46 comments on The Forum is where you debate (or Peak Oil and the Environment Conference Day 1)
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
46 comments on The Forum is where you debate (or Peak Oil and the Environment Conference Day 1)
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Home Buyers Demand Short Commutes, Efficient Homes (with Backyards, Parking, lots of Square Feet)
- Streets: Utilitarian Corridors or Livable Public Space
- Summer Streets a Success!
TOD:Europe
- IEA WEO 2008 - Fossil Fuel Ultimates and CO2 Emissions Scenarios
- The IEA WEO 2008: Will coal usage be phased out?
- Oilwatch Monthly - November 2008
TOD:Canada
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
TOD:ANZ
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
“I'd put my money on solar energy… I hope we don't have to wait til oil and coal run out before we tackle that.”
—Thomas Edison, in conversation with Henry Ford and Harvey Firestone, March 1931
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.





GAIA Host Collective
As far as coal goes, it will make global warming worse, no doubt; however, what other choices do we have? Conservation will take us some, if not a large part, of the way, but eventually we will need something else. Short of complete dieoff and collapse (not to be ruled out completely), energy will need to come from somewhere. I think it would be the epitome of naive green thinking to suggest that we can ride our solar/wind powered cars down the shimering emerald road. Perhaps they'll even be another episode of "global dimming" before global warming really comes back with a vengance?
In any event, I'd be interested to meet one of the esteemed editors of theoildrum if you are so inclined.
-David Huck (david dot huck at oberlin dott edu)
I'll be there bright and early
It seems that the whole nation has been waiting to see what the lawmakers were going to do before they built new generating capacity. This has resulted in a lot of pent-up demand for power as the utilities project the need for a lot of new power stations in a few years. Add to that the rapidly growing cost of natural gas, aging older power plants, and ever more stringent environmental laws regarding existing plants, and we are looking at replacing most of our current power generating facilities ina the next decade.
The big questions have been: "What new environmental laws is going to regulate CO2 emissions?", "Will the cost of natural gas stay high, or is this a temporary spike?", "Will the EPA finally pass some legislation to force older, dirtier power plants into decommissioning?"
Well, it seems we have our answer now. In the last 6 months there has been a tremendous increase in the interest of utilities to build new coal fired power plants. And once the herd of utility companies starts moving, it moves in a big way. In many cases, these new coal fired power plants are meant to replace the brand new natural gas plants that were built just a few years ago when the price of gas was low.
The scary part of all of this, is that there is no economical way to get rid of the greenhouse gases from this type of coal fired power plant. And once they are built, the utilities will defend their existence by using the same old "sunk costs" argument that has kept the current older plants operating since the Clean Air Act of 1990 was passed. It will be decades before these new power plants have been paid for bu generating revenue. So, if anyone was holding their breath waiting for the government pass legislation regarding coal fired power plant greenhouse gas emissions in response to the gobal warming issue, then give it up. Industry has moved forward in the absence of government action regarding global warming. Peak Oil will only exacerbate the situation.
One-Eye,
Just out of curiosity,
Who are the top lawmakers in charge of deciding which way the industry heads? Is nuclear dead?
"a lot" of plants for us would be (i'm guessing) 50 or 75?
Speaking of that, just I thought the graph (Worldwide Gas Turbine Production) shown halfway down this article in Mechanical Engineering magazine did a very good job demonstrating what happens when an entire industry makes a shift to a certain type of power.
http://www.memagazine.org/contents/current/features/wildblue/wildblue.html
To adapt lightly -
'Why is it that American anti-technophiles have NO imagination?'
America is a very special case, and it would be nice for more Americans to understand this from the outside, so to speak. As the author of the article does.
As a certain indicator of how Americans think they are special - poor British adults are healthier than rich Americans, using several quantitative measures, like heart disease and diabetes. And the British health care system is sort of the basket case of western Europe. America's 'average' health care is not envied by anyone with experience of European health systems. (That the peak of American medicine is pretty much the peak of world medicine is true - it is just that easily 250 million Americans will never, ever see America's peak health care in action, apart from trauma situations like car wrecks, heart attacks/strokes, and gunshot and other violence related injuries - perhaps not surprisingly, problems where the older white males running the country have a very direct interest, whether in the case of the first two for their own health, or in the case of the last, ensuring the military a test bed and school for training doctors, nurses, etc.)
and why not? it satisfies the human urge to cover territory while at the same time satisfying the need to conserve body energy.
it's only bad once you notice the non-obvious side effects (pollution, global warming, resource depletion).
But in the real world, in a place like NYC, a lot of people happily live without a car. And most of those happily living in NYC would not support tearing down the city to make it more car friendly. And this in America, to make the point.
What is so often overlooked in much of these discussions is how much of any industrial society, in total, is devoted to the manufacture, sale, and driving of cars - it seems the absolute best way invented to use up otherwise free time for the members of mass societies - especially when debt is added into the mix. (Notice the history of debt and selling to see some real interesting foundations of what we now consider 'normal.') An efficient transit system actually lets people enjoy free time in a city, for example, which is not only hard to profit from, but could lead to people actually thinking this is a good way to live - whereas sitting in traffic every single day is simply money (and time) flowing through the system, reaching the top as always, without disturbing it in any way. Notice the 'stupid' French not going along with the plans of the government to make firing easier - the French are actually obnoxious enough to feel that they actually deserve to live in a society which doesn't allow hire and fire, since the striking French ARE their society, and not the owners/bankers. Doesn't make the French smart, just troublesome for the French ruling classes. If only the French would go into debt, buy huge cars, and spend a couple of hours a day in traffic, the French elite could probably have a much easier time - it is dangerous to let people have too much freedom. Worse, to get used to the idea that the opinions of the majority actually should be important in the decision-making process. (Not that being in a majority is any guide to being right about something.)
But car use doesn't come in the form of the 'people's car' (certain historical examples notwithstanding - and even then, often it was the tank which came before the car), instead it comes in the form of decades long investment by companies like GM, VW, or Toyota to ensure that a society which has never used cars, like China, become a huge market. And to do this, they become part of the 'free' media which we live surrounded by. Rarely have 'the people' demanded higher profits for car and oil companies - but they certainly can be seduced into thinking a car represents things they want, if history is any guide.
Ah well, my view comes from my reading of "Car Wars" by Jonathan Mantle. I think it is a good history of the spread of the car ... any my takeaway was certainly that a "people's car" appeared in the major markets. Ford here, Morris in England, Renault in France, VW ... a lot of places, and so on.
My reference to tanks was in regards to various socialist countries, in general.
i mumbled some time back some words about the natural (evolutionary) reason for laziness. our technology reinforces that, but didn't create it. people drive a block to buy a paper because they are lazy, not because they love their car so much.
i'd love to see a happy walking/cycling future, but i think it will have to built on ideas of health and vigor - to combat the laziness.
does anybody have a paper/s or an overall presentation about the oil market, which covers the following issues.
-Definition Reserves
-How is oil being priced
-different kinds of oil (WTI...BRENT..etc)
- How is the spread between the oil types beeing
calculated...(WTI..BRENT..What about OPEC basket price?...
Thanks..
Thomas