# US exports more oil than imports



## peakbagger (Dec 7, 2018)

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/major-shift-u-now-exports-more-oil-fuel-183114516--sector.html

For anyone of my age (59) we all remember the doom and gloom that the US was running out of oil and the world would soon follow. I remember waiting in gas lines in my teenage years and the summer of the embargo. I also remember Peak Oil and the dead hand of Hubberts curve (which really was misapplied by others) predicting our doom 20 years ago. I remember the media hype on running out of oil and riots in streets and various gurus preaching the masses on how to get back on the path.

I remember a keynote speech by a green power expert 10 years ago where he talked about having to stop using concrete to build as the kilns would run out fuel to convert the lime to cement. Nearby there was a community solar cooperative that was founded by an individual that was sure that society would crash and burn soon and the only solution was to form local community co-ops to survive the fuel shortages. He had a non technical background and sucked all the doom and gloom up. I was always curious if he grew out of it or emulated Harrison Ford in the Mosquito Coast.

Well most of the gurus figured out long ago that the constraints on oil were economical and political and shifted their focus to decarbonization as that is far clearer issue that has a far longer timeframe.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Dec 7, 2018)

Fracking changed everything. I think almost every oil well in the world will be fracked at some point to push peak oil farther ito the future. I still think its a good idea to diversify. Were now getting taxed to death on gas here in PA. Gas is $1.67 a gallon in Texas , but $2.67 in Pa.


----------



## peakbagger (Dec 7, 2018)

Fracking actually is much more related to natural gas extraction than oil recovery. The term Fracking has been demonized as a lot of it was done with little or no regulations in place and the technique if done poorly can lead to ground water pollution. That combined with folks who unknowingly sold mineral rights for cheap or didn't own them to begin with led to a lot of bad PR. It can be done well but unless the regulations are in place and enforced there is always someone willing to cut corners. Talk to anyone who does drilling and they usually state their job is to get in and out as quick as possible and let someone else worry about the regulations. 

The technique that really got oil production up is directional drilling and Enhanced Oil Recovery techniques which in the US has normally been CO2 injection. Natural Gas fracking helped refine directional drilling and the oil folks adopted it. The Canadians adopted aggressive EOR techniques for tar sands but that's a much more environmentally dirty process as the stuff coming out of the ground is tar and has to be blended with light crude from the US and other solvents to make it pumpable.  

The nice part with the US is all the so called depleted fields were known. they weren't actually depleted they were just economically depleted in that the cost to extract was more than other less costly sources. Once the prices rise to a reliable level then these economically depleted fields start to become worth chasing the hard to get out stuff. The oil companies have been reinjecting natural gas into the oil fields in Alaska for years as there is no way to export the natural gas. Let the price go up to high enough level and someone will build a pipeline or far more likely a LNG plant to export it to Japan.

It all comes down to the country that has the easiest to extract oil that are willing to extract it should be in great shape but unfortunately its easy to get lazy and just charge what they can and spend lot of money paying off their population. Works good until they drive the price too high and someone else like the US figures out that its cheaper to go back out and extract oil from "depleted" fields. Saudi Arabia is stuck in this situation, they need certain price to keep their population happy and they cant get it as other non Opec countries are willing to sell it for less.

Of course pretty reliable science now projects that the world cannot afford to pump out proven reserves as the carbon impact will doom the planet.


----------



## bholler (Dec 11, 2018)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Fracking changed everything. I think almost every oil well in the world will be fracked at some point to push peak oil farther ito the future. I still think its a good idea to diversify. Were now getting taxed to death on gas here in PA. Gas is $1.67 a gallon in Texas , but $2.67 in Pa.


Yes and it costs way more to maintain roads in our climate here in PA than it does in Texas.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Dec 11, 2018)

Yup...fracking for NG freed up an amazing amount of energy.  Now people can heat their homes with NG instead of oil and it decreases our oil consumption.  Good stuff!! 

Self-reliance is never a bad thing.


----------



## bholler (Dec 11, 2018)

sportbikerider78 said:


> Yup...fracking for NG freed up an amazing amount of energy.  Now people can heat their homes with NG instead of oil and it decreases our oil consumption.  Good stuff!!
> 
> Self-reliance is never a bad thing.


Unfortunately there seems to be little interest in expanding residential ng supply lines in favor of large pipelines to export it.  One big benefit is ng power plants are replacing coal ones.  Power from ng is much cheaper and cleaner than coal.


----------



## Ryan723 (Dec 11, 2018)

bholler said:


> One big benefit is ng power plants are replacing coal ones.  Power from ng is much cheaper and cleaner than coal.



The other huge plus is that most newer NG plants are able to increase output and then shut down relatively quickly (compared to large thermal coal or oil plants), so they can be turned up and then back down to handle peak loads as needed.  Which is a perfect compliment to solar and wind as more of the baseload will shift to renewables.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Dec 11, 2018)

The gas keeps getting cheaper but the Gas Co keeps piling on more fees and costs and taxes. At one time the cost of the gas was most of your gas bill ,but as the gas cost went down the gas company used it as an excuse to load on more "other charges" . I occasionally get a gas bill for a rental when the tenant moves out. Got a $75 gas bill for $20 worth of gas. Thats some delivery charge. Ill stick with solid fuel heat.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Dec 12, 2018)

bholler said:


> Unfortunately there seems to be little interest in expanding residential ng supply lines in favor of large pipelines to export it.  One big benefit is ng power plants are replacing coal ones.  Power from ng is much cheaper and cleaner than coal.


Likely because of its low cost, and infrastructure (burying lines) is expensive.  

It isn't on my street, but it is 1 mile away in a development.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Jan 1, 2019)

Seasoned Oak said:


> The gas keeps getting cheaper but the Gas Co keeps piling on more fees and costs and taxes. At one time the cost of the gas was most of your gas bill ,but as the gas cost went down the gas company used it as an excuse to load on more "other charges" . I occasionally get a gas bill for a rental when the tenant moves out. Got a $75 gas bill for $20 worth of gas. Thats some delivery charge. Ill stick with solid fuel heat.




I never understood why they bill it this way.   When we buy gasoline, all of the considerable taxes and fees are added into the final cost. 

For the record, I don't blame the utilities for this.  It reeks of the govt reaching out for more money.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jan 1, 2019)

EatenByLimestone said:


> I never understood why they bill it this way.   When we buy gasoline, all of the considerable taxes and fees are added into the final cost.
> For the record, I don't blame the utilities for this.  It reeks of the govt reaching out for more money.


 I blame the gas company. Not much of that bill is govt taxes. 25% is minimum bill charge (which keeps going up) and the rest is various delivery charges. Plus whatever the Gas company can dream up to tack onto the bill. The power companies do similar things but no one is more brazen the our local gas company. Even if they got the  gas for free,(and they are close) it would be expensive just for the delivery charges. Iv watched this evolve for over 30 yrs.


----------



## Brian26 (Jan 2, 2019)

Seasoned Oak said:


> I blame the gas company. Not much of that bill is govt taxes. 25% is minimum bill charge (which keeps going up) and the rest is various delivery charges. Plus whatever the Gas company can dream up to tack onto the bill. The power companies do similar things but no one is more brazen the our local gas company. Even if they got the  gas for free,(and they are close) it would be expensive just for the delivery charges. Iv watched this evolve for over 30 yrs.



I have gas on my street and looked into converting. After I found out the fees are like $30+ a month just to be hooked up I said no way. I am now in the process of installing mini splits for heat which will be run essentially free with my solar panels. I think the future is going to be in heat pumps and solar and thats what I am investing in.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jan 2, 2019)

Brian26 said:


> I have gas on my street and looked into converting. After I found out the fees are like $30+ a month just to be hooked up I said no way..


Iv known people who for years only have a gas cooking stove. $30-$35 gas bill every month of which only $5
 is for the gas.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Jan 2, 2019)

How much per btu?   I've done calcs for both electricity and ng after all taxes and fees and electricity was 6x more expensive.   We can whine all we want, but when it's the least expensive form of energy, it's the least expensive form of energy.  Even when it isn't exactly cheap.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jan 3, 2019)

EatenByLimestone said:


> How much per btu?   I've done calcs for both electricity and ng after all taxes and fees and electricity was 6x more expensive.   We can whine all we want, but when it's the least expensive form of energy, it's the least expensive form of energy.  Even when it isn't exactly cheap.


Certainly not cheaper than wood or coal. Seems like they always
 try to keep pace with heating oil.


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 3, 2019)

Brian26 said:


> I have gas on my street and looked into converting. After I found out the fees are like $30+ a month just to be hooked up I said no way. I am now in the process of installing mini splits for heat which will be run essentially free with my solar panels. I think the future is going to be in heat pumps and solar and thats what I am investing in.



I am stuck with emera Maine and my delivery charges have been higher than my usage charges. Never before have I been so motivated to go off grid. It might not save us money in the long run, but we will have true independence.


----------



## maple1 (Jan 3, 2019)

SpaceBus said:


> I am stuck with emera Maine and my delivery charges have been higher than my usage charges. Never before have I been so motivated to go off grid. It might not save us money in the long run, but we will have true independence.



You must have very little usage?


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 3, 2019)

maple1 said:


> You must have very little usage?


We shall see. The first month was rough because we just moved into the house. Unbeknownst to us a single baseboard heater was running in our utility room. We used a staggering 1,700 kw/hrs, but it has gone down significantly, at least according to the energy use monitor on Emera's web portal. The bill was $300 for the first month, $170 of which was the delivery charge. The electricity itself is actually cheap, the power company just sucks.


----------



## maple1 (Jan 3, 2019)

SpaceBus said:


> We shall see. The first month was rough because we just moved into the house. Unbeknownst to us a single baseboard heater was running in our utility room. We used a staggering 1,700 kw/hrs, but it has gone down significantly, at least according to the energy use monitor on Emera's web portal. The bill was $300 for the first month, $170 of which was the delivery charge. The electricity itself is actually cheap, the power company just sucks.



Holy bejeebers. $170?.

We have sort of the same power company here. Owned by Emera. Likely apples & oranges. Our base charge is 10.83/mo. But, the kwh rate ($0.15) isn't broken down on the bill, on second look - I thought it was. So don't know how much of that might be delivery & how much would be power, it's lumped together as 'energy charge'.


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 3, 2019)

maple1 said:


> Holy bejeebers. $170?.
> 
> We have sort of the same power company here. Owned by Emera. Likely apples & oranges. Our base charge is 10.83/mo. But, the kwh rate ($0.15) isn't broken down on the bill, on second look - I thought it was. So don't know how much of that might be delivery & how much would be power, it's lumped together as 'energy charge'.


Do you have CMP? I've read they are just as bad as Emera.


----------



## peakbagger (Jan 3, 2019)

SpaceBus said:


> We shall see. The first month was rough because we just moved into the house. Unbeknownst to us a single baseboard heater was running in our utility room. We used a staggering 1,700 kw/hrs, but it has gone down significantly, at least according to the energy use monitor on Emera's web portal. The bill was $300 for the first month, $170 of which was the delivery charge. The electricity itself is actually cheap, the power company just sucks.



On grid power is cheap compared to off grid. Figure $0.60 to $0.70 cents. In the Maine climate,  plan on a standby generator running every few days in the winter to top up the state of charge of the batteries and new batteries every 10 years after the first batch which usually lasts around 5 years because folks don't watch their state of charge.


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 3, 2019)

peakbagger said:


> On grid power is cheap compared to off grid. Figure $0.60 to $0.70 cents. In the Maine climate,  plan on a standby generator running every few days in the winter to top up the state of charge of the batteries and new batteries every 10 years after the first batch which usually lasts around 5 years because folks don't watch their state of charge.



The majority of the plan revolves around using less power to begin with. A wood cook stove with domestic hot water option, solar water heater, and tank less water heater if needed. We don't have a dishwasher, clothes washer, or dryer. We watch very little TV and the majority of our use is keeping lights on, now that we found the source of our high power bill. Eventually I'd like to have a solar plus wind setup and we already have a generator. I know it's not going to cost less in the long run, we want to be off grid for other reasons. I have been reading a lot of posts on here about solar and the negative returns.


----------



## peakbagger (Jan 3, 2019)

The problem is no matter what, the utility hits you with a fee for the privilege of being able to buy power and they have figured out that people are buying less power so the utilities are trying to shift costs to the base fee. Not sure what Emera has for solar net metering options but I think Maine in general dumped net metering or have diminished its value so go in with both eyes open.


----------



## CaptSpiff (Jan 4, 2019)

peakbagger said:


> .....but I think Maine in general dumped net metering or have diminished its value so go in with both eyes open.


Lots of states will head in that direction. People think Net Metering is a right, but it's just a law.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 7, 2019)

Sorry to spoil the oily party @peakbagger, but the original article is BS.  Don't know exactly how they cooked the numbers for the headline, but the US still uses WAY more oil than it produces.  

Recent US oil usage is about 19 MM barrels per day, BPD, and she been pretty steady and slowly increasing over time
https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/faq/how-much-oil-consumed-united-states

US oil production bottomed at around 6 MM BPD in the mid 2000s, a little over ONE THIRD of usage at the time.

Production has tentatively touched 10 MM BPD, a bit over HALF of usage in the last few years.  It now is above that, but still well below TWO THIRDS of demand.

Also: I am yet to meet a petroleum engineer that thinks that oil fracking can sustain the current production rate for more than 5-10 years.  The best fracking sites are already exhausted.


----------



## bholler (Jan 7, 2019)

woodgeek said:


> Sorry to spoil the oily party @peakbagger, but the original article is BS.  Don't know exactly how they cooked the numbers for the headline, but the US still uses WAY more oil than it produces.
> 
> Recent US oil usage is about 19 MM barrels per day, BPD, and she been pretty steady and slowly increasing over time
> https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/faq/how-much-oil-consumed-united-states
> ...


It was for one day only that is why it was possible.  But that is by no means a fair representation of the real market.


----------



## georgepds (Jan 8, 2019)

SpaceBus said:


> The majority of the plan revolves around using less power to begin with. A wood cook stove with domestic hot water option, solar water heater, and tank less water heater if needed. We don't have a dishwasher, clothes washer, or dryer. We watch very little TV and the majority of our use is keeping lights on, now that we found the source of our high power bill. Eventually I'd like to have a solar plus wind setup and we already have a generator. I know it's not going to cost less in the long run, we want to be off grid for other reasons. I have been reading a lot of posts on here about solar and the negative returns.




Forget wind.. I've yet to find a residential instal in new england that works

The problem is you need a tower at least three times as high as the nearest obstacle within x feet . Burn wood, collect solar power, and you will be better off


----------



## georgepds (Jan 8, 2019)

My favorite energy map

https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/commodities/energy

Compare to 10 20 or 50 years ago

https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/archive.html


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 9, 2019)

georgepds said:


> My favorite energy map
> 
> https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/commodities/energy
> 
> ...



Those are fun to look at, but they also understate the impact of Wind and Solar.  The inputs on all the others are 2-4X higher than the useable outputs because of low efficiency, and that is masked by putting all the inputs into boxes together before removing the losses.  Wind and solar **displace** more quads of input than you would guess looking at the chart....2-4X as much.


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 9, 2019)

georgepds said:


> Forget wind.. I've yet to find a residential instal in new england that works
> 
> The problem is you need a tower at least three times as high as the nearest obstacle within x feet . Burn wood, collect solar power, and you will be better off



I've seen a few residential wind setups, but as I understand it they just use it to charge the batteries while they sleep. I wouldn't expect wind to provide power while we are up and using. Maybe it still isn't worth the effort since wind speed and direction changes so much here on the coast.


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 9, 2019)

georgepds said:


> My favorite energy map
> 
> https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/commodities/energy
> 
> ...



What is "rejected energy"?


----------



## peakbagger (Jan 9, 2019)

Rejected Energy - Every use of energy is not 100% efficient. The efficiency varies with the process, what isn't turned into useful energy is rejected heat. Think of your car engine, while its pushing you down the road its cranking out hot water through the radiator. If the water is used to heat the occupants that would be part of the useful energy of the gasoline. On the other hand if its going out the radiator into the air its rejected energy. In some cases you can collect it and maybe generate a bit more useful energy but frequently its not real valuable heat. From a unit of energy basis a 100 pounds of water heated 1 degree F is a 100 Btus and one pound of water heated 100 deg F is also 100 Btus but practically the 1 pound heated 100 F is lot more useful than the 100 pounds. There is way of characterizing the usefulness of energy versus its quantity but that brings in the concept of entropy which is bit more than most folks are educated to. Some but not all of the rejected energy is this type of heat where its not worth reusing the low grade heat. Going back to the car example,  its just not practical to collect the waste heat and send it somewhere you can use it so its rejected. In other cases its just not economic.

Note this is a major oversimplification, In the case of power plants they cant beat the laws of physics and the laws are pretty cruel. An old fashioned coal plant sitting in a field is probably dumping over 60% of the heat input into the air, that is not by choice its physics. The only way they can boost the efficiency is to burn the coal hotter and at some point the steel used in the tubes will not hold up. If you want to get into the physics the Carnot Cycle sets the limit http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/carnot.html.


----------



## georgepds (Jan 9, 2019)

woodgeek said:


> Those are fun to look at, but they also understate the impact of Wind and Solar.  The inputs on all the others are 2-4X higher than the useable outputs because of low efficiency, and that is masked by putting all the inputs into boxes together before removing the losses.  Wind and solar **displace** more quads of input than you would guess looking at the chart....2-4X as much.




Could be, the format first came out in the 50s, and they have stuck to it ever since. There is a lot to be said for
consistency. And just think how hard it is to summarize where does energy come from in a place as big as the US? Where does it go?

It does a good job of showing where energy comes from. Some of the earlier maps in the archives show the imported petroleum ( 50% or more) now too low to be listed

Also , it does a good job on showing why energy conservation is so important. A power plant that doubles as a source of city heat is much better than one that just looses its heat to the air

it does a great job of showing how much energy is transmitted by electricity, and how much oil is used in transportation

Personally, I was surprised to see the recent large growth of Biomass

I would not dismiss it too quickly, it's an invitation to think about the problem, and a good one , IMO


PS... welcome back to the discussions, great to see you here


----------



## begreen (Jan 9, 2019)

SpaceBus said:


> I've seen a few residential wind setups, but as I understand it they just use it to charge the batteries while they sleep. I wouldn't expect wind to provide power while we are up and using. Maybe it still isn't worth the effort since wind speed and direction changes so much here on the coast.


I have a friend that had a large off grid house in AK that started out with wind power. It was a pita to maintain, expensive and had at least 2 breakdowns which meant long spells on a generator as they waited for parts. One breakdown happened in the middle of the night and ended up being quite costly to repair as the windmill self-destructed.  They were happy to get rid of it.


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 9, 2019)

peakbagger said:


> Rejected Energy - Every use of energy is not 100% efficient. The efficiency varies with the process, what isn't turned into useful energy is rejected heat. Think of your car engine, while its pushing you down the road its cranking out hot water through the radiator. If the water is used to heat the occupants that would be part of the useful energy of the gasoline. On the other hand if its going out the radiator into the air its rejected energy. In some cases you can collect it and maybe generate a bit more useful energy but frequently its not real valuable heat. From a unit of energy basis a 100 pounds of water heated 1 degree F is a 100 Btus and one pound of water heated 100 deg F is also 100 Btus but practically the 1 pound heated 100 F is lot more useful than the 100 pounds. There is way of characterizing the usefulness of energy versus its quantity but that brings in the concept of entropy which is bit more than most folks are educated to. Some but not all of the rejected energy is this type of heat where its not worth reusing the low grade heat. Going back to the car example,  its just not practical to collect the waste heat and send it somewhere you can use it so its rejected. In other cases its just not economic.
> 
> Note this is a major oversimplification, In the case of power plants they cant beat the laws of physics and the laws are pretty cruel. An old fashioned coal plant sitting in a field is probably dumping over 60% of the heat input into the air, that is not by choice its physics. The only way they can boost the efficiency is to burn the coal hotter and at some point the steel used in the tubes will not hold up. If you want to get into the physics the Carnot Cycle sets the limit http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/carnot.html.




I guess due to my interests/occupations, I hadn't run across that term. I know in ICE applications, turbochargers can scavenge the energy from the otherwise wasted/rejected exhaust gasses/heat. I did not know coal plants had such a high waste heat, but I guess that's part of the multitude of sources contributing to global temperature increase. I always assumed the wast of a coal plant was primarily the particulates that are released and unusable. 

Do you work in energy? I do really enjoy reading your posts along with several others like Begreen. I've learned quite a bit about solar and other energy forms and the true cost, environmentally and economically.


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 9, 2019)

georgepds said:


> Could be, the format first came out in the 50s, and they have stuck to it ever since. There is a lot to be said for
> consistency. And just think how hard it is to summarize where does energy come from in a place as big as the US? Where does it go?
> 
> It does a good job of showing where energy comes from. Some of the earlier maps in the archives show the imported petroleum ( 50% or more) now too low to be listed
> ...




I agree entirely with the plants producing electricity and heat for residential areas. It's akin to eating a food that has a more diverse nutritional profile vs a processed burger. I think everyone gets this idea on the surface, but I don't think they really understand it. They think calories are the problem, but it is empty and wasted calories that are the problem. Nuts are very high calorie, but they also have other nutrients, good fats, etc and can provide a balanced diet when combined with other nutrient dense foods. Sure, you could get by with a less nutrient dense diet, but you will have lots of "Waste" in the form of excess fat, poor nutrition, etc, just like the power plant that only produces electricity and not heat.


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 9, 2019)

begreen said:


> I have a friend that had a large off grid house in AK that started out with wind power. It was a pita to maintain, expensive and had at least 2 breakdowns which meant long spells on a generator as they waited for parts. One breakdown happened in the middle of the night and ended up being quite costly to repair as the windmill self-destructed. They were happy to get rid of it.




Maybe it's just _too _windy in places like AK or ME, especially coastal areas. Perhaps wind would make more sense in an area with lower wind speeds, but consistent wind speeds. I've thought about trying to make a water wheel for the snow melt creeks and stuff. Certainly it won't generate much, but it would be a nice way to trickle charge batteries. I have no idea on the practicality of the idea, it's just something that came to me while I'm stuck in the hospital.


----------



## peakbagger (Jan 9, 2019)

SpaceBus said:


> I guess due to my interests/occupations, I hadn't run across that term. I know in ICE applications, turbochargers can scavenge the energy from the otherwise wasted/rejected exhaust gasses/heat. I did not know coal plants had such a high waste heat, but I guess that's part of the multitude of sources contributing to global temperature increase. I always assumed the wast of a coal plant was primarily the particulates that are released and unusable.
> 
> Do you work in energy? I do really enjoy reading your posts along with several others like Begreen. I've learned quite a bit about solar and other energy forms and the true cost, environmentally and economically.



Yup I work in power generation. Used to do a few biomass power plants in Maine and have tried to move the one in Sherman Mills Maine twice (with no success) a few trips up to Old Town to get their biomass boiler to run right and a couple of trips to Millinocket and East Millinocket to help try to make something work out of the scrap that was left. These days its combined heat and power plants, either turbines or recips with heat recovery on the tail end. We got an award for one in Mass a few years ago for the most efficient CHP in the state. It was over 70% of the fuel going in was either turned into power or useful heat.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 14, 2019)

georgepds said:


> Could be, the format first came out in the 50s, and they have stuck to it ever since. There is a lot to be said for
> consistency. And just think how hard it is to summarize where does energy come from in a place as big as the US? Where does it go?
> 
> It does a good job of showing where energy comes from. Some of the earlier maps in the archives show the imported petroleum ( 50% or more) now too low to be listed
> ...




Let me see if I can explain.  Let's say you have 1 million dollars, and your friend says he is wealthier than you because he has 3 million 'foo-dollars'.  In principle a foo-dollar is just the same as a dollar, and convert 1 to 1.  But when you go to spend it on something, and take it out of the bank, you have to cash in 3 foo-dollars out to get 1 dollar out of the cash machine.  You argue that you and he have equal spending power....he says he is 3X wealthier than you.  Is he?

Now you and he decide to be roommates, and you should each pay half the rent, $2000/mo.  You insist that he pay you in dollars, so he cashes in 3000 foo dollars/mo, gets 1000 dollars and gives them to you.  You add 1000 of your dollars and pay the rent with the sum to your landlord.

He now makes a flow chart, like the energy one, to describe your household budget.  He draws a box labeled 'rent'.  He draws the thick line going into the left side of it 3X wider than yours, so it looks like his is 3 cm wide, and yours is 1 cm wide (1 cm = $1000/mo).  On the right, he shows one line 2 cm wide that flows to another box that says 'landlord'.  Then to make it look legit (like the left and right are in balance) he has another 2 cm wide line coming out the right of the rent box, that he draws going off the page and labels as 'lost money'.

Bottom line, on his diagram, it looks like he is putting 3X more into the rent pot than you, and that you are both contributing to the 'lost money' problem, when that is in fact ENTIRELY his problem, bc it corresponds to money lost at his 'foo dollar' bank that has nothing to do with you.

He then shows it to your girlfriend, says 'look how much more money I make than your boyfriend' and you feel like a loser.  He is in fact, an azz.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 14, 2019)

Alternatively, each source could convert from 'input quads' to useful services 'quads' separately (with a rejected energy comparable to their respective inefficiencies), these lines (in service quads) could then split and merge on an equal basis and run into services boxes.

Of course, the use of waste heat or energy sources for space heating would have to be handled separately.


----------



## georgepds (Jan 14, 2019)

woodgeek said:


> Let me see if I can explain.  Let's say you have 1 million dollars, and your friend says he is wealthier than you because he has 3 million 'foo-dollars'.  In principle a foo-dollar is just the same as a dollar, and convert 1 to 1.  But when you go to spend it on something, and take it out of the bank, you have to cash in 3 foo-dollars out to get 1 dollar out of the cash machine.  You argue that you and he have equal spending power....he says he is 3X wealthier than you.  Is he?
> 
> Now you and he decide to be roommates, and you should each pay half the rent, $2000/mo.  You insist that he pay you in dollars, so he cashes in 3000 foo dollars/mo, gets 1000 dollars and gives them to you.  You add 1000 of your dollars and pay the rent with the sum to your landlord.
> 
> ...




Thanks, 

My point is, among other things, that until I see the chart I do not realize how inefficient electric generation is. Transmission losses pale compared to generation losses, for example

The chart invites you to think of that

But back to your minor point about solar, suppose we take the 0.77 quads and multiply by 3, getting 2.3 quads, it’s still small compared to the other sources (~35 quads), even allowing your fudge factors

But fudge away, the chart invites such thinking


```````````````
Considering the main parts of a typical Transmission & Distribution network, here are the average values of power losses at the different steps*:

·        *1-2%* – Step-up transformer from generator to Transmission line

·        *2-4%* – Transmission line

·        *1-2%* – Step-down transformer from Transmission line to Distribution network

·        *4-6%* – Distribution network transformers and cables


----------



## georgepds (Jan 14, 2019)

It’s also fun to look at historical trends

The last year they reported oil imports was 2002, and most of our oil was imported

Alas, solar that year was too small to even make the list

Even more interesting, the total use in 2017 was smaller than that in 2002.

It gets harder to do earlier, because some busy body got a bug up his tail and decided it was better to report in quads than the original exajoules


----------



## georgepds (Jan 14, 2019)

I take back my comment about busy bodies.. the first charts were in quads ( 10^15 btu)


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 14, 2019)

I remember looking at these charts back in the 70s.....and they were in quads then.  

I was 10.


----------

