Global Economy Bursting?

[nm505]

It is a very short sighted use of natural gas to export it cheap in the face of $11 nat gas overseas and $4 gas here. We sell it for $5 or so, then we buy it back 20 years from now for $11 PLUS inflation...or more. It, like oil, should be kept here.

I would agree.

Re: The 2020 thingy. Some countries get most of their power from renewables, including Iceland and Paraguay (100%), Norway (98%), Brazil (86%), Austria (62%), New Zealand (65%), and Sweden (54%). (A lot of Hydropower in the mix). Scotland has already attained 35% and has a goal of 100% by 2020. http://www.smh.com.au/business/carb...-renewable-energy-by-2020-20121031-28jbv.html

As usual, we are behind.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

we are behind

A - we use a multiple of energy per capita compared to them B - we don't have the geothermal resources of iceland nor the sugarcane ethanol of Brazil let alone the hydroelectric power of most of the rest. And name one stream in America that could be dammed without a huge uproar let alone the attendant environmental damage of large dams.

 

[nm505]

A - we use a multiple of energy per capita compared to them B - we don't have the geothermal resources of iceland nor the sugarcane ethanol of Brazil let alone the hydroelectric power of most of the rest. And name one stream in America that could be dammed without a huge uproar let alone the attendant environmental damage of large dams.

Ah, but what we have is an amazing wealth of new energy research that is coming from our best and brightest including my friend's son at Ohio State University looking at "spin" and "strain" on the molecular level. Nanotechnology is making gains in solar and energy storage as well as the hydrogen economy that GW talked about so highly. We will prevail if China doesn't steal all our technology. Even if they do, we will benefit from their cheap development of our ideas. And in fact, it is hard not to notice that many of the university research articles I have read (including OSU work) is being done by students from Asia along side our kids. Collaboration is a good thing.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121120160931.htm

 

[nm505]

A - we use a multiple of energy per capita compared to them B - we don't have the geothermal resources of iceland nor the sugarcane ethanol of Brazil let alone the hydroelectric power of most of the rest. And name one stream in America that could be dammed without a huge uproar let alone the attendant environmental damage of large dams.

A - We don't have to use a multiple of energy per capita. Before we got solar, we got an energy monitor that reduced our usage by a third just by providing us feedback about what was wasting energy. It allowed us to size our system perfectly. It saved big bucks both on usage and the cost of our system. As has been said, the cheapest barrel of oil is one saved.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Before we got solar, we got an energy monitor that reduced our usage by a third just by providing us feedback about what was wasting energy. It allowed us to size our system perfectly.

If the U. S. were rational, all houses would be superinsulated and caulked correctly. They would all have passive solar designs and geothermal Heat pumps. We'd size our vehicles to suit our needs and not buy a Hummer to impress our buddies on the way to a desk job downtown. We'd have created a "smart grid" and everyone would be signed up on energy saving programs with the utility.

We would not allow people to build in a flood zone, on a coastal island, nor above a certain elevation. We would use buses and trains more, cars less.

The affluence and lifestyle decisions that we have grown up with impact our behavior and "behavior" isn't required to be rational (hey, look at congress and the White House acting like a bunch of children) ...

Examples. A friend of mine has a 5 ton AC in a small house. He claims it is more efficient but the the truth is if you overbuild the system it does not run long enough to remove moisture.

Builders yet today argue that a house must "breathe"...but the tightest houses turn 100% of the air over every 4 - 8 hours anyway. A drafty house might do so in 20 minutes.

If you encapsulate your crawlspace, the building inspector may still require you to build vents into the foundation anyway... So you seal them from the inside... ?

Rational and Human Nature are mutually exclusive concepts.

 

[nm505]

If the U. S. were rational, all houses would be superinsulated and caulked correctly. They would all have passive solar designs and geothermal Heat pumps. We'd size our vehicles to suit our needs and not buy a Hummer to impress our buddies on the way to a desk job downtown. We'd have created a "smart grid" and everyone would be signed up on energy saving programs with the utility.

We would not allow people to build in a flood zone, on a coastal island, nor above a certain elevation. We would use buses and trains more, cars less.

The affluence and lifestyle decisions that we have grown up with impact our behavior and "behavior" isn't required to be rational (hey, look at congress and the White House acting like a bunch of children) ...

Examples. A friend of mine has a 5 ton AC in a small house. He claims it is more efficient but the the truth is if you overbuild the system it does not run long enough to remove moisture.

Builders yet today argue that a house must "breathe"...but the tightest houses turn 100% of the air over every 4 - 8 hours anyway. A drafty house might do so in 20 minutes.

If you encapsulate your crawlspace, the building inspector may still require you to build vents into the foundation anyway... So you seal them from the inside... ?

Rational and Human Nature are mutually exclusive concepts.

I believe you have summed it all up in a nutshell perfectly...especially your conclusion. I can't seem to find that beer mug icon or I would be using it. Cheers.

 

[rrwolfpack]

Haven't there been a lot of government incentives to build/upgrade properties that are more environmentally friendly? The number of incentives will go down in the future because of budget constraints but there has been an effort.

As far as I know all new properties are going to be very energy efficient with all the latest bells and whistles. There is a good chance that in 10-20 years there will be more efficient items for properties. This argument will never end because everything is always changing and evolving to the times.

 

[Restrain]

Government promoted "demo" projects for energy efficient homes throughout the US. We have one down here. COST was appx $475K. Plain construction and finish, but ultra high-efficiency, solar panels, etc. Market return was about $325K because the super high efficiency costs did not match the actual energy return. You can cut your elecrtic bill by almost 50% just by insulating the attic.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Fed Exit Plan May Be Redrawn as Assets Near $3 Trillion

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-07/fed-exit-plan-may-be-redrawn-as-assets-near-3-trillion.html

A decision by the Federal Reserve to expand its bond buying next week is likely to prompt policy makers to rewrite their 18-month old blueprint for an exit from record monetary stimulus.

Under the exit strategy, the Fed would start selling bonds in mid-2015 in a bid to return its holdings to pre-crisis proportions in two to three years. An accelerated buildup of assets would also mean a faster pace of sales when the time comes to exit -- increasing the risk that a jump in interest rates would crush the economic recovery.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Haven't there been a lot of government incentives to build/upgrade properties that are more environmentally friendly? The number of incentives will go down in the future because of budget constraints but there has been an effort.

Yes and many did not help anything. Bankers could lend extra back in the 1970s for energy savings but they would suggest borrowers waive that clause so as one Mtg broker turned appraiser told me, "I made 1 loan during the 1970s that extended the $7000 for energy efficiency."

As far as I know all new properties are going to be very energy efficient with all the latest bells and whistles.

Not true at all here. First of all, "Energy Star" ratings are a joke and simply installing a few items like that allows the claim of "energy" savings. Real energy savings requires caulking very carefully, designing things very carefully.

Take the traditional fireplace. The average fireplace sucks the air from in the house and up the chimney. The energy efficient fireplace has an outside air duct that allows outside air to feed the flame and does not draw from inside the house.

Electric is more efficient than any gas water heater. And lifetime water heaters are often sold thru utilites because Lowes and Home Depot get flack from traditional "energy star rated" hotwater heater manufacturers that are only marginally better than something from the 1950s. Check out Doug Rye's website. Billing himself as the "one-armed architect" he got on an energy kick in the early 1970s when he worked for FHA. He was asked to investigate why almost an entire FHA financed subdivision had went into foreclosure. Turns out, the all electric homes did not have a smidgen of insulation and as a consequence the utility bill was far higher than the mortgage. People walked.