Sign up | Login with →

Comments by J Elliott Subscribe

On Energy Quote of the Day: '... Then we Just go Away as a Business'

 

In California the shutdown of Oyster Farms is also due to anthropogenic causes.  The impacts of (political) climate change continues to develop everywhere.

 

August 9, 2014    View Comment    

On New EPA Carbon Regulation: What will the Impacts be on Consumer Power Costs?

 

So the EPA has grossly under estimated the costs of reduced power carbon emissions and questionably estimated the benefits substantially based primarily on the health impacts of eliminating coal non-carbon emissions.  What else is new?  The greatest risk appears to be prematurely forcing the shutdown coal power capacity and not allowing sufficient time to build new lower carbon power generation capacity.  It sound like this is a hidden policy strategy of limiting available power generation, risking power outages and forcing reduced demand.  Couldn’t this strategy force reducing total power consumption or rationing power demand by claimed 8% in the future?   

 

July 14, 2014    View Comment    

On Oil Companies Gambling Billions of Dollars Ignoring Realities of a Carbon Constrained World

 

About 90% of total world energy required to support the world’s 7 trillion populous is supplied by fossil fuels today.  Oil currently makes up about one third of total world energy supply.  Most experts’ projections indicate that about 80% of total world energy will continue to be supplied by fossil fuels mid-century; to support a growing population up to about 9 trillion by 2050.  Since oil is projected to continue to supply about one third of total world fossil fuels in 2050, the risk of such an investment does not appear to be very significant.  If one assumes that most fossil fuels or oil will be eliminated by mid-century, what do you believe would be the impact on trillions of the total world population?  And, what are the odds of developing countries such as China and India of reducing, let alone substantially eliminating, the consumption of fossil fuels in the foreseeable future?

Investing against oil may have considerably greater risk.

 

July 14, 2014    View Comment    

On Energy Quote of the Day: Exxon's Climate Response 'Consummate Arrogance'

 

Exxon’s apparent response to climate change questions/recent publications is somewhat surprising since most major oil companies have PR divisions that would normally talk around or in support of corrective actions.  Since Exxon is in the oil and natural gas business you would think they would discuss their programs to switch towards lower carbon, more efficient and cleaner fossil fuels.  Sounds like they messed-up this time.  Good luck persuading investors to divest from XOM stock.  Their financial performance and returns are still too good compared to green energy alternatives.

April 5, 2014    View Comment    

On Mounting Evidence of Health Concerns Near Tar Sands Development

 

Man has used crude oil for over 100 years.  You seem to believe that all forms of oil cause cancer at all stages of production, transportation, refining and consumption.  What are the carcinogens that the heavy tar sands oil are supposed to contain?  Have similar studies in the U.S. found cancer to be an upstream and downstream health issue?  California has historically been the largest producer of heavy SJV crude oil within the U.S.  Since California is the most environmentally conscious State in the U.S. you would think they would have addressed this heavy oil cancer risk issue.  Has California experienced similar health issues?  How about in the La Brea Tar Pit neighborhood or along the south coast beaches where tar sands type oil has seeped from the ground since before man occupied North America and today?

 

 

April 5, 2014    View Comment    

On What are the Realistic Costs and Benefits of the New EPA Tier 3 (Reduced) Gasoline Sulfur Regulation?

 

Why do you discount the ability of the EPA’s peer review consultants to accurately determine the cost to reduce gasoline sulfur?  May be they identified opportunities to reduce gasoline sulfur that the API, AFPM and you missed.  After all, everyone has an opinion on most subjects and even the so called experts make mistakes sometimes.

 

March 13, 2014    View Comment    

On Why the Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline Matters for Climate Change

 

Is continuing to delay a final decision on the Keystone XL in the best interests of North America and the world?  If you believe that such an action will somehow prevent increasing the level of Canadian oil sands and world total crude oil production, possibly.  If you believe the total oil will still flow, the consequences could be far greater than the small amount of increased carbon claimed by Keystone XL opponents.  The Keystone will not likely reduce crude oil consumption in the U.S.  Instead, the U.S. could increase its reliance on imports from our stable friends in the Middle East and OPEC.  If Russia rebuilds the USSR as Putin may be pursuing, these alternative sources of world crude oil supply could be at risk.  Did you miss what recently happened to world crude oil prices when Russia began the campaign of occupying the Crimea.? 

 

March 13, 2014    View Comment    

On Exporting Liquefied Natural Gas Is A Dreadful Idea For The Climate

 

The export of U.S. LNG to sanction Russia cannot feasibly make any difference for at least several years.  If Russia decides to cut off natural gas exports to the Ukraine and the EU, who suffers most?  Not the U.S. currently.  If we shutdown all fracking natural gas production within the U.S. in support of all those questionable claims that such an action is absolutely critical to protect the world from global warming or climate change, who is most affected?  Most of the U.S. population, primarily the poor, the middle class and the elderly, since the rich progressives and conservatives have lots of money and will always find a way to maintain their elite lifestyles regardless of national problems that affect most everyone else.

 

March 13, 2014    View Comment    

On Secretary Kerry Makes Climate Change Top Priority in New Policy Directive: Some Key Actions to Deliver on That Policy

 

Where was Senator Kerry in 2009 when the House passed ACESA 2009 and the Senate did not even bring the bill to the floor to debate this potentially first U.S. carbon cap-n-trade bill?  Is the reason why Secretary Kerry is not likely slowing Iran’s nuclear program because he believes they are truly pursuing nuclear power generation to reduce their carbon emissions?  Where was Senator Kerry 2010-2012 in demanding Senate Leader, Harry Reid, to bring a U.S. climate bill to the Senate floor for consideration?  Where has Secretary Kerry been in pursuing Harry Reid in making a climate change bill a priority this year?  As will likely occur, the Senate’s recent all-nighter campaign/PR climate focused gesture will not likely change the Democratically controlled Senate’s position on real climate regulations before this year’s elections.

 

March 13, 2014    View Comment    

On Modern Alchemy: The Conversion of Anergy to Exergy

 

Why does the world waste most of the energy consumed today?  Technology and cost.  What is the cost to produce one kilowatt of power from the OTEC engine including amortized capital you reference?

 

March 5, 2014    View Comment    

On Secretary Kerry is Right that Climate Change Needs to be Tackled like a 'Weapon of Mass Destruction'

 

Is Secretary Kerry right that climate change needs to be tackled like a ‘Weapon of Mass Destruction’?  The real question becomes what is the probability and capability of Secretary Kerry in successfully dealing with this claimed weapon of mass destruction?   97% or 3%?; that the Secretary and current Administration will be any more successful than their current progress and ability to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons development, or yielding to Russia in leading and eliminating Syria’s chemical weapons used to kill their own citizens.  News update: Syria has delayed handing over their chemical weapons so they can be destroyed as promised.  So what has changed since Senator Kerry voted against the Kyoto Protocol in 1997?  The real weapon of mass destruction here is lack of intelligent, civil and constructive discussion on how best to persuade the majority of the World’s populations to stop consuming fossil fuels.

 

February 18, 2014    View Comment    

On A Forecast of Our Energy Future; Why Common Solutions Don’t Work

Yes, the cost of developing unconventional oil production has increased in recent years relative to conventional oil production costs.  This is due to the combination of depleting conventional oil reserves, higher costs of secondary/tertiary recovery technologies (heat/steam, chemical/hydraulic fracturing and displacing oil deposites with water/carbon dioxide) and restricted access to known conventional oil reserves.  In the U.S. the two historic examples of restricted conventional oil reserves access are shutdown of all off-shore developments on the East and West Coasts and Alaska’s ANWR.  Similar constraints can be witnessed in Europe and other parts of the World where governments control all oil reserves/development.  Mexico’s loosening of their oil reserves recently effectively removes some of these historic government constraints.

January 31, 2014    View Comment