![]() | Post peak vehicles: 10,000 km on batteries | The Oil Drum | An Update on ASPO-USA's Conference Sept. 21-23: Are You Going? | ![]() |
222 comments on DrumBeat: September 9, 2008
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
222 comments on DrumBeat: September 9, 2008
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- What "Lower Consumption" Means
- Tricking and Treating the Future
- Meeting Energy Decline Part-Way - Potatoes?
TOD:Europe
- EROWI - energy return of water invested
- An interview with Stoneleigh - the case for deflation
- The Future of European Transport: iTREN-2030
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Saturday 7th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 30th October 2009
- Details of Solar Flagships Released
TOD:Net Energy
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
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“If kindness and comfort are, as I suspect, the results of an energy surplus, then, as the supply contracts, we could be expected to start fighting once again like cats in a sack.”
—George Monbiot
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- 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
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
"Rough seas ahead?"
What, Peak Copper has been cancelled??
And with PO looming, it's highly questionable that Peak Wheat will not take place.
I was watching BNN and a fellow in the copper mine industry was explaining how sulfuric acid, which is used to process copper, has gone up in price because it is used to make fertilizer. This is due to the ethanol industry. I think these little connections will be the key to peak everything.
"Peak oil is different partly because it has never happened before despite having been predicted frequently and because we don’t have “peaks” in other commodities. There is no “Peak Wheat” or “Peak Copper”."
I don't know mining so I can't comment on copper, but as an old farm boy I'm always suspicious when someone declares a peak in grains or any other agricultural commodity. The price of wheat has more to do with a few bad harvests than peak anything, and can easily reverse after a good harvest. The only distorting factor is the ethanol subsidy, but that is politics.
Climate change will shift crop zones about, but if one area goes to desert, other areas in the north will open up. Grain-fed beef might dwindle away, but rangeland grazing will still be with us. In Alberta, crop production is shifting slowly northward. Anyone who wants a long-term speculation might want to look at buying farmland in the Peace River district of northern Alberta.
One reason I don't mind seeing high oil prices (besides owning mineral rights and small investments in junior petes) is that it will encourage local market gardening and re-populate the productive agriculture lands. In my parents' day, every village had a market garden but they were wiped out because it was cheaper for supermarkets to buy produce imported from California than what the local farmers could do. I never understood how California produce could be trucked to Alberta via long-haul diesel semi-trailers and still be cheaper than a local farmer. With higher diesel prices, this hopefully will re-start local economies, not just in Alberta but anywhere in Canada or the USA where produce is imported despite local farmland.
I understand there's a limit to how far north you can go in Canada before the good soil runs out. Meanwhile, bad deal for the US and Ukraine, good deal for Russia.
The farther north you go, the less sunlight that falls on a given area. Northern Manitoba and Saskatchewan are not going to replace Kansas as a growing area, at least not acre for acre, I don't care how warm it gets up there.
My experience with marginal agricultural areas in Wa St is that, so far, the winters are not quite so harsh...but summer temps and precipitation about the same as ever.
One critical limit though, is just the length of the growing season and I can't see that reliably lengthening...also the number of 'growing-degree days' will not expand, so to think that areas that traditionally have not ripened grapes and cantaloupes and corn and any number of warm weather crops will start to do so is wishful thinking.
Now if we could just geo-engineer a few more hours of daylight for the month of September, we'd be talkin.
September is the best month, bar none, unless you live on the Gulf coast.
This year is a mammoth change from last, and in spite of the talk of global cooling in the farmer's almanac, I'm afraid we're witnessing a big change underway. Wheat harvests are way down this year, depending on county. South central WA reported some yields at 10 bu/ac. The Palouse, WA area yields are expected to only be 60-85% of normal, due to a cold, erratic spring (snowmelt of large drifts really delayed spring operations) and a cool summer which has pushed harvest back 2-3 weeks.
The climate models have predicted the colder, wetter spring and we certainly got it. With the continual loss of the Arctic icecap, I doubt we can expect many more mild summers. We'll need a new farmers almanac next year.
Rising food prices was a major concern in the Spring. Worldwide inventories were running low.
In eastern Canada, the late summer of 2008 was especially balmy and wet, leading to the ruin of many crops, at least in the Maritimes.
Will be interesting to see how food inventories hold out if harvests are down throughout the northern hemisphere this autumn.
We count on North America to make up for drought related shortfalls in Australia.
In England the wheat crop was virtually ruined by continual rain, so it's only good for animal feed, if they can harvest it. Not what we were led to expect with climate change. Summers were supposed to get dryer but we've had the wettest August since 1912. June and July wern't so hot either.
You are so full of crap.
The US southern tier is expected to be drier, especially the southwest. The northeast is NOT expected to be appreciably drier.
http://www.irreplaceablewild.org/learn/regions/northeast.html
Stuff your propaganda up your arse and then pull your head out of same. I hope someday lying liars about climate change will be tried for their continued crimes against humanity.
Jeers
ccpo.
Try getting your facts right.
The major wheat growing areas of the UK are in the South East.
There were plenty of predictions that 'AGW' was going to creat a dry desert with Chad-Like conditions. in the South East of England.
This was based on a couple of hot summers in the early 2000's , most notably the same summer that did all the French Pensioners in.
The call from the warmists then was 'see - look - global warming equals desertification of England!'
People were advised to restock gardens with plants more suitable to the southern mediterranean littoral (mostly by plant salesmen...)
Now of course, the Warmists are saying 'see - look: all this rain is due to global warming'
This rapid about face is why Warmism is increasingly regarded as a religion for hysterics.
I await my trial for crimes against humanity while shivering in yet another cool damp September...
Perhaps your confusion is the result of your lack of study of the problems which might result from AGW. For example, if the THC weakens (or, worse, shuts down) one result would be cooler conditions for Northern Europe. Don't forget that the flow of warm water which branches toward the north from the Gulf Stream is what keeps Britain warmer than areas at similar latitude along the Pacific Coast of North America. London is at about 51.5N, which is farther north than Vancover Island, BC and Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Consider what happened during the Younger Dryas period...
E. Swanson
I am fairly confident in GW.
I am sceptical regarding AGW.
I am not confused about GW at all
Perhaps you should address the Warmists who change their story from year to year (depending upon the weather situation from year to year!).
One year its a desert (with fanciful maps)
Next year its Noahs floods.
Perhaps that is why they retreat from the moniker GW and now use Climate Change :-)
'cos it changes...
At the risk of whipping a brain dead horse...
If your understanding of the science does not include what happens as the result of our changes to the optical properties of the atmosphere, well, I would think you wouldn't understand AGW. As for the local impacts, they will vary due to the different distribution of energy as the solar energy flows thru the climate system and back out to deep space.
Short term variation is weather, changes in long term trends are climate. One year does not make a trend. Try 10, 20, or 30 years.
E. Swanson
It would help if the climate observed bore any relation to climate models. Instead they have been the exact opposite. As Mudslogger said claiming opposing conditions as evidence of AGW is damaging the credibility of it's claiments.
Cant you read?
Take up that same argument in your last sentence with the warmists!
They are the ones trying to freak everybody out with predictive pronouncements based on weather events
I know the difference between weather and climate. You need to try and explain that to the AGWarmists who take a couple of years of weather (when it suits them of course) and extrapolate climate 'science'.
You just dont get it do you?
Sorry to say, after more than 30 years of study, I DO think I get it.
AGW can cause different changes in different locations. Taking a couple of years of "weather" is not the same as taking several decades of satellite "temperature" data, oceanographic temperature measurements or measuring the daily sea-ice extent since 1979. And, there are other examples of changes seen in the environment which are consistent with AGW, but I doubt you would care to think about it with an open mind. For example, has MUDLOGGER read even 1 of the (now 4) IPCC WG 1 reports? Does MUDLOGGER think his lack of a reply to my comments about atmospheric optics or the the Younger Dryas is acceptable? Is MUDLOGGER only playing politics by repeating the disinformation spread by the petroleum industry shills?
Of course, I do find it rather significant that Weatherman and MUDLOGGER posted replies within 8 minutes of each other at 4:41 and 4:59 PM USEST , long after the thread had been superceded with today's DrumBeat.
E. Swanson
As an expert then (and me only a mere earth scientist, oil company shill and evil troll)
Please tell me all about the Mann Hockey Stick
Please tell me why the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice age were smoothed out between 1990 and Mann.
You still failed to recognise that Warmists use hot dry summers as 'evidence' and then a few years later cold wet summers as 'evidence'
Your lsast para is of no significance. But then as a warmist I am sure you can read an evil and coordinated plot into it.
Denmark is one of the more productive farming areas in the world, and is north of Alberta. The North Atlantic current keeps northern Europe warm for the latitude, and there is enough sunlight in the summer. Remember that northern areas actually get more hours of sun in the growing season. It also helps that Denmark is flat, has good soil and enough and stable rainfall. The amount of sunlight is not such a problem.
The extra hours of sunlight may not produce much more gain. That's because the real issue is the amount of energy falling on flat ground, such as a field. At higher latitudes, the sun stays lower to the horizon, i.e., the sun vector has a high zenith angle. Thus, the effective energy on a horizontal surface will be less than that at lower latitudes where the sun is high overhead. That's the sort of information that the solar energy folks worry about and crops are essentially solar collectors. I don't have the data in hand, but I would expect that the net solar availability thru the growing season may not be so large as you suggest.
E. Swanson
Crops are not flat like the ground they cover. There is a vertical component to most of them. The longer sunlight season is meaningful.
Other than the edges of the field, most crops are "horizontal only" for solar absorption.
I could see spacing plants further apart at higher latitudes.
Winter solar insolation has little value in growing crops, and high latitudes do benefit from long days during the growing season. 20 hours of low intensity sunshine can be good for many crops.
Alan
You are right about that.
In western Canada, the soil will support crops up to very high latitudes.
Eastern Canada, however, suffered multiple periods of glaciation and there is very little arable soil outside of the river valleys (with the exception of southern Ontario).
One reason that northern rivers in Quebec are ideal for hydro development is that the river beds are basically just rock - there is very little silt to build up.
I am always amazed when travelling in the US as to how much good farmland there is. It explains a lot about the different settlement patterns in the two countries.
Soil can be built up pretty much anywhere you have the rain, sun and temps to grow. Time is the real problem. Start now.
Cheers
Re limitations of Canadian soils for row-crop agriculture: It's a combination of things -- the acidity of Canadian Shield basement rock, the cold climate and coniferous vegetation under which soils formed, poor drainage over broad areas, etc. A nice source of info on global soil distributions can be found here.
Nice link, POT. University of Idaho no less. Maybe it will counter all their negative publicity of late.
As I usually harp, climate change isn't just about sea levels, it's precipitation patterns that are the big worry.
Hi doug, yes, I thought it was nice site they have, too (though I noticed that the link to the "US Distribution map of the 12 soil orders" was broken -- here's another).
Negative publicity?
Yes, one of their C students is being investigated daily in the national press. I guess the overall picture for UI depends on which side of the fence you sit. Broadcast journalism major, as opposed to the business major, which I think is the current White House occupant. We used to complain about politicians being lawyers, now look what we got.
Personally, I'd like to see an agronomist in the White House:-)
Well I think she claims to have been a fisherman for a season. Not close enough I guess.(what is the correct term for a female fisherman?) An agronomist, heh, for one more rooted in reality?
Glaciation scraped Northern Ontario clean down to the bedrock and deposited all the good stuff in the now fertile south. And "Northern Ontario" really covers the vast majority of the province - you don't have to travel that far north of Toronto to see the changeover happen.
One of the challenges facing hugely built-up regions, like the Boston-New York-Washington corridor, is that vast amounts of formerly productive agricultural land was sacrificed to urban/suburban development. In a future when transportation costs become an ever-increasing component of food prices, these large, heavily populated areas will have serious problems recreating local agriculture on a scale even fractionally capable of feeding those large populations.
In the ever-outward expansion of cities and suburbs, productive soils were destroyed in the process of development. Any project of reclaiming land for agriculture will take at minimum several years remediation. Like so many of the changes that are coming, ideally we would be making choices and planning well ahead of the crush of dire necessity. Sadly, this seems unlikely.
The US Congress will consider energy legislation this week. The we_can_solve_it movement is asking people to call their representatives and make their views known. They say "...Of course, the oil industry is pushing its "drill, drill" slogan with all its might -- and some are hoping to use this for political advantage.
Meanwhile, tax credits for investments in solar and wind power have not been extended, and the growing renewables business that just made America the largest producer of wind power in the world, is on the verge of shutting down huge planned projects all over the country.
Billions in private investment, thousands of megawatts of new, clean energy, and more than 100,000 new jobs expected for 2009 will be lost.
We face a stark choice: subsidize old, dirty energy or invest in new, clean energy. This should be easy, but the influence of the oil lobby is deep -- they've already spent more than $100 million in lobbying and advertising this year...."
http://www.wecansolveit.org/page/s/CallTrackRepower
There are gobs and gobs of sub-economic (less than 0.5%) copper in Arizona. For a price you can have all the copper you want.
Robert a Tucson
However, to mine 0.5% copper, you have to move and process 100% more rock than for 1% copper. In general, mine grade has gone down over the past several decades. The cost of processing rock, in the meantime, has gone up, and not only for inflationary reasons. In short, it is becoming more difficult and energy intensive to get the copper out of the ground, which is what you would expect to see before an eventual peak in production.
I would wager that plenty of landfills offer copper concentrations higher than 0.5%
That's all true econguy. My only point is that we are not going to geologically run out of copper as we will with oil. If there's a peak copper production it's because at some price people will substitute cheaper inferior metals. That's already done in most cookware and in many homes including mine electric wiring.
I don't think there is a maximum rate you can mine copper as there is a maximum rate you can produce oil. There's probably a maximum rate you can open new mines because of the paperwork and skilled labor shortages.
"....sub-economic (less than 0.5%) copper in Arizona"
interesting, 0.5 % was also the economic cut off for copper in the olden days. (that was the early '70's). copper was about $0.60/lb and gas was about $0.25/gal. so a pound of copper would buy a little over 2 gallon of gas. what is it today, about 1 pound copper/gallon of gas ?
As luck would have it, last night found on P122 in Odum's "Environment, Power and Society", a couple of graphs of scarcity and energy required to concentrate copper. The energy required skyrockets below 1% and .5% is dismal.
Another interesting point from Odum: if civilization is a pulse, then everything in the civililization would have to be "in phase" with that pulse or the pulse would disorganize. I can't remember my wave theory all that well, but doesn't it run more or less along the lines of change the velocity of the wave and the amplitude changes? Everything is going to self-organize to peak at the same time; some of the amplitudes will get wildly erratic. On the face of it, that seems a little hard to buy as a whole package. But then again, the pulsing of civilization is very clear so maybe most everything else has to get in sync. Otherwise it wouldn't be a well organized and powerful pulse. Hurts my head.
cfm in Gray, ME
It is likely worth pointing out that there is a difference in kind and not degree between PO and shortages of metals such as copper, steel or even wheat. Once the copper is mined and refined it exists. It may be stolen from a decrepit house and resold but it remains. To be "consumed" would require a nuclear reaction (i.e change to a different element) or to be again dispersed or adulterated by impurities to the point of being economically worthless. Yes, iron may rust. But the overall point is valid. Even food, will be renewed, barring catastrophe or human intervention.
Oil is different, its consumption entails an increase in entropy. Or to put less scientifically and to borrow a phrase from the Shawshank Redemption, once it is burned it, "up and vanished like a fart in the wind". It existed in the first place because photosynthetic organisms took energy and (locally) reduced entropy by storing the energy in carbon hydrogen bonds. Once burned, for energy, it ain't coming back (without energy).
There may be peaks in non-energy related commodities but they are fundamentally different and influenced by different factors than fossil fuels.
I will say again, as I have said consistently while I have been on this board that while PO is deadly serious the incoherent to counterproductive lack of public policy is what may likely be the proximate cause of harm. Just heard Ford is mass producing a 65 mpg diesel which can only be sold in Europe. Wonder whether there is the know-how (rhetorical) to mass produce it as a diesel-hybrid.