Drumbeat: October 3, 2012
Posted by Leanan on October 3, 2012 - 10:40am
Egypt oil subsidy reform still under review - minister
CAIRO (Reuters) - Egypt is holding off on reform of its costly state energy subsidy regime until it completes more studies and holds a "social dialogue" on the issue, the country's oil minister told Reuters.Reducing state expenditure by targeting subsidies more toward the needy is seen as vital for Egypt to secure a $4.8 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund to plug an unmanageable budget deficit.
In an interview, Petroleum Minister Osama Kamal said Egypt would have a major economic problem until the subsidies bill, which represent about a quarter of state spending, is cut.
Oil Falls to Four-Day Low as U.S. Supply Increases, China Slows
Oil fell to its lowest in four days after U.S. crude stockpiles climbed for a fourth week and a measure of China’s economy declined, signaling fuel demand may be faltering in the world’s biggest users of the commodity.Futures fell as much as 0.9 percent in New York after the industry-funded American Petroleum Institute said yesterday inventories rose 462,000 barrels last week in the longest run of gains since May. An Energy Department report today may show supplies increased 1.5 million barrels, according to a Bloomberg News survey. China’s purchasing managers’ index for non- manufacturing industries expanded at the weakest pace since at least March 2011, data from the National Bureau of Statistics and China Federation of Logistics and Purchasing showed.
UK: Fuel sales down by half a billion litres
Nearly half a billion fewer litres of petrol and diesel were sold between April and June than during the same period last year, according to new figures from the Department of Energy and Climate Change.The fall came after sales rose at the start of the year when the threat of a tanker drivers’ strike triggered panic buying.
UK gas crash unlikely, says Statoil
Britain’s need for Norwegian gas will be halved or completely eradicated should the country succeed with its climate policy, writes Internet publication Energy and Climate, citing a UK National Grid report.“We cannot speculate about such a scenario,” Morten Eek, information officer in Statoil, says to Aftenbladet.
Oil: The 75 Dollar Floor Price
Oil analysts, pundits and commentators are getting a hold on the rising threat of what is called "severe correction" hitting oil markets. The 2008-2009 sequence where Nymex prices crashed from a peak around $147 a barrel to about $40 are relatively fresh in the mind. The rebound was also dramatic, pushing prices through 2010 back over the 100-dollar mark into low triple digits by Q1 2011.The present outlook certainly includes the potential for gung-ho traders working another downside then upside miracle, but fundamentals dictate otherwise. The basics of world oil have changed, even in the 4 years since 2008: neither further price growth beyond $125 a barrel for West Texas Intermediate (WTI), nor a crash below about $60 to $75 a barrel for WTI are realistically possible - although traders do not need (or want) to know that!
However, prices far below $100 a barrel for the two major reference grades, WTI and Brent, are the new rational "market equilibrium" outlook, meaning several things.
Greece looks out to sea for gas wealth salvation
LONDON/MILAN (Reuters) - Offshore natural gas could dramatically change Greece's fortunes, should early estimates of $600 billion worth of reserves be confirmed, according to a study presented to Prime Minister Antonis Samaras in June and seen by Reuters.The study, collating existing scientific data, says that geological similarities indicate that reserves offshore Crete may match the prolific Levantine Basin where recent Israeli and Cypriot discoveries are clustered.
It points to strategically significant reserves in Greek waters south of Crete in the range of 3.5 trillion cubic meters (Tcm), enough to cover over six years of EU gas demand, and the equivalent of about 1.5 billion barrels of oil.
Lithuania hits Russia’s Gazprom with $1.9 billion arbitration claim for alleged price-gouging
VILNIUS, Lithuania — Lithuania’s government said Wednesday it planned to file a €1.45 billion ($1.9 billion) claim against Russia’s Gazprom, alleging that the world’s largest natural gas company has hiked prices unfairly.Government ministers said the size of the claim covers what the country has overpaid for natural gas since 2004, when Gazprom obtained a major stake in Lietuvos Dujos, the country’s largest gas importer, and changed the formula for determining the gas price.
Chevron sells BPCL 10,000 bpd Nigerian oil for a year-sources
NEW DELHI (Reuters) - Indian state-run Bharat Petroleum Corp has signed a deal with Chevron to buy 10,000 barrels per day (bpd) Nigerian crude in the year ending March 31, 2013, two sources familiar with the deal said on Wednesday.Chevron will supply light sweet barrels to BPCL at the official selling price, the sources said.
Presidential debate could shed light on energy issues
Wednesday’s presidential debate offers one of the final chances to pin down the candidates on the energy issues that have loomed so large in this campaign — from gasoline prices and green jobs to the Keystone XL pipeline and Solyndra.
Danish shipper asks Vitol if tanker used for Iran oil
(Reuters) - Danish oil and shipping group A.P. Moller Maersk says it will talk to Vitol to determine whether one of its tankers was used by the trading house to ship Iranian fuel oil.
Iran tightens measures to stem currency fall
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Police threatened merchants who closed their shops in Tehran's main bazaar and launched crackdowns on sidewalk money changers on Wednesday as part of a push to halt the plunge of Iran's currency, which has shed more than a third its value in less than a week.The measures underscore the serious concern by officials facing one of the most potentially destabilizing scenarios, which has been partly blamed on the fallout from Western sanctions over Tehran's nuclear program.
Iran police clash with protesters over currency crisis
Riot police in Iran have clashed with protesters in the capital over sharp falls in the currency, the rial.Tear gas was used to disperse the demonstrators, some of whom were setting fire to tyres and rubbish bins. There were many arrests, reports say.
Eyewitnesses told the BBC that scores of people gathered outside the central bank, calling for the governor to stand down, chanting anti-government slogans.
At least 31 killed in suicide bombings in Syria
DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) -- Three suicide bombers detonated their explosives-packed cars near an officers' club in Syria's northern city of Aleppo on Wednesday, killing at least 31 people and causing massive destruction that trapped scores under the rubble, Syrian state media and activists said.The blasts went off at a main square in a government-controlled district of the city, while a fourth explosion detonated a few hundred yards away near the Chamber of Commerce, they said.
China and Japan face off: Tiny islands, big dispute
The China and Japan face off over five islands has sunk relations to a 40-year low - the worst since diplomatic relations began. But the sabre rattling is just for show, say analysts.
What's Bringing US Jobs Back From Overseas?
"Going overseas is not the panacea that it was thought of just a decade or so ago," Schoenherr said, adding he was surprised by the study's results. "Companies have realized the challenges and thus are moving back to the United States."The research revealed that rising labor costs in emerging countries, high oil prices and increasing transportation costs and global risks, such as political instability, are the motivating factors in bringing manufacturing operations back home.
Drilling for oil in the Arctic: the risks are too great for companies to take on
If oil companies persist with plans to drill in the Arctic they will cross a line beyond which they cannot claim to operate responsibly.
Oil giants eye Arctic prize despite dangers
DRILLING for oil and gas has always been a risky business; overcoming technical, political and environmental challenges is part of the job.But last week the chief executive of the French oil giant Total, Christophe de Margerie, declared that when it came to the Arctic Ocean, the risk of a spill was simply too high.
5 dead in fire at Indonesia oil pipeline, output unaffected
"Our Tempino-Plaju pipeline caught fire at 1006 .... It did not catch fire because the pipe exploded but our pipe was being tapped illegally. Oil was being stolen by the community. Someone was smoking there and it caught fire," Pertamina EP public relations manager Agus Amperianto told Reuters.Losses from looting have increased since mid-2012 and amounted to 29,000 barrels in September alone, Pertamina said, adding that nearly 250,000 barrels have been stolen since May.
Judge dismisses claims by BP fuel dealers that Gulf oil spill hurt brand name
NEW ORLEANS — A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed claims by BP fuel stations and convenience stores that the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico diminished the value of the oil giant’s brand and cost them business.U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier’s ruling says the dealers’ claims against BP PLC aren’t viable under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, general maritime law or state law.
Japan joins ´shale revolution´
Big energy consumer, Japan has uncovered its first domestic shale gas deposits. Bad news for Russia, the second largest exporter of oil to Japan. But experts say industrial production of ‘artificial oil’ from gas is many years off.
Unusual Dallas Earthquakes Linked to Fracking, Expert Says
Three unusual earthquakes that shook a suburb west of Dallas over the weekend appear to be connected to the past disposal of wastewater from local hydraulic fracturing operations, a geophysicist who has studied earthquakes in the region says.
Penn State Faculty Snub of Fracking Study Ends Research
A natural-gas driller’s group has canceled a Pennsylvania State University study of hydraulic fracturing after some faculty members balked at the project that had drawn criticism for being slanted toward industry.The Marcellus Shale Coalition, which paid more than $146,000 for three previous studies, ended this year’s report after work had started, said Kathryn Klaber, coalition president.
Cabot’s Methodology Links Tainted Water Wells to Gas Fracking
Methane in two Pennsylvania water wells has a chemical fingerprint that links it to natural gas produced by hydraulic fracturing, evidence that such drilling can pollute drinking water.The data, collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, are significant because the composition of the gas --its isotopic signature -- falls into a range Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. (COG) had identified as that of the Marcellus Shale, which it tapped through hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
September auto sales a tale of haves, have-nots
The average age of vehicles on the road is about 11 years, according to data from Polk, which tracks vehicle registrations. That's old enough to be running up big repair bills and making new cars and their warranties, extended-service intervals and safety features very appealing.Also, data from Polk, J.D. Power and Associates and TrueCar.com all show younger buyers returning to the market at a faster clip than expected. They are the foundation of automakers' sales and earnings growth as they get older and more well-off and move up through pricier models.
Teen Drunk Driving Falls on High Gas Prices, Less Alcohol
Drunk driving among U.S. teens fell 54 percent in the past two decades, a trend helped by laws to curb underage alcohol consumption and higher gas prices keeping high school students off the road, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Nuclear Firms Seek Eased Export Rules as U.S. Demand Wanes
The U.S. nuclear-power industry is seeking to ease export restrictions so it can sell equipment and technology to nations including China and Russia as domestic demand wanes for reactors.Regulations unchanged since the end of the Cold War impede U.S. companies in gaining export licenses, putting suppliers at a global disadvantage, according to a report released today by the Nuclear Energy Institute, a Washington-based group whose members include Exelon Corp. and Southern Co.
Navy aims to turn seawater into jet fuel
The U.S. Navy may need to look no further than the water around its ships to produce jet fuel, according to a program underway at its research laboratory.The technology would free the Navy from the logistical and economic challenges of refueling ships underway.
In 2011, for example, nearly 600 million gallons of fuel were transferred to Navy vessels at sea from oil tankers. The challenges of doing this are risky in stormy weather, more so while engaged in battle.
Add in volatile fossil fuel prices that are projected to trend higher in the future, and producing your own while underway begins to make sense, according to the Navy.
'Superweeds' linked to rising herbicide use in GM crops
PULLMAN, Wash. -- A study published this week by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook finds that the use of herbicides in the production of three genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops -- cotton, soybeans and corn -- has actually increased. This counterintuitive finding is based on an exhaustive analysis of publicly available data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Agriculture Statistics Service. Benbrook's analysis is the first peer-reviewed, published estimate of the impacts of genetically engineered (GE) herbicide-resistant (HT) crops on pesticide use.
Obesity and under-nutrition prevalent in long-term refugees living in camps
A quarter of households in refugee camps in Algeria are currently suffering from the double burden of excess weight and under-nutrition. According to a study published in the journal PLOS Medicine, obesity is an emerging threat to this community, with one in two women of childbearing age being overweight, whilst nutritional deficiencies such as iron-deficiency anaemia and stunted growth remain a persistent problem.
Fewer babies signals more than effects of recession
"Most demographers were expecting a mini-baby boom right now," says demographer Sam Sturgeon of Taylorsville, Utah, president of Demographic Intelligence, a consulting company in Charlottesville, Va. "We anticipated that because the number of women of prime childbearing age has gone up. We were looking at what would have been the grandchildren of the baby boomers."The boom "never materialized," says Sturgeon. He adds fertility rates usually rise within a year or two of a recession's end.
Out on the Prairie, Moon, Music and Lectures, Too
Hundreds of people, some from as far away as Tokyo, came to the Prairie Festival in Salina, Kan., to sleep under the stars and hear lectures on subjects like sustainable agriculture.
Output not stockpiles key to cap food cost-EU aid chief
MILAN (Reuters) - Building strategic agricultural stocks to curb market volatility, as proposed by France, would not be the most effective way to tame food prices, EU Development Commissioner Andris Piebalgs said on Monday. He said what was needed instead was an increase in food production in the world's poorest countries, which remain vulnerable to the threat of a new food crisis despite the recent easing in grain prices from record highs hit this summer. Last month, French President Francois Hollande launched a global campaign to win support for creating strategic stockpiles of food commodities after a year of drought renewed fears of a new crisis in agricultural supplies.
Put Climate Change in the Budget Now, Save Lives and Money Later
A new scientific report concludes that climate change is already costing the world $1.2 trillion a year and is eating up 1.6 per cent of global GDP, and rising. It's also killing at least 400,000 people every year, mainly in developing countries. That's not counting the 4.5-million people a year who die from air pollution caused by burning fossil fuels.
U.N. climate chief urges greater ambition in Doha
WASHINGTON (Reuters Point Carbon) - The U.N. climate chief said Monday that countries have not backed off what they had agreed in climate talks in Durban last year but said current actions and pledges are not enough to avert a dangerous rise in global temperatures.
Rich nations owe more to combating global climate change - Brazil
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Major emerging economies' obligations to cut emissions under a climate change agreement should not be the same as those of rich countries, Brazil's chief negotiator said, signaling a retreat to an old position that has hamstrung years of U.N. negotiations.
Drop in Emissions Not a Trend Set in Stone, Study Says
The downward trend comes largely as a result of the recession, increased use of natural gas and solar and wind power, and advancements in energy-saving technologies. But the study suggests that the downward trend won’t continue.
S.F. port plan shifted to allow for rising sea
When the conceptual design was approved in 2003, the idea was to slope the triangular plaza down toward the water. Then the $25 million project was put on hold for lack of funds until 2009 - and when preparations resumed, the Port of San Francisco took into account scientific forecasts showing that water levels in the bay could rise 16 inches, or more, by 2050.
New satellite data reveals sea-level rise
(CNN) -- Sea-levels are rising unevenly around the world, with Pacific countries in particular suffering significant increases over the past two decades, according to accurate new satellite data.On average, global sea-levels have been rising at about three millimeters (mm) a year, however, this masks large differences between regions of the world.
While some regions have seen sea-level rises of 12 mm a year, others have actually seen decreases of about 12 mm a year.
'Irreversible' warming to raise sea levels
LONDON (UPI) -- European researchers are saying irreversible warming triggered by greenhouse gases will cause sea levels to rise for thousands of years to come.Writing in the journal Environmental Research Letters, published by the Institute of Physics in London, scientists said as a result of greenhouse gas emissions up to now the world is committed to a sea-level rise of 3.6 feet by the year 3000.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Chief Steps Down at a Company Serving Electric Cars
E. Swanson
Agassi is an excellent demonstration of the power of cornucopian delusion and the attendant danger of mis-perceived historical metaphors.
“The first flight after the Wright brothers took off in the air, for about 10 feet, wasn’t to the moon,” he said. “What you do is slowly move up, gradually.”
Earth to Shai: The Wright brothers were building an energy-wasting machine at a time when the supply of energy seemed infinite. You are trying to perpetuate an energy-wasting machine when the facts are all too clear.
All the will power in the world isn't going to change the fact that, as the linked story says, building a viable network of battery-swapping stations for coal-cars is a fool's errand.
I will believe that we are actually making some progress in cutting fossil fuel energy usage when people in general and politicians in particular start recognizing that the worst mistake in the last two centuries was becoming dependent on the automobile. Just look around and you will see that the majority of people could benefit greatly from a more muscle powered approach to mobility. Instead, a significant proportion of the population thinks they can solve their health problems with even more sloth and pills to solve the problems associated with that sloth.
The batteries do not have to be charged by coal. Wind and solar would work fine.
The "coal-car" meme is getting pretty tired. A large percentage of EV buyers put up home PV systems. And even if you are totally grid-dependent, the percent of power from coal has dropped drastically in recent years due to the low price of natural gas.
But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your catch-phrase.
Must be near a billion ICE cars by now? While "sustainable growth" continues to be catch phrase of the pollies/PTB?
A one million EV/PV car target is considered quite desirable, no doubt. (All created using fossil fuel). Drop in the bucket, let's be honest.
Scale is our enemy. And the reality.
Cheers, Matt
We DO need electric vehicles but they should be electric shuttles and buses to get the last mile out of Green Transit Rail and lightrail. The environmental and resource costs of our personal car Auto Addiction is a lot more than just the fuel - it is 12x the amount of
Green space consumed, a football field of asphalt parking for every 5 cars, 30,000 annual deaths by Auto Addiction, hundreds of thousands of casualties due to Auto Addiction, obesity, loss of community, ambulances, traffic cops, traffic courts, endless maintenance of the miles of asphalt.
We need to prioritize our Green investments - if people can afford electric cars, fine but we should not be wasting $7500 of taxpayer money for direct subsidies while we need to expand public Green transit which should be available to ALL and not just the affluent.
The VW microbus was just a box on a Beetle chassis. Why, oh Why have we waited 10 years for Toyota to do the same thing with the Prius? A 10 seat Hybrid would actually be useful, not just a symbol.
While I see your point, the VW Bus (Transporter, Combi, etc.) was built on a frame whereas the Beetle was a uni-body style. Just sayin', for clarity... About the only things they had in common were the engines, transaxles, and headlamps.
695.5 Million cars worldwide
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=total+number+of+cars+worldwide
We do not even have solar energy to meet existing residential demands so how are we going to power personal cars which take as much energy as a small house? I am trying to get a solar carport in the only place I can place it which will JUST meet my existing electricity demands. Also it is not JUST the fuel for cars it is the whole Auto Addicted
alienating infrastructure of 8 lanes of asphalt, acres of parking etc etc.
Precisely. And also the lithium in the batteries, let's not forget.
Using 3,500 pounds of mostly idle stuff to accomplish everybody's daily locomotion is just wildly insane, regardless of the energy source dumped into it.
Well, for starters, we could start by rethinking what we call an 'AUTO MOBILE'...
I had asked my little old mother to visit these folk in Budapest a couple of weeks ago. She made contact and took some great pictures of their solar electric velomobile.
http://pannonrider.pannonsolar.hu/pannonrider/pannonrider_2_english.html
We could also start by rethinking what we mean by "residential demand".
Heck, if this catches on and becomes a trend we might even set off a whole bunch of rethinking about all kinds of things... Umm, like growth based economies and things like fractional reserve banking >;-)
Okay, "ng-cars." You think I'm uninterested in the facts?
That's rich coming from a fan of "electric cars."
The automobile is an unsustainable technology, if we are to continue using it is an everyday means of travel. I find it fascinating to be labeled an ideologue by somebody who seems to want to sacrifice this indisputable point to some unexplained (investment related perhaps?) affection for "electric cars."
Meanwhile, you cannot seriously hide behind "A large percentage of EV buyers put up home PV systems," can you? How many people is that? 5,000? 10,000? How many of those people own their own suburban homes? All of them, of course. What is your prescription for those who live in apartments? In Oregon, where solar charging is impossible for 8 months of the year? For those who can barely afford a used Kia, let alone $100,000?
There are two ways to talk about "electric cars," as Orbiter notes below. One is to see them as part of a transition away from cars-first living. The other is yours, which is to cheerlead for them, and help the corporate elite finish walking us off the cliff.
Uhh. Can't you cheerlead for them because you think they can begin to lead us away from the cars-first culture. Especially, the bigger/faster/more powerful culture.
Absolutely not! It's all bad, very very bad!
Tsk, tsk for even asking!
This is the 100,000 mile journey we have to do without ANY intermediary steps. Deal with it.
This is just the next stage of Better Place collapse.
Who wants to pay tens of thousands for a car and then get locked into buying miles from a single-source provider. He always tried to sell it as being like a cellphone business model. Well, with cell phones you can switch carriers or at least threaten to in order to keep the market competitive. Better Place lacked that.
I like the battery swapping idea but I don't think it will be a viable thing until 15 to 25 years down the road when a significant EV market has developed. Once there are lots of EVs out there and multiple EV makers, they can get together and form an industry standard. And we will learn a lot between now & then that will make the system much better.
You think the cell phone market is competitive? Do a little research on that. We have the highest rates and the worst network in the rich world. Because the state leaves it all to the corporate sector.
Meanwhile, as usual, you seem to miss the issue of the energy costs, which includes both the non-road-worthiness in the sprawling USA of the tiny cars involved in this guy's scheme, and also the immense costs of establishing a viable network of battery swap stations in a country larger than Israel or Denmark. Should we mention the issue of lithium supplies?
I keep hearing Lithium isn't a problem. Personally, I'm not a fan of Lithium batteries, I worry about the safety and field life of them. I'd rather have something a bit heavier that I can trust.
Oil: The 75 Dollar Floor Price, above; peak oil economics in a nutshell, though I'm not sure I agree with his take on substitution. It's clear that things are going to get messy(er). The author, Andrew McKillop, published Home Run for Peak Oil last spring, another good read, though I think he underestimates the denial-sphere.
I agree with that basic rationale and have posted suggestions of an ever narrowing oil price window. Once 147 was hit, it set in 08 dollars a ceiling of what the economy could handle, probably at a higher economic peak than we will experience again (unless fusion saves the day). Meanwhile, the cost of marginal oil that is needed just to maintain current flow requires a minimum price. As we delve further into non-conventional sources and deep off shore the bottom price will rise while the top price the economy can handle either remains steady or falls. As we move forward I'm expecting the oil price window to continue to narrow and at some point cross over.
After that happens the question is, what do we do when what the world economy can handle as a top oil price exceeds the minimum required to maintain sufficient flow? This raises the specter that instead of a descent in oil flow due to depletion, the final coup de gras is it occurs for economic reasons.
I am not sure the top price declines- in fact I think that it increases over time if for no other reason than inflation. In 2008 the weakest rivets popped- the sub prime and distant suburb real estate markets. It will take a higher price than 2008 to cause the next set of rivets to pop. Plus I think systems adjust to a higher price over time and a price level that caused a shock the first time doesn't necessarily do it again the second time around.
So noted however my post did specify 147 in 2008 dollars.
My take is that there will be buyers even for 200 dollar oil. However it will take time for the economy to adjust to that. And when it does, things will be different. You and I wont afford that oil. The oil will be pumped and brought to the market, but we will pay for it as a (high) fractional cost in other comodeties, such as food. Car ownership will drop lots in those days.
I think you are assuming no disruptive event happens to the financial system. I predict that in the next couple of years it will "collapse" from debt saturation and paper assets will no longer be desirable as holders of wealth (they will be rapidly declining due to money printing or counter party default -- one of those two options is guaranteed and neither is good for paper wealth). Call this "hyperinflation" if you want, or something like that. Then the only measure of wealth will be real physical things that you own, and oil will be one of the most valuable. Then few people will be willing to sell oil in return for pieces of paper, since what would you accept in return that has an equal value that doesn't drop over time? Other natural resources? Well they'll be experiencing the same dynamic. The incentive would be to NOT sell oil because it will be an investment kind of like gold is today, it just keeps going up faster than any return you could make by selling and investing those dollars you received for selling (this would be especially so in a contracting global economy). Then relative oil price will go wayyy up, even though few people will be buying it and production rates will tank, simply because it will be hoarded as a store of wealth.
This historic shift in the global financial system will in my opinion mark when Peak Oil happens, and I think it will happen quickly when it does happen, and this will divide the history of humanity into 2 stages -- the fun pre-PO, and the less fun post-PO.
What a fine simple description of our time. It will be a new world.
NH: Should I have my 17yo daughter read your post to curtail any enthusiasm she has for learning to drive? (Serious question).
If she were my daughter, I would want her to learn to drive (could be a very useful skill to have in a pinch), but encourage her to arrange her life so she didn't need to drive/own a vehicle...
"Should I have my 17yo daughter read your post to curtail any enthusiasm she has for learning to drive?"
Not only should she learn to drive (even if she never owns a car, there are still rentals and zip cars and the like) but she should consider getting a commercial license too. Truck driver is one of the most consistent job openings available at least in this area.
Regime change is a powerful reason to continue to sell oil for paper.
Wonderful! That is exactly what I think will happen. That is why I keep saying: Invest in hard assets or paper assets backed by hard assets or watch your wealth evaporate in front of your eyes.
If I was a non-perishable commodity exporter today, I would immediately reduce my exports in order to earn just enough money to balance trade (exports = imports). I am surprised it is not being done.
If I was the President of the US, I would create a Strategic Natural Resource Reserve. SNRR would raise money by selling bonds to the Fed and use the money to import vital commodities in large quantities. This can continue as long as the commodity exporter is stupid enough to accept central bank created confetti money. Why is Obama not doing this?
The reported 10% year-on-year decline in UK petrol & diesel sales (for Q2 2012) is a significant reduction, even by UK trends of the last few years. It will be interesting to see how these compare with the next few quarters going forward. The panic fuel buying in March would have left many drivers with a full tank going into Q2, helping to exacerbate any underlying decline trend in the quarter.
However, I would expect most commentators to conclude that the reduction is a direct result of the general public's reduced liquidity, after several years of below inflation salary changes. Personally I perceive less traffic on many of my journeys. The AA (Automobile Association) states that "While we welcome the fact that new cars have become more fuel-efficient, this goes nowhere near to accounting for the crash in demand over the past three months, and the past five years." Today's BBC news article here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19810276
Oil consumption in the UK has declined by 13.7% between the recent consumption peak in 2005 and 2011 to 71.6 million tonnes, a level of oil consumption below any year since at least 1965 (when the BP data series starts).
The decline in UK petrol (gas) consumption between 2010 and 2011 was 4.84%.
The decline in UK petrol consumption between the first six months of 2011 and the first six months of 2012 was 4.27%.
UK oil production fell by 12.2% in the second quarter of 2012 compared to a year earlier.
Similarly, UK natural gas production fell by 12.9%.
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/pn12_109a/pn12_109a.aspx
The decline rates in total energy production in the UK (due to the North Sea (UKCS) production decline?) seems to have increased recently. In the 2009 to 2010 time frame the decline in total energy produced in the UK (currently about two thirds oil and gas, but also primary electricity (nuclear, wind and natural flow hydro), coal and other solid fuels) averaged around 6%. Since 2011, the average decline is closer to 12%.
From the Energy Export Databrowser
Oil and gas production are very roughly back to the level around 1980 in around 10 years but with the coal production at a fraction of level produced in 1980 with nothing good ahead. Integrated over time this must have an impact then more money flow out of the country to pay for the needed oil and gas. I guess in some way or another dramatic or not salaries will start to decrease compared to other countries until a level is reached then it will be attractive to do labour intensive work in UK.
The decline in UK oil & gas production between 2011 and 2012 was certainly sharp, but not surprising considering the developments that got postponed during the 2009 oil price slump. From AFE to first production tends to take about 3 years.
Over the longer term since we hit Peak Oil & Gas at the turn of the millennium, decline has averaged 7% per annum, which seems likely to hold for another few years. https://www.og.decc.gov.uk/pprs/full_production/monthly+oil+production/g... illustrates the fairly steady drop-off.
However, demand destruction is still not enough to counteract even a 7% decline rate. Clearly our economy is not being squeezed hard enough...
The cognative disonance in the UK over peak oil is almost total. It is clear from the number of comments on the BBC post (987 and counting) that fuel prices are causing huge pain and real demand destruction, yet almost nobody comments on global fuel supply or the near total collapse of UK oil production, and the few that do raise few upvotes.
One UK paper /website, The Guardian does better, but only on some posts. An article in their energy/business/environment sections will get multiple peak oil comments that get good upvotes. Identical comments against consumer/driver/general sections will be completely ignored or flamed.
RalphW,
“Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.” – Claud Cockburn
Ralph, I too look for a glimmer of awareness in the comments after this kind of article. On the BBC site you expect to get a fairly wide section of the population. My conclusion is that the majority of posters just do not see the price of fuel as being an international issue. Instead they fall back on short term complaining about the current/past politicians etc. There is still some time to go before the majority become aware of the link between limited supply and price and the global nature of the challenge.
Seems to me that for the UK (and the US as well), simple historical production curves should bring quite a few people towards the concept, typically :
From Matt Mushalik website :
http://www.crudeoilpeak.com/?page_id=2281
And this one in particular, also conveys the "bigger easier fields first" aspect quite well.
Summary of Weekly Petroleum Data for the Week Ending September 28, 2012
What is driving the price of oil DOWN recently($98 to $90 per barrel)? Is it increased supply, lower demand or both? OR, could it be politics related to the US Presidential election?
Looks like WTI is below $89 now and RBOB has dropped 8 cents so far today. Could be investors selling off their stuff to accumulate cash so they can pay their cell phone bills?
The price swings rarely if ever make any sense. I've seen the prices go up when the reports show inventory builds, and prices drop when inventories drop. Supply and demand doesn't seem to have much weight in these markets.
What would happen if we took oil off of the commodities market?
Would the price stabilize?
How would you propose to take a commodity off of commodities markets?
While short-term fluctuations may not make sense from supply and demand, longer term trends certainly seem to obey basic economics.
I agree with your second statement. Regarding your first statement, the WTI NYMEX contract has only been around since 1983. How was oil traded before that? Is this question moot since these contracts are merely paper?
The exchange could have a rule that traders are only allowed to sell contracts. There is president.
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2011/05/08/who-guards-whom-at-the-...
Futures trading can't have much of an impact because the only reason one party can buy a futures contract is that another party sells that contract. The total of longs and shorts is zero. And so are gains and losses every gain is somebody else's loss.
Rgds
WeekendPeak
If you were to imagine that the overall sentiment can go up and down you can imagine that the futures price could follow the sentiment. A comparison might be that strictly based on an intangible such as "style" one model of autombile can command a greater price than another, even though they are both completely abundant. Similarly as investors are looking around for a place to put their money, at some time more of them will be looking for oil futures while others are less enthusiastic. The "tilt" in sentiment will move the price just as a 1957 Pontiac will outsell a comparable 1957 Edsel. (Both are actually worthless but command attractive prices if you have one)
Still Falling: Central Atlantic Region Gasoline Inventories Fall to Record Lows
Confirming what the huge gain in the wholesale price of gasoline in New York City harbor area already tells us, the EIA reported that gasoline supplies fell to record lows in the Central Atlantic region (New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland, see map above). They fell to 20,380,000 barrels, as compared to 24,669,000 barrels only four weeks earlier. In 2011, the low point reached was about 24,000,000 barrels; the high point in 2012 was about 33,700,000. Wholesale gasoline prices in the New York City region, as well as in Southern California, in recent days have skyrocketed 50 cents/gallon relative to the commonly quoted commodities futures price for gasoline. [ The Great Leap Forward: Spectacular Gasoline Price Superspike Marks Monthly Close of Futures Trading ]. This essentially means that in areas of low supplies, retail prices may be as much as 50 cents a gallon higher - or more in the Southern California - as compared to most of the contiguous US states.
Gasoline supplies in the US, and in particular the Central Atlantic region, have been falling for some weeks. A combination of factors contributed to this situation, but perhaps the latest, cruelest blow was a refinery explosion in Venezuela. [ The Amuay Disaster ]. Not only did Venezuela increase its imports from the US of [ unfinished gasoline components ] over the last month, but gasoline tankers out of Europe that normally would deliver their cargo to Northeast US locations were diverted to Venezuela - in a few cases in mid-voyage. [ Venezuela Ramps Up Fuel Imports Ahead of Election ]. Gasoline imports during September into the East Coast averaged about 500,000 bpd, as compared to roughly 800,000 bpd in June and July. There are recent shipping reports indicating that the pace of gasoline imports will pick up significantly in the second half of October, thereby preventing the present situation from getting worse. Also, Delta Air's renovated Trainer, PA refinery hopes to start full operations this week.
Higher retail prices have apparently take a bite out of retail gasoline demand. Even adjusted for seasonal trends, gasoline demand appears to have incrementally fallen over the last few weeks. Per MasterCard's Spending Plus report [ Gasoline demand falls in 2 weeks to Sept 28-MasterCard ] retail gasoline demand in recent weeks is a more than 1% below last year 's level. A few weeks back, gasoline demand looked to be on the verge of finally increasing as compared to last year.
For additional, more in-depth, longer term perspective as to the current gasoline situation in the Northeast US, see this well put together perspective:
Fuel mismatch leaves US Northeast short of gasoline:Kemp
It's interesting that these petrol price spikes are occurring a month before the elections in primarily blue states (Democratic).
Very Interesting ...
Gasoline Prices and Electoral Politics in the Age of Unconventional Oil Part One
Gasoline Prices and Electoral Politics Part Two
... When income level, fuel usage and state gas tax rates are factored in the correlation is less obvious.
Krugman on Gas Prices and Who to Blame ... Paranoia Strikes Deeper
If Krugman had a bit of honesty discussing oil, he would remind people here and there that the US went through its production peak in 1971.
Truth is he is as stuck in "classic economics" as any other economists, the big "devil" being in that case any "malthusian" reminder along the line of finite resources.
I really don't think Krugman is being "dishonest" by not talking about when the US peaked. He cannot be considered dishonest because he did not bring the subject up. Actually I think this article is the epitome of honesty. The article is all about the cause of high oil prices, not peak oil. And the price of world oil really has nothing to do with when the US production peaked.
Ron P.
I'm not referring to this article in particular, more in general (and to one I remember and could try to find back where he is saying resources constraints aren't an issue at all with respect to the current crisis).
Krugman is still in this funny "economists world", past industrial revolution thinking, where you look at current crisis comparing it to the 30ies one for instance, basically under some monetary Keynesian or not, various cooking recipes under the "encompassing all goodness criteria" of leading to growth or not.
As to "And the price of world oil really has nothing to do with when the US production peaked."
It had everything to do during the first oil shock.
If you don't know it yet, the song "first oil schock= arab embargo" is a complete myth , the reality being "first oil schock=US production peak" (US first world production of the time BY FAR, and this in a growing production/consumption environment.
(first oil shock being understood for what it was, that is as oil prices going through a steep transition towards a new plateau).
As to the current barrel price, let's not forget that the US is still the first consuming and third producing country, and that it of course has its effect on oil price as any major consuming/producing nation.
Yes, this is very interesting. I do not believe longer term petrol prices can be manipulated but short term prices can be rigged by plant closures, "maintainance" etc. I didn't believe this until after the Enron debacle in which investigations revealed power supplies were purposely rerouted through bottlenecks to create shortages and boost profit though pass through fees. Yes, I know that the California power situation had many flaws due to regulatory bungling- but there was smoking gun evidence (documents, tapes, etc.) of deliberate alterations in how power was delivered to soak consumers.
Many individuals involved in leadership positions in the oil production, refining and delivery indutries are radical right-wing zealots (such as the Koch brothers). In fact, given the conbtributions made to the Republican Party and right wing extremist organizations by the oil industry- it is very likely that the oil industry as a whole has radicalized and is playing a dominant role in US politics. This is the rise of the petro-elite takeover of democracies in the age of peak oil. As oil prices rise, oil companies become richer and richer compared to other industries in the US and gradually take control over the political process. The prize is critical: the ability to put in officeholders (like Romney) that will destroy renewables and any power alternatives to fossil fuels- thus locking in future increasing profits and greater and greater control over the nation. In a nation as dependent on oil as the US, he who controls the gas pump determines the election. This is the path of all heavy petro nations in the future- towards less freedom, less choice.
Of course there are no end of people who will dismiss any idea of elite power as a consiracy theory. They trot out yards of evidence that everyhing is supply and demand, industry is too competitive to cooperate, etc. They ignore the increasing coordination of elites through organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce. They ignore the regular revolving door membership of the Republican Party and oil executives. But when a later investigation (such as Ennron) suddenly shows deliberate manipulation of short term prices- these consipracy debunkers always seem to magically dissapear until the dust has settled and they can come back with their free market theories of how these things are just not possible and anyone who suggest they are is a irrational and a rumor-monger.
Now I'm not saying that all these refinery closings and transportation bottlenecks before the election are deliberate- but given the past history in these affairs- surely they warrent a skeptical eye (and perhaps an investigation) This, by the way, does not refute PO theory that prices will rise LONG TERM due mainly to supply and demand.
Also, the possibility of sabotage at the Amuay refinery in Venezuela has been discussed in the media around the world:
The Sabotage Theory of the Explosion in Venezuela’s Amuay Refinery
http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/7214
Charles -
Thanks for the explanation for what I've witnessed in New York State over the past few weeks. We've had that big run up like everyone has experienced and up until maybe 10 days ago it seemed like the sky was the limit. Then gas prices seemed to hit a ceiling of ~ $4.05 - $4.10 per gallon and fell back into the $3.95 range. I initially thought "here we go again - something always happens to break the momentum..." but before I could even get the words out - well, the price trend did a complete reversal and prices have now blown right past the old highs into the mid $4.10's - it was a very quick change in the trend that I was not expecting to see happen. I really don't think I've ever seen it reverse so dramatically.
Meanwhile the California wholesale price superspike not only continued for the fourth business day, but prices are still rising further in spectacular fashion.
It's possible that average retail gasoline prices in California will soon be closer to $5 than $4.
http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/Oil/6672169
Record high prices are being followed by gasoline shortages, now popping up in parts of California:
Gas prices rise as shortage looms
http://www.fox5sandiego.com/news/kswb-gas-prices-rise-shortage-looms-201...
California Gas Stations Begin to Shut on Record-High Spot Prices
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-03/california-gas-stations-begin-t...
OPIS: California Low-Carbon Fuel Will Mean Higher Pump Prices
That should spur the sales of electric and efficient ICE vehicles in California.
It would probably spur a backlash. Hopefully this is just hype.
$4.29 this morning in Sebastopol.
Yep.
Now seeing stories about $5/g gasoline in San Francisco and Los Angeles areas. Seems surreal, as I just purchased fuel on Monday for about $4.60 for 91 octane unleaded.
Calif gas prices spike 8 cents a gallon overnight
Ethanol Output in U.S. Fell 3% to 785,000 Barrels a Day
I'm in Maryland and gas prices have been falling like a stone in recent weeks. In my county we've dropped from $3.79/gal a couple weeks back down to $3.50/gal today.
The item above claims J-5 fuel can be produced for $3-$6 per gallon. If this is real, why isn't someone doing it already? The low end of the range, $3, is around the current price for heating oil, which is more or less equivalent to J-5.
The key item appears to be the cost of the hydrogen and of the energy to extract the carbon dioxide from the seawater.
If you read the original paper you will find the cost per gallon using OTEC technology is $8.70. The lower costs are for nuclear energy as the primary source. It's interesting that a cost can be quoted to two significant figures for a 200MW OTEC system when the largest functioning OTEC system ever built was one which produced 50kW in 1993, but a cost using well-establishe nuclear technology has 100% price range.
No doubt as hydrocarbon fuels become increasingly unavailable military aircraft will try to substitute synthetic fuels. But the costs are probably much higher than these estimates, and the capital cost ($1.25 billion to $1.85 billion to produce 82,000 gallons or under 2,000 barrels per day) is staggering. Initial oil production from fifteen typical Bakken wells would match this, for a capital cost of $0.15 billion.
So the estimated capital cost of this naval fuel is about ten times the cost of some of the most expensive fossil fuel.
I think this is another dead end.
They say:
Ok why not: CO2 + H20 = gold bars or fried bacon?
But what they wrote means an endothermic process going on, so you are definitively a negative efficiency.
The Navy research is Completely Nonsense. Or, wait, maybe.. they are willing to use 100 BTU of fossil stuff to produce 85 BTU of modern seawater jet fuel paid by total US debt? This will be actually ok for a while but the most stupid thing on Earth.
It seems to me that one the great failings of EROEI is that the calculation ignores the type of energy input versus the energy output. If the energy input is from a source that would otherwise go wasted e.g. natural gas that is flared, or the wind or sun then even a negative EROEI makes sense.
For the military availability is more important than price. Fuel that is produced from using electricity plus sea water irrespective of its costs has to be something that they should be developing. Electricity can be generated from multiple sources which are not under the control of single or group of nations. There is also the possibility that technology could downsized in the future that will allow them to produce the necessary fuel in theater reducing their logistics issues by an enormous magnitude. My guess is that a gallon of gasoline delivered in Kabul is substantially greater than $8/gallon.
Liquid fuels are worth more than other types of energy due to their incredible energy density. It would make a lot of sense for the Navy to synthesize liquid jet fuel from electricity and seawater, even at a net energy loss. BUT:
- can they actually do it for anything like $3-$6? I doubt it.
- would you want to operate a nuclear reactor in a war zone, to power a fuel synthesis plant?
Hmmm...
If the plant can be scaled down, space could be made on carriers to produce their aircraft fuel with excess reactor power. I expect this will be the first step they take, making carriers virtually self-sufficient except for food. Older nuke carriers could be retasked to fuel production/storage/unrep for the balance of a carrier group.
The nuclear reactor on a ship produces steam to largely drive multi stage turbines that provide rotating power for propulsion. Electricity produced from the same steam may be limited, epecially during periods of war "action". The aircraft carriers would have to be retrofitted with supplemental turbines and alternators/rectifiers to get enough electricity for this process, IMO. Could be done, but at what cost in both equipment and space aboard the ship? Probably best to build a ship from scratch for this purpose.
Never been on a nuclear powered carrier but had a Navy vet friend of mine describe how the ship's power system works.
"Never been on a nuclear powered carrier but had a Navy vet friend of mine describe how the ship's power system works."
I have. The Nimitz has two A4W reactors, each rated at 550 MWth, and power to spare. Electrical power is supplied by multiple auxiliary steam turbines; plenty of redundancy, especially since more efficient digital systems have been retrofitted in, reducing overall consumption. Other efficiencies can be had (lighting, more efficient motors, etc.)... and one would be surprised at the amount of wasted space on a Nimitz class. The fuel storage tanks, piping, transfer systems, etc. are already there.
With good funding, the Navy could do this. They have a lot of talent and are great at getting stuff into small spaces. The CO2/CO scrubbers, O2 generators, etc., on my LA Class sub were about the size of a large refrigerator and could clean the air and make enough O2 for 120 souls (and then some). I forget how much hydrogen and carbon we were dumping, but it was a lot.
Fuel could be produced during off-peak periods with just a small fraction of available reactor power. 'Off-peak' is most of the time aboard ship.
If you were building a liquid fuel production ship, taking a carrier hull and reactors, only putting two propulsion turbines in it, and replacing the other two with the fuel plants would make for a pretty good fuel self contained unit. And using common parts as much as possible would keep costs less astronomical than they would otherwise be. And you would still have enough room to carry ammunition and other stores as a regular supply ship.
That would be an impressive target.
A carrier battle group normally consist of only one carrier. There currently no carrier battle groups containing "older nuclear carriers" that could be "retasked to fuel production/storage/unrep for the balance of a carrier group." The oldest current nuclear carrier, the USS Enterprise, is 51 years old and is scheduled to be deactivated in December and decommissioned in 2013. After the Enterprise is deactivated the USA will have 10 carriers, all of them nukes and each of them assigned to its own carrier battle group.
Meh... why not Enterprize?, and Nimitz is pushing 41 years, fairly old. Just sayin' there are options.
Enterprise's reactors reach end of life in 2015, plus or minus a year. It would be several hundred million to replace them and refuel them. IIRC the last time she had a reactor overhaul/replacement it ran over 400 million. On a 53 (by then) year old hull -- ain't gonna happen.
As to using the Nimitz, not likely as long as we continue to deploy 5 carriers a year, six months at a time for each carrier, with 12 months on average between deployments. Such a schedule requires 10 carriers. Further, cdeployed carriers typically spend most of their time a thousand miles or more apart.
The Navy would be better off designing and building a class of several nuclear powered fuel makers which would allow one to be deployed with every battle group. Given the increasing constraints on Navy ship biulding, that is not likely either.
That still leaves the issue of ship to ship fuel transfer in dangerous conditions (weather or hostile action).
I think they are talking about Nuclear power aircraft carriers. So they turn N energy into fuel. Not going to be 85% efficient, especially if you count the low thermal efficiency of the reactor. We will see if it makes economic sense, the cost of the logistics train multiplies the cost of fuel on station by a lot, so maybe this approach doesn't break the budget.
Because the U.S. Navy intends to reduce the deliveries of jet fuel to its ships, it will not use fossil fuels to manufacture jet fuel at sea. They will probably use electricity from nuclear power reactors to make jet fuel.
Maybe in the DoD's calculus, the cost of producing 850 BTU of fuel with 1000 BTU's of nuke energy is balanced out with the fact that for every 50 convoys of fuel delivered to Afghanistan, one Marine is wounded or killed.
From FY 2003 to FY 2007 in Iraq and Afghanistan, a total of more than 3,000 Army personnel and contractors were wounded or killed in action from attacks on fuel and water resupply convoys.
According to U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), ground convoys were attacked 1,100 times in 2010, and that may not count movements of fuel at the tactical level, from forward operating bases to patrol bases.
DoD: Energy for the Warfighter: Operational Energy Strategy - 2011
p.s. This skips over the moral and ethical question of invading another country to access resources.
"p.s. This skips over the moral and ethical question of invading another country to access resources."
don't think that is a worry for the military as long as it conforms to rules of war. If they are legally tasked by their Civilian leadership they follow the orders regardless of their moral and ethical considerations- as they should.
"they follow the orders regardless of their moral and ethical considerations"
Agreed.
"as they should"
Disagree:
(Quote From Fog of War). Even General Smedly Butler became disabused of that notion.
A Forgotten Holocaust: US Bombing Strategy, the Destruction of Japanese Cities and the American Way of War from World War II to Iraq
http://www.japanfocus.org/-mark-selden/2414
So I guess we need to station a nuclear reactor (and a big lake) in Kabul.
I had wondered where the hell those alchemists and other alchemy advocates where hiding out.
NY MTA may need $20 billion [from 2015 to 2019] just to keep system in good repair
Population Pyramids of the World from 1950 to 2100
http://populationpyramid.net/United+States+of+America/2010/
china &india look balanced but its an illusion
I'm surprised at the .1 diff for USA for the young??? validation
Very interest info, thanks.
One pattern that stands out consistently is that less developed regions have larger child populations, and then the population drops off in middle and old age. Because they don't have access to contraception, etc., but then they don't have advanced medical care.
In the developed regions the child populations are now smaller, but because of medical care they have huge populations in middle and old age.
So I think this should be instructive to everyone. The problem is not just birth rates. Yes, this is a start and it's good to see the world child population sort of level off below the age of 20. But it's unsustainable to keep people who are well past their expiration date alive.
It's easy to heap blame on the financial and fossil fuel industries. But what about the medical industry? Now, I'm not a eugenecist nor would I suggest abandonment of the ill and elderly, but we need to start thinking outside the box.
EB, I agree... sort of. I think, though, that as things get "dicey," the elderly will be the first to die off. Along with the infirm of any age, and the severly disabled. Not that they will be euthanized... just that they are vulnerable to the 'new', super bugs.
Sadly, the third group to face realatively high die off will be the very young. Historically, they have always suffered when illness is common.
Next, the poor, having poor nutrition and housing problems, with concomitant difficulties. Rats, for instance. And, of course, the ever popular cockroach. All disease carriers par excellence.
The only way the wealthy will add to the draw down will be if the hoi poloi find them while in a particularly surly mood.
Of course, you understand, I am just repeating doomer talk I have heard. We all know that BAU will continue, unabated and unchanged, into the infinity of exponential growth.
Craig
But it's unsustainable to keep people who are well past their expiration date alive.
Uhhh... as one of those future "past his expiration daters", I'm not so sure I'm ready to leap to embrace this. It's one thing to discuss those costly, "heroic" (and ultimately doomed) end-of-life measures we spend gobs of money on in the US, but quite another to claim you know with certaintly *when* it's someone's time to kindly kick the bucket.
Casually throwing around grim statements like this without qualification also invites some rather unhelpful and extreme interpretations, especially from new or casual readers. This is exactly the kind of stuff that gets the paranoid right-wing crazies (cue Alex Jones and InfoWars) perpetually worked up and convinced that all environmentalists are out to kill them.
Another thing to keep in mind is that it was those old folks (us old folks) who provided the infrastructure and technology that the younger folks rely upon for their survival.
Granted I'm taking some liberties here but not that many. If I felt that the up-coming generation was going to dump me on the debris pile, I'd really have second thoughts as to whether I'd be willing to forgo personal "pleasures" so that some younger person accrues the benefits.
Todd
If the old folks want to take credit for the infrastructure, they'll have to take the blame, as well...
In any event, the paranoid right get worked up regardless of some random statements on a blog. End-of-life counseling got transformed into death panels, truth be damned. No reasonable perspective is possible in the face of all the half truths and outright lies being spread. You can't so much as say "Let's talk about end-of-life care" without being accused of murdering old folk.
An example of a reasonable perspective is to place some cost limit on quality-of-life adjusted years afforded by any given procedure. This allows the vast majority of interventions we currently use, without the massively expensive care "wasted" on the elderly who will die within the month. Moreover, it's not that this massively expensive care is denied, just that the cost for it won't be born by government.
It's not really because of medical care. Even in the bad old days, people had a good chance of living to "three score and ten" if they survived childhood.
The reason the population pyramids are skewed in developed nations is that people are having fewer children. So, a country like Germany has a huge bulge in the middle, not because sick old people are living longer, but because adults have fewer children than their parents had, thinning the bottom of the pyramid.
This is inevitable when a country's birth rate drops - a temporary snapshot of a demographic transition, not the result of people living past their expiration date.
I've been digging into local history in my birthplace. A surprising number of people born before the US civil war made it into their 90's. Most of those that died before 60 got nailed by something like typhoid, tuberculosis, or pneumonia. Dysentery got some of the children, childbirth complications got some of the mothers. Families that became impoverished seem to die young for several generations.
It's hardly surprising, the 80-20, 70-30 (call it whatever) rule applies here as well. Most of the gains in life expectancy are from basic things like hygiene, waste segregation, elementary medical care and vaccination. All right vaccination is not exactly basic but is still pre WWII technology. I would add antibiotics to the list as well but it's effect has been secondary and most of the times it's use can be avoided if proper care is taken to prevent the diseases/infection in the first place.
One of the explanations for China's rapid economic growth is that as a result of the one-child policy, an unusually high proportion of the population is currently in the working age bracket.
In a couple of decades China's population pyramid will look more like a mushroom, and things will be very different.
In general, the largest medical expenditures occur in the last year of a person's life. In many cases this may be almost all the medical costs for a lifetime (even in advanced countries).
The extended life expectancy in countries such as the U.S. is not due, in the most part, to the vast spending on fixing people who get sick: it is due to things like safe water supplies, vaccination, and mosquito eradication, which have largely eliminated epidemics.
Many of today's elderly in developed countries are in good health until shortly before death. For example, my father-in-law was hospitalized for the first time at age 80 for a broken wrist after he fell out of a tree he was pruning. He did develop congestive heart failure a couple of years later, but was still doing contract landscaping when he died of a heart attack at 85 while trying to fix his stalled truck, without ever having been hospitalized again.
Much of current medical expenditure is devoted to things that make the elderly more comfortable or more functional (things like knee replacements or cataract surgery) rather than keeping alive those "past their expiration date". But it's not advanced medical care that accounts for the huge populations in middle and old age: they're generally still alive because they weren't killed by epidemics or endemic diseases, either because they were vaccinated, or because diseases such as cholera, typhoid, malaria and yellow fever were stopped by public health measures.
A lot of medical expenses is simple low tech care of seniors who can no longer take care of themselves. Alzheimers or stroke victims, or unable to walk, or ... Some of these folks go one for several years in this state of extreme dependency.
I don't think that's true. When Oregon tried to ration healthcare, it wasn't the elderly they targeted. It was the very young: premature babies. They're even more expensive.
Low-tech care of the elderly is stuff that was done by the family in the old days.
Iraq is scary...
Great article on Russian oil production in Forbes today: Is Russia Ready For Life After Oil?
In other words, the world's largest crude oil producer has peaked and is headed for decline, likely starting next year. Russian oil production has been on a relatively flat plateau since about a year ago.
Ron P.
Ron, hasn't Russia heard about fracking? After all, it's already saved The American Dream, right?
;-)
Mix Unusual Dallas Earthquakes Linked to Fracking, Expert Says from DB up top
and Oregon Volcano Power Project Gets Green Light
add Newberry Volcano is 4 miles south of Bend,OR (metro population 170,705 as of July 1, 2009)
... What could possibly go wrong?
Oh let's see.....It could trigger a caldera eruption which would rival that of Mt Mazama (which created Crater Lake). Pyroclatic flows will travel a hundred or more km from the eruption, frying all living creatures and burying their remains under many meters of welded tuff.
However, on the bright side, it would leave another beautiful lake in the resulting crater. This would become another national park, and be a boon to Oregon's tourist industry. In addition, Bend could be rebuilt as a greener, more energy efficient city with good light rail system. Also, the huge quantity of volcanic dust blasted into the stratosphere will help alleviate global warming.
/ sarc
Here's another example of what happens when you mix water with magma :-) ...
The Brief but Violent Life of Monogenetic Volcanoes
Yup....and here are some other examples of mixing water and magma.
National Energy Authority of Iceland - Geothermal
Geothermal power in New Zealand
Background About Geothermal Energy in California
Geothermal power in the Philippines
German Geothermal Project Leads to Second Thoughts After the Earth Rumbles
Published: September 10, 2009
"It could trigger a caldera eruption"
Geothermal drill rigs have drilled in lava 4 times. 3 times in icland and 1 time in Hawaii. http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/view.php?id=143
The NewbErry volcano is not like most volcanoes in Cascade mountains. Most of its eruptions have just released Lava. It seldom has had large explosive eruptions of ash.
Note that I closed my post with "/sarc". That means I was being sarcastic. I was joking.
I grew up in the PNW, and as a young lad I spent many days camping and fishing at East Lake in Newberry. In college days I pounded on a few rocks around there (such as at Big Obsidian Flow) and I have some aquaintence with the geology of the mountain. I believe the geothermal drilling at Newberry is looking for hot rock, not liquid magma. If they do manage to generate some electricity at Newberry it will help all the Californians who have moved to Bend keep their I-pads charged.
However, regarding your statement "The NewbErry volcano is not like most volcanoes in Cascade mountains. Most of its eruptions have just released Lava. It seldom has had large explosive eruptions of ash." The USGS Cascades Volcano Observatory has this to say:
And regarding one of those "just released Lava" flows
I think Bend would have a much larger problem if one of the Three Sisters volcanoes "went critical". As I recall, there was a recent episode of uplift to their west which appeared a bit worry some...
E. Swanson
New volcanic activity can occur essentially anywhere along the Cascade Range, from N California up into British Columbia. This is the volcanic manifestation of the Cascadia Subduction Zone, and there will be future eruptions in the Cascades.
Mt Lassen erupted back in 1914-1917. St Helens erupted in 1980, killed 57 people, and lahars (volcanic mudflows) destroyed roads and bridges, and reduced the channel depth of the Columbia River. Mt Baker caused some concern in 1975-76, but didn't erupt. Steam vents melt ice caves at the summit of Mt Rainier. In pre-historic eruptions, lahars from Rainier reached the Tacoma area. Steam fumeroles melt ice near the summit of Mt Hood (years ago a guy died of suffocation in one of those).
I recommend that anyone traveling in the PNW take time to visit the Johnston Ridge Observatory at Mt St Helens. A very interesting area which always reminds me of a famous quote by Will Durant:
"Civilization exists by geological consent, subject to change without notice."
By the way, did I mention that there is considerable potential for geothermal energy the Pacific Northwest?
;-)
While we are on the subject, has Mount Hood ever erupted with enough lava to block the Columbia river? I'm aware of the flood basalts in central Washington state, etc...
E. Swanson
I'm not aware of any lava flows from Mt Hood which would have blocked the Columbia. If I remember correctly, the flood basalts came from a dike system over in Eastern Oregon and Idaho. The flood basalts reached the Pacific Ocean, and did block the river for a time. The Columbia was also blocked by a major landslide at Cascade Locks. The "Cascades of the Columbia" was a major rapids system resulting from that landslide (the Cascades are now beneath the lake behind Bonniville Damn. That landslide figures in the Indian legend of the "Bridge of the Gods".
I find it highly unlikely that we would have much effect on the next eruption.
Here's a primer on how to blow a volcano.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/04/could-people-trigger-a-volcani...
Hint: Chances of authorities raiding your home at 6:00 AM after following the link are remote.
Serge
Supercapacitors Hailed as potential Answer to Greener Public Transportation
Unless I'm missing something, the math in the last two stories don't add up. 3mm x 900 years equals 2.7 metres or almost 9 feet. Not 3.6 feet. (And I won't bother to mention the obvious fact that with feedback effects that we've already set in motion, both of those figures are way out to lunch).
Quixotic,
Indeed.
Scientists are in panic but they have been cowtowed for so long they just make pabulum up as they go along now.
Catastrophe is something they do not know how to handle because today's discourse of that sort is left to a few who know the difference between a catastrophe and a Sunday picnik ("doomers"):
(The Brutal Logic of Climate Change). That this is evidence of very wide and broad psychological problems is evidently of no concern, because we can call 9-1-1 after all (New Climate Catastrophe Policy: Triage). I would say "don't get caught inside a burning insane asylum" but that has already happened.
Thanks for the links, the "Brutal Logic of Climate Change" article is an eye opener. I've always thought the arbitrary numbers that get tossed around such as "350 ppm" and "2 deg C" were meaningless, but that article really fills in the details as to just exactly why they are meaningless.
I did find one small quibble:
I'm certainly no climate scientist, but even I know that "self reinforcing" is the very definition of a positive feedback, as opposed to the "goal seeking" of negative feedbacks. Thus there is no "tipping point" in that sense.
For example, if I put a float valve in my toilet tank that increases the flow of water as the tank fills then that is a "self reinforcing" or positive feedback which will quickly lead to the catastrophic consequence of the tank overflowing and flooding my bathroom.
OTOH, if I put a float valve in my toilet tank that reduces the flow of water as the tank fills then that is a "goal seeking" or negative feedback that leads to the flow being shut off completely once the water reaches a certain level in the tank.
Therefore, the true tipping point in the climate system is when positive feedbacks outnumber negative feedbacks to an extent that throws the climate out of equilibrium and potentially either into a state of chaos or to a new equilibrium at an average temperature that is not conducive to human civilization as we know it.
The "point of no return" that is alluded to in the article is the point at which the positive feedbacks exceed the ability of humans to counteract them with negative feedbacks, thus defeating any attempt to maintain the current equilibrium.
It remains to be seen, but I personally would hazard to guess that we passed that point a long time ago.
Cheers,
Jerry
Not quite that simple.
Take the practical example of woodland. At low temps/CO2 these are carbon sinks - negative feedback entities that reduce the CO2 and thus temps even whilst they are dependent on that CO2 for growth.
However, when the temp CO2 goes too high, the temp rises with it, and the woodland dies/rots/burns. Thus the sink turns into a reservoir, and a positive feedback mechanism. More CO2 > more temp > more die off in woodland > more CO2.
Flipping from one mode to the other induces something that on the macroscopic scale reacts as a tipping point - the CO2 level takes off when the temp (and thus the CO2 level itself) reaches a particular level.
Of course, on a global scale there are a bunch of theses feedback switches happening at different temps, and so one temp/CO2 level is simplistic. However, some are more important than others and since they are all connected via CO2 itself - the macroscopic view can be of discontinuities in the graph.
And yep, I'm pretty certain that if you wrap humans into that macroscopic scenario I think we passed tipping point back a while. The only proviso on that is geoengineering - dangerous, but probably the only option left.
Positive feedback (or self-reinforcing) doesn't have to mean a runaway process. There are natural negative feedbacks in climate as well -mainly the fact that infrared cooling increases with temperature. As long as the strength of positive plus negative feedbacks summed up are below a critical value the runaway is avoided. Rather than setoff a runaway process, these feedbacks are more likely to increase climate sensitivity (how much warming you get for X amount of forcing).
Um, at no point in my comment did I say ANYTHING about a "runaway process". C'mon folks, is it really so much to ask that you actually READ a comment before replying?
Cheers,
Jerry
Some of the current sea level rise is due to human extraction of water from fossil aquifers. If there is not enough water in these aquifers to last 900 years at the current extraction rate, then that contribution to sea level rise will decline in the future.
It is true that draining the fossil acquifers raises sea level, but the amount of rise is miniscule and has no meaningful effect on sea level in comparison to melting land ice. And will not even if they are completely drained.
Today it is of similar magnitude. It is startling that a number of aquifers are being drawdown at something like 50 cubic kilometers per year. Obvious these aquifers will be depleted at some point in the not too distant future.
Thermal expansion of seawater is a much bigger deal.
Rgds
WP
True. In todays world. The only term that could take off catastrophically is ice melt.
Y. Wada, L.P.H. van Beek, C.M. van Kempen, J.W.T.M. Reckman, S. Vasak, and M.F.P. Bierkens (2010), Global depletion of groundwater resources, Geophysical Research Letters, estimate:
Using the depletion numbers because some of the extracted water returns to the aquifer:
rearth = 6,378 km
Searth = 509.9 million km2
71% of Earth's surface is ocean
surface area of oceans: 362 million km2
126 km3 / 362 million km2 = .35 mm/yr to .78 mm/yr of sea level rise is caused by ground water extraction It appears to be a significant fraction.
Thats with no further fossil fuel being burnt. Once they start using the IPCC scenarios for continuing emissions they come up with figures like 6.8m before 2100. That's a lot more than 3mm/yr.
Millennial total sea-level commitments projected with the Earth system model of intermediate complexity LOVECLIM
Sea levels will rise some meters, but not for hundreds of years. This is for a model where CO2 is constant after 2100, which doesn't seem realistic, since CO2 in the atmosphere has a half life of a couple hundred years.
Merrill,
Don't worry, they are going to solve this problem during the Presidential Debates tonight.
Whoopie!
Then comes the electoral alchemy where we drop our magic paper ballot into the ballot box, then soon all these problems will piff poof piffle go away!
Whoopie!
CO2 doesn't have a half-life, i.e. it won't decay as a simple exponential. There is a long tail lasting thousands of years.
I question the glaciology, I think their melt timescale is way too slow. Other effects suggest melting timescales are much faster than growth timescales. Changes in icesheet albedo as dry snow becomes wet snow, becomes wet ice, becomes dirty old ice. And we now know much meltwater penetrates to the base, and helps the ice flow speedup. Also as sea get warmer and higher, the grounding line (where the ice starts floating on seawater) can move dramatically inland, allowing ice drainage to speedup. So all in all, we are likely to see this happen much faster than their model shows.
"we are likely to see this happen much faster than their model shows"
That is the one thing that has been quite consistent ... they continually underestimate because their concept of acceleration in the model is too close to linear progression.
I wonder if they accurately model potential positive feedbacks at the base of the ice on the Greenland ice sheet. For example, visitors to eastern Washington state can see first hand the effects on the landscape of ice dams catastrophically failing repeatedly during the last ice age.
Missoula Floods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_Floods
Please note, I am NOT suggesting a large lake will form on Greenland, only that meltwater can be part of a positive feedback that eventually leads to rapid weakening of the ice from the bottom up.
Cheers,
Jerry
Global slowdown 'becoming a genuine possibility,' as Europe, China decelerate further
EPA: Model Year 2013 Low Greenhouse Gas Emitting Vehicles Data Set
I have no idea what the pros and cons are of this promotion for leasing solar panels (in partnership with the Center for Biological Diversity) but maybe you, dear readers, will be interested examining this and commenting.
http://www.sungevity.org/center-biological-diversity
If you currently pay $1K a year in electric bills and could eliminate that with a $20K solar PV installation that's a 5% annual return on investment, which is a lot more than bank interest for the average Joe. The downsides are the hardware could be damaged (so buy physical insurance) and the manufacturer may not be worth the 20 year warranty (so buy derivatives against their default) and the end-of-life salvage value may be zero (on the other hand the 20 year discount value on dollars may be less than zero). Subtract subsidies, add administrative overhead, crank the spreadsheet and pull the trigger when the target enters the sight.
Apparently some investors think that is the case. I'd jump if it were not for the subsidies and overhead components.
A lot of third party financing plans becoming available. Some (SunCity?) own the PV system, and sell you the power at a negotiated rate, which presumably is a bit lower than you are currently paying your utility. I think the investors (in SunCity or whomever) capture some sort of tax break that improves their return).
Lots of Cons.
Minimal Pros
The model generally these days is 20 years of payments with an escalator. Designed to stay just below electricity rates thru time (what happens if somehow electricity rates drop?). No early buy outs. The model is changing rapidly it was different just months ago. The lease providers are staying just ahead of the IRS in regards to skirting rules on leases.
Individual usage changes the numbers some but 85% of the large amount of saving over that 20 years goes to the banksters and 15% to the homeowner. Just enough to get folks to sign on. If your monthly bill is too low to allow acceptable return you will be denied a lease.
It's the worst way to get solar, besides putting the whole thing on a credit card and making minimum payments. The leases are then bundled by the banksters and sold as securities on Wall Street (sound familiar?).
There are serious restrictions when it comes time to sell the house. The buyer must take on the lease or else the seller must pay off the whole thing right then.
If the banksters at the FHFA (federal housing agency) hadn't killed the PACE program, government financing would have been available at much much much better rates.
Thanks Obama!
Thanks all, for breaking this down for dummies like me. Very helpful!
Why do you suppose that the Center for Biological Diversity is getting mixed up in this is the pros are minimal?
You're not a dummy. These things are complex: TOU rates, net metering, tiered rates, escalators, etc etc.
The numbers are so good for the financiers that there's extra thousand$$ to pass around. Anything to get people to sign these things.
So a truly good cause sees a way to collect some money. Good. The banksters see a cost effective way to persuade people to sign up.
Solar has green cachet. The Good Cause and the banksters both use that to their advantage. Fortunately, going solar is a desirable end, even when the means suck.
Over the course of the lease the homeowner will pay for the system several times over. Typically some portion of the electricity bill expense remains on the homeowner, and rate increases are increasingly in the lower tiers lately, raising the cost for this remaining usage, solar lease notwithstanding.
Thank you. The complexity of the economics and the marriage with a good cause is perplexing!
Sounds more like a steal than a deal.
[edit - Sierra Club is now making the same solar lease offer]
I think they are closer to win-win. The investors get a decent low risk return on their money (I'm hoping to become one, I already have PV on my roof), and the roof-owner leasee gets somewhat better rates than he would have. Its a far better deal, to own -if you have the cash (like I did), but many homeowners don't, so it is either use third party financing and ownership, or don't do it at all. This is really the great white hope for rooftop PV expansion in the US in the next several years. With any luck the financing will have to be competitive -else the roof-owner can choose another vendor, and as installation costs go down, the competitive rates for the power should go down as well. So, as with many things, you might be better off waiting.
I really think this is the ticket to getting gigawatts of rooftop PF installed. I also think much of that capacity will be on commercial rooftops, not individual homes.
Sure, some of the money goes to investors and bankers, thats the way capitalism (which I think sucks, but don't know how to replace).
They are win-win, but the spoils of that win are much diminished for the homeowner. Like 85% diminished. Your local bank on the corner can beat the solar lease terms and leave you owning the system and not constrained by all the terms and conditions.
The investors get a great deal. Big win for the folks who already have money. That's why they are throwing thousand dollar checks around to anyone who gets near one of these leases. They collect any local or state rebates. They collect the 30% tax credit. They benefit from commercial tax write-offs (depreciation, etc) AND they get a 20 year income stream they can turn around and sell on Wall Street. All virtually guaranteed, received in short time, and without risk (to them).
The homeowner gets some production and maintenance guarantees, and sees small utility savings. With restrictions.
The killed-by-Obama's-FHFA PACE program would truly have been a win-win-win proposition, unless you happen to be a bankster. Homeowner would own the system. Transferability not an issue. Much much much lower interest rates, much much much greater savings for the homeowner. Cash flow positive from day one. No banksters involved.
That's how you beat capitalism. Have the government offer low rate financing without greedy middlemen sucking out all the benefit while deceiving people thru expensive advertising intentionally misinforming them around how much benefit they will really get.
If you can't buy the system outright, and don't have access to better financing options, then a solar lease is the best LAST RESORT for going solar.
It's not a technology problem, it's a policy problem. A government that was serious about promoting solar for its citizens could change the rules IN ONE DAY to allow much greater benefit to the homeowner, and write the banksters out of the equation. If there were a government around that had that objective.
There are also some attempts at crowd funding. Our government is substantially owned by rich owners of fossil fuel rights. They want to delay solar as long as possible. Another new area is community solar, where several wannabe solar people get together, pool their resources and build a jointly owned system, not necesarily on everyones roof. Soft costs, like permitting, etc. ought be be lower per watt for larger systems (also inverters, etc.). It might also be possible to buy smaller shares of a cimmunity system than would make sense as a standalone, so maybe the cost of getting your feet wet can be reduced.
Yes, agreed.
But the community solar route is an unnecessarily circuitous and inefficient process (time and money-wise) that could be vastly simplified with benefit to the homeowner and the planet, thru simple policy changes.
It's the bankster government owners stopping things in my example.
I would argue community solar where applicable could be a pretty good solution. Say both you and your neighbor want to go PV, but only he has the proper orientation of roof. With a two-way community approach both yours, and his panels would be located on his roof. And one double sized inverter is cheaper than two smaller ones. And one safety inspection, and so on. Then with larger cooperative groups other possibilities open up, such as incremental expansion.
I agree it could be a great solution.
It is not currently because it's too difficult and savings are unnaturally low and eaten up transactionally.
Yeah, I'm pretty skeptical on these lease deals.
I'm wondering if there will be a DIY revolution. I'm finally getting around to building another PV system (as soon as Solar City completes the main panel upgrade and EV charger installation that they are current botching, Grrrr.) and I'm amazed at the newer technology. First of all, the panel prices are shocking low compared to when I installed the previous system like 10 years ago . . . around 1/4 of the price! And second, these microinverters seem pretty awesome. They really simplify the wiring and design of PV system. No sizing calculations. No high-voltage DC at all. No DC disconnect. Just their plug & play AC system.
If you can wire up a 240 Volt outlet for an electric dryer then you pretty much have all the skills you need to install a microinverter based PV system.
Let us know how it goes. Including the hoops you gotta jump through for inspections and permitting, etc. The commercial installers are still charging way too much, roughly half the price is overhead, customer-acquisition (those sales folks knocking on doors, I get one almost every month), paperwork, permit fees, inspections, and profit. The real key thing is to drive these prices relentlessly downwards. German installs are coming in at under half the price per watt as ours. A small part of that is they have less stringent grounding standards.
It would also be great for people who can't initially afford a fullscale system, if they could start with a panel or two, then add more when they have spare cash to invest.
For grid-tie homes
I think the house builders, PV/wind industry, and govt need to create a standard for house wiring a renewable circuit and a connection plug, so it would make houses/dwellings have commodity installations.
An installer would not have to 'custom wire' any installation. They would just plug in the PV array grid-tie inverter output or wind grid-tie inverter output to the plug.
For the US I assume plug would be 2phase, as that seems to be a reasonable standard.
The plug would be wired to the mains per safety and building standards, properly, to code. Whatever cutouts, circuit breakers, grounding, or cutout switches would be part of my idea of a 'plug' concept.
I envision 20amp (max) would suffice for most people interested in using PV or wind.
Next or in parallel the PV builders would start to sell modular systems that compliment the plug scheme. Win/win, and hopefully lower costs and safer systems for all.
My wild guess is that, if EV cars adopt a standard plug shape to connect between house and car for 2phase charging, an 'inverse' plug shape would be in the plug between wind/PV output grid-tie inverters and the house.
I think Germany is close to that for under 5KW systems. There are lots of sources for the big premium over here. Some of this is discussed here:
Red Tape
The microinverters are perfect for this. Can't afford a big solar system? Fine. Throw up a rack, a couple microinverters , and a couple panels. As you get more time & money just add more racks, microinverters, and panels over time.
That is not the most efficient way to go since you need to go through the permitting process multiple times but once you do it once, you know the process.
Yes the microinverters are a game changer, a 200 watt grid tie panel that offsets a kilowatt-hour a day might cost as little as $400, giving an annual 10% or more return on small increments of investment.
But most jurisdictions require a certified installation which can easily double the cost; one panel no longer gives any payback, for that multiple panels are needed which makes the entry cost comparable to a traditional kilowatt grid tie system.
The sticking point is other outlets on the branch circuit the microinverter is plugged into. Other loads on the branch will use power from the microinverter which is not going through the circuit breaker. So for example two heaters on the last outlet of a 15 amp circuit could pull 30 amps through some section of the wire. The only idiot-proof solution is to connect the microinverter(s) into the main panel through a dedicated circuit breaker. A DIYer could easily do that by removing all the other outlets, but even so official inspection is inevitable.
But if a custom plug were standardized for plug-and-play grid tie, new construction could add the matching outlet at minimal cost.
Do you have any evidence to back this up? Many places assume everyone will get an installer, encourage people to get installers, and even kinda hide the fact that you can self-install but I don't think most places ban self-installs. In order to qualify for a local/state incentive you may need to hire an installer. Fine . . . fair enough (actually, I think that is great because it helps the local economy). But often the savings from the local incentive is outweighed by the cost of hiring installers. (BTW, You do NOT need an installer to qualify for the Federal tax-credit.)
I do think most people SHOULD get installers. But I also think there are millions of competent DIYers that should install their own systems as long as they file plans, get the plans approved, get the installed system inspected, and get the system approved.
Well might be a difference in terms, IMO requiring that a system is inspected and approved is the same as requiring a certified installation, whether or not the actual installer is certified in advance. Getting permits, filing plans, transcending the typical utility FUD contract is way beyond the average Joe, thus a killer for plug and play.
Personally I think a 200 watt grid tie inverter could be safely added at any point to any existing (already safe) electrical installation. But houses do catch fire, and linemen are electrocuted, etc. Maybe the US could institute a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_I... that caps personal liability for grid tie systems at $1K or so?
Nah, that might encourage people to use dangerous shortcuts :)
In order to get the (now small and diminishing) CA CSI rebate, a licensed solar contractor must be involved.
The process could be simplified.
See . . . this is what I mean. This statement is wrong. Period. But such myths are very strong. The installers are very good at scaring people off.
http://www.gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov/csi/faqs.php#4
Here is a Californian that built his own system and got the rebate:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/roderick/solar/photovoltaic.html
I'm not surprised you've heard that though. I talked to this one guy who did his own gas car to EV conversion (which I could not do . . . way too complicated) but then he hired someone to install a solar system because he didn't think he was allowed to install the solar system himself!
Looks like I was wrong! Thanks!
Where I live now, the main solar guy won't do anything but grid-tie.
For about 15K total, I can probably reach payback in 10 years since my home has a very large south facing, uninterupted roof.
Anyway, I've decided to wait and shoot for a new home on some land I'm eyeing. No utilities exist there, so I'd be off grid.
The local solar guy said "Good luck getting someone to do off-grid out in the woods, it's going to cost you plenty."
I just told him it was better than being grid-tied and huddling in the dark, but he didn't get it :-)
"The local solar guy said "Good luck getting someone to do off-grid out in the woods,"
If you are off-grid, you can do it yourself. It's not electrocuting the lineman and getting along with what the utility does that's difficult. Otherwise, four-way switches are as hard as residential electrical gets, assuming you have enough sense to not use roofing nails pounded through the romex to hold the wires in place.
You could go partway DIY. Hire a certified electrician to do those parts that must pass inspection. I'd hate to have to redo a wiring job, because my DIY skills weren't quite up getting a passing grade. Much of the installation cost is mounting. Of course you don't want to ruin the water barrier that is your roof either, so in some cases, you might want to hire a roofer. Even if you have to do that, you become the prime contractor, cutting out one of the middlemen.
From IEA, Fatih Birol ... Iraqi Growth Fuelled by Energy
Another reason for permaculture ...
The more, the merrier: Mixing plant species for benefits
Methane emissions traced back to Roman times
Government Body Pressured to Withhold Info on Fukushima Radiation
What we got for $50 billion in 'green' stimulus
Also: Poll: Romney supporters likelier to have 'green' homes
Poll: They have bigger homes, higher energy bills, more money.
Exactly. If your house has 20 bathrooms, even if they all have 20 low-flow toilets, the energy and rources required to make, clean, heat/cool and supply those bathrooms more than offsets any water "savings" vs. an average house's 2-3. Like that running harder to stay in place post (or falling further behind).
In Britain higher income groups spend more on energy for their homes than lower income groups. This differential could well have worsened in recent years since the economy has remained at 4% lower GDP since 2007.
In many locations the larger consumption means their marginal power rates are higher, and adding some PV (but not enough to reach net zero), offsets the higher tier part of your bill, so the financial benefit is higher. They are also more savvy about taking advantages of any programs, and tax breaks.
But, in any case, we are still early on in the PV era. Demand driven by early adopters -who even with subsidies usually end up paying a big premium for being early, is important for developing the industry. Later purchasers will benefit from better cheaper future products because of this.
Analysis: North Dakota Oil Drilling Costs Have Peaked - For Now
Using a Dispersive Diffusion Model for Bakken Oil Scenarios
What URR does your model predict for the Bakken?
If the production curve is symmetric, then it looks like the predicted URR is about 9 billion barrels. In 2008 the USGS estimated the technically recoverable oil for the Bakken to be between 3 billion and 4.3 billion barrels (The Bakken Boom - A Modern-Day Gold Rush (TOD, Dec. 12, 2011)).
In the paper by James Mason on page 7 we have the following:
The model at my blog has a slightly lower EUR per well at 30 years of 435,000 barrels. If Mason's assumptions about land areas for oil development and 4 wells per square mile at full saturation are correct, this leads to about 40,000 wells when the Bakken is fully developed. When we multiply these two numbers we arrive at a URR of 17 Gb. The output curve would be far from symmetric, it would have a long fat tail on the downslope after a plateau.
I have not explored the possible length of the plateau, Mason's analysis suggests a plateau could be maintained until 2045 at 1.5 Mb/d. My guess would be the 1.3 Mb/d might be maintained until 2040, but only if the "high" well profile continues to hold. Rune Likvern's analysis suggests this is unlikely and I agree.
What is not clear to me is how far the well profile will fall and how quickly this might occur. I may try the "low" well profile from 2015 to 2017 and a slightly higher increase in the number of wells and see how that looks. Any future scenarios are no better than model guided guesses.
DC
Edit: I have added to the model as proposed above. I have added two years, show how it declines when new wells are no longer added and suggest that the plateau would end in 2023 if the average well decreases to half the current level (Jan 2008 to July 2012) in Jan 2015 and stays at that lower level until Dec 2019. More at http://oilpeakclimate.blogspot.com/
The extended model shows that wells are being added at a rate of about 5,000 wells / year in the years 2015 and 2016. Considering the number of drilling rigs, available workers and water supply, is this a plausible rate?
You are correct that the 4800 new wells per year is unrealistic. This is an artifact of decreasing the average EUR per well by half from Dec 2014 to Jan 2015. In reality the change would be gradual and the new wells added would ramp up more gradually as well. Note that in the past 18 months the number of wells has doubled. If it continues at that rate, doubling every 18 months, the numbers become unrealistic very quickly. I am not sure at what point the rate of increase in the number of wells can no longer increase, the highest month so far has been an increase of 193 wells which is 2300 wells at an annual rate.
The model could be further refined by reducing the EUR gradually. If this was done (probably a 10 % decrease in EUR/well for new wells each year from 2013 to 2019) we would end up with more realistic increases in wells.
I may try that when I have some time. Thanks for the feedback.
Edit 10/6/2012:
The model has been updated as I proposed in the previous paragraph. See
http://oilpeakclimate.blogspot.com/2012/10/using-dispersive-diffusion-mo...
DC
It should be noted that most of the 'realistic' estimates of Bakken has landed in the 4-5 Gb territory. I personally think that in due time, with high enough prices and improvements in technology, that number could potentially double if everything goes to plan(which as we know, is quite an assumption).
Still, to get to 17 Gb is not exactly Maugeri-land, but it is certainly a pie-in-the-sky stretch.
Also, I've worked through Mason's paper and his decline rates are quite mild.
And I agree with you that Rune's analysis of Bakken is measured and moderate.
Hi Symmetric,
The "realistic" estimates may be low. I don't think many anticipated over 600,000 barrels per day from the Bakken even a year ago. The EIA reference case has the Bakken at 800,000 by 2015. If Webhubbletelescope's dispersive diffusion model is correct, I think the 4 Gb URR estimate may be low.
I agree that Rune's analysis is excellent, I consider this a supplement to his, from a model perspective.
Note that the URR of 17 Gb is based on an assumption that there is no future decline in the EUR/well for new wells. For that reason, it is quite optimistic/unrealistic. The rough model I produced with the unrealistic well increases of 4800 new wells per year (due to the artifact of decreasing EUR/new well by half over a 1 month interval) has a lower URR of about 11 Gb, which approaches your "realistic" optimistic URR estimate of 9 Gb. Thanks for the feedback.
DC
High Court Asked to Throw Out Oil Refinery Permit
Four times the capacity of the Coop refinery in Regina SK. To me it would make more sense if Cenex (Midwest US retail oil cooperative) was the one building the refinery.
Recent Oil and Gas Tax Proposals by State
Enbridge CEO floats new light oil pipeline plans
Deforestation in Snowy Regions Causes More Floods
Duh.
Seriously, this should be obvious.
New? NEW? NEW???!?!??!??!!!!?
Whats next? New research sugest the use of wheels can reduce friction?
Previous studies covered extent/impact, this study covers frequency.
It's like the difference between AM and FM.
Yes, and they state that previously there wasn't the data to calculate the frequency, that the basic stream discharge data for this area of the west is only 50 yrs old. Even this study is modeled for 2 watersheds.
That said, I wish they'd defined deforestation. Complete tree removal in a watershed? 80% or better? Certain forest practices, clear cutting, have long been used for regimen control. Cutting that induces earlier snowmelt in a portion of the watershed can mitigate downstream flooding crests, or can prolong reservoir filling, or induce drifting in sheltered areas. Regimen control via forest practices and slope aspect has long been an important component of government timber sales.
New sophisticated control algorithms poised to revolutionize electric battery technology
Brazil August Crude-Oil Output Down 0.8% From July
I think folks like who are betting on Brazil becoming a major exporter soon are betting on a lame horse. Leonardo Maugeri says Brazil will be producing 4.5 million barrels per day by 2020. They are going in the wrong direction to do that.
Ron P.
Petrobras expects to spend $236 Billion US in the next four years developing its energy resources. It will be interesting to see what rate of return they will get on that investment, because they don't seem to be getting much for the $150 billion they spent in the last four.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/71ed4d04-0c9b-11e2-a776-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz...
That is true, on the other hand this has been known for years. Petrobras have had different alterations of this plan since at least 4-5 years back. And they are running way behind schedule.
There are many reasons, both above-ground and below it. One of the biggest problems is that Petrobras is going the same path as Pemex; that it becomes a cashcow for local populists and demagogues to milk and use for their own largesse that they shower their electorate with in order to get re-elected.
Since most of their oil is in ultra-deep and in pre-salt layers, it requires very extensive expertise as well as being able to get a large amount of capital investment into fruition at a rapid pace. Countries like the U.S., South Korea, Germany or China can pull that off. Brazil can't. But their pols are still forcing them to in order to maximize employment.
The net result is that the people they hire are often underskilled(if they have any skills to begin with), the people in charge are amateurs, prone to mistakes and slow to build up and scale up in time. Since most of the rigs needed has to be imported, a fact that these populists refuse to, this means that Brazil has to make their own stuff. But they have no expertise in this area and the plan was that they would acquire it. Well, turns out it isn't so easy and hence the massive delays.
All the while, depletion continues unabated and now they are seeing 'surprising' declines in their main oil fields while they were doozing off and overpromising to their population.
Brazil can certainly increase its production, but it will be hard and as I've indicated below, don't expect any revolutions. It's Iraq and the U.S. which will be the primary drivers of oil production growth in the coming 5 years. Brazil and Canada will be important additions but far less consequential.
I must ask the question, where did you form the opinion that the Brasilians don't know how to drill a deep water oil well? You write as though you have first hand experience. Have you?
My experience from working there in the early norties, the Brasilians were very independent and there own ways of doing things, many simplified ways of obtaining a result. These were home grown ideas that were developed from the development of the Marlin field and others during the eighties, when they were the world leaders in deepwater drilling. Do not underestimate Petrobras's ability for drilling deep water drilling. Some of their expertise maybe getting spread a little thin due to increase in activity but they have many very competent people working for them.
Having said that their aim has always been for self sufficiency, rather than large exports, so I don't expect too much oil to be exported either. It will mainly be used for domestic consumption.
From what I have picked up talking to people working in Iraq, the wells are being drilled but the oil production is waiting on take away capacity. The crews are crew changing in APC's. So security is tight. I haven't heard of any attacks on the crews so far, so time will tell how much they can produce.
I assume they mean 203,200 barrels per day, but that doesn't sound like much at all, and it's not even all oil, considering the enormous investment that Brazil has spent developing the subsalt plays. Petrobras will have to do a lot better than that if they hope to save the world from peak oil. Combine that with Russia's plateau production and Kazakstan's ever receding Kashagan production targets, and it's hard to see where the oil will come from that will be needed to replace the 5.7% world's average decline rate.
As I always point out whenever the potential for future Bz oil exports come up: Brazil intends to become a first grade industrial nation. They are gonna need all the energy they can get, and will never become a net exporter. They have no plans to export energy. They want to build factories and export stuff.
Brazil will reach a 3.2 to 3.5 mb/d production profile by 2020, most likely closer to 3.2 mb/d than the higher estimate.
They can't get that much higher. What is much harder to caluclate, however, is how long they can stay near those levels.
But even if you take a quite generous view, they won't get much above 3.5 mb/d by 2030 if you work through the numbers.
Petrobras has consistently downgraded their production estimates the last few years and that will continue.
As you indicated, a lot of people who have betted on Brazil are going to get severely burned.
I think you are a tad overoptimistic. Brazil production has dropped by over 200 thousand barrels per day in the last eight months. They were at 2,231,000 bp/d of C+C in January according to the EIA, now in August they are, according to the article above, at 2,006,000 bp/d. That's about 10 percent. Of course most of that was due to problems other than decline but maintenance problems do not usually last seven months. I think they have far more serious problems.
But the biggest problem is yet to come, the decline rate of the sub-salt. I am predicting that it will be a lot higher than most people predict. How high? Well the deep water GOM is now experiencing a decline rate of above 20 percent. The sub-salt will be much higher than that.
Ron P.
We had Richard Heinberg give a talk in my home city of Tauranga New Zealand. It was a really great and interesting talk and I have to give thanks to him for taking the trouble to make us another stop on his world tour. We planned for about 140 people but over 250 people showed up in the end, including the mayor of the city who chaired the event. He seems like an extremely nice man and the talk he gave was very convincing in that he managed to sell the truth about the world situation in an extremely enlightening and positive way.
I get the feeling that the level of interest in and action towards things like permaculture, energy efficiency, peak oil, population levels and control, etc is increasing. I believe we're slowly moving out of the phase of talking about doing things to the phase where we're increasingly doing the things we're talking about. It could be a matter of time before significant action starts up locally and nationally towards sustainability, critical mass doesn't seem to be that far off.
Critical mass is a good analogy as it requires a certain number of players to overcome the contaminants that stop the process. I fear we are *very* far from critical mass.
I am constantly being surprised at the intensity of local interest and activity. People have spontaneously begun to conserve, go solar, share rides, superinsulate, and all that good stuff-and talk about it, and some like me are focusing on gadgets and associated businesses that could be appropriate in a far lower energy society. Anecdotal to be sure, but this is a very ordinary place, and so something has gotta be going on of a wider scope.
Here, I think we are in fact getting near to the sustained reaction phase.
I have even noticed a reduction of the hate mail when I write my little op eds preaching coal is sin.
I guess you could say that we've reached the point where that which was once considered fringe is becoming mainstream. I believe what this means is a side-lining of what would have once been considered the fanatics with a mainstreaming and coalescing of many of the various movements. You could say in visual terms it is a movement away from say a few cyclists clad in Lycra zooming at 30mph zipping between cars to many cyclists dressed in normal clothes. One of the issues at this point is that the zealots perhaps will resent the mainstreaming because of how it changes their role, sort of like the nerdy backlash against the rise of simplified computers as appliances like the iPad.
That's good, but where is that trend leading? We are in a net energy decline, so that spontenaety on the surface seems positive, but it doesn't look so great when looking out further down the road. Everybody living on less works up to a point, but then reaches a point of abject poverty for tens of millions. Sure the rich will still be rich, but the ranks of the poor will swell much more than they already have. The conservatives like Romney/Ryan are talking about dramatically scaling back food stamps and welfare. Doesn't matter much to many like our family and probably yours, but those that receive them will have to find other ways to make up the difference. It's going to be hard to watch the fall of Empire from the inside.
What are the solutions to net energy decline?
A. New sources of energy.
B. Energy Efficiency.
C. Reducing 'waste'
We're starting to get mainstream action on A, B and C. Billions of people get by on what counts as significantly less than American energy consumption levels without being in relative or absolute poverty. Whilst it isn't psychologically convenient to move people into action when they don't have to, never underestimate the ability of people to accept what is a fait accompli. People have a choice to not do anything at the moment or they have too many choices which makes them confused, start to take away the choices and you can reach acceptance on action very quickly. Years of work has gone into making what was once a fringe and backward concept of sustainability into something which is downright plausible and mainstream.
I'm not an American but this confuses me. Why do people expect from the Federal Government that which would be better provided by a more responsive local political establishment? I don't see the point in asking a government to do something which it was never intended to do in the first place and then being upset when it cannot respond to what you believe it ought to be doing. In the end the end of central government welfare will probably be a net gain for blue states anyway, so give to republicans what belongs to republicans and give to democrats what belongs to them as well. (butchering a Jesus quote lol).
You should remember that it wasn't so long ago that people starving on the streets in western cities really did happen, that it can happen again, and if we allow it to happen our way of life and our society will be worse off for it. It may not mean much to you, not being in the US, but it does mean a lot to me. Food stamps and welfare are ways to keep from replicating the worst parts of 1800's London - crime, begging, dead children... If the federal government doesn't keep up their end of it, it won't happen in many places. And there is absolutely nothing good in that. I don't care if they are Republicans.
The United States may be in a time of stress, but economically we still have way more than enough to keep people from starving in the streets. We have a moral obligation to do so. That said, I don't expect this will be anything - Romney and Ryan aren't likely to win.
Regardless of that, the American empire is in decline and will continue to decline.
I was hoping that perhaps a dose of reality might bring certain people to their senses. I.E. bring their conception of reality back in line with reality. I don't want people to starve on the streets.
This is good news for NZ and saner parts of the world, but here in the Land of OWOLINN (Our Way Of Life Is Non Negotiable), talking about conservation, renewable energy or reducing consumption is treated as heretical Commie crap by most people. Even in one of the most liberal places in the country (Bay Area), suggesting that growth in population and consumption can't go on forever is usually met by blank, unbelieving stares or expressions of horror. "Back away from the dirty hippie, Sweetie, he's probably on drugs!"
The SF Bay Area seems to be especially wedded to the idea that technology can solve all problems. It's actually a great way to go through life since one can simultaneously enjoy a high consumption lifestyle with all the accompanying support for economic and population growth and, at the same time, consider oneself to be an environmentalist. All with the comforting knowledge that whatever impacts are caused to the environment and sustainability will be mitigated to an acceptable level.
Iraq sets bar lower on oil output and looks to attract foreign firms
Another interesting tidbit of information here (but may well have been reported earlier on the oil drum) Danes set the pace on green energy vision
They will lower it again. 6 mb/d should be their basic challenge and I think they can get through it. 8 mb/d is the outer rim of what's possible this decade.
Of course, Iraq is increasing its own domestic oil consumption rapidly, although they are starting from a lower base than Saudi Arabia, so that's a factor that should be remembered whenever you read about Iraqi oil production. Net exports will be lower in 2020 even if you get to, say, 8 mb/d than it would have been if you would wave a wand and make their current production go up to that level today.
It will be interesting to see by just how much the difference will be. It's hard to come by reliable statistics on this issue but all indicators are on a rapidly expanding domestic usage.
http://www.dearmanengine.com/cms/
An interesting energy storage system and engine to use it. And, it looks dirt cheap.
It takes lots of heat energy to change liquid air to gaseous air, much like changing water to steam. Where will all that heat energy come from?
And while we're asking questions, where does all that liquid air come from.
There is a plant beside I-95 in Kittery, Maine, that makes liquid oxygen and nitrogen, from air taken from the atmosphere. It's one of the biggest electricity users in the state.
I'm wondering if this website can't be traced back to some bored sophmores at MIT.
I think the most useful application would be a "bottoming cycle" which could recover energy otherwise lost as waste heat in a vehicle. The liquid air would act rather like a battery, as the energy required to liquify the air would be recovered when the air is heated and then used to drive a prime mover or turbine to generate electricity. For example, the heat from the exhaust of an IC engine could be recovered, as well as the heat from a radiator or a turbocharger's intercooler.
In this situation the usual notion of Carnot efficiency would not be simple to apply, thus calculating the total conversion efficiency would be difficult. I would expect that the university professors who are listed as being involved have already worked thru the math...
E. Swanson
Worst: ambient (return about 25%)
Best: low grade waste heat from some industrial process (return about 70%, well not really but if you can use waste heat as an input stream ...)
From whatever source is available. Its just energy storage, possibly prohibitively expensive.
Exactly, just another form of battery with pluses and minuses. No mention of overall efficiency but probably much lower than a standard battery or even H and fuel cells. Might be useful for powering trucks and trains with refrigeration units.
I was thinking more of stationary apps.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19785689
And then there was the fireless steam locomotives that had a big thermos bottle of phase change material.
From your article, I get the idea that the process itself is not very efficient, about 25% as a standalone system. If waste heat is added but not counted in the efficiency equation than the system could potentially deliver up to 70%. Refrigeration would also potentially deliver a similar overall efficiency.
Since there are other uses for waste heat, I'm not sure how realistic it is to not count its use in the efficiency calc. There are other ways to store energy along the heat gradient that can return 25% so this method would need to be compared against others.
At low power output you should be able to use the ambient heat of air, i.e. let your tank warm up. If can live with a small amount of power for a longer rate of time, maybe that will do?
Ambient air should work, the question then becomes what to do with the waste cold. Air conditioning and refrigeration seem like a good use just as space heating and process heat are good uses for waste heat.
I think they mention on the Web Site that the efficiency is equivalent to a current Lithium battery.
Some companies have been working on compressed air engine powered vehicles. I think this is equivalent, but instead of compression, the air is liquified and that is how the energy is stored. Maybe a Dewar storage tank is a lot easier to make technically than a high pressure tank.
This system is mentioned in the context of renewables: wind and solar, giving a base load capability.
Enbridge ordered to expand cleanup on Kalamazoo River
An estimated 3 million litres of oil spilled into the river in summer of 2010
I thought they were done.
Definitely uncharted territory in cleaning this sort of spill. The dilbit evaporates and the sludge sinks.
I want some of that here in BC! WHoo Hoo!
Energy-saving program shut down too early, millions in rebates never paid out
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
Jarvis bike lanes to be removed after last-ditch council effort to save them fails Toronto Star
Never underestimate the power of the suburban voter and their elected official representative.
Toronto knew what sort of a buffoon (texting while driving, rude to bicyclists, etc. happened afterwards) he was and elected him anyway. It takes a special sort of environmental de-evolution into the the rhyming word to produce a mayor who makes another auto worshipping Mayor, i.e. Sam Katz of Winnipeg almost look semi-enlightened on transit issues.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/car-life/road-sage/cellphones...
http://therecord.blogs.com/take_the_lane/2010/09/rob-ford-may-be-bad-new...
Maybe Rob is not a train wreck waiting to happen, but definitely a car pileup in the making. And some squashed cyclists.
I can't see that name [Sam Katz] without thinking of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8xi_YwMOQM
I have a friend like this, he hates cyclists with a passion. This despite knowing I'm one of them - it's my main means of transport.
These people won't get it until they ride for themselves. And they won't ride themselves until they are too poor to drive. The thing they may not realize is that the day when they have to use a bike may not just exist, but exist much sooner in the future than they imagine.
Honestly, I don't have any more sympathy for drivers. They are the obstacle in front of every reasonable attempt to make cities more walkable and bikable, and they are the ones blocking mass transit. Everything has to be their way. Cars are the problem, it's as simple as that, and if you put driving in front of other forms of transit, you are part of the problem too.
Democracy in action. Beautiful isn't it?
It's like concerns about the environment. Everyone is concerned, but that concern is of a much lesser priority than concern about economic growth. Until the rivers are burning and birds falling dead out of the skies scaring the heck out of schoolchildren, not much will change easily.
So it goes...
That doesn't do much good when a lot of the change is not apocalyptic but incremental - the birds don't drop out of the sky en masse, they just slowly disappear. Same with fireflies. Same with fish. Everything just slowly degrades, so it never seems like an "emergency", and there are still a few around if you look, so they say, "see, there are plently left!"
Yeah, environmental concern is the last of concern of industrial humans, because most of them don't have any idea what nature is, having never encountered it.
You are indeed quite correct. Our perception of change in the world as we industrial humans is severely compromised. That fact, combined with our detachment from nature (no one who is still in nature fails to see the changes) and our political processes don't offer much hope. But, que sera sera. The good thing is that life will survive the reign of Homo collosus and will bounce back (as it always has) after our downfall.
We may not live to see what rises from the ashes of the Anthropocene, but we can be certain that there will be a rise. I can rest in peace knowing this. I suppose one might call my beliefs about the future "faith", but based on the record written in the stones of this world, we ought to know that mass extinctions come and go but life goes on. I do not fear. I'm only sad that my children will be born and live through an increasingly desolate time. Ah well. At least I got mine! ;)
So what's the problem? Bicycles stop working if there is no bike lane? Maybe this mayor hates cyclists, whatever. But he is actually doing a favor to cyclists by removing the bike lane. Bike lanes contradict the rules of the road and make cycling more dificult and dangerous. Very few people take the trouble to know about these facts and simply repeat the same old lies about cycling. Here is a link to an interview to a person who knows best about the subject:
http://bicycling.about.com/od/thebikelife/a/forester.htm
Charting the refining capacity shortfall
FT Alphaville
Concerning the above article in Reuters, Egypt oil subsidy reform needs more studies: minister, Egypt is contemplating doing business with the devil. They are seeking a loan from the IMF that will allow international banksters to loot their country. How many times must countries witness the cycle of debt, paying interest and austerity before they realize that it does not benefit the country?
When you are desperate, you go to the loan shark.
I think Egypt is going to be a mess. It was messy as is but there was a dictator running a tight ship and managing to get outside aid & investment. Now with oil output declining, rock-throwers scaring off tourists, a less stable government scaring investors, an Islamist government scaring off foreign aid . . . . well, they are probably going to be in a pickle. And the high-expectations of the people are not going to be met. They'll get angry. And . . . . more revolution? I hope they can prove my fears to be unfounded and I wish them luck.
How many times must
countriespoliticians witness the cycle of debt, paying interest and austerity before they realize that it does not benefit thecountrypeople?International loan money at work:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/10/spanish-politician-accused-m...
...kind of like politicians welcoming Walmart into India... or Mexico:
http://about.bloomberglaw.com/2012/09/27/the-fcpa-statute-of-limitations...
They don't care a monkey's about the people, it's all about the next election.
NAOM
There's a similar report in today's NYT:
Egypt Struggles to Pay Oil Bill
The main point is the subsidized price of fuel in Egypt is so low that people tend to waste it. If the price were increased to reflect the world cost of oil, there would be less trouble paying for the imports, but the public, especially the poor, would be hit very hard. A classic case of being caught between a rock and a hard place. Not unlike the situation in the US regarding the Federal deficit and increasing taxes to pay for the spending...
E. Swanson
You gotta just love the US stock markets:
Jobless claims rise:
...so: Stocks open higher...
Dow currently up about 92 points :-/
One electric vehicle maker is staying afloat
Kind of misleading title.. makes it sound a lot like 'ONLY one staying alive..' (only just got the float pun, admittedly.. but the misdirection remains)
Trucks
http://www.smithelectric.com/
Cars
http://www.zapworld.com/
Velos
http://www.nycewheels.com/bionx-go-one.html?gclid=CMCGor3t57ICFcid4Aoddi...
Scooters
http://world.honda.com/ElectricScooters/
Yeah, the title of that article took me a while to decipher too. Most who just glanced at the headline would have thought that the EV industry had all but disappeared.
P.S. I have a Bionx retrofit e-assist wheel on my commuter bike. Highly recommend it.
45 miles per hour
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC8kyzfFDzQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9OVIyI9t0s
Petrol stations are running dry
In some areas, only trucks driven by owner-drivers are delivering fuel, driving in convoy and with police guarding them.
Some trucks have been set on fire by militant strikers, although not so far any petrol tankers AFAIK.
Food stocks in supermarkets are still available, but shortages are expected soon. (I just bought tomatoes. They are tiny, the size of golf balls, and double the price of last week.)
Breaking news: Shell South Africa has just declared force majeure in some areas of Gauteng. They have plenty of petrol in stock, but cannot guarantee delivery to service stations.
Gas prices skyrocket as shortage looms
Wholesale Gasoline Shortage In California Causes Gas Stations To Shut Down: Hoarding Next?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-04/wholesale-gasoline-shortage-cal...
Interesting dilemma, try to sell gas for a price so high no one will buy it, or shut down the pumps and wait for the problem to go away?
Cheers,
Jerry
Is this the beginning of a cascade of shortages or a localised aberration?
I know there are regular postings on here about falling MOL's.
Thanks
Good question, my understanding is that it is a local aberration due to refinery problems. Then again, I seem to recall seeing posts elsewhere on TOD that growing refinery problems are a part of a larger trend of critical strains on supply due to undercapacity and underinvestment.
Cheers,
Jerry
Remember back in 08 when gas prices pushed $4 and a lot of small gas stations closed down. Now the next wave of gas station closings is probably coming with $5.
I'm curious how long the shortage could last and whether or not we'll see any civil unrest or hoarding.
I'd guess there won't be civil unrest or hoarding, at least not soon.
Stations are shutting their pumps because they can't charge enough to make a profit. Why is that? Because other places are selling it cheaper.
We've seen this before. Independent gas stations have it great when prices are falling, but suffer when they rise.
The independents don't have the long-term contracts like some other retailers and end up paying the spot price, well at least that's what I've read and it makes sense. But on the other hand, the retailers that are getting the fuel at their contracted price could cause worse shortages since they are almost "giving it away" at the lower price, selling at a volume higher than they should given the market conditions. So you'd think at some point, depending on the severity of the shortage, even the big retailers with their long-term contracts could have a hard time getting gasoline. At this point, can the refiners declare a force-majeure or whatever it's called?
Corrections to this logic are welcomed.
spudw, I wonder how high the wholesale price in California needs to get before it makes sense to truck gasoline in from nearby states where it is cheaper?
Well, to use an example, there was a small fleet of tanker trucks that about one year ago started moving crude oil from Cushing, OK to refineries in southern Texas when the price difference between the two locations at one time reached more than $10 a barrel, or about 25 cents/gallon.
However the problem is probably not so much price but whether gasoline from other locations can be used under California's strict environmental rules. The state may seek to obtain a temporary waiver to allow out of state, or out of season, gasoline to be used for a few weeks. A waiver was already requested by the California Independent Oil Marketers Association, and sent to the governor for consideration.
It's not a closed system. If a price increase is sustained, it will draw imports from elsewhere. California imports gasoline from Asia, Europe, and elsewhere in the US. It has to be made to California standards, but they do it. Plus, as Charles notes, in an emergency the environmental laws can and will be suspended.
Jerry McManus, it looks like the worst (e.g. $5 per gallon gasoline) is yet to come.
The last report I saw (below) indicates that wholesale gasoline prices in south/central California at one time today reached $4.40, and it is my understanding that this wholesale level may equate to a retail price exceeding $5.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-03/california-gas-stations-begi...
They are being silly. There are plenty of people in LA & San Fran willing to pay $5, $6, $7 or even $10 per gallon if they have to. Yes, demand will drop but that is the point of prices.
I'll smile widely as I drive by the gas station in my EV. :-D
The problem is they don't have to. If the branded gas station across the street from you is selling gasoline for cheaper and still making a profit, you cannot raise your prices, even though you are losing money.
If this were not the issue, the price would simply rise, and yes, people who could afford to would pay it.
California may be very car-driven, but there's a part of me which is grinning about this. After all, the price of gas is around twice as much in many parts of the world.
Isn't it time that they too joined the rest and therefore start to wean themselves off, or at least halt, the use of gasoline?
Of course it has been falling for the past few years, but it could use some help!
Explosion, massive blaze at Winnipeg racing fuel warehouse forces dozens from homes
Mock nuclear explosion to test Metro Detroit readiness
Aerial Survey of Bay Area Planned Aug. 27 - Sept. 1
NNSA conducts radiation detection workshops in Tennessee and Tajikistan
Bleak Photos Capture The Fall Of Detroit
Was Detroit chosen because it is already mostly destroyed?
Here is an article in Time: Strapped Europeans Swap Cars for Bikes
You missed the part...
Let that sink in for a moment.
Every few years this statistic comes up and I counter with:
New bicycle - ~$1000
New car - ~$20,000
Yet, for the most part people buy more cars - at 20 times the price - than bicycles. Wow.
You don't need to spend that much for a car. (Though you don't need to spend that much for a bike, either.)
I gave serious considering to going car-free, but eventually came to the conclusion that it is not safe around here. During daylight hours in the summer I bike, but at nighttime or in winter, you'd have be crazy to bike. Or even walk. And public transportation is a joke.
I bought a new Corolla for $13,000 and plan to drive it into the ground.
Utica Shale Needs ‘Nodding Donkeys’ to Unleash Bonanza
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-04/utica-shale-needs-nodding-donke...
Sounds like right from the start they'll have to use "Nodding Donkeys".
The next level down on the descent into expensive and difficult to extract oil?
Rock, RMG at al, is it unheard of to need to use pump jacks this early in a well's life?
It depends on reservoir pressure. Some fields have enough pressure to raise the oil to surface level, at least until they become depleted, others have to be pumped right from the start.
BTW, they don't have to be the beam pumps you tend to associate with oil fields. If they are down hole pumps, you won't see the pump on the surface.
aws - As Rocky explains having to lift a well early on isn't uncommon. It's an added production expense but it doen't take much grease to make it worth while. Remembering that the average oil well in the US makes less than 10 bopd: the vast majority of those wellls are using some sort of lift system. And in a large percentage of those cases the salt water disposal costs more then the lifting expense. The downside of the Bakken et al isn't so much that they have to lift but much the rate has fallen off. This reduced production volume hurts much more than the additional production costs.
http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-positive-power-of-crisi...
This applies to a lot more than financial problems.
Todd
Todd, thanks for putting me on to Louis Bromfield. I'll have to work on interlibrary loan because I'm too cheap to buy anything except reference books.
Talisman's Yme oil platform could collapse in storm: document
Gulf oil-spill workers sought for health study
Australia's First Bushfire Resistant Straw House to Be Built
OPEC Exports Keep Falling - even after Saudi Arabia pledged more exports
Oil tanker, 'Oil Movements', reported today that OPEC exports will fall in the four week period ending on October 20. This continues the slow but steady decline in OPEC exports since about the start of August.
Saudi Arabia pledged to increase its exports a few weeks or so ago to make up for lost exports from Iran. Since the OM report is forward looking, if Saudi Arabia intended to increase exports, the increase should have already been reflected in this report.
Source: thomsonreuters.com [no link]
Related:
Guest Post: Six Charts On Money, Oil, And Credit
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-03/guest-post-six-charts-money-oil...
Yes, I know, they are only fitting a curve to a limited time series (not that anyone at TOD would be guilty of that), nonetheless I found it informative.
Cheers,
Jerry
Tomgram: Michael Klare, Extreme Energy Means an Extreme Planet
Re: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-02/teen-drunk-driving-falls-on-hig... above:
This is ingenious. Use alcohol as a fuel for cars. This will make driving (fuel) more expensive, and also cause a shortage of alcohol (the kind that you drink), driving up the price of that too. All in all, a decline in car+alcohol related deaths and injuries must follow.
Oil sheen mysteriously appears off Louisiana's Gulf Coast
The Macondo well spill may well burp up oil for many years.
Jeff (westexas) does his best to point out the fundamental problem with James Hamilton's suggestion that America should start investing in NatGas vehicles. He adds his comments at the end of the following post.
Natural gas for transportation
Stop the presses! Global warming is solved!
BBC - Sucking CO2 from the skies with artificial trees
The short story is, a university egghead is proposing to draw CO2 out of the air using sodium carbonate. The resulting byproduct, sodium bicarbonate, would be washed away and rejuvinated in a processing plant. The eggbonce estimates that a mere 100 million of these things could soak up the entire world output of CO2.
FYI, sodium carbonate is made from limestone, salt, and ammonia by the Solvay process. This involves heating limestone to decomposition, similar to the first step of making portland cement. Ammonia is synthesized from air and natural gas via the Haber-Bosch process. Both processes are energy intensive. The resulting CO2 would be liquified and injected underground, another energy intensive process.
In short, a full rollout of this technology would result in more than doubling our energy demand. Just another technical detail to be worked out, I'm sure.
Or you could just dig trona out of the ground.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trona
Still not a good idea though. Just because it works in the lab does not mean it scales up.
They could try planting some 'real' trees. They cost a lot less.
Fun comment on a NYT opinion Piece today..
Pity the Plutocrats
"The public’s attitude, they seem to believe, can have arisen only as a result of propagandizing by Mr. Obama. No American would ever stop respecting his betters unless he was brainwashed into it..."
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/pity-the-plutocrats/
Not absolutely accurate.. but good, clean fun, just the same!
.. I thought the name 'ROMNEY' has been reminding me of something from history, and now I've got it! Yeeks!