 | Peak Oil Booklet - Chapter 4: What Should We Do Now? | The Oil Drum | The Status of Canadian Oil Production |  |
DrumBeat: August 18, 2007
Posted by Leanan on August 18, 2007 - 9:17am
Topic: Miscellaneous
There are plenty of studies and books out there that purport to unravel the character of energy supply and demand, when in fact most of what's out there focuses on the supply issues. Last month, the Department of Energy released "Facing the Hard Truths about Energy," a study commissioned by the National Petroleum Council. The fruit of a year-plus of the labors of 350 experts convened in special panels yielded 422 pages, which certainly passes the heft test, but hardly clarified the matter nor, unsurprisingly, provided any dramatic insights. It is chock full of graphs and facts, and predictably has been roundly criticized by political opponents.
SHOPPING has been exposed as the big culprit in rising water use and greenhouse gas emissions - and Sydney's most affluent suburbs are the worst offenders.New data shows the electricity and water used to produce everything people buy - from food and clothing to CDs and electrical appliances - far outweighs any efforts to save water and power in the home, according to an extensive analysis by the Australian Conservation Foundation and the University of Sydney.
China's new middle class in love with cars - big cars
"It's a vicious circle - more autos, more roads," said Li Junhao, deputy chief of the municipal urban planning department in Shanghai, which has fought the automobile trend more than any other Chinese city by restricting access to license plates and taxing the use of cars in its downtown."There's not enough space for the cars or land to build the highways. The dream of Chinese here is much similar to your American Dream, no?" Li said. "It's just the same as anywhere else - you want a car and a bigger house, so you consume and pollute more."
Ultra-deep drilling for oil is simply a red herring as prices militate against it
To go ultra-deep as Kerevan suggests will require very high prices.That is why the Russians are piddling in the wind over the deep Arctic.
The oil price would have to be well over $100 to make that economically viable. That apart, there is actually no real proof that there is oil and gas to be found there.
Des Moines Gas is Cheaper Than Eastern Iowa's
The other issue involves the Magellan Pipeline. It is not pumping gas to Johnson County. There is a gas shortage in Kansas. Fuel is going to Des Moines, but not Johnson County. So companies here have to drive clear out to Des Moines and back. The transportation cost is passed on to the rest of us.
Too early to tell fire's impact on gas prices
Local and statewide gasoline suppliers said Friday it's too early to tell what, if any, impact the fire at Chevron Refinery Pascagoula will have on fuel prices.
Mideast struggles to power area
An economically burgeoning Middle East is facing stark choices as it decides how to fuel its growth, despite sitting on two-thirds of the world's proven oil reserves.Countries in the region are facing rising demands on electricity, natural gas and fuel oil as their economies experience rapid development.
Israel to renew Gaza fuel supplies after blackout
srael said on Saturday it will allow fresh deliveries of fuel into Gaza, after a freeze which plunged much of the impoverished Palestinian territory into darkness overnight....The Palestinian electricity company said on Friday that it had been forced to stop nearly all electricity production in Gaza because of the suspension of deliveries.
'Environmentally friendly' all the rage in world market
Big business fears that the fight against climate change will cost billions are now giving way to a different view: Green can be the color of money.
High gas prices push man to convert truck to electric
The pickup isn't a hybrid. It runs completely on 24 six-volt batteries. They power a direct-current electric motor.He said the Nissan has a range of about 50 miles before needing recharging. When that need comes, Barksdale simply plugs an onboard charger into an outlet.
Proponents of solar-powered water heaters in Ottawa hope local gas and electric utilities, builders and municipal governments take advantage of a federal pilot project to fund the energy-efficient machines.
Hydrogen power gets up to speed
Albert Gore III was clocked at more than 100 mph in a Toyota Prius. Perhaps police should be glad he didn't get his hands on a Ford Fusion Hydrogen 999.Ford Motor Co. said this week that it set a land-speed record for a production-based hydrogen-fuel-cell-powered car when its prototype racer ran 207.3 mph at the Bonneville Salt Flats in Wendover, Utah.
All the Canaries Have Stopped Singing
Matthew Simmons, Chairman, Simmons & Company International guests on the Financial Sense Newshour.
Crude prices seen unmoved by global subprime woes: survey
: Oil prices are set to remain robust through next year despite the global markets shakedown in recent days, with banks and other institutions trimming their estimates marginally, according to the monthly Dow Jones Newswires oil price survey.
A recent piece by energy expert Michael Klare, "Entering the Tough Oil Era," at Tomdispatch.com offers perhaps the crucial context within which to consider Cheney's urge to launch an air assault on Iran. If we are, as Klare writes, leaving the realms of "easy oil" extracted from the most accessible places in the least unstable and least troubled of countries, and entering a new era of "oil that's buried far offshore or deep underground; oil scattered in small, hard-to-find reservoirs; oil that must be obtained from unfriendly, politically dangerous, or hazardous places," if global oil supplies are already under intense pressure and oil prices ready to leap on any hint of possible oil disaster anywhere on the planet, then imagine what a major air assault on Iran before January 2009 might mean for the global economy.
Nicaragua to Study Electricity Saving
Nicaragua's energy sector will discuss a new rationing program amid little hope that the annoying power cuts may drop.
The militant peasant group Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP or Philippine Peasant Movement) called for the review of the Biofuels Law fearing that jathropa planting would intensify land grabbing and peasant displacement.
Cuba: Energy on the road to national liberation
ONE day in the not-so-distant future historians will be able to define the dates and routes that led to human beings’ definitive emancipation from the forces that, from the remotest times, have divided them into rich and poor, masters and slaves.I have no doubt that, at that point, the efforts and leadership of President Hugo Chávez to construct an energy model of solidarity as the basis for winning real Latin American independence, the latter will have to be taken into account – among other extremely important events – as essential to the final push into the abyss of the old system whose paternity in terms of exclusion and social marginalization and dependence nobody questions.
Fiddling While Earth Burns - review of The 11th Hour
The deluge of depressing images and dire predictions from talking heads - 54 of them - with lofty titles like "Professor and Senior Fellow at the Center for Environmental Science and Policy of the Institute for International Studies" is relentless. And mind-numbing.Just because the subject is dead serious does not mean the documentary has to be. "We are committing suicide," warns one dour expert early on in the film. Bleak stuff, indeed.
Hurricane Dean seen becoming deadly Category 5
Hurricane Dean is expected to grow into a ferocious Category 5 storm as it passes Jamaica and nears Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula and the oil and gas rigs of the Gulf of Mexico after it smashed into several Caribbean islands, the U.S. National Hurricane Center said on Saturday.With top sustained winds of 150 mph early on Saturday, the hurricane center said Dean was a Category 4 storm, the second-highest level on the five-step Saffir-Simpson scale and capable of widespread destruction.
The hurricane center said it was expected to strengthen to Category 5, with top sustained winds in excess of 155 mph, before plowing directly over Jamaica toward the Gulf, home to a third of U.S. domestic crude oil and 15 percent of natural gas production.
No waiting game for oil companies
Some can afford to wait. Some can't.Shell Oil is not taking any chances. Especially with a hurricane churning in the Gulf of Mexico.
...Chevron is moving some workers from its deep-water rigs, but production is still on line.
ExxonMobil, BP and Valero Energy all say they are monitoring Dean, but no evacuations yet.
Russian Oil Production Up but Resource Nationalism Continues
Although Russian news agencies reported that oil production, which includes gas condensates, has increased by 2.8% to reach a level of 285 million tonnes in January through July 2007, the hidden crackdown by Moscow on the private oil sector continues. The Russian Ministry of Oil has reported that during the first seven months of 2007, overall primary oil refining increased by 5.2% to reach a level of 132 million tonnes, while gasoline output increased by 5.8% to 20.4 million tonnes. At the same time, total refinery production of the country has been around 35.7 million tonnes of fuel oil and 1.5 million tonnes of lubricants, respectively an increase of 5.7% and a decrease of 12.7%.
The dark continent - Power shortages have become one of the biggest brakes on development
SEEN from space, Africa at night is unlit—as dark as all-but empty Siberia. With nearly 1 billion people, Africa accounts for over a sixth of the world's population, but generates only 4% of global electricity. Three-quarters of that is used by South Africa, Egypt and the other countries along the north African littoral.
Alternative Energy: It's Not for Everybody: Clean energy for one country could spell disaster for another
Before I go any further, I'd like to say one thing right up front. I think alternative energy is a grand idea. I have fantasies about my country's deserts (I'm American) being covered by massive solar farms, and my nation's long and beautiful coastlines sprouting windmills by the thousands. I have Sci-Fi visions of millions of zero-emissions vehicles clogging America's roads in gloriously carbon free traffic jams.But the embrace of clean energy by some could mean economic depression for others. After all, what are all the countries whose economies depend on fossil fuel exports going to do when technological advances and the threat of climate change eventually makes their main source of export income obsolete?
Africa: Oil & Gas Discoveries - the Implications
Relatively recently, oil and gas discoveries have been announced in more than ten African countries. These include Uganda, Ghana, Congo-Brazzaville, Angola, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Algeria, Egypt, Cameroon, Nigeria, Tanzania, Zambia, Namibia, Sao Tome and Principe. This is great news for our continent.
Planning for Hard Times Peak Oil Conference
Join us for the world's largest gathering of Peak Oil activists! We bring together top experts in Peak Oil and lifestyle solutions for three days of presentations, workshop sessions, and networking.Come learn tactics for Peak Oil education and community organizing, strategies for reducing your personal energy use, and participate in visioning a viable post-peak future.
Air travel latest target in climate change fight
The statistics look ominous. Aviation currently contributes about 3 percent of global carbon emissions, but air travel is growing at some 5 percent a year, meaning numbers of air passenger kilometers will triple by 2030. Boeing estimates that aircraft numbers will double to more than 30,000 in little more than a decade.Added to this is the complication that aircraft do not just give off carbon dioxide but nitrous oxide, thought to have at least double the impact of CO2, and condensation trails, which also may contribute to global warming.
Russian Bombers Resume Strategic Patrols
President Vladimir Putin said Russia permanently resumed long-distance patrol flights of strategic bombers on Friday which were suspended in 1992 after the collapse of the Soviet Union. After 15 years, once again we are on the brink of nuclear annihilation.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070817/72189719.html
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20070818_Russia_puts_bombers_bac...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/18/wputin11...
That profile of the TU-160 looks remarkably like the B1-B, the red stars giving it away. (I was a very small part of the B1 design many years ago)
Given Russia's access to crude oil resources and the facts that 97% of the US government's expenditure for fuel is for the Department of Defense, that 53% of this is for the Air Force, 89% being for aviation, and every $10 per barrel increase in crude oil increasing the aviation costs by $600M per year, what better way is there for Russia to "stick it in the eye" of the US? In the current environment that includes U.S. dependency on foreign crude oil supplies from politically unstable regions, IMO gearing all that cold war stuff all back up, including sufficient stockpiles to mitigate supply disruption, to match this global presence is going to make the U.S. response very, very expensive.
Perhaps with this development the urgent need to convert the civilian wheeled transportation fleet to electricity will begin making a lot more sense to a lot more people and we can begin making serious moves in that direction, including serious initiatives for light rail.
Prior apologies for pondering without facts and with a feeble understanding of the economics but:
Suppose every dollar Putin "invests" in projecting Russia's nuclear power globally results in a U.S. expenditure of $2 on a resource in a tightening supply and demand situation. This increases global crude oil demand and, given tightening supplies, drives the price up. Given that Russia is a supplier of this resource, Putin gets part of his investment back. Then, if he invests this return in more bombers and naval vessels, Russia can project more power requiring even more U.S. investment to project an equivalent response. Demand increases more rapidly, even more global capital flows into Russian coffers and the chess game continues.
Is this the beginning of the second arms race (really a fuel race) with a high likelihood being the rise rather than the fall of Russia (with China as the trump card) as a world superpower and the U.S. descent this time?
This is true insanity (not that insanity is limited to the Russian side by any means). I guess that Putin is resuming these flights to help his image with the Russian public, but I can't see what other good it would do. Nuclear chest-thumping might play well with the nationalists, but it seems like a huge waste of energy and money. Even if the USA can't respond with similar flights (because the USA is rapidly going broke in both energy and funds), if push came to shove there are still enough nuclear missiles in silos and on submarines to destroy the world several times over.
A nuclear war between the USA and Russia would be a lose-lose situation. About the only conceivable benefit it could have would be to reduce population pressure rather quickly.
Will the world ever learn?
"Even if the USA can't respond with similar flights"
The US never stopped. We have continuously kept Strategic Bombers in the air. That is what Putin was refering to in the article.
"The president said that although the country stopped strategic flights to remote regions in 1992, "Unfortunately, not everyone followed our example." Other states' long-distance strategic patrol flights have created certain problems for national security, he said."
[We have continuously kept Strategic Bombers in the air.]
What is your basis for that statement? Kept strategic bombers in the air in what capacity? How do you define 'strategic bombers"? I pulled alert in SAC in the 70's and at that time we had stopped airborne alert. Did we restart at some point and for what purpose? We certainly still have training flights, but that is not the same as continuously keeping strategic bombers in the air (which implies with other than training weapons) as we did in the 50s and the early part of the 60s.
You misunderstood. Perhaps an unfortunate use of words on my part. I did not say we have had bombers loaded with nukes circling Russia 24/7. We have continued to fly long range strategic bomber missions since the end of the Cold War, many of them with Russia as the focus.
On Sept. 27, 1991, President George H. Bush ordered the termination of Strategic Air Command's alert which began in October 1957 following the Soviet launching of the Sputnik satellite. The alert forces ceased operations the next day, beginning the successful conclusion of the Cold War. SAC alerts had been 24-hour, with precise requirements for ever-faster takeoffs dependent on the type of scenario in test.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123008783
Bomber command was transfered to the Air Combat Command of the US Strategic Command the same day. Since then we have flown "Global Power Missions" to demonstrate to the world our capabilities. Out of inertia or lack of another major target out there, Russia has been the focus of many of these Global Power Missions. I would imagine they have found that unnerving to say the least.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/global-power.htm
The B-2's ability to reach deep into enemy defense networks and disable command and control, infrastructure, integrated air defense, and other high value targets makes this aircraft a valuable force enabler. The B-1, the backbone of our conventional bomber fleet, will employ its high speed, maneuverability, and improved defensive systems to attack the next level of medium and low threat targets with large payloads of highly accurate point and area munitions. In so doing, it will strike the bulk of the targets attacked by bombers. The B-52's contribution early in a conflict will be limited to a standoff role, but will follow up with direct attacks on lower threat targets when enemy defenses are weakened. This combination of aircraft meets the mission requirements of geographic commanders while providing our nation the maximum return on its investment in land based airpower.
http://www.fas.org/man/congress/1997/h970611acc.htm
Since B-52's will act in a standoff role as a platform for cruise missiles, they would not actually have to enter Russian airspace to strike. Any approach of B-52's towards Russian airspace COULD be a prelude to war.
I'm sure we would not be happy if Russian bombers made habit of coming up to the edge of our airspace. Oh, that's right, I guess that's what's going to be happening from now on.
P.S. The Tu-95MS is also a cruise missile platform
(I'ld love to ride in the the tail-gun position in the Tu-95. The droning of the engines is hypnotic, like riding home fron the Drive-in in the back of the stationwagon as a kid. And it's cold with altitude. All bundled up, with that droning vibration running through the plane, they'ld have to wake me up if we ran into any action.)
I did misunderstand. The terms 'strategic' and 'continuously in the air' have particular connotations to me from having flown in SAC, so thank you for the clarification as well as the additional information.
It seems weird to think of a tailgun on these aircraft in an age of air intercept missiles. But I think the pilot's yanking and banking to avoid the first wave of missiles would probably wake you up pretty thoroughly were you in the tail gunner position.
Just to think they are turboprop in the age of air intercept missiles is strange.(and yes it would wake me up just in time to bail out.) ;)
This is true insanity (not that insanity is limited to the Russian side by any means).
More like a shrewd calculation on Putin's part. Remember, the US is going full-speed ahead with building a missile shield based in Eastern Europe and Alaska and designed to neutralize Russia's ICBMs and give the US the capability to launch a nuclear attack without the fear of having a subsequent nuclear gift exchange.
Having nuclear weapons based on strategic bombers and submarines is part of Russia's 'asymmetrical response' that would overwhelm the missile shield at a fraction of the cost, as described so eloquently at Putin's press conference in June.
IMHO, anything that the world community can do to contain the threat of US imperialism and reduce the risk of a nuclear war is a good thing. Note that the US is currently the only country whose military doctrine endorses the concept of a preemptive nuclear attack.
So let's see...
1) USA has been performing patrolling flights like these for decades now
2) USA is building an anti-missile shield obviously directed against Russia's nuclear deterrence
Given these 2 facts you think Putin's move is insanity? Why nobody bothered to call facts 1) and 2) the "insanity" they really are before that?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6946210.stm
Also Mobile species can and probably do move into the area totally unaware of the radiation only to die later. I imagine we don't have a reproducing resident population of species.
Cid, no offense intended but what you 'imagine' is not relevant. Many still 'imagine' our moon to be made of green cheese, while some still cling to the notion that the earth is flat...:)
'Imagine' my hand with most of it's fingers folded into a fist upturned. ;)
Would this imagination be 'Sid indicating his IQ'? :0
How could anyone compete with a schoolyard wit such as yours.
"I imagine we don't have a reproducing resident population of species."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4923342.stm
thats the OLD news article based on the OLD study that the parent post is pointing out that is flawed by pointing to a NEWER study on the same subject.
We can conclude that even though background radiation may be harmful to wildlife, it is far less so than the effects of sustained human habitation. So the articles are both correct.
That just doesn't make any sense. Background radiation is radiation that is present everywhere, all the time. You are never free of background radiation. All life evolved in the presence of background radiation. If you are going to debate the harm of background radiation then you must also include the benefits of background radiation. Background radiation is partially responsible for the divergence of life because is responsible for some, but not all, of the small mutations that make evolution possible.
I think it is pointless to debate the harm background radiation causes. It has always been there and it always will be there. What you must be concerned with is radiation that is above bacground radiation.
Ron Patterson
Deep breath, Ron...it's pretty obvious he meant the radiation from Chernobyl and not normal Earth background radiation. That is to say, if Chernobyl radiation and humans got into a fight about who could kill off more wildlife, humans would win. The animals that seem to be doing better are the larger ones that humans readily kill off or destroy the habitat of...they are doing better against the radiation than they were against the humans, but worse off for having the radiation than they would be without the radiation.
No, you take a deep breath Sub. I am well aware of what he meant. My point was that he was using the wrong term. Background radiation has onely one meaning. You cannot use the term "background radiation" when you are talking about something other than "background radiation". It is a little like using the word "literally" for a metaphore. As in: "We literall beat the crap out of them." That must have stunk up the place.
If you measure the radiation anywhere near Chernoble you will likely get a reading that is above normal background radiation. And if you continue measuring as you move away from Chernoble the radiation will drop until you only measure background radiation. At that point you will have reached the limits of the contaminated area.
Bottom line, you should not use the term literally when you are speaking metaphorically and you should not use the term "background radiation" when you are talking about something other than background radition. Unswearstand?
Ron Patterson
Background radiation is the radiation in the "background" of a given area as opposed to radiation from a specific source. Fallout from a nuclear weapon is considered "background" radiation. Background radiation varies everywhere on earth, particularly related to altitude but also related to other environmental factors.
When they use the term background radiation here they are using it exactly as we used it at the Defense Nuclear Agency and the US Army Nuclear and Chemical Agency when discussing fallout radiation in addition to the natural background radiation.
In short, you seem to be confused about natural background radiation and background radiation.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Dr. Albert Bartlett
Into the Grey Zone
Actually it seems you do not understand what the term means.
By the false definition you just posted people might as well give up on giger counters cause as soon as radiation is released it becomes background normal and thus harmless.
The actual meaning of background radiation is the very small amount that is Naturally present in the environment. This natural level is what life on this planet has evolved to survive under. When some country sets off a nuke or a nuclear plant has a accident like Chernobyl the immediate area or where the fallout lands becomes many times more radioactive then it would be compared to the normal background level by a artificial means. This is what is commonly referred to as radiation, This is what kills.
Apparently it does not kill that much. At least this is what the article showed.
Thinking in absolutes aren't we?
Sure they might not be on the ground rotting dead, But as the same article showed with the mentioned birds they are suffering by gaining bad mutations and i am sure some might even be suffering from other ailments as well. Or are you focusing too much on the nice picture of that horse?
The terrible myth that radiation is radiation...that all radiation is equivalent...was and is deliberately disseminated to assure public acceptance. Really, nothing of concern here, folks; our carefully selected and hired experts agreee much ado about nothing. Trust that we know best.
Especially, particulate v gasseous sources yield very different outcomes.
"Low-level" and "threshold level" assurances are also mostly the workproduct of spinmeisters.
Also, the successive, daughter products are far less studied yet very troublesome effects are known, just not disseminated. Who besides vested interests will spend the money to disseminate information? especially propaganda?
Recall that the horrendous effects of smoking tobacco were mostly known and disseminated [!] in the 1940s. Yet the data was then quashed and disappeared for 30 more years.
Best to take your own look at the subject.Results will vary with your own diligence and your own evaluation of source.
The scary part is that someone appears to have a vested interest in convincing people that radiation isn't really all that harmful. WTF! Maybe someone wanting to be able to use a new generation of tactical nukes.
I work in the radiation protection field (as a Health Physicist).
I have never been impressed (and constantly appalled) by the way the MSM handles any subject. This article is no exception. Without actual data documenting what the exposure levels are, this is just fear mongering.
The paper in question is behind a pay wall, but the abstract give some hints.
http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/u231u84367n650u4/
"We conducted standardized point counts of breeding birds at forest sites around Chernobyl differing in level of background radiation by over three orders of magnitude. Species richness, abundance and population density of breeding birds decreased with increasing level of radiation, even after controlling statistically for the effects of potentially confounding factors such as soil type, habitat and height of the vegetation. This effect was differential for birds eating soil invertebrates living in the most contaminated top soil layer."
The phrase “ by over three orders of magnitude” implies that hot spots exist in the zone and that those spots are hazardous, but without the actual background radiation reading, both articles are pretty much useless. Also the question of chemical toxicity does not seem to be addressed. If I sprinkle heavy metals on your breakfast cereal, you are not going to be a happy camper, regardless of whether they are radioactive or not.
Here's an interesting site I ran across a few years ago about someone who motorcycled around Chernobyl: http://www.kiddofspeed.com/
Seems as if this site was a hoax, and that the photos were taken while she was on a bus tour
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Filatova
You'll notice on her site that the motorcycle does not appear in any of the photos taken inside the exclusion zone.
Such tours are still available, no need to be an outlaw biker:
http://www.kievtravel.com.ua/kievtours.php#tour9
This being said I think the site got lots of hits and raised awareness of the effects of the disaster
You'll notice on her site that the motorcycle does not appear in any of the photos taken inside the exclusion zone.
Actually, photos of the motorcycle appear here, here and here. Pretty sobering pictures; makes you wonder if this is how US cities will look like around 2100.
Interesting. None of the photos showing the motorcycle look definitively Chernobyl, though. They could have been taken anywhere.
One of the links to the Wikipedia article says she can't even ride a motorcycle.
The last one is definately NOT in the exclusion zone. Given Ukranian's climate 23 years without maintenance would have ruined any road. This one looks quite well maintained.