<On Energy Transitions Past and Future The Oil Drum DrumBeat: December 29, 2007>

94 comments on Grading My 2007 Energy Resolutions

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Robert Rapier on December 28, 2007 - 10:26pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

I would also like to ask readers for book recommendations for 2008. One of my favorite books of 2007 was 1491, and I read it based on a recommendation from someone here at TOD. I like reading history, science fiction, historical fiction, biographies, and of course books on Peak Oil, sustainability, and energy.

Thanks, RR

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Robert Rapier on December 28, 2007 - 10:37pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Incidentally, we discussed books in January of 2007. Here is a link to that discussion:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2165#comment-146617

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
GreenEngineer on December 29, 2007 - 12:10am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Natural Capitalism
Cradle to Cradle
Gaia's Garden: A Guide to Home-Scale Permaculture
Biomimicry
Permaculture in a Nutshell

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
godraz on December 29, 2007 - 12:15am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Well, if you like history, and having read 1491, I'd recommend Mayflower by Nathaniel Philbrick.

Pilgrim life in the New World was just the beginning of our 350+ year pilgrimage to our New World Order denouement with all its attendant human foilbles -- religion, clash of cultures, imperative to expand, resource plunder, tragedy & war. Sounds familiar. ;-)

Philbrick's subtitle: A Story of Courage, Community, and War sums up what is likely to be writ of those of us who make it thru the hydra-headed bottleneck ahead.

Best wishes to us all in 2008.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Eddd on December 30, 2007 - 1:51am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Yes, Mayflower is very good.

On the history topic I just read "Team of Rivals" by Doris Kearns Goodwin. It's about Lincoln and the cabinet he assembled to guide the ship of state through troubling times. It is a fantastic, if long read, and broadened my understanding of the dynamics of the civil war.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
EntropyBrain on December 29, 2007 - 1:27am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Robert:

Greetings. Thanks for publishing your lists of books read. I did not know that they were out there, and have printed them out for future reference.

I have two small kids (4 and 7) and find that reading books is...difficult. But on a trip to the library, I discovered audiobooks, and have since become addicted to them. I have a half-hour commute (please don't shun me, TODers) and find that it is the most pleasurable time of the day for me due to audiobooks.

Anyway, I noticed that many of the books that you have read and liked are ones that I have read and liked. I also noticed that you liked time travel stories....one of my favorite themes. Can I recommend The Time Traveler's Wife by Audrey Niffenegger, if you have not read it yet. Also, I enjoyed The Tipping Point and Blink by Malcolm Gladwell, though I'm guessing that you have already read them.

Also, due to your SF bent, how about Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood. In the History vein, I would recommend Truman by David McCullough, or Founding Brothers by Joseph J. Ellis. Also, if you are a fan of Card, then try Ender's Shadow...the same story of Ender, but told from the point of view of Bean....he actually pulls it off. The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom I found interesting. How about The Traveler by John Twelve Hawks for when you are feeling in a Big Brother is watching mood.

thanks again for posting your lists.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
EntropyBrain on December 29, 2007 - 1:33am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

ok. I see that you read The Time Traveler's Wife in '05....

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Robert Rapier on December 29, 2007 - 2:09am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Yes, and it was a great book. One of my all-time favorites.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
awlped on December 29, 2007 - 2:18am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Robert,
Congratulations on your resolve. I can only hope to be as resolute with my resolutions for the coming year.

Since you enjoyed Neal Stephenson's Cryptomonicon you might check out his Baroque cycle starting with QuickSilver. It takes historical fiction (maybe I would call it speculative historical fiction) to another level of complexity and richness. It revolves around the establishment of markets and banking around the end of the 17th century. It is an amazing work, though not for everyone as it can be a tough slog at times. Readers either love it, or hate it. You will also run into some of the ancestors of characters from the Cryptomonicon. And some amazing characters they are.

Tony

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mrderik on December 29, 2007 - 2:26am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Greetings -

I'm currently reading America's Great Depression by Rothbard. I may not know anything about geology or oil field properties, but I know a little something about economics and finance. What's interesting is that there are so many parallels between the 1920's run up to the depression and what is happening now with our financial system. We've had a big run up in Gold prices as you would expect, although adjusted for inflation we should have seen a much greater increase given the real problems with our currency valuation and real inflation over the past 6 years.

But what we have also had is a greater run up in oil prices. And I fully understand the supply and demand characteristics of a potentially depleting resource. But, let's face it, there haven't been any REAL shortages. And I haven't read any real discussion or news about this potential parallel. There has been a little talk about hedge fund managers 'driving up the price of oil futures' but a four fold increase in 6 years of a commodity which currently TRANSFERS over $3 Trillion dollars of value between countries each year is a big deal.

I'm not smart enough to figure out what all the connections are. But in reading this book and seeing how in the 1920's each Country manipulated their interest rates to control the flow of Money (Gold) between the countries (mainly so as not to completely bankrupt Britain) you can't help but draw parallels to our modern day valuation of oil in USD. Since there really is no 'Gold Standard' any longer your basis for international trade has effectively become the USD as it is the denomination 'backed' by being able to exchange it for oil. That's good news for us as we can easily and cheaply print more USD. Although we all know where that story eventually leads.

So it appears to me that oil has to a great extent become the new gold. If you look at the run up in oil prices in six years in those terms and relate it directly to USD you get a much more realistic model of the real, and likely actual, devaluation of our dollar - Based on our increase in the number of 'dollars printed' including debt, and our real rate of growth and legitimate expansion of true net wealth and value as a country. (You can't expect to print money and export it to China and oil producers without them, eventually, bringing those dollars back and buying our companies - which sends the very wealth we create directly to them in the future.) You didn't think they would bring those trillions of dollars back to the US and buy McMansions, Suburbans and happy meals did you?

In conclusion. We now know how and if not why then what the main factors were, in the Great Depression happening. And we need to figure out how this relates to oil today and the current state of our US financial system. It's obvious (to me) there are tremendous parallels and that something has to give. Usually in the start of a depression there is a huge devaluation of the currency (since the 'gold' has a set and real value.) We've already seen that in some sense as described above but we Americans have continued to borrow in unbelievable amounts to try and maintain our standard of living against that devaluation. Which is, by the way, precisely the wrong thing to do.

It's true that oil may again drop substantially in price but only when the credit runs out, and we have to take a (now) major hit to our standard of living. The only other way out is for the 'King' to artificially lower the price of the 'gold'. But in this case, if he did, he couldn't give out enough to satisfy the demand and things would get ugly anyway. So we are pretty much the same place we were in 1929. And unfortunately we are trying to 'fix' it in the same way we did then.

D.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
noutram on December 29, 2007 - 9:41am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Hi mrderik,

I had a go at looking at the big picture -seeing the connections or as I put it 'joining the dots':

"Peak Oil -Joining The Dots" by Nick Outram

There are too many variables, the ebb and flow of trade, what is most important for countries and how they react, etc, etc. I think one sure sign that the current structure is about to snap would be a move away from pricing oil in US dollars; but is that likely? Otherwise I see oil spiralling up and up as the US attempts to 'blow-off' its debt mountain and buy an increasingly scarce commodity with increasingly worthless paper...

I put the worst part of my "Wiemer Blow-off" period in the early 2020s (see the speculative timeline graphic at the end). After that I speculatively call the New World Currency "The Gold Backed Euro" but who knows...

Nick.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
xeroid on December 29, 2007 - 9:24am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Hi Robert,

They are good resolutions, I have done much the same, except I didn't vacation in Oklahoma - which is, to say the least, a long way from Aberdeen!

So, just to put all your carbon saving actions into perspective, how many flights by air have you and your family made this year - how many air miles in total?

Although you live near to your work, what about your family's travel needs - are they longer than they otherwise would be to enable you to live close to work?

Just to be clear, I'm not criticisng here, I know from personal experience that it is currently very difficult to reduce my carbon footprint in any meaninful and ongoing way and maintain my standard of living/quality of life.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Robert Rapier on December 29, 2007 - 11:46am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

So, just to put all your carbon saving actions into perspective, how many flights by air have you and your family made this year - how many air miles in total?

As long as we are in Scotland, there will be one trip home a year. But we haven't traveled anywhere else. The first time we were in Europe, when we lived in Germany from 1999-2001, we were traveling constantly. This time, we are just enjoying our immediate surroundings.

I have plugged in our entire energy usage into some of those carbon footprint calculators, and even with a flight home each year, we still come in very low because our daily usage is so low. (And those calculators don't take into account the composting, which reduces our green and brown waste to zilch).

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Kiashu on December 30, 2007 - 4:40am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

You can find figures to make yourself a more detailed calculator here. Your compost is not carbon-negative. Aerobic decomposition produces 0.356kg CO2e per kg of material, and anaerobic (stinky) decomposition, 4kg CO2e per kg. Since if you put it in landfill the decomposition will undoubtedly be anaerobic, you are of course much better-off composting (well) than biffing it in the bin. Nonetheless, it does produce greenhouse gas emissions. The way to balance this is of course to use the compost to help you grow things which will absorb carbon dioxide. For example, by planting a tree every year and caring for it, you will more than balance out any compost emissions you're likely to cause.

I've a spreadsheet with the calculations in metric and US measures, unfortunately I can't upload it to blogger, but can send it anyone interested (email me through the blog).

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Robert Rapier on December 31, 2007 - 12:28pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Your compost is not carbon-negative.

You didn't take into consideration, though, that if I wasn't composting, it would take energy to transfer all of that biomass to the landfill. Granted the compost produces GHG emissions, but as you say it is better than sending it to the landfill (for the aerobic factor as well as the energy savings from transportation).

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Kiashu on January 1, 2008 - 12:33am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

That 4kg CO2e of emissions per kg composted anaerobically is roughly what you get in landfill, too. However, conditions vary a lot at landfills, from 1 to 12kg CO2e, and the emissions due to the transport are smaller than that; a truck carrying 10 tonnes of rubbish burns about 1lt of petrol every 5km, generating 2.32kg CO2e, and on average travels 50km daily, and thus the 10,000kg of rubbish require 23.3kg of emissions to transport, or 0.00233 kg CO2e per kg.

Let's be pessimistic and assume that the processing at the landfill or large compost adds nine times as much again, giving us 0.0233kg CO2e. This is rather small compared to "1 to 12". Single contributors which fall far within the margin of error of the major contributor can be safely ignored.

But even if it were 10kg CO2e, or 1,000kg CO2e, avoiding extra emissions does not make your compost carbon negative, which was my point.

In areas where there's a "green waste" collection programme, they'll have emissions due to transporting it, but will compost it more efficiently, making sure it's always aerobic and not anaerobic, so that on balance the council can compost with less emissions than can you.

But most areas don't have green waste programmes, and in any case you'll want compost to contribute to your own plants which are carbon-negative. So composting at home is usually a reduction of your personal emissions, no doubt about that. But it's not zero carbon, nor negative carbon. And your original statement that "those [carbon] calculators don't take into account the composting, which reduces our green and brown waste to zilch" strongly implied that your green and brown waste were carbon neutral, or even carbon negative. They're not.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
xeroid on December 30, 2007 - 7:26am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

we still come in very low because our daily usage is so low.

'Very Low' is a comparative term - is that 'very low' compared to Scotsmen who holiday in Oaklahoma, or Americans in general, or Zimbabweans, or the world average, or ? ... who are you comparing to?

You didn't have any business mileage this year?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Kiashu on December 30, 2007 - 8:10am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

That's why I give the absolute figures for people to use. Comparisons are nice, but there's a time when you want the real numbers.

And Zimbabwe's an unfair comparison. A state under a brutal dictator suffering famine and on the brink of complete collapse... Well, they're going nowhere good, whatever their carbon emissons are.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
xeroid on December 30, 2007 - 8:35am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

but there's a time when you want the real numbers.

Real numbers, in the real world, are actually very hard to come by - that's why there is so much discussion about peak oil or dangerous climate change for examples ... there's not enough precise information to make sensible even short term decisions in a complex world!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Kiashu on December 30, 2007 - 8:10pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Bollocks. You can calculate how much CO2 pops off when you burn a litre of petrol - that's a chemical equation you can do with fifth form chemistry. You can go look up how much coal your local electricity generator burned and how much electricity it produced from that, giving you coal/kWh, and then use your chemistry again to get CO2/kWh. And so on.

Get all those figures from day-to-day household consumption. Then go to your Bureau of Statistics and see what the average electricity, petrol, etc consumption is. Now you know how much CO2 you're directly responsible for and can control compared to the average person in the country or the world.

That done, you can then reduce it. But even without those calculations, you can reduce it. Using less electricity obviously produces less emissions than using more, taking the train produces less emissions than driving a car, eating less meat produces less emissions than eating more, and so on.

Whether peak oil has passed, is five or fifty years away, whether we need a 10% or 100% reduction to avoid catastrophic climate change - doesn't matter to me in my daily life. I can go ahead and make those reductions anyway, and I can write to my MP and tell him to help me with that by supporting renewable energy and the like.

I don't need exact numbers to know I shouldn't take a dump on my neighbour's lawn or burn off plastic rubbish in my backyard, and I don't need exact numbers to know I should reduce my consumption of fossil fuels and derivatives, and reduce my pollution.

Waiting for the perfect numbers is another excuse for inaction. What, you think Joe Blow eating burgers and driving his SUV would stop if only he had the right numbers shown to him? Would Dubya suddenly get his oil company family to invest in wind turbines if he had the right numbers? Bah. Excuses.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
xeroid on December 31, 2007 - 7:15am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Whoa, I agree with you totally, I can do the very simple sums (unlike most of the world's population it seems!)- but without some sort of accurate figures you won't convince anybody of peak oil or AGW.

Actually, I was refering to the fact that RR, just for one example, doesn't give actual figures, just comforting words like 'low' - I guarantee his total FF energy use is not low at all compared to the rest of of the world.

BTW, if you think writing to your MP will do any good then do it, but, bear in mind he/she is looking to be re-elected so will only tell people about good things that might happen in the future - that doesn't sound like FF depletion or AGW to me so I doubt that they will take adequate action.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Kiashu on January 1, 2008 - 12:36am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

By writing to my MP I may not get them to do what I want; by not writing to my MP I definitely won't get them to do what I want.

I'll take possible failure over definite failure any day. I can't complain they're not listening to me if I'm not speaking to them.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
xeroid on January 1, 2008 - 2:43pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I can't complain they're not listening to me if I'm not speaking to them.

Again I agree.

I go to committee meetings on Peak oil and Climate Change in the Houses of Parliament and visit or correspond with various MPs - but I doubt that will change anything they do or think. It does however have a huge effect on what I do and think!

You should not assume that MPs can actually do something about peak oil and climate change while at the same time growing the economy - and actually, they may do what you want even if you don't speak with them. Speaking with them or writing to them is not communicating - that has to be two way. As far as I can tell 'the lights are on but nobody is home!'

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Kiashu on January 1, 2008 - 11:07pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Sweden has reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 9% on 1990 levels (Kyoto let them grow them by 4%) and at the same time grown the economy by 44%.

I'm puzzled as to why building 1,000MW of coal-fired or nuclear power plants is supposed to help us grow our economy, but building 3,000MW of wind turbines and solar thermal is supposed to be a great and onerous burden which will destroy us all. Nor do I really understand why using less energy to do the same work - for example, take us from home to our jobs - is supposed to be bad - effiency is bad for the economy?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
xeroid on January 2, 2008 - 9:16am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Hi Kaishu,

The whole population of Sweden is only 9 million, population density 20 per sq km, allowing 50% of electricity from hydro - a 'flea bite' on 6,700 million world population. The UK has a population of 60 million, 239 per sq kilometre, and will easily miss the Kyoto targets but is a different economy all together due to the availability of natural resources.

Don't assume that the required coal fired or nuclear plants can be built or operated - without enough primary power and 'net export' of required fuels and required credit the economy can't grow.

Any wind turbines or solar thermal don't run 24 hours a day so they are not 'instead of' they are an 'as well as' investment.

BTW, I like your blogspot.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Robert Rapier on December 31, 2007 - 12:34pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

You didn't have any business mileage this year?

I avoid business travel like the plague. I didn't have to take any commercial flights this year for my job, but I do have to take occasional (100 mile or so) helicopter flights to the gas platforms in the North Sea.

As far as "low", when I use the term I am always referring to my peer group. My peer group at the moment is UK citizens. And my usage is about half of the average (even considering a flight home each year). And there are many, many things that those carbon calculators don't consider. For instance, my parents have burned their trash for my entire life. Over the holidays, I am building my Mom a composter. People have written to me and said that my writing had influenced their energy usage. So when you sum it all up, I am very low relative to the developed world (but not low compared to a 16th centure Native American).

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
DelusionaL on December 29, 2007 - 10:11am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Books;
Blood and Thunder -Historical About the settlement/Indian wars in the American west. Interesting.

The man who listens to horses- by Monte Roberts. Biographical-Monte Roberts discovers "horse society". Not the commercial horse whisperer BS. Fascinating and I don't even like horses all that much. Having witnessed the described behavior(s) in deer while hunting them, I was shocked to say the least.

"The tracker" "Search" by Tom Brown. Biographical story of a man who was taught by an Apache scout. If ever there was a book to read these two are top on my list.

Enjoy!
D

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
spindifferent on December 29, 2007 - 6:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Alas, Babylon by Pat Frank

- Spindifferent

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
FuturePundit on December 30, 2007 - 12:19am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Discover Your Inner Economist by Tyler Cowen. Disclosure: I'm briefly mentioned in it.

A Farewell To Alms by Gregory Clark. Would provide a useful contrast to Jared Diamond.

Lord Of Light by Roger Zelazny. I see you are a science fiction fan. If you haven't read Zelazny this is a great place to start.

Blank Slate by Steven Pinker. About the nature-nurture debate.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
sirguyon on December 31, 2007 - 5:20am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

From Dawn To Decadence by Jacques Barzun is another take on the 'Peak Everything' theory. This is a book that has many passages of read-aloud brilliance.

The Last American Man by Elizabeth Gilbert was a great read and I found it inspirational. Others found it not so interesting.

These would make worthy and interesting additions to any reading list.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

94 comments on Grading My 2007 Energy Resolutions

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version