OPEC
November 2nd, 2006
Since the oil embargo of 1974, there has always been news coverage of OPEC meetings. Usually it is about raising prices or cutting production. These stories are usually accompanied by pictures of smiling or laughing men. Until recently these articles usually caused a negative reaction in me, as they represented the fact that a small group of countries, blessed with large petroleum reserves, were manipulating prices and controlling the energy policy — and foreign policy — of countries around the world, particularly the United States.
There were some recent articles about the last OPEC meeting with headlines stating that OPEC producers were cutting production to prop up prices. This time I found myself cheering them on. Yes, keep those prices up over $60 a barrel. In fact, let them go higher. Ever since oil went over $60 a barrel earlier this year there has been a profound reaction and change in the perception of energy. As mentioned in an earlier post this week, this high price of oil has helped to trigger what seems to be a tipping point in the perception of energy and the need to both conserve our use of oil and to find alternative sources of energy.
I know this may be an unpopular viewpoint to some, but keeping the price of oil high seems to be one of the primary factors in solving the energy crisis. Not only does it make us want to find ways to conserve, it also provides economic incentive to those that want to develop conservation technologies and alternative fuels because they are now much more economically viable with the price of oil up. It also continues to reinforce the rapidly developing belief that dependency on foreign oil is now the number one security concern of American voters. All of this is good as it keeps us focused on the larger problem of energy alternatives to oil.
I would even support a tax of gasoline as it would further provoke conservation, and entrepreneurial innovation in the areas of alternative energy. Direct 100% of the tax revenues to the development of conservation technologies and alternative and renewable energy sources.. In the future, once we have begun to lower our nations’ oil consumption, I would even consider supporting a hefty tariff on each barrel of imported oil. It would give a price incentive to domestic producers, would continue to make alternative energy more economically competitive, and would also be a government supported effort to both aggressively lessen dependency on foreign oil and also provide an economic pushback to those oil exporting nation states that seem to divert some of their oil revenues to the support of terror around the world. The money generated by this tariff could go to support both the development of renewable energy sources and Social Security.
It is imperative for the long term survival of humanity for all of us to reverse the consumption of petroleum products. Whether you believe that we are going to run out of oil by 2040 or by 2100, it is a finite resource. The sooner we can lessen our reliance on it, the sooner we can eliminate the major impediment to our social, cultural and political evolution. The sooner we do it the better. So go ahead OPEC, prop up the price of oil. It will, in the long run, help us to lessen our dependency on your product
November 3rd, 2006 at 6:43 am
I hold U.S. Patent 3,890,161 DIODE ARRAY on a chip typically consisting of billions of nanometer scale diodes in consistent alignment parallel series that rectifies and aggregates nanowatt level thermal electrical radio frequency noise, Also Known As Johnson noise, into useful D.C. electricity accompanied by an equal amount of heat withdrawal from surrounding air or water. In 1993 I commissioned professional micro adaptation and testing of a rare chip that supported the concept. The documentation is poor. The experiment should be corroborated.
The diode array would greatly advance civilization. Future appliances would have clean, cheap, widely available, safe, quiet, reliable, and CO2 free power even without a power grid. Air conditioning would more logically release electricity. Food and medicine could be kept cold reliably in stand alone chests. Farmers could store their harvest cheaply and have cheap water pumping. Many kinds of electric vehicles would become practical. These vehicles would be clean enough to run in confined spaces. these vehicles would obtain their energy as they moved so energy storage would not be needed. Diode arrays in computers with minor inputs and outputs would recycle the heat from the operating chips so the system would not release heat or need external power while using lots of high power high speed logic.
After free time reading 40 years ago of Issac Asimov on the Second Law of Thermodynamics (2LoT), one of the most strongly believed Science Laws, I began this revolutionary physics quest. Asimov’s wonderful writing led me to believe that 2LoT could be circumvented with nanotechnology.
Aloha
Charles M Brown
Kilauea Kauai Hawaii 96754
808-828-0297
abundance@logonbasic.com
http://diode.array.free.fr/wiki/
http://www.freewebs.com/diodearray/
http://www.diodearray.com
November 4th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
Good post, David.
Even though I have a slight bias in the subject, I feel that the fastest way to energy conservation is through the pocket book, and to an effect, it seems to be working.
Ford is having a tough time selling their gas guzzeling pickup trucks, but Honda and Toyota are doing well with their efficient Accord and Corola.
I agree that keeping gas prices high through reduced production will prod along the clean energy effort. A much better alternative than keeping prices artificially low.
-Grant
TheCornerOfficeBlog.com
November 4th, 2006 at 11:59 pm
David:
Who is “all of us?” Are you including Russia, China, India and the rest of Asia? Even if the US turns around per capita energy consumption, or even total energy consumption (which is even harder with our growing 300 million people population), our good works may be undone by the rest of the world. There was an article a couple of weeks ago that (if my memory is right) said economic growth in Russia is responsible for growth of CO2 levels in 2005.
I have heard Tom Friedman say (on Charlie Rose) that he expects China to be a leader in new technology that reduces demand for oil.
Jonathan
November 6th, 2006 at 11:43 am
Once again, the basic thrust of economics shows why it is such an important discipline in our world. At $10/barrel, it is hard to get people to invest into alternative energies and government “incentives” just become an invitation for abuse. Look back at the energy tax shelters of the early 80’s that had everything to do with saving on taxes and nothing to do with saving energy. However, when oil hits $60, the profit motives of very ingenious people kick in gear and we are going to see all kinds of innovation. In the short run, we can see market manipulations hold them back (watch the conspiracy-laden ‘oil companies rule the world’ movies of the 70s) but in the long run the ability to hold back market forces, well, runs out of gas.