The other irony is that Climate Change & Peak Oil are happening at the same time.

Yes, a peak in the economic availability of fossil fuels looks like it could be less than 2 decades away. I'm rather drawn to Lovelock's GAIA theory in this regard.

It is rather incredible when one realizes that Hubbert had first talked about it in the mid-fifties, so it took fifty years before the media started discussing it openly.

I think that raises an interest point. It seems that nearly all ideas relevant to our future have been identified by someone, even if they are little known. Do ideas that are reasonably provable always eventually get to mainstream acceptance?

In past ages, generation of new concepts was limited to a handful of scholars. Education and knowledge of the general populace was minimal. There was no media. Information was almost completely controlled through government and the Church.

Now it seems that any and all ideas are out there, and up for discussion, the information revolution starting with printing. A well educated general public can both hear about and contribute new ideas to the pool.

Certainly, palatable ideas travel faster then controversial ones. 50 years might seem a long time, but in comparison it is not bad. Many ideas are older than you think. The greenhouse effect was first described by Arrhenius in 1896. Black holes must be a product of modern science, surely? Black holes first proposed by LaPlace in 1796. The concept of resource depletion goes back to Jevons and Malthus.

Today we have the best ever pool of ideas, covering virtually every possibility and the best ever mechanisms for moving information around the planet and analysing it. It seems that if even a highly controversial idea has merit, it eventually gets into the mainstream.

The second question is, is a gestation time of 50 years too late for us to react? That will remain to be seen.

The other irony is that Climate Change & Peak Oil are happening at the same time. I have no doubt that some will one day call this coincidence some sort of devine intervention.

Climate Change and Peak Oil happening at the same time isn't a coincidence, they both have the same root cause - overpopulation.

I just consulted Robert Rapier who says:

Bottom line is that rapeseed has very high fertilizer requirements. EROEI is estimated to be somewhere between 0.9 (Pimentel) and 3.2. It is also grown on good agricultural land.

I suspect the land use / land availabiity issue will be as much a clincher for bio diesel as eroei.

Anecdotal evidence from France
My neighbour works for a market gardener, who plnted one hectare of rapeseed this year for biodiesel, and is running it through his tractors. Hasn't yet decided whether to plant more next year, or drop the idea (apparently the newer tractors are fussy about biodiesel).

It's interesting because it's purely an economic decision with no subsidies involved (and I suspect, not captured in any statistics). As it happens, this guy has plenty of spare land, currently in pasture, that he could convert to biodiesel if he wanted.

Which leads me to speculate about a trade-off between transport and meat... beef and dairy are the biggest consumers of agricultural space around here. I have given up beef, which is about the most costly of foods in terms of energy and land use. What is the pasture footprint of your average beef-eater, I wonder?

Re EROEI , Richard and Euan
I agree fully on Euan's conclusions for farmland. And the electric future.
Bioethanol is a terrible waste of land and the food/energy produced in farming. And Bioethanol EROEI in temperate climate is < 1.7 even when including the use of the remains from the ethanol fermentation for animal feed.

What I was exemplifying was the growing of rapeseed for biodiesel, using the straw and rapeseed cake directly for district heating, and using the rapeseed oil directly as Diesel replacement- no Bioethanol involved. The higher EROEI comes mainly from the direct combustion of the biomass coproduced, which can be made with > 95% thermal efficiency. Now back to data.
http://www.folkecenter.net/default.asp?id=9192
1 Ha : gives (optimistic data)
rape seed oil : 37,53 MJ/l x 1086 l/ha = 40,76 GJ/ha
rape cakes : 19,32 MJ/kg x 2000 kg/ha = 38,64 GJ/ha
rape straw : 14500 MJ/ton x 3,9 ton/ha = 56,55 GJ/ha
Total: 135,95 GJ/ha (100%)
Recent Danish energy numbers for growing Wheat (which needs more fertilizer than Rape) (fertilizer, spraying, Tractor, harvesting etc.) are 14.5 GJ/ha and for Barley 13.7 GJ/ha.
(http://ing.dk/artikel/69914); http://www.agrsci.dk/djfpublikation/djfpdf/gvm260.pdf

So you get approx. 40 GJ fuel by spending ca. 14 GJ. Which should give an EROEI close to 3.

Soil will be depleted, when all the biomass is removed. On top of that, rape has to be sprayed with pesticides insecticides/ fungicides or you could loose your crop completely (EROEI = 0).So monoculture is very difficult/ impossible and crop rotation must be used. Altogether not promising for a sustainable future.
Kind regards/And1

The ratio of energy output to energy input is not a good parameter for characterizing the economic quality of bio-fuels (or any other form of energy production for that matter). What matters is the net energy produced per unit of some non-energy related production resource expended. For the production of bio-fuels the most obvious resource to be concerned about is acres of cultivated land. If the gross energy output from A acres of and is O and the input energy is I then the efficiency with which land is converted into fuel (i.e. net energy per acre) is given by:

η = (O-I)/A = [(O-I)/O]×(O/A)

The term in square brackets is the fraction of the output energy which is left over after the input energy is subtracted out. I call this factor the energy utilization rate µ. Since EROEI = O/I, µ=(EROEI-1)/EROEI. The second factor (O/A) is the land efficiency of gross energy production. This factor is important in understanding the energy productivity of land and it cannot be calculated from energy inputs and outputs alone. The table below converts the EROEI numbers for corn, wheat etc. into energy utilization rate.

I included conventional diesel fuel rather than oil. The 20 to 1 number often quoted is for oil at the well head. Since we do not burn raw crude oil in our transportation engines the correct comparison is to refined petroleum fuels. Refining crude oil is an energy intensive process. The numbers in the table were derived from a DOE report comparing the life cycle energy balance of bio and petroleum diesel fuels. The ethanol outputs per acre were taken from Lester Brown’s book Plan B 2.0.

I am not in any way suggesting that the energy utilization rate µ can by itself be used to compare the economic quality of bio-fuels and refined petroleum fuels. The economic quality of energy can never be determined from energy outputs and inputs alone. In the case of bio-fuel it is clearly necessary to know the gross output per acre in addition to µ in order estimate the energy productivity of land using a specific crop. From the table below it is clear that sugar beets will far outperform wheat even though its energy utilization rate (or EROEI) is only slightly higher. The land intensity of net energy production is the key to understanding the limitation of bio-fuel use. Of course petroleum diesel does not require farm land for its production. The amount of gross fuel output produced per unit of labor or per unit of capital equipment expenditures would be more relevant to determining its economic quality.

The key phrase is "current production methods". It is possible to eliminate fossil fuels from the equation by changing production methods. Modern organic farming methods can remove anhydrous ammonia from the equation. Fermentation and partial distillation (140 to 180 proof) could be done on or near the farm using corn stover for fuel. Wind and solar could also be used as heat sources. Final rectification could be done at a central distillery that uses renewable energy. The ethanol can be used to fuel the tractors and trucks needed for production. The same could be done with biodiesel from the corn oil.

Well, I'd guess that you were looking west over the Dee valley to the eastern side of the Cairngorms. So the mountains are probably (Dark) Lochnagar, Ben Avon and/or Ben Macdui (or Macdhui depending on what language you prefer).

Am I close? Were you anywhere near Ballater?

When I was a kid, my Mum and Dad took us to Aviemore several summers in a row (Including the summer of the great drought in 1976!) The countryside in that area is unforgettable.

If I'm right you can ship me a couple of cans of Caledonian (if they still make it).

I recently graduated in edinburgh, the university of Robert Louis Stevenson. He described the winters here with the something like the following words:

"the weak die, and the strong envy their fate!"

I'm sure there's worse winters elsewhere, but few places come with less relief in summer I'd bet!

Richard C

Hi Asebius, hows the weather in Canada? We had shirt sleaves weather here a couple of days ago - and today an arctic storm from the north with wind up to 90 mph and snow - back to normal. England will be under water tommorow - but lets not get too political here.

I think you do the gentleman here a bit of an injustice. Confronted with indifference and working alone, efforts any individual makes, can seem futile. You don't know how many years ago he did this and how old he is. To send out a lot of mail like that takes a lot of effort - it sounds like this is pre-internet to me.

It also highlights the tenacity that is required to puruse this issue - and folks like Campbell, Duncan, Youngqvist, Laherererer and others must often have felt their mission was futile.

But here we are today, a bunch of amateurs, working together on the end of a high speed DSL connection, maybe bringing pressure to bare. Standing on the shoulders of giants.

I wrote my senator for a sixth grade social studies project and I got a response and I couldn't even vote.

RobertInTucson

I haven't escaped from reality. I have a daypass.

Bob: Contrary to what you were told as a child (and obviously still believe in spite of all evidence to the contrary) the "media" does not exist to inform you perfectly like a cross between Mother Theresa and Ed Murrow. It exists mainly to sell advertising space-the acceptance of this reality is known as a "conspiracy theory" in your universe.

To be crystal clear, my media source is in the "kook" camp, albeit in the "Kook Closet." He was saying that other members of the media regarded him as a kook when he brought up Peak Oil.

Regarding my "Iron Triangle" theory, I have never regarded it as a conspiracy per se. I think that the various members of the triangle are simply acting in what they perceive to be their best interests, but the net result is that even at this late date the prevailing message here in the US is that it is a swell idea to buy an SUV to commute to and from large suburban mortgages (e.g., Michael Lynch says that $45 oil is right around the corner).

Hola Bob,

Good point. And all of us could educate the media by following the news and sending letters/comments to the editor/journalist each time we read an article on oil, first can thanking them for addressing the issue and then pointing out that most geologists conclude that we are at Peak Oil production and that a typical Internet search of "peak oil" yields some 7 million hits. And then suggest the primers/reports at www.theoildrum.com, www.energybulletin.net, and www.peakoilassociates.com as places for readers to learn more. Journalists and editors will want to know more than readers and they will do some reading. The same goes for articles indicating that alternative energies will easily replace oil. The key is short letters/comments.

During a recent exchange with one of my brothers he pointed me to an opinion piece by Robert Samuelson ( Washington Post columnists ) which contained the quote "Modern technology and management are widely available, but many societies can't take advantage because their values and social organization are antagonistic. Prescribing economically sensible policies (open markets, secure property rights, sound money) can't overcome this bedrock resistance."

This may be interpreted differently, but to me it is pretty clear he's saying that under-developed countries are just that because they are hobbled by adhering to the wrong policies and practices ("open markets, secure property rights, sound money" is what Samuelson lists here).
My response back to him (my brother) was that we're probably heading for trouble because we are hobbled by adhering to the wrong policies and practices; the ones laid out by Samuelson.
Aside from the jingoistic flavor of the passage it shows an arrogance that is just laughable. You'd think that a paper like the Washington Post could do better.

You do realise he meant people like you who propose conspiracy theories, don't you?

Ahhh… That old chestnut. Bob, whatever else westexas may or may not do, conspiracy theories rank real low. Seeing as you’ve been here for a while now, are you for real, or are your just getting in touch with your essential troll?

The Iron Triangle isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s a way of framing the issue. AFAIK, westexas has never, ever, accused the respective “legs” of the triangle of being in collusion. He has suggested their mutually reinforcing aims give them the ability to operate in a way that maximises effect without requiring explicit coherence. But, he’s never suggested the three legs are in some ongoing collusion that would give rise to your suggestion westexas is promulgating theories of conspiracy.

I believe in PO, and even I think Peak Oilers are mostly kooks.

Good God, man, we’re all kooks. Have you seen the way the idiots attack the sliproads onto the M25? They’re not kooks or idiots, their fucking crazy.

Can you imagine how hard it is for neutral people to accept ideas from people who behave like crazies?

Yes, I can indeed. Like the fucking crazies that voted twice for George Junior. Look no further for crazies. You’ve got them in spades.

As for the “neutral” concept, who, exactly, is “neutral?” Go on and wax lyrical, I’d love to have a description of the “neutral.” IMLTHO, for you at least, neutral means ignorant, unaware. Ignorant as in uniformed, not stupid, wilful or otherwise.

Regardless, westexas has never, to my knowledge, behaved crazy. Sure, there was that time on the banks of river in Austin… Only joking. BobCousins, just so you know, I was being serious, not. In true Yoda speak. Only joking, BobCousins. In case you missed it the first time.

I understand that TOD has given up with its outreach mission, and no longer hopes to influence general opinion, but repeatedly running articles that say "most people don't 'get' PO because they are stupid animals" is certainly not going to help.

Wow. TOD has an “Outreach Mission?” You mean they’re not just a website anymore?

As for the stupid animals, why bother reaching out for the great unwashed when TOD’s got enough that pretend to be “on message,” eh? I’m not suggesting for the moment you’re one of those BobCousins, so please don’t get arsey, if you can refrain.

If someone tells you "you sound a little crazy" they are giving you a big clue about the way you are presenting your message. If you want to get acceptance, don't ignore it.

Thanks for the insight. Are you in PR perchance? Maybe there’s no way of “presenting” the Peak Oil message that won’t sound “a little crazy.” What then, guru of deep communication? What, exactly, then, eh?

Oh, sorry westexas, you’re sounding just a bit crazy, so we can’t talk to you let alone report our findings. Bobby-boy, who’s crazy now, I ask you?

Thanks for your meaningful insights. Guess you’re headed back to that well known lobby street somewhere near the capital of your democratic republic. Take care and remember to look both ways when crossing the road. Remember the Green Cross Code. Stop. Look. Listen. Only then should you attempt to navigate from your pavement to the pavement opposite.