Showing posts with label energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label energy. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Nice graphic showing "what is" in terms of electricity generation as opposed to "what should be".

Just a reminder of "what is" in terms of electricity generation in the US (a positive statement), as opposed to "what should be" (a normative statement).  The graphic is from The Wall Street Journal.

"What is" is electricity from fossil fuels totaling 67%, nuclear 19% and all other classes of renewables 13%.

Efficient and effective policies to minimize the first and maximize the third are certainly welcome and needed.

Electricity produced from coal looms large and short of a miraculous technological advancement it will continue to be the dominant source for our immense electricity needs.

It is what keeps the lights on....

Source: The Wall Street Journal

Thursday, June 20, 2013

"Drill, Dig, Baby, Drill, Dig"...Not what many people want to hear BUT it has helped save our economy. Doubt it? Look at these numbers...

I copied this chart from the teriffic website EMSI and added some numbers based off of their data.

The EMSI data show how many jobs there are in certain sectors of the energy and mineral extraction industry and how many ADDITIONAL jobs down the supply chain are needed to support those jobs. From this, they calculate a "jobs multiplier" (This discussion is excellent--go read it!!!).

Example: In "Support Activities for Metal Mining" there were a total of 5,103 jobs in that specific category in 2013.  EMSI estimates that for each of those jobs 7.09 additional jobs were created as supply chain support jobs. So, that category produced a total of 36,180 jobs---the 5,103 direct ones and 31,077 indirect ones created to support those 5,103.  Hope that makes sense.


I was curious as to how many DIRECT jobs were created since 2010 (the end of the recession) and the number of supply chain support jobs created as a result.  They did not have those numbers broken out, so I had to calculate them.

Those numbers are in columns "1" and "2" in bold.

Column 1 has the number of NEW jobs created in each category since 2010.

Column 2 has the number of NEW supply chain support jobs created in each category since 2010, using the same multipliers.

Add them all up.  Since 2010 the number of new direct jobs created is 189,451 and the number of supply chain support jobs is 404,157.

Total jobs created in these categories in the last 3 years and 5 months was 593,608.

Using employment numbers from the BLS archives (Jan 2010 to May 2013) the economy has added 3,969,000 new jobs since January 2010.

So, jobs in the Energy and Mineral Extraction sector have accounted for a MINIMUM of 15% (593,608/3,969,000 X 100) of ALL new jobs since 2010.

Read that percentage again. That is significant.

"Drill, Dig, Baby, Drill, Dig".  I am pretty sure this has helped save our economy...

Saturday, August 18, 2012

Another chart showing the growth in energy consumption in the developed vs developing world from 2000 to 2011. Wow!

I just this one after the one I just previously posted.

The change in energy use JUST since 2000 is quite amazing.  The BRIC countries, Brazil, Russia, India and ESPECIALLY China have all increased their consumption of energy (from a variety of sources, mostly carbon based) and developed countries for the most part consume a smaller share.

This can be good, bad, or ugly---depends on which side of the economic development scale you reside in. 


Source: BusinessInsider

Nice infographic showing the growth in carbon emissions in China. We can congratulate ourselves on our efforts to reduce emissions, but does it matter?

If you are interested in the topic of carbon emissions, this graphic is for you. It shows the changes in carbon emissions primarily in China and secondarily in other parts of the developing world.

I have seen a recent graph that shows carbon emissions in the US have dropped dramatically in the last few years. Some due to efficiencies, some due to the wider use of natural gas,  BUT I would venture to guess MOST of the decrease is due to the recession and high(er) gas prices.

Do we have global carbon emission reductions (lead by the US) or has it just shifted to other places?


Saturday, December 3, 2011

US becomes a Net Exporter of Petroleum products for the first time in 62 years!! Is this a good thing? Nice new graphic showing the cause...

This caught me by surprise. The US, for the first time in 62 years, has become a net EXPORTER of petroleum and petroleum based products.  Gasoline and diesel fuels (for cars and trucks) lead the way.
 
The following graph may help explain some of the reason.  It shows a leveling-off of gasoline supplied in the US starting in about 2005 and then declined in 2007-08 (recession started).
Source: EIA

However, this does not mean that  the production of gasoline has decreased.  While demand is soft in the US, many other economys in the world are growing and have an increased demand for gasoline.  This graph shows the production of gasoline. 



Notice how production varies in the short term, but if I am reading the trend line correctly, it has increased in the past year.  Use your imagination and put these three graphics together---A declining supply of gasoline in the US market, an increasing supply of gasoline produced in the US = export of the difference---its gotta go somewhere...

From the WSJ:

""U.S. customers have been pulling back in part because an anemic economic recovery has left millions still looking for work. In August, U.S. drivers burned 7.7% less gasoline than four years earlier, when gasoline usage peaked...

But U.S. drivers aren't seeing much benefit in the form of lower prices because refineries on the Gulf Coast are shipping much of their output to places where demand is strong, keeping prices high....
Mexico and Brazil were major consumers of U.S. exports, according to the September data, while the Netherlands—home to key European ports —and Singapore also were significant net importers.

Argentina and Peru are now net importers from the U.S. For the next year or two, "the economies in Latin America will be growing faster than in the U.S. and the trend of increasing exports should continue," says Daniel Vizel, U.S. head of oil trading for Macquarie Group Ltd.
Singapore's net imports from the U.S. roughly quadrupled in the past five years, while Mexico's rose by about two-thirds. Mexico, in particular, is having trouble keeping pace with gasoline demand and buys about 60% of gasoline exports from the U.S...;""


Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Two nice graphics showing energy consumption by source. We are failing...

Reality Check.  As much as I would like the us to move to a cleaner and less political (by political I mean we dont have to go to war or maintain a military presence to get it) source of energy, this is the real world.

The first graphic shows the sources of fuel for electricity. The second one shows what we need for everyting else. Look how Oil "pops" from the first to the second. Oil is not only used for electricity production but also gasoline and it is an input into the production of many goods, like plastic.

With all the subsidies and other support we (and other rich countries) have put into alternative sources of energy, the dial on those has barely budged.  I  don't think I would even count the category "bio-mass". I am sure this includes the disasterous Ethanol policy.  Using food or even other organic matter for fuel has to be considered a no-go to meet our massive energy needs. 
Source: Wattsupwiththat


Source: Wattsupwiththat

Monday, July 25, 2011

Nice interview with Bill Gates on energy and the environment---He even uses the term Opportunity Costs...NICE!!!

In a discussion on energy, Mr Gates invokes the important economic term "Opportunity Cost". He uses it terms of using land to produce food for either human consumption or energy production.  Trying to solve one problem (clean energy) creates unintended consequences (well, dead people from starvation/malnutrition).  I encourage you to read the whole interview (rather short).  He has some good insights and touches on many behavorial economic concepts as well the state of alternative energy on a macro and micro level. 

Q&A: Bill Gates on the World Energy Crisis

Anderson: When you look at the big picture, where should we be focusing besides nuclear? On massive solar plants in the desert? On middle-size stuff for office roofs? Or is there a reinvention that could be done right in the home?

Gates: If you’re going for cuteness, the stuff in the home is the place to go. It’s really kind of cool to have solar panels on your roof. But if you’re really interested in the energy problem, it’s those big things in the desert.
Rich countries can afford to overpay for things. We can afford to overpay for medicine, we can overpay for energy, we can rig our food prices and overpay for cotton. But in the world where 80 percent of Earth’s population lives, energy is going to be bought where it’s economical. People are going to buy cheap fertilizer so they can grow enough crops to feed themselves, which will be increasingly difficult with climate change.
You have to help the rest of the world get energy at a reasonable price to get anywhere. It’s great to have the rich world, because we’re there to think about long-term problems and fund the R&D. But we get sloppy, because we’re rich. For example, despite often-heard claims to the contrary, ethanol has nothing to do with reducing CO2; it’s just a form of farm subsidy. If you’re using first-class land for biofuels, then you’re competing with the growing of food. And so you’re actually spiking food prices by moving energy production into agriculture. For rich people, this is OK. For poor people, this is a real problem, because their food budget is an extremely high percentage of their income. As we’re pushing these things, poor people are driven from having adequate food to not having adequate food.
The most interesting biofuel efforts avoid using land that’s expensive and has high opportunity costs. They do this by getting onto other types of land, or taking advantage of byproducts that aren’t used in the food chain today, or by intercropping....""
The whole article is HERE...

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

The nation's trade deficit increased in May. The "why" is shown in two easy line graphs...

The US trade deficit increased last month from the prior month. A trade deficit occurs when a nation's exports are LESS THAN its imports. This means its Net Exports (N(x)) are negative.  Look at the right-most tips of the lines on the graph below.  The BLUE line shows the US had a total trade (goods and services) deficit of roughly $52 Billion dollars just for the month of May. The import of crude oil (BLACK Line) is roughly $32 Billion of the total trade deficit, or 62% (32/52=.615)!! The difference between these two lines is represented by the RED line. What are we doing to minimize our dependency on this stuff? Rhetorical question--we all know the answer...
Source: Calculated Risk
It is not because of a lack of effort on the export side of the equation (goods and services we make and sell to foreigners), as shown in the graph below. Our exports are recovering nicely (RED line) and almost back to a historical high.  As we recover, we are either consuming more oil overall (domestic production + Foriegn imports) OR we are producing less domestically, hence importing more. I am not sure which it is, to be honest....Any ideas???

Source: Calculated Risk

Sunday, July 3, 2011

Oil and Bio-Fuels clash...The winner? Better question--The loser? Answer--all of us.

Bad energy policies equal bad outcomes...Two reminders in as to why we need to wean ourselves off of oil AND why using food-for-fuel is NOT the way to do so. You are just subsituting one set of bad trade-offs for another. Can we do better than this?...By the way, I am NOT a hardcore "Greenie"  at all.  I just believe in utilizing resources in the most efficient manner. While oil may have served us very well in the past to get us to an unprecedented level of standard of living, I think diminishing returns are setting in with it and we need to move on to develop a new fundemental source of energy production.  Are we there yet? No...Are we working hard enough to get there? I don't really know, but I believe we should be moving a little quicker to do so. Howver, in my humble opinion, bio-fuels are not the way to go.  Where am I going wrong???
Yellowstone river suffers oil spill
""An Exxon Mobil pipeline that runs under the Yellowstone river in Montana ruptured on Saturday, leaking hundreds of barrels of oil and causing a 25-mile (40km) plume that has fouled the riverbank.

The breach in south-central Montana led to the temporary evacuation of hundreds of residents along a 20-mile stretch of the river, a key tourist attraction in the region that runs through the famous national park of the same name. Cleanup crews deployed booms and absorbent material as the plume moved downstream at around 7mph (10km/h):""....Read more HERE
Biofuels land grab in Kenya's Tana Delta fuels talk of war
""The eviction of the villagers to make way for a sugar cane plantation is part of a wider land grab going on in Kenya's Tana Delta that is not only pushing people off plots they have farmed for generations, stealing their water resources and raising tribal tensions that many fear will escalate into war, but also destroying a unique wetland habitat that is home to hundreds of rare and spectacular birds.
The irony is that most of the land is being taken for allegedly environmental reasons – to allow private companies to grow water-thirsty sugar cane and jatropha for the biofuels so much in demand in the west, where green legislation, designed to ease carbon dioxide emissions, is requiring they are mixed with petrol and diesel.""...Read more HERE

Saturday, May 28, 2011

A couple of informative graphics on Oil Production and the revival of the Texas oil boom years...WTF! (With The Fracking)...What did you think I meant?

According to the graphic below, countries that are classified as democratic (relatively "free") produce about 16% (US 9%, Canada 4%, Norway 3%) of the world's output of crude oil. Collectively, countries deemed less democratic produce about 54% (rough estimate just eye-balling the graph).


Source: Bloomberg (HT: Carpe Diem)
 Here is a chart showing the country of origin for US imports of crude oil. Several of the same names appear on both illustrations. 

Source: EIA
 I do find it interesting that China is a big producer of oil in the marketplace BUT the US imports virtually no oil from them (only about 2,000 barrels a month according to the IEA).

According to the NYTIMES , in short order, the US could increase  production by 25%, moving the US from 9% to approx 11.25% of world production.
"The Texas field, known as the Eagle Ford, is just one of about 20 new onshore oil fields that advocates say could collectively increase the nation’s oil output by 25 percent within a decade — without the dangers of drilling in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico or the delicate coastal areas off Alaska. More than a dozen companies plan to drill up to 3,000 wells there in the next 12 months."
However, this would require "drill baby drill" and all the negatives that brings with it..

""There is only one catch: the oil from the Eagle Ford and similar fields of tightly packed rock can be extracted only by using hydraulic fracturing, a method that uses a high-pressure mix of water, sand and hazardous chemicals to blast through the rocks to release the oil inside.


The technique, also called fracking, has been widely used in the last decade to unlock vast new fields of natural gas, but drillers only recently figured out how to release large quantities of oil, which flows less easily through rock than gas. As evidence mounts that fracking poses risks to water supplies, the federal government and regulators in various states are considering tighter regulations on it.""
That is the bad news.  The good news is that it could bring prosperity to local and state governments...
"...The companies estimate that the boom will create more than two million new jobs, directly or indirectly, and bring tens of billions of dollars to the states where the fields are located, which include traditional oil sites like Texas and Oklahoma, industrial stalwarts like Ohio and Michigan and even farm states like Kansas..."
Opportunity Costs abound! What do states with declining revenues and high unemployment do?  How do local communities balance the need for more local revenue AND retain/maintain their quality of life? 

Bottomline: WE GOTTA GET OFF THIS CRUDE OIL STUFF!


HT: Carpe Diem---How could I live without this blogger!! :)

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Electric Vehicles are NOT the answer to energy independence...Why does this have to be so hard???

Resources are not unlimited---this forms the foundation for the definition of economics.  Essential natural resources ("Rare Earth Minerals") used in the manufacture of electric cars come primarily from mines in China. The more electric vehicles we produce the more dependent we become on China for a critical element.  We move to these vehicles to escape dependency from one commodity (oil) and find ourselves captive to another...How come things cannot be easy...

The Rare-Earth Crisis
"...One argument I’ve heard is “national security,” the idea being that electric vehicles would make the United States less dependent on imported oil. Be careful what you wish for, however, because if electric cars become a mainstay, we may be trading one dependence for another that is even more troubling. Ninety-five percent of the world’s output of rare-earth metals today comes from one country: China. By some estimates, demand will outstrip supply within five years. At least with oil we know there are fifty years of oil reserves readily available. Moreover, oil is produced all over the world, limiting the monopoly power of any one country...." Source: Freakonomics

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Which vehicles are in the shortest supply right now? With $4.00+ gasoline, that is too easy a question...

Many pundits in the economics  blogosphere have pegged $4.00 a gallon as the breaking point for people to seriously start changing their level of gasoline consumption.  It seems as though it has begun in the car market.  Fuel efficient vehicles are in short supply because of increased demand. Below are the cars that are in the shortest supply.  Next to the name of the vehicle is the "time to turn" or the number of days on average the car sits on the lot before it is sold.  In many cases the cars are sold before hitting the lots. The first number is from April of this year. The second number is what the churn time was last April. What a difference a year makes...

BMW X5 16 ,39

Ford Explorer 19, 48

Hyundai Elantra 12, 79

Toyota Prius 20, 36

Porsche Cayenne 18, 91

BMW X3 14, 32

Audi Q7 14, 18

Chevy Equinox 19 14

Audi Q5 16, 16

Chevrolet Volt 18, N/A

GMC Terrain 19, 14

Fiat 500 11, N/A

Nissan Leaf 5, N/A

Lexus CT 200h 11, N/A

Mini Countryman 16, N/A

       ""Which new cars and trucks are most in demand?

One good measure is to see how fast they are flying off sales lots into the hands of buyers. In the auto industry, it's known as "days to turn." Interesting, though, when you look at the Edmunds.com list for April. You'd think the list would be dominated by Japanese models whose production was stopped or reduced because of the March earthquake. And, sure, some are on the list. But it's actually a pretty mixed bag.

If there anything in common, it is that gas savers prevail. A year ago, more SUVs were in short supply.

As for the vehicle in shortest supply, Edmunds.com says it's Nissan's all-electric Leaf. Since all were preordered, all are claimed as soon as they land. The days-to-turn was only five days. Next is Lexus' sharp CT 200h, a small Prius-like hybrid that just went on sale as the Japanese earthquake hit, causing huge production problems and limited supply for the car. It had only an 11-day wait. So, too, did Chrysler Group's new Fiat 500.

Hyundai's new 40-miles-per-gallon (on the highway, anyway) compact Elantra is down to only a 12-day supply, compared with a 79-day supply for the version it replaced last year. BMW's small, hot X3 and Audi's big Q7 crossover SUV tie at 14 days.

While the list includes models that would have been affected by the shortages arising from the earthquake, they don't necessarily dominate the list."" (USA TODAY)
View My Stats