http://www.economist.com/node/15022457

That is not low cost energy.

See: http://www.economist.com/node/15022457

An energy analyst, Mr. Thomas, was quoted saying such a key numerical fact.

Heat from coal comes at a price ranging from $1 to $3 per MMBTU depending on transportation and type of coal. In the USA there is a thousand years of reserves at current usage rates, and the price point for acquiring this source of heat varies much more gradually over a very long time period. At $9 per MMBTU the USA coal reserves will last hundreds up to perhaps a thousand of years.

Outsource your job search to us. Premium job search assistance – http://www.jobwaltz.com

There is a second important fact which is that there is a time delay from the time of widespread commitment to drilling projects and the proof of large reserves. Thus, when the price of natural gas was over $7 (per MMBTU) for a sustained period of time, there was a large expansion of drilling for that commodity. When the resulting glut drove the price to $4, that expansion became a large contraction.

With the addition of more regulation and stipulation of less damaging processes, the price to entice investment could go up to something more than the $7 that worked a few years ago.

Might we wonder if some folks anxious to stop the use of coal would encourage shifting to natural gas, without concern that this could work into much increased electricity prices and general economic calamity.

The big joke is the electric vehicle, which seems to be enjoying favor from those searching for climate solutions, will become far less attractive when electricity prices go up substantially.

The ultimate joke is that the electric vehicle depending on the grid will be entirely tied to coal until the last coal fired power plant accessible to that grid is scrapped.

Arguing about the renewable nomenclature does not advance any cause.

However, there is a large scale opportunity for balancing some of the coal that actually is and will continue to be burned in power plants. That would be a project to establish massive forests on land that is now minimally productive due to inadequate water availability. The solution to this is to reconsider the water distribution on a continental basis, and get to the task of doing something we know how to do and know how useful it can be.

For example, there is vast abundance of water on the North American continent. Most of it is dumped into salt water, from where it can only be recovered by use of large amounts of energy. Of course, Mother Nature is busy with this job, but she cares not a bit if there is fresh water coming into the oceans from rivers. So sensible folk should start thinking about holding back some of that water and sending it to places where it can be effectively used.

Wow, does this ever stir the environmentalist world! In some quarters, the concern about global warming vanishes with such a notion. It turns out that the hearts of environmentalists warm quickly to the idea of canceling the industrial revolution by clamping down on the use of that cheap energy source, coal. But those same hearts turn to stone at the mere hint of endangering a few smelt or, perish the thought, having to look at trees that do not belong to the local forest establishment.

We like to posture about our superior environmentalism to China, but China has moved aggressively to establish standing forests over the last decade or longer, and has repeatedly announced at the highest government levels that this is something they are dedicated to doing on a very massive scale.

“the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), for example, sets an acceptable level of radiation exposure from any one source at 100 millirem a year. In contrast, the average level of natural background radiation in the United States is about 350 millirem a year. (A chest X-ray, for further comparison, gives the equivalent to 1 or 2 millirem to the whole body.)”

Okay, so we get 350 millirems average a year. What makes the nuclear cultists think it’s OK to just add on another dose of radiation equal to another 4 months natural radiation exposure? Equal to an additional 50 to 100 chest xrays a year and none of this is going to have any harmful effects whatsoever?!!!

If you listen to these people long enough they’ll have you believing that eating on banana peel would give you more radiation that eating an equal amount of plutonium. These people are cultists. They simply are adverse to negative data. It’s clear listening to them and the way they talk about “acceptable levels of exposure” they mean push people right up to the absolute limit so long as that’s good for the furtherance of their industry. They care more about their precious uranium than human lives. On top of that they are now trying to increase the amount of radiation they are legally allowed to expose us to without telling us about it! That’s sneaky and criminal.

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1325

Here’s an article that discusses the issue of a major tsunami along the margins of the Atlantic Ocean:

http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2011/03/tsunamis-could-they-impact-atlantic.html

Various things go into making commodity prices go up and down. Corn also went down. And this would support your argument about the global economy.

A more favorable environment for oil might be anticipated because of the recent move to combine the EPA with the DOE, and that would also suggest lower oil prices in the future.

Still, it is not a great idea to try to give reasons why the market goes up and down. Remember, there is always an unseen factor driven by trading chicanery.