|
|
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
THE ARGUMENT FOR INVESTING IN CONVENTIONAL ENERGY: For years, as a strong advocate of carbon-based-energy investing, I have enjoyed substantial success in increasing
the value of my portfolio. Simmering over the past several years, then reaching a boil with the 2008 presidential campaign,
heated discussions of alternative energy sources erupted. Various arguments predicting the demise of carbon-based-energy
fueled both the world’s governments and media. This note is an attempt to both put those discussions in perspective and determine where to invest
to intercept the future of energy. The carbon based fuels referenced in this discussion are coal, oil and natural gas. There are several reasons why ‘alternative energy sources’ have gained national
attention; national defense/security, global climate change, and the depletion of carbon based fuel resources (some day we
will just run out of it). Many recent, sometimes interesting, discussions address not only alternative energy, renewable
energy and green energy; but also how the transition to those energy sources may impact the future value of carbon based energy
investments. Most discussions are sparked by our current dependence on foreign oil which fuels our economy. The United States imports approximately 62 percent of its oil. Canada supplies approximately 20 percent of these imports,
and Mexico contributes 10 percent. But, over 30 percent comes from regimes that are less friendly or stable, including Saudi
Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Angola, Iraq, and Algeria (respectively the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th largest oil importers
to the United States). Over Half of Crude Oil Imports Comes from Unstable or Unfriendly
Countries. Obviously, this raises the national defense/security issue.
During a major war, it may not be possible to import this oil to fuel our defense efforts. It is also safe to assume that
some portion of the billions of dollars we export annually to these countries for the purchase of their oil is ultimately
used by our enemies to launch terrorist attacks on us. We are funding our enemies and then spending more money and human
capital to defend ourselves from them. This, in itself, is reason enough to decrease our dependence on foreign oil before
we even consider the environmental effects of oil as our primary energy source.We
must find an energy solution that reduces our dependence on foreign interests, both friend and foe; is also friendlier to
the environment; and is sustainable and/or renewable. Much has been said about the impact of Man’s insatiable
thirst for fossil fuels on either climate change or global warming. I think there are strong arguments on each side
as to man’s impact on global warming; but, I do not want to argue that issue here. Instead I will just state that
anything we can do, within reason, to reduce carbon emissions cannot be bad and certainly is a good thing. Ideally,
we can find that one magic bullet solution to our energy needs problems. Let’s look at some.
Ethanol from corn: burning money
and oil:
US politicians have been
subsidising corn (maize) production, and its conversion to ethanol, for years. The idea is that it can be added to petrol
where it both acts as fuel itself, and makes the petrol burn more efficiently and cleanly. Since it is not derived from
fossil fuel, it should reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help reduce American dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Surely, that’s
worth the $1.4 billion annual subsidy that farmers in states like Iowa and Nebraska; and companies like Archer Midland Daniels
get every year. This is why every four years we hear so much about ethanol as a major source of energy. When politicians
are campaigning in the Corn Belt States, what better way to get their votes than to propose ever more subsidies and mandates
for the use of corn to fuel our cars and economy? Taxpayers may not be so keen. The full costs of the subsidie
are a good deal more than the direct subsidy itself. By raising the price of corn they raise costs of food throughout
the world. And for all of our enemies from which we wish not to import oil, we send them the message that we are
burning food in our SUVs while much of the world is starving. This does not bode well for our image around the
world.
The real problem with ethanol from corn is that it requires fuel to make the corn. David Pimentel a, professor
from Cornell, has done the analysis [i]. An acre of U.S. corn can be processed into about 328 gallons of ethanol.
But, planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $347 per acre, according
to Pimentel. That is $1.05 per gallon of ethanol before the corn even moves off the farm. The energy economics get worse
at the processing plants, where the grain is crushed and fermented. As many as three distillation steps and other treatments
are needed to separate the ethanol from the water. All these need both energy as well as another of our most precious
and scarce resources, water. It is a consideration and part of the permitting process when ethanol plants are
built. A typical ethanol plant, capable of producing 40 million gallons of ethanol per year, could use up to 330,000 gallons
of water per day or 120 million gallons of water per year. This is equivalent to water used by a town of 5,000 people or a
standard-sized golf course over the same period of time. The average home uses 107,000 gallons of water per year. In
Iowa and Nebraska, ethanol plants were built without considering water usage; and towns and farms soon ran low on water.
They now burn natural gas to irrigate their fields.
The energy costs of corn production
and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make one gallon of ethanol which has an energy value of only 77,000
BTU. "Put another way," Pimentel says, "about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the
energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs."Overall, ethanol from corn costs about $1.74
per gallon to produce compared with about 95 cents to produce a gallon of petrol. "That helps explain why fossil fuels
-- not ethanol -- are used to produce ethanol" Pimentel says. "The growers and processors can't afford to burn
ethanol to make ethanol. Drivers couldn't afford it, either, if it weren't for government subsidies to artificially lower
its price. Abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile
fuel amounts to unsustainable, subsidized food burning," says Pimentel. He knows what he is talking about.
He chaired a U.S. Department of Energy panel that investigated the energetics, economics and environmental aspects of ethanol
production several years ago. Since the
production energy comes mostly from fossil fuels, ethanol isn't just wasting money but hastening the depletion of non-renewable
resources. Corn production in the U.S. erodes soil about 12 times faster than the soil can be reformed, and irrigating corn
drains underwater aquifers faster than they are being replenished. In Nebraska about 80% of the subsidized corn has
to be irrigated by pumps fuelled by natural gas, and using water from the rapidly depleting Ogallala aquifer.
Even
the strongest advocates of ethanol have recently agreed that it actually does more harm to climate change than does burning
petrol; but, they argue that it is a good interim solution until we solve that problem. The inefficiency and environmental
damage becomes clearer if we imagine what would happen if all cars were fuelled by ethanol. The average car travelling
10,000 miles a year on pure ethanol would need about 852 gallons of the corn-based fuel. This would take 11 acres to grow
- the same amount of cropland required to feed seven people for a year. Not surprisingly, ethanol enthusiasts dispute Pimentel’s calculations.
A U.S. Department of Agriculture study found, "Production of corn-ethanol is energy efficient, in that it yields
34 percent more energy than it takes to produce it, including growing the corn, harvesting it, transporting it, and distilling
it into ethanol." However, the USDA is hardly neutral. It’s whole reason for existence is to
find that agricultural subsidies of any sort are a good thing.So, who should outsiders believe? Enthusiasts who claim you get 34%
more out than you put in, or skeptics who say that you get 34% less?
Maybe it does not matter.
They both admit that ethanol production involves converting massive amounts of energy from one form to another. Whatever
the USDA may say, neither the corn growers nor ethanol distillers can escape the second law of thermodynamics. Frankly, I do not know if it takes 34%
more energy or 34% less energy to make a gallon of ethanol; but, I do know neither one is a good deal and that burning ethanol
is worse than burning petrol as far as the effect on global climate change is concerned. Fortunately, the bottom line
is simple. If ethanol from corn is so cost effective, why does its production need federal subsidies?
The King is Dead; Long Live the King:
King coal that is. Coal is the solid end-product of millions of years of decomposition
of organic materials. In truth, coal is stored solar energy. Plants capture the energy from sunlight through photosynthesis,
which directly converts solar energy to plant matter. Animals then eat the plants to convert that energy again, storing it
in their own bodies. Over millions of years, accumulated plant and animal matter is covered
by sediment and stored within the earth's crust, gradually being transformed into hard black solids by the sheer weight of
the earth's surface. Coal, like other fossil fuel supplies, takes millions of years to create, but releases its stored energy
within only a few moments when burned to generate electricity.
Because coal is a finite resource, and cannot be
replenished once it is extracted and burned, it cannot be considered a renewable resource. However,
the United States has been described as the Saudi Arabia of Coal.
At current consumption
rates and with current technology and land-use restrictions, the U.S. coal reserves would last well over 250 years.
With improved technologies, estimated recoverable coal reserves, at current consumption rates, are estimated
to be sufficient for 500 years or longer. The nation's fleet of over 100 coal plants is responsible for about 50 percent of the electricity
generated in the U.S., more than any other single electricity fuel source.Coal is typically burned to create steam, which is then piped
at high pressure over a turbine, causing it to rotate, and produce electricity. This steam electric system is a common one
also used with other fuel sources, including oil, natural gas, geothermal, biomass, and even some solar-fueled systems.The
popularity of coal is largely due to its low cost. Nevertheless, coal power plants are responsible
for 93 percent of the sulfur dioxide and 80 percent of the nitrogen oxide emissions generated by the electric utility industry.
Coal emissions cause urban smog, which has been linked to respiratory ailments; and, coal-fired power plants also contribute
to global climate change. Coal plants emit 73 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere from electricity generators.
By releasing the energy stored in coal, large quantities of carbon dioxide that have been stored in the coal for millions
of years are released back into the atmosphere, increasing the threat of global warming.
Coal plants are also
a major source of airborne emissions of mercury, a toxic heavy metal. However, coal is so
inexpensive that one can spend quite a bit on pollution control and still maintain coal’s competitive position.Federal
law requires that air pollution be kept within limits. However, these limits are significantly lower for older coal plants
than for newer ones. Even when kept within the air emission limits set by the Clean Air Act, state-of-the-art coal power plants
still produce significant damage to human health, public and private property, and ecosystems. The mining, processing, and
transporting of coal also insults the environment. In the West, about 87 percent of coal is removed from the earth through
strip mining, which can contaminate soils with heavy metals and destroy near-surface aquifers. In the East, coal is sometimes
mined by removing entire mountain tops to more easily extract the subsurface mineral reserves. The United States has backed
away from coal as an energy source with only a dozen coal-fired plants coming on line since 1990. On the other hand,
China is reportedly adding the equivalent of two coal-fired power plants a week and has become a large importer of clean,
U.S. coal.
Hydro-electric generation:
Hydro-electric generation accounts for about 7% of the electricity generated in the
U.S. The obvious limitation here is the availability of moving water to turn the huge turbines required to generate
power. It is quite successful in the Pacific North West; and, Niagara Falls has a huge program. Even these locations
are not without controversy. At Niagara Falls, 50% of the normal flow is allowed to cascade over the falls during the
daylight hours of the tourist season. The rest of the time the water is diverted to hydro-electric plants. And,
it is even pumped back up at night to create the falls in the morning. Also, environmentalists are advocating the removal
of dams on some rivers thus reducing the availability of hydro-electric generation. And then there are the whims of
nature known as drought. Many U.S. plants have been affected by drought over the past several years but none as bad
as Venezuela and China this year.
The current drought in Asia highlights the risks of China's growing dependence on
hydro-electric power. China is the world's biggest producer of hydro-power, which supplies some 15% of the country's electricity.
Beijing plans to almost double output, to 300 gigawatts of installed capacity, by 2020; the rivers of southwestern China,
which feed the giant Mekong system, are an essential part of the planned power grid. Low water levels are already causing
brownouts. "This drought has seriously affected hydro-power," says Ma Jun, director of the nonprofit Institute of
Public & Environmental Affairs in Beijing. "Some rationing of power to factories
has been adopted." If the drought is prolonged, China may have to increase its reliance on coal, which still supplies about
80% of its electricity—and produces much of its air pollution. "The southwest drought will drive demand for coal
[and] increase prices," predicts Laby Wu, chief financial officer of Shanxi-based
Puda Coal.Hydro-electric generation is very clean and free of foreign
interests; but, there can never be enough capacity in our country to make it a major contributor to the solution of our energy
problems.
Nuclear
power:
Nuclear power
generation accounts for about 20% of the electricity generated in the U.S. but that far short of what might have been.
After the growth of nuclear power in the 1960s, the Atomic Energy Commission anticipated that more than 1,000 reactors would be operating in the United States by 2000. But, by the end of the 1970s,
it became clear that nuclear power would not grow nearly so dramatically and more than 120 reactor orders were ultimately
cancelled. The Three Mile Island accident has been the most serious accident experienced by the commercial nuclear industry in the U.S. Other accidents
include those at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant,
which has been the source of two of the top five most dangerous nuclear incidents in the United States since 1979, according to the Nuclear Regulatory CommissionTo compare the historical safety record of civilian nuclear energy with the historical record of
other forms of electrical generation, Ball, Roberts, and Simpson, the IAEA, and the Paul Scherrer Institute found in separate studies that during the period
from 1970 - 1992, there were just 39 on-the-job deaths of nuclear power plant workers, while during
the same time period, there were 6,400 on-the-job deaths of coal power plant workers, 1,200 on-the-job deaths of natural gas power plant workers and members of the general public caused by natural gas power plants, and 4,000 deaths of members of the general public caused by hydro-electric power plants. Our fear of nuclear power plant safety appears to be unfounded yet the
same unfounded fear has enabled anti-nuclear activists to rob us of that resource. A large number of plants have recently
received 20-year extensions to their licensed lifetimes. The average capacity factor for all U.S. plants has improved from below 60% in the 1970s and 1980s,
to 92% in 2007, more than compensating for the retirement of older reactors.
Several U.S. nuclear
power plants closed well before their design lifetimes, due to successful campaigns by anti-nuclear activist groups, with
the last permanent closure of a US nuclear power plant in 1997. In recent years, there has been a renewed interest in
nuclear power in the US. This has been facilitated, in part, by the federal government with the Nuclear Power 2010 Program, which coordinates efforts
to build new nuclear power plants, and the Energy Policy Act which makes provisions for
nuclear and oil industries. On February 16, 2010, President Barack Obama announced loan guarantees for two new reactors at
Georgia Power's Vogtle NPP. The reactors are "just
the first of what we hope will be many new nuclear projects," said Carol Browner, director
of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy.As of March 9, 2009, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission had received applications
for permission to construct 26 new nuclear power reactors with applications for another 7 expected. Six of these reactors
have actually been ordered. In addition, the Tennessee Valley Authority petitioned to restart construction on the first
two units at Bellefonte. However, not all of this
new capacity will necessarily be built, with some applications being made to keep future options open and reserving places
in a queue for government incentives available for up to the first three plants based on each innovative reactor design.It is my opinion that President
Obama is on the right track and we should rapidly increase the development and construction of modern nuclear power generating
plants. They certainly could reduce our dependence on foreign oil with minimal impact on the environment. Of course
we need to find viable solutions to manage nuclear waste but that is a problem we can solve easier than many of the problems
inherent in most of the alternative energy solutions that are being proposed.
Wind Power:
Since wind speed is not constant, a wind farm's annual energy production is never as much as the sum of the generator nameplate ratings multiplied
by the total hours in a year. The ratio of actual productivity in a year to this theoretical maximum is called the capacity factor. Typical capacity factors are 20–40%, with values at the upper end of the range in particularly
favorable sites.[16] For example, a 1 MW turbine with a capacity factor of 35% will not produce 8,760 MW·h
in a year (1 × 24 × 365), but only 1 × 0.35 × 24 × 365 = 3,066 MW·h, averaging
to 0.35 MW. Online data is available for some locations; and, the capacity factor can be calculated from the yearly output.
Unlike fuel-fired generating plants, the capacity factor is limited by
the inherent properties of wind. Capacity factors of other types of power plants are based mostly on fuel costs, with a small
amount of downtime for maintenance. Nuclear plants have low incremental fuel costs, and so are run at full output and achieve a 90% capacity factor.
Plants with higher fuel costs are throttled back to follow load. Gas turbine plants using natural gas as fuel may be very expensive to operate and may be run only to meet peak power demand. A gas turbine plant may have an annual capacity factor of 5–25% due to relatively
high energy production costs.According to a 2007 Stanford University study published
in the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, interconnecting ten or more wind farms can allow an average of 33%
of the total energy produced to be used as reliable, base load electric power, as long as minimum criteria are met for wind speed and turbine height.In a 2008 study released by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, the capacity factor achieved by the wind turbine fleet is shown to be increasing as the technology improves.
The capacity factor achieved by new wind turbines in 2004 and 2005 reached 36%.Wind
energy "penetration" refers to the fraction of energy produced by wind compared with the total available generation
capacity. There is no generally accepted "maximum" level of wind penetration. The limit for a particular grid will
depend on the existing generating plants, pricing mechanisms, capacity for storage or demand management, and other factors.
An interconnected electricity grid will already include reserve generating and transmission capacity to allow for equipment
failures; this reserve capacity can also serve to regulate for the varying power generation by wind plants.
Studies
have indicated that 20% of the total electrical energy consumption may be incorporated with minimal difficulty. These
studies represent locations with geographically dispersed wind farms; some degree of dispatchable energy; or hydro-power with
storage capacity, demand management, and interconnection to a large grid area export of electricity, when needed. Beyond this
level, there are few technical limits, but the economic implications become more significant. Electrical utilities continue
to study the effects of large (20% or more) scale penetration of wind generation on system stability and economics.Historically, a fuel-fired generating plant maintains about 20% excess capacity reserved for
down time and especially for peak demand. None of us wants to endure brown-outs when the temperature soars to above
100 degrees and those air conditioners max out. Power companies have found that when employing wind-power generation,
they need a minimum 40% reserve capacity available for the variances of wind, in addition to those of demand peaks.
This capacity must be in fuel-fired generators (or hydro), thus increasing the overall cost of energy delivered to the end
user.Clearly, any power generated by wind reduces dependence on foreign
oil and is very good for the environment. The primary issues with wind and solar are the whims of nature impacts on
our ability to provide reliable power and our inability to store energy created by high winds. And, a seldom reported
fact, wind turbines are extremely loud and no one wants them in their neighborhood. Just as costal residents do not
want to see off-shore oil drilling platforms, no one wants to see wind turbines, or hear them roaring, in their back yard.
There has been significant stimulus investment in wind turbine technology. However, we have discovered that much of
this investment has blown overseas rather than creating jobs in this country. Were I to invest in wind technology I
would stay with real companies like GE as the multitude of small firms rely mostly on government spending.
Solar power:
Solar power is the conversion of sunlight to electricity. Sunlight can be converted directly into
electricity using photovoltaics (PV), or indirectly by concentrating solar power (CSP), which normally focuses the sun's
energy to boil water which is then used to provide power, and technologies such as the Stirling engine dishes which use a
Stirling cycle engine to power a generator. Photovoltaics were initially used to power small and medium-sized applications,
from the calculator powered by a single solar cell to off-grid
homes powered by a photovoltaic array.Solar power plants have initially encountered high installation costs, although, learning
curves are reducing these incremental costs. Developing countries have started to build solar power plants, replacing other
sources of energy generation.In
2008, solar power supplied 0.02% of the world's total energy supply. Use has been doubling every two, or fewer years. If it
continues at that rate, it will take several decades to be a dominant provider of energy.Since solar radiation is intermittent, solar power generation is combined
either with storage or other energy sources to provide continuous power, which increases the cost and
dependence on fuel-fired generating capacity. Like wind energy, we again have the problem of storage. The most
common method is to pump water up to a high level during peak (excess) power generation periods and run it through a hydro-electric
generator during times when demand exceeds generation capacity. This means, of course, to be a meaningful source of
commercial energy, the plant must have significant over capacity during times of maximum solar collection to provide energy
during times of low or no solar generation.Although a very clean energy source and free of foreign interests, I foresee a long delay before a significant portion
of our energy requirements can be met by solar energy. A very risky place to invest unless you stay with the big solar
panel manufacturers who again will do well as long as government subsidies continue.
The contradiction of electric cars:
The electric car is the proposed solution which I find the most contradictory. If I were to tell you I was
going to build and sell a car that runs on coal to drive around Chicago, you would think I was insane. But that is,
in fact, what electric cars do. The problem? Most advocates of electric cars have never stopped to think “from
whence does electricity come”? Their thought process goes back about as far as the outlet in their garage.
Since 45% of the electricity generated in the U. S. is created from coal, it is only logical that 45% of electric cars
run on coal. Unless you live in one of the few states that have abundant hydro-electricity, you have a greater than
70% chance that your electric car is running on carbon based fuel. Not only that, but the electricity is generated by
burning fuel, transmitted to your homes and then stored in a battery, which may well be the most inefficient way in all of
creation to use electricity. Although very clean and environmentally efficient for driving short distances (usually
less that 100 miles on a charge) around town, the total process still burns hydrocarbons and, therefore, does little to reduce
emissions or free us of our dependence on carbon based fuels. Hybrid cars: The
idea of a hybrid engine as a means of transportation is hardly new. For more than 50 years, the hybrid engine has been
the mainstay of commercial freight transportation; it is called the diesel locomotive. What does it do? It has
a very large diesel engine that runs a huge electric generator. The generator in turn powers very high torque electric
motors which in turn drive the locomotive wheels. Unless I am mistaken, that is the same thing that a Toyota Prius does
but on a slightly different scale. Hybrid cars have the added feature of large storage batteries to isolate the electric
drive motors from the gasoline driven electric generator and therefore are much more fuel efficient. The problem with hybrid
cars is they do not free us of our dependence on oil. They do get great gas mileage; perhaps sometimes as much as 50%
more than an automobile of similar size and equipment. But, they still burn gasoline. Therefore, they still have
a negative impact on the environment and still keep us dependant on foreign oil. Their improved fuel economy is a good
attempt at fuel conservation; but, we cannot conserve ourselves out of this problem. There has been much discussion about the impact of battery construction
on the environment, but much of that has been debunked and will not be discussed here. As conventional, internal combustion
engines become more efficient and the automobiles they power obtain improved miles per gallon, the competitive advantage of
the very complex hybrid car will lessen. Hybrid cars are a good idea, but not enough to change the reality of our world. So,
where does this discussion leave us? As one of my readers told me as we discussed this article: It is a fool’s errand for the U.S. to continue to support, with billions of dollars, Middle Eastern and
South American dictators who hate us and then have to spend billions more to defend ourselves against them. It is an evil
bargain; and, we must end their reign of terror. We cannot rely on government. At least since the oil crisis of
the Carter administration, we have seen this problem coming. There has never been an attempt by either political party to
actually embark on a meaningful national energy policy to free us of foreign blackmail. The only ‘solution’ we have seen that significantly reduces this folly is coal which is an environmentally
challenging solution. Ethanol not only doesn’t do it but it also negatively impacts the environment. Wind
and solar are very clean but decades away from being viable. Electric cars help the environment but usually burn coal.
And, hybrids are just a stop-gap to slow consumption growth. To me, nuclear is a true opportunity. Realistically,
even with a major change of heart in the country (very unlikely), meaningful capacity is over a decade away. We talk
about things like hydrogen cars and other far-out technology; but, being an engineer by trade, I have learned you cannot schedule
innovation. We cannot drill our way out of this--- the mess in the gulf assures that. So, I see no solution for
at least a decade. That is unless, of course, you consider the obvious alternative I have not discussed--- natural gas
and the Pickens Plan.
Natural
gas:
Conserving and harnessing renewable forms of electricity
not only has incredible economic benefits, but is also a crucial piece of the oil dependence puzzle. We should continue to
pursue the promise of electric or hydrogen powered vehicles; but, America needs to address transportation fuel today. Fortunately,
we are blessed with an abundance of clean, cheap, domestic natural gas. Currently, domestic natural gas is primarily used to generate electricity and accounts for about
25% of electric generation. It has the advantage of being cheap and significantly cleaner than coal. But, this is not
the only use of our natural gas resources. By aggressively moving to shift America's car, light duty, and heavy truck
fleets from imported gasoline and diesel to domestic natural gas, we can lower our need for foreign oil, therefore, helping
President Obama reach his goal of zero oil imports from the Middle East within ten years.
Nearly 33% of every barrel of oil we import is used
by 18-wheelers moving goods around and across the country by burning imported diesel. An over-the-road truck cannot be moved
using current battery technology. Fleet vehicles like buses, taxis, express delivery trucks, and municipal and utility vehicles
(any vehicle which returns to the "barn" each night where refueling is a simple matter) should be replaced by vehicles
running on clean, cheap, domestic natural gas rather than imported gasoline or diesel fuel.Natural gas is not a permanent or complete solution to importing oil. It is a bridge fuel to slash our oil
dependence while buying us time to develop new technologies that will ultimately replace transportation fossil fuels. Natural
gas is the critical puzzle piece that will help us to keep more of the $350 to $450 billion we spend on imported oil every
year at home where it can power our economy and pay for our investments in wind energy, a smart grid, and energy efficiency.A common misconception about natural gas is that we are running out, and quickly. However, this
couldn't be further from the truth. Many people believe that price spikes, seen in the 1970’s and more recently in the
winter of 2000, indicate that we are running out of natural gas.
The two aforementioned periods of high prices
were not caused by waning natural gas resources, rather, there were other forces at work in the marketplace. In fact,
there is a vast amount of natural gas estimated to still be in the ground and the good news is it is in North America!
Even with the conversion of more power generation to natural gas; the conversion of all 18 wheelers to natural gas; and the
conversion of automobiles to natural gas; we have the reserves to last decades. It is not the final solution, but, it
is the solid bridge to the future and to energy independence.Furthermore,
there are no technical breakthroughs to be discovered or implemented; all of the technology required exists today. All
it takes is the will and determination to make it happen.
Summary:
For those of you who have stayed
with me through these pages of drivel, I commend you. I also remind you from whence we have come. This entire
exercise was meant to help us decide where to invest, where to expect to get solid and consistent gains. If you can
believe at least half of what has been written in this paper, it should be quite obvious that we, or any other nation, really
has no choice but to rely on carbon based, fossil fuels for the next decade and beyond. It is imperative that we find
solutions to get us out of this dilemma. But, as rational, prudent investors, we must know where the returns are for
the next decade. The thirst for oil is growing in the developed world and conservation or green technologies; hybrid
and electric cars; solar and wind may slow that growth. But the growth of oil and gas is running rampant in the developing
countries and no conservation will occur there. Populations who have just traded in their bicycles and horses for the
automobile are not going to go backward. Those who have just recently converted from charcoal as a source of heat and
cooking will not go backward. You cannot put the genie back into the bottle; and, you should not underestimate the increasing
value of fossil fuel over the next decade.
In fact, with the increased volatility of the world’s
major currencies, including the dollar and the euro, I believe it is more likely that crude oil becomes the world’s
de-facto currency than it is likely to decrease in value. And as discussed in the section on natural gas, I firmly believe
that natural gas is our “bridge fuel” to take us from our current dependence on foreign oil to our energy sources
of the future. And finally, as positive as I am in investment in the oil and gas entities, I am equally negative for
the long term returns likely in the green energy arena.
Note:
This work is not meant to be interpreted as an original thesis but is a compilation of my thoughts, opinions, and
beliefs. A significant amount of cut and paste has occurred; and, I thank all of those from whom I have borrowed thoughts.
Thanks for edits from Denver and Breck.
|
|
 |
|
|
