Expect Diversionary Tactics by Regressives As the Tide Turns Toward Viable Alternatives
1 view
Skip to first unread message
michael.d...@mac.com
Dec 4, 2009, 10:07:25 AM12/4/09
to grass-...@googlegroups.com
> I am afraid that as the tide is now turning toward accelerating growth
> of post-oil alternatives, the mainstream of the Republican party and
> the petrochemical industry will do everything they can to slow down
> viable progress toward sustainability. I have come to expect that the
> Epoch B proponents' stumbles will be exaggerated and re-communicated
> as the main stories by right leaning media, to hide peak oil, climate
> change and other manifestations of human-induced global change. That
> said, we have a responsibility to expose the rotten apples that pose
> as constructive contributors to Epoch B, and the extremes in context
> that the regressives will paint around all of our activities focused
> on sustainability to desparately maintain the increasingly
> unsustainable and undesirable status quo.
>
> Progress at this point is assured, but it is not going to be easy.
> What
is not assured is that our efforts will be substantial enough to avoid
catastrophic overshoots of ecological carrying capacities. The
more the pace of constructive change is slowed, the higher
likelihood that we will miss the window in which we can turn back
from catastrophic impacts on humanity in the years ahead.
>
> Thank you for all the good work you are doing.
> of post-oil alternatives, the mainstream of the Republican party and
> the petrochemical industry will do everything they can to slow down
> viable progress toward sustainability. I have come to expect that the
> Epoch B proponents' stumbles will be exaggerated and re-communicated
> as the main stories by right leaning media, to hide peak oil, climate
> change and other manifestations of human-induced global change. That
> said, we have a responsibility to expose the rotten apples that pose
> as constructive contributors to Epoch B, and the extremes in context
> that the regressives will paint around all of our activities focused
> on sustainability to desparately maintain the increasingly
> unsustainable and undesirable status quo.
>
> Progress at this point is assured, but it is not going to be easy.
> What
is not assured is that our efforts will be substantial enough to avoid
catastrophic overshoots of ecological carrying capacities. The
more the pace of constructive change is slowed, the higher
likelihood that we will miss the window in which we can turn back
from catastrophic impacts on humanity in the years ahead.
>
> Thank you for all the good work you are doing.
Dr GH
Dec 6, 2009, 1:11:24 AM12/6/09
to Grass Energy
Is anyone monitoring this blog. So far the discussions have been civil
and non-offensive. We all have presuppositions about issues related on
this blog. Can we focus on the issues without making offensive
statements that do not accomplish anything?
On Dec 4, 7:07 am, "Michael.D.McDon...@mac.com"
and non-offensive. We all have presuppositions about issues related on
this blog. Can we focus on the issues without making offensive
statements that do not accomplish anything?
On Dec 4, 7:07 am, "Michael.D.McDon...@mac.com"
jockgill
Dec 6, 2009, 7:36:39 PM12/6/09
to Grass Energy
Dr. GH,
While you may not agree with the tone of Mike's post, it is worth
asking why we are moving so slowly in the face of what is probable.
The fact of the matter is, polling is showing that the opponents of
global climate change are being very effective. They are reducing the
percent of American who believe climate change is a serious problem in
need of serious solutions.
The objections to, and rejections of, climate change, anthropomorphic
or otherwise, are most likely not only counter productive but also
very likely to have substantial negative outcomes for the rest of us.
It would be wise to understand the meta reason for the deniers'
position in order to perhaps find a way overcome them.
Personally, I suspect that it is fundamental to many people's sense of
security that there be no limits. If there are limits, then we get
into some very difficult conversations about morality and the fair and
just distribution of benefits and consequences. Just how would we
rebalance the global distributions in order to achieve some degree of
sharing more just than 25% of the resources going to only 5% of the
population? For others, it is perhaps heresy to suggest that the
human race does not have dominion over the rest of the world and is
perhaps exempt from some of the limits inherent in the natural world.
Still others may cling to the myths created in the first
industrialization of America in the late 19th century and the first
few decades of the 20th.
So, while this list is mostly focused on bioenergy of one sort or
another, and especially on the carbon in herbaceous crops, it can not
avoid looking, from time to time, at a broader range of issues, the
larger context in which bioenergy must exist, even if this makes some
of us uncomfortable. We need to be uncomfortable now, or we shall
surely be miserable latter.
I would be very interested in learning members' thought on the re-
industrialization of the world in the 21st century and the
opportunities and challenges that presents.
Regards,
Jock
PS: Dr. GH, please post a profile so we can know who you are. Thnx.
JPG
While you may not agree with the tone of Mike's post, it is worth
asking why we are moving so slowly in the face of what is probable.
The fact of the matter is, polling is showing that the opponents of
global climate change are being very effective. They are reducing the
percent of American who believe climate change is a serious problem in
need of serious solutions.
The objections to, and rejections of, climate change, anthropomorphic
or otherwise, are most likely not only counter productive but also
very likely to have substantial negative outcomes for the rest of us.
It would be wise to understand the meta reason for the deniers'
position in order to perhaps find a way overcome them.
Personally, I suspect that it is fundamental to many people's sense of
security that there be no limits. If there are limits, then we get
into some very difficult conversations about morality and the fair and
just distribution of benefits and consequences. Just how would we
rebalance the global distributions in order to achieve some degree of
sharing more just than 25% of the resources going to only 5% of the
population? For others, it is perhaps heresy to suggest that the
human race does not have dominion over the rest of the world and is
perhaps exempt from some of the limits inherent in the natural world.
Still others may cling to the myths created in the first
industrialization of America in the late 19th century and the first
few decades of the 20th.
So, while this list is mostly focused on bioenergy of one sort or
another, and especially on the carbon in herbaceous crops, it can not
avoid looking, from time to time, at a broader range of issues, the
larger context in which bioenergy must exist, even if this makes some
of us uncomfortable. We need to be uncomfortable now, or we shall
surely be miserable latter.
I would be very interested in learning members' thought on the re-
industrialization of the world in the 21st century and the
opportunities and challenges that presents.
Regards,
Jock
PS: Dr. GH, please post a profile so we can know who you are. Thnx.
JPG
Jim Wuertele
Dec 7, 2009, 12:10:11 PM12/7/09
to grass-...@googlegroups.com
All, and Jock,
I will take a chance on the membership's indulgence based on Jock's request for broader thinking. This is not about grass directly, but fuels(s) that grass fuels may replace.
Our roles of pitching useful ideas for grass energy sometime require estimating the future cost of oil. This could be derived from an estimate of fuel oil production costs plotted against alternative "green" fuels and considering the international monetary climate. These constitute presently my three "talking points" for "How the future cost of fuel will grow".
I make the following arguments:
Estimating the Future Cost of Oil
Argument #1
On the website below
there is a portion of the playback starting at 4 min 24 seconds that begins by trying to show the increasing cost of oil from past data.
I converted his data to cost rather than his "Net Energy". I am left with the following data set, column (1):
Year (1) Cost of oil (2) Percent increase (3) Increase in percent
in terms of per year (avg.) increase per year
itself, in % over previous cost from 1970
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1930 2
1970 4 2%/ann. since 1930
1990 5.6 2% since 1970
1999 10 7% since 1990 2-7% incr. by 15%/ann.
2007 33 16% since 1999 7-16% incr. by 11%/ann.
The chart above is meant to demonstrate a model for the expected increase of cost of oil in terms of itself per year in any future year beyond 2007, the last value known.
The data known is the first column. Can I get more data somehow?
The modeling is used for generating estimates for future costs. Since the data is shaped like a power function (increasing from low to high without limit), I used this type of model, to obtain a flat line. I took a 3rd column to accomplish this. Such efforts would be more persuasive if I had a lot more data for the intervening years, smooth them, and re-do this. However, this is a start and I am asking others to help me find more data and to check my work.
The results of the last column are close to a constant: one is 15% and the other is 11%. If you will allow me to use the mean, let us use 13% per year increase over 16% increase per year starting at 33% cost of oil production in 2007 as our model.
This means, to estimate the future cost of oil relative to the last data point of 33% in 2007, we must increase that percentage of 33% starting with 16% and increasing that by 13% for each succeeding year. For instance:
In 2008, oil production cost of 33% in 2007 is increased (by 16% increased by 13% to 18.08%) to = 38.97%. The a barrel of oil took 1.3897 barrels to produce.
In 2009, oil production cost of 38.97% in 2008 is increased (by 18.08% increased by 13% to 20.43%) to = 46.93%. One bbl. required 1.4693 bbl. to produce.
In 2010, oil production cost of 46.93% in 2009 is increased to = 57.76%
In 2011, oil production cost of 57.76% in 2010 is increased to = 72.83%
In 2012, oil production cost of 72.83% in 2007 is increased to = 94.30%
The 2012 prediction, (taking 2 barrels of oil to produce 1 barrel for use) is a scary result, since oil production could be limited by not just on how much there might remain in the earth, or other market factors, but as this suggests, by how much the costs of production are (growing).
I admit, I am applying a model of cost growth that is based on only 3 points--but they are out of a data set spanning 17 years. Also, I don't expect too much argument for Chris Martenson's discussion I referenced above about production costs increasing, what with the well depths increasing, the off-shore rigs increasing in size, etc. The benefit of using cost in terms of oil itself is to eliminate dollar effects. Also, the US method of storage tends to smooth pricing and it is where some lowering of prices might be done federally (by resource wars). How we finally cost this depends on the US dollar falling from its value today as considered by argument #3 below.
Argument #2
I also took Chris Martenson's net energy numbers for "green fuels" that he costed in terms of oil. I wasn't sure of the years for his numbers, so I guessed the year he made this "Crash Course" up, late 2008.
Fuel type Cost in terms of oil energy required to produce (2008?)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methanol (moo-doo) 33% (meaning 4 required to produce 3)
Oil Shale oil 40%
Bio-diesel 50%
Tar sands oil 55%
Ethanol (corn) 83%
[If grass is plotted here, it might be around 10%, but it would not be a transportation fuel, of course, except for your upgraded Stanley Steamer pulling an ash can and feed cart.]
Which of these green fuels has a chance of working? The Congress thinks Ethanol. How will their costs change before 2012? Will any of these significantly impact on oil demand or cost of oil production?
The interpretation of this data is scary since they are, from their inception, very high in cost of production. Other alternative fuels are less useful for transportation or home heating as they are not easily stored and transported, or produce significant ash flows (grass, wood, etc.). [This is where "Grass Energy Groups" can work to change that perception!]
Argument #3
Planning sessions by some of the world's most advanced countries, but excluding the US, are reported progressing towards developing a more useful exchange currency than the dollar, which is not going to hold its value as the US economy completes its transition away from manufacturing to service and military support. Here is a report from one of my favorite reporters, Robert Fisk:
The plan is to take effect in 2018 sliding the US dollar down against imports and raising the price of energy in the US possibly without the direct cooperation from the US!
This the end of my arguments that I use now in public. Can anyone add or correct or suggest anything?
Thanks,
Jim
James W. Wuertele
Vermont Agrifuels Institute
198 Church Street
St. Johnsbury, VT
05819, USA
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Grass Energy" group.
To post to this group, send email to grass-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to grass-energy...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/grass-energy?hl=en.
michael.d...@mac.com
Dec 7, 2009, 2:44:35 PM12/7/09
to grass-...@googlegroups.com
Jim,
Your economic arguments are very interesting. There is another dimension of the U.S. energy economy that should be considered in this discussion -- the perception of supply and demand and its impact on market pricing of oil and alternatives. The mainstream perception is that the demand of oil will continue to increase substantially, while the production of oil at affordable prices will also continue to increase. However, peak oil changes the mainstream perception, once accepted to a world changing market condition -- rapid increase in demand of oil, while oil supply exponentially decreases.
It is my understanding that the political realities of peak oil are being managed very carefully right now. The climate change debate was designed to change public behavior, before peak oil is discussed. In the absence of viable alternative fuels, the price of oil could go up precipitously. Energy futures under this scenario would go into wildly discontinuities and do significant damage to oil-dependent economies, like the U.S, unless the public is already well on its way toward viable alternatives.
Are you considering the economic, social and political impacts of these kinds of energy price discontinuities? From the perspective of the National Sustainable Security Infrastructure, this is one of the biggest strategic threats to the United States during the next five years.
Given the failure of Iraq War, the U.S. may need to move to energy independence even faster than your numbers may project. Putting aside any invisible hands at the political level regarding the control of petroleum costs, my concern is that patterned behaviors (e.g., engrained high oil dependent American lifestyles) long established under the belief in endless cheap oil with no significant environmental damage will fly the U.S. economy into the ground at high speeds in the next few years. The only possible future for the U.S. under the scenario of peak oil and climate change is an immediate exponential ramp up of energy alternatives and conservation. This all has to be managed very carefully, while China and Middle Eastern interests are still willing to buy our already extraordinary debt. The transition costs of the kind of rapid shift that may be necessary under this scenario will be significant. As you point out, these costs will soon be beyond our means.
I think that we have to air these types of issues in these types of fora. Falling into the spiral of silence about the most strategic threats our nation will face over the next few years would, in my opinion, be a passive calling for the demise of America as we know it. My ancestors lived in America long before high debt and lavish unsustainable lifestyles were equated with being "American." Part of the equation is looking carefully at what the U.S. has to do in terms of energy and economic sustainability. Our current ecological footprints are dangerously above any sense of what is sustainable in an era of global change. Biomass is a critical element of getting our country back on track. It needs to be fast tracked now.
Mike
Michael D. McDonald, Dr.P.H.
President
Global Health Initiatives, Inc.
Coordinator
U.S. Resilience System
NSSI Pandemic Initiative
Cell: 202-468-7899
ron.slabaugh
Dec 8, 2009, 10:58:52 AM12/8/09
to Grass Energy
The best I know of right now is the new book by John Michael Greer,
The Ecotechnic Future. Heinberg calls "Greer's work nothing short of
brilliant." I agree. Ecological approach and a long look at the future
(near and far future) informed by history and other thinkers current
and and ancient. He suggests possible stages of the
deindustrialization process (End of affluence, Age of Scarcity
Industrialism, Age of Salvage, and the coming of the Ecotechnic
future--ecologically sound way of living that used technologies that
use less energy and are sustainable).
The book is a wonderful context for what this list serve is all about
and what we are interested in are possible adaptive technologies in an
energy constrained future.
The Ecotechnic Future. Heinberg calls "Greer's work nothing short of
brilliant." I agree. Ecological approach and a long look at the future
(near and far future) informed by history and other thinkers current
and and ancient. He suggests possible stages of the
deindustrialization process (End of affluence, Age of Scarcity
Industrialism, Age of Salvage, and the coming of the Ecotechnic
future--ecologically sound way of living that used technologies that
use less energy and are sustainable).
The book is a wonderful context for what this list serve is all about
and what we are interested in are possible adaptive technologies in an
energy constrained future.
jockgill
Dec 10, 2009, 9:30:58 AM12/10/09
to Grass Energy
All,
Jim Hansen's new book is also relevant to this thread.
http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/index.html
"In Storms of My Grandchildren, Dr. James Hansen—the nation’s leading
scientist on climate issues—speaks out for the first time with the
full truth about global warming: The planet is hurtling even more
rapidly than previously acknowledged to a climatic point of no
return."
I prefer the Cheney option, if there is a 1% chance of climate and
environmental disruption, then we should treat it as a certainty and
take direct action now to mitigate its risks.
From Thom Friedman's Op-Ed:
"In 2006, Ron Suskind published “The One Percent Doctrine,” a book
about the U.S. war on terrorists after 9/11. The title was drawn from
an assessment by then-Vice President Dick Cheney, who, in the face of
concerns that a Pakistani scientist was offering nuclear-weapons
expertise to Al Qaeda, reportedly declared: “If there’s a 1% chance
that Pakistani scientists are helping Al Qaeda build or develop a
nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our
response.” Cheney contended that the U.S. had to confront a very new
type of threat: a “low-probability, high-impact event.”
See: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/opinion/09friedman.html?
As for Greer's work, does he write about "Re-industrialization"
informed by, and correcting, all of the mistakes we made in the first
Industrial Era fueled by fossil energy? Industrialization 2.0, the new
release.
Regards,
Jock
Jim Hansen's new book is also relevant to this thread.
http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/index.html
"In Storms of My Grandchildren, Dr. James Hansen—the nation’s leading
scientist on climate issues—speaks out for the first time with the
full truth about global warming: The planet is hurtling even more
rapidly than previously acknowledged to a climatic point of no
return."
I prefer the Cheney option, if there is a 1% chance of climate and
environmental disruption, then we should treat it as a certainty and
take direct action now to mitigate its risks.
From Thom Friedman's Op-Ed:
"In 2006, Ron Suskind published “The One Percent Doctrine,” a book
about the U.S. war on terrorists after 9/11. The title was drawn from
an assessment by then-Vice President Dick Cheney, who, in the face of
concerns that a Pakistani scientist was offering nuclear-weapons
expertise to Al Qaeda, reportedly declared: “If there’s a 1% chance
that Pakistani scientists are helping Al Qaeda build or develop a
nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our
response.” Cheney contended that the U.S. had to confront a very new
type of threat: a “low-probability, high-impact event.”
See: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/opinion/09friedman.html?
As for Greer's work, does he write about "Re-industrialization"
informed by, and correcting, all of the mistakes we made in the first
Industrial Era fueled by fossil energy? Industrialization 2.0, the new
release.
Regards,
Jock
Dr GH
Dec 10, 2009, 12:51:44 PM12/10/09
to Grass Energy
Take it from someone that believes the “man-made global warming
problem” is based less on hard data and more on questionable
correlations and inaccurate modeling techniques.
If this statement causes your blood pressure to rise, you need to
realize that in order to do anything about your assumptions about
warming you need the cooperation of as many citizens of the planet as
possible. The best strategy is to find common ground. Engaging in
binding statements will only further alienate people from your cause.
The reason I have been interested in this blog is that it originally
provided good information and links to resources about grass as an
alternative energy source. Believe it or not, I have been considering
the possibility of implementing a local bio-energy production
cooperative in our area. Local perennial grass densification is a
central theme.
Oddly to you though, I am not putting funds and time into this project
because I think it will help reverse global warming, but because I
believe one of the best collectors and resources for solar energy is
not something you pay big bucks for and put on your roof, but
something you plant in the ground.
There are many of us that get excited about economic efficiencies
because they result in a financial reward. Or did you not know that
conserving energy correlates to cost savings? Therein lies the
reward.
Insulting your opposition in this debate only causes them to request
double plastic at the checkout and search for other venues for cost
savings. Instead, please collaborate with us to come up with common
solutions.
Best to all,
Dr GH
problem” is based less on hard data and more on questionable
correlations and inaccurate modeling techniques.
If this statement causes your blood pressure to rise, you need to
realize that in order to do anything about your assumptions about
warming you need the cooperation of as many citizens of the planet as
possible. The best strategy is to find common ground. Engaging in
binding statements will only further alienate people from your cause.
The reason I have been interested in this blog is that it originally
provided good information and links to resources about grass as an
alternative energy source. Believe it or not, I have been considering
the possibility of implementing a local bio-energy production
cooperative in our area. Local perennial grass densification is a
central theme.
Oddly to you though, I am not putting funds and time into this project
because I think it will help reverse global warming, but because I
believe one of the best collectors and resources for solar energy is
not something you pay big bucks for and put on your roof, but
something you plant in the ground.
There are many of us that get excited about economic efficiencies
because they result in a financial reward. Or did you not know that
conserving energy correlates to cost savings? Therein lies the
reward.
Insulting your opposition in this debate only causes them to request
double plastic at the checkout and search for other venues for cost
savings. Instead, please collaborate with us to come up with common
solutions.
Best to all,
Dr GH
michael.d...@mac.com
Dec 10, 2009, 3:35:45 PM12/10/09
to grass-...@googlegroups.com
Dr. GH,
From my perspective, even if you have not actually looked at the
trends of CO2 and other pollutant accumulation in the atmosphere and
its direct correlation with climate change, you are a welcome addition
to the alternative energy movement, if you embrace the responsible use
of biomass for local energy production. In terms of those that will
react to the truth by doing more damage to the environment and to
society, laws and regulations will, in some cases, be necessary to
manage the reactions of sociopaths, and destructive patterned
behaviors based in short-term vested interest that ignores the crisis
of the commons. The sociopaths will be a small minority of the
problem. Unconscious patterned behavior and inertial ideology will be
more common and best addressed by getting the policies and the market
incentives right. Already, the American public, with the advantage of
good evidence and rapidly decreasing uncertainty in the science base
regarding global changes, are embracing behaviors that will support
the passing on of a planetary environment worth inheriting by their
children, grandchildren, and future generations.
I am not trying to change your position, if it is heartfelt, and
grounded in solid science. However, it might be helpful if you state
where you are coming from, and ideally state what data your position
is based on:
Are you stating that there is no such thing as climate change?
Are you stating that the rise in CO2 level in the atmosphere, for
which we have good trend data over decades, is made up?
Are you stating that there is no correlation between the use of
petrochemicals and the rise in atmospheric pollutants?
Are you stating that there is no causal relationship between an
exponential increase in particulates in an Earth-like gaseous
atmosphere and climate change in that atmosphere when exposed to solar
energy?
Thank you for sharing with us where you are coming from.
With Roger Revelle and Jonas Salk as mentors, I have been watching the
evidence mount and the debate change over the past three decades. The
evidence is now clear and the scientific consensus is clear. The
Earth is warming rapidly in association with the pollutants we are
putting into the atmosphere. The poles are melting and permafrost is
beginning to vent -- which is bringing us to a point of no return
within a matter of years. The uncertainty at this point is relatively
small, considering the consequences of not turning around current
trends on atmospheric pollutants. In addition, where atmospheric
pollutants have been reduced, such as in the LA basin, we have already
seen substantial direct benefits to health. Have you gone for a run
in Jakarta recently?
I do understand that there are differing political points of view on
climate change and that the concept of climate change is challenging
for some world views, especially if their only, or major, concern is
short-term profit.
That stated, so you know where I am coming from, I do appreciate you
being willing to do the right thing, whatever your reasoning.
Mike
From my perspective, even if you have not actually looked at the
trends of CO2 and other pollutant accumulation in the atmosphere and
its direct correlation with climate change, you are a welcome addition
to the alternative energy movement, if you embrace the responsible use
of biomass for local energy production. In terms of those that will
react to the truth by doing more damage to the environment and to
society, laws and regulations will, in some cases, be necessary to
manage the reactions of sociopaths, and destructive patterned
behaviors based in short-term vested interest that ignores the crisis
of the commons. The sociopaths will be a small minority of the
problem. Unconscious patterned behavior and inertial ideology will be
more common and best addressed by getting the policies and the market
incentives right. Already, the American public, with the advantage of
good evidence and rapidly decreasing uncertainty in the science base
regarding global changes, are embracing behaviors that will support
the passing on of a planetary environment worth inheriting by their
children, grandchildren, and future generations.
I am not trying to change your position, if it is heartfelt, and
grounded in solid science. However, it might be helpful if you state
where you are coming from, and ideally state what data your position
is based on:
Are you stating that there is no such thing as climate change?
Are you stating that the rise in CO2 level in the atmosphere, for
which we have good trend data over decades, is made up?
Are you stating that there is no correlation between the use of
petrochemicals and the rise in atmospheric pollutants?
Are you stating that there is no causal relationship between an
exponential increase in particulates in an Earth-like gaseous
atmosphere and climate change in that atmosphere when exposed to solar
energy?
Thank you for sharing with us where you are coming from.
With Roger Revelle and Jonas Salk as mentors, I have been watching the
evidence mount and the debate change over the past three decades. The
evidence is now clear and the scientific consensus is clear. The
Earth is warming rapidly in association with the pollutants we are
putting into the atmosphere. The poles are melting and permafrost is
beginning to vent -- which is bringing us to a point of no return
within a matter of years. The uncertainty at this point is relatively
small, considering the consequences of not turning around current
trends on atmospheric pollutants. In addition, where atmospheric
pollutants have been reduced, such as in the LA basin, we have already
seen substantial direct benefits to health. Have you gone for a run
in Jakarta recently?
I do understand that there are differing political points of view on
climate change and that the concept of climate change is challenging
for some world views, especially if their only, or major, concern is
short-term profit.
That stated, so you know where I am coming from, I do appreciate you
being willing to do the right thing, whatever your reasoning.
Mike
Jim Wuertele
Dec 10, 2009, 8:23:00 PM12/10/09
to grass-...@googlegroups.com
Ah, Gentlemen,
Getting back to tools for the goals we share of increasing biofuel use, I thought I'd insert the conclusion of my study I started the other day here: that of estimating the minimum future price of heating oil. Of course the price is made of elements, one of which is production costs.
Recall, my estimate was that the cost cost of fuel production might be extrapolated from known past cost increases in the last 20 years to 2012 requiring, by then, 2 barrels of oil to produce one barrel for sale (up from 4 to make 3 in 2007). This results in a minimum price of heating oil growing to $3.60, other elements of the price staying constant (which they won't, but are impossible to predict!).
Anyone interested in details and my method obtaining this result may contact me directly. We have to be able to argue for effective oil replacement by fuels with more stable production costs (grass pellets?). Perhaps this estimate of the future minimum price of heating fuel will help.
Also, and not too beside the point, I still have about 1/2 ton of 40# bags of 1/4 inch switch grass pellets for experimenters on the burner side of the problem to purchase.
Jim
James W. Wuertele
Vermont Agrifuels Institute
198 Church Street
St. Johnsbury, VT
05819, USA
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages