Off Topic, but perhaps relevant to alternative energy

Re: Off Topic, but perhaps relevant to alternative energy

I just found a source of info on refinery capacity. This article says yes, refineries are being shut down rapidly, but its due to overcapacity. So I'm guessing that this will push gas prices up as capacity is adjusted to meet demand (the market price must be too low right now if there is overcapacity), but it won't skyrocket if they are only going to close 5-8% more of existing capacity.

"However, while there are good effects for the nation, the consequences for refiners are strongly negative. Seven hundred thousand barrels of refining capacity have been shut down or mothballed in North America in just the last year alone. Five mainland US refineries were shut down entirely in 2009, including plants in Delaware and New Jersey. The overall number of US refineries has declined to 150, from a peak of 300 in the early 1980s. Even after all these cuts, there’s still too much capacity; the chief economist at one refiner estimates that current industry capacity of 18 million barrels per day must be cut by another 5 to 8 percent (or around 1.35 million barrels) to bring it more in line with demand.

Squeezed between reduced demand and the persistently high cost of crude oil—which is keeping gasoline prices in the upper $2’s—refineries are losing money. Exxon Mobil, for example, lost $203 million on US refinery operations in the third quarter alone. That high crude price is why oil production remains profitable, but refining has become, in many cases, a money-losing proposition—hence, the shutdowns."

http://www.heatingoil.com/blog/low-gasoline-demand-continues-to-hurt-us-oil-refiners105/

Re: Off Topic, but perhaps relevant to alternative energy

the record cheap natural we currently have isn't going to last forever.

Perhaps the low gas prices will only be around for the next eighty years or so.

http://www.nctimes.com/business/article_c5fcbaae-e32f-557f-bdaf-876f4b3a8519.html

A few excerpts

NEW YORK ---- By unlocking decades' worth of natural-gas deposits deep underground across the United States, drillers have ensured that natural gas will be cheap and plentiful for the foreseeable future. It's a reversal from a few years ago that is transforming the energy industry.

But it has upended the ambitious growth plans of companies that produce power from wind, nuclear energy and coal. Those plans were based on the assumption that supplies of natural gas would be tight, and prices high.

Billions of dollars' worth of plans to build wind farms and nuclear reactors have been delayed or scuttled, including Constellation Energy's Calvert Cliffs nuclear project in Maryland. The company signaled this week it was in peril because of higher-than-expected financing costs.

The new natural gas discoveries, mostly beneath states in the East, South and Midwest, have kept prices remarkably low, even as demand has begun to come back since the end of the recession.

"We once thought we could face gas shortages and (electricity) brownouts. Now we are facing an enormous oversupply of natural gas," said Fadel Gheit, senior oil and gas analyst at Oppenheimer and Co. "We have not scratched the surface of potential of gas in the U.S. and across the world."

A recent study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the future of natural gas found that 80 years' worth of global natural gas consumption could be developed profitably with a gas price of $4 or below.
Plans for nuclear plants and wind farms were made under the assumption that gas prices would average $7 to $9. At that level, electricity prices would be high enough to make wind and nuclear power look affordable. Now many of these projects suddenly look too expensive.

Plans for three dozen new nuclear plants were drawn up in the middle of the last decade, and the nuclear industry hailed what it called a renaissance. Lawmakers, aiming to help stave off high electricity prices, authorized an $18.5 billion loan guarantee program to help the nuclear industry begin building new plants after two decades of inactivity.

Now almost all of those plans have been delayed or shelved. Even companies that are finalists for federal loan guarantees, NRG Energy and Constellation Energy, announced recently that they have nearly stopped spending on their projects.

Re: Off Topic, but perhaps relevant to alternative energy

i think it's safe to say it'll go up no matter what the excuse is. they have been crying shortages off and on now for many decades and we had more refineries with less gas consumed back then. nowadays, if this or that country sneezes they say it affects its "possible availability" and they raise the price. all it takes is a rumor as it is all speculation from speculators at this point really determining prices. a few years ago with katrina and the one that followed they claimed shortages due to rigs going down and yet these rigs have been going down all through the gulf drilling history. even today with the rigs blowing up and hurricanes still taking some out they aren't raising prices for those reasons, surprisingly.
it will still one day be a case of we don't have the oil that is demanded and it will go up until it reduces usage to even things off. it will continue this trend for some time and it will force alternatives as the alternatives will become cheaper before we can run out. there will always be small needs for oil though and small needs can be met long into the future.

Re: Off Topic, but perhaps relevant to alternative energy

1: Anybody who doesn't believe the energy prices in general are going to go up (on average) going forward is going to be surprised

2: Anybody who looks seriously at the economics and environmental impact of shale and tar sands oil will realize that it is a loser. The amount of BTUs required to get a BTU of oil from tar sands is between 1/3 and 1/2. (Not to mention the huge amount of CO2 emitted and the huge amount of water required, and the huge waste water and tailing pond systems, all of which are potential nightmares.

3. The idea of using natural gas, a clean burning, transportable fuel, that is relatively abundant to get oil from tar and shale is crazy.

4. Any one who is counting on continued growth in the domestic natural gas production due to fracking should consider the unintended water pollution side effects

5. If one is concerned to today about potential rising energy prices (or the environmental aspects of their energy choices) would do well to practice the best conservation methods one can incorporate, and look seriously at ones usage to see where one can cut. Following that, one should look at alternatives that at the very least have a predictable price curve going forward. For example, and off grid or even a grid tie system will produce a predictable amount of energy at a predictable price going forward. (grid pricing issues not withstanding).

6. Energy pricing shocks and mitigation strategy begins at home. The only real way that the individual can mitigate rising energy costs net/net is through personal choices of how to live, what to drive, how much energy to use. IMHO, we don't need to return to the cave to survive, but clearly we as a society waste a lot of energy net/net. (For reasons that I won't cross the political line to discuss)

Tony

Re: Off Topic, but perhaps relevant to alternative energy

i'm curious as to why you would ask that. is it because the pv is bp? are you saying a bp pv will need more resources and create more pollution than others? i will say it does consume some energy to create and maybe some pollution too, but it is not as much as you might think and no more than most others imo. you might take another look at the things you have as not one of them can you say didn't take energy to create and/or transport, or create some pollution either directly or indirectly in its manufacture. pvs, even by bp, just happen to be one of the few items out there that give back rather than just take.

Re: Off Topic, but perhaps relevant to alternative energy

In fact, my PV panels are Solarex panels, which have all been bought used. I believe, (but don't actually know) that Solarex was/is bought by BP somewhere along the way. My other panels carry the Siemens label, that also were once associated with ARCO solar, also bought used.

My panels are between 10-20 years old. I believe, as has been suggested that eh carbon footprint for PV is ~2 years. I don't think that there is any significant difference between BP panels, or other name brand panels in their carbon cost. What is probably a more relevant question is what is the life cycle carbon cost of any system, from cradle to grave?

I would guess that my Honda Eu generator is greater cradle to grave than the PV. My Lister diesel is probably also greater, but it has had a 50+ year life to amortize it's construction, but it throws out lots of exhaust when it runs at 5 kw.

How about your grid power plant, coal, natural gas, bio fuel?

PS. I might add that I have never considered my PV system "free energy"! On a per KWH basis, it is probably more expensive net/net than my honda Eu 1000. On the other hand the honda would not run 24/7 for 10 years without needing to be replaced.

Assuming that you are not a troll, and that you are really interested in the topic, I suggest that you do some further research before you spout off nonsense about life cycle/production/end of life costs for RE stuff. Until then, it is all BS!

Consider the lifecycle cost of a coal plant, from the mine and it's environmental impact, to the slag heaps, to the smoke stacks. I suspect that you will find that you get fairly cheap per kwh power out of the coal plant, but as recent events (mine disasters/tailings ponds failures/acid rain/carbon foot prints) have shown, coal aint cheap.

Tony

My reality is to use as little energy as possible, and use that wisely. That said, I don't live in a cave a paddle a canoe to hunt my food!. The answer is think about how/what where and to a great extent when you use energy.

I won't apologize for having BP branded panels any more than I would apologize for buying name brand gasoline. In understand the facts of multinational corporation economics. If I could buy a cottage industry, well made, reasonably well price PV system I would, but in my case, all my PV has fallen into my lap used so their carbon costs are already out there.

Tony

Re: Off Topic, but perhaps relevant to alternative energy

bmet wrote: »

As far as why I am concerned, there have been many products out there hailed as great, only to be outlawed due to harmful effects upon people and property. China has no problem selling products with Lead to the USA, so what if all these Chinese panels also contained cancer-causing chemicals? Do yo think they would even tell us if they did? Would that be worth an extra percent in efficiency?

Some types of panels are already made from harmful substances notably Cadmium for CdTe panels. First Solar (a US company incidentally) makes some very popular thin film panels sold in Europe and based on CdTe: http://seekingalpha.com/article/55392-cadmium-telluride-casts-shadow-on-first-solar

AFAIK, this only becomes an issue when you have to dispose of the panels and since they're relatively new, this hasn't become a huge problem YET.

Re: Off Topic, but perhaps relevant to alternative energy

@bmet - better be careful of everything you eat, wear, use - - If you look hard enough you can find some kind of a supposed problem with anything.

Please note that I used the term 'supposed problem' because much of the green concern of today will be proved to be wrong in ten years and the real problem will be a different material that was overlooked.

The reason no one is excited about your overheard conversation of the BP exec is that it is nothing new. He may not have any more inside information than anyone else but was flapping his jaws to impress his audience.

Actually the only safe thing for anyone really ultra concerned about the environment/oil prices to do is to commit a crime and get free lodging for the remainder of their lives. Personally that option is not attractive.