The July is here, so soon I mean. it was February that I moved here & already six months are down now. The years seem to pass by so quick that some day not far in time, I may be sitting wondering if I have lived all these long years or did I pass them in sleep, seriously time seems to be flying past these days. Watched Hitchcock 'notorious' today, kept his 'the birds' for tomorrow. In other stuff today, deleted my Facebook account and opened a twitter account, I found twitter more useful then Facebook or say Orkut, but then both are catering to different markets. personal preference though.
The appraisals are going to be out next week I suppose, something to watch out for, lets see how bad the hike is. but it is definitely going to be below the rate of inflation & believe me that government's inflation rate is itself depressed( intentionally or unintentionally ). Indian economy has it going good for last 4-5 years & a couple of rainy days shouldn't be a problem at least for the nouveau riches.. poor be damned, who cares.. the government seems to have solved the nuclear tangle at last, and its good to see at least some amount of spine in the leadership, though I am not optimistic that this government would go much far, but anyway something is better than nothing.
Meanwhile July 4 passed & oil has not touched $150 as Jim Cramer was shouting on mad money, but it doesn't matter, 146 is as good as 150. 150 is just symbolic, the pain at pump started long way back. Somehow I feel Americans don't get it, wonder how can a (supposed !) intelligent country is being fooled not only oil producing countries, but by government and there own emotions. Where do you get a precious commodity for 2 bucks a gallon, a commodity that takes millions of years to create and a commodity that can drive say 4 people in a nice car for 180 miles, why the hell you should get that thing for 2 bucks, when even the water costs more. The supply is not a problem, the demand IS.
Commodity inflation is the big topic these days, and if you listen American media, this often hackneyed word about increased demand from India-China is now becoming a deluge now. take oil, India-China. take wheat, India-China. take anything, India-China. I wonder if India-China really increased there demand so much that the world's factories and farms and oil rigs have failed to keep pace. I just feel that it was okay as long as India-China were producing for the rest of the world, but as soon as we become consuming nations, the rest of the world started feeling the pinch. Take a often quoted sector refinery, which America has not built one for last 30 years. Why? because they don't want to have pollution in their backyard, so guess what, they have other countries make them & send the finished product to US. This is hypocrisy big time. I guess US in sometime future will claim that it has curtailed its carbon emission. And how, it will send all the polluting industries to cheaper nations and import finished products, so no emissions you see. This is all a façade to not change, to save 'their way of life'. (not sure what it means)
Showing posts with label oil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oil. Show all posts
Replacing Crude Oil : Missing Woods For Corn
You know when dealing with subjects as expansive as weather, and the effects of our actions on the global environment, there are so many variables & so many hidden cost involved that it is difficult to fathom if we have done the right thing. Take the instance of biofuels which are the new rage out here, maybe there is a thinking that just by using biofuels instead of gasoline, one just gets over the guilt of there hedonist lifestyle and do nothing about the bigger problem. Its not bio-fuels that would solve the problem, it is this voracious appetite for energy & consumable goods that is the problem. This is what time.com has to say about the real effects biofuels, the devil is in the detail though.
[...]
Why is so much money still being poured into such a misguided enterprise? Like the scientists and environmentalists, many politicians genuinely believe biofuels can help decrease global warming. It makes intuitive sense: cars emit carbon no matter what fuel they burn, but the process of growing plants for fuel sucks some of that carbon out of the atmosphere. For years, the big question was whether those reductions from carbon sequestration outweighed the "life cycle" of carbon emissions from farming, converting the crops to fuel and transporting the fuel to market. Researchers eventually concluded that yes, biofuels were greener than gasoline. The improvements were only about 20% for corn ethanol because tractors, petroleum-based fertilizers and distilleries emitted lots of carbon. But the gains approached 90% for more efficient fuels, and advocates were confident that technology would progressively increase benefits.
There was just one flaw in the calculation: the studies all credited fuel crops for sequestering carbon, but no one checked whether the crops would ultimately replace vegetation and soils that sucked up even more carbon. It was as if the science world assumed biofuels would be grown in parking lots. The deforestation of Indonesia has shown that's not the case. It turns out that the carbon lost when wilderness is razed overwhelms the gains from cleaner-burning fuels. A study by University of Minnesota ecologist David Tilman concluded that it will take more than 400 years of biodiesel use to "pay back" the carbon emitted by directly clearing peat lands to grow palm oil; clearing grasslands to grow corn for ethanol has a payback period of 93 years. The result is that biofuels increase demand for crops, which boosts prices, which drives agricultural expansion, which eats forests. Searchinger's study concluded that overall, corn ethanol has a payback period of about 167 years because of the deforestation it triggers.
[...]
[...]
Why is so much money still being poured into such a misguided enterprise? Like the scientists and environmentalists, many politicians genuinely believe biofuels can help decrease global warming. It makes intuitive sense: cars emit carbon no matter what fuel they burn, but the process of growing plants for fuel sucks some of that carbon out of the atmosphere. For years, the big question was whether those reductions from carbon sequestration outweighed the "life cycle" of carbon emissions from farming, converting the crops to fuel and transporting the fuel to market. Researchers eventually concluded that yes, biofuels were greener than gasoline. The improvements were only about 20% for corn ethanol because tractors, petroleum-based fertilizers and distilleries emitted lots of carbon. But the gains approached 90% for more efficient fuels, and advocates were confident that technology would progressively increase benefits.
There was just one flaw in the calculation: the studies all credited fuel crops for sequestering carbon, but no one checked whether the crops would ultimately replace vegetation and soils that sucked up even more carbon. It was as if the science world assumed biofuels would be grown in parking lots. The deforestation of Indonesia has shown that's not the case. It turns out that the carbon lost when wilderness is razed overwhelms the gains from cleaner-burning fuels. A study by University of Minnesota ecologist David Tilman concluded that it will take more than 400 years of biodiesel use to "pay back" the carbon emitted by directly clearing peat lands to grow palm oil; clearing grasslands to grow corn for ethanol has a payback period of 93 years. The result is that biofuels increase demand for crops, which boosts prices, which drives agricultural expansion, which eats forests. Searchinger's study concluded that overall, corn ethanol has a payback period of about 167 years because of the deforestation it triggers.
[...]
Who Turned My Tap Off
as the world continues growing on a fast clip.. one crucial thing that getting more & more vital for continued growth is energy.. most of the developed & developing world is today fossil-fuel based.. be it gasoline or LNG.. and these resources are in lands ruled by the most rogue-est of regimes on the face of the earth (sudan,burma,iran,saudi arabia..).. and some not so rogue (russia).. everybody wants to make their energy lines secure (at least history has taught us so.. WWII).. hence a mad scramble ( by developed nations) to buy out oil assets in any possible area.. add to this the oil producing nations attempt to nationalize or keep the oil industry in government's hands (russia,bolivia,venezuela ect) to control the future prices... we are in a situation where too much of money & national power is chasing to few assets... and oil companies in both producing & consuming nations have become an extension of the government's foreign policy stratagem... but does energy nationalism work out in a new market driven market place.. wouldn't government ownership just add to the nepotism already prevailing in these corrupt regimes... the answer is nobody wants to take chances... after all the lifeline of today's economy is energy.. a $3/gallon a gasoline made Bush sweat.. think of what happens if there is none of it.. in asia the oil scenario is geo-political.. China/India are out their trying to hedge their needs in case something bad happens in middle-east... by buying out in central asia/burma/africa.. the regimes are also playing partner... those nations no being part of party are busy taking control of their energy resources and using them to exert political power... as oil becomes the new currency of this global and ever-energy-hungry economy...
~Cinnamon Girl~
~Cinnamon Girl~
Is 'Conservation' A Dirty Word
is conservation a dirty word out here... why is that even after dire warnings about global warming & oil at $70+ a barrel.. only lip service is being paid to conservation... maybe everybody has some stakes in keeping the oil wells pumping and light bulbs burning... last week i paid a casual visit to a casino.. had lunch buffet.. where i think the whole concept was how many times and how much could you waste food... such unbridled excesses... 5% of global population consuming i guess anywhere between 30-40% of global output of anything... and everything.. and with the growth of chinese and indian middle class ( another 2 billion+ wannabees ).. consider what will happen if these also live the lifestyles of an average american.. consume like them.. drive cars like them... waste like them... i am pretty sure that my energy consumption here vis-a-vis when i was in india is maybe 10 times over... maybe more... so is my daily carbon footprint... ( in case you don't know carbon footprint ) where will all the resources and energy come when most of us in india/china will live lives that be 'carbon-copies' of life out here.. can we sustain such consumption patterns... The world is not only 'round' and 'flat' but also 'finite'... but George Bush won't speak the word 'conservation' as if preservation was something of a pariah... as if preservation was something way out of american psyche.. he talks for taxing Big Oil... for opening up Alaska for drilling... in the same breath as he talks about going green.. and virtues of less fuel guzzling cars... what a hypocrisy.. the world needs to act and act fast to conserve and preserve what we inherited.. but then somebody has to walk the talk...
Question Of The Day : George W. Bush always says that terrorists are out there to destroy the American Way Of Life... i 'am left scratching my head... what exactly is this 'American Way Of Life'... ?
~Fade To Black~
Question Of The Day : George W. Bush always says that terrorists are out there to destroy the American Way Of Life... i 'am left scratching my head... what exactly is this 'American Way Of Life'... ?
~Fade To Black~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)