tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6199410.comments2023-12-27T08:02:59.927-05:00Energy OutlookGeoffrey Styleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18047970229068397492noreply@blogger.comBlogger486125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6199410.post-11143638365610862732019-04-03T00:12:01.075-04:002019-04-03T00:12:01.075-04:00You said "But rather than focusing on the stu...You said "But rather than focusing on the stupendous potential of fusion energy and whether this device might finally be the one to deliver on it, I'm more interested in what our dogged pursuit of this technology through decades of frustratingly slow progress says about our collective view of our current energy sources. How much of the search for fusion springs from its inherent value, and how much from our dissatisfaction with every other long-term energy option we possess?"<br /><br />Mankind came into possession of a practical way of generating energy from fusion over 50 years ago with the Ivy-Mike nuclear test of 1952 that produced fusion energy from pure Deuterium via DD fusion while using nuclear fission to reliably bring Deuterium fusion plasma to fusion conditions.<br />There is an existing practical fusion technology that efficiently produces large industrially significant amounts of fusion energy on demand - we just do not choose to develop it and commercially use it.<br /><br />Additional information on a practical proven approach to production of fusion energy.<br /><br />Why is nuclear fusion still not working?<br />https://www.quora.com/Why-is-nuclear-fusion-still-not-working/answer/Robert-Steinhaus<br /><br />by Robert Steinhaus, former Little Guy in LLNL Field Test Division at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1974-2008)<br />friend2allhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10529794368891789578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6199410.post-67585417933206424862017-09-20T09:29:13.335-04:002017-09-20T09:29:13.335-04:00Evan,
Thanks for your comments. Always great to he...Evan,<br />Thanks for your comments. Always great to hear from those working on these things. <br /><br />I would have thought we have plenty of CO2 from power plants, other than the problem that most of it is pretty dilute and/or contains impurities that catalysts don't like.<br /><br />Geoffrey Styleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18047970229068397492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6199410.post-72210518873457340882017-09-19T12:53:35.266-04:002017-09-19T12:53:35.266-04:00This is a great blog! It's refreshing to read...This is a great blog! It's refreshing to read a viewpoint unbiased by propoganda motivated by politics and sales-and from someone with experience. I've recently been working on a team developing fuel cell and fuel processing systems, etc. Like many, I've recently been thinking on the energy storage issue to better harness the growing renewable electrical grid. Being in the SOFC business, the market seems to want Hydrogen from us, but I can't help but wonder how this H2 is going to be used, stored, how far away, etc. In my search for applications, I've come across a lot of seemingly desperate storage ideas from batteries, thermal molten salt, mechanics, Ammonia, hydrogen, etc. I have decided to limit my focus to Mother Nature's favorite long shelf life, mass transportable method of energy storage-the fatty C-H bond. Many synthetic hydrocarbon technologies seem to rely upon ingredients which suggest an overall concept of un-combustion, which is great if the energy is free(renewable). I love the example of Audi's SNG plant, which claims to harness Germany's excess wind power to deliver SNG at ~70% efficiency. Is this plant still working well? If only we had more plentiful supplies of CO2.....evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02893028910810951842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6199410.post-4352632758034773622017-07-26T22:41:23.486-04:002017-07-26T22:41:23.486-04:00Thank you for your reply. The Citizens' Clima...Thank you for your reply. The Citizens' Climate Lobby carbon fee and dividend has a much lower starting price ($15/ton), but increases it each year by 10/ton, so more gradually than the CLC proposal. CCL also has border taxes and a full dividend. Yes, many devils in the details of the border tax adjustment, such as maybe being a non-starter! You may be right that tax reform is where we will see a carbon tax brought in - hard to imagine our reps ignoring an enormous source of revenue and keeping it separate from other objectives. And tax reform is probably the most economically efficient, though not as transparent and simple as the dividend. The bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus in the House is building (25 R and 25 D) and hopefully will be a place where these negotiations will be taking place. I encourage you to keep covering this topic. Thank you again, JenniferAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06826940626594045623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6199410.post-80744610581519829902017-07-19T09:43:35.468-04:002017-07-19T09:43:35.468-04:00Jennifer,
Sorry for the tardy reply. The "tax...Jennifer,<br />Sorry for the tardy reply. The "tax & dividend" approach is much cleaner than the kind of cap & trade bill the House of Representatives passed in 2009, but the Senate let die. Requiring the government to refund all the proceeds eliminates massive temptation for pork and boondoggles. However, the devil is always in the details. I haven't gone over this proposal sufficiently to weigh in, other than my strong sense that $40/ton is too high a starting point. <br /><br />That translates to roughly $0.40/gal. of gasoline and diesel, and $0.04/kWh on electricity. That's enough to erase much of the competitive edge that low energy prices are giving the US economy. Yes, border adjustments might compensate, but they are tricky and hardly a sure thing to pass--witness the controversy over the border tax idea floated by the Trump administration in early discussions on broader tax reform.<br /><br />Overall, I imagine the best chance for some kind of carbon tax would be within the scope of tax reform that addresses the whole system, corporate and personal. Geoffrey Styleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18047970229068397492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6199410.post-83323257272278435932017-07-05T20:58:37.169-04:002017-07-05T20:58:37.169-04:00This is an interesting write-up. And looking at t...This is an interesting write-up. And looking at this five years out gives me even more pause on signing up.<br /><br />I'm now offered a price of $.497 / Therm. While they notice that the prices have gone up since January.. I'm thinking the over-all, year on year trend has been down. Something I could probably look up, but this seems to justify it. <br /><br />Thinking I'm just going to stay put. Thanks for the time you put in to this. It's a good read.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6199410.post-26205679265640357382017-06-23T06:32:43.197-04:002017-06-23T06:32:43.197-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07745641086261345559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6199410.post-39205954110679276342017-06-22T21:46:18.843-04:002017-06-22T21:46:18.843-04:00What do you think of the conservative Climate Lead...What do you think of the conservative Climate Leadership Council's carbon fee and dividend proposal? (The one proposed by Shultz, Baker, Halstead et al.). It has a steadily rising fee on emissions starting at $40/ton with 100% return of dividends to households in monthly checks. Also border tax adjustments coming and going to incentivize other countries to do the same and for domestic manufacturers to stay here.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06826940626594045623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6199410.post-33531131464889966172017-06-17T09:48:36.931-04:002017-06-17T09:48:36.931-04:00xavier,
My view used to be close to yours. However...xavier,<br />My view used to be close to yours. However, with the cost of renewable energy having fallen drastically since 2011 or so, channeling additional hundreds of billions of dollars to projects that, by their own developers' claims, can essentially stand on their own economics would just foster inefficiency and waste, while imposing a large drag on the rest of the economy. We can't lose sight of the fact that energy is only about 7% of GDP. The success of the economy as a whole is determined mainly by the other ~93%. Geoffrey Styleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18047970229068397492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6199410.post-21621719419379580842017-06-13T10:03:42.863-04:002017-06-13T10:03:42.863-04:00The quest for having organizations to "carbon...The quest for having organizations to "carbon Neutral" is a good idea only to the extent that the tax collected will be applied on initiatives aimed at mopping up excess carbon emittedxavierhttp://cessp.uonbi.ac.kenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6199410.post-5271717055431402162017-03-28T13:21:50.397-04:002017-03-28T13:21:50.397-04:00Mr. Morales,
Re "main revenue", as I not...Mr. Morales,<br />Re "main revenue", as I noted in the posting a carbon tax of $40/ton of CO2--probably higher than the likely acceptable initial level, nationally--would still only cover 8% of US federal spending. And that's assuming that a Congress of either party would be willing to treat this as a substitute for other revenue sources, rather than additive. You'd be looking at hundreds of dollars per ton to replace the personal income tax. Geoffrey Styleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18047970229068397492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6199410.post-51463717340850187312017-03-27T23:36:15.256-04:002017-03-27T23:36:15.256-04:00Carbon Tax is the good idea for government as thei...Carbon Tax is the good idea for government as their main revenue.<br />Eventually, the countries will be implement the carbon tax.Christian Moraleshttp://www.radicaltorque.com.aunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6199410.post-5472805946385350862017-02-19T07:59:32.500-05:002017-02-19T07:59:32.500-05:00Geoff,
The carbon tax is a "sin" tax; a...Geoff,<br /><br />The carbon tax is a "sin" tax; and, like all sin taxes, the rate must be increased as the sin is eradicated, to maintain the revenue stream.<br /><br />The border adjustments for imports from countries with lower carbon tax rates or no carbon tax would be both an accounting nightmare and a diplomatic nightmare, with ongoing disagreements over carbon content and effective tax rates.<br /><br />As a young child, I believed in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. However, as an aging gentleperson, I cannot believe in a revenue neutral tax.Ed Reidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6199410.post-79306677676802558472017-02-14T08:25:37.547-05:002017-02-14T08:25:37.547-05:00Excellent question, Strider. The long-term cost of...Excellent question, Strider. The long-term cost of inactivity in a highly technical part of the industry--for both careers and companies--is growing. HR managers have been talking about the "big crew change" for years, but how many expected it to look like this? Offshore, in particular, won't bounce back quickly, because these are the highest cost projects with the most financial risk. <br /><br />The market wants to see that OPEC's cuts and growing demand deliver sustained inventory draw-downs before moving much higher, while other players are betting that the modest recovery in US tight oil drilling will lead to another collapse like 2014. The missing ingredient right now is new demand, and the door for exports was opened a year before Trump took office. Can the Permian Basin outcompete the North Sea and W. Africa for global buyers? Geoffrey Styleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18047970229068397492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6199410.post-36955453196308334622017-02-14T07:53:07.551-05:002017-02-14T07:53:07.551-05:00Colleagues (in the oil patch) from southern states...Colleagues (in the oil patch) from southern states believed all stacked rigs would miraculously get back to work as soon as Trump stepped into the Oval office. I guess any recovery in oil prices will be attributed to Trump by gullible fools, irrespective of whether he has a hand in it or not. But what happens if all those unreal expectations aren't fulfilled?<br /><br />As of now, things look bleak, especially for service companies. Schlumberger employees in the field have already taken upto 40% pay cuts as contract rates offered by Oil Co's are close to the price of peanuts per pound. Offshore drilling contractors are willing to offer jack-up rigs for as little as $50k/day in places like India. Many have folded. Land rigs are stacked in the dessert, as far as the eye can see. Folks with 30+ years experience have been sitting at home for over a year. Recovery doesn't look anywhere on the horizon. I wonder how long the industry can endure such a long-drawn slowdown.Striderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10552223491763409699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6199410.post-8397771761298330812017-01-23T08:41:53.085-05:002017-01-23T08:41:53.085-05:00Thank youThank youBarn Alhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12409552911922469027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6199410.post-53453092010210463032016-12-02T16:09:11.565-05:002016-12-02T16:09:11.565-05:00fmb,
Excellent question, though I think we really ...fmb,<br />Excellent question, though I think we really have to differentiate sharply between oil sands and deepwater. The former is essentially a factory that, once built, can produce at the same output for decades, subject only to economics and takeaway capacity. <br /><br />Deepwater, by contrast, has the classic oil project financial structure, with a big investment up front, to be recouped in a relatively few years of peak production before decline takes over. And if that sweet spot happens to coincide with a major price dip, your economics never really recover. As such its projects are much more sensitive to future oil price level & timing than oil sands. <br /><br />Then there's shale. It doesn't just differ from these others in speed, but also in flexibility of scale. Oil sands and deepwater projects really only come in chunks denominated in billions, while shale can be done to suit a chosen budget. I see that as the biggest distinction for the next few years. How much risk will companies want to take on in big, deepwater-type projects until there's a lot more clarity about the future price trajectory? That's probably a function of resource scale. If you have a Johan Sverdrup-type super-giant reservoir that can make money (supposedly) at $25/bbl or so you'll do it. Geoffrey Styleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18047970229068397492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6199410.post-8065704427968322232016-12-02T15:54:28.465-05:002016-12-02T15:54:28.465-05:00Rod,
It seems pretty clear that drilling will reco...Rod,<br />It seems pretty clear that drilling will recover more gradually than the pace at which it was growing pre-oil-crash. Your point about the likely parallel recovery of service company pricing power is also a fair one. However, when you look at the trends in new-well productivity per rig across all the major shale regions, its clear that cheaper services were only part of the efficiency gains in the last two years. (See: http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/drilling/pdf/dpr-full.pdf)<br /><br />The industry has learned a lot about economically optimizing production and recovery in tight rock since OPEC turned on the taps after their 11/14 meeting. Some of that learning works against the leverage of the service companies, too. Longer laterals and many more frac zones mean fewer wells needed to get the same production--and thus fewer rigs, etc.<br /><br />There's a lot of equipment parked in dry places, waiting to be pressed back into service, but perhaps the biggest constraint will be in human resources. How many of the folks who were laid off in the last two years will want to come back and risk it all happening again if OPEC can't hold together, or if EVs take off fast enough to put a dent in demand? Geoffrey Styleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18047970229068397492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6199410.post-67345166353862248632016-12-02T12:59:01.021-05:002016-12-02T12:59:01.021-05:00Linked here from bloomberg. Interesting article.
...Linked here from bloomberg. Interesting article.<br /><br />You mention the other marginal producers like oil sands and deepwater at the end there in passing but I wonder what you think the outlook is for this type of production over the long term?<br /><br />North American shale/tight oil is the fastest to turn on and off, so it is certainly the most relevant to supply and demand in the near term. I suspect that oil sands can just kind of chug along although further new projects may be unlikely. But deepwater seems like it could end up the odd man out given that tight oil has a similar (though perhaps falling) cost structure but is much easier to ramp up or down. Any thoughts on this?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13382982479419912055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6199410.post-34382128729935549462016-12-02T10:18:06.822-05:002016-12-02T10:18:06.822-05:00Geoff:
I'm no so sure that the suppliers that...Geoff:<br /><br />I'm no so sure that the suppliers that shale companies will need in order to resume growing are going to be as willing to return as some observers assume.<br /><br />If some have dropped out of the business, they will regain pricing power as drilling activity increases.<br /><br />Some of the biggest gainers in response to the OPEC decision were service companies, which indicates that I am not the only one who thinks that the cost reductions achieved during downturn are not necessarily sustainable.<br /><br />Rod Adams<br />Publisher, Atomic InsightsRod Adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03652375336090790205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6199410.post-18060207980817652772016-11-18T07:31:16.543-05:002016-11-18T07:31:16.543-05:00Thanks, Ralph. The next four years seem certain to...Thanks, Ralph. The next four years seem certain to be quite different than the last eight for energy and environmental policy, but the details of how different are still emerging.Geoffrey Styleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18047970229068397492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6199410.post-41518222707573124132016-11-17T17:26:54.830-05:002016-11-17T17:26:54.830-05:00Geoff,
Your usual high quality review and insight...Geoff, <br />Your usual high quality review and insightful observations. Reading your blog clarifies these complex energy <br />issues as does nothing else in my extensive reading.<br />Ralph Allen<br />BeaconAdvisors<br />Ralph Allen, BeaconAdvisorsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6199410.post-37748127056781115582016-11-12T22:45:17.084-05:002016-11-12T22:45:17.084-05:00I have read from different sources that ethanol is...I have read from different sources that ethanol is a resourceful alternative to gasoline. Well, I decided to dig deeper, and I came across your article. The content is great. As much as it’s possible to make ethanol; are there any risk factors associated with process? The following article has also been helpful: <a href="http://survival-mastery.com/diy/how-to-make-ethanol.html" rel="nofollow">http://survival-mastery.com/diy/how-to-make-ethanol.html</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09391642745812486724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6199410.post-45495222049717095562016-10-28T05:06:17.867-04:002016-10-28T05:06:17.867-04:00ThanksThanksAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04571828795230778384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6199410.post-58581783736810404482016-10-04T08:55:00.859-04:002016-10-04T08:55:00.859-04:00This is late, but thank you. A clear eyed view of...This is late, but thank you. A clear eyed view of a complex and emotional issue. It highlights the urge to "do something, even if it's wrong."<br />I hope to hear you comment on the energy generation potential of nuclear power using the lasted two technology. Ralph Allennoreply@blogger.com