Short Quiz - Everything About Oil - Suggested Answers

[johnkarls]

.
Question 1.

For a gallon of gasoline at $4.00 - (A) At $135/barrel for crude oil, how much of the $4.00 goes "off the top" to OPEC and other producers??? (B) How much comprises the Federal excise tax??? (C) How much comprises state and local sales taxes??? (D) How much is left for refining, transportation and marketing???

Answer 1.

(A) OPEC and other producers = $135/bbl divided by 42 gallons/bbl = $3.214/gal.

(B) Federal excise tax = $0.184/gal.

(C) State and local sales taxes at, say 5%, = $0.200/gal

(D) Total of A + B + C = $3.598 - leaving 40.2 cents/gal. for refining, transportation and marketing.

Crude oil closed last Friday at $140.54/bbl. The extra $5.54/bbl. means an extra 13.2 cent/gal. “off the top” to OPEC and other producers.

Question 2.

Of the portion of the $4.00/gallon that is left for refining, transportation and marketing, how much represents the cost of American environmental policies that have required a sizable percentage of our oil supplies, instead of being imported as crude oil in huge supertankers to domestic refineries and then distributed around the country in pipelines, to be refined in the Caribbean and then brought to the U.S. in barges and small product-specific tankers???

Answer 2.

Of the 40.2 cents/gallon for refining, transportation and marketing, the common wisdom is that the cost of U.S. environmental regulations is roughly 5 cents/gal. This means approximately 5 cents/gal. of additional profit (or loss mitigation) FOR DOMESTIC REFINERS ONLY because their competition has to import products from Caribbean refineries in barges and small product-specific tankers and, therefore, they incur an additional 5 cents/gallon in costs.

Question 3.

What are the comparable costs for different energy sources - petroleum, coal, nuclear, wind, solar, etc.

Answer 3.

I am very sorry not to have been able to locate this past week a recent governmental study (I've forgotten whether it was Department of Energy or a Congressional study). I will continue looking for the study and will post it on our Bulletin Board (http://www.drinkingliberallyslc.org/reading) as soon as it is found. The study showed -

(A) Coal is far CHEAPER than petroleum.

(B) Nuclear is COMPETITIVE with petroleum.

(C) All other forms of energy (except hydro, and we have not built any significant new dams in the U.S. for decades) - whether wind, solar, etc. - ARE MUCH MORE COSTLY than petroleum and, barring technological breakthroughs, require tremendous governmental subsidies (whether overt or, through higher prices for such things as electricity, hidden).

Question 4.

Of the energy sources that are cost competitive, what is the impact of each on the environment???

Answer 4.

(A) PETROLEUM (both natural gas and products refined from crude oil such as gasoline, diesel, kerosene, etc.) produces the notorious greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide and monoxide.

(B) COAL is another hydrocarbon (technically it has not been compressed and aged sufficiently to become crude oil and/or natural gas, though "coal liquefication" is a synthetic process for doing so).

• Accordingly, its greenhouse-gas emissions are just as disastrous as burning natural gas or petroleum products.

• In addition, it is very difficult to remove other impurities such as sulphur (think "acid rain") before burning.

• Moreover, coal is often used for generating electricity which, we know from reading "Big Coal: The Dirty Secret Behind America's Energy Future" for last October, DESTROYS 75% OF THE ENERGY (B.T.U.) CONTENT OF THE FUEL USED TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY IN THE CONVERSION PROCESS. An effort is being made to develop technology which would capture some of the carbon, sulphur and other emissions and bury them in underground caverns. Nonetheless EVEN IF THE COAL CAN BE MADE TO SPEW INTO THE ATMOSPHERE SOMEWHAT REDUCED CARBON, SULPHUR AND OTHER POLLUTION, the sequestration underground of the carbon emissions will only produce the next world crisis (in this regard, please see Answer 16).

(C) NUCLEAR power produces no pollution during the energy-production process itself. However, spent fuel rods are a problem because of a federal court decision that Yucca Mountain cannot be used since its safety after 10,000 years is questionable. It should be noted that spent fuel rods are NOT a waste-disposal problem if they are "re-processed" to remove their uranium and plutonium. However, the world powers that have nuclear weapons generally oppose such re-processing because the plutonium can be used for nuclear weapons as well as for nuclear fuel.

Question 5.

Of the energy sources that are cost competitive, which can be produced domestically and which require substantial payments to foreigners - putting the U.S. dollar, as we have seen recently, "in the toilet"???

Answer 5.

The U.S. has vast untapped petroleum reserves both offshore and in various wildlife preserves. However, there is usually a 10-year lag time between when drilling commences and when the oil found is actually brought to market - as noted by President Clinton in vetoing drilling legislation in 1995. In addition, there is no certainty that such drilling would completely "close the gap" even with conservation (such as increasing CAFE standards). And global warming would continue.

The U.S. has vast untapped coal reserves that could be utilized much more quickly. In addition, U.S. coal reserves are so vast that we would have no trouble eliminating energy imports if we decided to use coal. However, the environmental consequences (acid rain in addition to the same global-warming carbon emissions as with petroleum products and natural gas) would be disastrous.

The U.S. could also eliminate energy imports by using nuclear power. The lead time for closing the gap, as with coal, could be only a few years. However, Congress would probably have to move forward on the Yucca Mountain repository for spent fuel rods (that is, remove the statutory basis for federal judges to consider potential consequences that will not occur, if at all, until 10,000 years in the future). Or "bite the bullet" and permit re-processing the spent fuel rods despite the danger that the resulting plutonium might be stolen by terrorists for use in nuclear weapons.

Question 6.

How much of the recent increase in the US dollar cost of crude oil represents the plummeting of the dollar and how much of the increase represents a real increase (as measured, for example, in Euros)???

Answer 6.

According to this past weekend’s edition of the Wall Street Journal (p. B16), the Euro is up 16.7% against the dollar over the last year and the Japanese Yen is up 16.0% against the dollar over the same period.

According to the same edition of the WSJ (p. B5), crude oil is up 45% since the beginning of the year (and, incidentally, the price of corn is up more than 60% since the beginning of the year).

I’m sorry that the time periods in the two different articles are not identical, but the directions and magnitudes provide a good general sense that quite a bit of the apparent increase in crude oil prices is really shrinkage of the dollar measuring rod!!!

Question 7.

How much longer did we think the rest of the world was going to let us borrow money to buy foreign crude oil??? Have any of us ever had any success on a personal level finding a bank to lend us money every month to cover our personal expenditures???

Answer 7.

If we had thought about it, we should have been amazed that the rest of the world has let us borrow money to buy foreign crude oil this long!!!

If anyone has had any success finding a bank to loan her/him money each month to cover personal expenses, please press "reply" and provide contact info for the bank!!!

Question 8.

How is our now being called "to pay the piper" aggravated by the fact that the U.S. dollar has been accepted up to this point as the world's reserve currency (for our kids to understand, as if the United Nations had also issued U.S. dollars for its members to use as international currency, except that WE issued the dollars and they represent OUR (not the UN's) IOU's to the rest of the world), but now the rest of the world is increasingly cashing in their dollar IOU's and using Euros instead to transact international business???

Answer 8.

As more and more of the countries with liquid assets (generally speaking, China, India and the OPEC countries) exchange their plummeting dollars for Euros and/or Yen, the “free fall” of the dollar begins to resemble a classic “run on the bank”!!!

Question 9.

How much of our U.S. governmental bonds and treasury notes are held by foreigners who, for the same reason that foreigners are increasingly leery of holding dollars, are increasingly leery of holding dollar-denominated debt and securities???

Answer 9.

I am very sorry not to have been able to obtain quantitative and comparative information on this issue. I had thought it would be easy to obtain on the internet but haven’t had any luck. Unfortunately, I continue to be in a travel status and haven’t had access to a good library. If I can obtain this information before our July 9 meeting, it will be posted on our bulletin board (http://www.drinkingliberallyslc.org/reading).

Question 10.

Is there any irony in the fact that our spineless American politicians have refused to do anything to encourage energy conservation (such as through increasing CAFÉ standards), and now energy conversation is being forced on us by a worthless dollar???

Answer 10.

Of course!!!

Question 11.

Is there any irony in the fact that the disastrous policies of our spineless American politicians in permitting the dollar to remain so artificially high for so long has resulted in the out-sourcing of so many American jobs that we are now paying workers in China and India far more in terms of plummeting dollars than our own American workers would be willing to accept if they could only be re-trained to perform their old jobs???

Answer 11.

Of course!!!

Question 12.

In what year did the U.S. cease being a net exporter of petroleum???

Answer 12.

1961.

Question 13.

If we wanted to become energy independent again through petroleum (while ignoring the impact on the environment), how difficult would it be to do so???

Answer 13.

This question has already been partially covered in Answer 5, and will be addressed further in the following Answer 14.

Question 14.

In this regard, why is it true that humankind has only used an infinitesimal fraction of the world's oil and gas to date??? (Hint - the answer to this question is the same as the answer to the question of why "experts" thought the world was about to run out of oil and gas 30 years ago when world production of oil and gas was only a fraction of what it is today.)

Answer 14.

The short answer to this question is technology.

First, 75% of the world's surface consists of oceans. Our technology for exploring and producing petroleum from under the ocean has steadily progressed from just a few feet of ocean depth in the early days to 25,000 feet of depth according to Chevron's current ads for PBS' MacNeil-Lehrer Report (aka The News Hour with Jim Lehrer) every work-day evening.

Petroleum engineers believe that the day is not long off before we are able to drill in virtually any depth.

So if one had no knowledge of whether ocean depths would be more prolific or less prolific than the earth's continents (and there is good reason to believe they would be more prolific), it would stand to reason that current estimates have ignored 75% of the world's petroleum resources.

Second, even with primary, secondary and tertiary production, recovery rates have been a small fraction of the crude oil present (even "single digits" for heavy crude oil).

Technology has been steadily increasing recovery rates and making "re-working" old dormant fields economic. In this regard, super-heavy oil fields (aka tar sands) which are truly gigantic may become economic.

Also in this regard, it should be noted that "oil shale" will require a completely different technological break through. Because the oil cannot move freely through the shale like water can move freely through sand at the beach. So the shale has to be mined. And removal of the oil from the shale is extremely costly.

Question 15.

If we wanted to become energy independent by increasing the usage of coal (while ignoring the impact on the environment), how difficult would it be to do so???

Answer 15.

This has been covered in Answer 5 - it would be extremely easy, just a matter of a few short years.

Question 16.

Even if it is not too "audacious to hope" that coal can be made to burn cleanly, what is the next world crisis that sequestration and burial of carbon dioxide will produce that hasn't even been mentioned yet by the "experts"???

Answer 16.

Burning hydrocarbons as fuel uses oxygen and produces carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide (most commonly 6(O2) + C6H12O6 > 6(C02) + 6(H2O)).

Taking out of the atmosphere the oxygen that has combined with the carbon and sequestering it in underground caverns will gradually lower the percentage of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere.

Currently, the earth's atmosphere comprises approximately 21% oxygen. However, minor reductions in this level can spell disaster for humans and other animals.

This is the subject of an article entitled "Decreased Oxygen Content in the Atmosphere - An Ecological Disaster Imperceptibly Sneaking Up?" at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7550172.

Question 17.

What is the position of Barack Obama on these issues???

Answer 17.

Barack Obama’s positions per “www.barackobama.com/issues” on “Energy and the Environment” and “The Economy” are posted on our bulletin board “www.drinkingliberallyslc.org/reading.”

In general, he favors energy conservation and research. This is not surprising since Illinois is a large coal-producing state and he has always been a staunch supporter of the coal industry, often including statements in his speeches during his Presidential campaign about trying to make coal burn cleanly.

Question 18.

What is the position of John McCain on these issues???

Answer 18.

John McCain’s positions per “www.johnmccain.com/informing/issues” on “Climate Change” and “American Energy” and “Economic Plan” are are posted on our bulletin board “www.drinkingliberallyslc.org/reading.”

In general, he favors the “cap and trade” approach employed by the European Union in trying to comply with Kyoto and favors the construction of 45 new nuclear plants in order to achieve energy independence and compliance with Kyoto (in this regard, it should be noted that no new American nuclear plants have been constructed for more than 30 years).

And for extra credit -

Question A.

What issue is our author "tip toeing around" when he accuses Bush/Cheney of choosing to fight the Iraq War for oil???

Answer A.

Anti-Semitism.

Following Gulf War I, the United Nations Security Council embargoed Iraqi Crude Oil except for humanitarian needs (the "Food for Peace" Program).

By the turn of the century, it was becoming apparent that full production of Iraqi Crude Oil would be necessary to meet rising world demand.

Since France, Germany and Russia had butchered all of their Jews during World War II, they began actively assisting Saddam Hussein in circumventing the U.N. embargo and threatened to veto any Security Council action to enforce the numerous United Nations resolutions which, among other things, called for inspections of Iraq's nuclear-weapons program (Saddam had ejected the U.N. nuclear inspectors, prompting President Clinton and the U.S. Congress in 1998 to pass a law making the overthrow of Saddam official U.S. policy) and barred the development of ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel (nobody argues that Saddam had not defied this resolution).

So, yes, in addition to the stated “casus belli” of weapons of mass destruction, Bush/Cheney did choose to fight the Iraq War for the unstated reason of oil. But what our author ignores is the issue of whether Iraq oil should be brought to market in the manner favored by France, Germany and Russia which would have jeopardized the continued existence of Israel, or whether Iraq oil should be brought to market in the manner favored by the United Kingdom and the United States (both of whom, after all, had been protecting both the Kurds and the Shiites from Saddam’s genocide with "no fly" zones enforced by the RAF and US Air Force) which sought to protect Israel's continued existence.

Question B.

What issue is our author "tip toeing around" when he talks about the Religious Right and the American South???

Answer B.

Segregation.

Which, of course, had flourished under Woodrow Wilson (who issued an infamous Executive Order segregating the armed forces) and Franklin Roosevelt. Both Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt appointed Southern Segregationists to the Supreme Court.

It was not until Lyndon Johnson put his political muscle behind the enactment of civil rights legislation that the Southern Segregation Wing of the Democratic Party detached itself and grafted itself onto the Republican Party (with wholesale party switches by sitting Southern Senators, Congresspersons, Governors, etc., etc.).

Question C.

Is there a Religious Left in America???

Answer C.

Yes.

As if on cue, the MacNeil-Lehrer Report (aka The News Hour With Jim Lehrer) reported last Monday on a recent Pew Research Poll whose results are in line with polls taken over the years - currently 92% of all Americans believe in God and 75% of all Americans pray at least once a week.

Virtually every national election since the Southern Segregation Wing of the Democratic Party was amputated and grafted onto the Republican Party nearly 40 years ago, has been within a few percentage points of 50-50.

So even if one assumes that 100% of all Republicans believe in God and pray every week, that still leaves 84% of all Democrats believing in God and 50% of all Democrats praying at least once a week.

This should not be surprising.

After all, African-Americans are roughly 15% of the total population and if one makes some simple-minded assumptions that all of them are religious and all of them are Democrats, this would account for 30 percentage points of the Democratic figures of 84% and 50%. Similar assumptions could be made concerning Latino-Americans who also tend to be devout in their religion (Roman Catholicism in their case).

However, we Democrats often overlook the fact that there are many devout believers in religion who are not African-American or Latino-American who are nonetheless very liberal in their views and vote Democratic. After all, a good case could be made that Jesus Christ was the first communist ("sell what you have and give it to the poor and then come and follow me" is hard to distinguish from "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"!!! and Christ’s flat-out statement that one need only love God AND TREAT ONE’S NEIGHBOR AS ONE'S SELF (“The Golden Rule”) is also, at least as to The Golden Rule, standard Karl Marx!!!)

If one takes a look at the national web site for the Council of Churches and Synagogues, or the web sites of any of its member denominations, their positions on virtually all issues are well to the left of the Democratic Party!!!

Question D.

Why has Saudi Arabia always tried to restrain OPEC prices??? Why has that strategy become ineffective???

Answer D.

Saudi Arabia has always tried to restrain OPEC prices because it is virtually the only member of OPEC whose reserves will last for decades (rather than merely years). Accordingly, Saudi Arabia has always taken a dim view of current price gouging which will stimulate the development of alternative fuels which might make its long-lived reserves virtually worthless.

Historically, Saudi Arabia has often increased its production in order to keep OPEC and world prices in line with its conservative approach.

However, Saudi Arabia no longer has sufficient production facilities to enforce its policy of moderate prices.

[UtahOwl]

Dear John and Fellow Liberals,
Contrary to the report John was remembering, my research shows that wind energy is already competitive with oil- or nat.gas-fired power plants, and concentrated solar (NOT photovoltaic) is scaling up to power-plant size & probably is already competitive at current oil/nat gas prices. I will try to dig out relatively reliable quotes. One source of enormous discrepancies in sources is that some sources are quoting historical data, whereas the more reliable ones are taking the current environment (OPEC & environmental) into account, so one has to look at the source data & try for analyses done within the last year.

For those interested in coal ( of which we do have enormous reserves), see the summary of the ICCR Report on Coal-Fired Power Plants at
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRel ... RN20080226

The gist is that, although coal-fired power has heretofore been cheap, "coal is losing its appeal as a predictable investment and is instead fraught with uncertainty." because of
- expected federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions ( coal is the least efficient power producer compared to the amount of greenhouse gases & pollution it emits, so it will really get hit hard)
- construction costs & schedules are unpredictable & increasing - thanks to the worldwide competition for construction resources & materials. Britain just raised its price for iron ore more than 60% this last month. Duke Energy says the capital costs for new coal plants have increased ~ 90-100% since 2002. And costs are still rising. Please note this also affects nuclear power plants & any other large installations.
- economics of new coal plants will be seriously affected by new regs tightening restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions & pollutant emissions. Besides SO2 emissions, coal plants emit large amounts of nitrogen oxides & are a major source of mercury pollution. NB: Mercury is a nasty neurotoxin ...remember the Mad Hatter.
- Capture & storage (CCS) technology is not commercially viable and may not be for years, or even decades. CCS would, to the extent it succeeded, ameliorate the greenhouse gas problem. But it's nowhere near ready for prime time. Sorry, John.

OK, on to Nuclear: The best source I found was CSR NO. 28, APRIL 2007 from the COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, a generally reliable, centrist source: Nuclear Energy: Balancing Benefits and Risks available at
http://www.iccr.org/issues/globalwarm/N ... 070507.pdf
The gist is that advocates of a major, subsidized expansion of nuclear energy as a way out of our energy problem are overselling the contribution that nuclear energy can make to reduce global warming & strengthen energy security. The report is extensive, and I can't do it credit here. But it's quite readable. Have fun!

[johnkarls]

Dear UtahOwl:

Welcome to Reading Liberally!!! Even though you haven’t identified yourself or joined our e-mail list or requested to be registered for this bulletin board, your comments are “first class” and you are cordially invited to attend our meeting tomorrow evening (I hope you will come!!!).

(Though I am a bit mystified how you were able to register while by-passing the approval process – and concerned because we used to have massive problems with porn addicts and saboteurs. FYI, approximately 15-20 porn addicts and/or saboteurs still attempt to register every day. Accordingly, we tightened our registration procedures for 10-11 months and, unfortunately, our recent software upgrade a month ago compelled us to limit registration to attendees of our monthly meetings. To avoid future porn attacks and sabotage, perhaps you might be so kind as to tell us how you by-passed our approval process.)

****
REACTION TO YOUR COMMENTS THEMSELVES

1. COAL

Agree completely with all of your comments, most of which were made in my Short Quiz + Suggested Answers (hereinafter “Q&A’s”)..

It would appear that your only comment that was not made in the Q&A’s was the point about coal becoming uncertain from an investor’s viewpoint because of the prospect of regulation of greenhouse gases. It is respectfully suggested for your consideration that if we are considering what our governmental policy should be, then it is legitimate to ignore for purposes of that consideration the uncertainty for investors created by the consideration itself pending a policy resolution.

On the other hand, it would appear that your coal comments miss an important point in the Q&A’s – that carbon dioxide/monoxide sequestration underground is merely setting the stage for the next global crisis which is reduction of the 22% oxygen content of the atmosphere, with only a drop of a few percentage points spelling disaster for humans and other animals.

In this regard, it is respectfully suggested that you take a look at the article entitled "Decreased Oxygen Content in the Atmosphere - An Ecological Disaster Imperceptibly Sneaking Up?" at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7550172 which was cited in the Q&A’s.

Your coal comments also neglect to address another point in the Q&A’s – Barack Obama’s distressing support for the coal industry. As you are probably aware, Illinois is a large coal-producing state and even though Barack Obama is now running for national office, he continues to be a staunch supporter of the coal industry. Which probably explains his basic approach to energy production – research rather than action.

In this regard, you may have noticed that http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ energyandtheenvironment (which was posted on our bulletin
board on June 30 under “Reference Materials”) states that Barack Obama wants to “accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids”!!!

In this regard, I would respectfully recommend for your consideration the Topic on this Bulletin Board of “Electricity – The Biggest Polluter” under “Participant Comments on ‘Assault on Reason’” for September 6th. That topic has received more than 900 views to date.

*****
Editorial Note – I see that only a few seconds after locating that topic, it and all the other five topics and seven posts under “reference materials” and “participant comments” for September 6th were deleted from the bulletin board. It would appear that their deletion only a few hours after you by-passed our registration procedures indicates you are a saboteur and, unfortunately, that compelled me a few moments ago to delete you as a registered user of the bulletin board. However, I still hope that you will attend our meeting tomorrow evening to share your views. And, if you identify yourself and pledge not to sabotage other postings on the bulletin board but merely comment on them, I would be happy to restore your registration.
*****

In summary, “Electricity – The Biggest Polluter” (which, together with the other topics and postings for September 6th that were sabotaged by UtahOwl, will be restored later today) distinguishes between –

(1) hybrid vehicles which generate their own electric power from excess power generated by their gasoline engines; and

(2) 100% electric vehicles (such as Los Angeles public buses and municipal vehicles).

The problem is that most of the public thinks of electricity as “clean” because there is no pollution from the electric wall outlet through the process of whatever electric appliance is being used (an electric lawnmower was used as the example in “Electricity – The Biggest Polluter” to compare with a gasoline lawnmower).

However, THERE IS MASSIVE POLLUTION IN CREATING THE ELECTRICY (except for hydro, and we have not constructed any significant new dams in many decades!!!)!!!

“Electricity – The Biggest Polluter” documents that 75% of the energy (BTU) content of the energy source from which the electricity is produced (most commonly coal in the U.S. and around the world, but also fuel oil) is destroyed in the conversion process. That is, the electricity produced from coal has only 25% of the energy (BTU) content of the coal that was burned to generate that electricity.

Another problem with electricity is that virtually all new electricity plants are coal fired!!! –

(1) As noted above, we haven’t built any significant new dams for several decades.

(2) As noted in the Q&A’s, no nuclear-powered electricity plants have been built for several decades (though as noted in the Q&A’s, McCain proposes to build 45 in order to comply with Kyoto and eliminate energy imports).

(3) And the only other traditional sources of energy for generating electricity are fuel oil and natural gas – both in tight supply which means no oil/gas-fired electricity plants for the foreseeable future.

THAT IS WHY THE LOS ANGELES POLICY OF EMPLOYING AND ENCOURAGING 100% ELECTRICITY VEHICLES IS IMMORAL AND SHOULD BE A MAJOR-LEAGUE FELONY!!!

Because any economist will tell you that only the marginal or incremental effect is relevant.

And the marginal or incremental effect of additional electricity generation to power 100% electric vehicles (as distinguished from a gasoline/electric hybrid which generates its own electricity from the excess power of its gasoline engine), IS MORE COAL-FIRED ELECTRICITY PLANTS WHICH, PER CALIFORNIA STATE POLICY, MUST BE LOCATED DOWNWIND FROM CALIFORNIA!!!

But even if the smog from the generation of electricity for Los Angeles buses and municipal vehicles IS EXPORTED BY CALIFORNIA TO DOWN-WIND STATES, AL GORE WOULD STILL TELL LOS ANGELES AND CALIFORNIA (IF ASKED) THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE VASTLY-INCREASED GREENHOUSE GAS POLLUTION FROM USING ELECTRICITY RATHER THAN DIESEL/GASOLINE (THE 75% ENERGY LOSS DURING ELETRICITY GENERATION), IT DOESN’T MATTER WHETHER CALIFORNIA HAS SUCCEEDED IN EXPORTING THE GREENHOUSE GASES TO DOWN-WIND STATES – BECAUSE GREENHOUSE GASES ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD (INCLUDING DOWN-WIND STATES) POSE THE SAME PROBLEM!!!

***********************************
***********************************
2. YOUR OTHER COMMENT ABOUT ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS OF WIND AND CONCENTRATED (VS. PHOTOVOLTAIC) SOLAR POWER

The other point contained in your posting is that wind and concentrated (vs. photovoltaic) solar power are already price competitive with crude oil prices at $145/bbl.

This is a fair point!!!

I would be interested in your response to two issues that this point raises –

FIRST, nuclear power has always been price competitive with crude oil which, of course, is why France, for example, generates 100% of its electricity in nuclear-powered electric plants and even exports electricity from nuclear-powered electric plants to the rest of Europe. (And indeed, if we simply increase the U.S. percentage from approximately 20% to 40% as McCain's proposal to build 45 new nuclear-powered electicity plants would accomplish, we would have no problem in complying with Kyoto!!!)

So even if wind and solar have indeed become competitive with crude oil at $145/bbl, would you really want to incur such high costs rather than build nuclear-powered electric plants that were already competitive at a fraction of that crude-oil cost.

In formulating your answer, you may want to consider whether American workers should be forced to work at factories, etc., whose electrical power costs four times as much as factories of their foreign competitors.

SECOND, investors will be nervous about providing the capital for wind/solar-powered electric plants if there is no guarantee that crude oil will remain at or above $145/bbl.

So are you in favor of providing a U.S. government guarantee that if crude oil prices drop below $145/bbl, the federal government will write a check for the shortfall???

And, going the other way, if crude oil prices continue to rise above $145/bbl, are you in favor of providing a U.S. government guarantee that it will not tax away the vast bulk of any resulting profit with a “windfall profit tax”??? After all, merely guaranteeing against any losses while being perceived as prone to confiscate any upside, will also scare away investors!!!

And if you don’t favor either, would you favor the U.S. government building these plants as a massive Tennessee-Valley-Authority style federal utility that will suffer any downside directly that would have been sustained with a guarantee of the $145/bbl crude oil price, and will enjoy any upside directly that could have been confiscated with a windfall-profit tax – BUT WILL REQUIRE A MASSIVE INCREASE IN THE FEDERAL DEBT IN ORDER TO COVER CONSTRUCTION COSTS???

I hope you will attend our meeting tomorrow evening to give us your views on these two issues raised by your posting. And/or that you will identify yourself and pledge not to sabotage (rather than merely respond) to other postings so that your registration can be restored.

Sincerely yours,

John K.