RE: Energy Policy / Junk Science Environmentalism

Yes, I realize that it's not easy to move large amounts of hydrogen. That's
why I mentioned the low energy density. If hydrogen is generated by
electrolysis, it's probably better to move the electricity than the hydrogen
and set up local electrolysis systems. But the problem of carrying enough
hydrogen in a car or bus remains. That's why I cannot understand all the
fuss about hydrogen-powered buses in cities. Trolley buses work just as
well and that technology in at least 60 years old. Incorporating hydrogen in
metals as hydride works but having a big block of titanium or zirconium in a
car or bus is not going to do much for fuel economy either. Perhaps
adsorbing on nanotubes may work.

I fully agree with Don that we will not run out of oil and that the "rate of
economic adjustment" is going to be critical. If we can collectively agree
on that, the question then becomes one of how, we, as Christians, can help
prepare society for this economic adjustment.

Let me give just one example. There has been quite a bit in the news lately
on the "credit card crunch" in the US and, to a lesser extent, in Canada.
What will happen if the price of gasoline keeps going up (as it did last
fall)? What will happen if, at the same time, interest rates climb (as they
are doing now)? How are people going to make ends meet? If the "rate of
economic adjustment" is low enough, some of the shortfall can be covered by
wage increases but that's not what I see happening. GM is laying off
workers and many industries are renegotiating labour contracts. I think
that, to a large extent, our high standard of living is subsidized by
foreign workers.

There certainly appears to be some scope for Christian economists and
scientists here.

Chuck Vandergraaf

  _____

From: Don Winterstein [mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 2:39 AM
To: 'Al Koop'; Glenn Morton; Tjalle T Vandergraaf
Cc: asa
Subject: Re: Energy Policy / Junk Science Environmentalism

Chuck Vandergraaf wrote:

"...We have to consider the advantages of hydrogen over that of other energy
sources. Portability is one advantage, but energy density is pretty low."

Actually, portability over significant distances remains a serious problem
for hydrogen, because it is very difficult to hold for any length of time in
containers. A proposed solution is to store it on solids by adsorption.

One of my Chevron friends who's very interested and involved in this energy
subject "answered my prayers" by sending me a copy of a speech by Chevron's
CEO on the subject; so I now have a much better idea of what the CEO really
thinks. I'm willing to email the full text to anyone who asks. Here's a
key excerpt:

Three predictions

Keynote address by
David J. O'Reilly
Chairman and CEO
Chevron Corp.

at the 26th Annual Oil & Money Conference
London, England
September 20, 2005

....

Most of the debate about whether peak oil is imminent...misses the point.
Oil will peak - that is a geologic fact. But the new energy equation is not
static. It is dynamic and variable.

Current prices, for instance, are moderating demand growth and will bring
about increased emphasis on conservation - whether it is through changing
individual or collective behaviors. There is still enormous potential to
further reduce energy use through conservation. In many ways, it is the
lowest-cost new energy we have.

And as we begin to contemplate the future decline of oil resources, we are
also beginning to contemplate where the next generation of energy will come
from.

For the near future, extending oil production and expanding the global
natural gas market will play primary roles. But we need to make sources such
as coal and nuclear energy a larger part of the global supply mix for power
generation.

And over the long term, the continuing revolution in technology and market
forces will move emerging sources such as gas-to-liquids closer to the
mainstream. They also will enable renewables such as wind and solar to
become more competitive and economic.

All of which leads me to believe that peak oil, when it occurs, will
actually resemble more of a long plateau - one in which transitions to new
sources can be managed without major shocks or disruptions.

....

What follow are a few of my friend's comments that, I believe, make a useful
contribution:

Here in geophysics both [another colleague] and I are actively following
this "debate", meaning reading whatever books and articles are published
from both sides. Last year I gave a lecture to UC Berkeley's economic
geology class along these lines.... One thing I'm absolutely sure about is
that this is no debate in any [normal] sense of the word, as the
"pessimists" and "optimists" view each other in very much the same way as do
Democrats and Republicans. (This is no exaggeration.) The pessimists are
mostly intelligent geologists who believe they understand the earth well
enough, thank you, and don't have much patience for [economics]
interlopers...nosing into their science. The optimists are mostly
intelligent economists who believe they understand human nature and the
allocation of scarce resources well enough, thank you, and pity their
whining wimpy opponents. The pessimists maintain that the world is near
peak, and further (as outlined in Matt Simmon's latest book Twilight in the
Desert), that the Mideast is very unlikely to remain a swing producer any
more, since it's also in decline. The optimists, however, rightly maintain
that we will never run out of oil, simply because the price will rise
sufficiently to contain demand in a quasi-equilibrium state.... Their other
main argument is that knowledge and technology (two aces in the hole) will
always come to the rescue, at least until economics forces the world to
transition into "the next energy source", among which are nuclear (electric
power), coal..., etc.

What I stress in my talks to...students is that the optimists are entirely
correct that we won't run out of oil, due to the corrective effects of the
market, but I maintain that...the *rate* of economic adjustment... is the
problem, not the adjustment per se. In other words, if economic readjustment
happens in a quasi-equilibrium manner there will not be a shock to the
system, but if adjustment must occur over a period as short as five years,
the economic shock can be big. This is a subject for econometricians, but
I've never heard any argument made for the rate of adjustment being the
material factor. Both sides are too busy vilifying each other.

.... Finally, if you google Jon Claerbout's website at Stanford, he has an
entire page devoted to peak oil literature references.

 Don

 
Received on Thu Jan 5 11:54:57 2006