The contents below are paid advertisements. Their appearance does not imply an endorsement by The Oil Drum.
“He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils, for time is the greatest innovator.”
—Francis Bacon, Essays
Search The Oil Drum with Google
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Technician: Super G
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
- Enjoying Life Close to Home: Fun Streets
TOD:Europe
- Russian gas and European energy security - a reprise
- Russia: There Is Life After Peak Oil
- Should EROEI be the most important criterion our society uses to decide how it meets its energy needs?
TOD:Canada
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
- Weekend Energy Listening: Wind Power with Paul Gipe
TOD:ANZ
Peak Oil Primers
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- Ecological Economics
- David Strahan
- Econbrowser
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- Environmental Economics
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Organizations
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
10% Reduction in US Oil Use in 10 to 12 Years
A cut down (and better I think) version on ASPO-USA.
http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=168&It...
It was mentioned yesterday down thread.
Several things left unsaid.
I have come to the conclusion that a crash Electrification of Transportation program can accommodate a -1.5% annual decline in available oil (in addition to other measures that are their own wedges). Accommodating a -2% annual decline is certainly within the realm of possibility. And -2.5% on my optimistic days.
Electrification of Transportation alone cannot deal with -3.5% annual decline in available oil for a decade or more.
Rail has "elasticity of supply" when our economic system is stressed by lack of oil.
I have come to the conclusion that bicycling has the greatest elasticity of supply and is an essential part of the solution.
OTOH, improved fleet fuel economy is absolutely essential (NO MORE HUMMERS !) but is limited in how fast it can be implemented (especially if we do not waive safety & pollution requirements) and it has VERY limited elasticity of supply in the short and even medium term.
Best Hopes for Electrification of Transportation,
Alan
Alan-- Please comment again (you have posted this info before, I know)
Suppose intra-city and inter-city passenger rail were suddenly electrified, and people started using existing electric car technology-- plug into the grid for battery charge, maybe a backup small gasoline engine-- for as much of their individual travel.
Would that overstress the grid? Would it increase or decrease carbon dioxide generation? Would it help or harm, or would it make any overall difference? Also, what would it take to electrify Greyhound busses? Could they be designed to plug into the grid for charge?
Thanks
DOE's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory researched that and came up with these results:
Rail and bus travel constitutes a fraction of one percent of vehicle miles driven in the U.S., so complete electrification of rail and bus alone would present no difficulty for the U.S. grid.
Assuming the current mix of electricity generating plants and fuels, electrification of the U.S. light vehicle fleet would reduce greenhouse gas emissions 27%, VOCs by 93%, CO by 98% and NOx by 31%. All emissions in urban areas would be improved. However, in rural areas where coal generating plants are located, particulates would increase by 18% and SOx would increase by 125%.
Plug-in hybrid buses are technically feasible and have been rolled out in a number of applications such as school buses.
Electrifying the current level of public transit would be nice, but rather inconsequential. To adapt to declining oil supply we need a massive shift from single-occupancy motor vehicles to other forms of transport, and there are many obstacles to achieving that, including:
* electricity for such greatly expanded service
* money and energy for the manufacturing of such vehicles
* the time it takes to do it even if resources are available
* social and political obstacles
That's all very true. We have the electricity to make the shift, but it's available at night. So it's actually electricity storage that is an obstacle.
Rail uses a small fraction of U.S. energy -- a total of 659 trillion BTU, or 0.66 % of U.S. energy consumption (see Table 2.4).
About 10% of all U.S. rail is electrified, which means the other 90 percent can make the 250%-300% efficiency gains from electrification that Alan mentions. At best, present rail energy use could be reduced to 264 trillion BTU, or 0.26% of U.S. energy consumption.
[EDIT] (659 * 0.1) + ((659 * 0.9) / 3) = 264
The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory report says we can add 3.1 quads of (mostly) nighttime load to the existing grid. That means we could increase the energy consumption of rail by something like 900% using existing grid capacity (assuming use of a storage scheme like pumped hydro which has a 78% efficiency ratio in the U.S.).
[EDIT] Increasing the energy consumption of rail by 900%, combined with a 200%-300% efficiency gain from electrification, would enable a 18-27 fold increase in the work accomplished by rail, using existing grid capacity.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of that electrical generation not "used" at night is natural gas fired; some of it inefficient single cycle NG turbines.
We do not have the NG to fire these plants 17 or 20 hours/day.
The demands placed by switching 90% of current inter-city truck ton-miles on electrified rail, plus as much Urban Rail as we could build and finish in a half dozen years equal about one or two years growth in electrical demand. A recession plus higher prices could free up that much and more.
However EVs much larger and with greater ranges than GEMs http://www.gemcar.com would pose a problem. I wonder if NG fuel cars might not be a better choice for several reasons for at least a decade.
One reason is not to crash the electrical grid for other purposes than recharging EVs. A decade of wind turbine + HV DC lines + pumped storage construction could satisfy the EV demand (I think) with minimal NG use by the grid.
I have a larger picture in mind, but which path to take "depends" on several variables.
In all cases, installing tankless NG hot water heaters to replace older NG water heaters and more insulation are VERY GOOD things.
Best Hopes,
Alan
I'm more and more suspicious of any proposal that depends on switching where switching involves much in the way of rebuilding. Because if it takes something like 25 barrels of oil to build a prius and then maybe a barrel a month to run it the barrels to convert will themselves be too much. All of society will be trying to invest oil now to reduce future demand for oil. [I know because I'm doing that personally.]
It won't be only one sector of society, eg automobiles, but it will be the grid, food, industry - all at the same time. The recognition of peak oil is going to drive any entity willing to prepare into a spend-it-while-you-have-it mode. Sort of a pre-hurricane rush to the store.
Duct tape!
cfm in Gray, ME
The flaw in many of these reports is that they report energy usage as oil consumption when in fact most of the steps either can or even already are not done in oil. What such reports should honestly say is barrels of oil equivalent in energy, but they do not.
For example, there is a large myth on this website that most mining can only be done with fossil fueled machinery. This is simply not true as almost all underground mining is done electrically which means that above ground mining could be if necessary. And the manufacture of an automobile in the assembly line is very electrically oriented, not fossil fuel oriented.
This is precisely why we could change how we live. Fossil fuels are not how many people portray them. We have many other energy sources that are close enough in cost that we could use those instead. The problem is not can we do this but rather will we do this?
Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett
vtpeacenik,
Or we could just encourage carpooling and vanpooling by barring one driver cars on the interstates, and refusing them a parking place in inner cities. Make the sale of new gasoline engines illegal, diesel and hybrids only. Stop road construction and repairs, instead put light rail on the right-of ways, tax internal combustion engine cars at $5,000 each as a license plate fee-call it an energy security tax.
The obstacles are the car companies and big oil, and the whores at the car companies could be persuaded by the idea of all the new diesel and electric cars.
Our country just lacks the political will because of the corruption from corporations.
Bob Ebersole
You don't need to go so far as call it "corruption". It's simply corporations protecting their own interests. After all, they're legally bound to provide maximum profits to shareholders and all that. In principle, there's nothing wrong with this, providing there are sufficient corporations of equal power and influence all excising their own differing agendas.
Unfortunately certain corporations have become far too big and powerful, argubly more powerful than governments, which are at least democratically elected.
wizofaus my Aussie friend,
Maybe your government was democraticially elected, but ours was appointed by the Supreme Court. The New York Times-Miami Herald recount in 2000 showed that Gore won Florida, and hence the election. In 2004 the exit poll didn't agree with the results in a couple of states with Diboll computerised voting. Kerry won that one.
All corporate contributions should be illegal. They are not persons. And the disgusting amounts of money raised for each of the US presidential candidates should make anyone question who is buying what. I see the broadcast airwaves as public property, and the electronic media should be required to give back time to the candidates.
I guess I'm just old fashioned, thinking votes should be counted honestly,and that media have a civic duty in a Democratic society.
Bob Ebersole
Still, if 70% of the population were unhappy about Bush as president at around election time, he wouldn't be there.
But if 70% of the population are unhappy about the way oil companies manipulate or otherwise influence governments and corporations into decisions that are ultimately deterimental to society as a whole, there's relatively little they can do about it. Yes, in principle, they can stop buying oil. But that's hardly a fair comparison with being able to tick a different box on the ballot paper.
"In principle, there's nothing wrong with this, providing there are sufficient corporations of equal power and influence all excising their own differing agendas."
Ah, the idealistic view. How quaint.
Pity we don't live in that world. And even if we did I still would argue that the corporate structure would have an overall negative impact on society. As it happens though, those differing agendas are things like:
A) It's your right to have the freedom to drive wherever and whenever you like in the biggest SUV around, even if it is just to take little Molly to her friend's house, one block down the road.
B) Don't worry if you're getting fat from a poor diet and the refusal to even walk one block down the road, it's not your fault, your sick and we've got this appetite supressing pill that'll do the trick.
C) Be eco-friendly like us, recycle those cans and plastic bottles - it saves energy and it saves the environment - then come in and check out our latest HD 50 inch screen!
D) Housing bubble? What housing bubble? We can finance your next purchase for 5.75% with zero deposit!!
E) Your kid is high from eating processed sugars and preservatives, never mind take a Ritalin.
Oh, and did someone say "lobbying"?
"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created."
Albert Einstein
I agree entirely. There is more than ample proof that a system of competing corporations on its own is not likely to provide what society as a whole needs.
But in principle, it's possible, if we had more John Mackeys in the world:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/32239.html
In principle, anything is possible, including: The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Which pretty well sums up our principal 'in principle' problem.
If you know what I mean.
Mark Twain did: “What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so.”
What's interesting is that Mackey sincerely believes his flavour of "ethical capitalism" will win in the end, because profits-first capitalism is not competitive in the long-run. I hope he's right, but I suspect he has a rather more optimistic view of human nature than I do (Note: TOD is about the only place I've ever been accused of excessive optimism. Indeed I used to think of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool pessimist.)
In principle, I like to agree with you and like to hope too for what's right, but what I see actually happening reminds me not to. Call it the precautionary principle. ;-)
Frankly, I'm worried that we won't even be able to maintain the grid at current capacity in the post-carbon age, let alone expand it.
Electrifying current commuter trains would not do much. For example, let's suppose you electrified the Chicago METRA's Northwest line. It sees 64 commuter trains per day, the maximum size is 10 cars per train, shorter in off peak, suppose each railcar weighs 100 tons. That's a maximum of 64,000 ton-miles per mile you would be powering by electricity each day.
Put that same mile of wire above some of the more heavily traveled freight lines, such as those hauling coal out of the Powder River Basin, they often see 37 100+ car unit trains of around 12-15 thousand tons each, or 444,000 ton miles per day (plus another fourth or so for the empties moving back) per mile electrified.
Gallons of diesel saved per dollar of investment in overhead wire (or gallons of diesel saved per pound of copper overhead wire) would be much greater on freight lines.
(Yes, there are some other factors involved, like making the passenger service faster with better acceleration, etc., but this is just a crude analysis)
Better yet, just increase the average MPG on all light vehicles by 5 mpg, and you'll save a lot more gallons
Yes, the Powder River coal lines (3 and 4 tracks BTW) are low hanging fruit.
http://www.trains.com/ctr/objects/images/railroad_electrification_1970s....
But that does NOT mean electrifying the Chicago commuter rail lines is not worth doing.
Figure 10% shorter trip times (rule of thumb), means more riders. Shorter trip times also means existing rolling stock can carry more people (needed when gasoline hits $6, then $10/gallon and then ... ?)
Electric locos also last longer, don't waste time refueling or warming up on a cold morning, cost less to run (whats to break ?) and the number of trains that can be run on an electric rail line is greater than on the same line with diesel locos.
It is NOT an "either/or" regarding increased auto fleet gas mileage. It will be the MAXIMUM for both !
Best Hopes for the WILL to do something !
Alan
"
The perverse thought occurs to me that if this coal is being burned for electrical generation, some of which is going to drive this newly electrified train, why not burn it directly in coal-fired steam engines. Dirty as hell but probably no dirtier than your typical coal-fired power plant. Especially if you consider what nifty new coal-fired steam engine technology we could come up with.....
[/ end perverse fantasy]
I have seen the construction of 24 streetcars for the Canal Line in the New Orleans 1892 Carrollton Barn.
The trucks came from Brookville Equipment in Brookville PA, the a/c units (modified bus units) from the Czech Republic (Carrier compressors from the USA). All else within 100 miles.
End caps (complex curves) from local boat building company. Local Iron Works companies made body sections that were assembled in the barn. Mahogany seats built by local furniture company. Mahogany trim and many "bits & pieces" made by transit workmen, as well as final assembly and painting. Outside workmen came in and did the wiring and controls.
NOT EASY ! But it CAN be done !
Best Hopes for the WILL to do it,
Alan
I will quote my article
More later when I have time.
Best Hopes for Trading 20 BTUs of diesel for 1 BTU of electricity,
Alan
There is plenty of hope for a better world after Peak Oil. Political and financial will are not presently in view -- but that can change pretty fast
Alan:
Here is a thought for you:
Since we all know that no single thing (even EOT) is going to close the gap by itself, how about adapting the "Stabilization Wedges" idea developed by S. Pacala and R. Socolow for greenhouse gas reduction, and applying it to the future energy "gap"?
http://www.princeton.edu/~cmi/resources/stabwedge.htm
They would be different wedges, of course. Some overlap, but some of the wedges that reduce carbon do nothing for energy; they might be fine things to do in the interests of combatting global warming, but they would be useless for our purposes. We would also need to have much more aggressive energy efficiency and renewable powerup options than the above authors have in their system (which is relatively conservative and pessimistic about the extent to which energy efficiency and renewables can be developed in the short run).
While the "stabilization wedge" model is interesting, the main thing I dislike about it is configuring each strategy to same "size". In reality, different strategies have different dimensions of impact when fully deployed.
Maybe a better approach would be to use a pie metaphor. We come up with our best estimate of the projected annual rate of decline in total energy supplies from present levels that we need to make up to sustain society. Each strategy (like EOT) would be a slice of the pie. Different strategies might be different sized slices. The trick is to come up with a mix that adds up to 100% and fills the pie. Add estimated cost data, and you then have a tool to understand tradeoffs and to begin to build consensus around public policies.
I think this is the one really good thing about the Stabilization Wedges model. Say you really are opposed to nukes. Fine, but if you are not going to include that red-colored wedge, then you need to identify what other wedge you are going to use instead -- an other wedge among the ones left AFTER you have alread picked your initial six. It won't do to just blow off nukes with a vague claim that there are "other, better" strategies that can replace it. The same thing applies to energy; people say they don't want this or can't do that, but when they fill the circle with what they can accept and see that a big gap still remains that needs to be filled and the number of strategies left unused on the table, then perhaps they can start getting serious about making hard choices.
Wish I could develop this myself, but I just don't have the time. I hope someone can take this idea and run with it.
I have thought about this but:
1) It takes a lot of work to develop each wedge
2) I cannot quantify many wedges (bicycling for transportation, what are the possible growth rates ? What is the maximum ?)
3) What can be quantified is subject to so MANY variables (oil prices, economic activity, changes in urban form, how fast can we build EOT in the real world ?)
As to the last question, I would point to the overproduction of WW II. We built many more planes than thought possible in 1941 for example.
False numbers and accuracy do not help the debate IMHO.
I thought long and hard about my 10% claim. I think that CAN be done as a lower limit (I gave myself two years wiggle room, i.e. 10 to 12 years) and more than 10% can be done.
But I, at least, cannot quantify the upper limit.
Best Hopes for Hand Waving,
Alan
One way that the motor vehicle fleet could adapt quickly is throught the use of retrofits. A high-efficiency continuously variable transmission alone has been shown to improve the gas mileage of an SUV by nearly 20%. Regenerative braking could also be done as an aftermarket add-on, and might yield an even greater benefit in urban driving. Of course, that would not be sufficient for the long term problem, but it would greatly ease the pain of the early decline without replacing the whole vehicle fleet.
Mark Folsom
I appreciate Alan’s posts and have learnt much from them.
Considering fossil fuels as a whole, not just ‘oil’ and transport, the goal of 10% fossil energy use reduction in US use in 10 to 12 years is absurd.
That goal could be accomplished in a few weeks, with far more achieved in 6 months.
Electricity. New light bulbs, turn off the lights at night. That includes the sparkling Jesus and Mary on the lawn at Xmas. No lit spaces without ppl in them carrying out activity. Easy..
Transport by truck. Centralize and rationalize. There is a huge amount to be done there, no empty trips, or as little as poss. Computers and statisticians are *useful.* Easy...
Industry and manufacturing, savings could be tremendous, varies by type. Too complex to go into right here.
Transport of ppl. Various car pooling and official hitch hiking schemes, bike lanes, rehabilitate walking, etc.
Cars. Get rid of the clunky gaz guzzlers immediately, off the road, by law, this too is not difficult...
Buildings. Well everyone here knows about that. Federal directives and laws. Air conditioning should be cut, that is, forbidden, wherever possible. Heating turned down 3 degrees, and no heating of unoccupied spaces.
Food waste. In Britain, a third of the food bought is thrown out. Telegraph, for ex.
Agriculture. Fill it in.
Transport by boat, barge. Encourage, rehabilitate.
Etc.
tot it up - what, 20% savings? In a few weeks? (for those measures that could be implemented quickly..)
Can’t happen.
All imply ‘communistic’, ‘socialistic’ measures; or cooperation for the common good, or Gvmt. crack down in various ways, ppl obeying strictures that they refuse to even consider in any way. The American, -Western-, way of life stipulates that rapine is legitimate, greed, growth, and waste, are fabulous and glitzy, oh not not just that, they are a right, GDP must rise, others owe us a living.
Cooperation for the common good? Hey, what an idea. Why didn't I think of it- Commie plot, that's why.
Then I think back on WWll, Imagine, no cars for us ordinary folk for an entire duration. Instead, Detroit made bombers, tanks, guns and other very hard ware.
And we accepted it without any gripes at all. Just think what real leadership could do now with the stuff that goes into making those damn cars for 4 years. Pave the desert with solar thermal power, make all the windmills and pumped storage we can use, Electrify transport, make people happy doing good work.
Maybe even learn how to and want to do less with less.
Nobody talks about what is a proven and obvious fact- people who are on a crusade toward a worthy common goal with good leadership, FEEL GOOD ABOUT THEMSELVES. Hard work and sacrifice can make you happy and fulfilled. Being greedy, fat, lazy and dumb does not. God! who doesn't know that?
(Ah, for the good old days of dragging bombs around the deck of an aircraft carrier, feeling good, heroic, irresistible to females, and hungry for icecream.)
So now we have this tremendous opportunity to do some hard work and make some sacrifices, be heroes and feel good, and what are we doing?- sitting around moaning about how awful things are gonna be when we get to where we are going.
Pitiful!
I hope things do go somewhat as you are describing... it'll be interesting to see how far things have to deteriorate before enough people are willing to make that a reality though...
"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created."
Albert Einstein
That goal [-10% fossil fuel use] could be accomplished in a few weeks, with far more achieved in 6 months
I tend to agree, but that would not be believed by the target audience for my proposal. In a BAU world, how much could be saved with the changes I proposed ?
Even then, -10% is on the low end. But I lose creditability if I make "wild" claims at first. I want the concept of EOT as a solution to spread, rather than specifics (although I supply specifics).
Best Hopes,
Alan
Oh Alan I understand that, my brain just latched onto 10% and tried to turn it into 30!
If you ever come to Switz. send me an e mail, I’ll show you our new trams and we can take a ride in funiculars. A few months back I read that the Vaudois Gvmt. was offering a stipend, quite considerable, more than 150 dollars, to those who would buy an electrified bike. Their city, Lausanne, is built on a horribly steep hill and is not bikable in the up direction, and tough in the down as well. There was also a rumor that some main streets would be equipped with a sort of conveyor belt in to which any human with wheels could latch onto to be dragged up. The press didn’t follow up on either, though there were safety objection to the second (eg. lady with rollerskates and a pram.) Anyway there is plenty to see.
Best hopes, Noirette
hush the noise the Lord said and god said in verse Let there be light.
Hush the pain and god said in verse it is finished
Hush the rush and god said .......You have the spirit of fire, tongues of fire.
Hush the rush and vote for the new presidental canidate.
He runs for the F.R.N party
Free Right Now
his friends call him Charles
He goes by that mostly,
Do not send this out to others,
He will not accept money of any kind
No donations
No volunteers need apply, if they do they will work for free tips
Like quips, quotes, wits and end bits of sounds
Going Grass roots on July 19th in venues near and far
Do not vote for in the primary
Only in the main line Popular vote
Vote only once, and do it only once, the main election, write in his name or not
No party, no helpers, no funds, No worries, Just be free and vote.
If he does not win so be it
If he does not win the wind was blowing in spainIf he does not win, he'll be able to enjoy the next four years
If he does win, for more years of changes and changes and changes
Vote Charles, Free Right Now.
ceojr1963@yahoo.com
http://dan-ur.blogspot.com
Author at Large,
Charles E Owens Jr.