 | This Green Thinks Nature Even in the Dark? | The Oil Drum: Local | First Principle: End Fossil Fuel Subsidies |  |
What Does an Undulating Plateau Really Mean?
Posted by Glenn on November 18, 2006 - 12:56pm in The Oil Drum: Local
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: cera, daniel yergin, eroei, exports, oil, peak oil, plateau [list all tags]
The new report describes CERA's liquids supply outlook as "not a view of endless abundance." However, based on a range of potential scenarios and field-by-field analysis, CERA finds that not only will world oil production not peak before 2030, but that the idea of a peak is itself "a dramatic but highly questionable image."
That's like saying you don't believe in Santa Claus because it's not midnight yet.
CERA's report is one of the most optimistic predictions for the peak in global oil production to date, and it still underscores the need to address this problem immediately. Whether it is Peak Oil, global warming, or the fact that some of the money we send overseas to support our oil addiction comes back to us in the form of terrorism, the U.S. cannot wait any longer to develop sensible and sustainable alternatives to oil."
That's right, even if you agree with CERA's wildly optimistic assumptions, you have to admit that we are in a bit of trouble with oil. Based on everything I've read here on the subject, I do think we are headed for a production plateau of a few years followed by a slow decline in total production. But what makes CERA's prediction incredibly scary is the fact that global supply will not be able to meet increased demand would like to continue to increase at 1-3% per year to feed the voracious Asian consumers and the continued suburbanization of America.
What CERA most gets wrong IMHO, is their obsession with oil reserves versus production rates. You can't run an industrial economy on reserves - you need to pull it out of the ground first. They treat reserves like a bank account that can be cashed out based on the economics of demand. But there are two problems with this concept.
First, there are geologic limits to how fast oil will rise out of the ground. While there are many advances in the technology to hasten this process (water, CO2, etc), it is not clear whether this is sustainable over the long term or merely "sucking harder on the straw" to get what is available to produce out quicker. Once pressure in an oil field declines, it is nearly impossible to increase production as we have seen across the US and most of the other mature oil areas with high technology.
Second, all that work to pull the last half of recoverable oil out of the ground without using the natural pressure takes a lot of energy which you have to subtract from the gross oil production to get the true net oil production. Just looking at the gross production level ignores the fact that an increasing amount of energy will have to go right back into primary energy production. This is even more true of the unconventional tar sands.
This sets up what will eventually become the real issue to concern the USA and other oil importing nations: The oil export market will be squeezed tighter every year.
Given the local political constraints of export nations, even if there is a global "plateau", oil will first meet domestic needs and then the excess will be sold as exports. World market prices will continue to rise for the export market in that scenario.
Which means that not only will future increased demand to be destroyed by higher prices, but a growing percentage of what is imported. Given how oil prices have effectively tripled within a few years with little change in our consumption, it is unclear what price levels would effectively destroy that much demand in the US.
The alternative is to outbid the other importers and send even more of our financial resources over to the unstable or unfriendly export nations (not you Norway). Either way, the plateau for just a few years means cripling the US economy with much higher prices.
To return to Udall quote above "Whether it is Peak Oil, global warming, or the fact that some of the money we send overseas to support our oil addiction comes back to us in the form of terrorism, the U.S. cannot wait any longer to develop sensible and sustainable alternatives to oil."
In fact, the best way right now for the US to tame oil prices and limit our future exposure to extortionate oil prices, is to start a crash mitigation plan now. Perhaps the Peak Oil Caucus could formally introduce Alan's "Electrification of Rail" proposal.
For New York, it's time to get serious about extending the reach of electrified mass transit deep into the outerboroughs and suburbs, building more transit oriented developments around transit hubs, congestion pricing, building a real biking infrastructure and reducing our reliance on automobiles as quickly as possible.
In real terms this means:
The Republicrat and Demican Congress has hamstrung itself with massive debt, and Amtrack, the logical agency is a favorite subject of abuse by the plutocrats in office. I predict endless dithering and fiddling about while the US burns. The only thing our government seems united on is tax advantages for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class, and exporting capital to tax havens.
Today I'm in my anarchist phase-lets kill 'em all and let God sort it out! How much biodiesel can we make from the average Congressman, Federal Judge and political toady. That fay fat-ass Carl Rove ought to make a few gallons!
-- more mountaintop removal to convert from imported oil to electricity generated by strip mined coal.
Sounds like a wonderful plan to me!
Weighing the alternatives, carbon emissions go down#, oil imports go down, and in a couple of decades renewable wind electricity and/or nuke and/or Quebec Hydro will supplant the coal.
Sorry about the W VA plains, but the higher priority gains out weight the losses.
# The gains in efficiency significantly greater than the carbon of gasoline vs. carbon from coal.
Best Hopes,
Alan
One solution (short-term) is to use dual-mode locos (special built) that can run off of pantograph or 3rd rail in tunnel and switch to diesel once outside electrified zone.
Pantograph could be 25,000 or 50,000 V AC, 3rd rail is likely to be 750 V DC (could be AC). 3rd rail is limited in voltage but on-board transformers allow switches between voltages (EU some locos can operate on 3 different voltages & both AC & DC).
What agency is doing the preliminary design ? Contact them as well.
Best Hopes,
Alan
IMHO, battery power would cost more.
Electrification would last at least 40 years before major refurbishment would be needed. A single electrification would service tunnel capacity # of trains, batteries would be needed for each individual train.
Batteries have an efficiency/cycle loss much higher than electrification via grid, so higher energy costs.
Electrification can be easily and cheaply extended above ground for a number of miles. And in the near future, for hundreds/thousands of miles (I hope).
So, I support electrification :-)
Best Hopes,
Alan
Rearranging wires, adding a 3rd rail shoe or pantograph, mounting a transformer (where ?), new controls, etc. on an older loco would make me grind my teeth.
Far easier to do in a Cad/Cam program than to preexisting steel & wiring !
Best Hopes,
Alan
Best Hopes,
Alan
Can the Cross Harbor tunnel serve a passenger function ?
Return some of the PATH or NJ Transit trains "empty" during rush hour.
Example, early NJ train drops pax off in Manhatten at 7:15 AM. It then proceeds by interconnections to Cross Harbor tunnel and return to service in NJ ?
This could reduce the need for a 3rd NJ Transit tunnel.
Also, could there be a demand for pax service (both ways) between Brooklyn & Queens and NJ ? Perhaps bus terminals at new pax stops along freight lines.
Any thoughts from those with local knowledge ?
Thanks,
Alan
Cross harbor tunnel would go to Brooklyn. Path goes to Manhattan, they aren't that close together. Better off building another NJ transit tunnel.
If a 3rd NJ Transit tunnel could be avoided, this could justify the Cross Harbor Tunnel.
Alan from New Orleans
We really need to cut all fossil fuel use, not just oil, but I think we should start with coal and move to fuels with less carbon intensity. If this has all been answered elsewhere, then please give me a link.
I know the concern here is primarily peak oil (duh), but dealing with that problem requires at us to look at the impact of the available alternatives.
Elsewhere, there has been discussion about the efficacy of using plug in hybrids or evs to act as a distributed storage medium for wind. What role, if any, could rail, play in this game?
99+% of US locomotives are diesel-electric. They have a "very small" (by utility standards) diesel ICE driving an electrical generator which then drives an electric motor that then drives the wheels.
Small islands use the same diesel ICE driving an electrical generator with VERY high power prices. Larger grids avoid this.
The rule of thumb is that on flat plains w/o stops, electric locos are 2.5 x more energy efficient than diesel locos. In mountains or stop-start/slow suburban service the ratio is 3x more energy efficient.
Regenerative braking is probably the delta between 2.5 & 3.
2.5x (inverse is 40%) is a reasonable value in comparing grid supplied electricity (BTUs at the wire) with "on site" diesel driven electrical generation measured in BTUs of diesel.
Best Hopes,
Alan
The Milwaukee Road used to run from Chicago to Seattle. The electric was pulled in the late 70's, but prior to that it ran over the Rockies at St Paul pass and would add ~60% of the energy it took going over back to line. Had a huge roundhouse in the middle of nowhere in Avery ID, where the engine was spun 1/2 way round and sent back over.
A little bit of nostalgia.
Avery, ID is in the northern panhandle of ID, in the heart of the Bitteroot Mtns, of Lewis and Clark fame. Also, the RR, originally the Milwaukee, St Paul and Pacific, didn't commence till around 1900 I believe, when the "best" grades over the mountains had already been taken.
But it was electric throughtout Montana and ID, and numerous brick transformer stations can still be seen along parts of I-90 in MT.
Phase I includes projects that have preliminary work done (at a minimum route selection and some idea of underground utiltities). Projects that can start throwing dirt within 1 to 3 years of a financing "Go".
I am an outsider. Is the above list reasonable ? Any suggested improvements ?
Best Hopes,
Alan
The Laguardia link could easily be accomplished by a light rail connection to Ditmars or BRT on the Grand Central Parkway.
Just hook into saten Island.
Alan
They just need more subways, that's about it. The 2nd avenue subway will take an entire fleet of busses off the roads, that's a good thing.
Also, NYC (except along 2nd avenue, and a very few other places) doesn't have significant capacity problems with its subways. Large swaths of the outer borroughs have subways underground, and single family residences above ground. A strong push to improve density in these areas would do far more than stretching the subways further out. Keeping them compact discourages this sort of sprawl, and makes it more appealing to build densely in the city itself, rather than sprawling all over long island.
The main thing that would make the city a better place is some rules to help projects that will make new housing avoid legal fights. I'm thinking a rule like this, if you're building something that will have more than 2x as many residential units as the currently existing building (and meets some basic standards for quality, ventilation, etc...), then the project should be all but immune to challenges. Maybe have some sort of limit for extreme departures from guidelines in districts that are actively being preserved, but that's about it. None of this "I don't want you to build over an abandoned rail yard because I don't like the idea of living next to yuppies..." sort of BS that is happening around the Brooklyn arena.
It's just so hard to build anything in the city because even when someone does get the land, design, and financing, it always comes down to some guy living nearby wants to keep his $300/month rent controlled apartment so he doesn't want any new construction in the neighborhood, and pandemonium breaks out. The brooklyn arena is a good example of this.
AFAIK, only PATH, LIRR and along Amtrak's Northeast Corridor were the only electrified commuter rail.
As for NYC land use development, I know too little to make specific comments. However, extending subway lines with new stations only where previously agreed upon densification will take place.
Rent controls do seem to be a barrier to further development in NYC (not insurmountable, but a barrier). Running subways an extra stop or two to where development can occur seems reasonable to me.
And Staten Island could use Light Rail with a link to NJs Light Rail system IMHO. And a streetcar line most of the length of Roosevelt Island also seems "interesting" if density is also increased.
Best Hopes,
Alan
However, if the subways could be made faster, perhaps this could be improved somewhat.
I would suggest that oil prices need to climb towards $6 / gallon -or about the level we have here in Europe? (anyone got a more exact figure?) before there is some serious rethinkings of energy consumption and that is going to be very painful.
Think of it another way -the US currently uses about 11,000 Watts of Energy Equiv per person per hour 24/7/365. Europe uses about 5,000. At a 3.5% ANNUAL DECLINE in energy consumption in 20 years you will be almost at our level and I don't feel particularly 'energy starved'. 20 years is long enough IMO to impliment a 50% energy saving driven by economics -especially because the US is so very wasteful. 11mpg SUVs! Ridiculous! They will -by pain of pocket as this seems the only way to affect real change- be swapped for something more sensible or sit rusting and unused on the driveways.
Regards, Nick.
I'm starting to sound like a warped 6 inch vinyl record around here, but IMO, this is a psycho-linguistic battle. CERA has no numbers. What they have are mixed messages. The phonetic BABEL embedded in their resonant sound offs have got you guys freaked. It's messing with your heads. It's doing something to you. And because you don't understand what is going on --but nonetherless you "feel" it-- you are resorting to all sorts of "rational" explanations that are way off the mark.
CERA aims to remove the "Peak" from Peak Oil.
Simple as that.
Can't you see it?
Sigh.
(Relax folks. There are no Peaks in sight. Just endless rolling hills. Be Happy. You are secure in your midwestern homes. The undulating plains will go on forever. Be at peace.)
There are some people who do "get it".
Here is SaskBoy
So if you subsribe to the UnDuLaTiNg Plateau theory you are also saying there will be a peAk somewhere...eh?