Effor.com

I read this article on FoxNews.com today from “Junk Science” publisher Steven Milloy.  The article is titled “Is T. Boone Pickens ‘Swiftboating’ America?” and basically says that Pickens is lying and that he has his facts wrong.

After I did a bit of research it appears that Junk Science really IS junk science - at least this article - because Milloy just plain has his facts wrong.

For example, in response to Pickens’ claim that we import nearly 70% of our oil, Milloy states Aside from the fact that the Department of Energy (DOE) puts the import figure at a more moderate 58 percent, Pickens gives the impression that imported oil is scary because it all comes from the unstable Mideast.

What are the facts?  Although both numbers are too high for my comfort, there’s a big difference between “nearly 70%” and 58%.  Here are the actual numbers from the DOE site.  In April (the latest month for which numbers are available, the US imported 397.556 million barrels of oil, and produced 154.867 million barrels of oil.

These numbers are straight from the DOE, you can verify them by clicking the links above.  Mr. Milloy doesn’t give his source, other than to say “the Department of Energy”.

I’ll do the math for Mr. Milloy.  397.556 plus 154.867 equals 552.423 million barrels of oil total.  That’s the total amount the US produced and imported in April 2008.

To find the percentage that imports make of the total, you divide the imports (397.556) by the total (552.423).  In my calculator it equals .7196, which I’ll round of to .72, which equals 72%.

So, who is telling the truth about the percentage of oil we import, Mr. Pickens - who said “nearly 70%” - or Junk Science publisher Mr. Milloy - who said 58%?

Round one goes to Mr. Pickens.

Mr. Milloy goes on to say Only 16 percent of our imported oil comes from the Persian Gulf — barely up from 13.6 percent in 1973, according to the DOE. Once again he gives his source as the DOE, but doesn’t provide the data to back up his statement.  But again this is easy to check.

Using the same DOE chart for total imports as above,  we find that the US imported 69.679 million barrels of oil from the Persion Gulf in April.   Divide that number by the total amount imported to get the percentage.  It’s 17.5%, which is actually down from the percentage in March, which was over 20%.

Once again Milloy is just plain wrong.  He either has outdated information, or he can’t do basic math, or both.  It really doesn’t matter because he’s still wrong.

Mr. Milloy’s next statement Imports from OPEC countries are actually down — from 47.8 percent in 1973 to 44.5 percent in 2007. is also easily checked using the same DOE source data, but using the annual view.  In 2007 the US imported 4,905.234 million barrels, of which 2,183.964 million came from OPEC countries.  Do the math and you get 44.5%.

Hey, he got this one right!  (Mr. Pickens never said anything about this - I included it simply to be fair to Mr. Milloy.)

So what’s the final score?  Of the independently verifiable numbers on oil imports that Mr. Milloy uses, he’s just flat wrong on two of the three.

Mr. Milloy gives lots of other oil numbers in his article, numbers like the “hundreds of billions of barrels of oil in the form of oil tar sands and oil shale in North America, not to mention the more than one hundred billion barrels of oil in the outer continental shelf of the U.S. and on public lands like the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve (ANWR)” but these are estimates and not verifiable.

Besides, Mr. Pickens never claimed that we are running out of oil - he simply said “The simple truth is that cheap and easy oil is gone.”  And I don’t know of anyone who has claimed that producing oil from tar sands, oil shale, the outer continental shelf, or places like ANWR is either cheap or easy.

Mr. Pickens has said that we are at or approaching “peak oil” which is a totally different subject - but I happen to agree with him.  I wrote about it a few months ago.

Anyway, it appears the Junk Science publisher Steven Milloy needs to do some fact checking of his own before he starts saying that other people have their facts wrong.  It appears that he really is an expert on junk science, because he’s publishing plenty of it.  Besides, did he really think that Mr. Pickens would get his facts wrong about oil?

gk

Why is it so hard to find information about the reliability of heat pumps?  I want to replace a 30 year old GE system, but it seems that no one has reliability ratings on heat pumps/central AC systems….

I can find ratings on cars, cell phones, vacuum cleaners, carpeting, computers, irrigation systems, etc.   Nothing on heat pumps.  Zip.

Consumer Reports (a site I use often) pops up on almost every search I do on the subject, but they don’t have ratings on heat pumps.  They rate window AC units and gas furnaces, but not heat pumps.  It’s absurd that no one (that I can find) seems to have reviews/reliability ratings on various manufacturer’s heat pump products.  If you can rate furnaces, why not heat pumps?

I read that newer high efficiency units have thinner tubing in the coils - which supposedly cracks easier and faster - but nowhere that gives any data to show the difference.  Just stories….

I can read hundreds of sites that talk about what a heat pump is; I can read hundreds of sites that talk about the differences between air source and ground source heat pumps; I can read hundreds of sites that opine on which type of system is better for a particular climate - but NOTHING on which brand/model is the most reliable; which brand/model historically needs the most (or fewest) repairs; which brand/model has the most features, etc.

It’s like there’s a black hole for heat pump rating/reliability information.  I live in Knoxville, TN, and there are dozens of companies selling, installing, and repairing heat pumps here, but evidently I’d need to start a site to create some independent reliability ratings for their products - because so far no one else seems to be doing it….  This area seems to be begging for the equivalent of an Edmunds.com or KBB.com. 

I’m looking for a high efficiency, reliable, air to air (or ground source, depends on if I can afford the ground source right now or not) heat pump.  It should be simple, but then I read stories where someone thinks their xxx brand system is super reliable because it’s only needed 2 motors, 3 switches, and 1 compressor replaced in 10 years (”But it was covered under warranty!”) and I want to scream at the monitor….

Reliable means not having to replace major components for at least 10 years.  Reliable means that the system (with normal maintenance) will still be running 30 years from now - just like the original GE gas furnace and AC is still running in my house - and it’s 32 years old. 

I can’t believe that the HVAC campanies haven’t made progress in reliability over 30 years - but there are ZERO sites that I can find to indicate otherwise.

I asked about reliability ratings on a HVAC forum, and I can’t believe the way some of these people treat their potential customers.   Most everyone who replied to my questions said something similar to “it’s the installer that makes the difference” as if every single manufacturer sold identical units, assembled from the same parts, on the same assembly line. 

I know that some manufacturers have different lines that are pretty much the same with only the names changed to protect the innocent, and that many use off the shelf components which are the same as another manufacturer - but assuming the installer does his job right, I want to know which manufacturer has the most reliable product - regardless of cost.  It appears that that information is a highly guarded government secret, because there ain’t no one talking.  It’s the Area 51 of consumer information.

I tried asking the question about 5 different ways, but evidently HVAC people don’t like answering a direct question, because (contrary to what some on the thread claimed) I never received an answer, and I obviously pissed them off by asking again in different ways. 

Here’s one response I received: “hey why don’t you look4nac up your a$$, whatta douche bag. if the coil cracks in a year it sould be covered under warranty, same for the compressor.”

That type of attitude (along with a couple of “don’t let the door hit you on the way out”) responses shows me that the “pro’s” in the HVAC field need to work on their customer relationship skills.  Either that or they need to stop drinking a minimum of 2 hours before posting.  I had to stop posting to the thread before I blew a gasket last night.

 I just checked the forum thread again tonight and it doesn’t get any better.  The last post as of 9:16pm ET has another potential customer asking the same question in yet another way.  He says:

Ok, he’s eliminated the installer as a variable - this answer should be easy.  Something like “I work on/install several brands, and in my experience xxx needs fewer repairs overall than xxx brand” or xxx brand is good overall, but I’ve replaced dozens of compressors on xxx model” or whatever.  

But here’s the response he got:   If you have a great installer. Then the brand he installs/prefers is the best brand for you to get from him. 

Thanks for nothing.  That’s the exact same thing as saying “if you happen to be at a Chevy dealer, buy a Chevy.  If you’re at a Mercedes dealer, buy a Mercedes.  If you’re at a Honda dealer, buy a Honda.  Are you a dumbass?”  As the Guinness commercials say “Brilliant!”

These HVAC “pros” seem to think that because it’s covered under warranty, it doesn’t matter if it breaks.   That’s not what I mean when I say “reliability”.  Reliable means that it doesn’t break in the first place. 

Reliable means the compressor is a proven unit that’s been on the market for a few years and has a repair history, the coils have been stress tested and they don’t crack, the blower and fan motors have worked for years - without needing to be replaced - even if it’s under warranty.  If most of them are made by the same people, there should be a wealth of info available.  But there isn’t.

I did find a site named RemodelHomeGuide.com that had the most popular brands - but that tells me squat about reliability. 

Just had to vent - but if you know of a site with heat pump reliability ratings, PLEASE pass it on.   I promise to share any good info I receive.  One post at the HVAC link above did point me to a generic JD Power HVAC subcontractor rating from 2 years ago - but according to the press release, the actual product only accounted for 14% of the rating.  Sales and marketing support to the subcontractors counted for 18% of the rating - and they don’t even list reliability as a factor on the report….  Pretty much worthless.

I’ll post a follow up after I have a few local companies check out my house and provide price quotes. 

I had a Trane dealer here today.  Seemed honest, he didn’t recommend the higher SEER systems (recommended an XL15i dual fuel system) for my house, and he seemed upfront about the higher cost and (what he said was) lower reliability of the XL16i and XL19i systems.  Something that any installer/repair person could’ve - but didn’t - say on the HVAC forum I mentioned.

I’ll keep you posted as to what the others say - and I promise to follow up with the results.  Maybe I’ll go ahead and start a HVAC rating site since no one else seems to do it.

gk

I received some rather heated emails in response to a post I made on a wind energy forum.   In the post, I gave my response to a (rather lengthy) post calling for government mandated alternative energy goals, subsidies for alternative energy, mandatory replacement projects, and in general complaining that their pet project/business wasn’t being paid for with tax money - or government mandated private spending.

Most were of the “we’re subsidizing Big Oil, why not (insert pet project here) too?” variety, along with a couple of ”Big Oil/utility companies/automotive industry/government are suppressing alternative energy development” type conspiracy types mixed in.

Anyway, it got me to thinking about “big oil subsidies”, so I decided to do a bit of research to see just how much tax money is spent on “big oil subsidies.”

To summarize about 8 hours or research - I can’t find any.  Zip, nadda, zilch.  If anyone can point me to an example of a direct subsidy to the oil industry, I would appreciate it.

Note: I’ve read arguments where the federal and state gas taxes are a subsidy to big oil - because without state and federal highways, the oil industry couldn’t sell as much oil.  In a word, bullshit.  If all cars were running on hydrogen fuel cells (with the hydrogen being generated by solar power) we’d still need highways - where would the money come from without gas taxes?  I won’t belabor the point - think about it.

Some claim that “big oil gets special tax breaks” so I also looked at Exxon’s (the biggest of “big oil”) 2007 annual earnings statement.  Go to page 38 to see these numbers.

While it’s true that Exxon made over $70 billion in 2007, what’s often not reported is that they paid almost $30 billion ($29.864 billion to be precise) in taxes on that $70 billion of income.   That’s a 42% tax rate! 

Chevron made $32 billion in 2007, and they paid $18.6 billion in taxes.  That’s a 58% tax rate!

For comparison, GE made $26.6 billion in 2007, and paid $4.1 billion in taxes. That’s a 15% tax rate. 

IBM made $14.4 billion in 2007, and paid $4 billion in taxes.  That’s a 27% tax rate.

Google made $5.6 billion in 2007, and they paid $1.4 billion in taxes.  That’s a 25% tax rate.

Would someone please explain how “big oil” is getting a tax break in comparison with other “big” companies/industries?  Anyone? 

As to the argument that the oil companies are making too much money while we’re suffering at the pump and at home with huge heating bills - you need to remember that the oil companies have purchased rights to the oil they’re selling at market prices.  It’s the same as a farmer making triple the profit of the previous year because corn or soybeans have tripled in value.  Crap, now I’m gonna rant….

You want to talk about subsidies, look out your window the next time you’re flying across the country.  See those amber waves of grain?  Did you know that those farmers received over $5 billion in DIRECT payments in 2007?

I emphasised DIRECT because that’s tax dollars straight to the pockets of farmers as subsidies.  That’s not counting the $1.8 billion that we (via the federal government) are paying farmers NOT to farm almost 37 million acres under the CRP program in 2008 - despite record corn, soybean, and wheat prices. 

Meanwhile, despite the high cost of fossil fuel, alternative sources of energy still aren’t competitive without tax dollars.  There are thousands of websites dedicated to showing you how to collect subsidies for solar power, and over 80% of the wind energy generated is MANDATED to be purchased.  In addition, the federal government alone (not counting state and local subsidies) spent $745 million in DIRECT subsidies for wind power.

I want someone, anyone, to show me how we do the same with “big oil”.  Please. 

Is the government directly paying oil companies NOT to produce oil - like they do with farmers?  Is the government directly making  payments to oil companies to support the price of their product - despite record commodity prices - like they do with farmers?  Is the government directly paying oil companies for every barrel of oil they produce - like they do with wind and solar power?

If so, I’m sorry, I can’t find it.   Show me.

All that being said, I don’t think we should pay subsidies to anyone, for anything.  To those who have emailed me saying “nuclear/hydro/solar/hydrogen is subsidized, why shouldn’t (insert pet project) be subsided too?” I say tough shit sherlock.

I don’t want tax dollars to be spent on ANY pet projects.  No tax breaks for anyone, in any industry.  Everyone should pay the same tax rate - you make more, you pay more.   Any questions?

If no subsidies means that wind and solar (or biomass or hydrogen or whatever your pet project is) isn’t competitive with traditional energy sources at the current price levels, so be it.  Maybe it will be competitive when oil is $200/barrel, or $400/barrel. 

I don’t have time left to get into the whole ethanol issue tonight, but suffice it to say that I don’t think ethanol subsidies (or special tax breaks!) are a good idea either.

Here’s the really weird part - I fully support alternative energy sources.  Until about a year ago, I lived in a marginal wind resource area in MO, and I REALLY tried to make the numbers work so I could install a wind turbine on my property.  I even seriously looked into buying some land in Northwest MO where I could lease it to utility scale operations.  Because of my job,  I now live in Knoxville TN, and the wind resource here isn’t even close to making the numbers work.

If I had a chunk of change socked away, I’d be buying land in good wind resource areas like Texas and western Oklahoma and North Dakota right now, because I think wind will eventually be competitive with traditional energy sources, and I’d like a piece of that economy.  But I’m still paying off my house in Knoxville, and I won’t speculate with my money until I’m personally secure financially.

One email response I received to the post (remember the post above that started all of this?) suggested that this discussion didn’t belong on the message board, because “this is a small wind discussion list, not a forum on government policies.” 

If that’s the case, why are messages supporting wind subsidies (even urging members to write their congressmen about particular bills) deemed perfectly fine, but any message opposing that socialist point of view deemed unfit?

I’m been a member of the AWEA Wind Home forum on Yahoo for a couple of years, and I’ve learned a lot.  I guess I’ll go back to lurking quietly since my preferred methods differ from those expressed by some alternative energy nazis.

gk

Anyone seen this news today?  Here’s a few choice quotes from an AP story: 

Global warming isn’t to blame for the recent jump in hurricanes in the Atlantic, concludes a study by a prominent federal scientist whose position has shifted on the subject.

Not only that, warmer temperatures will actually reduce the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic and those making landfall, research meteorologist Tom Knutson reported in a study released Sunday.

Huh?  Say again?  Even Al Gore blamed Katrina on global warming, and we all know how smart he is right?  Here’s a story from the Boston Globe (there are hundreds of others, Google it) blaming global warming for Katrina.  The overall theme is that we (because we are causing global warming) are killing ourselves.  Here’s a snip of the story:

THE HURRICANE that struck Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service. Its real name is global warming.

When 124-mile-an-hour winds shut down nuclear plants in Scandinavia and cut power to hundreds of thousands of people in Ireland and the United Kingdom, the driver was global warming.

When a severe drought in the Midwest dropped water levels in the Missouri River to their lowest on record earlier this summer, the reason was global warming.

How could the global warming crowd have had this so wrong?  You want the simple answer?  Money.

You see, everyone of the scientists who are predicting catastrophe are paid by tax dollars.  They need a crisis to investigate so they can get more tax dollars for funding next year.  If the crisis goes away, so does their funding….

That’s the real debate about global warming.  I don’t know if the planet is getting warmer because of us or not, but I know a bunch of research scientists - along with many socialist politicians - are making hay while the sun shines.  With our money.

gk

I’ve been reading about peak oil for a few years, and I know that in the US, we reached peak oil production in the early 1970’s, but I was curious about global peak oil production so I looked at some hard numbers.  Here’s an Excel spreadsheet with the latest numbers I could find:

oil-prod-by-year

The information in the spreadsheet is from the US Department of Energy, and I imported it into Excel so I could create some line charts to make the trend easier to view. 

There are two tabs in the sheet, one is the total world production of crude oil, the other includes other petroleum products such as natural gas.  But both show the same trend - global petroleum production has at least plateaued in the past 3 years, and it may actually be declining.

In other words, if we haven’t seen ”peak oil” in the past year, we’re most likely at peak oil right now.

Here’s another way to look at it - we will (most likely) produce less oil worldwide in 2008 than we did in 2007.  Since worldwide demand is still rising fast (mainly due to growth in China and India) what do you think is going to happen to the price?

Hint - no one has managed to repeal the law of supply and demand.  Demand is still rising (even at these rediculous prices) while the supply is falling.  If more people want the same thing, the price is bid up. 

Assuming the data from the Department of Energy is correct, those who are looking for the price of oil to fall long term might as well be looking for a free lunch.  It aint gonna happen.

The price of oil will still fluctuate, but overall the trend will be up.  It might even drop 50% from today, but I don’t think there’s anyway oil will be cheaper 10 years from now than it is today.

Anyone disagree?

gk

Saw this in the NY Times today talking about the abnormally cool winter this year.  Now I don’t know if we’re having an impact on temperatures or not, or even if it would be a bad thing if we were, but I want to point something out that’s always bugged me about global climate studies.

It’s hard as hell to find real temperature numbers in any climate change story.  They ALWAYS use things like anomaly, and temperature deviation from some average - and arbitrary - time-frame.  Here’s a chart from the above article to illustrate.

Notice how there are no hard numbers anywhere?  No where in this fairly detailed story does it give the actual temperature, and that bothers me.

gk