We ain't running out of no stinking oil!

   Ahem: In the news are exasperated pro-oil types that rant about there being no lack of oil available; stating that the available "reserves" and still undiscovered oil available which are sufficient to satisfy the greediest good oil boys n girls for centuries.

   In truth, it is a more or less correct factoid that we are NOT running out of oil at this time. What's being overlooked is that the barrels per year increase of oil pumped out of the ground is in still in decline since a decade ago; however stocks of oil are approaching glut proportions but that is laid squarely at the feet of we who are cutting  back on our consumption of its distilled products such as diesel fuel and gasoline. 

   A goodly number of Americans have rerouted their consumption to thriftier auto's and reduced discretionary spending on fuel and by staying home a lot more (thus making home entertainment a banner year last year) or moving closer to their workplace to reduce their commute and impacting the urbane sprawl and new home building market to some degree. Indeed the local paper has touted the resurgence of formerly blighted inner city areas by the jump in loft apartments and converted warehouse into condominiums populated by Gen Y'ers and Millenials, making it possible for thousands of former commuters to peddle to work or ride the street car or bus to there.

   What's being overlooked is that it is no longer possible for one to kick over a clod and bring in a gusher of the black gold that used make $235 bucks per wildcat dollar in profit as it travels through various streams into "higher" grade byproducts. The recent discovery of an astounding sized "oil reserve" in the Gulf of Mexico is a classic example of the the availability of oil "still out there waiting to be found." Umm, has anyone figured out how much it's going to cost to build a floating platform able to safely maintain its position over the oil reserves in deepwater, open seaways in the face of hurricanes; drill to 35,000 feet to tap into the top of the dome of this shale oil; to extract it via fracturing and pump it to the surface and load it onto ships bound for refinery's?

   And secondarily, this oil which will be in production in about ten years, is still only a fraction of the 3% total US Market oil produced in and used by Americans. The reason that we import 97% of our oil is that the imported oil is still cheaper and easier to get to the surface and into tankers bound for US refineries folks, precisely because oil has to be ever higher in price for it to be profitable to drill and pump it. That price, based on world wide demand is currently somewhere in the $65 buck a barrel range it would seem. (A decade ago crude was around $35.00 USD per barrel. Remember, it was the spiraling price of crude that triggered the U.S. economic melt down powered by $145.00 per barrel prices that we are still recovering from and it is only Americans <with the rest of the world following our lead> with the sense to cut back on our discretionary consumption of energy which has dropped the price of fuel and stabilized the economy, so far; That is in spite of the economic bail out headlines taking the credit. Shoot, even my insurance broker has a Smart Car for his commute to his offices, now.).

   Meanwhile China and India and a number of other sleeping giant middle class auto buyers world wide continue to grow at rates that outstrip US ability to compete for market share, while our dollars get less and less valuable due to the enormous debt being deeded over to those several other countries. And never forget, oil IS the gold standard of the world because it is the tremendous markup from crude to products that drives it as a major commodity that is getting more and more costly to extract from mother Earth and on its way to market.

   Meanwhile, once again, the good oil boys have tried to flourish the red cape in front of our consuming eyes to distract us from the fact that we need to be firm in our resolve to make carbon fuels of all types only a dwindling part of a triad of energy. We really need to convert to none-carbon, renewable fuels as fast as we can manage it; with electric battery power as fuel as a major change away from Detroit pig-iron cars and trucks belching fumes rich with greenhouse gases.

   Whew

  From the desktop of Warren Richardson   pro-active advocate
  for conversion to energy alternatives and carbon footprint reduction.
  Moderator of http://dfw-alt-e-caucus.blogspot.com/ Web Blog and the

  Webmaster of http://www.green-metroplex.com/ ... You are invited 
  to come see how cost effective, and sometimes profitable it can be to

                                         go green! save big

The next step down in lighting power consumption

At the risk of appearing to brag, our electrical consumption stats (measured in Kilowatt Hours) are down by over 35% since four plus years ago when we first decided to "Go Green;" that is because we have implemented most of those things posted on the www.green-metroplex.com website and our blogs. Our deciduous shade is keeping the sun off in the summer; almost all of our appliances are Energy Star rated; we unplug most electrical vampires when not in use; and all but a couple lights are fluorescent or compact fluorescent, as well. We're our own guinea pig when it comes to making these suggestions for how to save money by becoming greener over time (out of cash flow). Now, many of our compact fluorescent lighting bulbs are starting to approach their life span and we admit to lusting after LED lighting to replace them as the CFL's wear out. Our CFL's have paid us back in spades in their kilowatt power saving so we are looking to reduce our power needs even more by using the new LED lighting technology during our next replacement go-round and reduce our carbon footprint even more by not having to recycle mercury rich CFL's any longer, either

However...

While trying to shop them at our local Lowe's Home Improvement - I found that they stock not one LED lamp, period. At Wal-Mart there are stick on under-shelf LED's and we actually have a small number of those at home in the odd dark nook, because they are so handy to use. The spouse is not happy with the intense color of LED stick on lights and flashlights we own, but I've witnessed how demonstration full sized LED lighting replacements have tinted lenses to compensate for this nuisance factor.

At any rate, what I'm looking for is a tenfold drop in lighting power for the same lumen's count as our former incandescents used to emit and our compact florescent lamps which have fairly well matched their outputs for the past half decade. Remember, it's lumen's not watts that are the target prime benchmark, i.e., just sufficient brightness that one does not have to peer intently to easily see and not too bright such that one needs sunglasses to not squint whilst in their presence.

So far I've been stumped at finding retrofit LED Lamps in retail venues the local area - however, here's a link to my first cast into the Internet: http://www.earthled.com/ ... I'll keep you posted. wr
 

From the desktop of Warren Richardson   pro-active advocate
for conversion to energy alternatives and carbon footprint reduction.
Moderator of http://dfw-alt-e-caucus.blogspot.com/ and the

Webmaster of http://www.green-metroplex.com/ ... You are invited
to come see how cost effective, and sometimes profitable it can be to

                                         go green! save big

Model Electrical Triad: Updated

        A suggested...
model standard (For an Electrical Generation Triad)

 

Adoption of this model electrical regulation concept by ERCOT and utility regulators in other states would accelerate a trend toward renewable energy solutions and a reduction of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions that are fostered by the burning of none renewable fuels for electrical production. This triad would not do away with conventional power generators, nor nuclear power plants, because to do so is not practical nor will it win support from major stockholders of utility companies, many of whom contribute significant cash for re-elections of those representatives that ERCOT and other utility regulators in other states are answerable to. Utility companies faced with mandates from their regulators will find it in their stockholders best interests to jump on the band-wagon and start installation of PV and none wind turbulence damaged wind turbines on the buildings in cities and suburbs to which they supply electrical energy; instead of buying ever larger blocks of carbon credits, with this suggested scheme. They would make de-facto partners of their electrical consuming customers by the utilization of inside city limits subscribers' structures, by implementation of lease-back, low fixed kilowatt hourly rates as a means to pay down the installation price of these systems on their customers' buildings and otherwise unused inner-city land. It is a win-win scenario. The utilities' existing grid-connected conventional electrical power plants would be retained and used as load-leveling sites for the existing grid, which should require no new high tension power lines to be installed as load demands continue to increase every year; because the commercial sized solar (focused solar for steam and PV systems) and wind turbines that they themselves would, for the most part, be installed at the load end of their grid since these generators do not pollute nor make greenhouse gases when making electrical energy.

Above is an example of a wind turbine that is not damaged by wind turbulence.
There are twisted, multi-vane horizontal-axle variants as well. These turbines are low
speed, quiet and none-lethal-to-nature. When mounted with inexpensive, self-powered
so-called  "anti-gravity" thrust bearings (essentially comprised of like-charged direct-
current magnetic fields that repel each the other, effectively making them frictionless
bearings) this type of turbine does not induce the structural damage or noise caused
by the induced vibration of conventional bearings, to the tops of buildings that they are
mounted upon.

Source: http://www.green-metroplex.com/Assorted/Ideas/Electrical_Triad.html posted on Tuesday, 9/22/2009
 

The conundrum of utility regulators toward environmentally progressive reform

Dear Texas State and Federal Legislator, et al,

 

I have an idea for ERCOT that addresses the conundrum of emotionally conservative vested interests that block progress toward an more environmentally friendly utility regulation body. Please consider it and pass it on to them if you concur:

 

    

        A suggested...
model standard (For an Electrical Generation Triad)

 

Adoption of this model electrical regulation concept by ERCOT and utility regulators in other states would accelerate a trend toward renewable energy solutions and a reduction of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions that are fostered by the burning of none renewable fuels for electrical production. This triad would not do away with conventional power generators, nor nuclear power plants, because to do so is not practical nor will it win support from major stockholders of utility companies, many of whom contribute significant cash for re-elections of those representatives that ERCOT and other utility regulators in other states are answerable to. Utility companies faced with mandates from their regulators will find it in their stockholders best interests to jump on the band-wagon and start installation of PV and none wind turbulence damaged wind turbines on the buildings in cities and suburbs to which they supply electrical energy; instead of buying ever larger blocks of carbon credits, with this suggested scheme. They would make de-facto partners of their electrical consuming customers by the utilization of inside city limits subscribers' structures, by implementation of lease-back, low fixed kilowatt hourly rates as a means to pay down the installation price of these systems on their customers' buildings and otherwise unused inner-city land. It is a win-win scenario. The utilities' existing grid-connected conventional electrical power plants would be retained and used as load-leveling sites for the existing grid, which should require no new high tension power lines to be installed as load demands continue to increase every year; because the commercial sized solar (focused solar for steam and PV systems) and wind turbines that they themselves would, for the most part, be installed at the load end of their grid since these generators do not pollute nor make greenhouse gases when making electrical energy.

Above is an example of a wind turbine that is not damaged by wind turbulence.
There are twisted, multi-vane horizontal-axle variants as well. These turbines are low
speed, quite and none-lethal-to-nature. When mounted with inexpensive, self-powered
so-called  "anti-gravity" thrust bearings this type of turbine does not induce structural
damage caused by induced vibration, to the tops of buildings that they are mounted upon. 

 
 

From the desktop of Warren Richardson   pro-active advocate
for conversion to energy alternatives and carbon footprint reduction.
Moderator of http://dfw-alt-e-caucus.blogspot.com/ and the

Webmaster of http://www.green-metroplex.com/ ... You are invited
to come see how cost effective, and sometimes profitable it can be to

                                         go green! save big

Hydrates - an unraveling disaster in the wings

This Reply came from a "Hardball_Player" list member who also reads the Information Not Spam Blog: "Dear Mr. Warren, OK I understood most of your news article a.k.a., your opinion, about the Northwest Passage shipping which is opening up next summer due to global warming. But you lost me with your inserted comments about hydrates. What the heck does that have to do with the cost of lumber from Russia? What are hydrates and why should I care?"

My reply: Dear Reader, Excellent questions. (be advised if you want to see my reference materials, (some) of their links are at the bottom of this rant.) As you may have surmised, I am in the camp that foresees global warming as fact, not fiction, which is somewhat exacerbated by human activity in the form of none renewable fuel burning, also as a reality. In my opinion, based on years of study of the problem, there are three major air pollution sources and greenhouse gases. Sulfur Dioxide, Methane and Carbon Dioxide; all three are being pumped into the air every day from automobiles, electric plants, homes, businesses and cattle yards and every walk of life where burning of some form of fuel is converted to useful human uses most notably we make carbon dioxide and methane by the metric tons per hour into the air and into rivers and oceans, directly trapping quite a lot of the sun's solar energy in the air by these major greenhouse gases; directly warming our world's oceans (5 degrees on average over the past century of time), via absorption of the air's heat; which circulates from mid-earth latitudes into the polar regions causing ice sheet melt off.

Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on ones point of view, nature has natural sources (and counter balance forces) for these gases as well. However, human contributions are unbalancing those natural cycles. Our insertion of an un-natural addition of these greenhouse gases is on the verge of causing a major change in the rate of capture of nature's stored up methane and carbon dioxide and there are those in the scientific community who say that we very possibly may have passed the point of no return. What they are alluding to is the carbon dioxide stored in the form of a mix of carbon dioxide and methane hydrates on the ocean floor.

To understand these carbon chemical compounds requires a bit of understanding of how carbon dioxide and methane reacts to pressure and temperature. Carbon Dioxide and Methane is found free floating in the air and also dissolved in water, much like one finds oxygen and nitrogen there as well. You already know that oxygen dissolved in water is what makes it possible for fish to breath underwater. Their gills filter the water flowing through them and extract the oxygen their muscles and digestive tracts need, to make the energy needed for survival. Like animals on the surface, the product of breathing by fishes creates a carbon dioxide bye product; having eaten plant or other food matter, their feces as well as the natural death of plants makes methane gas directly or through decomposition; as their feces decays it causes methane formation, as well. Air breathing and fuel burning, likewise cause carbon dioxide on the surface but what affects global climate the most severely is the 25 fold pollution effects of methane more than carbon dioxide; decomposition of plant and fecal mater also makes the vast majority of methane in nature. The build up of temperature causes fresh and salt water to absorb the methane and carbon dioxide, as well. The gist of what I'm explaining is so that you'll understand that there is a lot of greenhouse affect carbon in the form of these two chemicals dissolved and in solution in water and in the vast water columns called oceans of earth in particular. In a nutshell, the warmer the water, the less greenhouse gas will stay in the water.

In chemistry, simply put, there are three major physical conditions for elements and compounds and they are: Gas, Liquid and Solid. (Yes SW, plasma is the 4th but not needed in this dissertation on condensed star stuff called carbons in the form of methane and carbon dioxide.). Gas, liquids and solids depend on both temperature and pressure to determine which state one will find them in. At sea level pressures and temperatures one finds them as a gas. In water columns with pressures less than 450 feet one finds them dissolved and in liquid states. However, as the temperature approaches 33 degrees and pressures build at depths past 480 feet we see that there are forces in play that make methane in particular and carbon dioxide to some degree; convert to solid states. Below 600 feet Methane at any temperature below 40 degrees is a solid as one continues down the continental slopes of the deep ocean and ever greater pressures. The condensed methane crystals have the appearance and form of the dirty water-ice one may be more familiar with; but would explode directly into gas if suddenly brought to above sea level pressures at the surface, much like dry ice does if not insulated. Carbon Dioxide is excreted in adapted ways by sea life but is much slower to convert to solids at deep ocean depths. In fact all of your high school chemistry courses and experiments are out the door when one is operating at low temperatures and high deep-sea pressures. For example it is the very high pressure of the ocean at thousands of feet down that makes it possible for sea water to NOT freeze at temperatures well below 32 degrees Fahrenheit in the pitch  black of abyssal deeps.

Here is the Point: As human introduction of un-natural quantities of methane via such activities as the cattle industry and carbon dioxide via electric production and via carbon dioxide emissions by automobiles continuously contribute to a spike in global air temperatures, which have warmed the the surface of the oceans of the world for the past 100 years, far more than it would naturally occur in nature - we are starting to warm hydrates which have been stable for many Millenia prior to this hundred year span of time.

By way of illustration: If one were to focus on one hydrate crystal structure, say the size of a full duffel bag, at 480 feet down on the ocean floor, say 50 years ago - the one degree rise in temperature at that time would have caused it to emit (for illustration purposes) one bubble of methane gas every month or two. At 500 feet, say, one bubble per year; and no bubbles at all below say, 600 feet. Today most of the hydrates will have disappeared through evaporation at 450 feet, due to the steady rise in ocean temperature. Hydrates at 500 feet are bubbling daily and at 600 feet you'd find bubbles forming and taking off toward the surface at irregular intervals and at 700 feet they could be found forming slowly on the outside surface of hydrates, if one looked closely.

To get a sense of scale, if you were to lay a postage stamp on the ground then try to imagine that you could encompass the area the size of the United States in comparison; that is the jump in scale that occurred in methane gas release by humans from 100 years ago through now, in present time. One tends to forget just how immense the size of our ocean floors are and the tremendous greenhouse gas reserves stored under a very sensitive temperature/pressure ratio experiment in physics, in its vast and deep waters. Their combined area makes the United States look like the postage stamp in this comparison, by comparison.

Our only recourse is a crash course change in life-style in which we change very fast to a none carbon burning/consuming populace wherein whatever form of renewable none carbon based energy we use is both renewable and storable for periods when it's not easily available (i.E., focused array solar-heated, pressurized sodium storage for electric generation both during the day and at night.)... It's a given that we'll have to use current industry to make solar collectors and turbulence tolerant inner city wind turbines of every hue and sort; unearthing our waste dumps, composting everything and planting vast forests on that to lock up the carbon dioxide into trees to increase oxygen ratios and reduce CO2; during the interim we'll continue burning diesel fuel to power drills to tap into Geo-thermal and other renewable resources, etc., add infinausia. The question is will we, our elected representatives who reflect our collective will and the other Doubting Thomas types get on board a fast, furious phase over before the tipping point is beyond our ability to come back from the precipice? Or, more brutally, before we become extinct as a species because we cannot adapt to the reality the earth is foisting onto us in payment for our ignorance as to what we are doing to it because we didn't understand the World Wide Physics involved while keeping Pandora's Box open, like it or not?

 

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermuda_Triangle#Methane_hydrates

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrieus_wind_turbine

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Information-NotSpam/message/391 <-- Source of term "Hyddrates" that started this thread. end
 

From the desktop of Warren Richardson   pro-active advocate
for conversion to energy alternatives and carbon footprint reduction.
Moderator of http://dfw-alt-e-caucus.blogspot.com/ and the

Webmaster of http://www.green-metroplex.com/ ... You are invited
to come see how cost effective, and sometimes profitable it can be to

                                         go green! save big!