DrumBeat: January 24, 2007
Posted by threadbot on January 24, 2007 - 10:05am
U.S. wind power seen growing by a quarter in 2007
Wind power generation in the United States will grow 26 percent in 2007, after increasing by 27 percent in 2006, the American Wind Energy Association said on Tuesday.In 2006, 2,454 megawatts of new wind generating capacity was installed, with $4 billion invested, the AWEA said. Only natural gas generating plants accounted for more new power generation capacity last year.
The state of our energy is dangerous
Gas prices may be coming down to earth, but for how long? Unfortunately, America’s economic and energy security is more vulnerable than ever. Incredibly, our reliance on foreign oil is now at a dangerous all-time high of 60 percent, almost double what it was during the 1970s energy crisis.The inconvenient truth is that we continue to pay a high price for decades of no-growth environmentalism. Special interests’ ongoing obstructionist lawsuits, restrictive environmental regulations and unreasonable laws all undermine America’s energy independence.
America (finally!) begins to embrace alternative energy
PROVO, UTAH - Well hallelujah!Are we Americans at last awakening to the probability that unless we change our ways, at some uncertain time in the future, there will be an energy crisis?
Put the brakes on anti-car drive
Let's hope Mayor Dave Cieslewicz and Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk summon the good sense to take the report they have received from the Peak Oil Task Force and file it under "T."For twaddle.
Uganda: Government Lists 71 Power Sites
In a strategic move to solve the energy crisis that has crippled the economy, the government has identified and assessed at least 71 potential small-scale hydropower sites across the country.
Dam Development: Murder, Repression and Environmental Destruction in Honduras
It would appear that the preferred tactic when it comes to mega-projects is to obtain financing first and deal with the environmental permit later. So the whole process becomes merely a bureaucratic one, involving political, not environmental decisions.
European Union announces new energy strategy
The European Commission published a white paper on the future of energy policy within the European Union on January 11. Although largely presented by the EU and in many media commentaries as an attempt to cut greenhouse gas emissions, the new energy strategy is driven primarily by the need for the European powers to reduce their dependence on unstable oil and gas imports.
The business of climate change: Why some firms want caps on emissions
FOR a country that is often cast as evil incarnate when it comes to the environment, America has amassed an impressive array of green credentials of late. Even the National Football League plans to offset the greenhouse gases generated by this year’s Super Bowl in February.
Contradictions seen in alternative energy plan
President Bush's proposals to reduce U.S. gasoline consumption by 20% in 10 years include more specific and ambitious new goals than in previous White House statements, but they also appear to rely on assumptions about energy markets, politics and technology that some experts say are debatable, and include some apparent contradictions.
Global environment fund gives money to dirty fuel
The world's biggest fund for environmental projects is investing for the first time in a non-renewable, polluting fuel -- coal -- in what it says is a new pragmatic approach to the energy needs of the developing world.
In West Africa the biggest new cause of deforestation in many regions is to grow biofuel. The land rush to establish biofuel plantations in developing nations is one of the most intense the world has ever seen. Literally millions of square miles could be turned into biofuel plantations in the tropics, and the impact this will have on global rainfall and global temperatures is incalculable - it is surely comparable to anything caused by anthropogenic CO2.
Minister wants debate on biofuel ethics
The rapid global expansion in biofuel production from agricultural feedstocks means that the world will soon need to start debating the ethics of burning food crops, according to Swedish farm minister Eskil Erlandsson.
Australia should lead the energy revolution
Australia is at the forefront of the devastating impact of climate change and must undergo an energy revolution to survive, says Australian scientist and author Tim Flannery.
New energy bill could put steam in geothermal plans
In northern Nevada, the hard work of pulling scalding water from 4,000 feet below ground and turning it into power for Las Vegas could become a little easier with the help of a new energy bill in Congress.
The heroes and villains of fuel economy: ForbesAutos.com details the most, least fuel-efficient vehicles
Vinod Khosla's Marshall Plan for rural India
The daily drumbeat of biofuel headlines has made Vinod Khosla -- co-founder of Sun Microsystems, former Kleiner-Perkins venture capitalist, and ethanol evangelist/entrepreneur extraordinaire -- a hard man to ignore of late. But Khosla's massive bet on renewable energy as the answer to climate change and peak oil (and big profits) may not even be his most ambitious scheme to remake the world. In 2002, Khosla co-wrote a paper with development economist Atanu Dey sketching out a plan to boost economic growth in rural India. It's hard to think bigger than a bid to upgrade the living standards of some 700 million people -- as the paper notes, one out of 10 people on this planet is a rural Indian.
If Tesco and Wal-Mart are friends of the earth, are there any enemies left?
The superstores compete to convince us they are greener than their rivals, but they are locked into unsustainable growth.
Oil chief emerges with climate warning
FORMER fossil fuel mogul John Schubert says the nation has reached a "tipping point" on climate change, with overwhelming public acceptance of the problem making it impossible for business and government to ignore it any longer.
There is an assumption made here that we have never fully defended, but simply taken for granted, and I have noted it in some of the criticism we've recently recieved, so it's high time to address the topic in a straight-forward fashion. The assumption is: Political power is a type of complexity, and thus it is a function of energy.
Automakers cool to Bush plans to cut gas consumption
...Bush has also called for a five percent improvement in overall fuel economy, a move that could require heavy investments in research and development and threaten popular but gasoline-guzzling vehicles like General Motor's Hummer.
Biggest threat to drinking water? Rust
More than 170,000 public water systems are at work to keep tap water flowing into American homes and meeting the standards of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974.But after the extensive purifying process, water ends up in your glass after traveling through pipes laid under city streets 50, 60 or 100 years ago.
Internal Rifts Cloud Democrats' Opportunity on Warming
The House Democrats had not quite finished their "100 hours" agenda when they met in the Capitol basement Thursday morning, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) was already looking ahead. As her colleagues ate bagels and turkey sausage, she warned that their next challenge would be a lot tougher than popular issues such as student loans and ethics reforms. For her next act, she planned to take on global warming.
Bush focus on oil imports marks failure on climate, say greens
"He remains delusional," was the view of Greenpeace's Steve Sawyer after Bush called for production of domestic oil and crop-made ethanol fuel to be ramped up to ease US dependence on energy imports.
Washington's sudden climate change
Proposals to cut greenhouse gases are flying around Washington like confetti in a hurricane, with President Bush tossing out his ideas in Tuesday night's State of the Union message. What's needed in this debate is full disclosure on the difficulty of the task.
Tokyo climate change meeting eyes post-Kyoto rules
Senior officials from advanced and developing countries met in Tokyo on Wednesday to start work on a follow-up agreement to the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.
Ethanol Production Booming on Demand
The energy agenda in Washington has been long dominated by oil interests, but in a reversal of political fortunes, these days it is Big Oil fighting to preserve its tax incentives and the ethanol industry that is adding new ones.
Suppose we reach the administration's ultimate target of 60 billion gallons in 2030. That would offset less than half of the projected increase in annual oil use. Here's why. First, it's necessary to convert the 60 billion gallons into barrels. Because there are 42 gallons in a barrel, that means dividing by 42. Further: Ethanol has only about two-thirds of the energy value of an equal volume of gasoline. When you do all the arithmetic, 60 billion gallons of ethanol displace just under 1 billion barrels of gasoline. If that merely offsets increases in oil use, it won't cut existing import dependence or greenhouse gases.
Lack of Budget Could Hurt Nuclear Energy Revival, Official Says
Blair accused of nuclear waste 'cover-up'
Scientists claim committee's conclusions were manipulated for political gain.
Are Saudis waging an oil-price war on Iran?: Falling fuel costs probably not a coincidence, oil traders say
Oil traders and others believe that the Saudi decision to let the price of oil tumble has more to do with Iran than economics.Their belief has been reinforced in recent days as the Saudi oil minister has steadfastly refused calls for a special meeting of OPEC and announced that the nation is going to increase its production, which will send the price down even farther.
Oil surges on U.S. plan to boost emergency stockpile
Oil jumped over 4 percent to $55 a barrel on Tuesday as the United States announced plans to build up its emergency crude reserves and as colder weather pushed up demand in the world's top consumer.
Efforts to lower Hawaii gas prices snarl
More than eight months after Hawaii suspended its first-in-the-nation cap on gas prices, the latest attempt to lower motorists' bills is stuck in neutral.
The weekly trip to your local gas station may be costing you more than you think. In fact, so-called "hot gas" is costing consumers like you and I billions of dollars every year. Is this just an oversight, or a scheme devised by gas stations to milk consumers of more money?
Belarus to demand Russia pay rent for land under gas, oil pipes
Belarus will demand that Russia pay rent for land under pipelines that it uses to pump its oil and gas to Europe, the country's president said at a government meeting Tuesday.The ex-Soviet state tried to instate a transit levy on Russian oil passing through its territory at the beginning of the year, in retaliation for new charges imposed by Moscow, but relented after Russia halted crude supplies.
Alexander Lukashenko said, "Without fuss or ambitions, we will take corresponding measures in line with international law, and will demand that they pay us."
EU gets cold feet on capping car emissions
A Commission proposal on reducing cars' carbon-dioxide releases has been delayed because commissioners are unable to agree on whether targets should be binding for manufacturers.
Industry leaders and lawmakers are collaborating to curb emissions. Is the logjam over global warming finally starting to break?
Automakers highlight fuel-efficient cars
Automakers highlighted their work to develop clean and fuel-efficient technologies at the Washington Auto Show on Tuesday, hours before President Bush outlined an energy agenda that could shape the industry's future.
Berlin told it faces triple threat if nuclear energy phase-out continues
Germany will miss its CO2 emission targets, face rising electricity prices and become "dramatically" more reliant on Russian gas if it keeps to its policy of phasing out nuclear energy, a new study warns.
Devon Energy to Exit West Africa
"The significant growth opportunities we have developed onshore in North America and in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico are providing compelling rationale for redeploying our financial and intellectual capital in these areas," commented Devon's president, John Richels. "As a result of the West African divestitures, we will sharpen our focus in North America. At the same time we will be concentrating our international operations in Brazil and China, where we have established competitive advantages."
Indonesian mud volcano caused by drilling, say scientists
A mud volcano that has erupted in Indonesia, forcing the evacuation of thousands of villagers, was most probably caused by drilling for gas, according to the first published scientific study into the phenomenon.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
OT - David Matthews
A couple of days ago I posted that I would no longer read any of his posts. Judging by the responses I read recently, it was a wise decision.
I would skim some "low value" posters in the past, but refusing to read is a unique honor I reserved for Mr. Matthews.
However, even reading responses to his posts is tiresome. May I respectfully recommend this strategy to other valued posters (almost all of you).
Best Hopes,
Alan
My request for Super G is to add an "Ignore" flag that a reader could select for a given poster. Any comment by that poster (or reply thereto by others) would be omitted from display for a user who chooses to ignore said poster. This would achieve Alan's goal but also cut down on the clutter.
I second that motion. TOD has taken a decided turn for the worse the last couple of months. Three very rude and prolific posters are dominating the DrumBeat. We need either more aggressive moderation (banning) or an ignore button.
Personally, I would prefer banning of abusive posters. The bad manners of a few, if tolerated, can become contagious.
TOD's Drupal software has a built-in comment rating system that could easily be enabled. Sites such as Slashdot and DailyKos have used comment rating for years and it has helped keep the trolls from dominating the discourse.
Having a dissenting opinion is not being 'rude'. When people learn the difference, they might add such a function.
I think David Mathews is both new to this, so going through the mental furniture-rearranging that one goes through upon learning about Peak OIl, and sensing the consistant channel of thought on here - unintentional - of, "How Do We Keep The Party Going?"
Now, I say unintentional because I think on an intellectual level most of us understand that easy motoring is not going to keep going indefinately, no matter what kind of weird fuel we come up with, the Earth can't take it. But, the idea of going back to a non-easy-motoring lifestyle frankly scares the holy crap out of modern people. I've lived very very low on the socioeconomic chain, little or no electricity, very few calories, etc., and I still think it's a daunting thought. Especially since my family's poverty was against a backdrop of a society where The Machine was taking care of most of them fine, and at the very least we got to live on the crumbs from the richer ppl's tables. What about a society where everyone's poor in the conventional sense? Most ppl younger than say 40 have never been really hungry, never walked miles daily as a simple process of getting from Point A to Point B, never fished for sustenance or sewed up their clothes to remain decent. The idea of doing so, at a very deep level, scares the hole bejesus out of them. Add to that the brainwashing, and it is deep, that if one does not have a connection to the Internet and lots of electrical stuff in general, one is suffering deeply.
So there's a deep channel of thought here, of trying to think up ways to keep the party going. Even though anyone who thinks about it knows the party's not going to keep going.
This does not mean TOD is in the pocket of the oil co's. I find it really neat that we have so many petroleum industry ppl here, so many hard-science types, it really says something that Peak Oil has been defined and is promulgated by the very people whose livlihood has been milking the oil teat. They know what they're talking about.
TOD is not an oil co. front, the vast majority of ppl here are not oil. co shills, and at least at the conscious level, none of us want the impossible, earth-killing oil party to keep going. It just seems like that at times, especially to a new person.
My suggestion to Matthews is to just sit back, relax, and read here for a while, let the pieces settle into place, learning about Peak Oil is pretty overwhelming at first, things are not going to change much over the next 6 months or a year, and just sit back and soak up the info.
I'm sorry, but I must respectfully disagree with you on this. The problem with many people on TOD is that they have a set of preconcieved notions. Whether this was instilled in them via outside influences or listening to someones 'rant', most people hear bad news and witness some supporting evidence and automatically assume the worse.
The search stops there.
On Peak Oil, if they look a little closer and maintain an open mind, they can easily spot hundreds of potential solutions to this liquid fuel crisis. Just because the future doesn't include FFs doesn't mean that in some ways it wont be remarkably similar to today.
Hothgar, solutions on paper are nice, but you do not consider the complexity and limitations to each potential solution and of all current potential solutions combined (silver bbs) given that TimezUP.
And considering our "dear leaderz" are not up to the task of actually getting started on the problem let alone recognizing it (consider our clueless senator's and the silly babysteps proposed by the politically impotent, typical Politician we call a president).
"Just because the future doesn't include FFs doesn't mean that in some ways it wont be remarkably similar to today."
The "future" world will be remarkably similar to today's world in many ways... what is going to change very dramatically is the Ratio between populations living similar to today's First Worlders vs those living similar to today's Third World (including and especially the somalias etc).
Hope you find a "good pocket" to live. No such thing as "safe" - only "safer" (except when playing tag of course).
Oh please. From the way you act, you have already given up, and without even trying. What if someone had a design for some magical fusion device on paper. Would you still dismiss it outright? For reference, we do have a source of power 'on paper' that can satisfy all our energy needs: they're sometimes called 'wind', 'solar', 'hydro', 'geothermal', 'nuclear', 'electrification', 'biofuels', 'conservation'.
But clearly, they are so complex and have such high limitations that we shouldn't even try! Better go get in that drivers seat of your SUV!
I hear its about to take a trip to the nearest mall...
Hothgar, you ask if I would dismiss a "magical fusion device on paper" ?? It depends - How much energy do you get from this magical device while it is still "on paper" ? When would you get it off paper and into REALITY and at what cost and using what resources and would it be available for service before declining oil production begins killing the world economy???
You can imagine or project whatever you want but then you have to deal with reality of actually producing and deploying the system. As long as you stay "on paper" virtually anything might seem possible - "infinite possibilities" without considering probabilities or limitations posed by reality. We need realistic solutions now, not imaginary solutions on paper to hope for someday, and to waste time and energy on in futile pursuit in the present.
As for the simplistic view on wind, solar, hydro (and what energy source is 'electrifiction" ??) etc, - as I said above, you ignore the limitations of each and the complexity of the system you are trying to service (world energy needs). Each will contribute and play a role to some extent but they will not run this civilization as it's structured now.
And playing with imaginary hype with imaginary numbers "on paper" is not "trying." It's intellectual masterbation to relieve your anxiety over reality.
Hello fleam,
I do believe in Peak Oil, fleam. There is no dispute between myself and the Peak Oil concept. I am also in favor of Peak Oil, too. Humankind doesn't suffer from too little energy, but rather from too much. Humans have modified the Earth in terrible ways and created a mess. There is also a problem of overpopulation, poverty, extreme injustice, exploitation, violence and perpetual warfare on the Earth.
All of these behaviors indicate that Homo sapiens is a self-destructive anti-natural suicidally-inclined animal. In other words: Human nature is the primary problem afflicting the Earth. And ... Peak Oil is a blessing, the real sin is humankind's addiction to oil and all of the other fossil fuels.
I am in favor of ending the oil, electricity, fossil fuel, and technological age. Humankind has already done enough harm, humankind has already done too much harm. Under these circumstances the best choice for the species is for humans to just stop. This generation should make whatever sacrifices are necessary to protect the future health & well-being of humans a century, a millennia from now.
In other words: The American Way of Life, (and all technology and industry), must end. And it will end, too. Whatever we do not voluntarily sacrifice Nature will take away from us in the most harsh and painful manner possible. Humankind's extinction is approching with each passing day, we need to live within the context of the knowledge that all these things are passing away.
The Oil Drum seems involved in a perpetual lobbying effort on behalf of the oil industry. The prominent voices of the Peak Oil effort have explicitly lobbied on behalf of the oil industry. There are far too many people here who have their careers, income, wealth, investments and retirement tied up in the success of the oil industry.
In other words: The Oil Drum is not an objective source regarding Peak Oil, the oil industry, environmentalism or geopolitics.
There is plenty of useful and relevant and technically precise information at The Oil Drum. But the price of all this good information is a perpetual lobbying and public relations effort on behalf of the oil industry.
And one more thing: Matthew Simmons is no hero. He is a lobbyist for the oil industry. He is not beyond using fear to provoke the general public into sacrificing ANWR and the Gulf Coast on behalf of the oil industry.
Environmentalists should keep these facts in mind when seeking to respond to the Peak Oil problem. The primary oil-industry proponents of Peak Oil are all explicitly anti-environmental and pro-pollution. They are also pro-consumerism and extremely nationalistic (in the worst possible way). They are often pro-militaristic and they do not particularly care how many impoverished people are killed in the process of seizing and exploiting the natural resources of other nations.
In other words: The Peak Oil movement behaves very much like an enemy of environmentalism.
I wish it were not so.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Hello Alan,
It's alright, it's ok. If Alan doesn't want to read my posts that is fine with me. All that I care about is that he keeps on thinking about me. My name in on his mind, his thoughts are a unsettled, maybe he's a little angry, and certainly he has heard some things that he really didn't want to hear.
Such is life.
I'd feel terrible for anyone who actually did read every post on a blog such as The Oil Drum. There's got to be more to life than this.
I don't read every post nor do I read every poster. For example, Westexas original presentation of his ExportLand model was enough to convince me. The argument on behalf of Exportland are imminently reasonable. But after I have read one presentation of that model I could safely ignore every new post from Westexas which was repeatedly presenting the same model.
Here is another example, Robert Rapier and Westexas happen to get into the same argument virtually every day. The first time that they engaged in their argument, Robert Rapier's viewpoint was successful. I agreed with his argument and believe that it is still valid. But since that time these two people have engaged in the very same argument dozens of times and -- it is worth noting -- Robert Rapier has won each and every time. So I can safely ignore the arguments that they engage in because I already know the subject matter, the two viewpoints, and who will win.
Then there are a whole set of posters who seem to exist and also seem to not really exist at the same time. These phantom individuals also have a habit of engaging in the same arguments about the same subjects every day. There must be a set of three or six arguments which people at The Oil Drum argue about every day. These phantoms serve to provoke the argument and sometimes what they say have merit and other times they appear to engage in arguments simply out of boredom or fun.
Finally, there are a set of anonymous posters who apparently use The Oil Drum's forum as a means of venting their most obscene, perverse, offensive or otherwise passive-aggressive thoughts. In some cases these individuals seem to possess more than one identity and some have said as much.
So, Alan, if you are spending your time reading all of these posters instead of my own, suit yourself. It is your life and your time. I really don't particularly care what you do or do not do.
But it is evident that plenty of people have listened to what I have said and that people do remember my comments from long ago & far away.
There's more to life than oil, automobiles, consumerism and nationalism. That much is certain. There's more to life than yesterday, today, and tomorrow, too. The Universe is very large and very ancient, Homo sapiens are a transient phenomenon of the present moment. A tregedy is unfolding upon the Earth but in the long run everything will turn out fine because Nature still remains in control over life's destiny. Humans dream of immortality but Nature actually possesses eternity. So much for humankind.
Klaatu barada nikto!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaatu_barada_nikto
Yet there are no menacing aliens threatening to destroy the Earth, nor ever were. There is only one animal which is busy destroying the Earth and exterminating all of the life on this planet: Homo sapiens.
Too bad for the Earth. Humankind is the violent monster that consumes everything and leaves a desolate lifeless planet in its wake.
Has oil made you wealthy, Westexas? Look at the mess which your wealth has generated. Should future generations thank you for hell that they will inherit?
As a reply to the issue of disruption I am posting here what I posted on the Drumbeat of the 23rd but was at the absolute bottom and the thread had grown stale and dated.
It was a reply to Seadragon on the same subject.
**********************************************************************
Seadragon,
You can only successfully ban someone who plays by some standard of fair play and rules. Its obvious that a disrupter or poser(one who assumes others identities) is not going to play fair. They just come back with another ID and continue on. Sometimes they assume many IDs, each backing up the others.
If the owners of a site choose not to invoke moderation, as is their right, then its usually up to the membership to use peer pressure to deny the disrupter the usage of the site. This can work since the disrupter has essentially lost his audience.
If something is not done eventually the website is destroyed and most worthy folks will have left in disgust.
Sometimes fighting fire with fire works and sometimes other means works, like ignoring the disrupter. Eventually they move on. If they don't they tend to attract others of their kind.
Any successful website will find itself subject to this kind of activity since it affords them a ready audience. Soon enough their agenda is recognized even by the most lenient of members. Members who say that they(the disrupters) have the RIGHT to express themselves only gives them then the opportunity to foist their rather obvious views on the others or else make ridiculous debates and destroy decent dialogue by the other members. Whole threads are hi-jacked just so the disrupter can cause dissension and create angst thereby satisfying his desires. He feels important then and might bring in other cronies by feeling successful at his tactics.
Threads should stay on topic but name calling and disruption is their game. Sarcasm reigns supreme. The content is lost and in disarray.
I realize Drumbeat is different. I assume it was set up so members could express themselves. If its worth having then its worth fighting to keep. And to keep civil and within bounds , by the members if no one else.
Moderation is very time consuming. Its very contentious. It does not always work. It can drive good members away. Sometimes a disruptive poster will respond and clean up his act. I myself have many times wandered far afield and had to be reminded to not do so.
The owners of the site have the ultimate authority. Sometimes thay can direct the way the site is operated without ironclad rules. Ultimately the quality of the membership is what makes the difference. Once it starts downhill though its hard to stop or control.
I have created many websites for communications purposes. I no longer do that. The payback was finally not worth the effort. Even watching and tracking the Apache logs became tiresome. Having paid the costs in both time and money I finally had to close the site/s. Many with large numbers of members.
There was some talk on yesterday's open thread about how to introduce others, in their ignorance and dubiousness, to the concept of Peak Oil, and to impress upon them its seriousness. It seems to me, based on my experience, that at a certain point it becomes necessary to throw up one's hands and quit trying, as the endeavor tends to produce far more frustration than success. The only remedy is to sit back quietly and be proven correct over time by the unfolding of events.
My greatest success in introducing others to the Peak Oil concept has been through what I call a tangential approach. For example, when I'm teaching sailing (which is what I do a lot of in the summers) the topic of the excellence of sailing as an activity that does not burn gasoline comes up, and from there it is easy to make the transition to Peak Oil--or abrupt climate change.
I always conclude with the humorous/serious observation that to save the world we should sail more and introduce others to sailing.
Note that if Peak Oil is presented as doom and gloom, it is a hard sell: "Give up any thought of happiness in your life!" No, I think that emphasis on sailing and certain indoor aerobic activities is a much better approach to getting people to think and act constructively.
"There was some talk on yesterday's open thread about how to introduce others, in their ignorance and dubiousness, to the concept of Peak Oil, and to impress upon them its seriousness. It seems to me, based on my experience, that at a certain point it becomes necessary to throw up one's hands and quit trying, as the endeavor tends to produce far more frustration than success. The only remedy is to sit back quietly and be proven correct over time by the unfolding of events.
This is something I've noted before and believe to be true, though I don't have any proof to offer: When you talk about peak oil (anything, really), though the person may not "get it" while you're talking to them about it (or even worse just dismiss you offhand), what you say appears to be taken into the brain anyway and stowed away for a later time such that when the things that you've talked about start to come up, that information is still lurking there and the response time is going to be much faster than if their brain had not been keeping that knowledge simmering around on some mental back burner.
What you say gives me hope. I teach CIS in a community college and part of the curriculum in all my classes is to introduce Peak Oil, as being aware of energy availability issues is essential for any educated professional or manager. When discussing the subject, I'm aware that there is a lot of wisdom available in the world's religions for communicating a truth that others are unable to hear:
Buddhism speaks of detachment--doing without doing.
Hinduism has the Bhagavad Gita, where Krishna teaches how to act without expecting a result.
Christianity teaches to give without letting the other hand know what you're doing, so you expect nothing in return.
My spirit completely agrees with PhilRelig who suggests we, "sit back quietly and be proven correct..." Professionally and ethically, though, I continue the effort although there is little to show for it--if I've done my job right, at some point when they need the information, they may have a fragmented memory that will be helpful. When I think about effective teachers, I am reminded that I learned most from "who they were" than what they "said."
The best way to talk to the semi-uninitiated about peak oil is to speak with brief kernels of wisdom that make them think. I spoke with some guys who were replacing my AC a few months ago. We talked around the subject, but not directly to it. More people know the score than you might imagine.
I understand and can relate to phil's frustration. I agree with you, don and substrate - keep it brief, avoid the "scary stuff" and just hope you plant the seed of thought. Then let people ask questions if and when they have interest.
Understanding "peak oil" and how it will affect our world takes a lot of time and mental/emotional energy for most people. And everyone has to work through the "stages of grief" in their own time.
Hi P, Don and others,
Well, I have had many talks with people from the "semi-uninitiated" to the full-on (initiated as well as full-on "un-" - and beyond) - and I thought I had it down. After a recent email exchange though, I received the following. I'd welcome suggestions for a reply and comments: (please, no expletives):
Here goes:
"Let me re-phrase my
question, and I'd appreciate a concise answer:
Every hour, 4 x 10^14 Joules of solar energy strikes the earth.
Every year, the world's population consumes 3 x 10^14 Joules of energy.
Given that more energy strikes the earth in an hour than mankind uses in
a year, why do you believe that humanity will not be able to solve the
energy problems caused by decreasing petroleum supply through
innovation?"
(did you email "infinite improbability overdrive" ???).
Ask him how many of those joules of solar energy he thinks we can capture starting now and the time it will take to capture enough to offset the energy loss with declining world oil production.
Ask him What cost in energy and materials to build and deploy the infrastructure made for the capture, storage and distribution of that energy (include the electrical grid updates necessary).
Be sure to include all the cost of all resources and energy used for production and placement of all parts of that infrastructure, as well as resources and time consumed for construction of production facilities, transportation support, etc.
Assume Peak is Now. And consider the world at competition for the resources to build and maintain said infrastructure while oil production is declining. But for the fun of it, also Assume peace on earth and good will toward man-thingy throughout the buildout phase. Even assume no effect on the rest of the world's economy that relies on and competes for the same resources and energy.
Ask hime what the percentage increase was for silcon last year.
Tell him to quite making childishly naive assumptions off of back of mental napkins.
It depends on what you mean by "solve." Life is always a tangle of problems, with folks fighting and starving and suffering and dying. This has been the nature of reality for longer than anyone can know. However many problems we "solve," we really just trade one bunch of problems for another. Whether the new set is preferable to the old set, that might depend on the perspective.
Biology, the web of life on earth, has evolved over billions of years to harvest the energy of the sun. We've done a great job of figuring out how to extract the energy stored away by that process. But to harvest the flow more effectively, that is a monster challenge.
I suspect it is a reductionist way of thinking that gives some people a very high confidence in our capability to control the world. We have split atoms and nuclei practically down to the quarks. What mysteries could possibly remain?
But in fact, systems can often behave in ways for which an understanding of the components is not very helpful. Computers are a nice example. You can build a computer out of simple logic gates. But the behavior of the computer can be exceedingly difficult to predict. Living systems are even more complex. That Biosphere project in Texas was a notable failure. They tried to build a moderate sized system that could be almost completely closed except for sunlight coming in, a system that could sustain human life. The experiment didn't last very long!
The arguement that plenty of energy lands on the earth is about as silly as the argument that overpopulation is not a problem because all the people on earth could comfortably fit in the state of Texas. It's true, if we could pave the planet with photovoltaic panels, we could generate enough electricity to supply energy to keep everyone decently comfortable. Some problems: 1) how to manufacture so many photovoltaic panels, 2) paving the planet with photovoltaics might cause lots of wierd other problems, like killing all the life.
The thing is, humanity is a very complex system! Even if a solution is possible, that is no guarantee at all that folks will use it. After all, if you think about it, war is completely unnecessary. Think about all the suffering caused by war! If people were really so capable of solving problems, why can't we just stop killing each other? But the fact is, we are suffering from a kind of collective insanity. We behave in a non-optimal fashion!
So why won't it be easy to solve the energy problem with solar energy?
1) the technical problem: it isn't clear how we could ramp up any technology to a global scale without creating global scale havoc, e.g. pollution from the all the silicon factories etc.
2) the political problem: even if the technical problem could be solved, somehow there needs to be a deployment strategy so that people somehow just find it in their own best interest to make the necessary investments and arrange their lives to make the solution happen. Just who could possibly do what to steer the inconceivably complex system of humanity to behave as dictated by the solution... seems a harder problem to solve that the technical problem!
I am no fatalist! I think that what we do really matters, that the kind of world we will experience in the future depends crucially on our present actions. I have great confidence that people will continue to innovate in remarkably creative ways. The basic parameters of life will continue in the future just as they have throughout the past... people will grow food, reproduce, educate children, get sick, and die. We'll keep trading old problems for new.
Whether folks will keep travelling across half the globe for vacations, or wear t-shirts indoors and eat fresh strawberries when it's sub-zero outside, that I have my doubts about! If you look at the range of cultures around the world throughout history, it is very extraordinary how much energy we consume in the USA! The general way of things is reversion to the mean. "This time is different" are the quintessential famous last words.
One concise answer would be "Time and resources". The current pace of technological innovation, which is incredible, has been possible because of the cheap and easy access to oil allowing far more specialists, construction of specialised materials etc. Assuming we have, at most, twenty years of that left do we have the time, or the willpower, to increase factors of efficiency in solar panels to the required levels.
Another would be to dispute the energy usage mentioned. 3x10^14J sounds like it doesn't include energy used in creating life itself, warming the planet and the other uses the world puts solar energy to without our intervention.
I would answer with a(some) simple question(s).
If so much energy strikes the earth every day, why is the world's transportation infrastructure built around energy from other sources? Why did we begin using fossil fuels in the first place? What advantages did they bring (to those already bathed in this orgy of energy)?
If your mark does not understand the advantages that fossil fuel brought, and why it brought it (to those already bathed in this orgy of energy), how can they expect to understand the issues about replacing it?
If the mark considers these questions, there maybe some progress.
Alternatively, you may consider the story about the gold in the ocean. Apparently, there is enough gold suspended in the world's seawater to give 9 pounds to every person on the planet. Surely this is a solution to world poverty? Or perhaps not.
This is perhaps useful transition into the topic of resource density, depending upon the person involved.
I would start by saying that the question is an excellent and insightful question. Then I would turn the question around and ask
"Given that more energy strikes the earth in an hour than mankind uses in a year, why do you think that humanity has been unable to solve the energy (and geopolitical) problems caused by decreasing petroleum supply given that the scientific knowledge of how to convert sunlight into power has been known for over 100 years now? What makes you think that our slowness in adopting solar power will change fast enough going forward?"
Hi Sendoil, JimK, Andy, Dot and GoingGreen,
Thanks for the validation, smiles (my own) and suggestions. (My correspondent is a recent grad of an Ivy League school, in case this helps set the stage.) I appreciate your support and I'll keep you posted as the conversation (hopefully) progresses. (Perhaps at some point, I can pass along some of your comments.)
And yes, I'd actually started a previous exchange by saying his question was excellent -(it was a slightly different question at that point.)
Aniya,
First I'd do a little research of my own on solar (and wind), rather than peppering the poor person with a lot of open ended questions. Please see my post in a later article. The truth is that renewables are perfectly adequate, and most people who are really "devotees" of PO know very little about them.
2nd, let me answer your question a little bit.
Solar comes in many forms. We use it for 98% of our heating and take it for granted (the outside temperature would be several hundred degrees below zero without it) and it's not that hard to design homes that reduce that final 2% to .2%. Solar thermal is perfectly good for water heating, and used that way by millions around the world. It's just a little more complicated than a nat gas water heater, and a tiny bit less convenient, that's all. Electrical generation using concentrating solar thermal is only a little more expensive than fossil fuels.
PV has been around for 150 years, but it has been steadily improving the whole time. Now, it's still somewhat more expensive than fossil fuels. Still, it's doubling in size every 2 years, and is a $10B industry.
It is certain that PV will continue to fall in cost. Lately it's price has plateaued due to demand increasing even faster than supply, but costs have continued to fall. Improvements are certain in both cell and installation costs.
In the US the roof area for residential buildings alone would be enough to provide 100% of our current electrical demand.
Those who question the above simply don't know the industry. I would ask them to provide at least a little evidence for their skepticism, rather than simply accept their skeptical questions.
Saudi Arabia is letting the price tumble play havoc with Iran's oil export revenues. The U.S. is pressuring banks hard to prevent any new investment in Iran's oil production. What outcome to they expect from this? Do they think Iran is just going to roll over with that Sunni/Shia conflict going on next door?
Has it occurred to anyone setting policy that this guy
isn't going anywhere? What do nations do when they are pushed into a corner? Usually, hard-liners become more powerful. Nations under attack tend to rally 'round the flag, not simply quietly capitulate. Iran is a proud country with a long history. Yes, it's true that this guy
is being hung out to dry by the Supreme Leader. That must mean they have something else in mind. Ahmadinejad has used the nuclear issue to prop up his popularity — but this is a non-starter, as the real leaders of the Islamic Republic know. If Iran's 2.5 mbd exports are steadily eroded, how are these shortfalls in the supply going to be made up? Saudi Light? Pleeeeese. I don't think so. The way to influence Iran is to offer a carrot, not shake a stick. Cooperation, not confrontation. The main importers of Iranian oil are the EU, Japan and China. China could care less about Western pressures on Iran. They want the oil and the natural gas — follow the link. From the Japan link —
I'll bet Japan is feeling very reassured right now. Japan just got hosed and had to pull out of the Azedegan development they were counting on in the future. Now, these Saudis are telling them everything's going to be just fine. Right.This whole game of chicken becomes more dangerous everyday. These people are messing around with the world's oil supply. They are screwing, dear reader, with you. This is appalling.
The US bled Iraq to economic death in 10 years. When they invaded in 2003, there was no resistance to speak of (which makes today's situation of widespread domestic violence all the more remarkable). There were lots of hungry people though, which could be blamed on Saddam.
It will take less than 10 years to do the same to Iran, because that country is in a much more desperate economic and social conundrum than Iraq was in the early 1990's.
But the key is probably Iraq, the only country in the region, and perhaps on the planet, that may still have large untouched oil reserves. No doubt Iran would like to get its hands on those reserves. But no doubt either that KSA would like the same. Both face dwindling reserves at home.
The US is in Iraq already, and will fight to a bitter end, if need be, to stay, because of those same reserves. And while we won't leave, a helping hand is welcome. KSA not only has lots of money and power, it is also armed to the teeth.
A deal between two old time allies, the House of Saud and the Houston oil interests, may look to both like a gift from heaven.
Just first get Iran down on its knees. There are religious benefits to that for the Saudi's as well, of course.
If Iran responds to the strangulation tactics by lashing out, they offer the perfect reason for an invasion. Either way, we win.
You are forgetting that Iran has some 12% of the world NG reserves. And these are almost untouched. The US administration is not stupid - they know the game and it is both for oil & gas. And if the initial battle is for oil, the final one will be for NG (remember, this is a battle that is going to be led through our whole lifetime - that's what they said and I'm certain they mean it).
The thing about NG is that it requires more infrastructure to be brought to market than oil (pipelines, LNG plants etc.). By drying up its financing and cutting off its neighbours US is effectively suffocating any NG developments. When Iran is "freed" (one way or the other), this is what is going to be the prize for the "liberators".
No I'm not. Why would you say that?
Sorry, bad interpretation of that part:
"But the key is probably Iraq, the only country in the region, and perhaps on the planet, that may still have large untouched oil reserves."
Looked like you downgraded Iran's position as a future energy supplier. With NG being the next thing on the agenda maybe there was a reason why Bush started with Iraq and left Iran for dessert.
1/ Oil is still the bigger prize. Ask the military.
2/ Iraq had been rendered defenseless, Iran has not.
3/ Iraq is much smaller and easier to control.
Are you sure Iraq is defenseless? It seems the Iraqis are doing a good job of frustrating the occupiers, and that includes killing them.
As I said somewhere above (do you read?)
"When they invaded in 2003, there was no resistance to speak of (which makes today's situation of widespread domestic violence all the more remarkable)"
Excellent MSNBC article and insightful commentaries by HeIsSoFly, Levin K, and Dave Cohen.
Given that many astute analysts believe an oil-price-war strategy was the proximate cause of Soviet Union's collapse, this attempt to use economic strangulation to control Iran seems to be in keeping with the Empire's modus operandi.
I am a bit surprised that few people seem to realize the so-called war in Iraq was won by "economic strangulation". (The Soviet Union is a much less certain and more complicated case)
It all looks different now, but in 2003 US soldiers felt pretty stupid sitting in their tanks facing only 80 year-old gardeners and baby-sitting laundry women.
And one day we will all of us hopefully wonder where all the guns and bombs have come from since then.
But this line of thinking goes directly against what Robert and others have said about pricing of crude and gasoline. If this is true, then there is definitely collusion going on by multiple companies/countries to coordinate such a drop in prices.
If this is true, then the appearance of crude on a "free & open" market is a bunch of BS.
If this is true, crude prices ARE NOT an accurate indicator of supply and demand, and therefore, peak oil.
Robert has argued that the Major Oil Companies don't have the power to set prices. He hasn't addressed Saudia Arabia, which up until the recent shortage has been universally perceived as having overwhelming pricing power.
If SA can increase supply above demand, prices will go down.
Your first sentence is correct, but I have discussed Saudi. They are a big enough producer that they can have a major influence on world prices. Any very large state oil company, and especially an even larger group like OPEC, can have a major influence on prices. The reason U.S. companies can't control prices is that even the largest company, ExxonMobil, only controls 3% of the world's oil supply. As long as there is a bit of excess capacity, they can't do much to affect prices.
Yeah, "He hasn't addressed Saudia Arabia" would have been better phrased as "He wasn't talking about Saudia Arabia".....
Dragonfly41 said, "If this is true, crude prices ARE NOT an accurate indicator of supply and demand, and therefore, peak oil."
Why thank you. This is a discussion we have had here, and I have made the contention many times, and will continue to defend it, that:
1. Crude oil prices have ALMOST nothing to do with supply and demand.
2. Economic activity has very little to do with crude oil prices and supply.
3. I do not use the word "collusion", but there is certainly a GREAT DEAL of what can be called "enlightened self interest" going between ALL oil and gas producers, be they private companies or nationally controlled oil producers such as Aramco.
4. Due to the above, almost all conjecture on the real state of oil/gas supply is no more than conjecture, and at an individual or company level, one is as likely to financially wiped out by sudden gluts, overflooding of the market with oil and price crashes as they are by shortages, energy price spikes, and energy shortages. The risk from one is equally as great as the other, and can be equally as damaging.
Conclusion: The greatest danger at the individual level, and the small organization level (be that a company, a city government, a church, a non profit organization or a local retail store) is the absolute blindness in regards to energy that they are now forced to do business in. This, more than fear of "peak" per se, which can be planned for and mitigated againts, is crippling to the ability to make decisions, plan and invest.
Remember, we are one cubic mile from freedom. (my new tag line, those who read TOD will know why....:-)
RC
There is ample evidence to the contrary.
sorry, heis, i just cant see where the iraq quagmire has been all that successful and i dont see where iran will be any more successful. now it does appear that KSA is pulling the strings in iraq (until 2009 at least), bush is overplaying his hand again, is it really in the u. s.'s interest to take iranian oil off the market (it may be in ksa's interest)
Iran is also the only country in the region that has never invaded anyone throughout its whole history. And the Iranians that I know are very smart people - I really don't see them falling into the trap of retaliating.
I think all they will do is sit and wait, no matter who gets in power in Iran. They will continue supporting the Shiites in Iraq, but will refrain from any direct envolvement. IMO Iran knows perfectly well about Peak Oil and knows that time is on their side. When oil gets truly scarce, US will not be able to counter China's, Japan's or whoevers apetite for Iranian oil. And this point of time is not too far.
But I can not predict how they will react if they are crudely provoked - by bombing their nuclear facilities or by letting the Sunnies take over in Iraq.
For the record, there was such a thing as the Persian Empire. Nevermind.
To be clear, it is not necessary for Iran to invade Southern Iraq in order to wield great influence there once Iraq collapses after an inevitable U.S. pullout. For now, they will deal with China and hang on. Still, their oil export revenues will be diminishing over time. This outcome is now inevitable. So, internal pressures in Iran will increase.
I hope someone will remember to tell their children what the U.S. and Saudi Arabia were doing circa 2007 when explaining why it won't be possible to gas up the car at any price today because "honey, the Strait of Hormuz is closed this week".
That's why a second aircraft carrier is on its way. Three means war.
With so much ongoing Middle East turmoil it is no wonder that Bush was compelled to declare yet another state of emergency.
If you do a Google search for "aircraft carrier Iran", you will get a lot of hits — from Canada, Spain, the UK, the UAE, Iran, Pakistan, etc. and a few from the U.S.
Now, why do think that is?
From UPI Commentary: Hawks and doves over Iran by By ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE.
Reminded his guests that "European nations trade extensively with Iran". Right, I hear you, Gianfranco. Or, may I call you "Johnny"?This is the smuggling that was caught. One can speculate about the shipments that were not detected.
Might want to throw an extra carrier or two on the barbie.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/25/world/europe/25smuggling.html?hp&ex=11...
Well... of course I was assuming modern Iran which exists for 70 years now. My own country has 1,300 years of history and I don't want to be held liable for the transgressions of some khan 12 centuries ago.
Two points:
1) US will never pull out from Iraq. Not in our lifetime. Did you watch Democrats applauding Bush yesterday? Even when he announced 92,000 inrease of troops during the next 5 years? The D-R soup opera is going well so far. And some of the applauses went for the Bush's proposal for a D-R commision consisting from the leaders of the two parties. The goal of the commission? Make sure we stay there until "we win the war on terror", come hell or high water. Or assure our nervous Saudi friends in that - you pick your version. Watch the Democrats making the most spectacular spin in their history, when they get to power. They've done it many times.
2) Iran will not close the straits unless it is not already in a war with US. This is a game of Chicken Little over there and everyone knows that the first that draws out the guns loses.
Overall I expect this cold war to continue for the foreseeble future. Nothing spectacular.
Things could get much hotter:
Headline: North Korean helping Iran with nuclear testing
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/24/wiran24.xml
Nice "black propaganda." I notice how everyone has forgotten the state of US finance; we are far more vulnerable than Iran. Further, 75% of Americans are against the Cheney/Bush war, a number that will only get larger--there's no political basis to carry on the war for oil, even under new "management."
Yes, but...
1) The U.S. functions mainly as a plutocracy not a democracy.
2) If the dissenters grow too boisterous there is always martial law waiting in the wings.
3) Once the majority of Americans realize that a drastic reduction of oil imports equates with economic collapse and all that entails, then momentary panic will give way to rationalization of the Iraq occupation and U.S. foreign policy. Many will resist this view, but probably not enough to change the current momentum. On this point, I hope I am wrong and ELP or a similar strategy prevails. ;)
LevinK wrote:
I think you mean game of chicken. Chicken Little, on the other hand, is a game played with great success here on the Oil Drum. :-)
Yeah, you are right... sorry Mr. Little :)
Not to be too pedantic about it, but the name was originally Chicken Licken
well, originally - or at least way before Chicken Licken, it was a jataka tale, a buddhist children's story. : )
http://www.danielharper.org/story21.htm
Nadir Shah, the ruler of Iran, invaded Afghanistan and India in 1738/1739. Not that it has any relevance now.
Iran will not have much oil to export 10 years from now. This is due to declining production and rising domestic consumption. Considering the fact that they have nothing else to export and oil revenues constitute upto 90% of their budget today, their society is doomed.
I thought it was amazing the the article about the Saudi price war was carried by MSNBC. I could see this in a blog somewhere. In the main stream media is something else!
Saudi price war on themselves. The idea that $55 oil is going to crush Iran seems ridiculous. SA is losing much more revenue than Iran. I'm starting to believe we will see a new high this year. Possibly over $100. The economy doesn't seem to be slowing down enough to reduce consumption very much. The stock market is going up. Would it be wise to announce a major increase in the SPR if the intention was to reduce demand expectations? King Dumbo has spoken. I expect the SPR to be empty by 2027.
Humans are dumber than yeast.
Dave, wasn't it reported about 3 weeks ago that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was dead? If so, he certainly seems to have gone somewhere!
Not only is he alive and kicking, but Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Anna Nicole Smith Buy Raytheon Company.
How can we have these discussions if you don't keep current?
todays drumbeat has made me laugh 4 times. this was the fourth...;)
I think Dave is just mad that he forgot that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was dead when he made his smart comment ~_~
Funny tabloid article, btw :P
Hello Dave,
I really have to ask myself if the people in KSA have thought this out thoroughly. At first I couldn't believe that they would let the price down after having asked for cuts and trying to have us believe that they led the crowd by voluntarily cutting production and now they reverse course at 180° ?
This cannot be any other than a short term move. If any other, it would not only hurt Iran. Of course the first order reflex would be to say, lower oil prices will favor growth. But will KSA be able to provide every one with faster declining oil from every actual decliner ? If you look at the current situation, Canada is actualy the main exporter to the US. Will they continue with expensive tar sand processing if the prices tumble ? Mexico's production (and US 2nd exporter) is already declining. Will declining prices help them to slow the decline ? We can go on for a long list of countries who need higher prices to slow the decline. Will the KSA be really able to provide at least 2mb/d of excess production in the next 6 months ?
And what if the move "succeeds" and Iran does something stupid (I doubt it however) like bombing in the strait of Hormuz where there is indeed already increased military tension on the seas as I learned firsthand from some personnal present over there ? Don't forget, Putin follows this also. To how high a response will the EU be able to follow the USA before Putin shuts down whatever pipeline he wants ? This won't impact his economy a lot since the low prices would already be hurting him ...
I fear that the consequences will be much worse than having to use only their alleged 1,2 or 3 mb/d of spare capacity. Among a lot, 3 scenarios :
1 - KSA provides enough for the net importers, but still faster declining exports will hurt those who have declining production leading to widespread international tensions in all the continents, Iran goes on with nuclear program and Russia helps Iran to maintain their economy, at last, in two years oil price will increase very fast
2 - KSA will not be able to provide, so you will have the consequences in 1 plus pending shortages in the importers. This will lead to a recession led by shortages, very nasty scenario with social tensions among the importers. International outcome very uncertain but certainly ugly with an attack upon Iran
3 - Prices resume their upward trend, despite KSA's announcement, economy in the US and EU slows without a fullblown recession, Iran's rhethoric cools a bit, Israels, USA's and most of the EU's countries internal political disintegration lets us prefer not to move militarily.
Because in my view N°2 is most likely - if prices go back to 40$ for more than 6 months - I suspect that N°3 is most probable. USA is already eeying presidential elections given GWB's popularity, this year there elections in France, and Tony Blair will step down in GB. A. Merkel in Germany begins to experience some difficulties in maintaining popularity.
What's your definition of tumble? The cost of production is on the order of $30 per barrel*. I don't think prices are ever going that low again, or at least not significantly below that level.
Canada's net crude oil exports to the U.S. are a little over 2 million barrels per day, oil production from tar sands is about 1 million barrels per day.
*2006 YTD operating costs for Canadian Oil Sands Trust (partial owner of Syncrude) is given as $28.57/barrel
http://www.cos-trust.com/files/investor/pdf/2006/COS_Q3_2006_Quarterly_R...
Are Saudis waging an oil-price war on Iran?: Falling fuel costs probably not a coincidence, oil traders say
Some might say...this sounds like a conspiracy theory. Interesting article.
Saudi Arabia has been saying for years that they are going to increase production. Funny how they're still saying that, but cutting exports to Asia.
The Saudi minister also confirmed production cuts to 8.3 mbpd in February. Why would be production cut to get the price down?
The article mentioned misinterprets some recent events, as follows:
First of all, the quote was taken out of context. Some Indian press reports state that the after the price of oil moved from $50 to $53 the Saudi minister stated that the price “was moving in the right direction” – which was up.
In addition, the first person who publicly discussed the ‘price weapon’ a few weeks back, an ambassador to the US, was immediately fired after making this statement.
Finally, there will be a shuffle of the Saudi cabinet coming as soon as March, with the oil minister likely on his way out.
Why would KSA want to wage war on Iran? Surely KSA does not consider itself a major player in the ME [except for FF, of course], so why attack Iran?
If anybody is the target of KSA it is surely the USA; fourteen [fifteen?] of the hijackers were citizens, OBL is a citizen, there are rumours that a number of KSA princes are involved in funding elqaida, so on this evidence it would seem that KSA or at least some of its citizens believe themselves to be at war with the USA.
IMO extrapolating the sectarian violence in Iraq, which violence is mainly due to Iraq's recent politics into a general antagonism between Sunni and Shia is misunderstanding the actual situation. After all, as I understand it, even Shias must make a pilgrimage to Mecca, and KSA affords them the smae privileges and protection as Sunnis or other more minor Islamic groups.
Great news! We don't have to devote our cornfields to ethanol production after all. Instead just get the third world to cut up and plow their forests so we can keep driving. What were we worried about? Climate? Bah. We get to keep our cars on where they belong, on the road. That's what matters.
Who says colonialism is dead? We have a bright future.
Buy tech stocks.
Holy Cow! Im wondering if Leanan got any sleep last night? Took 1/2 cup of coffee just to scroll through once....;)
This is the perfect example of:
Listen, fool:
should be told to shut up, people like him do as much damage as the CEO for Exxon.
Listen, fool:
there will be an energy crisis whether we change our ways or not
"at some uncertain time in the future" is not an incentive to change
alternative energy, whatever you mean by that, will not do more than mitigate the problems by a few percent
If you don't understand these things, you are a danger to your society
Perfectly said. THAT is the message that doesn't get air time.
I like this slant by
You see, I realize that it is a requirement of this culture that we all project an image of unbounded optimism and faith in our technological prowess.
Anything less is automatically labeled as defeatist, fatalistic, and lacking in imagination.
What is meant by this word is not the active work of the intellect, mind you, but the passive, voluntary acceptance of a set of common imaginings, or images.
From
The Despotism of the Image
Written by Dmitry Orlov
http://culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8...
We're toast
I decided to use the cubic mile picture and make a little illustration why I think nuclear is the only feasible alternative to fossil fuels:
The black box is the familiar cubic mile of oil. The brown box represents the amount of uranium ore mined per year. And that little silvery dot in the lower right corner is the amount of natural Uranium we use in power plants in the world. It also roughly equates to the amount of nuclear waste produced.
On the right: The Eifel tower and a 6 MWt wind turbine by it. To put things in perspective we need to build 177,215 of those wind turbines to equate the energy produced from that small silver dot down there*. Maybe not an impossible task but definately a very very difficult one.
* the assumptions in the calculations are as follows:
- world uranium usage 68,000tons/year.
- uranium ore at 0.2%
- wind turbine load factor: 30% @ 6MW = 15.8 GWth/year
- world nuclear energy production: 2,800 TWth
I'm not sure if comparing wind turbine with uranium is "apples-to-apples", uranium is not useful without reactor.
You are right:
I could not find references to the size of a nuclear power plant so I looked up some photoed at google maps - the reactor squares were well below 100x200m. in size. what I used for the picture.
Anyway the purpose of the illustration was to compare the amounts of physical resources we take need to acquire from the environment to harness each energy source, never intended to get deeper than that.
Are you saying that the world mine more Uranium than it burns? I thought i had read exactly the opposite?
- uranium ore at 0.2%
Levin,
you are one of the resident experts for nuke, how much thorium do we have on your graphic? How many years out is this tech?
matt
Actually I'm not a nuclear expert, I'm supporting and researching the technology for humanitarian and (believe it or not) enviromental reasons.
AFAIK thorium is still in the research phase. Countries like India would like to be positioned for utilising it as fuel because of energy self-sufficiency reasons. Therefore it will not even appear in this picture... But if we are talking about reserves both thorium and uranium minable ores (being at still strongly energy positive concentrations) will measure in hundreds of cubic miles... U and especially Th are relatively common elements, present in signicant concentrations in phosphate and granite rocks, seawater etc.
Thorium takes up exactly the same amount as the U235.
As for how far out is it, that depends on what you mean. For augmented fuel utilization in CANDU and LWR assemblies, thats being done today, but that has similar fuel utilization to ordinary uranium.
For fluid fuel reactors that only utilize thorium, they have been demonstrated in the 50's and 60's. Commercialization of the reactor could be done in ten years given the mandate, but absent some driving market force they are a good thirty years away at least. Light water reactors allready fit the bill and everyone is very conservative with tens of billions of dollars of capital to be spent on a technology that hasnt been market tested when you have one that works almost as well (from a profit perspective).
For more information on fluid thorium reactors:
http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/
Hmm... Envelope? - Check. Stubby Pencil? - check. Inturweb tubes clear? - check.
A quick trip to wikkipedia...
Looks like about 32.5% conversion of thermal to electrical (for that one plant, but 1/3 is a number I've seen for other plants) so it's 54450 windmills, which would cost about $326,700,768,136.56, (Roughly $1 per nameplate watt) -- (somewhat less than the cost of the war in Iraq.)
If we assume that a 6MW windmill lasts 20 years, that's $16,335,038,406.83/year.
The current spot price of Uranium is $72, and 68,000 tons is 136,000,000 Pounds - or about $9,792,000,000.00/year. Not bad.
Of course, I've completely ignored the cost of the nuclear power plants itself in that equation. d'oh! I'll be generous and call it $0.50/W Nameplate (The latter reactors were much, much more expensive then that) and let's say that a real reactor will achieve 20 years of full output (The current population is much, much, lower than that) then... all 441 operating Power plants worldwide cost $8,167,519,203.42 per operating year. Add that to the yearly fuel cost at $72/lb (I'll ignore that it went up $27 in the last year alone, and is likely to continue climbing) then each year of Nuclear power costs $17,959,519,203.42. (Roughly speaking)
These are, of course, completely back of the envelope calculations (Okay, I used OpenOffice for the math and didn't do any rounding so the numbers are dtupidly precise) but it looks like Wind and Nuclear are in the same ballpark. I did not calculate the cost of decommissioning the Nuclear plants, or the cost of storage of the waste, nor did I calculate that windmills are not continuous power.
One thing I do know, is that there will still be free wind in 100 years, but even at 2007 use rates, we will have burned up all of the high grade uranium, and it will be touch and go on the EROEI of the lower grades.
J.
You are wrong:
2,800 TWh is the net output, not the thermal one.
Besides the costs you cite are too low. The Enercon E-112 wind turbine I used as a reference, costs ~$5mln., so the total price tag is going to be in the order of $900 bln. So, you need to multiply your wind side of the equation by a factor of 3, still ignoring the costs of storage/backup.
But I did not intend to get into economic comparisons. My goal was to display the physical size of the resources needed for each energy source. If we are going to build renewable future this must be also kept in mind.
Okay, You'd quoted "- world nuclear energy production: 2,800 TWth" so I assumed thermal, since that was the measurment you used. ^_^;
The Electrical number (2005) is quoted at 2626 billion kWh at the UIC website. A little lower than your number, but in the ballpark.
In the end, sustainability is neither the size of the physical plants nor economics alone, it's the EROEI.
It's the same unit - 2,626 billion kwth = 2,626x10^12 Wth = 2,626 TWth (T stands for Tera = 10^12)
I was quoting the number by memory, think from another source and it seems I was a bit off.
In the end, sustainability is neither the size of the physical plants nor economics alone, it's the EROEI.
Well how about EROLI (energy returned on labour invested), EROMI (on materials invested), EROII (on infrastructure invested) etc. If some energy source proves to be poor on either of those, can we call it sustainable?
"T stands for Tera"
Don't tell George Bush. Since we are in a war on Tera, he might attack all the nucular plants and windmills in the world.
We must tilt against windmills over there, so that we don't have to tilt against windmills here.
EROEI is a much misapplied concept that isn't of much importance to the debate. This is especially true for nuclear, because its so damned high:
For current ores ist 500, for ores down to 10-20ppm its still 16-32
http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/UraniuamDistribution
That leaves us with 1 trillion tons of uranium for light water reactors. Assuming you have 20000 1GW light water reactors, that will last you a mere 250000 years.
For a detailed breakdown of energy cost analysis:
http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeEnergyLifecycleOfNuclear_...
Levink,
This is a bad comparison.
Wind turbines are very tall, but very, very narrow, with hollow support tubes. Nuclear installations have exterior dimensions that are fairly proportional to each other, so that their height to cubic size ratio is much, much smaller. To compare the height of the two installations (or wind turbine height to any exterior dimension) is extraordinarily misleading.
It is misleading in your reading. I was simply following the scale and drawing the picture - it is your interpretation that the picture is not "politically correct".
Aside from pictures there are some cold facts. In terms of material intensity, wind takes 30-40 times more steel and 50-60 times more concrete per unit of energy produced than nuclear. Thus the cost difference with wind is due to the sophisticated control and safety equipment in nuclear plants.
Again all of this is not even trying to incorporate the energy/material/etc. costs of energy storage or backup, underutilised transmission infrastructure, inefficiencies due to maintating spinnig reserve etc. In spite of that I am all for wind but I'd put it to no more than 5% - after that, world experience shows problems appear and diminishing returns are kicking in.
Nuclear concrete (base at least) is high energy alumina aggregate (from memory). Quality control and exotic specifications on nukes are orders of magnitude difference. Steel for surgical scapels or aircraft landing gear (nukes) vs. steel for automobiles (wind turbines). Not all steel and concrete is the same !
I could well believe that 1 tonne nuke grade steel (with chain of supply back to the mines, just like a/c landing gear & surgical scapels) costs as much as 100 tonnes of WT steel. Scrapping a WT creates a small profit, scrapping a nuke is a decade to century long headache and cost center.
New Zealand says 35% wind and then we will look more closely at the upper limits. OTOH, nuke is maxed out at 50%-55% of grid supply (the French trade power with Switzerland, Austria and I think Norway and have many neighbors to balance their oversupply of nuke electricity).
I am working on a non-GHG North American grid that is about 54% wind and 23% nuke. 15% of generation from pumped storage.
Alan
New Zealand is dreaming. You too.
The NZ % is extremely credible, in large part due to the high % of hydroelectric power.
Thank you for your "question", in looking for the original paper I found two new ones.
A relevant quote from page 27 (of 31) in a study by the University of Auckland (note #3 which talks of 30% to 40% wind grid penetration)
Another study was a draft report on modeling 2,000 MW-6,915 MWh/year on wind generation by 2016 on specific sites (modeling both a 90/10 split between North & South Islands and a 70/30 split with selected sites under investigation).
New Zealand has limited geographical diversity (unlike North America) and the two main islands are linked by a HV DC line of limited capacity.
Best Hopes,
Alan
I found the links to the studies at
http://www.windenergy.org.nz/news/news-articles/2005/051223-elcomwindsce...
BTW, West Denmark is electrically isolated from Copenhagen et al with links to Germany & Norway. They average (from memory) 60% of their load from wind and wind is often more than 100% of load. They have been able to keep a stable grid.
Nuclear concrete and nuclear grade steel are limited to the reactor vessel and containment structure. Outside of these we are talking about a standard thermal plant. These two may total one or two thousand tonnes and may be costly but they don't represent a huge natural resource drain by themselves, which was my initial point. You were building a strawman here and I did not discuss financial measures in my posts. But if you insist discussing monetary costs, you know very well that under normal operation nuclear is 2-3 times cheaper than wind. You know the numbers. In addition in the case of nuclear most of the capital costs are value added by high-cost skillful labor, because of the more sophisticated technology and quality control.
I am also rather disappointed by the presence of claims like this: "nuclear... is limited to 40-50% of generation". You may as well say that your gas tank is "limited" to 15 gallons. If a country needs to it can build smaller nuclear stations for meeting peak demand. Or you can istall a spare gas tank. If a country decides to, it can easily meet 100% of its demand - but it simply does not make economical sense in the current energy mix. The limit you are talking about is not a "limit" but an economic decision. You can not do such thing with variable source like wind, or to put it another way - the physical resistance against doing it will overwhelm you once you get a certain degree of penetration.
Regarding West Denmark... you don't even have the numbers correctly:
source
About how Denmark manages to balance its grid:
source
Heh those Danes... are not stupid, if they did not have nice neighbours to provide 100% backup, how would they have handled the following "hickups":
source
I wish good luck to our NZ friends. All they need is to build an interconnection to Australia to cover their asses and they are good to go.
First thank you for correcting my memory on West Danish output. I failed to go back & look up the source data and my fault there.
The other issues, in order.
Containment vessels are roughly 0.35 m to 0.9 m thick steel with a meter or so of concrete (thinnest Western design from memory was 20 cm). A simple geometric analysis (density of steel 5.x) shows almost a thousand tonnes of high spec alloy steel just for the containment vessel. Add to this all metal inside the containment vessel; pumps, pipes and rod controls and all safety related items outside the vessel are also high spec (comparable to aircraft landing gear or surgical scapels). BWR designs (made by GE) extend the safety related areas outside the containment areas (knowledge from Physics student tour of Brown's Ferry in 1970s) into the turbines. Steam turbines, even if not safety related in PWR designs, are high precision alloys. A tonne of steam turbine or containment vessel uses substantially more resources than a wind turbine tonne. Even wind turbine gears are not comparable. WT generators are significantly lower spec than nuke steam generators (speeds & voltages differ, cost of failure is much lower with WTs, Wts can accept a greater efficiency loss).
High spec steels often use rare alloys, they must use limited raw materials (certain "certified mines" I have heard vs WT towers that can use high quality scrap steel or ordinary good quality concrete). ALL UK nukes had to be downrated in output (In US they would have been likely scrapped) because they used common carbon steel nuts. This illustrates that nuke steel is not the same resource as the steel used in cars, railroads or wind turbines.
Alumina concrete requires alumina, the intermediate step in aluminum production. I strongly suspect that this alumina must come from the same bauxite mines and plants that aircraft aluminum comes from (not any bauxite will do).
Current US nukes benefit from 1970s and early 1980s construction costs and inflation makes them "cheaper" than today's WTs. OTOH, I would expect that a Toshiba-Westinghouse AP-1000 ordered next Monday would cost as much per MWh when it went commercial (in say, 2015 or 16) as a wind turbine that went into service that same future day. In fact, considering likely increases in interest rates, wind is likely to be both lower cost and lower risk. Nukes can be justified since their MWh (in limited quantity) have overall higher value, especially for summer peak utilities than wind MWh. So, I do NOT know that new nukes are 2 or 3x cheaper. Wind is tracking a moderate but steady decline in costs over time. Project forward to when the first US nuke can be built and WTs of tomorrow will be lower cost than today.
I am aware of claims for 36 months site construction time for the AP-1000. I do not believe that #. First AP-1000 eight or nine years from financial decision to commerical (not site construction time), perhaps six years for later units.
So much for smaller nukes.
I am appalled at the concept of daily thermal cycling of nukes (NO EXPERIENCE, MAJOR MATERIAL ISSUES !) and would carry a placard in opposition to such a plant !
The ONLY nukes I can support are large (400 MW to 1,700 MW), constant output units based upon evolutionary designs with thousands of years of safe operating experience (true for Westinghouse (including French derivatives), GE and CANDU (perhaps Combustion Engineering) and no others. No Russian designs in the US).
So NO SMALL PEAKING NUCLEAR PLANTS !!!
Bad idea.
Best Hopes,
Alan
The rest of your points soon.
I am appalled at the concept of daily thermal cycling of nukes (NO EXPERIENCE, MAJOR MATERIAL ISSUES !) and would carry a placard in opposition to such a plant !
Maybe you should read about pebble bed reactors. You are displaying conservativeness which I find untypical for you. When peaking nukes become needed (too far into the future IMO) they will be built and the technology will evolve. In the meantime there are some well tested methods to smooth demand.
But if your fears can not be satisfied, we can forget about peaking capability for the time being - there are other options. We can for example build (for US) a constant 700GW nuke baseload. The peaks can be balanced using water electrolysis during nuke surplus and burning the hydrogen in CCNG plants subsequently. The difference with wind is that you can predict and manage such system easily, while with wind you may have a whole month with very low wind, which can bring the whole system down.
Again there is nothing "limiting" nuclear penetration, what you see as "limits" is just rational economic decision for that moment.
Regarding cost of nuclear vs. wind this is a whole argument by itself. I see economies of scale greatly reducing costs in nuclear, you see them in wind. There are many assumtions going on, and I (like you) was quoting numbers from memory. But according to this picture I was about right:
(click for source)
- wind @ 6 c/kwth
- nuclear @ 3 c/kwth
The graph gives good explanations why so far the 1.8 c subsidy is detremental for wind in the US - it has been enough to cover the difference to the NG generation which wind tends to replace.
Thank you for the link, I am trying to digest this new info.
It is well worth noting that the units are UK pence, NOT US cents. The study assumes a 1:1.735 ratio, so in US cents
Wind - 10.4 cents(US)/kWH and
Nuclear - 5.2 cents(US)/kWh (2004)
The nuke figure is close to the 5.5 to 6 cents/kWh (2007) that I am using in my draft. The wind # is utter nonsense in the 2007 US context.
Nuclear in the US experienced a contra economy of scale for more than a decade. The more we built, the more expensive they became (Palo Verde might be the exception).
Any new US nuke will have to outbid the utilities for roving nuke rated maintenance workers that go from one refueling outage to another (plus steal a few of their permanent staff) and train new workers (a limited % for safety reasons). A fast US nuke buildup will see something like the Canadian tar sands experience; costs climb significantly faster than real work being completed.
There is a limited # of nuke rated experienced personnel and limited nuke rated fabrication. Much has been lost in recent years.
OTOH, wind turbines seem quite capable of 25% compounded growth with increasing economies of scale (some few shortage related cost increases that will disappear with, say, 10% annual growth in WTs).
A SWAG is that the US could (without driving up costs) start building a new nuke AP-1000 every 15 months almost immediately (major site construction completed in 42-48 months, total time 8 years financial decision to commercial). After 3 to 4 years, this could scale up to one AP-1000 start every 10 months, and one every 6 months in a couple more years. Time from start to completion would tighten by a year or more.
Every couple of years thereafter, the time between starting a new AP-1000 WITHOUT DRIVING UP COSTS, could shorten by a month. Economies of scale would begin to take effect with a smooth build-up (unrealistic IMHO, so I expect no economy of scale with nuke).
We have the scattered fragments of the industry and personnel that once built 4 nukes/year in the US and as many more abroad. It will take over a decade to rebuild that industry without "tar sands" like problems.
One of the cost problems of the past was scaling up too fast.
IMHO, as post-Peak Oil & NG approach, wind turbines can scale up economically much faster than can new nukes, but both will be needed.
Best Hopes for non-GHG power !
Alan
PS: The reason that I am SO conservative with nuke is that it is DANGEROUS ! Designing, building and operating them safely REQUIRES an ultra conservative approach.
If you are a nuke advocate, remember that one more Three Mile Island (much less a Chernobyl) will KILL all new nukes for decades ! Slip up ONCE (even slightly) and ALL nukes are SCREWED, no matter how safe and conservatively designed they are.
Think of handling nitrogylcerin. Ultra conservative is the best way to go !
OTOH, wind turbines seem quite capable of 25% compounded growth with increasing economies of scale (some few shortage related cost increases that will disappear with, say, 10% annual growth in WTs).
I agree that in the short to medium term wind is the most promising and scalable alternative. Especially with NG price rising I see them at least keeping up with growth. But I expect that this growth will all but reach to a halt when wind reaches ~5% or so... My reasons are simple: currently the cost of wind variability are small and largely externalized to existing capacity. When wind reaches 5% or so (and if current trend succeeds in keeping up in 7-8 years) utilities will have to start building expensive "patches" - HVDC interconnections, pumped storage, more NG backup etc. I see them increasingly reluctant to do that, as they have always been with adding high fixed costs bringing small marginal benefits.
I think that wind vs nuclear is an entirely fake dilemma. The two have different purposes and have different role in the system. Wind saves NG and water, while nuke provides for secure baseload... this is what happens in practice and a responsible long-term planning can not rely on some unforeseen storage breakthrough for this to change.
I am looking beyond those 10 or 15 years, long after the technical limits of wind inevitably slow/stop its growth - as the experience of Germany and Denmark very well shows. I know about the growing pains of nuclear and this is exactly the reason why I think we should start building nukes immediately - so that we can have a revived and well developed industry in 20-30 years. France, Japan and Russia (esp.recently) have already succeded in doing it, I don't see why we can't do it ourselves. The past mistakes of the industry - especially the flood of "customized" and/or "revolutionary" designs are well understood and taken into account and 20-30 years is enough to a more evolutionary approach to be implemented. The alternative is the "crisis and rush" approach which I find disastrous esp. with nuclear.
Wind is a precious energy source as it can help us meet both ends in the meantime. But relying on it to meet 20, 30 or 40% of electricity demand is simply not serious... I know you disagree with that but I'd like to see one working integrated large scale system with 20% wind. Yes, I've also seen some on paper but the closest real-world one I've seen is the West Denmark - Scandinavian system where wind is more like 3-4%.
We largely agree, although I need to convince you that 5% is too low a limit.
The Big island of Hawaii is developing into some interesting minature scenarios. A few small hydro projects (two recently modernized & upgraded), a growing wind % and plans for a 20 MW pumped storage plant to support the wind turbines. Better than burning oil !
New Zealand should shatter your 5% limit soon, especially on the North Island. 171 MW (nameplate) supplied 1.5% of national power (12 months ending 3-06) (Hydro 53.3%, geothermal 6.3%, wood 1.4%, biogas 0.2% were the other renewables). And an extra 197 MW are under construction and permits have been issued for 732 MW and permits for 740 MW are in process.
If the load factor of the new wind farms (assume all above built) equals that of the existing WTs, New Zealand will get 16% of it's electricity from wind and well over 20% wind on the North Island (all NG fired generation is on North Island).
The large majority of wind farms will be on the North Island, connected by HV DC with the South Island (where the % of hydro is larger). New Zealand is in a wind rush as their one large natural gas field depletes.
I assume that an Alaskan island with one 660 kW wind turbine being the sole source of power ~90% of the time (surplus electricity heats water at fish processing plant) does not impress :-)
Best Hopes,
Alan
Well... I guess we have to watch how this plays out for NZ. I will be gladly proven wrong, though it must be noted that the large percentage of hydro and NG which favours wind there is only available in a handful of regions/countries.
My 5% guessmate is based on the current energy mix of USA on average and without integrated national grid in place. Some areas may well go over 10 or 15% - it really depends on a lot of things. If we assume an interstate HVDC connection will be built, then the NZ's experience will help us see what are the practical limits we can count on for the US on average. Unfortunately US hydro + NG is only ~35%... which leads me to the thought that we need to ban conventional coal and go to IGCC plants from now on - this could start playing a great service in the near future IMO...
Include Canada, current hydro and "on-the-shelf" projects of 17 GW (from memory) plus "synthetic" hydro, pumped storage (19% in, 15% out in my plans).
It will be worthwhile adding new generators to a fair # of existing dams, thereby lowering the average load factor and raising peak power.
In my plans, I assume 20% of North American electricity comes from hydro. So 35% hydro + pumped storage generation.
The utility in Phoenix, AZ has recently announced plans for two transmission lines from Wyoming to Phoenix. Another step in a nationwide HV DC grid for the US (Portland OR > LA & two others in Canada AFAIK).
If economics alone drive the development, high carbon taxes or NG shortages will ahve to drive development. Long lead times for transmission lines imply problems in the transistion.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Steel is too heavy for most aircraft uses including landing gear. The preferred metal is 6063 T6 aluminum.
I would refer you to a Boeing paper on material advances in the 777.
Elsewhere the paper mentions "The single largest titanium application, and perhaps the biggest challenge, was applying Ti 10-2-3 to the main landing gear truck beam. This application challenged Boeing’s metallurgists...The resulting truck beam saved substantial weight and also resulted in a design without the typical corrosion and paint damage risks associated with high-strength steel landing gear components"
Prior to the 777, steel is still used in earlier Boeing designs (737, 747 & 767 AFAIK) that are still in production. The QA on this steel is VERY tight ! And it takes more resources to make this steel than, say, the steel in a wind turbine tower or even the WT hub rotor bearings.
www.asminternational.org/images2/cof/centen_1003.pdf
Best Hopes,
Alan
Nuclear concrete (base at least) is high energy alumina aggregate (from memory). Quality control and exotic specifications on nukes are orders of magnitude difference. Steel for surgical scapels or aircraft landing gear (nukes) vs. steel for automobiles (wind turbines). Not all steel and concrete is the same !
I could well believe that 1 tonne nuke grade steel (with chain of supply back to the mines, just like a/c landing gear & surgical scapels) costs as much as 100 tonnes of WT steel. Scrapping a WT creates a small profit, scrapping a nuke is a decade to century long headache and cost center.
New Zealand says 35% wind and then we will look more closely at the upper limits. OTOH, nuke is maxed out at 50%-55% of grid supply (the French trade power with Switzerland, Austria and I think Norway and have many neighbors to balance their oversupply of nuke electricity).
I am working on a non-GHG North American grid that is about 54% wind and 23% nuke. 15% of generation from pumped storage.
Alan
Nuclear concrete (base at least) is high energy alumina aggregate (from memory). Quality control and exotic specifications on nukes are orders of magnitude difference. Steel for surgical scapels or aircraft landing gear (nukes) vs. steel for automobiles (wind turbines). Not all steel and concrete is the same !
I could well believe that 1 tonne nuke grade steel (with chain of supply back to the mines, just like a/c landing gear & surgical scapels) costs as much as 100 tonnes of WT steel. Scrapping a WT creates a small profit, scrapping a nuke is a decade to century long headache and cost center.
New Zealand says 35% wind and then we will look more closely at the upper limits. OTOH, nuke is maxed out at 50%-55% of grid supply (the French trade power with Switzerland, Austria and I think Norway and have many neighbors to balance their oversupply of nuke electricity).
I am working on a non-GHG North American grid that is about 54% wind and 23% nuke. 15% of generation from pumped storage.
Alan
And yet.... Uranium for the common fission is limited. The Mongumbo Guru says:
http://www.321gold.com/editorials/daughty/daughty011707.html
So how big is the market
for uranium you ask. Well, now that you mention it, I
would like to know, too! And, in sheer coincidence, here is the
Money and Markets newsletter to say In 2005, about 16%
of the world's electricity came from 440 nuclear reactors. That
required about 77,000 metric tonnes of uranium." That works
out to, if I calculated it correctly, 175 tonnes per reactor.
But mines only supplied
about 48,000 tonnes, he says. The rest came mostly
from reprocessed Russian nuclear weapons
Yea,m that Fission thing...what a fine plan. eh?
When there's a market glut, production drops. Thats the way it works.
When the price rises, production rises.
D- the great conundrum that we have been dealing with at TOD is why, as the price was heading for $78 per barrel last year, SA didn't produce more oil but started cutting its production. Why? Was it peak production, was it geopolitics, was it lack of customers....? Place your bet here.
"Great southern" asks "Was it peak production, was it geopolitics, was it lack of customers....? Place your bet here."
Funny you should mention that "geopolitics" thing, Great.
It seems the last time Saudi Arabia had not this little measurement error dip in production, but a catastrophich crash of almost a third of thier production, was in the late 1970's....and there was "geopolitical stuff going on...and as I recall, a bit of an Iranian issue....ahhh, the comfort of continuity....the more things change, the more they stay the same...:-)
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom!
RC
Mining has been surpressed by low uranium prices. The Soviet Union and the West had huge stockpiles of uranium that were built up during the Cold War. Being incredibly energy dense, the huge stockpiles were easy to store. For more than a decade, these stockpiles have been dumping uranium on the market. Only the most efficient and cost effective uranium mines could continue to operate in this environment.
The situation with uranium right now is like what would happen with oil if, for some reason, the Soviet Union and the West had stockpiled about 200 Billion barrels of oil in something like the SPR, and then decided that they needed to sell down these stockpiles. Imagine the reaction of the oil markets to a 20 million barrels a day sell off from the SPR, and the likelihood this could continue for 20 years. Imagine how many marginal oil producers would throw in the towel as oil prices plummetted.
Uranium resources are in the of billions of tons, while we have only extracted a few million tons so far. The world's uranium fuel tank is completely filled, while the world oil fuel tank is just above half empty and falling fast.
Not sure what you mean by low uranium prices. The following chart came from a December 5, 2006 WSJ article and shows than Uranium prices have been rising steadily for at least half a decade.
Edited:
P.S. You probably mean mining was suppressed by low prices prior to 2001. That same WSJ article also says
In my reading of the graph low prices were dominant up to the beginning of 2005. The 2 years since then are too short period for the mining industry to react. The rise was pretty straightforward and (rightfully) attributed to the expected increase of nuclear. And unlike gold which inherent values is close to nothing U has enormous value as an energy source.
2 years is nothing, for the true long-term state of U supplies we need to talk again in 3-4 years when supply catches up.
This is not severe.
It is just that over a few years of mild winters, these rapid snowfalls take people by surprise.
In the UK 'Winter' has been catching us on the hop each year for many years now.
The press dont help: Some snow and its 'WINTER CHAOS' or 'ICE AGE!' or some such headline.
The most famous headline was that BritRail ground to a halt because of 'The Wrong Type of Snow'...
Truth is, people dont prepare. This is true of drivers throughout the UK.
We have lost the knack you see.
Prepping a car in November: Old carpet for spinning wheels, Torch, Spare batteries, shovel,
Antifreeze, etc dont happen.
Snow driving: Drivers dont get the skill sets because it is a rare event. Once per Winter, so the experience is not there.
A lot of off road SUVs also go unintentionally off road. Drivers seem to think that the 4WD and weight allows them to drive as if conditions were normal. That is why you seem them upside down in a tatty field.
So the 'chaos' on the roads is frequent and mostly self inflicted. And of course there is more traffic on the roads to create huge tail backs.
I should imagine the continental Europeans are seeing the same sort of surprises.
Europeans would have taken weather like this in their stride as a matter of pride 20 years ago.
Having been so smug in this post, I will probably spin my car off the road tomorrow :-(
The Prez is speaking in front of the DuPont crew.... anyone else watching?
This is just sickening and will probably become more common if the economy capsizes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpxo0mfVons&mode=related&search=
Police cutting up homeless peoples tent city because it was a 'fire hazard'.
One guy's comment on it sums it up as best I could:
I wonder if a car is parked illegally there if they would dismantle it.
Or does this policy only apply to the poor and troubled? I hope they get sued up their stupid asses.
Patrick
Pat, I agree with your statement.
Police cutting up homeless peoples tent city because it was a 'fire hazard'.
One guy's comment on it sums it up as best I could:
I wonder if a car is parked illegally there if they would dismantle it.
Or does this policy only apply to the poor and troubled? I hope they get sued up their stupid asses.
It comes under the broader heading of "Selective Inforcement" kinda.
Something like the signs on Gas Station pumps.
"If you drive away without paying, we will revoke your licence"
Now, if someone runs out of a store and doesn't pay for a can of beans, would they chase the person and take away his licence? Why Gas, Why that punisment?
I go to other SE tangents like, "The only reason for the 55mph laws still on the books (with the knowledge that NOBODY drives at 55, I drove behind a cop at 65 for example), is this.
If everyone drives above 55, Everybody is breaking the law. JUST WHAT THEY WANT, They can now Legally pull over ANYONE THEY WANT.
A tangent, sorry, but you I believe are correct.
John
Actually, people go to prison for stealing a can of beans or a cookie or some donuts or some such thing in the US with fair regularity.
Not too long ago, a guy stole some diapers or something from a Wal-Mart and the security guards tackled him in the parking lot, holding him down on the HOT tarmac until he died.
All routine in the US. It hardly makes the news except for a few cases (I almost said especially heinous but they all are) where the victem is black, then some of the black activists get into the scene and it becomes newsworthy. I think this is great! At least some kind of hue and cry is raised, I hope in the future we see activists raise a hue and cry not just based on race but on class, which is becoming the prison bars of life for most in the US.
Thats a really good point John. I've found that the best and worst are in law enforcement. It's like my dad used to say, 'Its a thin line between cop and criminal.
Patrick
Hello Autonomous,
Welcome to Zimbabwe's Project Murambatsvina "Taking out the Rubbish"--American Style!!! I predict this will only get worse as the energy crisis builds over time. More sad news: economic and possibly racial segregation is coming back in-style:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070123/ap_on_re_us/atlanta_split
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Economic segregation never fell out of style in the US, and racial segregation has been coming back with a vengeance - much of it pushed by nonwhite groups, they've been as big a factor, in self-segregation, as racist (which means mostly classist) whites.
There were recent studies, by fairly liberal researchers and defenses/elaborations of them showing up in very liberal magazines etc., showing that multiculturism lowers Social Capitol, and Social Capitol is one of those things the ruling class has decided contributes to Quality Of Life, their holy grail. There's one study showing that a very slight preference for one's own group can result in total segregation, in a neighborhood starting out perfectly mixed, in a generation or two.
Just looking at people as people, with all kinds of personalities, some of which you get along with, some you don't, the real issue, seems to have died along with the hunter-gatherer societies we all lived in up until a geologic eyeblink ago......
(Meanwhile next time I get the chance I'm going to complain about my new white neighbors to the black apt manager here heh.)
Hey Bob,
Yeah its in a resort town and we can't have the wealthy tourist seeing what kind of squander our citizens live in now can we? I'm so friggin glad I live in WI and not there.
I posted this further up. But it may deserve it's own thread.
Headline: North Korean helping Iran with nuclear testing
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/24/wiran24.xml
Be very careful with type of article. There is no attribution and only anonymous sources. The only person named in the report is President Bush.
The story about 38 inspectors being banned from Iran was unattributed as well and after checking the IEIA didn't support the story.
It isn't unusual for unsubstantiated anonymous source rhetoric to heat up at times like this. It has happened before.
4 commenters in the space of 12 minurtes figured this one out for the air it is. Compliments. The level here is not as low as it may seem in recent days.
It might be air in the sense that the newspaper (The Telegraph) is having its chain yanked (more or less willingly).
But, on the other hand, such an article appearing in a major British broadsheet is another piece of the puzzle -- ie. the relentless push to isolate Iran and bring down it's government by a variety of means.
This great drama is likely the top story of 2007-2008.
The telegraph has two additional pieces (blogs) by the same author:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=4XJEGDYWR5HILQFIQM...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/concoughlin/jan2007/terrifyingprosp...
From the Washinton Post's Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb: U.S. Intelligence Review Contrasts With Administration Statements
Look at NPR's U.S. Intelligence: Iran Years Away from Nuclear Bomb
Look at today's The American hostility towards Iran from the BBC.
We have been led down the garden path many times. This North Korea stuff is a joke. Unless they gave Iran fissionable materials, what is being discussed? Here's some hysteria on the connection from Israel's YnetNews.
The people who brought you Iraq want to bring you Iran: The Sequel. Enough's enough.
Hm. This is something new.
Have I missed something, or this is the first claim of Iran - N.Korea nuclear weapons cooperation? If so, and if it was known that it was happening "since last November", how to explain that it was never mentioned in the press or in the US case against Iran? I'm sceptical and I'd like to see more evidence than the claims of "anonimous european top official".
Though, frankly I would not be surprised. If I were at the place of Iran, surrounded by nuclear armed hostile nations, I would want nukes, and want them fast.
LevinK wrote:
Exactly. They are in a tight spot and the noose is tightening.
To rereference one of Leanan's links above.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16772560/
Without nukes, the current Iranian regime falls within a couple of years, in my opinion.
The idea of Iran conducting a nuclear weapons test is bizarre. They have been very successful in maintaining their nuclear work is within their IAEA rights. They feel they have staked out the moral (and legal) high ground, certaintly domestically and arguably with non-NATO countries.
Conducting a weapons test would throw all that away. So far, the Iranians have played their hand very skillfully, I cannot imagine them making such a blunder.
A modest proposal for the editors of The Oil Drum.
When someone joins TOD they should identify themselves as either an ordinary person, or One Who Has Everything Figured Out (OWHEFO). Since such people inevitably have huge egos, they will unhesitatingly identify themselves this way. Anyone with doubts does not qualify.
OWHEFO's will each be allowed one post up to 10 pages long explaining this person's version of things. The beginning of each Drumbeat can have a page containing links to these expositions with short titles such as:
Nuclear power is the answer, the stars are the next stop.
Solar PV is the answer, the earth has plenty of deserts.
Humanity sucks and is doomed, God says so.
Humanity doesn't suck but is doomed anyway.
The Illuminati are controlling it all.
etc. etc.
The 'Reply' button on these posts would be disabled. What can anyone say in the face of such absolutely proven certainty anyway...."Gee, I never realized!" or "Wow, how about that!"
I suppose we would have to allow the OWHEFO's to edit their posts. As all-knowing as they are, they might have made a typo or slipped a decimal point somewhere. Extremely doubtful that basic premises would change. I think it extremely rare that a OWHEFO ever changes basic premises and becomes an ordinary ignorant, doubting, uncertain human being again.
Please consider this proposal as it would allow the rest of us poor ignorant clueless slobs (PICS) to slog along in our forums having give-and-take type discussions and learning new things (think of that!). If we PICS feel the need for a fix of certainty of how things really are, we can hit one of these OWHEFO links and drink in the certitude.
This would make TOD a lot more congenial and save bandwidth to boot.
I'll second that motion.
Interesting... where do you put yourself? If you are trying to tell me that you have nothing "figured out" I'm finding hard to believe it.
I will not join the proposal, because the presence of such people is a good exercise how to deal with people's preconceptions. Everyone has some of his own, and this is part of problem we are facing. Maybe the most major part. Personally I can put up with it being so annoying... but maybe I'll change my mind if a get a slower internet connection.
Well, paradoxically, my uncertainty about where I belong places me automatically in the PICS.
Reminds me of the late Douglas Adams' on the US presidency:
"Anyone wanting to be the president is ipso-facto not qualified."
good answer :)
Probably the only reluctant president was the first.
Probably the only reluctant president was the first.
ET, I'm with you all the way on that one. Problem is, I'm a bit skitzy on which camp to be in.
I'm a OWHEFO on some things:
Ya gotta maximize your uncertainty about everything, given what evidence you have at the moment (information theory 101)
Stirling engines and low temp organic rankine cycles will beat PV any way you cut it for any solar electricity application, except you need a few little bitzy PV's to run the controls before the big lifters ramp up to power in the morning.
People like me who live on hills just have to install pumped hydro, buy kW-hrs low and sell "em high, and make gobs and gobs of money, cause everybody to get envious and copy us, and thus save the world for windmills.
Killing people is not nice and should be avoided except in cases where they really, really need killing.
On everything else, I'm one of the PICS.
Wimbi
Stirling engines
I haven't seen one that works for personal use. Models? Yes, you can build little kits for a neat 11th grade science show, or big ones with reflective mirrors all over the ground... BUT
Can you point me to one that is the size of a Brigg & Stratton 3hp lawn mower engine? For HOME use?
I haven't found one.
I have put them in the category of FUSION.
"The Energy source of the future and always will be"
I will stand corrected if anyone can show me one I can buy and figure out my own heat Source/Sink.
Respectively
John
You could always buy and dismantle a WhisperGen. I know what you mean, though.
Samsara, I thank you for tossing that soft pitch my way. It just happens that my Wits-for-Watts project number 2 is doing great these days- a stirling about the size of a Briggs engine (but not the shape) that puts out an honest kilowatt of 120VAC, makes no noise or shakes, and for reasons too tedious to repeat, will last for many years, is working just fine on a propane burner. Next step, my wood stove.
But, as I have said too many times, no production, and hence too costly for normal mortals. Why? Simple -Briggs engines are cheap as dirt and gasoline cheaper than sugarwater.
People who know tell me this engine-alternator will cost $250 to make- at 100,000/yr. That's to make, not to package, sell, etc etc.
Anyhow, its fun and keeps me out of trouble.
But, as I have said too many times, no production, and hence too costly for normal mortals.
So while a solar stirling engine might beat PV, shipping today (pv) beats not-shipping.
Right, so where the hell is that invisible hand? Invisible, that's where.
Patience, grasshopper. Market adjustments take time...
Hello TODers,
In the recent natgas keythread: I posted again how we should be using natgas to stockpile fertilizer to help us bridge to relocalized permaculture. If this isn't done, I hope, at a minimum, we can go back to the future:
-----------------------------------------------------
What would the reader think, if he were asked to invest in a gold mine from which all of the ore had been taken out, and, at the end of a year, it had all replaced itself? What would he think, if he had, attached to his mercantile establishment, a warehouse in which, as fast as the goods were removed for display and sale, they would replace themselves without the expenditure on his part of one grain of energy or one cent in money!
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.soilandhealth.org/03sov/0302hsted/030212campbell/campbell%201...
I was astounded by the amount harvested. Are there any TOD biologists that care to comment? A postPeak future with very little FF-pesticide will require lots of bats to keep the bugs at bay.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Hello TODers,
I hope all TODers read and ponder Leanan's toplink on rusting waterpipes:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070124/lf_nm/usa_water_dc_2
--------------------------------------------------------------
Those pipes -- made mostly from iron until plastic was introduced 30 years ago -- span almost one million miles in the United States.
As the iron pipes corrode and break, not only does water escape, but also diseases get in, experts say.
"We estimate in the next 20 to 30 years water utilities will have to invest $250 to $350 billion just to replace the pipes that are in the ground today," said Jack Hossbuhr, executive director of the American Water Works Association, the industry's trade group.
The cost of improving U.S. water infrastructure may triple the cost of water by 2030, according to the association.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Consider the amount of money that could be saved by not digging, but installing above ground my spiderwebriding system. Leaks would be readily apparent and quickly repaired, and the pipes would form the basis of railbike and rail-PHEv transit to the RRs + mass-transit that forms the basic spine of a relocalized permaculture. If we do not have sufficent FFs to power the heavy digging equipment, how many Americans will be willing to dig this million miles up by hand using a pick & shovel? I really hope some engineers & economists are studying this possible solution.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Bob,
As a small child during World War Two I watched a coal-fired steam shovel in action, and of course most locomotives were also coal-fired steam power. Steam tractors work fine too. What I'm wondering is whether I'll live long enough to once again see coal-fired steam power doing what today is mostly done by diesel.
BTW, electric shovels work just fine, often using electricity generated by coal. I think that electric tractors with long extension cords might work pretty well, too.
Coal was king for a long time, and it seems likely to me that it will again be ruling monarch. Let us hope that it will be cleaner coal than it was back in the olden days.
Hello Don Sailorman,
Thxs for responding. My speculation is based on the possibility that we may have waited too long to have abundant energy to replace essential infrastructure using the same methods as in the past [others are free to disagree]. Even if replacement pipes are again buried underground, in 50-100 years they have to be dug up and replaced again. What will be the energy situation then?
Consider BP's Prudhoe Bay operations. As others have posted before, they are running into ever fewer days of frozen ground to safely use the roads. If they were to webride on top of the pipeline, then they are free to be mobil year-round--no snow-chains, snowplows, SnowCats, or snowmobiles required in winter, no miles of fighting mudbog roads. Also, they will be above the migrating caribou, wolves, and bears.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Livestock_and_Farming/2006_August_Septemb...
Perhaps solar-powered tractors on small sustainable farms will be used.
Hello TODers,
text of my email to the AWWA:
-------------------------------------
Hello AWWA,
I just read this article that mentioned your org:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070124/lf_nm/usa_water_dc_2
My solution is called the Spiderwebriding System. By aboveground combining the pipeline as the basis for a transit railbed: you eliminate the cost and energy of digging, leaks are readily apparent and easily repaired, and post Peakoil mobility is greatly enhanced. Consider that we are heading not only into replacing waterlines, but sewage and fossil fuel spiderwebs too. A unified engineering approach can save untold trillions and greatly enhance national security and cooperation as we restructure society for relocalized permaculture. Thxs for any reply, and my ideas are greatly expanded in the archives of TheOilDrum.com.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
-------------------------------------------------------
I hope that I get a phone call or an email reply from the AWWA. I hope other TODers will send their suggestions for our future water needs to this org too. I hope the economic inducement of aboveground pipes not only saving them lots of money from not needing to dig & refill, but also as a potentially massive source of revenue by installing spiderweb tollroads, or worst case, massive govt subsidies to shift to relocalized permaculture. Time will tell.
Bob, I am not too clear on exactly how you are proposing to construct your Spiderweb however a pipeline wheither underground or above is engineered to be under what is essentially static load. As well pipelines at ground level or above must have a provision for thermal expansion. So the problem I see is you must design for both dynamic load stresses and thermal expansion. This makes life quite complicated. If you have a 500 pound point force downward on a pipe with supports every twenty feet, you still have a 5000 pound bending force to contend with. According to the materials and pipe diameter you will have to build for stresses that far exceed that of the static load. Add the thermal factor essentially you are building a bridge with a pipe slung underneath.
Hello Rich Walden,
Please forgive me, but I am not an engineer--but I have much appreciation of all the difficulties and the daunting obstacles that would probably have to be overcome by sound engineering to make this Spiderwebriding a viable alternative. As Edison said, "Invention is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration."
I envisioned most of these pipes right at ground level with ties underneath, much like a railroad bed is now. That way it is easy for pedestrians to step over, and easy for railbike riders to quickly and easily install their vehicles on the tracks. The ties closeness would hopefully reduce the bending load to an inconsequential amount, but more engineering would be involved where the pipeline needed to bridge over some obstacle, but I hope the inherent strength of hollow pipe could be utilized to help minimize these bridging costs too.
Again, I am assuming the thermal expansion problem is already solvable as railroads and pipelines have been confronted with this limitation in the past, but have found ways to overcome it. As mentioned before: I just hope some clever inventors & engineers are trying to envision what this could be.
This is a huge topic on which I have little true understanding. If the current building code [written when energy is cheap] requires a pipeline to be 10 ft down--it would not surprise me to find out it takes much more energy to dig, compact, and refill this trench than was energy-embedded in just the pipeline itself. Thus, if there is a way to keep from having to dig these trenches all over North America plus the added benefit of serving as the basis for very light transit vehicles [railbikes and railPhevs]: the savings could be HUGE.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
My solution is called the Spiderwebriding System.
Did you ever figure out how to deal with the slower rideres VS the faster ones?
Hello Eric Blair,
Thanks for responding. If relocalized permaculture is successful: nobody has to pedal that far before they reach RR or Mass-transit, or alternatively, their destination. Therefore, the faster riders won't have much incentive to want to pass the slower rider in front of them [they can ride a relaxed pace by practicing community cooperation].
If certain routes have sufficient rider volume and distances involved: it can be solved just as the railroads now do with passing sidings or additional track. The benefit of my system is that additional track can be layed at relatively low cost and does not require that the pipeline have fluids or gases moving thru them; a reserve pipeline capacity that can still provide a transport function.
Lastly, if the speedier riders still want to try and go faster than the average railbike pace: they will be welcome to jump on bicycles, then pedal thru the mud and snow alongside the spiderweb. I think this increae in frictional losses will slow them down. Another alternative, if it is not too bulky or weighty is to add a pushbar to the railbikes, so the faster riders can help push the slower rider in front of them.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
The UK is faced with a very similar situation regarding chronic underinvestment in water pipes and sewage.
Leakage now means that a perfectly good water distribution system fails to deliver 30% of potable water to households and business and the ever present threat of 'drought' orders is always present (even in Winter...)
Especially in London and the South East: Which only this month had a drought order lifted...
The repair bill will be huge.
And the repair bill will coincide with recession, and energy depletion.
Once upon a time we had local water corporations and water boards and regional water authorities.
They were privatised. Suddenly the Top Civil Servants in Charge frequently multiplide the salary schemes (of each other).
''In order to compete for talent in the market place''.
Investment shrank, and profit was extracted.
A text book example of what happens when you privatise a nationally strategic service, formerly a regarded as a common good.
We did it with Rail, and The National Grid / Central Electricity Generating Board.
We shall reap what we sow.
Privatise military, police, courts and your misery will be complete.
This is no longer such a farfetched suggestion.
US relies increasingly on mercenaries and has long had private prisons.
Nothing stops the religious fervor of the privatisers.
You got it in one:
Next likely candidate is the privatisation of the UK Probation Service. Prisons will not be far behind.
Prisoners will no longer be detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure, but at the pleasure of Wackenhut.
And that is fundamentally wrong.
There are specific minimum essentials that cannot be farmed out
The privatisation of the military is creeping along: A lot of RAF Ground technicians were privatised nearly a decade ago. Other support services have also followed suit.
IMO:
Some things just cannot be safely privatised.
Energy
Water
Rail and transport infrastructure
Defence and Defence procurement.
Police and the meeting out of Justice.
Border controls.
Minimum safety nets for social welfare (for those that really need it)
If the government just stuck to these essentials and did them well instead of meddling in trivia, we could get on with ordering our lives in a way that allowed us to respond to future conditions.
I am glad to see that you didn't put politicians on your do-not-privatise list.
I think the world would be far more successful if we had the opportunity to hire our own representatives. This is, after all, the model currently followed buy most Fortune 500 and FTSE 100 firms. I think Sandlines International, or Blackwater may have an interest in this line of work.
I've known exactly two friends who had enough money to buy politicians. Buy, not influence. Both got private bills passed through Congress and signed into law on a regular basis. We absolutely have the best "governance" money can buy.
Hello Mudlogger,
Thxs for responding. Sad to hear the news: I suggest that Peakoil Outreach needs to get kicked into high gear in your area to help prevent the worst, and hopefully optimize for the best that can be attained... you don't want conditions to deteriorate whereby raw sewage is forming stagnant neighborhood pools, backflowing into houses, or is putrid runoff into local water supplies like Zimbabwe.
I would email your local pols asking that they have detailed plans ready-to-go for emergency water distribution and humanure recycling to be fully up and operational BEFORE the predicted sewage overflows can create mob-rioting and dire health conditions.
Recall Nawlins: the sewage and toxic soup mandated that everyone in the affected areas had to leave. I have never been across the pond, but if London's sewage system became totally dysfunctional-- is there sufficient alternate housing like we had here in the US after Katrina? Does the UK govt, at a minimum, have plenty of tents, blankets, MREs, and emergency latrines?
The US has funded Halliburton's KBR subsidiary with $385 million for building 'resort spas' to mitigate dealing with the aftermath from our next event. I am just 'thrilled' that my PTB are practising such wisdom and foresight.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Total US Petroleum Deliveries Fell 1.1% in 2006; Gasoline and Diesel Deliveries Increased
from Green Car Congress
I believe that makes the US the world's largest producer of ethanol -- exceeding Brazil. I wonder how much distillate fuel oil it takes to produce a gallon of ethanol?
So we basically produced around 350,000 bpd of ethanol, which displaced roughly 1.7% of our total petroleum use, or about 1.1% on a net btu basis.
Very interesting how the numbers match up so perfectly!
Fuel oil isn't the problem, natural gas is.
You need process heat for distillation. It can come from nat gas, coal, or pig-produced methane, whichever happens to be cheaper.
The best estimate I've seen for current ethanol plants (from Robert Rapier) is that for each 6 btu's we get from ethanol the inputs to the process are as follows: 1 from liquid fuels (Diesel, gasoline), 4 from nat gas, 1 from solar.
Hello TODers,
I was pondering my earlier postings upthread: 'taking out the rubbish' and Atlanta's looming segregation, which is basically an economic expression by the local elites of not wanting to live by, or to further finance the ever-growing postPeak 'rubbish landfill'.
Full disclosure: I have never been to Hawaii, so my understanding is limited.
I think it is reasonable to consider that the world's topdogs are now as fully informed on Peakoil as Richard Rainwater. Recall my earlier posting on the need to start the sequential building and enlargement of sustainable biosolar habitats and the speculation of the big island of Hawaii as a logical starting point. I will use 'Kona' to stand for the big island.
My original posting was based on a successful PO + GW Outreach program and society overall willing to start with Kona. This may not happen, but if a significant # of billionaires and multi-millionaires wish to postPeak live isolated from the detritovore 'rubbish landfill' of their own creation: buying up Kona can probably be easily accomplished, then transformed into their biosolar paradise.
My guess is that Kona has very little manufacturing, maybe a pineapple cannery and C&H sugar factory. They can easily finance turning the sugarcane into ethanol so their local transport problems are solved, and buying PVs, windturbines, and other biosolar assets is easy if money is no object. The ideal geographic isolation combined with the low-stress cooperation of healthy, organic biosolar lifestyles, without the worries of financing the taking out of the 'rubbish' would be quite a coup. These people can easily control their far-flung detritovore empires with the WWW, video-conferencing, the occasional private jet flight, and telephones.
They would have no problem importing temporary workers to do the menial tasks they disdain, and Blackwater Security Mercs on land & sea could easily guarantee that they leave when required. Their enormous wealth would easily enable them to safely stockpile the essential goods to continue living quite comfortably long after the rest of the world experienced decline. I also think that controlling their population headcount by studying Malthus & Bartlett's Equations would be a easy task.
Eventually, events around the globe deteriorate to where even Kona has problems, but because they have carefully optimized their habitat and long prepared for the transition-- they enjoy a tremendous headstart at sustainability. In short: look at the island of Hispaniola--a denuded Haiti on the west, a forested Dominican Republic on the east.
Will the super-wealthy pick Kona, or Monaco, or some other spot as the best place to relax in biosolar splendor as the rest of us 7 billion fight for a few remaining scraps in the planetary 'landfill'?
I think a successful Outreach program, which includes new social norms for voluntary birth controls: whereby we build as many large, contiguous biosolar habitats as possible, is the best way to minimize our present detritovore tendency to maximize filling 'landfills' with 'rubbish'. Otherwise, the humanimal ecosystem will collapse just as fast as the real ecosystem.
But I am just a humanimal gnat, not a topdog, so what do I know? I wonder how long before the police take a box-cutter to my puptent. Gee, didn't some other guys with boxcutters cut down some very large puptents not too long ago?
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
I don't think so. Having knowledge of the facts (depleting wells + diminishing new discoveries) does not always lead seemingly intelligent people to the same conclusions. Take Dick Cheney, for example (Please!). He recognized THE PROBLEM prior to becoming VEEP, but I don't think he gets Peak Oil.
It's the "stages of denial/acceptance" thing. In the least, his prescription for PO differs markedly from Rainwater's.
Next, consider a few our well-heeled Seattle neighbors. Jeff Bezos (Amazon) and Paul Allen (Microsoft) see public space flight as part of an energy-challenged future. Bill Gates is doing some very noble things, but fighting Malaria in the Tropics is not exactly a Peak Oil remedy.
In essence, not much preparation going on.
Hello JoulesBurn,
Thxs for responding. Good points--may be true right now--but they very easily could quickly move to adopting Richard Rainwater's mindset. Having gobs of money will make the transition mentally easier for them versus those that have to contemplate totally falling off the lowest rungs of the economic ladder. It all depends upon Stuart Staniford's quote: "How permeable are their minds to accepting new evidence?"
Consider Dick Cheney's super Eco-tech home and ranch in Montana. Somehow, I don't think that it is much of a hardship for him to live there if an energy crisis suddenly erupts. Now compare to alot of Americans suddenly adapting to homelessness and having their puptents slashed by their local police.
Who do you think will get a better night's sleep in their new biosolar surroundings?
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Toto - the Big Island does indeed have a decent local food movement, however, no one's canned pineapple on the islands for years now, and as for sugar, if you find some old feral cane growing around, you're welcome to pick out a nice juicy stalk and cut it and chew it.
The Big Island is indeed probably a better place to ride out the crash than a lot of places in the US, but that's assuming it doesn't acquire another quarter million people as things get worse and news gets around. And the Big Island has far more people on it now than it did in the old Hawaiian days, and they were at their Malthusian limit.
Hello Fleam--Thxs for the update.
BEIJING, Jan. 24 (Xinhua) -- China faces the possibility of a 4.8 million ton grain shortage in 2010, almost 9 percent of the country's grain consumption, according to the Study Times, a newspaper affiliated to the Party School of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China.
If the prediction is accurate, the country will significantly undershoot its grain security target according to which domestic supplies must make up 95 percent of needs.
The supply of domestic grain will be insufficient for the next 15 years, making the country increasingly reliant on imports and putting upward pressure on grain prices, said the report.
It is difficult for China to raise grain output because arable land shrank from 131 million hectares in 1996 to 123 million hectares in 2005 and the trend is hard to reverse.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-01/24/content_5648278.htm
it looks like there is already going to be grain shortages and I'm sure that increasing ethanol production is going to make this much worse
" ... it looks like there is already going to be grain shortages and I'm sure that increasing ethanol production is going to make this much worse."
Perhaps this is how we really intend to deal with the "Chinese Threat" ... convert as much food to fuel as possible and cause mass starvation. But then this would harm the weight loss industry.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-2162249,00.html
In the chaos of Iraq, one project is on target: a giant US embassy
From Daniel McGrory in Baghdad
Hello WT,
Sarcasm alert! It is only fair to the Iraqi people [at least those still living], that we built this embassy so cheaply for their benefit:
Iraqi production = 2.18 million barrels/day [from your link]
Assume .18 million barrels/day goes to the Iraqis so they can enjoy blackouts and gasoline line queues.
2 million barrels/day @$50/barrel for the US = $100 million/day
Projected cost for US embassy = roughly $600 million including bribes---> easily paid for by a mere week of Iraqi oil extraction.
Thank Goodness--only a week-- we easily could have built a much larger embassy using a year's worth of Iraqi oil extraction!
How come the US MSM doesn't give us detailed full-color HDTV video updates on this embassy construction every night? This is such good news for the average Iraqi that TPTB should be delighted to share this with Joe Sixpack. Sure beats the typical TV fare of blown-up vehicles and dead bodies.
/rant off =(
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Peak oil meets real politics, with all those reserves- Nigeria Depends 100 Percent On Imported Fuel
http://allafrica.com/stories/200701240057.html
Hello TODers,
Bulawayo is about 700,000 people. This news could lead to disaster soon:
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/YAOI-6XS9W3?OpenDocument
---------------------------------------------------------------------
BULAWAYO – Zimbabwe's second largest city of Bulawayo is left with only two weeks' water supply and the situation could deteriorate further if there are no significant inflows into city dams within the next two weeks, city authorities said on Wednesday.
City engineering services director Simela Dube said water levels in the three dams that supply water to the city were at their lowest ever and warned residents – who like everyone else in Zimbabwe are already grappling with shortages of food and other basics – to prepare for prolonged water cuts as the city conserved the little water available.
Dube said: "If we do not receive any rains in two weeks time we would not be able to supply the residents with water."
The city's supply dams were holding a combined total of five million cubic metres of water compared to the to 40 million cubic metres they hold when full, said Dube after touring water facilities with the media.
--------------------------
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
a teensy perspective on NUKE power:
On a scale of minimum 2 generators at 1400 MegaWatt output each, a minimum footprint would be well over 1 square mile. Minimal vertical rise of plant would be about 200 feet.
That includes all redundant physical plant.
That does not include all areas of cooling water intakes and discharge.
That does not include full provision for ancillary, secured area to limit access to beyond the range of modern weapons [e.g.- 5 feet of rebarred concrete with modern armor is currently a breeze-thru for some portable nasties recently seen in MEast.]
Construction does not include any provision for dismantling costs.
And note that the technology is so safe that no insurance company will touch it, so the industry is "self-insured"...bec the scale of an accident or other harmful consequence is beyond meaningful calculation.
Now proceed to discuss the nuclear-power option in a more sober fashion.