're up North they should get real close to a melting berg and look at the reflection.

On the other hand, we're only human. And that means we're inherently curious, thoughtful types. How could we be expected to ignore radical climate change? On the x axis of Earth time, this is a pretty rare event indeed and deserving of a closer look.

Not that it matters. This type of thing is inevitable. People with money to burn will continue to travel guilt-free for the next 50 years. They'll purchase 'carbon offsets' and come home with fantastic stories and digital cameras loaded with spectacular images of the melting. I hate to point fingers at these people, but something feels wrong with this.

Posted by tom c. at 9:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

What's next?

Posted by tom c. at 9:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

When that bridge connecting two major Interstates in the Bay Area burned down last Sunday, a lot of people initially figured that commuters would be looking at hours of extra time spent finding new routes on over-stuffed roads. As if the normal grind of a stop and go commute isn't bad enough, imagine what happens when a key link in the chain breaks. Can't blame people for assuming the worst.

But that's not what happened this week.

SFist was on the scene early Monday morning with this report:

Reports are that traffic into the maze was light, as probably everyone who commutes over the Bay Bridge, their dogs, and their fish knows what happened. It's still early yet so we'll see what happens tonight and until the overpass gets fixed.

Californian officials turned to the public transportation system, and a lot of the people who normally drive to work opted for mass transit. Nice story, in my opinion. A lot of people making a lot of smart decisions, all of which added up to a pleasant surprise: there were no horrible traffic snarls and commute times were actually lower than the norm:

Traffic congestion was down Monday and Tuesday. The amount of time drivers were stuck in traffic moving slower than 60 mph was down 8 percent around the entire Bay Area, according to Caltrans data. Congestion on Oakland freeways, meanwhile, was down by more than 50 percent, the data showed.

The transit system managed to set a ridership record:

BART ridership, meanwhile, spiked dramatically, hitting an all-time record on Tuesday. The number of BART commuters was up 10.4 percent Tuesday and 5.2 percent Wednesday morning; no figure was available for Monday, when fares were waived.

You can see in that limited amount of data, however, that the amount of extra people riding BART was already declining by Wednesday. That's unfortunate. This not-so-little behavioral experiment, necessitated by a freak accident that melted a steel overpass (ie disaster), was a perfect case study on the relationship between mass transit usage in a major metropolitan area and car-based commute times. Just 5 or 10 percent more people riding BART eased commute times significantly. It's shockingly obvious that mass transit is the answer to many of our issues in this country.

Not only does it get people to work faster on average, it means less consumption of gas and less spewing of emissions. With the repair on the overpass looking to take longer than originally thought, let's hope those NoCals keep making smart decisions. Maybe the whole country will learn something from this, put on the thinking caps, and figure out how to make mass transit a better, more enticing option.

Posted by tom c. at 1:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)