There is growing evidence that the Saudi gamble was to not only limit the volume of oil from US fracking, but also to force capitulation in Russian output and anticipated increases in Iraq and Iran output.
Judging from the evidence so far, the bet is not entirely working for them. Russia is still shipping all it can in an effort to meet cash flow needs, Iran now may be allowed to export significantly more and in the US there has been a major improvement in extracting fracked liquids for lower and lower prices. There is still a chance that Russia will cut back sharply on new oil field investments and China demand will stay lower for some time, but the Saudi's are burning through their cash reserves to the tune of 60+ billion dollars a year when oil prices are under $50 a barrel. The Saudi's still have over 650 billion remaining, but the burn rate is still certainly substantial. Longer term, the world may retreat into another global recession in 2017/2018 so if they can hold out that long they may have achieved a reasonable goal of forcing higher priced suppliers to leave the market.
Except for a few short cooling intervals, the glaciers have been melting ever since we exited the last Ice Age ten thousand years ago. The oceans have been warming up ever since we exited the last Ice Age, too. Are you prescient enough to say that the current glaciation and oceanic temperatures are now 'different' than normal cyclical cycles? That would put you among a small group of scientists who say they are' that good' and outside a large group of scientists who say it is impossible to tell.
The west has wildfires and droughts on a regular and cyclical basis. We have been in a positive PDO situation for the last 30 years (which leads to warmer and drier weather for the west) and now this is exacerbated by a growing ENSO and a stubborn high pressure ridge. The Palmer Drought Severity Index for California is ~ -6.0...the same as in 1990, but this is less than the Index in 1978 and 1924. The trend in California precipitation has been virtually flat since 1900 per NOAA.
The reason the west has had more fires than normal, according to the USFS, is a combination of warming temps over the last century (0.5 degrees), more accidental and arson initiated fires by population growth and policies of suppressing forest fires by the Forest Service leading to more undergrowth. So how much, if any, is attributable to CC? The west has been a desert for a few millennia...
BTW, I am not in favor of dig, dig, dig or drill, drill, drill policies. I am much more in favor of AE's, curbing the pollutants and conservation. I am more in favor of smart thinking and rational policies regarding all forms of energy production.
For smn, sawa, red and others,
I'm going to try and explain to you in a few paragraphs the average skeptic's argument why the global atmospheric temperature should not, and in fact, is not, increasing to the extent predicted by the rise of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere using generally accepted numbers that are spread all over the literature. If you want to verify the numbers please do as many Google searches as you want. This may take a few successive posts and I hope the sensors of Yahoo allow it...
There are only two things to really consider in this argument...the predictions and the actuals. The actual temperatures are the baseline and all predictions need to be judged on their ability to predict reality well or not so well. Bear in mind that a well predicting model may have results that match reality, but merely did so by coincidence in spite of the internal factors being wrong. A poor predicting model may have almost all the internal factors correct, but is just missing the one or two that would make the model accurate.
First a visual model.
Imagine you are looking at the Earth from the 'top' of the atmosphere. The ‘top’ I will define as about 20 miles since this distance contains 99+% of the atmosphere and 99+% of the CO2 molecules and where 99+% of the radiation capture and emission activity directly affecting this discussion occurs. You are looking through a column of atmosphere perpendicular to the surface. Imagine all of the molecules of gas (nitrogen, oxygen, water...everything but CO2) are represented by clear marbles. All CO2 molecules I am signifying by red marbles. In the initial condition there is no CO2 and when you look down all you see is a column of clear marbles.
It is a big problem. And from the looks of proposed coal imports to India, especially, the next ten years and several other developing countries in Asia, the problem will persist for some time to come. More than about anything else the addition of efficient stack scrubbers will provide the fastest and most significant pollution reduction efforts.
I am not sure what all is going on in India, but China is beginning to crack down on pollution in a variety of ways and I would expect to see some tangible results in particulates first and photo-pollutants following. China has the money. It just remains to be seen how willing they are to spending it on pollution abatement efforts
These are well established facts.
Why do the facts bother you? Why do fudged numbers not bother you? Why do you believe something that is not true? Why do you believe the climate models which are not predicting the global temperature at all (all running hot)? Why do you give a pass to those that are misleading you?
I would think you would want to rise above all the misinformation and outright dishonesty that has plagued pro-AGW science research over the last 5 years (well, in the case of Jim Hansen, more than 20 years).
If no-one can yet say that we have now finished warming from the LIA, do you think the science is 'settled' as Al "The core of the Earth is millions of degrees" Gore has so foolishly opined?
I don't view CO2 as a pollutant at all. The politicized EPA should never have made such a stupid ruling. It is a necessary ingredient for life on Earth. CO2 has recently bounced off a geological, historical low of about 280 ppm and has climbed to ~400 ppm...the majority likely from fossil fuel emissions. At ~150ppm plants stop growing and these levels were approached in every ice age (~180ppm). The rise of 120 ppm has dramatically improved crop yields and I am cheering that. Atmospheric physics calculations say the 120 ppm should have raised the global temperatures by ~0.3-0.4 degrees, but another 120 ppm will raise the levels by less and another 120 ppm even less. Even if the CO2 rises to 800 ppm the world's temperatures should rise by no more than 1 degree from today putting the temperature still less than what is was at the beginning of the current Holocene era (when we exited the last Ice Age) when humans and plant life thrived.
If you want to see how much the temperatures have been artificially inflated by human 'adjustments' you ought to see the paper at Watt's Up With That today. The adjustments of the GISS and HadCRUT temperature databases have increased the historical temperatures by 1.2 degrees...so far... It's interesting that the inflated numbers are the ones being touted by the media and spoon fed to the willing instead of the other satellite and balloon databases that say the temperature rise has only been in the 0.4 degrees as calculated and predicted. So when you here that the world temp has risen 1.5 degrees from 1950, that is a lie. It has only risen about 0.4 degrees.
Additional methane has a lot less beneficial purpose for man, but the increases (likely most by man) are way low on the 'greenhouse effect' to the point of almost immeasurable. They are not an issue.
Who has a closed mind?
There are rapid changes of all kinds happening all the time. I am shocked that some individuals can't take off their custom fit blinders for a real world view
Over the past few decades we have dramatically reduced all kinds of pollution from particulates to ozone to NOx to HC's to sulfur to heavy metals to noise to VOC's to ionizing radiation to asbestos...you name it. Most of those have been reduced well OVER 90% in 30 years.
Energy efficiencies have dramatically improved in furnaces, air conditioners, lighting, insulation, building materials, electric motors, batteries, codes, solar panels, refrigerators, jet engines, boat hulls, propeller designs, wind turbines, TV/Monitor screens, manufacturing processes, tire designs, recycling materials, corrosion resistant materials, film technologies of all kinds, etc. The list of better products and technologies are endless.
Today work goes on in battery technology, nano materials, alternate energies, longer lifetime products, better steels, reduced material consumption, better agriculture techniques, cleaner fuels, less energy intensive everything... And all you and smnorgy do is complain that nothing is happening? Closed minds? Hell-in-a-handbasket futures?
Time to wake up to a world that is rapidly running away from you... Maybe you can still join it?
A quick search for current bus costs show that diesel buses cost 300K to 500K. Diesel hybrids run from 500K to 750K. Fuel cell buses run from 1,500K to 2,000K. So the ratios that I earlier quoted stand at the moment. I have no doubt fuel cell bus prices will decline much closer to the standard diesel over the next 10 years. I don't think that a 100-200 bus order will erase the difference overnight, however.
I couldn't easily find comparisons on a per mile basis. Operating costs of a pure EV bus should handily beat all of them right now. The city of Durham has been raving about the operating costs of its diesel hybrids over the standard diesels though they are very reluctant to release comparison numbers until the multi year trial is over. I'll keep looking...
Despite how Red answers this, the world is producing more food that ever before. A quick search of any database will confirm that easily.
A doubling of food prices in 20 years is barely 3% per year and well in line with inflation. No news here. The inflation is almost entirely linked to the declining value of the dollar leading to higher fuel prices and higher fertilizer prices as the crop yield per acre has been increasing nicely over time.
The rising CO2 concentration has already contributed to over 30% of the increased yield according to many estimates. That, along with better field management and fertilization techniques, have been meeting the food needs of the Earth quite easily.
Despite any boogeymen of droughts, heat waves, floods, etc. any effect on food production must be minimal or we wouldn't be so easily able to produce all the food we want.
That report you reference from red is completely full of garbage and fear-mongering and absolutely does not represent any facts. We have a dry period in CA and we have a wet period somewhere else. Weather changes and climate changes. Yet we produce all food at an ever increasing rate to meet the need. That verbiageabove is less than worthless.
I checked back with the owners... The 25% recovery system had not been cleaned for about a month and the 40% recovery system had not been cleaned in about 3-4 months. That seems like a lot of efficiency loss for such a short period, but that is a fact of life for PV output efficiencies. The city of Davis certainly has been rain challenged for the last year so no natural cleaning was helping remove the accumulated grime. The grime was not removeable by a water spray and required a sponge mop, soap and water and a water rinse. The diode-based construction of PV panels is highly susceptible to the smallest of obstructions so I would think that the cleaning schedule above is a bit too lax for my taste ie. if cleaning the single story roofs were as easy as I experienced, I would be up there every couple weeks cleaning to obtain the maximum efficiency. If I had to pay for it, however, the cost/benefit ratio could be substantially different.
Last week I was in CA for a visit. I did not see many FC vehicles, but not as many electric vehicles as I might have thought either. Maybe five Teslas and five Leafs, but there is a large number of gasoline hybrids on the roads. There was one FC vehicle in the parking lot of the California Fuel Cell Partnership building, though. It looked more like a test vehicle than someone's commuter. Gasoline was ~ $ 3.59 a gallon and diesel was a little less.
I was also a little disappointed in the penetration of PV solar in the area as I flew over San Francisco, Davis and Sacramento. There were a few big boxes with panels along with a few parking lot covers. But in the $600,000 to $1,000,000 neighborhoods that I was in maybe only 1 in 25-30 homes had any roof panels despite the rather huge financial incentives to do so. The roof panels that I saw were heavily coated with dust and dirt (mostly on the homes...much cleaner on commercial buildings). I personally cleaned the panels of the family I was staying with and one of their neighbors and the power generated rose about 25% and 40% respectively. There is a real conflict between having clean (and high efficiency power production) panels and water consumption and many homeowners are skipping the cleaning to save 3 gallons of water every month. I think this is ridiculous as both these homeowners had working pools that were replenished with water to the tune of about 20 gallons a day...
They said there is a cleaning service that you can hire that charges about $ 50-75 to clean the panels, but that amounts to about one months output depending on the size of the system. If you cleaned once a month you would have little to no financial advantage to having panels at all! It took me less than 10 minutes to clean the panels so $ 50 seems excessive, but many of the homeowners may not feel comfortable getting on the roof to do the cleaning.
I wish they would provide a 'per mile' cost when comparing to other motive powered buses. The public has a hard time knowing what they actually cost to buy, run and operate.
We 'know' that they cost about 5x that of a diesel bus or about 2.5x that of a diesel hybrid, that the fuel is about 2-3x that of diesel equivalent and that that Alameda received about 1.8 million to help defray the operating cost for another 3 years.
We don't know if they are coming out ahead over the life cycle of the bus, what the fares prices have been or what the maintenance costs are.
In any case, I do think buses will be the first, big, successful utilization of fuel cell motive technology in the larger cities.
And this is your fundamental problem. You don't recognize reputable science and reputable scientists. James Hansen used to be somewhat normal until his mid-20's when he started to go off the deep end. Unfortunately he has fallen wayyyy off the pesdestal. None of his crazy predictions have come true and this latest, super crazy, prediction is off the charts nuts. There is NO mechanism that would allow a sea level rise of 'at least 10 feet in the next 50 years'. None. Nada. No-one but crazy Jim Hansen is predicting anything so far off from reality.
But you, red, never fail to latch on to crazy info that has no basis in reality and then tout it as reputable and from a reputable scientist.
Your action almost looks like capitulation...sold almost exactly at the low point. Now it has climbed for a couple days. Can we use you as a barometer of when the bottom is in?
Many years ago I started keeping an eye on electric bicycles and motor cycles watching the progression from lead acid to NiCad and now to lithium. While still very expensive, the Zero Motorcycle Company produces a line of high end e-cycles that have very impressive specs. I have seen only a couple on the road, but expect to see many more as the price goes down. I do know that a few universities and police security firms are trying them out...
(BTW, jj, I did finish the John Muir Trail on this trip - summitted Mount Whitney on 7/21. 46 year old bucket list item checked off)
Good for you! I'm not sure I could make a 14,000 foot peak anymore. But there probably is a lot of stuff under 14K that is still interesting...
Yes, meeting someone in person can be a completely different experience than only conversing on-line.
We should all know that 2014 was not a good year financially for Ballard. After a mildly advancing year for the company in 2013, some have offered that 2014 was a year of 'transition' and 2015 would be very big.
Now we see, however, the first half of 2015 has been quite poor in almost all areas (showing substantially poorer results than the first 6 months of 2014. Some of us are quite unsure of whether there is a systemic problem concerning the company's operations or about the technology...or something...
I will be among the first to argue that the technology is still in an 'experimental' phase and that decisions made to market various product lines, capitalize on proprietary knowledge or choose appropriate business partners have been well below anybody's acceptable expectations. So what does anyone see that will really turn this around the last half of 2015? Or are we going resign ourselves into accepting that 2015 will be another year of 'transition'?
Ballard has frustrated many an investor in the last 15 years and the stock performance reflects that. Hopes and dreams and promises are not going to fuel much of anything in this company anymore. Solid, absolutely believable, results are needed. What are the catalysts we will see this year?
Cherry pick 1 day and you have 100% positive correlation. Nonsense, but 100% positive correlation. (Sounds like your global warming arguments.)
I could cherry pick July 21st and would have 100% negative correlation. So who would be right? The exact answer is unanswerable. The sampling is too small. You learned that in statistics 101, right?
Now go back and look at a larger picture. Pick a year or two or three. Zero correlation and non-refutable.
Red, Please overlay the S&P 500, the Hang Seng and BLDP charts. You will find there is zero correlation between Ballard and either other market. Zero. Up, down or flat. Zero.
It's a nice excuse for you apparently, but it is meaningless for anyone else.
It is an obvious market and I think has been tried about 5 years ago by GE (?). Since I haven't heard anything about it since, I am assuming it did not go as well as planned. I think the hydrogen stream has to be thoroughly scrubbed of unwanted membrane poisons like residual chlorine and hydrogen chloride or the unit will quickly become ineffective. It is not too difficult to do so, but the effort to get to 4-5 nine's hydrogen probably negates any cost savings from producing electricity from the fuel cell.
It may be that the initial 1.7 million is to come up with an in-line scrubber and purifier for the waste stream...