Coal Barons Buy Dems

(Obama seems to have gotten off the liquid coal train. October 15, 2007)
Obama, Pelosi, and now Bingaman have boarded the liquid coal train. Sickening. Everyone knows this heats the globe, but did you know it will not make you any more independent? What do think happens when OPEC spikes the price of gas to $5.00 in say 2112, and we're using liquid coal? The coal barons will force us to pay $5.00 for their sinfuel, just like Exxon makes us pay the same for domestic gasoline as for OPEC gasoline.

This is not a guess. I make my living with energy economics, and this is as simple as it gets. That's just what markets do. If we won't pay the $5.00, they can sell it anywhere in the world for that price, because OPEC has jacked up the world price.

Back to global warming. Even if they capture the CO2 from making sinfuel, the sinfuel they make will emit the same CO2 as gasoline when we use it. On top of that, anytime more oil or sinfuel is produced, the world market makes sure more is used. That means more warming even with the most optimistic assumption. What are those Democrats been smokin'?
Read more!

Bush stuck; climate changes

Bush proposed an "International Climate Change Framework" at the G-8 conference. But the "framework" is only this: The top 15 greenhouse nations will set "national targets that reflect their own future energy needs." It's a do-what-you-want framework—just like the current US policy for itself. The point is to prevent real cooperation. But the huge and immediate problem is energy independence.

Bush's goals are (1) independence, (2) economic growth, (3) global warming. All good goals, but he sets growth against the climate change goal.

"I recognize that man is contributing greenhouse gases, -- but here are the principles by which I think we can get a good deal. One, anything that happens cannot hurt economic growth." --Bush, April 3, 2007.

That means that no money can be spent just for climate change. He doesn't quite follow that, but pretty close. That is why he opposes any carbon caps, carbon taxes, or binding limits on CO2. All would cost a little money and slow growth--even if imperceptibly. Read more!

Ethanol vs Dependence?

Can we do it with corn? Using 20% of our corn crop, we are 98.5% as energy dependent as ever. And it costs a fortune. This is straight from the pro-ethanol US Dept. of Agriculture, Jan. 2007. On top of that, they forgot that ethanol uses up natural gas--and causes more energy imports. The fact is we're only 1.1% more independent. The real purpose is just to buy farm votes. The USDA doesn't think we can even go 5% independent on corn.

They project ethanol production will grow from 5 billion to 12 billion gallons by Bush's target date of 2017. That will make us only 96.5% as energy dependent. But, by that point, they don't think corn can support much more ethanol. Is this an energy policy, or just a way to win votes in the corn states? Here's what the USDA's chief economist said to Congress in Jan 2007.

In 2006, ethanol production on an energy content basis was equivalent to only 1.5 percent of U.S. crude oil imports. —USDA

Taking into account that corn uses lots of nitrogen fertilizer, and that is made with natural gas, and any additional natural gas must be imported, the net result is that in 2006 we saved only 1.1% of energy imports, not 1.5%. Read more!

Ethanol vs Greenhouse Gases

In 2006, ethanol saved 0.054% of US greenhouse gas emissions. A 100 fold increase would bring us to 5.4%, still not enough. But 20% of the 2006 corn crop was used for ethanol, so a 100 times increase would require 20 times the entire corn crop, and cost a fortune. These numbers are 50% more optimistic than those from UC Berkeley's Sustainable Energy Lab. They are not difficult to check.

To calculate greenhouse gas (GHG) savings for ethanol we need to know how much GHG emission are reduced when 1 gallon of gasoline is replaced with ethanol. This key value has been reported recently in Science magazine (Jan '06) and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (July '06). The Science article is a survey (of all previous ethanol studies) done by a pro-biofuels group of professors in UC Berkeley's Energy and Resources group and its Sustainable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory. Their published value is a 13% reduction in GHG, but they corrected this value to 7.4% in May, 2006. The National Academy study found a 12% GHG reduction, and zFacts has used this more optimistic value.

The simple calculation of the 0.054% GHG reduction for the US is presented here: ethanol GHG, along with simple one-click documentation of all input values. The calculation takes into account the following factors.

1. Gasoline production and delivery uses fossil fuel, so saving a gallon of gas in the tank saves as much GHG as from burning 1.23 galllons of gasoline.

2. 8228 grams of CO2 are produced by burning a gallon of gasoline.

3. 1.53 gallons of ethanol has the energy of 1 gallon of gasoline.

4. 4.885 billion gallons of ethanol were produced in 2006.

5. 7.122 trillion grams of CO2e GHG emissions in 2004 (most recent value).

That's all it takes to prove corn-ethanol is a hopeless approach to fighting climate change. In the next two days, zFacts will show that corn ethanol does little for energy independence and is enormously expensive.

Read more!

Ethanol energy balance?

Forget it! You hear a lot about the energy it takes to make ethanol. Is it more than you get from the ethanol produced, or is it less. Is the energy balance positive or is it negative. Enough! It doesn't matter. It's not energy we care about. What matters is (1) energy imported from dangerous places, and (2) greenhouse gases. Here' why neither matches the energy balance.

Suppose ethanol production used tons of coal and had a terrible energy balance. Since coal is not imported, ethanol would still reduce energy imports (oil) from dangerous places. Bad on energy, but good on energy independence.

Again suppose the heat for ethanol comes from coal, but less is used, so its energy balance is nicely positive. But the nitrogen fertilizer used for corn releases N₂O, a potent greenhouse gas. Depending on how much coal and how much N₂O, ethanol could be: Good on energy, and bad on greenhouse gas emission.

Energy balance is useless. It's not what we care about and it cannot be used to calculate what we care about which is only (1) Energy imports, and (2) Greenhouse gases. Tomorrow—the shocking saga of ethanol's gases. (from Chp. 3.3 Ethanol)
Read more!

Iraq: Good Money After Bad

The "Coalition" suffered more hostile fatalities in the first 50 days of year five than during the first 50 days of the invasion (source). The surge is not a plan, it's just 20% more of the same. The problem is still Dick Cheney. He's had no idea what he was doing from the start (quotes).

In Baghdad, a rocket exploded near the US embassy in the fortified Green Zone during Mr Cheney's visit. The AP reports that the latest attacks have been unnerving because of their frequency, the size of the ordnance and the accuracy of some hits. As result embassy employees were told that, "outdoor movement" must be "restricted to a minimum," and they must wear helmets and flak jackets.

Cheney, 3/16/2003. "I think it'll go relatively quickly, …Weeks rather than months." (Three days before the invasion.)

Cheney, 5/29/2005. "They're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." Transcript. Gen. Myers had just warned that insurgencies last up to nine years.

Cheney, 12/18/2005. "The elections were the turning point. … 2005 was the turning point."

Cheney, 3/18/2006. "Q: Do you still believe the insurgency is in its final throes? Cheney: Yes."

Understanding the graph. The fith year of the war started 3/19/2007, and the graph shows the annual rate of hostile fatalities through May 9 (52 days). The extra fatalities in year 2 were due to fighting the Shiites. Take that out and you see a smooth upward trend of Sunnis (insurgents and Al Qaeda) killing Coalition troops. The surge has now brought the Shiite's back in, so the trend may accelerate a bit. The surge is no change of strategy, it is just more of the same as the situation gets worse. (more graphs)
Read more!

Bush admits income gap

From the Wall St. Journal: "This isn't a sudden change in Mr. Bush's economic philosophy, but rather a change in tactics." Why doesn't Bush see the income gap as a problem?

As the graph shows, most of the workforce got left behind during the last five years of recovery. This fits with two other pieces of the jobs puzzle. (1) Outsourcing has been growing, and (2) about 7 million jobs failed to materialize after the recession. These jobs were predicted year after year by the Bush economists, but they never materialized.

Outsourcing helps explain the missing jobs, and fewer jobs per worker means workers will settle for lower pay. And that's one big reason wages have not kept up.

But why doesn't Bush think that's a problem? The Wall St. Journal tells us: "Top White House economic officials still don't consider today's inequality -- the growing share of income going to those at the top -- an inherently bad thing; they believe it simply reflects the rising rewards accruing to society's most skilled and productive members." The reason: Bush's economists tell him it's not a bad thing.

Where did they get this idea? It's half the standard economic theory--the half conservatives like. Economics says every one gets paid their "marginal product." So if you get paid more, it means your marginal product is higher, and if you don't it's lower. It's sounds fair because it sounds like "your marginal" product is all your doing: you're lazy or you're good.

But, real economics doesn't say that. It's say it's only part you and it's part the market. If lots of jobs go overseas, or foreign workers come in, then there are too many workers per job. Adding one more worker is worth less when there are too many already--so by economic definitions they all have lower marginal products even though they are just as good as they ever were. Skilled economists like those it the White House know this, but they will never, ever, say it in public. Conservatives like to pretend the individual is 100% responsible, and the market is 100% fair.

What will happen in the next recession? We lose another 7 million jobs? Read more!