 | |||
| apparent conflict between what you want and what you can. | | |
Dear readers,
This past week he has had to reach the peak Libya of food riot (and prelude of chaos). Is the leading exporter of oil affected by the crisis of legitimacy of political regimes in the Arab world (the first oil producing country to be affected, Egypt, no longer exporting in 2009 and currently allocates its nearly 600,000 barrels a day production to consumption by its 80 million people - if only a quarter of English per capita consumption). Meanwhile, it remains unclear who will win the incipient civil war if Libya and the regime it will emerge will be able to resolve social inequalities that fueled the rebellion, failing fall in it (the same doubt in Tunisia and Egypt) as the festering conflict increases the risk of the country's oil infrastructure is severely affected, in the worst case scenario, a mad and almost defeated Qaddafi could his threat to destroy the infrastructure of oil exploration, or rather the lack of absolute power might bring in a few months to fighting between different tribes, which form the closest thing to a social fabric that has a Libya- several bands armed conflict and plunge the country into chaos, in either of these scenarios black oil production would fall to zero and the conflict would result in an even more terrible toll of suffering and destruction for the Libyan people. Meanwhile, more and more analysts complain that the lack of reaction from OPEC, which is not significantly increasing its production to compensate for the missing Libyan be because Saudi Arabia has any spare capacity (amount of oil could produce additional 30 days before and for a period of at least 90 days) of boasting. There is also a problem of fungibility : Libyan oil is low sulfur content, while the Saudi surplus is high and it can not be processed in the same refineries. In this scenario
of uncertainty, with the price of a barrel of crude oil ever closer to the highs (Brent barrel yesterday arrived sometime in $ 120) and the prices of petrol and diesel are already at their maximum 2008 (due to, among other factors, the extra pressure that China is buying increasing amounts of these fuels in the international market), the English Government has decided to approve today a package of emergency measures to prevent increased oil bill will finally bring the country to debt levels, given the confidence of international investors in Spain, would be impractical. In what follows I make a brief analysis of these measures and a preliminary assessment of its impact. Because I fear that in future it may take more measures of this kind I have included the same date in the title, God will say what the future holds.
first thing that stands out is that the proposed measures, which are of a certain caliber, have not been agreed with other European countries to be taken by all of them in tandem. Spain forming part of a common economic space, does not seem to make much sense to make decisions unilaterally, without waiting for consensus on a position with its economic partners. This urgency to the regular time in a country that has not characterized as the most proactive in taking anti-crisis measures conveys a certain anxiety to a server that write these lines I do not know if in this case have sought to demonstrate that for once we could anticipate the problems and is certainly the continued impact of rising oil and fuel was about to pass a bill lethal to Spain. We'll have to wait and see what host European leaders give to our actions.
The measure that has been most prominent in the English press is to reduce the speed limit of 120 kilometers per hour (only possible on highways and motorways) to 110 kilometers per hour. This measure stands while it was temporary and indefinite, which is inherently contradictory (a measure does not have an indefinite time frame set, then decided in the course of events, and therefore can not be sure if it's temporary or not). The Government argues that with this measure will reduce gasoline consumption by 15% and diesel by 11%. We do not know how is based reports to make this assertion, which is difficult to compare and quantify. On the one hand, in addition to losses due to friction with the road always present, depending on the car at speeds exceeding 80 kilometers per hour is subjected to a deceleration caused by turbulent drag (drag ), which depends among other factors, its coefficient of drag and the square of the speed at which you try to move. Since these speeds this turbulent friction is the dominant contribution to the resistance to movement of the vehicle, a speed reduction of 8.33% as the proposal would mean 16% reduction in energy consumption for other factors being equal and the same way (remember: work is force times distance , and with the throttle you do is make the work of friction against the movement of the vehicle). However, depending on the car the torque ratio is better for speed of 120 km / h to 110 km / h, so that going to 120 km / h, about 110 km / h, consumption is improved somewhat for this item. These differences should be the couple that justify the difference reported by the Government between the impact on savings of this measure as if the car is petrol and diesel. An interesting observation: the lower efficacy of this measure on diesel cars (ironically, by the better exploitation of the torque) provides a political incentive to in the future, imposing a lower speed limit for diesel cars over the gas, keep in mind that there are now greater pressure on the world market for diesel that on gasoline, as China, whose consumption is more industrial than recreational, buying more and more (maybe that extra pressure on diesel has led to some recent news that highlights the character most polluting diesel cars?) . However, in the real world there are other factors that influence one way or another possible efficiency gains for the ride: The engine, the conservation status of the vehicle ... and especially the style of driving. The blog EcoLab gives us some data to suggest that there may be a gain had significantly , here expressed in terms of reducing CO2 emissions, with this decrease in speed. Without knowing the technical source that justifies the government's decisions, there may be a decrease in consumption and to move in the ranges proposed by the Government.
A different question is the effectiveness of this measure. In Spain, people tend to lead to between 130 and 150 km / h on highways, 130 km / h is typical for that is within the range of uncertainty of radar and avoid a fine. A good friend of mine points out that perhaps that is what it is intended: to stop people from running on 130 and go to move to 120 (always abusing the inaccuracy of the radar) that implies an even greater fuel economy and might serve to justify the Government's figures. Anyway, does not seem likely to have much effect if there is a serious deployment of resources for control, and that exacerbated the unpopularity of the measure, which will be seen as tax collection. As for the economy of the measure, some argue rightly taxes that since over two-thirds of the price of fuel and therefore 2 / 3 of savings is actually income redistribution, since the opportunity cost of to slow the measure is, in fact, economically negative. Other means more belligerent with the Government reported whole package as inefficient as it prevents the free market arbitrage. The reality is that this measure makes sense only as a partial ration car use over long distances, which are not looking for economic efficiency but use restraint to avoid most of the inefficiencies of the market: shortages, even when the local measure to combat the effects can only cause local shortages. As we discussed at the time, to live a free market system with rationing may end up destabilizing a state , so that also has to think very well.
The second of the measures, the reduction of 5% of the bills from the state railway company, RENFE, in their journeys of transport equipment, aims to boost fuel economy indirectly used cars passing through the cities. Instead of operating by way of rationing the previous case, it operates by way of subsidy. Without doubt a market inefficiency forced, and certainly in the same spirit: to prevent shortages. It will be about the financial cost to the State of such action. Interestingly, the reduction does not extend to the Long Distance tenes, making clear that this measure complements to the above (*).
Finally, the third of three measures announced is that less has been said and yet the most serious of the three: the Government will force " increase to 7% the biodiesel in gasoline and diesel so far was 5.8% "(sic). Leaving aside the bad effect that makes the technical error (no doubt that they ought to mean is the "percentage of biofuels" blend gasoline with biodiesel does not think it's a good idea), this bill is a disaster. The funny thing is that probably has been well received by society, especially the latter clouded for the loss of paradise "limit of 120", according to the comments I read everywhere, in the end, are not the future of biofuels?. The reality shows that the three measures, this is the one that has more edges and side effects, some of which may have gone unnoticed by the Government itself:
- This measure is a subsidy to the production sector biofuels, since by law they have to buy a larger production than today. Need to know if they can react in such a short time, and if that improvisation will have serious consequences in other sectors.
- This measure is also an implicit rationing: bioethanol and biodiesel tend to, on average, 70% of energy from fossil equivalents, so going from 5.8% to 7% of the volume the new energy mix will increase from 98.26% of current fossil equivalent (98.3% of the heat content of conventional gasoline and diesel) to 97.90%, a loss of 0.36% of fossil heat content and reduction on the current mix of 0.37%. It is a small loss, but it is a loss to the end of the day: your car will be 0.37% less than miles.
- The most serious of all consequences is that the increased demand for English introduce biofuels even more pressure on the international food market, as this article explains Washington Post, the consumption of biofuel crops in the world last year accounted for 6.5% of global grain and vegetable oil 8%. If even Krugman acknowledges that the price of food has been the trigger of conflict in North Africa , building on this road, which has a TER above very low (so that you are not gaining power, and apart from other problems already discussed ) is nonsense. Especially taking into account as we saw, that transition increases the risk of abrupt and chaotic global .
In short, the English Government is beginning to see the ears of the wolf now reacts with the hope that future circumstances allow you to retreat to a more comfortable setting (which may happen, indeed, after the following price spike, the second, but only until the third). Their proposals may fall short and will generate unwanted effects. It is clear that both kinds of timing should be carefully studied, for example, as did the International Energy Agency for many years with his report "Saving oil when we are in a hurry" (read it if you have time, it is very interesting, especially coming from a body that advises the governments of the OECD on these issues). or the British Chambers with the system as TEQs or tradable energy quotas .
regard to ordinary people: Printing and improvisation of government ineptitude. And as for the peakoiler, restlessness. We will have to remain vigilant.
Salu2,
AMT
(*) (Updated 26-II-2011, 22:30): A reader has informed me privately that the measure may not extend to the long distance because of the rules of competition in the European Union.
0 comments:
Post a Comment