I would like to clear the air about a few things, mostly my own thoughts and ideas, so the reason for this book and its contents are more clearly understood. Knowing the mind set, beliefs and understandings of the author will help the reader to better understand the content of these pages. This introduction has mostly to deal with that premise by explanation and by providing examples. This section has little to do with the subject matter of the book, but much to do with why it was written and why it will be so difficult to solve the energy crisis.It is my opinion that most humans are inherently decent creatures whose nature is to care for and respect at least some of their fellow humans. This ranks high among the reasons we have been so very successful in survival and reproduction. In all of the groups of evil people I use in the horrible examples there are some kind, thoughtful, well intentioned individuals, usually well hidden. Sadly, there are also others who are unkind, devious and evil intentioned. We have all met both kinds, but mostly the infinite variations in between those extremes.
I also want to make clear my feelings and opinions about political positions, parties, and the like. I support ideas and proposals that make sense to me and are congruous with my technical training and experience. I also believe capitalism even with all its highly criticized evils to be far more conducive to the well being of the general public that socialism or communism at their best and certainly far better than any kind of totalitarianism. I also believe the old saying, “That government governs best that governs least.”
I know all the evils the left attributes to capitalism, but I believe those evils are present far more in the hierarchies of socialism than in the US under our form of capitalism. The actual dispersal of power is the reason. In socialist nations, the power to control and govern including the means of production and distribution is always in the hands of or under the control of a single group. There is little or no competition (except with other nations) and therefore virtually no incentive to excel, improve, or be efficient. Socialist governments, except in those nations that are very small, always grow their bureaucracy to the point at which the productivity of the nation drops to very low levels and the living standard of the common people suffers greatly.
Contrast this organization in socialist nations where a single group calls all the shots with the many thousands of stockholder owned companies we have in the US each of which has its own independent board of directors, executives, and stockholders who vote and so control the actions and the futures of their companies. I can absolutely guarantee those stockholders have more to say about the operation of the company who’s stock they own than the voters in any nation have to say about the operation of their government. Capitalism is the ultimate form of public ownership of the means of production and organized services. Socialism is the ultimate form of control of the means of production and organized services by a single, small group of politicians. The large number of independent and self actuating organizations created under capitalism makes it very difficult for socialism to take over. Most socialist nations are formed out of nations under totalitarian control where an uprising overthrows a hated dictator and takes over control of the government.
This usually leads to a totalitarian state with a single dictator. The old Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela are all perfect examples. Iran is an example of the Islamic version of socialist dictatorship which acts much like a socialist government and controls virtually every Islamic nation. These governments are examples of what happens when any group or entity has a complete monopoly of power over and is accountable to only itself. The result is usually an economic collapse when the source of income dries up. The Soviet Union, Cuba and North Korea have already passed through this phase. The Islamic dictatorships will face the same collapse when their oil runs out since they are not developing any other sources of wealth.
China, India and Russia are three examples of socialist nations that have discovered the power, enthusiasm, and energy that comes from even a modicum of capitalism. Each has responded differently. China has embraced capitalism with great enthusiasm and is continuing to privatize more and more of its considerable production capabilities. Their current leader, a scientist and engineer reportedly announced, “Profits are good! Business is good! Free enterprise is good! Capitalism is good!” That is surely a major unprecedented reversal of form and almost certainly unbelievable. Tom Friedman describes these amazing facts in his book, The World Is Flat. This all started years ago when Chinese officials realized that farmers cultivating their own tiny fields were outproducing the huge collective farms by a large margin with more and higher quality produce and in their spare time. These tiny capitalist enterprises were beating the pants off the state farms.
Ownership had given them the incentive to work hard and care for the fruits of their labor. Having a “piece of the action” will always be a powerful motivator to excel and produce high quality goods in the most efficient manner. No government entity can possibly compete with men who are free to use their own effort to provide for themselves and their families. They never have and never will. The burgeoning Chinese economy is evidence of the power of free enterprise capitalism, even in a totalitarian state. How this will play out politically in the future remains to be seen. Once the free enterprise genie is out of the bottle it may be difficult if not impossible for the communist government to maintain their absolute control and stuff those freedoms back into that bottle. The heady experience of economic freedom and the resulting life style once tasted will be very hard to squelch peacefully.
I do not care much for the current crop of liberal Democrat politicians or their policies. They spiel out hatred, class envy and other negative emotional incitements and use them as a rallying cry. They seem to be taking us toward a socialist state based strictly on secular humanism—atheism as a state religion. They seem to prefer using our serious problems as emotional tools to gain power and wealth rather than using logic and rational solutions in proposals to solve those problems. To my way of thinking that is using incitement to mob rule rather than reasonable discourse to move people to action.
Republican and conservative politicians at this time seem to me to be little better. Their rhetoric is certainly less strident—I have never heard the level of hatred as expressed in the words of Howard Dean, “I hate Republicans, I hate conservatives, I hate Rush Limbaugh.” and so many other similar expressions from leaders of the left. Their actions still leave much to be desired. They still seem more interested in gaining and holding power than in solving the nations ills. For a time after they first gained control of Congress a few years ago it looked as though they were going to act on a number of excellent proposals and they did make some progress. But then they fell back into the Washington bureaucratic morass and became quite similar to their Democrat counterparts but without the threat of socialism.
Special interests and their lobbyists, powerful individuals with huge fortunes, self serving politicians, pork-barrel projects and earmarks—all have far too much power in Washington. They have developed using public funds to buy votes for incumbents to asn art. One of the most famous pork-barrel projects was the Ted Kennedy’s Big Dig in Boston, Massachusetts. The Big Dig was a project to take a pre-existing 3.5-mile (5.6 km) interstate highway and relocate it underground. It ended up costing the federal government (read you taxpaying suckers) $14.6 billion, or over $4 billion per mile and added nothing to the highway system other than move the interstate underground. It did, of course, buy many votes for Ted Kennedy and his buddies. Such is the extremely unproductive bureaucracy our government has become where no one is fired no matter how poorly they perform and the budget for every department is raised 10 % automatically each year. While departments in private enterprise companies are urged to lower their expense budgets, bureaucrats almost always fight for more money on top of this automatic 10% increase. They refer to that as base line budgeting and see a 10% increase as staying the same. I consider it ripping off the taxpaying public big time.
All of my opinions and ideas expressed in these pages are endorsed because they seem to make sense to me, not because some group or individual presents or promotes them. My personal feelings about individuals are not affected by their political or religious beliefs. My late wife was a liberal Democrat and I certainly loved her dearly. We had many political discussions, but even when we disagreed there was no acrimony. We respected each other too much for that. A large contingent of my family are mostly so far left they are close to falling off the edge. They probably see me as one of those right-wing extremists as this is how they view virtually any one who’s ideas stray even a small bit right of their own. No matter because they are intelligent, kind, generous and loving people. That’s what is important to me. Unfortunately, their skewed views of who I am definitely interferes with any rational discussion of many topics, particularly with many political subjects. Like school children in the playground, participation soon degenerates into childish name calling in, “Yes you are! No I’m not !” fashion. When this happens, all rational considerations go out the window and rational discussion becomes impossible.
Not very long ago I joined a discussion group of intelligent and articulate seniors, well schooled people with diverse ideas about virtually everything. Several member are quite passionate about their beliefs from opposite ends of the political spectrum. As a result, discourse within the group can also degenerate into political name calling, a very unproductive event. During one of these exchanges I tried to bring the group back to sane and productive discussion. I told them, “Members of this group are all intelligent, involved people who should be able to rise above name calling to rationally discuss the subject. Why don’t we try to refrain from this destructive activity and stick to soberly examining both facts and opinions.” In spite of this kind of effort that I try to impose on myself, I too am subject to occasional emotional outbursts which I then regret. I hope I have used such control in these pages.
That being said I have this word of warning. The media and liberal politicians are doing their best to make American Oil companies, Exxon in particular, extreme villains for raising the price of gasoline at the pump. That is specifically because such commentary serves their agenda no matter how far it strays from the truth. Those who promote this idea are either completely ignorant of business and the oil business in particular or know they are lying through their teeth sometimes just to shift the blame from themselves. First of all, the stake of all American oil companies combined in the world petroleum business is a tiny 6%. If they shut down all of the wells they control tomorrow and went out of the oil exploration and drilling business completely, oil producers from the Middle East, Venezuela, and even Russia could pick up the slack in a heartbeat. Saudi Arabian oil companies alone could probably deliver that amount and more. These are not publicly owned companies, they are state owned monopolies directly under control of their political leaders. Sometimes the profits go directly into the pockets of the rulers. Perhaps that’s what these politicians are after for the US, state owned oil companies under their control. This is the case in virtually every middle eastern oil producing nation as well as Nigeria, Venezuela, and even Russia. The largest oil company in the world is PetroChina, a state owned company. These oil companies have infinitely more control over fuel prices than do American companies, yet our media and politicians continue to demonize our own oil companies and completely ignore those who actually do control the world’s oil. Is it because they have no power over those other oil companies that they berate our own, or is it because their goals are the same as those of the oil rich nations that hate us and plot our destruction? I wonder!
And what would those goals be? What are the long range goals of the leaders of the oil rich nations? Whatever those goals are, certainly one of the most troubling results is the transfer of trillions of dollars from Western economies to the personal holdings of despotic leaders. Even the dimmest lightbulb among the American public would be able to understand the menace of the mountain of debt now held by the Oil sheiks and their banks and growing rapidly. I wonder, is all this angry rhetoric from the left a smokescreen or red herring being used to direct attention away from this very real and present danger? Or maybe they just want to leave our oil companies under private ownership so they can syphon off as much money as practical and still be able to use them as whipping boys? In any event, it’s always the consumer, the little guy, the average American, who is sucker punched by these politicians and in the end, pays and pays while gleefully and ignorantly voting in the very ones who are using our government as their private money machine. Their true message is, “Vote for me and I’ll take all that money away from the builders and producers, give you each a tiny portion, and use the rest to make myself rich and powerful.”
The fat little socialist dictator in Venezuela did just that in his nation. He used class hatred to inflame his people and bring down the ones who built the Venezuelan oil industry. He now personally controls this huge cash cow, after taking control of the infrastructure of several American oil companies who had invested hundreds of millions in the Venezuelan oil industry. Chavez told them to grant his government controlling interest in their installations or get out without compensation. Several oil companies have just walked away, choosing to do so rather than commit to helping Chavez. In the meanwhile, Chavez is buying public support by selling gasoline for mere pennies per gallon to Venezuelans. It seems to work for him. There are many ways to use government money to buy support from the public who provided those funds in the form of taxes.
Please keep all of that in mind as you read on.
We live in a society and culture of dichotomous differences even where there are more than two groups. We are divided quite obviously into, male and female, young and old, child and adult. Then we are divided by race, culture, ethnicity, religion, language and any number of physical, social, financial, ethical, professional, and emotional factors. Those who would control or influence us have developed sophisticated ways to use these divisive factors to set us in conflict with each other. Virtually all questions and problems morph into pro and con arguments, yes against no, right versus wrong, black against white, etc. It has been asked, why is it we cultivate our few differences to divide us rather than use the vast number of things we have in common to unite us? Actually, the answer is quite simple and expressed in another, easily understood saying, there are those who know how to divide and conquer.
Divide and conquer has been the heart of modern politics as it has been in warfare from prehistoric times. Divisive hate speech, accusations and counter accusations, these are the heart of presidential campaigns and of most political contests. Lots of emotional diatribes, very little substantive proposals or commentary, almost no truth or facts. Certainly it is no holds barred combat.
Much of this is driven by mass movements, emotionally charged and driven movements with slogans, heros, villains, and countless blind followers playing follow the follower. Even with the best of intent, mass movements usually become driven by hatred and almost always lead to major human disasters. This happens even when they succeed in their avowed purpose. Too frequently the movement takes on a life of its own, far from the original, even when there is lofty intent. There are many examples of this and many reasons why it is so. Eric Hoffer described the emotional followers of so many passionately driven mass movements many years ago.
“Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. Thus people haunted by the purposelessness of their lives try to find a new content not only by dedicating themselves to a holy cause but also by nursing a fanatical grievance. A mass movement offers them unlimited opportunities for both.”
Freedom and education are the enemies of those who command these mindless, purposeless forces. That is because those who are truly free know that freedom demands responsibility for one’s own actions. Freedom must be taught. Even though it is among the most basic human animal instincts, it is frequently overwhelmed by conformity and peer pressure at an early age. Therefore it must be taught at those very early ages by parents and teachers who understand and value it. A quote from Eric Hoffer illustrates my meaning.
“People unfit for freedom—who cannot do much with it—are hungry for power. The desire for freedom is an attribute of a have type of self. It says: leave me alone and I shall grow, learn, and realize my capacities. The desire for power is basically an attribute of a have not type of self.”
The enemies of freedom, those who hunger for power, are those who would impose their will, their values, their mores, their political system, even their religion on everyone under their control. In many organizations and nations this imposition is made with force.
No matter how benevolent at the start, movements that follow these patterns ultimately turn violent and evil. The Christian church of the middle ages, the industrialists of the eighteenth century, the labor unions of the twentieth century, the NAZIs, even organized crime, the Mafia, are examples. Certainly not all involved were evil men, it’s just that the infatuation of force usually brings the “meanest son-of-a-bitch in the valley” to the fore as the leader. These leaders are not far removed from the “king” of a monkey troop who fights his way to that position over the mangled and dead bodies of those who oppose him. We humans, on the instinctive level, are not so far removed from our simian cousins.
John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834 1902) made the famous statement, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The rest of his remark is rarely mentioned, “Great men are almost always bad men." I wonder why this is so? Our American Constitution was written by men who knew first hand the evil power of oppressive, controlling government. That document was crafted carefully for the sole purpose of protecting free men from their government, even a democratic government. Far from perfect, that document seems now to be under attack by those who would “modernize” it or change its meaning outside of the method outlined in that document. The desire of these individuals is quite obviously to gain control over people. To force them to submit to their will. Like the Taliban, they seek to destroy any object or person that does not support their holy way. Free men must be vigilant to keep these favored few from using the courts to reinterpret the Constitution to serve their own purpose.
Politics is strictly an emotional game and the most important factor for any American candidate to have now is celebrity. The preponderance of Americans have come to value celebrity and image above all else. Honesty, character, ability, education, experience, even morality, these take a back seat to celebrity in virtually every election. This is most unfortunate because celebrity and leadership ability rarely go together. Just because an individual can do the things that create their celebrity status like, make a stirring speech, do a magnificent job of acting, have a beautiful face or body, sing like an angel, or throw numerous touchdown passes, these attributes do not make them wise or enable them to be a capable leader. Witness the large numbers of celebrities, usually from the entertainment world, who run for political office or take up causes and speak out with apparent authority about things they know very little about.
Liberal establishments and organizations in the U. S. and probably throughout the world have a great deal of power over our means of communication and entertainment. That’s words, laughs and tears—mostly emotions and instincts. They also have influential power over education at virtually all levels. That’s molding the thoughts, concepts and ideas of children and young people. The decimation of our education system and poorly equipped graduates gives testimony to the damage they and their policies have wrought on our once unexcelled education system. Other examples of the power of indoctrination over education on children and young people can be learned from the news or found in history books.
Most people my age learned about the Hitler youth movement as it was happening. We heard how young Germans were taught they were superior and that Jews were inferior. The German puppet masters then blamed all of the woes of the German people on Jews and created the holocaust. Certainly that is an over simplification of the reality, but it did happen almost that way.
Since the seventh century and up to the present, Madrassas in the Muslim world have taught many young people only from the Koran. This has created countless angry followers who have been taught only hatred toward anyone who doesn’t adhere to their beliefs. They learn from nothing else, from no other source. Only a privileged few, mostly the very wealthy and powerful, receive any other education at all. Is it any wonder then that Islam has had an extremely bloody history of conflict with neighbors.
Muslim invasion of India - Very few know that while the Muslims invaded Persia in 634, they invaded Sindh in India in 638, a gap of just four years. While Persia succumbed in seventeen years by 651, Muslims took seven hundred years to overrun India (today Sindh is a part of Muslim Pakistan that was carved out of Hindu India in 1947). And even after that they could not rule India in peace.
Historians have written about “Islam’s bloody borders” over many years. Charles Krauthammer said in an article titled, The Bloody Borders Of Islam, published in the Tampa Tribune on Dec 6, 2002 “From Nigeria to Sudan to Pakistan to Indonesia to the Philippines, some of the worst, most hate- driven violence in the world today is perpetrated by Muslims and in the name of Islam.” The complete article can be viewed at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/838321/posts on the Internet.
The Hitler youth movement and Islamic Madrassas are just two examples of how indoctrination of the people can work to serve the purposes of the few puppet masters who control masses of blind followers. This ultimately results in the game of “follow the follower,” human lemmings willing to do virtually anything including sacrificing their miserable lives to serve the “cause” of their masters.
Currently, candidates from the American liberal establishment are announcing their plan to impose many more government controls limiting our freedoms and controlling the actions of individuals “for the benefit of the people.” At this point in time the camel has his head is in the tent and is poised to move in bodily. Our freedoms are not disappearing suddenly, but in tiny virtually unnoticeable incursions like the camel sneaking into the tent. For example, many successful industries like drugs and oil have been a target for hate speech and condemnation by the liberal left. While both industries show billions in profits, their actual profits expressed in percentage of sales or investment are quite modest compared to other industries, around 11% for oil and 17% for pharmaceuticals. The left seem always to use dollars when they want to dis major corporations. Does the public even have a grasp of how much more a billion is than a million?
As an example, Hillary, in responding to rising gas prices in a speech in North Carolina on April 28th bludgeoning the oil industry with class hatred saying that since Exxon Mobile made huge profits of around $41 billion net after taxes last year and other oil companies were equally profitable, those oil companies should be taxed to pay the federal fuel tax of 18¢ per gallon to reduce the cost to consumers. Seeing that the oil companies net only about a nickel a gallon on fuel and that governments combined tax is from 60¢ to 75¢ per gallon, Hillary’s proposal is preposterous. This means that combined local, state and federal governments are making between 60¢ and 75¢ in tax revenue on every gallon of fuel that the oil company’s profit is only about 5¢. Now, Mrs. Clinton, who’s really gouging the public on fuel and why are you hiding this fact?
How long do you think anyone would operate a station that lost 55¢ to 70¢ per gallon of gasoline sold? Would you hard working Americans take a job where it cost you more to get to work than you would be paid? Hell no, you wouldn’t. That’s exactly what Mrs. Clinton is asking oil companies to do. All she is doing is waving the banner of class envy and hatred at voters hoping their frustrations will overpower their judgement and take from the rich to give to the poor. Hillary says her plan will be fully paid for by taking away oil company profits through a windfall profits tax. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that it’s impossible to take 18¢ to 24¢ out of the 5¢ oil companies net on each gallon of fuel. In other words, she actually wants us to “kill the goose laying the golden eggs.”
In that speech she also said, “Americans are being squeezed at the pump like never before. Record oil prices are contributing to higher energy prices, food prices and a squeeze that is making many middle class families feel like they are falling further behind. American families are hurting now. They need a President who will focus every day on ensuring that they can make ends meet.” I actually thought that was the job of the wage earner, not the government and certainly not the President. I also thought it was investors and business owners who provided jobs in the private sector. These are the only jobs that add to the gross domestic product and pay all of the taxes. Government jobs are a huge net user of the taxes paid by the private sector and a major drain on our economy. Government does not create jobs, only private business and individuals create jobs. All government can do is help maintain a vibrant private sector that is profitable and pays the taxes consumed by that government. Look what happened to Ireland when politicians, the media and the people realized that fact and started supporting business and the successful rather than cursing, taxing and controlling them with destructive tactics.
If the government puts the oil companies out of business, who’s going to pay to replace the billions in taxes provided to the government by those oil companies? Last year that was $28.5 billion paid by Exxon alone. Then there are those federal gasoline tax revenues that between 1997 and 2003 were about five times the profits of all oil companies combined. This was a period of very low profits for oil companies. Since then Oil company profits have grown to around 11 % of sales and 8% return on investment, a very modest percentage comparable to the average of other businesses. Why aren’t those liberals screaming at the “obscene” profits of Microsoft projected to be $19.34 billion or 34.24% profit for 2008.
Liberal lawmakers have called for new "windfall profits" taxes similar to the one signed into federal law in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter that would tax the profits of major oil companies at a rate of 50 percent. If so, why limit it to oil companies? Why not tax all corporations at 50% or maybe 90%. That’s one sure way to destroy America’s strength and productivity. Does anyone remember the huge inflation and interest rates of 22% Jimmy Carter’s financial wisdom gained for the country during his presidency?
Now let’s shift gears and speak to the difference between talkers and doers.
Situation: You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife and charges at you. You are carrying a Glock cal .40, and you are an expert shot. You have seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?
(Liberal) Talker’s Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor, or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior. This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus.
Doer’s Answer:
BANG!
I’m sure you get the message.
The name of this book has been changed several times over the years of research and creative effort put into it. Al Gore’s book, An Inconvenient Truth brought on the realization that this book provided real, concrete answers to important questions he posed and to which he provided no specific answers. It was then renamed A Convenient Solution! for the obvious significant answers it provides and for the connections to his effort. Of course the purpose of this book is certainly quite different from the purpose of his.
More information I hope the reader understands is regarding
Climate Change and the Media Catchphrase, “Global Warming”
Since the use of systems and items described in this book would go a long way toward answering the demands of the global warming crowd one would think I would be jumping on that bandwagon. If new information convinces me global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels is real and that it poses a serious threat, I will do so. At the present time I believe all the hoopla about the dangers of global warming are ill advised at best and could be dangerously wrong. This book is not about climate change even though it does reflect the effects of the political and media frenzies regarding “global warming.” Thus the points are made that using alternative fuels or other energy sources could lessen or even stop the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere for whatever that may affect. There are a great many possible causes for changes in the average temperature of the earth. The “greenhouse” effect of CO2, methane, water vapor and other gases is but one of a large number of factors that effect climate. Many of these factors are poorly understood and the actual weight of their effects on the climate is subject to large fluctuations according to which scientific study one reads about. Even if it became a proven fact, global warming would be an insignificant problem compared to the real and present danger posed by rapidly rising oil prices and the resulting economic drain on our nation. Even the ever present threat of Islamic invasion and terrorism is a far greater menace than global warming at its worst.
With regard to the often quoted phrase, “Overwhelming numbers of scientists support the theory that man’s use of fossil fuels is bringing about catastrophic global warming.” I have taken a small quote from The Creation by E. O. Wilson. A national bestseller, the book was published by W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. of New York City. This quote describes “scientists” and who they are as well as indicating the general credibility of their statements.
Start of quote
I will offer now an account of the concept and practice of science and in particular biology, the discipline most immediately relevant to human concerns.
I hasten to add I do not mean scientists. Most researchers, including Nobel laureates, are narrow journeymen, with no more interest in the human condition than the usual run of laymen. Scientists are to science what masons are to cathedrals. Catch any one of them outside the workplace, and you would likely find someone leading an ordinary life preoccupied with quotidian tasks and pedestrian thought. Scientists seldom make leaps of imagination. Most, in fact, never truly have an original idea. Instead, they snuffle their way through masses of data and hypotheses (the latter are educated guesses to be tested - global warming?), sometimes excited but most of the time tranquil and easily distracted by corridor gossip and other entertainments. They have to be that way. The successful scientist thinks like a poet, and then only in rare moments of inspiration, if ever, and works like a bookkeeper the rest of the time. It is very hard to have an original thought. So for most of his career, the scientist is satisfied to enter the figures and balance the books.
Scientists are also like prospectors. Original discoveries are the gold and silver of their trade. If important, they can buy collegial prestige, and with it wider fame, royalties, and academic tenure. Scientists by and large are too modest to be prophets, too easily bored to be philosophers, and too trusting to be politicians. Lacking in street smarts, they are also easily fooled by confidence artists and sleight-of-hand tricksters. Never ask a scientist to test the claims of paranormal phenomena. Ask a professional magician.
The power of science comes not from scientists but from its method. The power, and the beauty too of the scientific method is its simplicity. It can be understood by anyone, and practiced with a modest amount of training. Its stature arises from its cumulative nature. It is the product of hundreds of thousands of specialists united by one commonality of the scientific method. Few scientists know more than a small fraction of available scientific knowledge, even within their own disciplines. But no matter: their fellow scientists are continuously testing and adding other parts, and the entire body of scientific knowledge is easily available. The invention of this remarkable engine of testable learning was the one advance in human history that can be called a true quantum leap. But it attained its preeminence relatively late in the geological life span of humanity, and only after human intellect had traveled a long, tortuous path dominated by tribalism and animated by religion.
Let’s try to establish a rough chronology. Millions of years ago there was only animal instinct. Then, probably at the man-ape level, the rudiments of materials culture were added. With still higher intelligence there followed a sense of the supernatural, whereupon demons, ancestral ghosts, and divine spirits peopled the human mind. Without science there had to be religion, in order to explain man’s place in the universe. Born of dreams, its images were enshrined in the culture by shamans and priests. The gods made man. Those that lived in surrounding Nature gave way to gods of sacred mountains, in distant places, and in the heavens. Somewhere and somehow back in time, these divine humanoids had created the world, and now they governed man. Humans in their evolving self-image, rose above Nature to follow the gods as children and servants. Tribes led unwaveringly by their personal gods were united and strong. They defeated competing tribes and their false gods. They also subdued Nature, erasing most of it in the process. Their destiny, they believed, was not of this world. They thought of themselves as immortal, no less than demigods.
Along the way, commencing in Europe in the seventeenth century, a radical alternative self-image emerged. Art and philosophy began to disentangle themselves from the gods, and science learned to operate with full independence. Step by step, often opposed by the followers of Holy Scripture, science constructed an alternative world view based on a testable and self reliant human image. Doubling in growth every fifteen years during most of the past three and a half centuries, it has looked into the heart of living Nature, finding there a previously vast and autonomous creative force. This image has subsumed religious rivalries and reduced them to intertribal conflict. Science has become the most democratic of all human endeavors. It is neither religion or ideology. It makes no claims beyond what can be sensed in the real world. It generates knowledge in the most productive and unifying manner contrived in history, and it served humanity without obeisance to any particular tribal deity.
End of quote
Though the text of this book takes no position about CO2 and global warming, the author resents the “it’s a fact” attitude of the many followers of the religion of global warming, most of whom haven’t a clue as to what the reality is. Its use as a political club and its “politically correct” status is really quite shameful. This media-driven catchall assumption that carbon dioxide is the reason for global warming and man’s activities, particularly the use of fossil fuels, is the sole cause is appalling. There are many other factors affecting global climate change that can easily be shown to be a much larger contributor to global warming than greenhouse gases.
Climate is an extremely complex system which we have been studying for a long time up to and including the age of the supercomputer and computer modeling. Still, we have hardly touched the surface as can be attested to by the accuracy of our current weather forecasting. For example, in spite of all our technology, our predictions of the frequency, location, and path of any hurricane is fraught with pure conjecture. We can’t even hope to predict the intensity of any hurricane season, witness the 2006 season. It had been predicted to be one of the worst that we would have. Instead it turned out to be one of the mildest, the opposite of the predictions of some of our weather scientists and their supercomputer modeling. And how about your local weather forecaster? How often does he miss the mark predicting just a day ahead?
The world’s climate system is infinitely more complex that a single hurricane season. It moves in cycles and eddies that run from seconds to millennia. About forty years ago some climate pundits feared we were heading into global cooling and needed to prepare for a drier, cooler time with lower sea levels. According to many scientific studies of past frigid periods we are past due for the onset of the next ice age. Hubert Lamb of the UK Met Office dominated the 1961 UN meeting on global cooling. A founder of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia, he was one of the world’s top climate scientists. He warned that people had become complacent about climate at a time when population growth, cold, and drought could seriously damage their food supplies. (The Norse in Greenland perished of starvation after five hundred successful years when the Little Ice Age destroyed their crops.) In historic times the climate has veered from warmer than the present, the Medieval Warm Period, to the much colder conditions of the Little Ice Age. Evidence shows that much of the Sahara and the Middle East were lush vegetation and crop land ten or so thousand years ago. The media gleefully reported on global cooling as a fearful danger and asked, “What can we do about it?” Their tune has since changed substantially. The wind of media-driven opinion has switched direction from cooling to warming, with a vengeance.
Seemingly, members of the media are more interested in blaming Americans as the culprits causing the alleged problem than in trying to find those who may have viable solutions. It is a lot easier to blame others for a problem than to make the effort to find a real solution. That is one of our common human failings. In the media’s case, it is far easier to find and report the negative emotional ravings than to ferret out and report the mundane realities of those seeking solutions. Pain and suffering, doom and gloom are their currency, their stock and trade. Rarely does good news or real solutions to problems catch their attention.
The truth of the matter is that we are indeed affecting the climate by adding CO2 to the atmosphere, possibly changing climate. What we don’t know is how and how much. The truth is we have very little definitive knowledge of how much effect raising or even doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will have in the long run. We certainly are unable to hazard even so much as an intelligent guess as to what or how much the effect might be. Of course astute climate scientists like Al Gore must certainly know exactly what the future holds for us and what to do about it. The deeply probing scientific insight and carefully thought out positive solutions revealed in his book certainly promoted no political ambitions. Of course, he neglected to mention the following factors known to affect climate and the average world temperatures as much or more than increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide:
● The wobble of the earth’s axis increases or decreases the retention of energy from the sun. (22,000-year cycle)
● The eccentricity of the earth’s orbit increases or decreases the energy we receive from the sun. (12,000-year cycle)
● The variation of energy output by the sun. (1,400-year cycle)
● Variations in snow cover—snow reflects heat
● Variations in cloud cover—clouds reflect heat
● The variation in cosmic rays causes a variation in cloud cover. (no known cycle)
● Dust and sulphate dust in the air
● Ocean temperatures and circulation.
● Volcanic activity (Eruption of Mount Pinatubo brought on several years of cooler temperatures.)
● Winds—as winds increase, dust from dry farmland and deserts enters the air. (Gobi desert dust reaches as far as our west coast.)
There is one gross misconception about ice and ocean levels global warming proponents and the media constantly get wrong. It is true that water from melting glaciers and melting ice or snow supported by land will cause ocean levels to rise. However, polar ice and the floating ice shelves of Antarctica and Greenland do not do so no matter how big or extensive they are or how much they shrink. It’s a simple law of physics known by most high school students, at least those not dumbed down by our failing education system. Floating ice displaces an equal weight of water so melting that ice will not change the water level whether it is in a glass, a bucket, or the ocean. Sadly, it seems that the members of the church of global warming are infinitely more interested in the emotional impact of their statements than in their scientific accuracy.
About carbon dioxide
With the exception of hydrogen, all gaseous, liquid, and solid fuels produce carbon dioxide when burned in any energy process. In addition, the production of hydrogen by any means other than by electrolysis, using energy from nuclear, wind, water or tidal power plants will add huge amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from both the energy and the raw materials used to create the hydrogen (coal fired power plants for instance). It is interesting to note that for each pound of carbon oxidized to carbon dioxide, four pounds of oxygen are removed from the atmosphere. For every thousand tons of CO2 added to the atmosphere, eight hundred tons of oxygen are removed. In all the concern about CO2 there has never been a single mention of that fact.
It has long been accepted as fact that all of the oxygen in our atmosphere has been created by photosynthesis in plant life over many millions of years. Plants take CO2 from the atmosphere, combine it with water to produce organic materials, and release oxygen as a byproduct. This has created a huge sink of carbon, including all fossil fuels as well as existing live plants and animals. It also built up the oxygen from zero to the 21 percent in today’s atmosphere. Human use of fossil fuels is reversing that process which could arguably cause disastrous results to natural interactive processes, such as weather, ocean and air currents, water ice and sea levels. The truth of the matter is that we don’t really know how big the problem might be or even if it is actually a problem at all. It will be a very long time before we have those answers.
Why Petroleum won’t be the answer
There are many ideas and concepts, new and old described herein. No apologies are made for favoring some over the others. Favored mostly are those that seem to be practical, economical and especially speedy. Some of these have come to prominence recently and thus are not covered as thoroughly as others. Things are changing rapidly in this field with new ideas and products appearing almost daily. These are being triggered by the rapidly advancing price of petroleum. It is my belief that an energy crunch is coming much sooner than most expect.
Thanks to some environmental extremists and their liberal supporters in Congress, we have virtually castrated oil exploration and drilling for new sources in and around the U. S. These powerful voices have made it all but impossible to build new refineries and have even tried to stop the expansion of existing refineries. The constant stream of condemnation of the oil industry from the left and the media has convinced the public and thus many politicians that Big Oil is their enemy and precipitated tremendous animosity amplified every time the highly advertised price of gasoline goes up. The government’s initiatives for promoting alternative fuels and limiting consumption have put a damper on nearly all new investment by oil companies in infrastructure to increase production and capacity. We are awash in a growing sea of proven oil fields from the Gulf of Mexico to the North Slope, oil that is there but that American oil companies are forbidden by law to go after. No perpetrators of the problem, American oil companies are almost as much a victim of high priced petroleum as the average motorist.
If you want to blame anyone, blame the liberal environmentalists who have effectively driven the price of fuel through the roof. That’s what they want. They want to make many things and especially fuel so expensive we have to curtail its use or stop using it all together. They want us all to be riding bicycles or walking to satisfy their warped sense of necessity. Think about American oil companies being forbidden to drill for proven oil deposits around Florida to protect shoreline ecosystems. Sounds great, doesn’t it, protecting the environment. Now that we are not drilling in these fields the world’s largest oil company, PetroChina in cooperation with Cuba is now drilling not far from Key West where American companies are forbidden to drill. Ask any liberal what they plan to do about that. PetroChina has none of the environmental controls on drilling and drilling techniques required of American oil companies. So much for our politicians protecting the environment along our shores. As far as “big oil” is concerned, last year, PetroChina overtook Exxon as the world's largest publicly traded oil company. There goes all that potential profit and billions in taxes from our shores to China. Real smart move, that. An enemy bent on destroying our economy could hardly have accomplished more.
That’s not all. Some analysts say high oil prices, and the record profits they create, are masking growing difficulties at many of the major Western oil giants. Faced with resurgent national oil companies such as PetroChina, Brazil's Petrobras, or Russia's Gazprom, American major oil companies, which once dominated the global energy business, now control only about 6 percent of the world's oil reserves and are having a hard time increasing production and renewing reserves. Liberals don’t seem to give a damn about that as they keep screaming hate at American oil companies and inciting animosity among ignorant voters. If you think fuel prices are high now, consider what could happen if taxes and government animosity drive American oil companies out of business or cause the stockholders to merge them with foreign companies. That has happened to other industries in the past. Textiles and consumer electronics are the first to come to mind. In their lust for power, liberal politicians seem bent on using class envy to provide them the political power to kill every American golden egg laying goose they can. This economic suicide seems to serve no purpose other than use the poor and ignorant to bring down the very people who have built the greatest machine for innovation and wealth for the highest number of common people the world has ever seen. Will they do the same to any alternate system that starts to show promise? It wouldn’t surprise me at all. They seem to want every promising solution thwarted or stopped. Perhaps this is because they don’t want any solutions. As long as there are problems they can use as clubs with which to beat their opponents bloody they will continue to do so. Is this all because their lack of ability to build has turned them to doing what any idiot can do, destroy?
It was Abraham Lincoln, champion of the poor and downtrodden who wanted no reprisals against southern leaders after the war. Lincoln felt it best to turn enemies into friends. During the Civil War he refused to demonize the enemy. When Washington received news Robert E. Lee had surrendered at Appomattox, the President was asked to speak to the celebrating crowd.
Addressing the jubilant crowd, Lincoln said that: "I have always thought ‘Dixie' one of the best tunes I have ever heard. Our adversaries over the way attempted to appropriate it, but I insisted that we fairly captured it. I presented it to the Attorney General, and he gave it as his legal opinion that it is our lawful prize. I now request the band to favor me with its performance." The band played "Dixie," followed by "Yankee Doodle." This was Lincoln the humanitarian who in his second inaugural speech finished it with: "With malice toward none. With charity for all." Everyone around Lincoln knew that he meant it. How many of the current crop of politicians could say and mean words like that?
In stark and obvious contrast, liberals like DNC chairman Howard Dean are diametrically opposed to such thoughts. His famous, “I hate Republicans! I hate conservatives! I hate Rush Limbaugh!” gives ample proof. Hatred and demonizing are evidently the political stock-in-trade of the left precisely as it is of virtually all current liberal Democrats in our Congress including the Presidential hopefuls. So much for peaceful cooperation.
The purpose of this book is to provide information and encouragement for doers, movers and shakers. Liberal talkers and haters certainly show no evidence of wanting solutions as that would remove an effective political tool. Besides, they would probably never make it through to the important information and creative ideas in the main body of this book choosing instead to discuss this introduction to the book ad infinitum because of my political views. The numerous systems described run from those used for several hundred years to those just discovered and in their infancy. Many of these will fall into disuse or be kept merely for historical or sentimental usage.
Here’s a bit of old news: For all practical purposes, the horse and buggy have left the American scene. Except for the Amish and some nostalgic sight seeing uses, they have disappeared from America. The Stanley Steamer and the Baker Electric, once quite popular are now found only in museums or in the hands of collectors. The “iron horse” of the plains is but a memory with a rare few still in collections or on sight-seeing railroads. There are still a few WWI Sopwith Camels and WW2 Japanese Zeros flying. Last fall I witnessed a WWII B17E Flying Fortress fly by while I was walking on a popular Florida beach. It was quite a thrill watching that almost quarter century old legend still flying.
As time passes the evolution of technology accelerates. Some have said that the sum of scientific knowledge doubles every fifteen years and has been doing so since the time of Copernicus in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, Gallileo and Kepler in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries and Newton in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Western science seems to completely ignore the work of Muslim mathematicians and astronomers who knew that the earth was a sphere and revolved around the sun centuries earlier than Europeans. They in turn had learned from Greek and Persian astronomers and mathematicians after translating much knowledge into Arabic from Greek and Persian. These early scientists in turn probably learned much of their knowledge of mathematics and astronomy from the Egyptians.
How about today? With computers to record our work and the Internet to distribute it, new knowledge quickly spans the globe as the sum of knowledge continues its geometric expansion. Not only are we learning new things faster, but new, practical and sometimes serendipitous findings now spread around the world at the speed of light. Information can be distributed instantly, but the actual creation of new items, systems, procedures and processes still requires time and considerable effort to move from raw material to finished product. Most of these fall by the wayside for lack of understanding of their actual value, unattractive appearance or lack of economic appeal. If another item or system is cheaper with the same value or even more expensive but with superior value, that system will prevail. Except for governments, profitability is the clue to the economic success of any item or system. The life of even a well accepted technology can soon be eclipsed by a newer, better or cheaper technology. Witness the evolution in recorded music from the wax cylinder to the brittle 78, the flexible LP and 45, to reel tape, to 8-track tape, to cassette tape, to CD, to DVD, and now micro chip and Ipod. The effective life of each system lasted for a shorter period of time than its predecessor. This is the nature of accelerating technology in the music business.
This book is about the same kind of thing happening in the energy industry, a much broader field than music with many more variations and possibilities. A problem or need arises. Creative minds search for answers, primarily to find ways to make money, a living, even wealth. The many answers are presented to the public in ways from simple word-of-mouth contacts to mass media advertising. All things being equal, the highly advertised will always prevail over the word-of-mouth simply because it reaches infinitely more people in a short period of time. By the time widget A gets started by word of mouth, widget B has thousands of orders from its massive advertising.
In the automotive world, Joe Doaks and company might be able to produce a car a week after three years of hard work simply because this small company has only enough working capital to produce a few cars which must be sold to get more working capital to continue in business. The profits from sales must be enough to pay the employees, pay for raw materials, business services, insurance, legal fees, a location where the business can operate, and taxes and fees to several governments. Those same profits must pay for any expansion and for interest on any debt the company may have. On the other hand, General Motors already has the needed physical assets and capital to pay for the development and manufacture of any new vehicle it deems will make their sales goals and earn them a profit. They also have legal and contractual obligations Joe Daoks and company do not. While development and all the associated details may take GM eight years to complete for a single vehicle, once those goals are met they have the ability to produce these new cars by the thousands. This enables them to swamp JD and Co with saleable product. Of course, if JD and Co have a valid patent on a critical part of the new car, even GM couldn’t produce it. Usually what happens is that GM or another big auto company will buy the patent from JD and Co for more money that they would make on their own.
So it is with all of the new systems described in this book. These have been proposed or developed and are being pursued by companies of many different sizes, some with patents, some without. I have some very distinct opinions of the systems we can and should end up with and the same for those interim products needed to get us from where we are today to where we can be in ten years or even twenty. I also have some definite opinions about those I think will not be successful. These opinions are shared with readers near the end of the book in the section on conclusions and predictions.
Use of any fossil fuel will add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. There are only two known ways to use energy without adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The same two reasons apply if we are forced to survive without petroleum fuels for any reason.
The first and most obvious is energy from fuels derived from plant materials—non fossil sources. Carbon dioxide created by the burning of these fuels came originally from the atmosphere. Thus, use of fuel produced from plant sources only returns carbon dioxide to the atmosphere that was originally taken from it. These no-net-CO2 fuels include: wood, ethanol from corn, methane recovered from landfills, methanol, butanol, DMF and ethanol from plant material fermentation, oils from plant sources including soy beans and algae, pelletized agricultural waste, and any other form of fuel from recent biological activity.
The second way is and promises to be far larger than no-net-CO2 fuels both today and in the future. It includes all non combustion processes for generating energy. Those currently in use include: nuclear, river water, solar, wind, tidal water, and geothermal. Each of these has its own set of challenges, including practical limits, funding, new technologies, environmental impacts, site locations, weather problems, dangers, and concerns of the public.
Any or all of these processes could be used to generate electric power for grid distribution in the Optimal Energy Economy of the future described in these pages. It remains for some nation or organization to take the high road to the cheap, safe, portable, no-net-CO2-producing energy that these processes promises. Once in use, the benefits to the economy of any nation that uses it will be unlimited.
In the past, nuclear power has been touted as the best way to produce safe, clean, non CO2 producing energy. Unfortunately, a very slanted and scary movie, The China Syndrome, so frightened the American public that the entire nuclear industry was scuttled there and then at tremendous expense and waste. This was a fictional story! Hollywood must still be gloating over the destructive power wielded by their fictional story. Fortunately for France and China they didn’t get the message and are now rapidly developing and building nuclear power plants. By the way, nuclear power has been proven the safest of all types of power plants in real terms of human lives lost and bodies injured. I wonder why Hollywood and the media never acknowledge that fact?
There is another source of energy being highly touted by many. In these paragraphs I have inserted several of my own comments in bold italics just to keep the record straight. Here’s what several stock promoters are saying about wave action and tidal power from the world’s oceans. Of course you must remember, these salesmen are using this to tout wave energy stocks.
Start of quotes:
This opportunity could deliver the same kinds of triple-digit gains...and in less than 2 years! The only energy resource that could power the entire globe...forever. Definitely not the only one!
Next to solar, the largest source of energy on the planet is ocean energy - the motion of waves and tides. Both sources are inexhaustible, but unlike solar (or really any other energy source on the planet), ocean energy is constant. Day or night, 24/7...it's always working. And it's always free! That could also describe another energy source that is even more plentiful than wave or tidal motion which may be easier and less expensive to tap.
In fact, compared to other renewable and non-renewable technologies, it's still very much in its infancy. But that's all changing, thanks to a very real energy crisis and improved technology that has now enabled ocean energy to compete with every other energy resource in existence. Just look at what is already being said about wave energy:
"Generation of electricity from wave energy will be economically feasible in the near future." - Science Daily
"Wave Power can produce electricity equal to all the dams that we have in the US right now." - Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition "
The technology has only been available for a few decades, yet we could meet almost 10% of our energy needs from wave power." - The Guardian "
Wave energy is more predictable than solar and wind energy, offering a better possibility of being dispatchable by an electrical grid." - Science Daily
"Wave energy is an emerging energy source that may add a viable generation option to the strategic portfolio." - Electric Power Research Institute
All the above could be used to describe the potential of geothermal energy. The World Energy Council just recently released new estimates showing how ocean energy could supply twice as much electricity as the world now consumes. I have added a line for geothermal energy to their table. It could certainly be a much bigger energy source than the oceans.
Hydro electric . . . . . . . . .16% . . . . . . . . . 2,785 Terawatts
Nuclear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16% . . . . . . . . . .2,785 Terawatts
Natural Gas . . . . . . . . . . .20% . . . . . . . . . 3,481 Terawatts
Oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7% . . . . . . . . . .1,218 Terawatts
Coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40% . . . . . . . . . 6,963 Terawatts
Renewables . . . . . . . . . . . . 2% . . . . . . . . . . . 348 Terawatts
Wave Potential . . . . . . . . 200% . . . . . . . . 34,816 Terawatts
Geothermal Potential . . 1000% + . . . 160,000+ Terawatts (added by HJ)
We now have, without a doubt, the biggest disruption the energy markets will ever see. It'll rival the automobile and internet combined. And the reason is simple... Aside from water, there is absolutely nothing more crucial to the safety and security of the entire world than robust supplies of cheap energy. We are reliant upon it for our transportation, our food, our medicine, our clothing, our agriculture... it's everything that keeps the world moving. And as we've already begun to see with oil, it is also the one thing that can bring the global community to its knees, if there isn't enough of it. So needless to say, any energy resource that's infinite and inexpensive is an energy resource that will shape the next evolution of our energy economy. And the few ocean energy companies that are producing power right now?
End of quotes
Wave energy could possibly fill the bill, but geothermal could do it better, quicker, and cheaper and it is even more unlimited than wave energy. It is also much closer to the point of use so distribution of power could be easier and cheaper in most places. This very different method could turn out to be the best in all ways including economic. Geothermal power could be the real winner in an all out competition given that useable geothermal energy is available in about 60 percent of the area of North America and is similarly available in many other land areas. This is covered in sections II C and III A 5 on geothermal power. I wonder if Hollywood will mount a new attack on progress with The China Syndrome II about a cataclysmic geothermal volcanic explosion? Don’t put it past them.
One Last Warning - I often read about coming alternative fuels that will be available in thirty or even fifty years. We don’t have that kind of time to wait! Do the math. At the rate petroleum prices are rising and at the rate our purchases of fuel from the oil rich nations are growing, our economy will be destroyed long before those new fuels are available and we have converted to their use. If we don’t develop our own economic lifeblood to replace petroleum fuels within a much shorter period our economy will have bled to death. I believe ten years for almost complete replacement of petroleum fuels is close to the maximum time we have left. Even that period will be fraught with painful economic problems. Low cost energy is absolutely essential for us to maintain our vibrant, growing economy. Oil has gone from ten dollars a barrel to one hundred and thirty dollars in the last ten years, much of that in the last three years. Should that continue, the price of gasoline will pass fifteen dollars a gallon by the end of 2013. At that time our economy will be losing $3.7 trillion annually to the oil rich nations if we were still surviving. Unfortunately, our economy will have collapsed long before that point is reached. Now do you realize why we must mount a powerful effort to produce new, domestic energy sources?
A few years ago, some few experts warned of the coming oil shortage ang high prices. They described as "Peak Oil" meanig production had peaked and would begin to slow down, even in the face of rapidly rising demand. That is a recipe for disaster.
Many called those experts “pessimists.” Said they were “too paranoid” and were “profiteers of doom and gloom.” Just recently, the talking heads on Fox referred to them as “peak freaks.”
That's how the media has described them ever since they made the following shocking prediction back on March 3, 2005. Here's what they said that day.... “Peak oil is here. The price of a barrel could get as high as $185 with oil hitting $80 a barrel within the next two years. The investment potential Peak Oil represents will be 5x the size of the tech boom of the 1980s and 1990s.”
Even the stodgy Steve Forbes couldn't resist taking a swipe. He called those predictions ridiculous and made his own “shocking” prediction... “In 12 months, you're going to see oil down to $35 to $40 a barrel. It's a huge bubble, Idon't know what's going to pop it but eventually it will pop - you cannot go against supplyand demand, you cannot go against the fundamentals forever.”
No one could have said it better. You can't go against supply and demand forever. That was over 3 years ago. And today? You know the story all too well. Oil is at record levels, hitting nearly $130 a barrel on May 20. And everybody from President Bush to OPEC to the CEOs of Big Oil are now saying exactly what those experts were saying in 2005: The world's supply of easy oil is quickly running out... Now they All Agree.
“An abrupt escalation of oil prices after 2015 as a result of a global supply crisis cannot be ruled out. The consequences of unfettered growth in world energy demand are alarming.” - International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook
“Many oil company CEOs privately agree that peak oil is imminent but don't say so publicly.” -James Schlesinger, former head of the CIA, Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Energy, September 2007
“We may be at a point of peak oil production.” -Former President Bill Clinton, London Business School
“The era of cheap energy is over - for good.” - UK Energy minister Malcolm Wicks
“We are experiencing a step-change in the growth rate of energy demand due to population growth and economic development... easy-to-access oil and gas will nolonger keep up with demand.” -Jeroen van der Veer, CEO Royal Dutch Shell, Jan. 28,2008
“I believe oil prices are going up because the demand for oil outstrips the supply for oil. Oil is going up because we use too much oil, and the capacity to replace reserves is dwindling. That's why the price of oil is going up.” -President George Bush, November 7, 2007
Be prepared! If you're not, your family could suffer, along with millions of others, if the nation were faced with a prolongued period of gas siphoning, job losses and food shortages As you read this, governments around the world are scrambling to develop other energy sources to replace dwindling oil supplies. The widely-followed and well-respected International Energy Agency (IEA) reported in 2006 that at least $20 trillion has to be spent to meet surging energy demand.
Others, like former White House advisor Matt Simmons, have recently said that between $50 and $100 trillion needs to be invested to update old and rusting oil & gas infrastructure. Renewable and alternative energy alone is expected to account for about $20 trillion in wealth creation in the next 5 to 7 years.
Three years ago, in the same year the fateful afore mentioned prediction was released, the US Army commissioned a study called “Energy Trends and Their Implications for U.S. Army Installations.”
The report states... “The doubling of oil prices from 2003-2005 is not an anomaly, but a picture of the future. Oil production is approaching its peak; low growth in availability can be expected for the next 5 to 10 years.”
The Pentagon must take Peak Oil seriously. In terms of oil demand, it consumes nearly 400,000 barrels per day. If the Pentagon were a nation, it would rank 30th among all nations (just below Greece) with regards to oil consumption!
This massive transition from oil to other energy sources is already occuring... Right now, the Pentagon, for example, is testing different fuel sources to run its defense. The B- 52 Stratafortress recently flew using coal-to-liquids fuel! And it wasn't manufactured by Exxon, Sunoco or BP. The order was received by a little-known outfit specializing in the technology. The world is undergoing an epic energy shift. Hundreds of billions of dollars are being invested to develop the world's next major energy supply. It could be any of the numerous energy systems discussed in A Convenient Solution... or possibly even all of them.
But the point is... several new energy companies are coming to the forefront... and they'll be the next Exxon's and BP's of the world.For those who understand the situation and are preparing their portfolios for the end of the oil age, the riches will be life-altering.But those who think the world has an endless supply of cheap oil may see their investments ravaged, their lifestyles uprooted, and their retirement plans scrapped.
The Investment Boom in Peak Oil is Fast Underway... Just last month the United Nations released a report that calculates global investment capital flows into renewable energy companies reached $100 billion for the first time in history last year.
“The finance community has been investing at levels that imply disruptive change is now inevitable in the energy sector,” says Eric Usher, Head of the Energy Finance Unit at the UN. Usher said the UN’s “report puts full stop to the idea of renewable energy being a fringe interest of environmentalists. It is now a mainstream commercial interest to investors and bankers alike.” And that figure will only go up as we head further in the Age of Peak Oil.
It's easy to understand why billions of investment capital are flooding into renewable energy. Within the next 7 years, oil consumption is expected to increase from our current 87 million barrels per day to 103 million barrels per day. That's a net increase in consumption of 16 million barrels. To put this into perspective, Saudi Arabia produces 9 million barrels per day. So between now and 2015, the world needs to find the equivalent of 1.8 Saudi Arabias! And the Saudi Arabian oil is beginniing to run out... production is slowing.
The situation looks even more dire when you look to the year 2030. Oil consumption is expected to increase to between 118 and 123 million barrels per. So from today's demand of 87 million barrels per day, we have to find an extra 36 million barrels of oil per day!That's roughly the production of 4 Saudi Arabias.
There is not a lot of joy in the fact that these predictions have come true. Most everyone buys gasoline just like you---fill up their cars once a week... and cringe at the price. But there is a silver lining. The biggest crisis the world has ever faced is also its greatest investment opportunity. In fact, it began in December 2005. You just didn't notice it because the mainstream media didn't report on this major milestone. But we understood its significance, and published our findings and views, repeatedly.
The world consumed its one-trillionth barrel of oil in December '05. In the blink of an eye, half the world's known recoverable oil reserves were gone.With roughly 1 trillion barrels remaining, matched against our current rate of consumption of 87 million barrels per day, the world has just 31 years left of oil.
And as the world heads into the second half of the Oil Age, companies and governments alike are pouring hundreds of billions of dollars to find new oil reserves and to develop alternative energy like wind and solar. But as we shall see, the stark reality of our current oil production will have much more immediate effects. Shortages and persistently higher prices are the first indicators, and they are already here. This extends into other critical areas like food and manufactured goods as well..
“The modern world needs cheap oil like the human body needs oxygen; remove it, and we could be headed for economic decline, resource wars and social chaos.”
The Maine Sentinal, May 12, 2008
Higher prices will undoubtedly lead to reduced demand, and the oil that remains will last a little longer.But it appears certain that within the next decade, and possibly within the next three years, we will be forced to start living with progressively less oil each year, every year, for the next century - with profound effects on the economy and just about everything in life as we know it.Let us be clear about this - This is the most serious challenge the world has ever faced.
“There is a huge risk that the oil price simply continues to escalate until it gets to some level (possibly $250) when demand finally collapses because ordinary people can no longer afford to burn as much energy as they are burning now.”
- Adam Sieminski, Deutsche Bank's chief energy economist
The nub of the world's most singular problem is to ensure we can sustain the 21st century without experiencing social chaos and ultimately a widespread geopolitical conflict or war. - Matthew Simmons
When responding to requests to produce more oil, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia told Saudi authorities to 'leave it in the ground, with grace from god, our children need it.'
From the current vantage point of the media, most people still believe that cheap and abundant oil and natural gas will continue to provide us with low gasoline and grid electricity prices for at least several decades more, just as they have in the past.This is especially true for the pundits and analysts who regularly appear on television to talk about how improved technology will continue to lower energy costs and bring as much energy to market as we demand... therefore forcing the price back down to $35 a barrel.
Again, remember Steve Forbes' infamous prediction in 2005 that higher oil prices would cause supply to increase and outpace demand.But, according to Matthew Simmons, the world's top oil investment banker and an energy adviser to President George W. Bush, the idea that cheap oil would last forever is a 21st-century myth: “The religion was faith-based, not fact-based! It was an illusion!”
At the first Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO) conference in 2005, Simmons observed that the peak oil problem had started to look like a “theological debate,” and quoted Dr. Herman Franssen, saying, “'It is time to leave 'I believe' inside a church.”
Here are the facts: The largest oil reservoirs are mature, and their production is falling. Approximately three-quarters of the world's current oil production is from fields that are two or three decades old, past their peaks and beginning their declines.
Cantarell, The Third Largest Oil Field in the World Is Dying
Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex), Mexico’s state oil monopoly, said it expects production at its Cantarell oil field to begin declining this year, earlier than previously forecast. Their chief executive said the company expects its Cantarell oil field to decline by an average of 14% a year between 2007 and 2015.
Kuwait’s Burgan Oil Field in Terminal Decline
In an incredible revelation early in May of 2008 it was reported by the Kuwait oil company that its Burgan field, the world’s second largest oil field, is exhausted and past its peak output.
Much of the remaining quarter comes from fields that are 10 to 15 years old. New fields are diminishing in number and size every year, and this trend has held for over a decade.And enhanced oil recovery technology, rather than making ever-greater amounts of oil available, has had the perverse effect of simply allowing us to deplete the existing oil basins more quickly.Instead of creating future supplies of cheaper energy, enhanced oil recovery has caused us to sell the supply of those high-quality, nonrenewable resources as quickly and as cheaply as possible - leaving little for the future, and that at a much higher price.
They called it...
“The price of oil could get as high as $185 a barrel with oil hitting $80 a barrel within the next two years.” - Brian Hicks, March 3, 2005
“ . . .you can kiss $45 a barrel goodbye . . . maybe even $50! In fact, we're probably facing a price spike between $80 to $100 a barrel within the next 24 months.” - Brian Hicks, January 18, 2006
“ . . . I think these estimates are a bit on the conservative side, and we should see $80 oil this year, no problem.” - Chris Nelder, January 18, 2007
“Today, we're calling for the price of oil to reach over $100 within the next twelve months.” - Brian Hicks, October 15, 2007
To put oil depletion in context, consider these facts:
For every calorie of food that we consume in the United States, 10 calories of fossil fuel input were needed in the form of fertilizers (made from natural gas); pesticides and herbicides (made from oil); fuel to run the machines that plant, tend, harvest, transport, and process the goods; and fuel to deliver them to your grocery store and keep them cold there.And that doesn't even count the energy needed to transport you to the store, and you and your groceries back home, nor the energy used to cook the meal.The massive inputs of fossil fuels into food production are what have permitted the world population to increase from around 1.5 billion people at the turn of the twentieth century to its current level of around 6.7 billion people.
In a very straightforward way, food is oil and gas. Food travels an average of 1,300 miles from the farm to the plate in North America, leading critics such as James Howard Kunstler to decry the “3,000-mile Caesar salad” that travels from California's breadbasket, the San Joaquin Valley, to his table in Scranton, Pennsylvania.
But peak oil challenges more than our ability to feed ourselves.The security costs alone of having the U.S. military protect the oil supplies of the Persian Gulf are around $44 billion per year.In fact, an in-depth analysis of the true total economic cost of the nation's growing dependence on imported oil is estimated at $825.1 billion - almost twice the President's $419.3 billion defense budget request. And much of that goes into the pockets of people who despise the U.S.Our dependence on oil - of which nearly two-thirds is imported - is a constant drain on the nation's treasury, not to mention the blood of its soldiers.
We need oil for nearly everything we do, and our entire infrastructure is built on the assumption that there will always be more when we want it, with very little storage or slack along the way. We have a serious challenge ahead of us.
Saudi oil output hike would not solve US problems: Bush, May 17 10:04 AM
US President George W. Bush said on Saturday that a hike in oil output by Saudi Arabia would not solve American energy problems.”It's not enough, it's something but it doesn't solve our problem,” Bush told reporters in Egypt's Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh.Bush said he was “pleased” with a Saudi decision taken on May 10 to increase its oil production by 300,000 barrels per day in response to customers, but said that he was “also realistic” about what the Americans should do.
“Our problem in America gets solved when we aggressively go for domestic exploration. Our problem in America gets solved if we expand our refining capacity, promote nuclear energy and continue our strategy for the advancing of alternative energies as well as conservation,” he said. Divided into three comprehensive parts.
Hicks and energy expert Chris Nelder take a hard look at the future of oil and gas, discuss how you can effectively invest in these resources, and detail the potential profitability of energy alternatives that are poised to power the years ahead. Along the way, they also explore the potential, as well as the inherent limitations, of each major energy source and carefully cover the investing angles of each one.
“China’s crude demand is expanding at 11% a year - the country will soon replace the US as the world’s biggest oil importer. The growth of India’s oil demand isn’t far behind. These two nations account for a third of humanity. And as their breakneck development continues, the energy needs of their factories and construction firms—along with those in Brazil, Mexico and other populous emerging markets—can only escalate.
“Specifically, as these countries get richer, and their citizens can afford more, the number of cars in the world, now around 625 million, is set to double in less than 20years. Think of the impact of that on global oil demand, seeing as around 70% of current crude output is used to fuel cars.”
The UK Telegraph, April 2008.
Even with the price of oil splashed all over the television screen and gasoline prices posted in every filling station, most Americans have no idea of the crisis that's here, now. They've been brainwashed by “it's Big Oil's profit gouging” argument the media pundits and politicians spew whenever oil and gasoline hits record prices.It's those delusions that the clueless politicians have so readily spread to citizens that have created the misguided attitudes so many Americans have come to believe as fact. You see, there's a horde of “cheap oil will last forever” believers who can't imagine the Age of Oil will ever end.
But that's changing fast. Even GM is getting on the bandwagon. What they are doing and what other cmpanies are doing that is virtually ignored by the media are both described in A Convenient Solution.
What is all this leading up to? Many unbelievable opportunities for entrepreneurs and investors. This huge and growing need is simply stated for cheap and plentiful energy. Electricity, fuel, food, all the most powerful needs from simple survival to oppulent living are dependent on cheap and plentiful energy of some sort. Oil is rapidly diminishing and other fossil fuels go higher on the environmental hit list every day. Right or wrong, those are the realities. Whether the environmental dangers are real or imagined, the perception in the public's mind is what determines what can be done and what can't.
The perception of danger in nuclear energy has all but completely removed that as an option in the US, certainly for the last thirty years. Other nations like France, China and now even Italy are investing heavily in nuclear power. Our efforts must be directed in other directions, each with its own environmental problems. Wind farms are expensive, unsightly and a danger to migrating birds. Rivers dammed for hydroelectric power do great environmental damage as witness the decimation of salmon fisheries in the northwest. Solar installations will require huge tracts of land and coal, currently supplying 50% of our power, is the bane of many environmentalists and certainly the global warming crowd. Any kind of power plant anywhere in the US will certainly be greeted by an army of local residents saying, "Not in our back yard!"
This leaves but two viable alternatives, geothermal and ocean wave action. Rest assured there will be active groups sure to voice strong opposition to even these installations, anywhere. Remember Ted Kennedy who didn't want wind turbines to clutter up his ocean off massachusetts? I think these clowns actually want us to go back to the stone age.
America has a wide range of choices, but only two directions are possible. We can work to develop alternative energy and fuels and convert to systems that make and use them and in so doing expand our economy and raise the living standards of all our people. We can also wring our hands about high prices for fuel, food and energy, and condemn those creative organizations that could solve those problems and who dare to make profits until our economy collapses. That's what both liberal Democrat presidential contenders are doing. The choice is ours. We can become an Ireland or a Cuba. We can embrace and support profitibility and grow like Ireland, or we can confiscate profits and impose equality where all but the socialist officials live in poverty like Cuba.
No comments:
Post a Comment