« On Carbon Offsets-Becker | Main | Notice »

12/02/2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c031153ef0133efd1b6a3970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Carbon Offsets--Posner:

» Forex Trading Course from Forex Trading Course
Find hotels near Raymond James Stadium- book your Raymond James Stadium hotel online and save. … W elcome to the Stadium Hotel Network! Raymond James Stadium is home to the… [Read More]

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

neilehat

Ok, I'm going to solve the CO2 Emissions Crisis here and now. What needs to be done instead of the wringing of hands, knashing of teeth and wasting of time, effort, money and the like on international meetings, market system ploys, governmental taxation schemes. This can be done by converting a wortless waste product of combustion into something stable and valuable.

This is possible by developing a process by which CO2 is separated into its component molecules, C and O2. The O2 is recycled back into the combustion process where it originated. Thereby, increasing the overall combustion efficiency of the unit. The carbon is separated out and fed into another process by which it is converted into high value diamonds by high pressure. The technology is available now and I will leave the working out of the details to you all.

Just one question. What eever happened to that native American genius, which could solve problems up front instead of resorting to forums which waste time, effort and money to no avail? Is it because we have all become so intellectually and ideologically moribund by a system that is bankrupt? Remember, "Necessity is the Mother of Invention". Or as Edison would put it, "Genius is ninety-nine percent perspiration and 1% inspiration." Wouldn't it be a whole lot better to invest those resources into a good Research and Development Program? Instead of frittering them away on meetings, taxes, and market systems?

Jack

Neil, Just to keep you from committing any crimes in violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics; CO2 is completely burned (oxidized) carbon with the little C's tightly bonded to the O's much as they are in H20 which is fully oxidized hydrogen. You can separate the H's from the O's but it requires putting back slightly more energy than you got from burning it, though there is some news of an algae or enzymatic process being developed at Penn State. Who knows? Perhaps there are modern day Edisons out there and surely venture capital for promising ideas.

I'm guessin Edison didn't need commissions to determine the need for light, phonographs and movies.

neilehat

Jack, H2O is easy to separate, all you need is a little electricity. One of Edison's brainchildren, that is, until he got Westinghoused. ;) As for CO2 separation, Mother Nature has been doing it for eons. The first rule of Engineering is if you want to find the best method, observe nature. Venture capital is only looking for the fast buck and quick returns the working out of the details will take some time. Unless we use molecular sieves.

Jack

Neil: Ha! and if we can split those pesky H's and O's apart using less heat/electricity than we got when we oxidized the hydrogen we should immediately patent it under the Perpetual Motion heading which has remained empty for so long out of fear of violating the laws of physics.

But! perhaps we can take some of them apart by electrolysis on windy days when our windfarms generate more electricity than our grid can transport.

Mom N, like myself, is a big fan of solar energy and has as you point out, created some fascinating solar powered engines. It's just amazing that a giant redwood can inhale CO2, exhaust oxygen, pump water to all its extremities, and create tons of beautiful termite resistant wood as a byproduct. But....... as one of our Presidents said "If you've seen one redwood you've seen them all."

Perhaps a first step will be taken in Congress this week if the "energy bill" passes and takes a number of subsidies away from oil companies that might be better invested elsewhere.

BTW this article explaining why oil stocks have not soared with the soaring prices, also tells us that the days of sub-fifty buck oil have gone the way of 25 cent coffee.

The Penn state project produces both hydrogen and electricity, directly. Here's a summary:

http://www.environment.psu.edu/research/project_details/74J4/

Then we can burn the H in very efficient fuel cells that produce only H2O. There's life beyond Exxon?

Jack

Whoops! the article:

Why Your Oil Stocks Aren't Making You Rich
By Matt Badiali
December 6, 2007

"Why didn't ConocoPhillips double this year?"

The question came from an exasperated subscriber at the Stansberry Research Alliance Conference in Playa del Carmen, Mexico, last week.

It's a good question. Some big government-backed oil companies – like Brazil's Petrobras and China's Petrochina – did double last year. However, your average supermajor oil stock (ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, British Petroleum, and Chevron) has only managed to gain 15%, while crude has soared 42% in the same time.

So what's holding the big guys back? It certainly isn't the price they receive for their oil... It's the simple fact that the cost of finding more oil is skyrocketing.

In fact, it now costs ExxonMobil $14.57 to add a single barrel of oil to its reserves. That's nearly double what it cost in 2003.
This week, the Financial Times ran an article that quoted research by Wood Mackenzie analysts. Due to the rising costs of skilled labor, licenses, and equipment, exploration companies need an oil price of $70 oil to earn the same amount of money that $30 oil generated just two years ago. Think about that... oil companies need 140% higher oil prices just to maintain their earnings.

You can see this cost inflation in the annual reports of the world's top oil service companies. Take the biggest, Schlumberger, for instance. Schlumberger's operating income rose 518% from 2003 to 2006. The world's biggest deepwater drillship operator, Transocean, has enjoyed an operating income increase of 428% over the same period.

neilehat

Jack, You can't compare the likes of Petrobas, PetroChina, Pmex, etc. and the likes of XOM, BP, Valero and the others, it's like comparing apples to oranges. And Yes, exploration and production is an expensive proposition. Remember, these aren't the days of Pennsylvania Crude and "Titusville Oil" when a barrel of oil cost $2.00 and eventually shut down the Whaling Industry in Nantucket.

Just remember, any significantly advanced technology is indistinguishable from MAGIC!

Jake Ruston

I really enjoyed your blog post.

I too agree with Craig R, the points he makes are very valid.

Jake Ruston

Interesting read on Carbon Offsets.

There is some very valid points in here.

Now I shall go read some more of your articles!

jimbino

Doesn't a woman who breeds and brings another person into the world effectively increase her carbon footprint by more than half?

As a non-breeder, can I expect a carbon-credit payment from TerraPass?

matthew

Zero Population Growth

Jack

Neil: Comparing nationalized oil cos to those who buy their franchises from Congress was the least of my point. Perhaps I'd reemphasize one point; that of the warning given by the increased distance, depth and other costs that go into acquiring that next replacement bbl of oil for each consumed today. The "well to wheel" "efficiency" of oil used in transportation is 15% with the rest wasted. And hey! it's one thing we do MUCH better and at higher volumes than any other nation!

jimbino Good point! But! if you're a "regular" educated American citizen you're among a group that is not quite reproducing themselves these days. Save your subsidy for education (esp. women) and SS, the two programs most likely to lower reproductive rates. But then, in regard to the US, ALL of our population growth comes from immigration of which the much discussed Mexican immigrants are only half.

So, perhaps our best "globalized" policy would that of helping Mexico (and perhaps others) achieve higher quality educations, a sustainable economy that would dramatically lower their rate of unemployment/grinding poverty, and implement a viable SS to care for elders. But! you can BET that NONE of the limp-spined, pandering pols of either party will address immigration or the related problems beyond their vague mutterings of the fantasy of "securing OUR borders" that has not been accomplished in 40 years of "the drug war".

And lastly! Ha! in terms of numbers it's only the increased numbers of youthful workers joining our economy that will shore up SS for those retiring over the next few decades.

Jack

Neil: Comparing nationalized oil cos to those who buy their franchises from Congress was the least of my point. Perhaps I'd reemphasize one point; that of the warning given by the increased distance, depth and other costs that go into acquiring that next replacement bbl of oil for each consumed today. The "well to wheel" "efficiency" of oil used in transportation is 15% with the rest wasted. And hey! it's one thing we do MUCH better and at higher volumes than any other nation!

jimbino Good point! But! if you're a "regular" educated American citizen you're among a group that is not quite reproducing themselves these days. Save your subsidy for education (esp. women) and SS, the two programs most likely to lower reproductive rates. But then, in regard to the US, ALL of our population growth comes from immigration of which the much discussed Mexican immigrants are only half.

So, perhaps our best "globalized" policy would that of helping Mexico (and perhaps others) achieve higher quality educations, a sustainable economy that would dramatically lower their rate of unemployment/grinding poverty, and implement a viable SS to care for elders. But! you can BET that NONE of the limp-spined, pandering pols of either party will address immigration or the related problems beyond their vague mutterings of the fantasy of "securing OUR borders" that has not been accomplished in 40 years of "the drug war".

And lastly! Ha! in terms of numbers it's only the increased numbers of youthful, immigrant, workers joining our economy that will shore up SS for those retiring over the next few decades.

neilehat

Jack, Well..., let's use up the rest of resource as long as the infrastructure is in place. Then we can move on to the next generation of energy technology. Perhaps then, they will let us take down those "quantuum leap energy pellets" off the shelf. Something we could be using now to drastically reduce CO2 emmisions. Instead of "wasting" coal, oil and natural gas to produce electricity.

Anonymous

مركز تحميل

Anonymous

thanks
بنت الزلفي

Anonymous

العاب
___
ÿ¥ÿßÿ™

Anonymous

ÿßÿ®ÿ±ÿßÿ¨
___
دليل

Anonymous

العاب
___
ÿ¥ÿßÿ™

Anonymous

eVHeXJ

Anonymous

ÿØÿ±ÿØÿ¥ÿ©
___
صور

Anonymous

thanks for your
ÿ¥ÿßÿ™

دردشه

Anonymous

Hello everyone. You can't have a light without a dark to stick it in.
I am from Nicaragua and too poorly know English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "The following pages are in this retrieved from - en."

THX :p, Pascale.

Anonymous

Incredible site!

Anonymous

Great site. Keep doing.

Anonymous

thanks to tell me that,i think thats ao usefully----
tiffanys
links of london

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Become a Fan

March 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31