 | Cellulosic Ethanol vs. Biomass Gasification | The Oil Drum | How Smart is Ontario's Smart Metering Plan? |  |
DrumBeat: October 27, 2006
Posted by threadbot on October 27, 2006 - 9:19am
How will the USA cope with unprecedented growth?
The USA added 100 million people in the past 39 years and last week topped 300 million. We'll add the next 100 million even faster. Sometime around 2040, according to government estimates, the population clock will tick past 400 million....Can the USA, which trails only China and India in population, absorb another 100 million people in such a short time? Where will everybody live? Space itself isn't the issue. More than half of Americans live within 50 miles of the Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf and Great Lakes coasts on just a fifth of the country's land area, according to the Center for Environment and Population, a non-profit research and policy group based in New Canaan, Conn.
But people can't live on land alone, especially if they want water in the desert, plentiful fuel to power long commutes, energy to cool and heat bigger houses and clean air and water. How and where they live could determine how well the nation — and the environment — will handle the added population.
Foreign oil drives Exxon Mobil's growth
Higher oil production was key to Exxon Mobil Corp.'s $10 billion profit announced Thursday, but to tap new reserves the world's largest publicly-traded company is taking on ever greater risks, tackling harsh operating conditions in often politically unstable corners of the world.
A first: Shell plans to produce at 8,000 feet in Gulf
Shell said today it will be the first oil company to begin producing oil and natural gas in water that's 8,000 feet deep, trumping competitors in the Gulf of Mexico who have made discoveries or announced intentions to drill in the region but not started to develop them.
Kuwait to cut oil output by 100,000 bpd
Argentina Virtually Stops Exporting Oil To Brazil
Argentina, once a major oil exporter to Brazil, has virtually stopped supplying its neighbor with crude as its oil production dwindles while domestic consumption is rising, Brazil's Valor newspaper said Thursday.
China lowers target for renewable energy
China's Policy in the Gulf Region: From Neglect to Necessity
Japan Seeks Oil Security in Iraq, Indonesia After Iran Setback
Japan, dependent on imports for 99 percent of its oil and gas, may turn to Iraq and Indonesia after it lost control of Iran's biggest untapped field.
Nigerian villagers extend protest at oil platforms
PORT HARCOURT, Nigeria - Villagers occupying four oil pumping stations in Nigeria extended their protest to a third day on Friday in the hope of extracting contracts from Western oil companies.The protesters had agreed on Wednesday to vacate the facilities on condition that they were given contracts to supply food and speed boats to the oil platforms located deep in the swamps of Rivers state in the eastern Niger Delta.
U.K.: Local councils are offered millions to bury nuclear waste
Poland looking to diversify its energy sources
WARSAW The conservative government in Poland plans to invest well over €1 billion in the energy sector in an attempt to modernize its infrastructure, and perhaps more crucially, reduce its dependence on Russia, its main supplier of oil and gas.The plans reflect growing fears in Poland that the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, will use his country's energy clout as a political hammer, something he was judged to have done in January when Gazprom, the giant state-owned energy monopoly, cut its gas deliveries to Ukraine in a dispute over gas prices. Ukraine agreed last week to a 36 percent increase in the cost of natural gas supplied by Russia next year.
Russian prosecutors say they are targeting oil firms
Global warming could cost 20 percent of GDP, British cabinet told
Lack of action by the world over climate change could cost countries up to a fifth of their gross domestic product, a former World Bank chief economist told the British cabinet, The Independent reported.
Ocean array acts as climate alert: a new project to keep tabs on the Atlantic "conveyor."
More Science Teachers Grasping Reality of Peak Oil
Just two or three years ago, if you had asked a science teacher about "peak oil," chances are he or she would have drawn a blank. But if the recent gathering of 3,000 science educators in San Francisco is any indication, a massive shift in awareness has taken place -- thanks in no small part to activists such as Richard Katz and Dennis Brumm.
Sustainability group prepares for action
About 30 people ventured out on a dreary, drizzly night last Tuesday for the first general meeting of Harvard Local, held at the Bromfield School library in Harvard. The group, which has been in existence since July 2005, has attracted interest from residents in Harvard, Bolton, Boxborough, Groton, Sterling and as far away as Vermont, for its focus on local sustainability issues.
John Michael Greer on Politics: imperial sunset
The coming of peak oil is driven by geological factors, not political ones, but the cascade of consequences that will follow the peaking and decline of world petroleum production can’t be understood outside the context of politics, on global, local, and personal scales.
George Monbiot: The great biodiesel con
OVER the past two years I have made an uncomfortable discovery. Like most environmentalists, I have been as blind to the constraints affecting our energy supply as my opponents have been to climate change. I now realise that I have entertained a belief in magic.
Palm oil prices likely to touch $565/tonne by next Apr-June
Rising demand in Europe for regular diesel blended with vegetable oil amid high crude oil prices may drive palm oil’s gains. Palm oil, traditionally used as cooking oil, can be added to diesel to stretch fossil fuel supplies.
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.
http://www.sprott.com/pdf/marketsataglance/10-2006.pdf
Among other goodies:
Another major risk in our opinion is the ever-burgeoning derivatives market, a theme that we frequently return to. According to the latest data from the Bank of International Settlement, the total notional amount of outstanding derivatives is approaching $300 trillion, and is being traded (notionally) to the tune of almost half a quadrillion dollars per quarter. These are mind boggling numbers. To put them in context, US GDP is a comparatively paltry $12 trillion. We continue to hold the view that the derivatives market, where everybody offloads risks to somebody else and nobody ever seems to lose money, is a time bomb waiting to explode.
I did post a couple of articles from the MSM. The Reuters article about Simmons, and the article from the BU paper about protesters disrupting the conference.
http://www.forbes.com/home/business/2006/10/26/autos-fuel-savings-cupholders-biz-cx_jf_1027fuel.html
Now this one irritated the hell out of me....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15428994/
Where do I begin? So the economy is not that bad? It was a weak patch only huh? Does these people just buy this bullshit? Then to say that the Iraq war has not disturbed the markets is a plain lie. Why is government spending the highest proportion of current GDP output ever? So the quarter trillion or so a year doesn't affect the markets at all, Alan Pass that to me b/c I need some.
Can anyone tell me why social security isn't an issue? It would take 15 minutes huh? SO you would just dissolve it then because that's all that can be accomplished in the 5 minutes you've allowed. You realize why our manufacturing is no longer here when bankers are ever eager to export the heavy lifting to every other country.
Someone once stated when asked about politics and the prez.
"they don't run this country,Greenspan runs this country"
He needs to hie himself to a nursying home and spread his homilies elsewhere. Again the man is an utter fool. Why has anyone put up with the asshole for all this time?
Indeed, what is it that America does these days? New industries, such as Google, print ads to sell services and cheap goods. Are all these services just a sham economy? Not really producing each other, but feeling like we are because we are getting paid?
According to the Sprott article above: "US money supply, as measured by the most recent reading of the now defunct M3 (may it rest in peace), is up at least 50% so far this decade, and likely even more if it were still being reported."
Since the # of USD has increased 50% since 2000, should not the Dow be up 50% since 2000?
I wish there was a TOD for economics. It is quite difficult for the layman, such as myself, to figure out what is going on.
NO, there is no logical reason why this should be so. The stock market, (usually measured by the S&P 500, not the Dow), is not directly connected to the money supply. Though of course there is an indirect connection. An increasing money supply usually means an increasing economy, causing the market to rise. But one does not necessarily track the other and there is no logical reason why they should.
However if inflation went up by 50% in a given time, then in order for the average shareholder to stay even, the S&P 500 would have to have increased by 50% also. Still there is also no logical reason why this should actually be the case. The market usually outpaces the inflation rate, but often they go in the opposite direction.
Ron Patterson
None of this has anything to do with p/e ratioes.
Please pay closer attention to what the thread is actually talking about before commenting.
Ron Patterson
But if you have any question or comments about peak oil or related subjects, then let us hear them.
Ron Patterson
http://www.prudentbear.com/
http://www.safehaven.com/
http://www.financialsense.com/
http://www.321gold.com/archives/archives_date.php
If you visit these and just reading articles, you WILL be filled in on the things mentioned above and more.
For some REAL stats on the economy:
http://www.shadowstats.com/cgi-bin/sgs?
For example;
Read the lastest one from Jim Willie.
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/willie/2006/1025.html
One last one, Look at the charts at this link.
http://www.prudentbear.com/bc_chart_library.html
Follow those for a while, and you have your TOD for financials.
This is why you can not say that there is a one-to-one relationship between every dollar printed and an equal gain in the S&P 500.
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/
That's his solution..everyone will get their $1,000 a month,,but the dollar will be so devalued a loaf of bread will cost $50.
My question is this. How did we know to have them there and waiting close by so early on? It takes time to get them over there.
http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=26201
Simple. Surveillance. Electronic and otherwise plus likely a lot of humint via Israel.
Special ops, Seals, Delta, the list goes on and on and I thank God that they do exist.
I don't wish to see a loose nuke spoil the upcoming energy crisis. A controlled dieoff is much better than being nuked.
Yet they seem determined and listening to the rabid doves in the US they must think we will do nothing. Suddenly ALL those cheesy little flags would come out again and everyone would start tying those ridiculous ribbons on trees again.
How soon we forget. They brought the fight here.
I was all for taking it to them...if only Bush had a good plan and executed it wisely. Instead he wasted all his political capital and the support of the people. Pissed it all away. Then it got all mired down.
Now the outcome is very clouded. The insurgents and terrroists are emboldened. Now they have nukes,,,almost.
Surely Bush won't wait until its far too late. Surely a surgical strike ....well its said to be too late for that now.
So what comes next? Thermonuclear warfare? Or the Samson Option/Scenario?
airdale--"Do you want to play a game?"(War Games..1983)
I can say that the 67 years of my life have not been especially dull. WWII,Korea,Berlin Crisis,Cold War,Nam,Desert Storm/Shield,9/11,Afghanistan,Iraq and now...
Sorry I fail to the see the connection between overthrowing Saddam Hussein and the Saudi's flying into the WTC?
I was all for taking it to them...if only Bush had a good plan and executed it wisely. Instead he wasted all his political capital and the support of the people. Pissed it all away. Then it got all mired down.
Is there one example, in the history of the world, when one nation, uh I mean a coalition of countries, declared war on another nation, weak and stripped of its military, with the worlds most precious resource at stake, in order to install democracy, which in turn would end the terrorist threat.
Thats a plan?
We don't know for sure who, if any person, was controling their flight path; or what was loaded in the cargo bays of those planes.
Now there's a fellow named GWB who tells us it was Al Quaeda flying those planes. Of course, he's the same person who swore that Sadam had WMDs and that he was a uniter not a divider. So if you want to go by his say so, then please, by all means go ahead.
BTW. He never said "Stay the Course".
He said, "Stake the Horse".
You simply misunder-herd him. :-)
(P.S. Letterman & O'Riley were in agreement tonight on Iraq: It's the oil stupid --and it always was.)
It would seem to me a more probable explanation than the same middle class crowd changing their opinions so quickly (though that is definitely a factor as well).
These are the same middle class people that Alan "The Shark" Greenspan recruited for Financial Cannon Fodder to inflate the housing bubble after his stock market bubble collapsed. Long live Alan "the Shark" Greenspan... in shackles in some small town public square.
this doesn't mean that SS doesn't need fixing, too.
So what are you suggesting? We move to a system like Canada, where they diagnos you with Cancer, and then schedule you for treatments in 6 months when you'll be dead?
I see this a the first step towards Medicare becoming strictly needs based, and likely the same for SS.
When I took a public health course on the U.S. health care system 4 years ago, I recall that we were told that the law as written for Medicare was that beneficaries were responsible for 25% of the total cost and the remaining 75% percent came from general funding. I assume that when the Medicare prescription program was rammed through congress it was done with the understanding that Medicare was going to be completely restructured.
If your not familiar with Medicare, the premium I am referring to is part B which includes basic outpatient services. Part A is the hospitalization portion and there is no charge for beneficiaries, Part C is the supplemental insurance and the fees vary greatly depending on whether an HMO or PPO is selected, Part D is the new drug prescription program (a gift for Big Pharma and taxpayer fleecing operation).
Again, from a bird's-eye view, the Iraq war has resulted in additional government spending that other countries have financed without question. He isn't saying it won't have some effect in the future, but as long as China, etc. are willing to buy US government debt, there isn't likely to be much effect on the economy directly from the war. When they stop being willing to buy government debt, interest rates will rise and the dollar will fall, and this will have an effect on the economy, though economists will say it's the overall debt that's the problem more than any particular spending. It will take some economic historians to piece out the war and its contribution to the economic problems.
He didn't really say Social Security isn't an issue either. He said that if it weren't for politics, it would be easy to fix. You can read this two ways. If the assembled group were the usual elites, they would spend their 5 useful minutes cutting benefits. If the assembled group were representative of the population, they would spend their 5 useful minutes soaking the rich. The politicians try to represent both at once and reach a stalemate.
The manufacturing comment sounds like a BS rationalization to me, but if you believe that the world will eventually accept US services in exchange for foreign manufactured goods, this would make sense. I think of things like software and medicines as manufactured goods, but economists classify these new technology things as services, so in that context his comment would make sense if we didn't have a tremendous trade imbalance.
Raise the cap on wages subject to the SS tax so that 90% of total wages are subject to the tax, the same fraction that was covered in 1983 when the current cap system was put into place, and require that the cap rise or fall as needed to maintain that coverage. Add a modest means test that affects only those with more than $75K of income (in today's dollars) outside of SS. For forecasts -- since the "issue" is all about forecasts -- use values for the model parameters chosen for reasons of maximum liklihood, rather than the odd set of constraints that the SS administration is required to impose. The forecasts then show the trust fund stabilizing in positive territory. Problem fixed, 15 minutes.
OTOH, this shifts the "issue" to the federal general fund -- which will, first, have to learn to live without the SS surpluses, and second, pay back, with interest, at least a portion of the trillions of dollars of SS surpluses that it has borrowed and spent already.
And this is somehow not a worldwide issue?
But people can't live on land alone, especially if they want water in the desert, plentiful fuel to power long commutes, energy to cool and heat bigger houses and clean air and water. How and where they live could determine how well the nation -- and the environment -- will handle the added population.
Well, at least peak is being mentioned in the McPaper. Gues that is a positive. Oh wait. Bronfields, vertial stacking, rail. That doesn't come close to covering water and energy issues.
The Mongbo Guru is always happy-fun reading as to why he's afraid.
http://www.321gold.com/editorials/daughty/daughty102506.html
The fears this time:
So a lot of hubbub is obviously being caused by some approaching upheaval, perhaps reflected in something sent to me by good ol' Phil S., which is the GlobalEurope Anticipation Bulletin N°8, which reminded us that last May they predicted that the economy would have a "phase of acceleration" that would begin in June, and it "would be spread out over a period of a maximum six months", which it subsequently did. They said then, and are saying again now, that a "phase of impact will begin in November 2006", and that this impact phase would be "the explosive phase of the crisis.".....
Or perhaps it was the article titled "Australian Treasurer Seeks Orderly Withdrawal From U.S. Dollar" by John Garnaut.....
notes that the Chinese are "now looking for alternative investments."
"Right now, there are about 6 million households that live within half a mile of stations," says Shelley Poticha, president of Reconnecting America. "The demand for housing near transit is going to grow to over 16 million. That's a big number."
No, that's a depressingly tiny proportion of 400 million people. Not viable. A major acceleration in transit construction is urgent.
"The USA will grow by 40 million households. About 35 million of them will not have children, Nelson says."
This seems to indicate that population growth will be essentially due to immigration. Is nobody concerned that this is an unsustainable and fundamentally unjust situation? The USA is creaming off a large proportion of the world's young, mobile, qualified, economically high-value-adding population. I guess this will continue as long as it's an attractive option, ie until... tshtf.
But that can be argued to be shifting. A high profile shifter Steven Chen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Chen
Lots of claims that foreign students have decided the whole homeland security gauntlet isn't worth running.
The info he provides must be combined with what Hansen and Lovelock have said about global heating, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19131 and http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article338830.ece
Those interested in the conclusion I draw can read it here, http://karlssblog.blogspot.com/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010618.html
"PRESIDENT BUSH: I will answer the question. I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country. And I appreciated so very much the frank dialogue."
Duh!
We aren't going to do this. Check the assumption if the logical conclusion is illogical.
Quote of the day: "...the worst mistakes most often come not from faulty deductions, but from unexamined false premises and proneness to delusion."
- Stanislav Andreski, Social Sciences as Sorcery
Where the living share space with the dead
The End of Suburbia 52-minute version is online at YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3uvzcY2Xug
Feel free to view, rate and comment on this clip in the first few days of release, in order to push it into the top-rated categories on YouTube. Also, pass on the link to the video to friends and family.
Barry Silverthorn, editor
The End of Suburbia: Oil Depletion and the collapse of The American Dream
video.google.com - allows download in windows/ipod format.
They may have the same corporate master, but they are different.
Anybody have the scoop on when it will be released for sale? Does the sequel have a website?
Greg in MO
http://www.escapefromsuburbia.com/
Still "Coming soon"
But I noticed it says Fall 2006, which I hadn't noticed before.
Riots over just NOT having a valid Diploma. When the end of cheap energy happens (with all the knock-off effects), how does this not end up in riots?
After further research, we found out that the Jiangxi Clothing Vocational School not only had no authorization to issue undergraduate diplomas, but it only received authorization to recruit students in 2003. Between 2003 and 2005, the Ministry of Education gave permission to the school to admit 4,350 students. Yet there are as many as 18,000 students at school right now. In other words, more than 10,000 students are not covered in the plan. According to the regulations, the student recruitment plan is tied in with the diplomas that the students can receive. Therefore Han is worried about whether he will even receive a vocation school diploma.
more here:
http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2006/10/silicon-valleys-war-on-big-oil.html
(did you hear them say "conventional belief"? ouch.)
best.
Resource depletion and climate change are real, physical problems. "Believing" one way or another is irrelevant. When there's no gas available to put into my car the state of my belief about the cause won't matter.
In a way, you are right, though, because economics is a belief system, a belief in infinite growth. And when a critical mass of people realizes the reality of the situation, that economic growth has ended and will never return on a large scale due to energy limitations, then everyone will scramble to take their money out of the markets and that will cause the collapse.
Oh no, I'm slippiing into doomerism again, shut eyes tight, "I believe......" ahhhh, that's better, mmmmm...
Do you really think that the opposite of believing that doom is inevitable is to think "all we have to do is believe that everything will be OK?"
No. I think the honest, pragmatic, and humble approach is to work just as hard as you can for solutions, and let the result be your answer.
We won't really know until it plays out, and as that quote says, assuming failure helps determine the outcome ...
Amen. But IMO you should not be so harsh on Sunspot. The approach you are talking about is the most honest and best possible for everyone of us, but is also the hardest one. I have often thought that the people circling inside that "we're doomed" nonsense and the curnopians (sp?) are actually two groups in the same camp. Both in the end are advocating for inaction, but for different reasons. Both represent some sort of denial of the reality - the reality being that simply it is going to be harder to live from now on. No, the world will not come crashing down, relieving everyone from the responsibility for his own life, neither it will cheerfully transition to no-oil future "by itself". We will simply have to work hard to move it from point A to point B. And point B is unknowable by anyone, we only know that it depends on the choices we make now. But I am pretty sure that if we, or the majority of us start to believe that point B means the end of civilisation, then it can very well become so. It is our call in the end.
But I digressed. I just wanted to say that people need some time to move from denial to acceptance phase and bashing on them is not really the way to help...
Disagree. Perhaps some "doomers" are advocating for inaction. But most, IME, are simply arguing for a different kind of action.
For example, take nuclear power. The EROEI is better for nuclear power than for most of the alternatives.
But if you believe that collapse is likely...that we may find ourselves in a couple of decades unable or unwilling to deal with nuclear waste or safely close down aging nuclear plants...then you may decide to stick with wind or solar, even if the EROEI isn't as good as nuclear. If, a couple of generations from now, we no longer have the ability or resources to maintain a wind turbine, oh well. It might fall on someone, but it's not going to poison the entire area for decades.
Now I have reasons ot believe that in the long run the question will be posed in reverse order. That is - if we don't embrace nuclear power (or something more technically feasible than renewables), then we have a very good chance to see society collapsing. Now I can only imagine what the billions of hungry people, killing each other for food would be thinking then about our current worries about nuclear waste.
No need for that. Think of Iraq, where looters took home radioactive stainless steel tanks to use to store their milk and water.
Or maybe it's inevitable, nukes or no nukes. In which case, perhaps we could do better things with the last of buried sunshine than build the 10,000 nuclear power plants it would take to replace fossil fuels?
You should keep in mind that we will not need all of those tomorrow or in 5 years, we are probably talking for sometime in the second half of the century (well, if Global Warming has not made Earth uninhabitable by then).
Or we could rearrange our society so we don't need that much energy. Build Alan's rail, instead of millions of electric cars, say.
But this misses half of the story. Currently it would be very hard to start implementing such large scale program, because we have not invented viable energy storage which can handle the amounts of energy we are talking about. With the options we have today I think you should add at least that much money for energy storage and infrastructure to support those wind turbines which now we will have to place virtually everywhere.
Current Net Generating Capacity in MW: 978,020
Percentage of Grid to be powered by WT: 25%
Required MW: 244,500
# Turbines actually required: 61,125
# Turbines for 100%: 244,500
This is a lot less than 10,000,000
$ per MW: 1,000,000
$ for 25%: 244,500,000,000
$ for 100%: 978,000,000,000
As I said, less than 1 trillion dollars.
P.S. Pumped Hydro is a viable storage medium for unused power. It might be expensive, but we need to start paying for the actual cost of electrical power. The current price scheme with all of the real costs, like GW and methylmercury pollution externalised to the future is completely unacceptable.
P.S. You still fail to account for the low wind farm load factor (typicaly no more than 25%). So you need to multiply your end result by 4. This was the basis of my original calculation: 1MW of nuclear generation ~ 4MW of wind generation.
No offense, but advocating actions from the point of view of a certain civilisation collapse is much worse than inaction. It is stupidity. I really wonder why people do not get it. Civilisation collapsing is not an option. It is not even worth discussing it, because if it happens this means that the game is over and we lost. If the world goes mad, homo sapiens will burn everything it can, probably wage several thermonuclear wars, destroy whatever is left from its environment before descending into some prehistorical version of society (that is, if there is still life on Earth). Imagining something different, or advocating a "peaceful descendance" to some semi-agrarian society speaks of total ignorance about what human nature is.
Completely disagree. Collapse is inevitable. The only question is when. It's very much an option.
It doesn't necessarily mean Mad Max or nuclear war. Nor does it mean Ecotopia. I'm talking collapse in the Tainterian sense: becoming a less complex society, due to lack of sufficient energy to maintain our previous level of complexity.
Tainter points to the Byzantine Empire as a society that voluntarily and successfully simplified. He also notes that after a society collapses, its people are generally better off.
So I cannot agree that collapse means the game is over and we've lost. Even if it did, I would insist on talking about it. It's important, and we cannot simply ignore it.
Ok, we have major misunderstanding here. My assumption is that by collapse, most people here understand the definite end of the industrial civilisation. This is my interpretation of the calls for locally growing food, self-sufficiency, the general sense of hostility towards technical solutions that may help, etc.
I think your definition of collapse is too broad and misses the whole point. Of course a certain reduction of complexity is inevitable. It is beyond doubt. But it can happen in a way that we still have an advanced society that has managed to overcome hunger, most deseases, mass poverty etc. Depending on the choices we make today it may even be a great thing for everyone, and people ot be more happy in the world tomorrow.
But it also may not be. We may well end up in the Middle Ages. So what exactly kind of collapse we are talking about? And which one should our prefered choice be? I think this is the real question we should be discussing here.
Hey, it's not mine. It's Tainter's. He wrote the book on collapse. Literally. ;-)
Not everyone agrees with that.
I am not sure it can. Though that's what we should be aiming for.
Exactly. Saying "It can't happen, so don't talk about it" isn't particularly helpful.
Oh, I'm pretty sure it can. I lived quite happily for 26 years without even having a car. Owning one did not make me happier. There are certain non-crucial things we can very well live without.
Saying "It can't happen, so don't talk about it" isn't particularly helpful.
This is misinterpretation. The correct interpretation would be "we must avoid getting there by all means". As far as we are masters of our own destiny we should do everything to preserve at least the basic achievements of our civilisation, I am talking about. Like I said - if we get to the Middle Ages type of collapse, the game is over for us as species.
I am not denying that at all. (I've lived car-free myself.) However, I think you may be underestimating the energy costs of complexity. The overhead, if you will. It's not just cars. It's also college, computers, vaccines, etc.
Disagree. We lived for most of our history at an even lower level of complexity than that. It's not the end of the world.
Which of these things is so energy intensive? I can blindly assert that a single flight of bored tourists from New York to Aruba takes more energy than the production of all yearly varicella vaccines for the USA. I think that some things will downsize, others may disappear, but for the essential staff we will find our ways to keep it going. Of course I can not know what and how, I only think that we can work for certain solutions now.
All of them.
It's not the energy directly used. It's the overhead. The societal complexity that makes it possible.
One reason vaccination lags in Africa is the lack of refrigeration. Vaccine is cheap...refrigeration when there's no power grid is not.
Then there are the countries where AIDS has been spread by hospitals...because they can't afford to buy enough disposable needles, and so re-use them.
When you consider the energy cost of making vaccine, you can't just consider the direct energy inputs. You have to consider everything else. The energy cost of manufacturing equipment. Of the mining equipment needed to get the materials for the manufacturing equipment. The cost of distributing it, including refrigeration and transportation.
Before fossil fuels, materials like steel and glass were so expensive only the wealthy could afford them - because it took so much wood to manufacture them. Now they're trash. We throw them away. That won't be the case in the post-carbon age.
But perhaps the most overlooked cost is the cost of education. You used to be doing pretty well for yourself if you knew how to read. People couldn't afford to send their kids to school and lose their labor, let alone pay to send them to college, graduate school, medical school, etc. So where are we going to get the doctors, engineers, scientists, technicians, and teachers of the future?
Quite true. though one does need to look at what the middle ages actually were. for the several hundred years following the collapse of the roman empire most of this period can be described as repeated failed attempts to re-gain the level of complexity that they had during roman times. these attempts failed due to resource constraints mostly. this changed once the new world was found and new trade routes were made with the east.
If that were the case, the centuries afterward could be seen as both society attempting and failing several restarts, and society falling back in complexity waiting for the wood resource to regrow enough to successfully restart societies of greater complexity again. Western societies eventually found other continents to exploit, then fossil fuels to run things, and broke their reliance on wood.
It looks to me as though we will either have some reduction in complexity or figure out how to exploit some other energy source, probably either further fossil fuel exploitation (ancient sunlight), solar/biomass (current solar energy), or fission/fusion. Which happens depends on how soon and fast oil production falls and how quickly we can exploit something else. The greater the difference in oil production vs. other energy source, the greater the collapse.
I don't buy Tainter's idea that collapse has to happen to all competitors at the same time. It looks to me like the Soviet Union did collapse, and Russia may still be collapsing, but the capitalist world did just fine. I wonder what Tainter would say about that.
I think he would say that the Soviet Union, like Montana, is being held up by the polity group in which it is enmeshed.
There really hasn't been a significant loss of complexity in the Soviet Union. Their government is less centralized, but they have not lost industry, or literacy, or art, or technology. And they won't, as long as their neighbors have them.
it's being held up and repaired by depending on the rest of the country. if that was not in place it would of been much worse and the place might of been completely abandoned.
but back to your point. while the Russians have not lost much if any of their industry, or literacy, or art, or technology. they have lost almost all of their world power. there military is a shadow of what it once was and they still are having problems paying people enough to put a good watch on the cold war stockpile of nukes. currently their most powerful weapon in the world stage is their control of some natural gas and oil.
I dunno. They're now wielding the power of the pump.
In any case, this sort of scenario is part of Tainter's model. Being held from collapse isn't just for cases like New Orleans. It can also mean being invaded and taken over by a neighbor, or anything in between.
This is not quite true. Russia (as long as the other Eatern European countries) lost most of its industry during the economic collapse following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Most of the factories were simply plundered or scrapped during the so-called privatisation. For the most part oil&gas industries were no exception, at least until Putin came to power and tightened things up.
Pretty much the same thing happenned with education and technology. Things are improving a bit lately, maybe to some part due to the revenues from energy exports but the country is too far from the level of the ex-USSR.
Please note that we already have governance by a clique whose ideology predates Magna Carta. I don't like it, temporarily we are surviving it.
Does anybody care? Does TOD even notice?
Talk about the coming end of civilization all you want. It happened in yesterday's papers
I for one don't (with all due respect to Tainter).
All societies seem to collapse eventually. But they also seem (thus far) to be able to reconfigure and achieve yet more complex forms during subsequent iterations of civilisation (or empire, or whatever you'd like to call it).
So if you take a relatively short term view, societies collapse (for various reasons - but lets assume destroying their own resource base is the primary cause), and become less complex.
If you take a longer term view, societies have always become more complex over time (or, to put it another way, people have managed to continually develop more complex technologies and organisational structures in order to achieve more complex goals). Of course, some societies perish - there is an element of survival of the fittest going on.
If you believe we'll never get more "work" from energy than we do now (or whenever the oil peak arrives) then maybe the inevitable collapse case could be justified (though I think there are still scenarios where this wouldn't be the case if you are willing to entertain dieoff as but one step in the process - but this isn't a path I'm interested in exploring).
However, I don't see it this way - there is massive scope for efficiency gains (increasing net 'work" from available energy) and there is massive scope for harnessing other energy sources (solar and wind in particular) - and I think further increases in "complexity" will be required to implement these.
I don't define complexity as increasingly pronounced hierarchy and centralisation though...
I actually think that's the short-term view. We've had the illusion of progress while the European societies were expanding, and then when we started tapping fossil fuels.
But that doesn't mean ever-increasing complexity is inevitable in the longer term. It would take infinite energy to support that.
There is how much energy you can harvest from a given source - and then there is how much "work" you can do with it.
People focus on the harvesting side (and I still say there is scope for improving how much we can harvest from alternative sources) - but they ignore what efficiency gains can mean (which determine the amount of "work").
A peak oil downslop can still mean a plateua or upslope on a "work" curve if you can use the energy available effectively enough.
Does anyone really think we're even half way to optimising our energy usage ?
What I'd like to see is 2 graphs that xomplement the oil depletion model - a "total energy" graph - and a "total work" graph (harder to define but worth a shot with some documented assumptions).
If all 3 graphs trend down then I'd concede we're in trouble and the collapse scenario makes sense - but my feeling is that we'd see a plateua in graph 2 and an uptrend in graph 3 by a number of fairly simple actions...
What do you mean we can still have? That society exists now for maybe 10% of the human population. A collapse will mean that simply the 10% will rejoin the 90%.
It sounds like you want a solution which allows you (one of the lucky 10 percenters) to keep living your advanced lifestyle, not really caring that that lifestyle uses all the resources of the planet, plus all the resources accumulated over the last 200 million years.
Maybe 10% are those that can afford cars and other toys of the modern age but I was not talking about this.
One thing is sure - if those 80-90% that are at least not starving join the 10-20% that do, the starving guys will not feel any better at all. I expect quite the opposite actually.
Now if you think I am to blame that I don't want to join them (or for anyone to join them for that matter) I think you have a big problem with your set of values.
I think america in 50 years will be very similar to many countries nowdays. A very small, very wealthy ruling class, and a large population of poor, barely surviving ruled class. I actually think I would prefer a complete breakdown of government as opposed to the elite power rule future, but I doubt that TBTB will disappear.
I don't think the average American has any clue how much his or her lifestyle is supported by the poor - often the poor in other countries, where they are out of sight, out of mind. We live like kings, but the peasants who make it possible are mostly invisible to us.
Well, people may be a lot happier, but I seriously doubt it. And one thing is for sure, there will not be a lot of people to be happy. As far as the mechanism of collapse goes:
And
Ron Patterson
The only intelligent attitude to take when faced by catastrophe is panic! Actually, it's pessimism, because
the world has only one shot at this, and it had better be
a good one, so assuming doom, and working on the best available solution is the correct attitude. The "we could be alright Jack" attitude is best left for the beer fest after the hard day's work.
"Peak oil" has, in my opinion been successfully framed as a flavor of doom. That's too bad because it limits the role that concept can play in conventional politics and society.
Framing matters, especially when it successful but ungrounded in facts. Was the Iraq invasion a "war on terror?" I don't think so, but I see the cost of it being successfully famed that way.
Do the members of the "peak oil" movement want to make a real impact on national politics, or do they want to be written of as doomers? It's up to you .. but mind your framing.
Blaming Peak Oilers for the problems of PO is like blaming Climate Scientists for Global Warming.
I don't mind being called a jerk. But you, sir, are a TOD troll in disguise. I promise I won't respond to your posts anymore, I'll just ignore them. I know, you don't care.
This is certainly excessive, where do you see any "disguise" in odograph?
Only newcomers need a warning about him once in a while.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14375558/
If you want to fault me for anything, fault me for taking this too seriously ... but I honestly believe that is a problem for "oilers" as Scarborough puts it.
We have framed "ourselves" IMO wrongly.
Even Katrina could be perceived as an opportunity born of a disaster if it were used as a lesson for future land use planning that took into account the inevitable forces that occur with natural systems. Instead New Orleans will probably be rebuilt without taking into account the need to restore our wetlands and build structures in areas that have a good chance of successfully surviving the next disaster.
To say that we won't have any streets is probably going over the top and certainly does little to encourage people to plan communities that can survive in an oil short world. However, it is not over the top and doable to build communities and even towns and cities that are largely free of the need to use the automobile.
Peak oil does not have to the apocolypse and Harper's did a disservice by framing it that way. Sadly, though, the rush for alternatives like ethanol are part of a desire to continue business as usual even if the oil runs out. The disaster will not result from peak oil per se but our shortsighted rush to find a substitute.
For example, we don't so much need more efficient cars that run on ethanol, but we need to have communities where we can live in a safe and healthy environment that doesn't require the use of the automobile.
I don't consider such a world one of deprivation, but one of liberation from the tyranny of the automobile and extreme energy dependence.
Peak oil should be framed as a glorious opportunity to form communities that will be cleaner, healthier, cheaper, more self sufficient, and less noisy.
Individual life boats, while useful, are not enough. The communities, towns, and cities need to be radically altered to be ports in the storm.
It is not peak oil that is to be feared but our responses to it. I am a doomer to the extent that I doubt that our society has the wisdom and political will to make the right choices.
Peak oil will not mean the apocalypse. When we are at the peak we will all be in hog heaven. The apocalypse will come several years after the peak. The apocalypse will be caused by a scarcity of energy, not the peaking of energy.
But I do understand where you are coming from Tstreet. You are saying that we can go on feeding the world's people even after the energy that produces the food, and the transportation that delivers it disappears.
This means you believe in magic.
Again, I feel compelled to quote David Price:
Price makes it all very clear. I am surprised how many people try to say we can go on supporting almost seven billion people after the energy that supports them disappears. That is because they believe in magic.
Ron Patterson
People are starving. A lot more will starve if we continue as we are now. A lot less people will be supported when the oil is withdrawn from the agricultural system. It is probably unrealistic to expect that we have the time or political ability to make this transition to a much lower population base with birth control. So, yeh, there probably will be mass dieoff and, yes, if one thinks this mass dieoff will not occur probably believes in some form of magic.
The question is,however, what population can be supported in a reasonably comfortable manner without a minimial oil supply. This assumes that we will still have access to coal, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, biomass, and a few other sources that I probably haven't thought of.
I think you assume too much when you read my comments, but maybe your definiton of magic is the belief that there is any hope for any reasonable quality of life for any people at all.
quite so harshly. Are you really against hard work?
Are you really "framing" inclusion in this group by my acceptance of doom?
I mean, you are rejecting explictly someone who is willing "to work just as hard as I can for solutions."
"Yes, but if we honestly, humbly, and pragmatically bail water as fast as we can we might have a chance! After all, we won't know til it actually goes under!"
There is a time and place to bust your ass trying to save things. And there is a time and place to realize that such efforts are not worth the invested time. Because you have concluded one thing does not make you right. Because someone else has concluded an opposite thing from you does not automatically make them wrong.
That's the whole difference. You have concluded that the ship is sinking. I'm not that sure, I see some holes but I think we can fix them. But of course if everybody thinks like you, there will be nobody to fix our ways, right?
grayzone did you just make that up or copy it from somewhere?
either way i would be glad to share a lifeboat seat with you while levenk stays on the ship that is sinking which he thinks is not sinking.
Talk is cheap, especially for a liar!
Odo has been blogging about peak oil and commenting at TOD for years If you go back to the original TOD site you'll see he has a spot in the blog roll) and you should give him a bit more respect - he's not a troll and he's not a liar...
I agree, he is MUCH, MUCH WORSE than a troll or a liar:
http://www.theoildrum.com/comments/2006/8/2/114144/2387/68#68
http://www.theoildrum.com/comments/2006/8/2/114144/2387/131#131
http://www.theoildrum.com/comments/2006/9/2/91216/88621/203#203
http://www.theoildrum.com/comments/2006/9/11/91323/8663/353#353
Just in case you weren't reading TOD in August and September...
P.S. :
If you go back to the original TOD site you'll see he has a spot in the blog roll) and you should give him a bit more respect
What an astoundingly silly authority argument!
Having had a "spot in the blog roll" makes him respectable???
From those few lines of text, we build a mental model of who the other person is. That's the nature of the human mind. Our lives, interactions, even politics build from the models we build.
It should go without saying though that the model is not the person. The model is not the world.
If we are rational people we have to be aware of this, not prefer our model to the person, and adjust over time.
Kevembuangga provides us a stark example of how one can hold too tightly to a model. He formed one of me long ago, and ever since then, when ever I say anything that conflicts with his model, he bleats "liar."
And of course he posts repeatedly to sell his model as the real me. I've think I've even see a few people buy it.
At some point this rises to politics. Certainly political groups sell such models for people and groups as part of their campaigns. In the US conservatives have sold very negative models of "environmentalists" and more generally "liberals." These models are very fixed, inflexible, and often sadly impervious to rational discourse.
I don't like such politics applied to me, with terms like "cornucopian" or worse "pornucopian." When that happens people are trying to sell a model, in a little small scale politics, rather than responding to what I say.
But at the same time, I kind of see it providing a lesson.
Why does a moderate get labeled as a "pornucopian" in the TOD of today?
YOU ARE "sadly impervious to rational discourse" !
Ignoring arguments which don't fit your agenda, blatanly lying, changing goalposts, etc, etc...
You are using all ressources of Schopenhauer's Controversial Dialectic or similar training like Phi Rho Pi where you practised.
Controversial Dialectic is the art of disputing, and of disputing in such a way as to hold one's own, whether one is in the right or the wrong - per fas et nefas.
It's quite tedious to debunk your drivel, even more so given the volume, but after it has been done once all your claptrap can be safely ignored.
Why does a moderate get labeled as a "pornucopian" in the TOD of today?
Because the self-appointed "moderate" is INDEED a pornucopian and a NUISANCE!
I envy davidsmi for having introduced the term and Leanan for having popularized it.
but hey, somebody wants to hear bad things about me, they'll believe it. mental models. confirmation bias. we're all monkeys and nobody gets off the hook.
As I've said before, that includes me. I'm as human and as flawed as anybody.
May be you can also pretend that you do not own the 'odograph.com' domain name and that some "unknown stranger" is generously lending it to you?
LIAR
There is some element of doom in PO discussions, but its within a broad range of predictions. I think its a stretch to say it has been entirely framed as doom. What I think is clear is that if we attempt to continue the consumptive lifestyles that we have become accustomed to, doom will be a likely outcome. If on the other hand, we find ways to get by with alot less energy, doom can be avoided. We could live in smaller houses, use passive solar to supplement heating, ride bikes more, use rail, buy less plastic crap from China-Mart etc. and still be quite comfortable. The thing that scares me, and I think a lot of other people here, is that there is little sign of any attempts on the larger scale to prevent this. If our infrastructure isn't updated to allow transportation of goods without cheap oil, and suddenly the grocery stores are empty, my individual preparations won't do me much good.
I don't think its doomerism to point this out any more than it is to tell a smoker what will happen if they continue smoking. There is an alternative, but you have to implement it.
As far as the "collapse" comment above goes, the confusion arises because "collapse" implies that civilization completely and suddenly falls apart, but in Tainter's book, he means it reverts to a less complex state, although it still exists. I wish he would have used the word "contract", instead of "collapse", but he didn't ask me.
The confusion is even worse than that. Most people envision a future where they are better off than they are today. If nothing else, they expect constant improvement in things, even if the outer appearances don't change. So if they drive 30 miles to work in an SUV from a 2000 sq. ft. house in the suburbs, they expect to have a bigger house, further in the country, in a better SUV in the future.
If you say "You'll be driving that same SUV from the same house in 5 years", that's pretty bad to them. If you only go as far as saying "You'll have to drive a sedan that 30 miles", that's contraction to them. If you go further and say "You'll have to take a bus that 30 miles", you're talking about collapse. If you say "You'll have to move to a 1500 sq. ft. house and take the bus to work", you're talking near apocalypse.
It's the end of the world if you tell them they'll have to move back to the city and bike to work.
Watch and wait. See where "peak oil" goes as a separate movement, and see how it is perceived by the general public.
As Albert Einstein said, "The problems of today will not be solved by the same thinking that produced the problems in the first place." Not talking about collapse for fear the mainstream will think we are flakes is like not getting into a lifeboat because you're afraid someone will see your underwear.
Now what are you telling me here with this clause about "hoping" for the best but "planning" for the worst.
What is the allocation of energy on solutions for the original vessel? How hard do you "work" for the best?
I think the allusion at a famous boat where people continued their dancing parties while the boat made its irreversible course towards an iceberg is fully justified.
Do you really believe that we can go on like we do for even five years when :
Thanks. I don't know if what I'm doing is actually helping all that much, but ties in with my particular talents. :)
I would add that there's plenty a "closet peak oiler" can do, if they don't want to be associated with the rest of us. Alternate energy, environmentalism, zero population, immigration reform, climate change, etc. More or less the same issues, but less "doomer" talk.
Mostly because of the US which is the worst in those matters : America and the Dollar Illusion
I think the main thing I did was ask an important question:
If I recall correctly, Leanan and others have said they do not put effort into preventing a collapse. Indeed I see up-thread Leanan saying that it is "inevitable."
Interesting contrast, and something important to contemplate. Why did Leanan and others get upset and call me a "pornucopian?"
Is it because I am unwilling to work for a solution? No. They know my track record is one of supporting and seeking solutions.
No, the arguement with me is not that I will not act. It is that I will not accept the futility of such action. I will not accept that collapse is inevitable ... and that makes me ... in one of the most disgusting insults I've seen on TOD .. a "pornucopain."
And how can "pornucopian" be the "most disgusting insult you've seen on TOD" when it doesn't even mean anything?
- first, the allusion to creepy guys slinking into adult bookstore or whatever.
- second, the idea that I've presented "innovation porn" as a substitute for rational analysis.
- third that I am any kind of cornucopain.
What disturbed me was that both of those meanings ignore what I've really typed here, repeatedly. I've said many times that I only count chickens once they've hatched. I only count "silver bbs" when they work and make an impact in a real (and ideally unsubsidized) market.And of course I've said many times that I don't know the final outcome. I don't pretend to be that smart.
As I said a month or so ago, if you really want to get under my skin, just pretend I'm making an argument I've never made. And that whole "pornucopian" thing did.
Pretty ironic, coming from you.
Did you tell me in March of this year that you expected 99% die-off in the US?
I know you said this might take hundreds of years, but when I asked you later, if it was therefore not that "peak oil related" didn't you say:
I get that you don't think the "doomer" label is appropraite to your position. But we are at a whole other level here.
When people call me a "cornucopain" they are playing an old political trick. Put a label on someone that you know is not true. That doesn't matter. All that matters if it sticks, and if it builds negative associations in people's minds.
We see the confusion in this thread. People think I am (or have been) a cornucopian.
At TOD, cornucopains are "bad" therefore odograph is bad ... even if he never made a freaking cornucopain post in his life.
Returning to 99% die-off, and "walled compounds" for the rich. I seem to recall some other posts in the same timeframe about widespread civil unrest, as a consequence of Peak Oil. So you still hold those views?
Or are we framing? You may indeed be able to frame that here, withing the consensus reality that is TOD as something other than "doom".
... but I am pretty sure a man-on-the-street interview would back me up that it qualifies. In the real world, that is.
All I can say is that it looks to me like you are someone who can dish it out, but can't take it.
You've got your own Web site. If you think TOD isn't doing it right, why not show us how it's done?
As far can't take "it" ... what's it? Is it that I won't accept that kind of labeling and name calling in place of rational discourse?
Maybe.
That's why I offered her a chance, in all fairness, to explain her position, and whether she still foresees a 99% dieoff.
We could have had a rational discussion right there, about how our actual positions match our labels.
She didn't answer that question. She told me to go away.
So I will, I've been in that process.
I was merely offering you a netiquette tip. When you don't like the way discussion is going, lead by example. Post the kind of messages you'd like to see. Or start your own site, where you can set the rules for discussion. It doesn't mean you can't continue to post elsewhere, too.
Merely complaining about the existing discussion never works.
Of course you didn't, but that's typical of "honest odo" weeping and complaining about being victimized while weaseling full bore.
and
That was my effort at rational discussion. What was the answer to that?
Thank you very much. I'm sure Kevembuangga will love it.
I've answered you repeatedly, and you just don't understand what I'm saying. The next time, you ask questions that show what I said whizzed over your head at Warp 10.
I see little reason to continue, especially in a stale thread few are reading any more.
You told me on March 29, 2006:
Do you still feel that way, or has your position evolved?
And if believe that, can you see how some might take that as a flavor of doom? If we asked the man man on the Clapham omnibus, "is 1% human survival in the US a flavor of doom?" What would he say?
Help me understand so that I don't fall back on my frail, error-prone, imperfect, human models.
I wouldn't want to think you are dodging, just so that you can call me names, while pretending I've done the same.
And ... I'm trying to not even think about you might think this kind of war on a commenter at TOD fits in your role as "DrumBeat Editor."
You want the ability to insult me, but without the responsibility to back it up.
Finally, it is my fault, for feeling injured at being called a "pornucopian."
Hint: we are all emotional
I admit my injury, because I am self-aware enough to know the role it plays in my cognition. YMMV.
I try to test myself with how far I can go with humility on the internets.
Here is a good opportunity. I will admit that my posts to this thread have been to a large degree been about the injury I felt. And that may not really be about you Leanan, or anyone else specifically.
In a way it's surprising to me. I can break my leg mountain biking and ride out the last couple miles. I can crash, split my hand, and ride out again. When people see say "hi, how are you?" I can smile and say "great" (as I probably come close enough for them to see me covered with blood).
I can joke with the paramedics as they tape me up, splint me, or whatever.
I think I've had some good rational arguments here (and I think the various flavors of doom are still rationally unproven), but I guess I had a chink in my armor. Who knew?
It injured me to be called a cornucopain even before I was called a pornucopain. It as a vulnerability that I didn't know I had.
I feel it enough that I have double reason to leave. It is probably not something I'll quite get over, knowing myself.
But one thing I do want to make clear, through all the arguments, I've tried to resist meanness ... though certainly occasionally I must have failed(*).
I mean no one lasting injury, even you K'.
Be happy. Best wishes,
Bye.
* - I don't count the time I went off on K' about meds and analyists a few days after he called me a "motherfucker."
Poor thing...
Why don't you try to gather a support group for your miseries?
Ah! Hum... Well... I didn't notice at first that these were hypothetical afflictions.
You are definitely despicable.
Little K and his lot are just so unbelivably harmful for any effort at rational discussion about Peak Oil that my conclusion is that we need a moderated forum. And while TOD doesn't seem to be giving us that, it doesn't matter, because prof. goose (and the rest of the TODers, I think) are big fans of reddit, and reddit has moderated forums.
I suggest we sumbit all articles to reddit that you want to discuss, and discuss them there. This gets publicity to TOD, and solves the problem of little K and his ilk: people won't think they are representative of this movement when their posts are at -50 and their karma is at ten times that.
If they start frothing on another thread (and they will), it's time to post another invitation to reddit.
stocks
demand
207.4(million barrels in stock)/9.511(million barrels per day) = 21.80(days of finished gasoline in stock)
I'm new at this but this is what I came up with. :)
Hmmm, wasn't Odo the top poster on TOD in recently discussed measurements?
Anyway, to the point: I think the difference between those who say "work hard on technology" and (some of) those who Odo calls "doomers", is not whether they think there is a way out of the predicament, or that we should try. Rather, the difference is that those "doomers", starting with Hubbert himself, realize that this is not an energy crisis, but rather a social crisis. We could theoretically make do with currently existing technology, by choosing more modest lifestyles etc. But we won't, for non-technical reasons, and unless we can overcome these socio-political barriers we are indeed doomed.
These socio-political issues include, among others: the religious belief in infinite "growth", the taboo on even discussing the population issue, the refusal to face issues as a species (or planet) rather than on a tribal competition basis, the worship of the rich (in the USA at least), the debt-based money system, lack of understanding the basic math of exponential growth, and so on.
We have some common ground though, if we both believe that, say, electric railways would help. That conservation would give us more chance. That widespread understanding of the facts of peak and decline would help create a social context for wiser choices.
Jared Diamond's fifth factor was the ability (or inability) of the society to respond wisely to challenges. I see that as not part of the "market" or our political culture, so much of which seems devoted to regulating the "morality" of other people.
Clean Nukes Go Public
it's necessary to enrich natural uranium to get a higher percentage of U235, which process can also be used to produce explodable Uranium. Besides, if the stated process produces only less plutonium, the latter can then be extracted and used in a bomb. This on the surface sounds like another energy boodoggle.
{7566}{7663}Location... It's Praxis, sir.|It's a Klingon moon.
{7669}{7766}Praxis is their|key energy production facility.
{7816}{7926}Send to Klingon High Command. "This|is Excelsior, a Federation Starship."
{7932}{8015}"We have monitored|a large explosion in your sector."
... and later that fall,
{11549}{11693}Two months ago a Federation Starship|monitored an explosion on Praxis.
{11699}{11811}We believe it was caused by over-mining|and insufficient safety precautions.
{11817}{11906}The moon's decimation means|deadly pollution of their ozone.
{11912}{12032}They will have depleted|their oxygen supply in 50 Earth years.
{12065}{12105}Due to their enormous military budget -
{12111}{12245}- the Klingon economy doesn't have the|resources to combat this catastrophe.
Gene Roddenberry, Doomercopian
Will this be the story of DFW?
in this case the conflict between the federation and the klingons from the original series can been as a way to discuss the us vs russia during the cold war.
And that is why the rally in oil prices stalled yesterday and today. We will have to wait until next weeks inventory figures come in to see if there is a declining trend in inventories. But traders are betting that there will not be any downward trend, that it was a one-time aberration because of the oil import platform shutdown.
Ron Patterson
It should have been: Housing Sales Are Up By 5.3%!!
See, the market does work: it may take the overnight erosion of half a trillion bucks, but the consumer is spending, and that's what counts.
Today, we have this economic report:
U.S. economic growth slowed in 3rd quarter
What I find problematic is that the vast majority of people don't notice or pay attention to the story changing. Most live only in the present, and that is very dangerous.
And Future problems will only be started to be solved when the future reaches the present.
Social Sec. is in the future, it won't be addressed precisely because of what you said, until it is the present.
Hirsch report says we should start preparing for Peak Oil 20 years before the peak. That would about put it at the time of Carter's Sweater speech. That did not happen exactly because the problem was in the future.
You are right sir.
THAT is why we are toast "en masse"
Individual and certain communities will do fine, howevever over all, much pain and suffering.
The time (as the article Dollar Illusion from Der Speigel said) should have been corrected long ago, now alas it is too late, and the correction will be very painful for all involved(the world).
Crashing back into reality in
10
9
8
7
...
A few weeks ago there was discussion on how oil markets worked. I asked, and still have not heard, how much oil was traded in the spot market as opposed to long-term contract. The reason of course is how opaque the market is, Reuters has piece showing just how bad oil and gas markets are.
It's always been nice to be an oil company.
FYI, I did ask that question of one of our crude traders, but she didn't know the answer. I suppose I could have followed up with a question about whether we get any oil on the spot market, but she didn't seem that interested in talking about it (and I got busy with other things). But I did try.
Ron Patterson
Coalition navies on watch for oil attack
Saudi Arabia confirms threat to oil facilities
I've been tracking them in posts here at TOD for over a week now. Is anyone making a connection here or am I just blowing smoke?
Why they would use a naval buildup around Saudi Arabia in response to Al Qaeda threats to blow up oil facilities ???
Iran has a navy with subs. Maybe the US etc anticipate some surprises from Iran in response to having their nuclear bomb making facilities destroyed ????
is it true that each piece of it is made in just about every congressional district to prevent any one congressman from going against canceling the funding without him loosing his job?
At a stop in Missouri, the vice president warns against leaving the battlefield too soon.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascitystar/news/politics/15869093.htm
`Tupperware navy' to protect Gulf oil route
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/72978.html#
Now, all we need is for Russia to start sending some boats and subs and we got us a real wingding.
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=40431
"There have been calls by al-Qaida to attack Saudi oil facilities in the recent past," he said. "These are not new. You go back in the record you can see these threats previously. We will do everything that we can, if there is a request for assistance, both in general terms or specific terms to assist the Saudi government."
McCormack declined to discuss specific threats to Saudi facilities or whether the United States has received any requests to defend them.
[snip]
"We support the recommendation that commercial mariners be especially vigilant while they're transiting the Gulf," he said. "Coalition forces, we're taking prudent precautionary measures and focusing on our bread-and-butter [main] operation, which is maritime security operations in the Gulf, on these possible threats."
Commander Aandahl, at the Navy's regional headquarters in Bahrain, says for security reasons he can not discuss any specific threats or intelligence information.
But he says U.S. ships have not taken any special precautions or launched any extraordinary missions.
The commander says threats against oil facilities in the Gulf are nothing new, but need to be taken seriously because terrorists have tried to attack such infrastructure in the past.
"I can't talk to any specific threat," he said. "But I can say that we just take any and all threats seriously."
Authorities say oil export operations in the Gulf region are currently proceeding normally.
OK..so there are no specific threats identified recently against Saudi Arabia's Ras Tanura terminal, the world's largest offshore oil facility, except this general threat...
...yet we are reacting like there are going to be massive attacks on this terminal. Tell me what does not add up here and why we are doing this NOW, 10 days out from a midterm election that the Republicans are slated to lose.
Maybe a little dark humor.
Sixty Days, Next Year
http://www.newcolonist.com/dim_ages.html
If you have not read Chip's story, take a few minutes and you will laugh and wince. Great Stuff and VERY timely to the new about SA Oil Terrorist Attacks.
Here's a little snippet from it.
You'll have to excuse me, but I don't usually keep a diary. These events began before I understood what was happening, and where it was all headed. It was only later, after it was all going on, that I thought that maybe I should be keeping some sort of record--as if no one else was. We live in The Information Age, or did. Now it's just The Dim Ages. Welcome to my world.
June 14
It all started (for me) with just a small item on an Internet news page, "Trouble in the Kingdom". I thought they were talking about Disney World (the Magic Kingdom) so I clicked on it. Turns out they were talking about "the repercussions of curtailed social services in Saudi Arabia". (Insert a big yawning noise here.) So their kids don't get free day care? Big whoop. I scanned the article for any mention of M. Mouse and then went on with my life. My mistake. No biggie. Really.
June 15
Yesterday's headlines are still today's news? I guess those folks in the sand are really upset about something--it was in all the papers today. Sounds like the Saudi government is in for a tough time trying to rein in a runaway budget--and the locals don't like it one bit. Now their capital (Riyadh?) is a mess with people getting ugly in the streets. Yeah, yeah, yeah, no more subsidized housing. Deal with it, people. Get a job.
June 16
I saw the news today, oh boy. Three Saudi cities are up in flames, people with big guns are going nuts, and everyone that can find a plane is leaving that country in one big hurry. It's like Saigon in a sand box. (Not that I actually remember Saigon.) Local news guys are talking about what it means to us--and our oil. Maybe I'd better go fill up the car before everyone else does. I hate being stuck in long lines.
<SNIP>
BTW, he is the one who wrote;
Ghawar is Dying
http://www.newcolonist.com/ghawar.html
Goto that link and get your bumper sticker.
Daniels: Company plans $1.5 billion coal gasification plant
They are building them in Montana too. This is an interesting development.
Chinese top official dismisses coal-to-liquids as irresponsible and inefficient
Which is fine, because eventually we'll use the back end of those CTL plants to convert water and limestone into diesel fuel also.
And the energy for this process will come from?...
If we match the solar flux with say 20 petawatts of nuclear fuel, breeder regimes will still lasts 200000 years. We arent limited by nuclear fuel, but by radiative capacity. Its not unreasonable to expect sometime before this 'limited' supply of fuel is gone that we'll figure out how to do solar or fusion economically.
Coming to a theater near you: carbon-neutral movie
key phrase here.
(bold my emphasis)
they offset the carbon emissions by only throwing money at energy producing items that while do not make c02 while they make electricity but do result in c02 emissions while being made and transported. neither remove from the air the same amount of c02 that they made.
this whole offsetting thing is fuzzy math that is made to make them feel good and sell a green image while not removing any of the c02 they put into the air.
Film production uses a lot of energy, and shoots can leave behind a lot of waste. It's great to see filmmakers who are aware of their impact and are trying to devote some of their resources towards a better path.
Sure, maybe it's fuzzy. What's wrong with fuzzy? Life is often fuzzy, but you try to make some good decisions and be responsible, which is what it sounds like they did, and I don't think they'd even dispute that this was certainly considered a marketing advantage as well. Money and doing business isn't the 'root of all evil', despite the number of times we've ingested that pearl. If they can sell tickets because they did something of real value to the world (ie, a few more panels, a little silicon 'victory garden').. then why not? Because it would just make you feel more wretched?
to paraphase T E Lawrence,
"It's not that it's fuzzy. It's not minding that it's fuzzy."
Bob Fiske
second, it's not doing a anything to solve the problem.
besides i am using natures definition of carbon neutral, which by the way is the only one that counts in the end.
third, the money would of been better spent and show a actual benefit to the world if they used it to clean up all the pollution they cause and plant trees in the amount that will remove the amount of co2 put into the air by the whole film's lifespan.
Protesters disrupt energy guru's speech
thx in advance
And make sure it's set to Auto Format or HTML. I am posting in Plain Text, just so you can see the code.
I think it is great that ASPO-USA is getting press coverage, instead of being ignored. I wonder how much PO & GW knowledge the protestors have, or is their response just NIMBYism?
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
www.energystar.gov
The good news: a typical house has 50 to 100 light bulbs, and most could be replaced with CFLs.
The bad news: The U.S. puts about 1.3 million additional cars on the road every year, due to a population increase of 2.7 million people. And, oh, by the way, those new people also need 162,000,000 new light bulbs, 75 new Starbucks stores, and 10 Wal-Marts. I can't list everything -- just picture one additional Chicago, population 2.8 million. Every year. That's what a 0.91% population growth looks like.
for this not to happen one must increase efficiency in direct proportion to the amount of growth. also to do this and continue to use less recourses/energy one must do it exponentially. oh and enforcement of these plans must consume little to no energy in it's self.
Reposted from late last night because I think it is important:
I hope all TODers read this link on Putin's superpower play.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
I hope we'll be getting an extensive summary, soon
My biggest concern is relocalization and permaculture; moving from 0.7% to 60-75% of the US labor force growing their foodstuffs nearby. Until this happens: I remain a fast-crash doomer because impending starvation will create huge levels of violence. Leanan's toplink More Science Teachers Grasping Reality of Peak Oil is a start, but my email 3 years ago to the National PTA was a better start, but sadly ignored.
Anyhow, I hope national school curriculum rapidly changes: recall my earlier posts on converting playgrounds and ballfields to gardens and chicken coops, etc. Even our frontyards will have to become gardens as we strive to recoup lost gardening knowledge. It is far better to have someone steal your front-yard tomato crop [leaving you and your family alone], than for them to kill you to get your back-yard tomatoes.
Every city should be creating urban areas NOW where the homeless poor and those that rent apartments can start gardens. Any excess produce could go to food banks to help prevent violence. The parents and teachers across the US need to rapidly train the children on humanure, water conservation, composting techniques, soil preparation, and all the other essential skills required for localized foodstuffs. To do no less will condemn our children to killing us off so that they will have a chance to survive on the remaining foodscraps. The future always belongs to the young--always will. Our mission should be to give them the best chance possible to squeeze through the Dieoff Bottleneck with a minimum of violence and a maximum of biologic diversity.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Soon it will be "Mexico Virtually Stops Exporting Oil to the US."
Maybe if the illegal aliens smuggle in some petro with them, the border guards will let them pass?
(Oct 27, 2006) News of five-year plans by the oilco's wrt exploration, extraction & refining capacity is finally filtering thru the mainstream media to somewhat offset the rumours of Peak Oil and shortages. It is still "perceived shortages" that keep prices above our target. Spare capacity in global oil production remains at 3-mbd (1-mbd by EIA stats) and is not sufficient to have moved prices so dramatically. It should be particularly noted that we have a massive fleeing of the speculators from this domain in the past year. Whereas spot crude oil prices was their playground; and we saw spot prices over 20% of avg contract prices, recently that spread has narrowed to about 8%. Also playing a part is demand destruction via the generally higher prices. There was a global surplus of 0.3-mbd of oil in 2006Q1, 1.9-mbd in Q2 & 1.5-mbd in Q3.
A new global quarterly production record was set in 2006Q3 with a preliminary figure of 85.7-mbd. July 2006 gains renown for the all time global monthly production record: 86.13-mbd. (all supply figures from IEA).
If true, that's great short term. But the question is: will the world use this temporary reprieve to properly prepare for the eventual paradigm shift? If not, then infinite growth mindsets and population increases will only make things worse for the eventual Hubbert downslope ride.
Consider my upthread post on most of us moving to relocalized permaculture lifestyles--I am not sure that even in the best case circumstances that this can be non-violently done in twenty years.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
The problem with Models based "soley" on bottom up analysis is that they can only predict volumes that are "announced". The mega projects that are more than seven years away are for the most part "off the radar". As those projects get closer and are revealed, the upward revisions occur. Watching the trend of those upward revisions reveals in itself a clue to the coming trends.
While they are based on lesser science and data, the hybrid Models that marry the revision rates and URR studies, have with time showed much greater accuracy in "long term" predicitons. Spectacular accuracy in fact ... since as far back as 1991 - for extraction rates fifteen years out.
Since my own hippie years in the early 70's, i have watched the "survivalists" dogma and foolish forecasts of armageddon in urban america. For 40 years they have awaited the end days...
As for Peak Oil, no other commodity has exhibited the crisis that Peakists claim will befall us in the petroleum domain. Most do not comprehend the concept of fuel switching and product alternatives and re-tooling. Nor the timelines that are involved.
The reprieve implies MSM believed the Y2K Peak was imenent. An asteroid hitting Earth was more likely...
The Peakists have joined the greenies in utter dismissal. The greenies steered us away from hydro-electric and nuclear power generation in the 70's & 80's. They told us to use coal, natural gas and oil instead. The steered us away from electric vehicles 'cuz of its reliance on expansion of generation plants. The greenies and treehuggers won that battle. And lost the war. Their influence on decision-makers and public opinion brought us reliance on fossil fuels and postponed the growth of hydro-electric and nuclear that is now being touted as our way out. Next time u watch or read a program on Climate Change and GHG's, thank a greenie for bringing us here!
Iran is a seismically active country. So even if war never breaks out, an earthquake, or a mismanaged meltdown like Chernobyl could have dire consequences. This article discusses how a radioactive leak could be devastating to the surrounding Persian Gulf countries:
------------------------------
Nuclear Iran Sparks Safety Fears Among Arab Neighbors
"We all share the same climate and environmental zone," says Sami Al-Faraj, president of the Kuwait Center for Strategic Studies, who is also an adviser to governments in the Persian Gulf.
Winds in this region tend to blow from Iran southward, to the Gulf, so a nuclear leak would ultimately carry poisons or contamination from Iran to its southern neighbors, he explains.
The Persian Gulf has an unusual feature that distinguishes it from other gulfs in the world, in that its currents run counter clockwise, not clockwise.
In the case of a nuclear disaster, this means contamination will move from Iran to the coasts of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman.
Al-Faraj is especially concerned about his home country, Kuwait.
"Our desalination plants, our fisheries, our sources of trade and transportation, all of these activities will be affected, especially our food and water security," he said.
The largest concern involves an $800-million nuclear facility being built in Bushehr, in southwest Iran, under an agreement between the Russian and the Iranian governments.
Bushehr is the southernmost nuclear facility in Iran and is located about 300 kilometers (188 miles) away from both Bahrain and Kuwait, as the crow flies. In contrast, fallout from Chernobyl transcended continents and is said to have even reached the eastern coast of the United States.
A nuclear accident at Bushehr threatens not only the region's environment, but also world oil supplies. Contamination could reach strategic oil fields and damage the supply of oil from Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, Al-Faraj says.
------------------------------
Additionally, the entire Mideast is caught between major tectonic plates, just as Japan sits at the confluence of a different set of tectonic plates. This link to the Saudi Geological Survey has a good discussion and seismicity-tectonic plate chart:
--------------------------
Saudi Arabia, consequently, is subject to a range of earthquake activity because of its position in the Arabian Plate and because the plate is relatively small, which means that Saudi Arabia is bounded by, or close to the plate margins, in all directions. These boundaries are the Dead Sea transform on the northwest; the Red Sea spreading center on the west; the Gulf of Aden spreading center on the south; and the Zagros subduction zone on the northeast.
This zone, for example, was the source of major earthquakes as recently as 1997 that affected northwestern Saudi Arabia and caused serious damage and even deaths.
Damaging earthquakes in western Saudi Arabia include Yemen (1982), Egypt (1992) and the Gulf of Aqaba (1995). The latter event, of magnitude 6.3, was followed by over 7000 aftershocks and caused significant structural damage in the town of Haql in northwestern Saudi Arabia.
-------------------------------
There are many desalinization plants in these countries: a severe earthquake, oil spill, or nuclear contamination could quickly imperil water supplies for millions. Something to consider as the ripple effects upon world oil supplies could almost be as bad as an Iran-US war.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
regards TG80
mexico update: An American journalist, and two others die in shootout in Oaxaca. This FOXnews article is about the Border Wall, but I wanted to post a small section about how the public distrust of the Mexican police and judicial system is incredibly high, which can only lead to greater social polarization and violence when Mexico goes postPeak:
-------------------------------------
On the other hand, many Mexicans are deeply ashamed that the U.S. feels compelled to wall itself off from their country because Mexico cannot address its own social and economic ills. The Mexican economy is threaded with inefficiencies and corruption that thwart the expansion of free markets and hamstring the kind of broad economic growth that can benefit everyone.
They are also ashamed that their fellow citizens have to risk death in the desert for a decent job in the United States. Even worse, many Mexicans remain frustrated at the government's ineptness at enforcing its own laws. Gullermo Zepeda, a researcher for a prominent Mexico City think tank, says only 19 percent of crimes in Mexico are reported. Only 23 percent of the crimes reported are fully investigated, a little more than half go to trial. People don't report crime because almost half believe nothing will be done. Twenty percent even fear they will be victimized by the police.
There was an unspoken belief in the administration of outgoing President Vincente Fox (to differentiate his government from authoritarian regimes of the past) that lax enforcement of the law would maintain "social peace." That formula clearly hasn't worked, particularly in border cities like Tijuana where the spread of violent crime, particularly murder and kidnapping, are alarming.
Mexicans want better answers, ones that uphold the rule of law and the opportunities of a free economy.
---------------------------------------------
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Between now and 2012 increased OPEC spare capacity + NGL + Deep water production could drive oil prices down to $30s or 40s - Mike Rodgers
A lot of operators will back off to avoid going into steep decline. Watch Russia - Matt Simmons
3 out of 4 Russian giant gas fields are in decline - Simmons
Out of Rigs, no new oil - Matt Simmons
Cantarel, the single most improtant field for the US could go from 1.7 mbd today to .6 mbd in 2010 - Simmons
KSA rigs up dramatically, production flat
Leading countries no longer increasing production despite big new rig count - Staniford
LNG supply to US declined in 2005. Spain and Japan outbid us. Supplies are not there Tankers are not being built - Arthur Smith
1/3 of new oil found has cost > $25 / bbl - Smith
25% increase in exploration spending between 2001 and 2005, 4% increase in production - Smith
Expansion of Canadian Oilsands limited by natural gas, water and dilutant. - David Hughes
Oil Sands Cap cost 2004 - $78,000 /bbl/day; 2006 - $131,000 / bbl / day - Hughes
Oil Sands mining uses 3/4 mcf / bbl
insitu uses 1.5 mcf / bbl - Hughes
EROI for Oil Sands = 2 - Hughes
Biofuels without major technical progress will provide insignificant role in meeting future needs - James Bartis
Bright future for biofuels, Competitive @ $30 oil - Lee Lynd
Corn Ethanol EROI = 1.3 per Pimentel; = 20 per Khosla (I know he misquoted Pimentel) - Lynd
Biofuels have life cycle issues for food production, wildlife and recreation - Lybd
Cape Wind Power proposal has EROI of 8 to 12 - Jim Gordon
Hubbert's Curve can't differentiate between demand destruction and supply constraint - Robert Kaufmann
With assumption changes, Hubberts Curve can predict peaks ranging from 2013 and 2036. Peak is uncertain using this method - Kaufmann
Those predicting peak will prefer to be late with alternatives rather than early to maximize profits - Kaufmann
No economic incentive for OPEC to ramp up production capacity for same reasons - Kaufmann
High oil prices support US defecit spending because 45% of petrodollars are recycled back to US - William Clark
Other petrobourses will undermine US world reserve currency - Clark
Iran's uranium contains molybdenum which hinders purification. Only US, Russia and China know how to remove - Clark
Best case, best assumptions, crash course US needs 5 years just to get started for peak oil; 10 years before anything is produced and 20 years before we can produce significant quantities of substitutes for conventional oil. Waiting is deadly. Preparing will require unpopular measures - Roger Bezdek
World car demand is going up up up (from graph). Freight and air demand is growing faster than cars.
There are too many of us using too much stuff - John Heywood
Technology will not solve 300% growth in fuel demand - Heywood
Fuel Cells for Cars - We are stuck on storage - Bill Reinert
Can't recycle Lithium Ion batteries - Reinert
Biodiesel is #1 reason for deforestation of tropical rainforests (palm oil) - Reinert
Rolling volatility for oil and another crisis within 10 years - Reinert
Ogalla aquifer decline serious problem for biofuels in US - Reinert
All parts of Toyota designs have carbon budgets - Reinert
In 1975 80% of Americans never traveled by air - Randy Udall
We are living like gods. How to return to earth? Udall
We consume 140# of plastic and petroleum per person per week in US. We are the oil tribe - Udall
Easy oil is gone. 62% of remaining oil is in Middle East. 75% of remaining oil is in Muslim countries - Micahel Klare
Unstable, corrupt, hostile to US, ruled by violent people - Klare
Expect most oil producing regions to become more violent - Klare
US government's stated special responsibility is to preserve access to supply. Military's role is protect the flow of oil - Klare
Chinese are contesting our right to prject power - Klare
Big Thxs for the ASPO update snippets to whet our appetites. All the more reasons to relocalize & permaculture, IMO. The depletion of acquifers combined with loss of FFs means that a huge transition effort of manual labor to very carefully meter water to each individual plant will be required-- irrigation flooding will be prohibited for being too wasteful. As Roger Bezdek said, "Waiting is deadly. Preparing will require unpopular measures".
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
GAO chief warns economic disaster looms
Walker can talk in public about the nation's impending fiscal crisis because he has one of the most secure jobs in Washington. As comptroller general of the United States -- basically, the government's chief accountant -- he is serving a 15-year term that runs through 2013.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061028/ap_on_go_ot/america_the_bankrupt