The document is here: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability

The signal failure of public debate in this country is embodied in our obsession with this particular theme - how to keep the cars running by other means at all costs. Everybody from the greenest enviros to the hoariest neoliberal free market pimps believe that this is the only thing we need to worry about or talk about. The truth, of course, is that we have to make other arrangements for virtually all the major activities of everyday life - farming, commerce, transport, settlement patterns - but we are so over-invested in our suburban infrastructure that we cannot face this reality.

Amazing that he has basically been saying this stuff since Geography of Nowhere in 1994.

A contracting U.S. economy could take some demand out of the picture, but the sad truth is that we burn up most of the oil we use in cars, and American life is now so hopelessly based on incessant motoring that citizens cannot even go down to the unemployment office without driving.

I agree. People here want to talk about oil and energy, but that's just the appetizer IMHO. The type of person who understands and CONTINUES to come here are a certain, rare breed. For this reason, I also find it beneficial to discuss other topics requiring a bit of logic, insight, and knowledge. If someone here is so irritated by this, please tell me a board/blog where I can discuss a range of topics with the same levels of intelligence. This place is more valuable than any other board/blog I've come across. My finance boards are great for finance, but they can't connect to Science. Science is the cornerstone IMHO.

Did not see the program, but some of the longest feeding tubes in proportion to body size are found in "Hummingbird Moths", (Genus "Hemaris") and they have the flight abilities their name suggests

I have observed something similiar. My Mother had what she called moon flowers that bloomed only at night. The petals folded up during the day. The white flower was about 4 inches in dia. and about 4 inches deep and similiar to an Easter Lily but more full and larger. Any way at night a gigantic moth would come by that had a long rolled up tube and when it got near the flower it would unwind the coiled up tube and poke it in to the flower.
Later in the season the plant would produce large seed pods the size of golf balls with many green soft spikes sticking out in all directions.

The Insect is a moth. The flower is an orchid.

http://www.orchids.mu/Species/Angraecum/Angraecum_sesquipedale.htm

The information I have seen suggests that Iran is on a long relatively flat plateau. Their production probably is not down by that much but their internal consumption is. This is why civilian nuclear power makes sense for them - so they can sell more of their oil for cash. Of course, anyone who believes they will not also investigate weapon usage for enriched uranium is someone I would consider delusional. I am not arguing that we attack them first though. That is flat out immoral. However, if I were president of the US, I'd make sure they knew that any first use of nuclear weapons by them would be met with a response so overwhelming that Iran would cease to exist. Civilian nuclear power? Fine. Weapons for defense? Fine. First use? Down you go.

Of course that is my opinion and I am sure others will feel differently, from those who would never attack Iran even if Iran was bombing the USA directly to those who would attack Iran first because they represent a "potential threat". I have strong opinions about both such groups of people but I won't post such inflammatory thoughts here.

Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett

Peak: Currently 25% of Toronto households don't own a car- I would expect this % to increase.

Thus my Step #5 to create a Strategic Railcar Reserve so that existing rail systems could surge as needed.

http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2006-05a.htm

Except for the Lexington Avenue subway in NYC, the BART Transbay tunnels in SF and the Blue Line in LA, every other rail line I know of could carry more people at rush hour if they has more rail cars (and larger transformers/electrical supply in a few cases).

For minimal cost, we can carry far more people with more rolling stock on existing lines.

We also need to add protected bike parking.

Lack of rolling stock will be a problem going forward.

Best Hopes,

Alan

Personally, I see this as predominantly good. This means people, regardless of the incomes of those involved, are trying to adjust their lifestyle. They are trying to do what Kunstler and others have advocated. I applaud them and wish Houston was in better shape.

Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett

Either way, if they are having capacity troubles NOW, they are going to have significant trouble/failure when the Oil shock wavefront arrives in earnest.

In many cases this is true, but be careful to distinguish between fixed infrastructure capacity constraints and rolling-stock constraints. For many (most?) rail lines in North America the line itself is not a significant limiting factor, it is simply the lack of rail cars that is the problem. It is actually a strength of rail systems that such slack generally exists. How much does it cost to double the capacity of a rail line by doubling the fleet of vehicles? How much does it cost to double the capacity of a highway by doubling the width of the highway?

Having said that, the TTC is definitely close to capacity on their subway lines over the central sections. Once the fleet is large enough to reach full capacity of the line, however, there are still alternatives. Major capacity increases can be possible without major infrastructure work, simply by providing faster service on surface lines: give streetcars reserved lanes and priority at lights.

Here's a case in point: the Queen streetcar takes 15 minutes from downtown to the east end of the line in the wee hours, but more like 35 minutes during the day. Imagine no cars on the Queen streetcar lanes and traffic signal priority at each intersection making much tighter headways possible and decreasing travel time to probably 20 minutes. This would nearly double the capacity without any fleet expansion simply by achieving nearly double the average speed. Now imagine doubling the fleet as well - I think you could quadruple the capacity, if the political will existed, without spending a dime on new track.

It's all a question of politics, not of engineering limitations. Try to remove parking and add no-left-turn restrictions on Queen Street, see how far you get.

Even with competition from cars, though, look at what was possible over forty years ago:

North America's busiest carline, Bloor, had been a marvel of PCC operation, capable of carrying 9,000 passengers per hour with weekday ridership topping 200,000 passengers (more than many rapid transit lines) and requiring as many as 160 PCCs in peak hours.

http://transit.toronto.on.ca/streetcar/4505.shtml
http://transit.toronto.on.ca/subway/5104.shtml

(Disclaimer: I haven't lived in Toronto for years, my memory of travel times on Queen Street might be off a bit.)

Why would Iraq have lied about their reserves before invasion? There doesn't seem to any good reason for it unless they were so incompetent in managing their exploration efforts that they just didn't know the oil was there. If it is actually there and they knew about, it makes no sense to hide that fact.

Perhaps this is the universe's way of balancing out the sudden drop of Kuwait's reserve by 50%.

Here is a link which previously has been posted on TOD. It's an compilation from 2003 of georeferenced maps of Iraq, almost entirely from AAPG publications, which estimate that the top 28 fields sums up to 41 billion barrels.

How is oil commonly distributed? Given that the largest fields contain most of the oil in an abritrary (and large) area; how can the arguments presented in ft be compatible with the estimate above?

I observe that the ft-article frequently use the words like "could" and "potentially".

Although sound scientifically, keep in mind the following:

The premise of the work is that every vehicle on the road in 2020 is filled with E85 - a scenario that is not likely to occur in our lifetime if ever.

That respiratory deaths due to ozone related pollution 'may' increase by 4% in the US - that's a grand total of 200 'possible' deaths p/a; a blindingly insignificant sum.

That cancer-causing effects of ethanol would be "roughly comparable to those of gasoline" - something I find very hard to believe for although acetaldehyde and peroxyacetyl nitrate increase when ethanol is burned, formaldehyde, CO, CO2 benzene and particulate matter (the latter two being gasoline's most carcinogenic protagonists) are reduced.

All in all, I support further study in this matter.

Yes, those studies...

Studies are here for doing lobbying.

The "result" of the study is cristal clear before the study starts.

It would be interesting, WHO paid for this study to be done. Maybe Exxon?

P.S.: Of course also the "professores" must have some work and earn some attention and extra money. So, just make a "study". Complete bullshit to me.

This is another article about the Stanford Study

Surprize: Ethanol as Deadly as Gasoline for Now

The article says:

''We found that E85 vehicles reduce atmospheric levels of two carcinogens, benzene and butadiene, but increase two others, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde,'' Jacobson said. ''As a result, cancer rates for E85 are likely to be similar to those for gasoline. However, in some parts of the country, E85 significantly increased ozone, a prime ingredient of smog.''

I think the point of the study is that people should not think that ethanol is better than gasoline, from a health point of view. The article indicates that the effects are expected to vary by the part of the country. California comes out worse than average because of its problems with smog.

Quote of the week:

http://www.energybulletin.net/28765.html

But not everyone at EIA is swallowing the agency’s Kool-Aid with the requisite gusto. In a bow to reality, EIA Chief Guy Caruso openly frets over gasoline inventories, which are unusually low considering the proximity of the summer driving season.

“The volume of imports is lower than we thought,” Caruso said to a Dow Jones reporter.

Long term rate of increase in Total US Petroleum Imports:

http://www.theoildrum.com/uploads/28/Data_4weeks.png

From Tom's article:

Two weeks ago, as a number of observers pointed out, refinery utilization increased while gasoline production dropped. This may be a one-time glitch, or it could mean that sufficient quantities of light, sweet crude, that are optimal for making gasoline, are becoming difficult to find. If this is indeed the case, then the US has a problem of major proportions.

Not to worry.

Imported gasoline will save us!

"In the past imports have been our savior," Caruso said.

There's even a Podcast.

I'd say the EIA's assessment seems pretty fair at present, although it's clear that gasoline imports will soon need to rise very sharply as they did last year.

Here's some comparative data to get a feel for how things need to play out over the next few weeks:

(Note: Week ending dates are for 2006. 2007 is a day less)

Refinery capacity and gasoline production have been ahead of last year recently, but with flat imports this hasn't stopped stocks declining. Demand is surprisingly robust.

There is no reason whatsoever why we can't get around on 50cc motorbikes and 500cc cars.

Yeah! I love the picture of GWBush and his entourage putting around on 50cc mini-bikes. Well, maybe the POTUS would rate 60cc.....

I found this intersting. I was sifting through the news about one of my trades and read this. Would this be an example of Jevon's paradox (I believe that is what it is called). More efficiency engenders more consumption.

Whirlpool Gold(R) Dishwashers With PowerScour(TM) Technology Earn Good Housekeeping Seal
Energy-Efficient Whirlpool(R) Brand Dishwashers Provide Reliable Cleaning Power So You Don't Have To "Do" Dishes
PrintE-mailDisable live quotesRSSDigg itDel.icio.us

Last Update: 8:00 AM ET Apr 19, 2007

BENTON HARBOR, Mich., April 19, 2007 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX/ -- Whirlpool brand's ENERGY STAR(R) qualified line of Whirlpool Gold dishwashers has been granted the Good Housekeeping Seal. Recognized for their ability to eliminate the need to soak, pre-rinse or hand-scrub dishes, Whirlpool Gold dishwashers also save consumers valuable time over hand washing - almost 230 hours per year or enough time to drive cross-country six times.

Yes who really needs big autos. Mostly only one ore two persons sit in the cars.
Myself i have a small Hyundai Atos, 0,5 litre per 10 km.
It has everything that bigger cars have;ABS, airconditioning etc. If i some times need moore space to transport stuffs, then i use my trailer, and hook it on to the Atos.
And it is cheaper to buy, cheaper insurance etc.

You mean those charts? I still see them.

Hi Alan,

I can still see them!? Did you change browsers/computer?

I have a older Windows 2000 machine in the lab. I haven't updated it and it can't see them either. Most likely browser version.

In fact, it shows the price dipping below $62...still about 9 cents a cup.

In the January issue of Barron's, Marc Faber's #1 investment recommendation was farmland.

I haven't seen the article, but I am wondering if his recommendation was fuelled by the Ethanol hype/craze.

If not, kudos to him for foresight.

I think that you do not need so much farmland to feed for example a couple with vegetables. Think of the victory gardens.
A bigger problem is to get enough proteins and fat. Carbones you could essentially be without, or do not need so much of.

Either you could rase chicken or rabbits etc, or have a home by a water with fish(i am lucky to live by a clean river with fish). Then if you have money(preferably gold), there should be food for sale even if TEOTWAKI and TSHTF happens.

Kenneth

I don't know much about the investment aspect - though I do remember one of the top choices from one of the money-magazine articles a few years back was "Buy a farm in Ohio." I think that was right around the time of FarmAid etc. when farm prices were driven down and they really were tremendous bargains.

But if the intent is to secure future food production, be careful not to lease the land out for current production, unless you can require biointensive techniques that increase soil fertility. Otherwise you are just letting someone take fertility out of the soil; then in a few years you have a depleted resource.

Optimal is to start about 2-3 years in advance of major crop production and farm solely to enrich the soil. This of course is very expensive, but when you do start cropping the yields will be terrific and sustainable. If you try to start cropping right away it's hard to keep the soil going without external inputs.

I think that was Nate, not Dave.

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/11/8/6636/36918

Whiskey & Gunpowder email
April 18, 2007
By Byron W. King
Pittsburgh, U.S.A.

Mr. Wang thought for a moment. “If you add it all up,” he said, “there are about 40,000 or 50,000 students studying geology in China today at the university level. Maybe more, but I do not want to give you a number that is too high. Many of these students might not become geologists, because they will go into civil engineering or some related field. The Premier of China, Wei Jiabao, is a geologist, by the way, and worked as a geological surveyor in his youth. And many other students, such as those studying chemistry or physics in the university, might eventually become geochemists or geophysicists. But we are currently training about 50,000 or so geologists in China, across the nation.”

Are You Impressed Yet?

Are you impressed yet, dear readers? 50,000 students are studying geology in China today. That number is well over 25 times the number of college students who are studying geology in the U.S., which includes foreign students enrolled at U.S. institutions, and that is after something of a surge in enrollments in geoscience departments in the past two or three years. Back in 2004, according to statistics published by the U.S. National Science Foundation, there were fewer than 500 degrees granted in geology and petroleum engineering by all U.S. universities combined, and about half of those degrees were awarded to foreign nationals. The Chinese have 100 times that number in the pipeline.

By way of comparison with the number of geology graduates, in recent years, U.S. law schools have awarded an average of about 40,000 law degrees annually to aspiring lawyers. So for each geologist that U.S. academia cranks out, the law school industry mills something between 50-100 lawyers. At the extreme end of the ratio, there are 100 new lawyers graduating from U.S. universities for every new geologist coming out into the work force.

Why is it that China is training armies of geologists while the U.S. is training armies of lawyers? And is there something ominous about that fact?

And the U.S. has built up many great cities, while China is still building out its own collection of urban metropolises. Shanghai, for example, has seen the construction of over 300 new skyscrapers during the past 20 years. (One Chinese fellow once told me that it was too bad China did not use that steel to construct 300 offshore oil production platforms.) Overall, China is constructing buildings and roads and infrastructure that is the equivalent of a “new Houston,” about every month. And last year, in 2006, China added more electrical-generating capacity than exists in the entire state of California, where they have been building generating capacity for 100 years. So China is growing, and growing fast.

We live in a world in which the “easy” oil is gone, where Peak Oil looms, where the need for basic industrial resources and commodities is the key to the future existence of Western (and other) civilizations. And we live in a world in which the Chinese are training the scientific and technical cadre that will go out into the world and, one way or the other, find what their country needs and bring it home. There are armies, and then there are armies of geologists.

I agree that the irrigation system for farming in Australia is horribly unsustainable (no water, salting, erosion..)

But, let's stop growing food for the urban communities...wth? You would think that conservation would be easier in the city.

What was the crop loss last year in Australia...60% for some crops due to drought.

So...what do those urban communities EAT? Food from Brazil, Equador, Peru...

Leanan has posted a ton of stuff, but I think that this is the best overall article (from the 11/06 WSJ):

http://www.energybulletin.net/22775.html

This seems to explain the drop:

Oil Falls After Canadian Pipeline Resumes Shipments to the U. S.

The War on Common Sense seems to be coming along nicely ...

| _{The problem will solve itself.}
|  _{But not in a nice way.}

At which point it will be so simple to make correct calls on who to put in a straightjacket.

Statistically speaking, Doctors kill patients far more frequently than all registered gun owners killing people in general. When you consider that 42 million homes have a gun, less than a fraction of a percent discharge their weapons and kill someone. What we need is more legal gun ownership and the biggest point is we can not cave and award damages to criminals in the commission of the act.

I can't believe the story of the robber falling on the knife and winning in court. We've basically created the incentive to continue the behavior so long as you don't get caught or killed; you get something of value or hurt and you can sue later. We can trot out the studies of cities enacting concealed carry laws and how crime is reduced marginally. My state finally passed it a year and a half ago. I know crime is up in the city of STL (like just about ALL cities right now though so this is systemic, not local). I don't know about the county of STL (unincorporated out here).

Just bought a copy from Savinar...

it's been re-forwarded to 10,000 myspace profiles so far.

Reminds me of Maxwell's Demon. This creature would sit at the juncture of two gas reservoirs. When he saw a hot gas molecule approaching from one side he'd let it pass to the other reservoir. When he saw a cold gas molecule approaching from the hot reservoir he'd open the gate and let it pass to the cold reservoir. In this way he'd use the natural distribution of molecular energies in a gas to get free energy. Eventually it was determined that it would take more energy to sense the energy of each approaching gas molecule than could be gained from the enterprise. Probably the same thing here. You'd be better off just burning the uranium in a reactor. Now, if your bots could be self replicating and if they could feed on oil that might be something. Just as long as they don't get loose and then you'd be in the position of the Sorcerer's Apprentice.