 | Sustainability, Energy Independence and Agricultural Policy | The Oil Drum | A Growing Military Concern... |  |
DrumBeat: November 29, 2006
Posted by threadbot on November 29, 2006 - 9:30am
Topic: Miscellaneous
[Update by Leanan on 11/29/06 at 9:12 AM EDT]
An amazing article from the NY Times: The End of Ingenuity. It notes that energy is not like other commodities:
The most important resource to consider in this situation is energy, because it is our economy’s “master resource” — the one ingredient essential for every economic activity.It mentions EROEI. And notes that technology cannot save us forever:
Without a doubt, mankind can find ways to push back these constraints on global growth with market-driven innovation on energy supply, efficient use of energy and pollution cleanup. But we probably can’t push them back indefinitely, because our species’ capacity to innovate, and to deliver the fruits of that innovation when and where they’re needed, isn’t infinite.
Resource Forecasting for the Geologically Challenged
Estimating the amount of crude oil resources seems to be a popular activity nowadays, but often the results of the various studies are not in agreement with each other.
Energy Use Can Be Cut by Efficiency, Survey Says
The growth rate of worldwide energy consumption could be cut by more than half over the next 15 years through more aggressive energy-efficiency efforts by households and industry, according to a study by the McKinsey Global Institute, which is scheduled to be released today.
Dems' Energy Answer: Snake Oil
Soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid plans to put energy independence at the top of next year's agenda, but his party is pushing the same solutions that have failed for decades to make a dent in oil imports.
Pastor Chosen to Lead Christian Coalition Steps Down in Dispute Over Agenda
The president-elect of the Christian Coalition of America, which has long served as a model for activism for the religious right, has stepped down, saying the group resisted his efforts to broaden its agenda to include reducing poverty and fighting global warming.
Every price is political in the great gas game
The revelations announced by the US Ambassador John Tefft on Monday that any "long term partnership with Iran" is "unacceptable" to the United States leaves Georgia in something of a quandary as the mercury falls across the country.
Asean power demand to post high growth rate
Biofuel demand swells edible oil prices in China
Edible oil prices in China have surged this month as strong global demand for oilseeds in biofuel production compounds a poor rapeseed harvest.
‘Ireland sleep walking’ to oil crisis
“I believe Ireland is sleep walking its way into an energy crisis. What goes for Europe goes quadruple for Ireland. We are at the end of a 3,0000 kilometre gas pipeline from Siberia ... you look out 20 years we have no sustainable sources of energy of any critical level.”
Winning the War for Natural Resources
Although Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, and the war in Iraq often grab the headlines, I think the global battle for natural resources will probably define the 21st Century when it’s all said and done.
While we expect oil to remain above $50 a barrel in coming months, it is exceedingly unlikely that oil prices will double or triple through the end of next year as some analysts and “Peak Oil” theorists would have us believe.Put simply, the world is awash with oil, and if prices do rise, crude supplies can and will increase and alternative energy sources become more viable.
New Boundaries for the Norwegian Shelf
In 1996, the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs assigned the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate the task of collecting data and mapping areas in the Norwegian Sea and Barents Sea to find out how far the Norwegian Shelf extends beyond the 200-mile limit. Should Norway win acceptance for its position, the Norwegian shelf will grow by approximately 250,000 square kilometers.
Oil import cap may force fuel cell vehicle leadership on Chinese market
China Coal Energy Seeks $1.69 Billion IPO
China Coal Energy Co., the nation's second-largest coal producer, plans to raise as much as HK$13.16 billion ($1.69 billion) in a Hong Kong initial public offering to fund expansion, said two people with knowledge of the matter.
Byron W. King: A new kind of energy for China
"Beijing Sets National Standard for Methanol as Automotive Fuel," stated the well- regarded, if salmon-tinted newspaper. Methanol? Yes, good old "wood alcohol." This is the stuff that if you drink it, will make you blind. But this particular label of Chinese methanol is not and will not be somebody's moonshine. Instead, this Chinese methanol will be derived from coal in the so-called "Fischer-Tropsch" chemical process, which leads to an industrial method described as "coal-to-liquid" (CTL).
Putin Confirms Norway Energy Cooperation
Russia President Vladimir Putin has confirmed a strategic partnership between the two countries and that a decision to rebutt international involvement in Shtokman wouldn't preclude future partnerships in the Russian oil and gas sector, the Norwegian prime minister's office said Tuesday.
Halliburton Wins $73 Million Pemex Contract
Halliburton's Production Optimization division has been awarded a contract valued at $73 million by Pemex to provide stimulation services in the Bay of Campeche, Mexico. The stimulation services to be supplied by Halliburton are acidizing, acid fracturing, water control and nitrogen services. The work will be performed from the newly outfitted HOS Saylor stimulation vessel, which will join Halliburton's Cape Hawke stimulation vessel in providing services to Pemex.
Investors on e-mission to China
BEIJING - China stands to benefit from the booming global greenhouse-gas market. Foreign investors are flocking to pay Chinese energy companies and factories to reduce pollution instead of spending far more to cut emissions at home.
Warmer oceans storing climate change dangers
Global warming is creating a climate time bomb by storing enormous amounts of heat in the waters of the north Atlantic, UK scientists have discovered.
Transition Culture Interview with Richard Heinberg - Part Two… Powerdown and Transition Towns
What I see happening in towns like Totnes in the UK and Willits in California are test-tube experiments for what the rest of society is going to have to do. Right now we are talking about very few communities who are making some groping experimental steps in the direction of energy transition, but very soon every town, every city in the world is going to be faced with the need for making the same kinds of choices. So having at least a few communities that have undertaken the process voluntarily and proactively and have tested out the options and found ways of doing this successfully it is going to be very important. These towns will be the way-showers for rest of us.
Europeans face fuel 'price surge'
Electricity prices could double in Europe if power firms are to meet emissions reduction targets under the Kyoto protocol, says a report.
California "green tuners" clamor for plug-in cars
LOS ANGELES - Russell Long already owns a pair of fuel-efficient hybrid cars -- a Toyota Prius and a Honda Civic -- but his dream car is not on the market yet: a zippy number he could plug in to recharge at night that would get over 100 miles per gallon.
EU tries to combat climate change with tough CO2 cut
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Commission sharpened its main weapon for fighting climate change on Wednesday, demanding across-the-board cuts of emissions rights that European Union states want to give industry in 2008-2012.
Denmark Points Way in Alternative Energy Sources
America has been outclassed, and by an unlikely competitor.In the realm of alternative energy, there is an inconspicuous European nation that could stand to teach the U.S. a few lessons — Denmark.
Adelaide, Australia -- Over a third of the world's electricity, including that required by industry, can realistically be supplied by wind energy by the middle of the century, according to a new report released by the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) and Greenpeace.
Tighter airport security and higher gas prices appear to be boosting Amtrak ridership in the Northeast, the South and Midwest.
U.K: Heritage plan for nuclear power stations
Nuclear power stations could be given the same degree of protection as castles and archaeological sites under plans being drawn up by heritage bodies.
L.A. Auto Show focuses on eco-friendly cars
AWB expresses regret at Iraq kickbacks
AWB announced plans to split into two companies as part of its response a government-commission inquiry that reported this week that the company deceived the U.N. and the government by paying over $220 million to Saddam Hussein's regime between 1999 and 2003 to secure lucrative wheat contracts under the discredited oil-for-food scheme.
In Texas, leftover turkey fat fuels biodiesel cars
Professor devises new form of solar cell
LEWISTON, Idaho - A University of Idaho professor is devising a new form of solar cell she says could lead to a breakthrough that would make solar energy commercially feasible.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2476994,00.html
The days of empire may be gone but global warming will make Britain the centre of the civilised world once again, according to James Lovelock, the creator of the Gaia theory, which views the world as a self-sustaining organic system.
In a bleak prophecy he says that global warming will become so intense within a century that much of the world will become uninhabitable. The British Isles, however, is perfectly placed to become the most desirable location in the world in which to live and one of the few areas able to feed itself. It will be able to survive the devastating consequences of global heating, as he now terms it.
Professor Lovelock was one of the first scientists to give warning of the dangers of global warming, which he believes is here for 200,000 years. It will wreak so much havoc that the Earth wil be able to support only 500 million people, just one in six of today's population.
Aah so that's why Robert Rapier has moved over here.
....The British Isles, small and surrounded by water, will remain cool enough to sustain a modern, technologically advanced nation, despite being 8C (14F) hotter on average. "The British Isles may be a very desirable bit of real estate because we are surrounded by the sea," he said. "The summer of 2003 will be typical of conditions by 2100."
A 8c rise will even make Aberdeen in winter bearable.
There is nothing that anyone can do to stop it really. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria, Russia and other countries which hold the vast majority of oil reserves, and whose economies are hopelessly and utterly dependent upon the oil spigot staying open will never cap off their wells and stop selling petroleum and its by-products.
So - if there really is such a thing as global warming - and if some Westerners believe that burning fossil fuels is the reason - the best place to burn those fossil fuels is in the west. The western democracies are the only places where such things as catalytic converters, scrubbers, emission controls and other such expensive anti-pollution devices are ubiquitous.
One need only stroll through any American or European city, then take a stroll through a place such as Shanghai or Mumbai to see the evident truth. The waste gases exiting the tailpipe of a modern western automobile is cleaner than the ambient air in many developing world cities! The faster we in the west can burn through the global fuel supply, the better for the world - if in fact, human activity is responsible for global warming and the burning of fossil fuels is the primary culprit behind said phenomena.
This debate was also raging at the petroleum club.
First of all, the pollution control devices you mention do nothing to prevent the release of greenhouse gases. They prevent smog and acid rain, but not climate change. To prevent climate change the CO2 would have to be sequestered, which isn't happening today.
Second, the persistance of climate change effects from the greenhouse gases is a matter of some debate. Some of what I've read (sorry, no links at the moment) suggests that while a portion of the greenhouse effect is permanent (until the carbon is recaptured), some effects last only on the scale of 100 years or so. Only!! : ) Nevertheless, if it is inevitable that all the fossil fuels will be consumed, it would be less damaging to spread the consumption out over as long a period of time as is possible.
I guess the best answer is to begin to use biodiesel created from algae. The carbon is sequestered back in the algae, which has a high lipid count and is a good source for biodiesel (the best).
However, I remain unconvinced that carbon emissions from internal combustion engines and fossil fuels has a huge impact on the global climate.
See here:
I could have sworn that there was carbon in that table... and it's not even Friday.
I guess we should get a biodiesel from algae program running... we just need to build all of our electric utilities on the edge of deserts...
In any case, ALL of the fossil fuels will certainly be built unless we develop some alternative - and of course, none is in sight unless you believe in zero point or some other magic.
On a side note... nitrous oxide smells funny.
>>cymbal crash<<
:-)
OK. Say, for sake of argument, that CO2 is a major contributor to global warming - is it a 90% contributor, a 60% contributor, or what? We have no idea. The models are neither accurate enough nor proof.
We have built massive hot urban megapoloises, cut down masses of trees, expanded deserts; are you saying that these have no effect? Are you saying that the million of other factors, which we are totally ignorant of, and which have changed in the last 50 years, have no effect.
The statement that CO2 causes Global warming may be good politics - it is bad science. We do NOT have enough proof.
Continental drift was a new, somewhat radical hypothesis when I was first in college. It gained credibility as it became more understood, more was learned about ocean bottoms and rift zones, and it was put to the test. Additional data supported the hypothesis and it gradually became accepted.
The way consensus developed with continental drift is similar to how it has developed with global warming. The consensus initially was very skeptical, it didn't start with a consensus. The consensus built as one test after another further supported the hypothesis and each test strengthened rather than contradicted the case.
He changed his mind, of course, and long before he died. He says the objections to continental drift were based on mechanism - how can continents move like that? When a mechanism was presented - plate tectonics - objections melted away. Mainly because there was so much evidence.
From time to time, decisions have to be made. When a paper is submitted to a scientific journal, the editorial board has to decide whether to publish it. Somebody might come up with some device that uses some unusual effects to achieve some useful function, and various potential investors have to decide whether to commit resources. A physician and patient need to decide on a course of treatment.
My point here is that science thrives on diversity and disagreement. As far as science itself goes, there is never a need to force any kind of winner-take-all final battle. It's when action is required that we get stuck making a decision, casting our vote, placing our bet, reaching a verdict, etc. But all this is outside science - really it is some kind of political process.
Nobody ever gets to rely on the level of certainty involved in a mathematical proof when making decisions about how best to act in the real world. The scientific evidence might be quite strong in support of direction A, but it isn't hard to find situations in history where it turned out that the strong scientific argument was based on fundamental errors and in fact direction B was the much better path.
If you're the person making the decision, and it's just your personal business, you get to pick the theory you like. If there seems to be a wide scientific consensus one way or the other... well, sometimes there is a fortune to be made by bucking the trend!
If, however, the decision involves lots of people, e.g. an editorial board or a legislative body, then usually the decision making process is codified to some degree, and usually involves some kind of consensus. Wasn't it the Indiana state legislature that passed a law that the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter was 22:7? Codified consensus doesn't have to respect mathematical proof!
"CO2 causes Global warming" may not reach the level of scientific consensus that would make you comfortable as the basis for a highly consequential decision, but I sure don't think "CO2 does not cause Global warming" has any better consensus behind it!
It's a fine pickle, really!
The whole climate or geochemical system of which CO2 forms one part - that is complex to an utterly overwhelming degree. To what extent there is a significant warming trend and to what extent human burning fossil fuels causes that... it's too politically charged for any decently clear scientific verdict to emerge, but any effective argument will have to be far more involved than your 1-2-3 syllogism.
Here's an analogy to see how your reasoning might not hold. Do you know what a trim tab is, on a ship's rudder? To get the ship to turn right, you basically turn the trim tab to the left. If the rudder were fixed to the hull, the ship would indeed slowly turn left. But because the rudder is movable, the trim tab just pushes the rudder over, and the ship turns right.
So, for example, while CO2 itself has a greenhouse effect, maybe it also affects plant growth somehow in a way that in turn affects water vapor, and that indirect effect could be much stronger that the direct greenhouse effect from the CO2. That is the kind of alternative theory about how burning fossil fuels affects the climate that climate scientists have to work through and eliminate.
It seems like the evidence, after a considerable amount of scientific work to eliminate such alternatives, does point to a connection between fossil fuel burning and a global warming trend. But the connection is much more difficult to establish than the simple syllogism you propose.
There is a danger that folks who doubt the burning-warming link will hear such a syllogism and might get the idea that the scientific argument is that flimsy, which would encourage their skepticism. Of course, a certain amount of skepticism is still appropriate. But not that much! So I would encourage you not to induce that inappropriately high level of skepticism! Which is why I am trying to help you understand the flimsiness of the syllogism.
built=burned
(Posts pea-brained chart suitable for convincing 8th graders)
Can you give us a pointer to some of your research publications? Peer-reviewed journals only please. What, you don't have any? My God man get busy, the world's scientist need to here from you immediately. We will all be grateful when you have pointed out their mistakes.
By the way, How's that cure for cancer coming?
Also can you please share your ideas for advancing nuclear fusion?
Heracles: This is an issue that has an overwhelming consensus across the world's scientific community. Do you really believe that vast amounts of carbon, sequestered in fossil fuels for millions of years, would have no effect at all on our thin sliver of atmosphere when we release billions of tons of the stuff in a mere 150 years? Your position is simply not logical, nor is it supported by the data.
You really need to get out more. You are arguing the earth is flat; your only evidence is that it looks that way to you, therefore it must be true.
Of course, when you do finally get out, be careful you don't fall off the edge of your world.
Cheers!
In fact, the planet is just coming out one of those rare cold spells known as an ice age.
No one denies that the climate has changed over millions of years. It's the large increase in CO2 over a relatively short period of time that is disturbing.
Let's see, we'll use some data from a scientist working on modeling (not measuring via proxies in ice cores) the climate and atmosphere hundreds of millions of years ago, and reinterpret it to argue that increased CO2 is a) nothing unusual or b) nothing to fear. I'm sure CO2 was a lot higher way back then, but there wasn't any oil or coal in the ground either. I know! Let's hurry and put it all back up in the air and see how things are.
Or perhaps we should just set our browsers to block images from the aptly named junkscience.com
That is pure disinformation.. CO2 makes warming, human makes CO2.
And let's wait for the next year's hurricans..
Besides this, do you really need more evidences?
Common sense should be enough to feel that the various pressures and strains we put on our ecosystem cannot be without effects.
If you are sick do you need real evidences from your doctor in order to take some pills or change your behaviour?
If you ask all doctors, they will argue and come with various diagnostics ranging from "it's psychosomatic" to "you are dead before the end of the day", will you still wait for the absolute evidence before taking any action?
IMHO we have already more than enough evidences right now to consider that it would be very very unwise to wait before acting.
So what would you recommend? Capping off the oil wells and going back to horse and carriage?
(One thing that I'm convinced will not stand the test of time and that is the US style of suburbanization. Large homes heated by fuel oil, far from city centers which are accessed via single occupant fuel-guzzling SUVs is unsustainable, and we will see an upheaval in this lifestyle in our lifetimes.)
Can anyone on this forum realistically expect that the last drop of fossil fuel will NOT be burned somewhere by someone?
If the last drop of oil is burnt in two hundred years, the result will be less dramatic than if it is burnt in two decades.
This doesn't follow. We don't know the amortized cost of climate change (if positive) and the cost of some mitigations are large; Its hard to do cost benifit analysis on such a scale. Sure we can do some mitigations which are very large and essentially free, but these mitigations are often blocked by politics: replacing coal with nuclear power can be done at cost in many places.
Did you read Nicholas Stern's review The economics of climate change?
What mitigations work? How much will they cost? What are the economic gains of such mitigations? These are policy decisions that really cant be rationally made without this knowledge. Oh sure there are things that you can do for free, like replace all future coal power with nuclear, and that will have an enormous effect on emissions, but how much will it really effect any economic costs?
''ice ages have been more damaging to human civilization than any warming has ever been...''
Civilisation developed after the Ice receeded.
Who knows what cities lie under 100 meters of water at the edge of the continental shelves.
Buy future waterfront property at +9 meter elevation. Wait for Greenland to melt. Sell for big profit. Buy more property at +30 meter. Wait for Antarctica to melt. Surefire multigenerational profit plan.
Civ = about the last 9 k years before present.
Even if it was 15 k years, the Ice ages were before civilisation.
Hom Civis is not that old.
If you want, I know somebody who wants to offload some Erik von Daniken books.
I will sell you them for a (small percentage...).
http://www.peer.org/campaigns/epa_library/
But now ask the Phillipines how the typhoon season is working out for them - as they're about to be hit with their 4th storm > Category 4 this year.
It's not just about USA - it's called GLOBAL warming or GLOBAL climate change - the name makes it real easy to see that it's not all about one place on the map...
What are you talking about? Lots of typhoon and cyclone action in the world this year. Australia had two back to back CAT 5 storms, one of which knocked out almost all of the country's banana crop.
Come on, can't a misogynist come out of the PC closet gracefully?
8C is not something that makes Aberdeen bearable in winter, it makes London like the Sahara. Except that with 8C London is underwater.
I have this old silly London taxi from 1967. Drove it today. The heaters run full time. You can turn the blowers on and off but the heaters, no. In 1967 maybe a few hours of summer afternoon per annum when sliding the windows down was not quite sufficient. The original owner installed valves on the heater hoses sometime in the late 70's but you've got to open the hood to operate them. Air conditioning would have been utterly purposeless 39 years ago.
Thats the change with 0.8C of warming, anyone thinking 8C will be manageable isn't thinking clearly.
Thinking about my taxi and the different planet it was built for I wonder if anyone still has a functioning memory.
Or maybe it's more general. Climate change will only ruin everyone else. I seem to recall some government report for Australia on the effects of climate change, largely concerned with how it might cause lots of undesirable poor brown people to seek entry as refugees as their island nations get the Atlantis treatment. It never seems to have occurred to anyone that climate change might screw up Australia as well.
As for Britain being desirable real estate in the future... perhaps only if you have an outboard motor to replace the Land Rover...
The lifeboat will be swamped with sheer numbers. And yes I wouldn't get a house in London, Essex or Norfolk either.
Published on 25 Nov 2006 by ASPO-Italy. Archived on 28 Nov 2006.
Resource Forecasting for the Geologically Challenged
by Ugo Bardi
Gazprom Plans "Aggressive" Price Hikes for European Customers -- Paper
http://www.mosnews.com/money/2006/11/27/gazpromeurope.shtml
Making sense of a mad world
By Gabriel Kolko
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HK29Aa02.html
...and Leanan, what a volume of stories you dug up today...wow!!!
Certainly population growth is a problem. Certainly it will be dealt with. But how Cynus? What is your proposed plan to deal with population growth. I'm only asking because nobody seems to have a very good one.
Population growth is that 1 ton gorrilla in the corner nobody wants to address because it will rip your arms and legs off chew up your torso and then spit you back up again.
People get that population growth is a problem. People know something needs to be done. The problem is nobody seems to know what or at least can't agree on what needs to be done. And you know why? Because to fix population growth probably means that a lot of people are going to have to die. Nobody wants to figure out how people need to die. Its a morbid and grotesque job. Tell me who do you pick to die?
My personal approach is everyone else outside of my various rings of association, beginning with my family/friends, then my state, then my nation, then my continent etc etc. Its basic survival and frankly the fairest approach I can come up with. But hey as Davidsmi and I have argued before, even this approach can't be agreed upon because someone feels that it is unjust.
But to come up with any other active plan in which you will need to actively cull our species is going to be as morbid and as nasty a job, and frankly by its very premise extremely unjust. But then nobody ever said survival was just did they?
So I'm still waiting Cynus, or anyone else who keeps bringing up population growth as this problem that must be solved. How are we going to do it? To date, my plan still sounds like the best solution to me, but I'm sure that doesn't comfort the people furthest away from closest ring of association.
Sterilize all males and females that are currently ages 10, 14, 21, 28, everyone over 45.
Any human male that causes a baby to be born, has to have 50% of all his future income used to support that child, if he refuses to work, He becomes a ward of the state at the labor camps to pay for his new child.
No abortions needed, make the men that make babies responsible.
The odd year stopping of the ability to have childern will of course start more parental planning of when to have children so their kids can reproduce, but for the time being should limit growth for a few decades.
Humane, safe and no one is killed outside of the normal causes.
I am 43, but can not have kids, so I have already been dealt that hand.
Charles.
Just an idea, flame at will.
Sounds like an unfair and unjust solution to me. By sheer random chance of lottery, you will be forced to have what is considered a basic human right removed from you.
Thanks for playing, but too many people would (rightfully IMO) revolt against this idea.
someone tells you how people do not have to die to reduce population - so you say it is a removal of rights. There is no right to breed.
How can an equal opportunity sytem be an unfair system? You are trying to reverse the definition of unfair. Any system that applies equally to everyone is, by logic, fair.
..Of course religion, human selfishness and your dick can say it's otherwise - but you are all wrong.
That system would be just as "equal opportunity" as saying only Blacks should be allowed to breed.
Or that only North Americans should be allowed to breed.
Or that only people born with hair on their head should breed.
Justice, as is commonly accepted in Western thinking has to do with applying an appropriate measure of punishment(or reward) due to the actions of that individual, not those of their parents. Dan Ur's system is punishing the individual for the actions of their parents. It is by Western thinking unjust and frankly, given Dan Ur's background I'm surprise to have to say Un-Christian as well.
Instead if we really wanted to pursue forced sterilization then it should be equally applied to everyone, with some sort of system to reverse the process based upon some merit basis. Perhaps military service? Perhaps donating X amount to the government? Perhaps being a land owner? Frankly none of the above sound just overly great, but they would be far more just as they would be tied to the actions of that individual instead of being tied to some chance of luck in which that individual had no control over.
The rule there is that you're allowed to have 1 child only.
The downside ofcourse is that they all want a boy (why for godsakes?) and they through away the girls.
But in a western society it might work.
You could choose to have 1 child or not. And yes I think a similar if a bit modified policy would work over here as well.
And in fact all three of the referred ideas I mentioned are not so outlandish as one may think. They were all three considered as ways of controlling who could be allowed to vote, by the Founding Fathers of America. They settled on land ownership due to their fear of a strong military, and fear of government corruption. Funny how things worked out though... once land ownership was removed as a criteria, we ended up with Government Corruption due to money and a large military. Go figure.
And as an aisde, its nice to know you think so highly of the men and women who defend your right to spew those kinds of insults about them. I mean I suppose the terms soldier, defender, protector, or warrior all invoke too positive an image. Hell we couldn't have that said about someone who willingly puts themselves in harms way to ensure that their fellow citizens and family are protected. Most people who join the military are not signing up to go be "killers". They sign up because they believe they can make a difference for their fellow citizens.
Really? Then why the 'bonus' of tens of thousands and what about the other 'perks' like the healthcare and education?
And before you flame too much note "usually".
The folks I know (3) that went into the Navy were engineers looking for experience and adventure.
The folks I know that went into the Air Force (2) went into Air Force Intelligence because they were very intelligent and wanted to test themselves.
random is the only thing that works.
random in no control,,, control gives you to much power,, power has to be taken out of the system.
Power will lead to wars, power leads to death of the many by the few.
Power is our enemy, DON'T YOU GET IT???????????
RANDOM gives the world a few more years of freedom
Random is the death now.
Cancers randomly pick people to die,, As A Christian I don't believe in random chance, but you asked me to give you the best idea I had, and I did, You asked, Your idea sucks just as much as mine did.
You give power to decide to the powerful of today, or the future. at least my idea took the power away and made it more random....
Neither one of us make the choices and that is good, I don't want you in charge any more than you want me in charge.
Face it, it is chaos at its best right now.
I just tend to think along different lines than you do about who controls the Chaos.
SEE you IN the next days rantings.
By no means am I trying rile you up, more to the point what I'm trying to point out is that given just this small number of people, no consensus on what is consider "fair", "effective", or even plausible can be agreed to.
Which is my point up above to Cynus that this is the gorilla in the corner nobody wants to deal with because the issue is so daunting and so big, that even trying to approach it is tough to do.
And like Darwinian, Greyzone and others point out in previous DrumBeats, the sheer amount of disagreement will most likely mean that NO active measures get implemented until we start to see DieOff, at which point the problem is already moving into a self-corrective "solution".
Well that wouldn't be fair. Its not right to deny hard working immigrants(illegal or otherwise) free access to this nation, and its jobs, Healthcare, and welfare. Plus what would happen to the US economy without all those immigrant workers, or how would we keep the ponzi scheme known as Social Security afloat without them?
Yes I'm being facetious, but those are the arguments that are currently coming to a head in the US political arena.
However, without any growth at all, just stabalization, the US would continue to consume more than the US or the world could afford. So at some point the original topic of Mass Transit Infrastructure is going to have to be dealt with, which was the original point of this whole thread.
Wow, does nobody here actually read the projections? Population won't grow forever. You want to speed the day when consistent population declines become a worldwide phenomenon, then invest in some more school lunches in Africa. There's a long line of logic here, and this sort of thing has pretty much reduced the upper end population estimates from 15 billion to about 9 billion (and falling) so far. Plenty of mileage left in that old saw.
Mandatory sex education
Free contraception of all types
Free abortions
Tax benefits for sterilization
Tax benefits for adoption
Removing all tax benefits beyond 2 pregnancies
Requiring sterilization as a precondition for welfare or parental leave employment protection after the third pregnancy
In the US a comprehensive implementation of this agenda would bring the birthrate below replacement in the next decade - then there's a long wait, as the rising geriatric population stabilizes.
Yaahhh, I am all for that. Ehhhh....what would you suggest we do? How about a universal decree that all couples on earth would be allowed to have only one child? Now let's see, who would enforce that decree?
I am not against your suggestion Cynus, I am all for it. My point is there is nothing we can do about population growth. Oh, we can affect tiny pockets of people by giving birth control classes and passing out condoms. But this will have little or no effect on the world as a whole.
The situation will just have to play itself out. And play itself out it will, when the the oil supply starts to drop in ernest, in about 10 years or less.
Ron Patterson
Do contraceptives come in child-proof packaging?
I don't see how moaning about population on TOD is constructive. There are no conceivable, realistic population policies, on a time-scale that matters, that can mitigate peak oil.
It's the economy stupid.
How much band-width on TOD is squandered by posters venting drivel (plus the obligatory refutations)?
Read the projections.
Population growth is not the problem it is preceived to be. Worldwidw population will likely max out at 9 billion and then decline. It's a lot, but it won't take a massive massacre to prevent population from growing forever. It just turns out that people with jobs and things to do don't like to have kids, pretty simple really.
This is the worst kind of straw man. Want a solution, here's one, wait.
So what happens when the peak oil depression hits, and suddenly all those people don't have jobs any more?
How do you get taken care of when you get old and there's no social security?
Who does the farm work?
If we decide to have 50 million small farmers, will they all decide to start having lots of kids to do the work?
In that case, nine billion might be a laughably small estimate a few decades from now.
In the event of a post peak crash there will be plenty of unemployed labor floating around.
Find a person or two and bring them aboard. Give them a share of the farm.
Isn't this exactly what you would be doing if you had kids?
People you know well, close friends, extended family etc.
I wouldn't suggest you just pull a random vagrant off the street.
If everyone was to try to attain standards of living resembling those in rich countries like Australia then resource consumption rates would have to increase drastically by 2050, if there are projected to be 9 billion people by then. This is nonsense as there are not enough resources in the world to effect a western style demographic transition in the developing world even now, as already 80% are being consumed by the affluent.
Besides waiting would simply ensure that our primary energy sources were fully exhausted by then, that mass species extinction and degradation of the biosphere was accelerating simply due to the increasing rates of production and consumption without limits, which is what all political and economic leaders worldwide are committed to.
In any case, by the numbers, it's not that bad. Something like 10^24 joules per year (if memory serves), would exhaust all the coal in like 20 years or so, but Nuclear would last a few millenia at that rate, or longer. Solar could also do it, though probably not wind. Seems like a large number, but then again, there's a lot of people. If you told an ancient roman that one day the world would be 60 times the population of the roman empire, each person using 3-50 times as much energy as your average roman, he would have laughed, but you would have been right.
It's doable, with a little care. More worries about things like food (6-10 billion people can't all eat meat) than about energy. If we're willing to use nuclear, then energy is no problem. I submit that people would rather use nuclear than power down, so that's that.
This is nonsense. The world had only a few hundred million people back then, the earth was largely pristine, and the fossil fuels which led to the exploitation of its resources had not been exploited - let alone headed for exhaustion. Neither was the technology available (also a byproduct of cheap, readily available fossil fuels) to farm huge areas of land producing lots of food that made the exponential growth of human population possible.
Nuclear and all other alternatives can never substitute for the over 80% of energy derived from fossil fuels. They will whither on the vine once the fossil fuel infrastructure which makes their existence possible in the first place are exhausted. And once fossil fuels are exhausted what fate awaits the huge populations upon whose reliance on them for their every survival is not only vital but essential?
The time constant for significant changes in population (up or down) is much greater than the time horizon for PO. If our understanding of PO, and its timing of circa 2005-2012 is correct, then even a population growth of zero won't mitigate the effects one iota. So it follows that PO (and global warming) is the main problem.
I can't "solve peak oil". No one can. But there are potential strategies to mitigate the effects of PO. Westexas has contributed his bit with "Economize, localize, produce" at the personal level. AlanFromBigEasy is promoting electric passenger rail. Matt Simmons is promoting similar measures for transport and freight. Heinberg is promoting the Depletion protocol internationally. There are local and communal initiatives here and there. By and large, the public is asleep, and the political/economic system is derelict in its function.
Even the best set of strategies will not feed the population that exists, much less growth, once industrial agriculture begins sputtering from lack of fossil fuel.
So we will be stuck no matter what. If we mitigate PO, maybe we can cope humanely, maybe not. If we don't even try, then Welcome To Hell, the door is right this way...
Note: I am not suggesting or advocating this at all. I am simply pointing out that higher population could still occur even through most of the post peak slide towards near zero production rates. You can't assume decreasing population just because of peak oil.
Kunstler hits the nail on the head in The Long Emergency. Population growth is a symptom of cheap energy. There is also an interesting allusion in the book (from another source - sorry can't remeber who) where the human population is likened to algae thrown into a pond. If you add a bunch of fertilizer the population "blooms" and then inevitably dies off wihout further additions of the fertilizer.
I don't want to offend anyone, but homo sapiens looks down it's collective nose at the rest of the living things on earth. Humans are so smart, blah, blah, blah. Yes, maybe as indivduals, but our group dynamics are not much more intelligent than the algae when we compare end results. We have drastically overshot based on a quick infusion of ready energy. Given that the earth is a closed (relatively) system there is little hope that the one time stimulus will be replaced.
Renewables just don't provide a sexy enough amount of energy per time to save even the people already here (forget the discussion of birth-control). Anything non-renewable will probably be burned through in short-order.
The root cause of the popluation explosion is cheap energy. The "cure" if you will, is scarce energy. Many will die from scarcity or fighting over what remains. Unless we receive a another "miracle" of human ingenuity many are going to die. Why not let God sort them out and forget about political solitions.
Maybe we'll get lucky and politics as a solution to anything will peak along with oil.
That is a false statement. Data from the US census bureau:
New York City
1980 - 7,071,639
1990 - 7,322,564
2000 - 8,008,278
2005 - 8,143,197
Source
This is a 0.5% annual growth rate, and even at 0.5% New York city added over a million people in 25 years.
Google list of relevant articles is here.
A win by the plaintiffs (Massachusetts, et al) would compel the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. A win by the EPA would most likely send the issue to the Congress for additional legislation.
Supreme Court Takes Up Global Warming Case
The court is expected to issue a ruling before July 2007.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/05-1120.html
The Supreme Court Official Web Site
http://www.supremecourtus.gov
Docket, links to briefs, transcripts of arguments, slip opinions.
The Oyez Project
http://www.oyez.org
Streaming audio recordings of oral arguments.
Some fun excerpts:
If we know and the Saudis know they can't "flood the oil market", surely the Iranians know this as well. Is this the best that the Saudis and Cheney could come up with? The Saudis may be holding a good hand but I think it is with the U.S. (and other consumers) and not compared to Iran (and other producers).
crude: -0.3 mb
gasoline: -0.6 mb
distillate fuel: -1.0 mb
total commercial petroleum inventories: -7.5 mb
Can anyone explain how "total commercial petroleum inventories" are calculated and where they appear in Table 1, Table 11, or some other table in the report?
More information will be here after 1 pm.
Oil jumps as energy supplies unexpectedly drop
look at the right column on this screen.
I've looked again at the finished gasoline stock number from EIA. It shows another historical low at 109.6 mb. Imports of finished gasoline are also very low, way lower than last year.
Of course WT is right, export capacity of crude falls faster than production. The same holds for the finished products.
I still believe the finished gasoline stock is telling a story of shortages comming faster than expected. Of course blending components can be put into blenders but this doesn't occur. For instance the stock of ethanol is high and increasing but ethanol accounts for maximum only about 4%. So having blending components is OK, but you have to have the right proportions to make finished gasoline with them. Supply of finished gasoline is still very high.
P.S. The finished gasoline stock is counted at blenders, refineries, bulk terminals etc ... but not retailers.
However, that draw on gasoline stocks was a surprise, but it was the Thanksgiving holiday. I think you will see it come back up next week. If not, prices will probably take off.
He says about tax considerations' effect on inventories:
Production, imports, and demand are listed in every weekly report.
What would happen to your results if you went back and started about 9 to 10 months ago [as stated above], to around February 1 to March 1?
The big run up last winter was due to a special call by the US on IEA world inventories, which doesn't appear likely to happen again.
With 2006 data, the average of the blue series is -15.4 kbd, the pink series 46.3 kbd, and the yellow 699.2 kbd. The pink series is 19.6 kbd excluding January and 8.4 kbd excluding January and February.
This says supply exceeded demand on average for finished gasoline in 2006 using the EIA weekly 2006 data. Not sure how to reconcile this with overall decreased stocks. In fact, I see what neuroil and Dante who Leanan quotes are talking about. If you subtract out blending components, finished stocks (conventional + reformulated) have decreased by a larger percentage than total stocks since blending stocks have actually increased. Reformulated + Conventional stocks are about 20% down from January while total stocks only 4%.
For anyone interested as to why the reformulated gasoline imports dropped to zero, see this EIA pdf. As I recall reading about on TOD awhile ago, there are issues with converting from mtbe to ethanol and it looks like that caused the RFG Imports to cease.
So we are above the 5 year average range in crude stocks by quite a bit more than our gasoline stocks are down. It looks like crude stocks are ~20 mb above the highest ave range value and gas stocks only ~10 mb below. Maybe I don't understand the issue but I'm not sure why this is worrysome. Can't we just convert our crude to gas/other finished stocks?
(1) Relative to our daily crude oil consumption, they just barely above the long term average;
(2) In absolute terms, they are comparable to what we had back in the Nineties, when we had much lower crude oil consumption;
(3) They are somewhat inflated by the unrepaid loan of oil from the SPR.
(4) No one tracks inventories on the basis of quality, i.e., light/sweet versus heavy/sour, and the world crude oil supply has been getting progressively heavier and more sour. IMO, building inventories of heavy/sour crude have been obscuring flat to declining inventories of light/sweet crude.
That makes too much sense WT.
What was the average refinery capacity last week, something like 87% again? And interestingly enough, wasn't it around 90% during the summer, when oil was at its all time high?
So very strange indeed :P
I almost hate to point out that we take our turnarounds in the spring or fall, when the weather is cooler and demand is down. That pretty much ruins the conspiracy theory. But I can tell you without looking that you will see this trend year after year as far as you want to look back. Utilization peaks in the summer, and is off in the shoulder seasons. Always has, always will.
Again, if you think you have found evidence of conspiracy, post the utilizations for the past few years at this time of year. I haven't even looked, but I know what they will be.
It has to be. I've noticed people here to cling to every possible decline in stocks as a heavenly sign that their PO wishes are coming true. If they are going up they have their excuses out in no-time.
The latest US total petroleum import number of 11.6 mbpd (four week running average) continues to show that we are well below my 12/30/05 index number of 12.8 mbpd. We are continuing to meet demand by drawing down inventories. Obviously, this cannot continue indefinitely. Even the talking heads on CNBC this morning were beginning to express concern about US petroleum imports.
One of the things that has amazed me this year is the level of resistance that I got on TOD to my prediction in January that net oil exports would fall much faster than world oil production would fall.
To me the math seemed obvious, especially given the fact that Texas, Lower 48, Total US, Russia, North Sea, Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Mexico have all now shown lower production after crossing the 50% of Qt mark.
The top three net exporters--KSA; Russia and Norway--are way past the 50% mark. Plug in the rapidly increasing demand in most exporting countries, and you get the Export Land model: http://static.flickr.com/97/240076673_494160e1a0_o.png
We have most recently seen this in real life, when the UK went from exporting one mbpd in 1999 to now being a net importer.
In any case, IMO the net export crisis is upon us, and I think that the lifeblood of the world economy--net oil export capacity--is draining away in front of our very eyes.
I think that the only option left to us is a triage operation of sorts, with large parts of suburbia being abandoned.
It's going to be the oil war decade.
Yet I am wondering if current price per barrel is really a measure of scarcity.
I understand, for instance, that from 2002 to 2004, crude oil rose 64% in dollars but only 16% in euros. Perhaps someone who's more connected to FOREX trading could offer some insight.
Eight of the top 10 net oil exporters (all but Russia and UAE) are showing lower crude oil production relative to 12/05, and Russia is showing lower exports year over year, with--I predict--very sharp declines ahead in production and exports.
I also think that the dollar will continue to weaken. I think that the Thanksgiving Day Massacre in Iraq was a turning point, with a lot of the world concluding that the US won't be able to control events in Iraq. Note that there is already talk about pulling 30,000 troops out of the Anbar Province. The emerging question for the US is what thing of value do we have to offer oil exporters, in exchange for oil--lots of really pretty McMansions?
-Supply / demand constraints will increase the cost of a barrel of oil
-The US dollars declining value as a medium of exchange will increase the cost of oil
Double screwed,,,
- Excessively wasteful energy use in the US ==> opportunity to conserve.
- Photovoltaics
- Wind power
- CTL (for Jets)
- Local vegetable gardens in Mcmansions (incl. mine)
corollary: healthier populationAnd most of us have jobs that depend on our fellows' continued buying of "things we don't need."
Low to Negative EROI, Creates lots of pollution from manufacturing. Too Expensive for most homes with out massive subsidation
>3. Wind power
OK, but Wind farms will need to be backed up with a storage system. The only practical option is to store energy in reservors, but this requires lots of land and water.
>4. CTL (for Jets)
Too expensive for the Average Joe. Only the very Rich, Megacorporations, and Gov't will be able to afford using CTL for avation fuel.
>5. Local vegetable gardens in Mcmansions (incl. mine)
Good idea, but:
1. Not everyone has much land suitable for a garden.
2. Ground contaimation from pesticides and neighborhood runoffs. I wouldn't consided eating food grown in many neighborhoods.
3. A average family garden will provide less than 1% of the required food.
4. Families will need to secure thier gardens from neighbors and vagrants?
>6. Plug-in hybrids
1. Short battery livetimes. Most batteries can only be recharged a few hundred times before the fail.
2. Deposal of dead batteries. They all contain toxic chemicals and heavy metals.
3. The US grid is barely able to cope with existing demand. A lot of power is generated using natural gas. Utility companies will be more likely to build cheap and dirty coal plants. Demand for electricity will soar as oil and gas deplete as consumers switch over to using electricity for thier home and work needs.
>Dollar weakness: who cares; The avg. schmuck will spend the dollar that he can earn, beg, borrow, steal - whether it is on Gas or Chinese imports who cares - most spending is non-essential anyway. Food is grown locally.
We'll still need lots of oil and gas to make transition and to transport food and necessary goods (toothbrushes, soap, etc). We currently import more than half of our oil demand. but over time, domestic production will only head much lower. Food for cities will still need to be transported a great distance to meet demand.
We also have to consider the energy need to replace devices that run on oil and gas. Such as building heating equipment. Its going to take a lot of energy to produce and ship new equipment to consumers (if they can afford it).
Americans have record debt levels. As the dollar falls, the interest rates will soar as foriegn liquity stops flowing to the US. This would make it very difficult for most Americans to access credit. As consumers stop spending, unemployment will soar and large number's will default on thier loans. On top of that we have the boomers that are nearly elegable for retirement and gov't entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, etc). This will put further squeeze on gov't finances, making it difficult to fund projects to migrate away from oil and gas.
>While WTs export land model may well be correct, I believe that excessive doom and gloom is incorrect.
Keep digging. The more you understand about financing, demographics, gov't and energy, the less and less optimisitic you become.
(1) My assertion, perhaps not stated clearly, was that we will have to live with much less energy - it is possible because of current waste. Will the empty lab building at UT Austin be at 65 F on Sat and Sun during summer? Perhaps not...
(2) Economic disolcations will happen - I believe that the economy will adapt, because it is dynamic and "the second foundation, (of Asimov fame) :-) ", will convince Joe public of the need for change.
Specifics:
>>2. Photovoltaics
Low to Negative EROI, Creates lots of pollution from manufacturing. Too Expensive for most homes with out massive subsidation<
I beg to differ on that. Google Solar panels. Awesome stuff available from Japanese manufacturers (Sanyo, Sharp, Kyocera....) and much better down the pipeline. I personally could do quite well for 20+ years on a 30k (current price) solar panel on my roof and this is likely to come down a lot.
>>3. Wind power
OK, but Wind farms will need to be backed up with a storage system. The only practical option is to store energy in reservors, but this requires lots of land and water.<<
We will use less. Hydroelectric, load reduction from current levels, coal (for another 100 yrs or so), solar will provide smoothing.
>>4. CTL (for Jets)
Too expensive for the Average Joe. Only the very Rich, Megacorporations, and Gov't will be able to afford using CTL for avation fuel.<<
Fair enough. A vacation in Greece for a resident of LA is not a God given right. Of course may lead to dislocation in allied industries (aircraft manufacturing, airports, tourism economies etc)
>>5. Local vegetable gardens in Mcmansions (incl. mine)
Good idea, but:
1. Not everyone has much land suitable for a garden.
2. Ground contaimation from pesticides and neighborhood runoffs. I wouldn't consided eating food grown in many neighborhoods.
3. A average family garden will provide less than 1% of the required food.
4. Families will need to secure thier gardens from neighbors and vagrants?<
True for congested urban markets. It does not take much land, to grow fruits and vegetables. Even suburban NJ which is fairly densely populated should have enough land for many small scale gardners. It is not intended to replace but supplement - with all the spare time that we are going to have ;-)
A chain link fence for vagrants?
>>6. Plug-in hybrids
1. Short battery livetimes. Most batteries can only be recharged a few hundred times before the fail.
2. Deposal of dead batteries. They all contain toxic chemicals and heavy metals.
3. The US grid is barely able to cope with existing demand. A lot of power is generated using natural gas. Utility companies will be more likely to build cheap and dirty coal plants. Demand for electricity will soar as oil and gas deplete as consumers switch over to using electricity for thier home and work needs.<
They are coming. Battery technologies, ultracapacitors etc are improving fast. We will just use what power is available and allocate accordingly. HVAC gets last dibs on power IMHO. I personally am fairly optimistic about solar but it may have to wait until NG and coal are exhausted.
>>Dollar weakness: who cares; The avg. schmuck will spend the dollar that he can earn, beg, borrow, steal - whether it is on Gas or Chinese imports who cares - most spending is non-essential anyway. Food is grown locally.
We'll still need lots of oil and gas to make transition and to transport food and necessary goods (toothbrushes, soap, etc). We currently import more than half of our oil demand. but over time, domestic production will only head much lower. Food for cities will still need to be transported a great distance to meet demand. <<
That much oil will be available for a few more decades. After that...
>>We also have to consider the energy need to replace devices that run on oil and gas. Such as building heating equipment. Its going to take a lot of energy to produce and ship new equipment to consumers (if they can afford it).<<
Don't heat or heat less. Open a window, wear shorts and cotton T.
>>Americans have record debt levels. As the dollar falls, the interest rates will soar as foriegn liquity stops flowing to the US. This would make it very difficult for most Americans to access credit. As consumers stop spending, unemployment will soar and large number's will default on thier loans. <<
Corollary of high debt levels: Americans are short the dollar. Who should worry? Those who are long the dollar. As you say, that is certainly not Americans.
>>On top of that we have the boomers that are nearly elegable for retirement and gov't entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, etc). This will put further squeeze on gov't finances, making it difficult to fund projects to migrate away from oil and gas.<<
The entitlement mentality has to change. Public education, thorough the media?? But yes currently a big problem.
>While WTs export land model may well be correct, I believe that excessive doom and gloom is incorrect.
>>Keep digging. The more you understand about financing, demographics, gov't and energy, the less and less optimisitic you become. <<
I did not write clearly. Business as usual will change. But it is not Apocalypse. IMHO change of business as usual will be a good thing.
Joe says: "From my cold dead hands!" (Sorry, I am just trying to inject a little humor)
>We will use less. Hydroelectric, load reduction from current levels, coal (for another 100 yrs or so), solar will provide smoothing.
We'll need more, as electricity will fill the gap of declining energy from Oil and Gas. Electricity is far easier to transport than solid fuels. Its natural to expect demand to rise instead of declining. Only economics would cause a decline, but I suspect that gov't will get involved to heavy subsidize electricity. Voters don't like living in the dark.
>are coming. Battery technologies, ultracapacitors etc are improving fast.
Battery Technology has been improving fast for decades, but the fundimental issues haven't been solved. Battery life is unlikely to change a lot since they are all based on metal -ion transport. Ultracapacitors have drawbacks too. Namely sudden and violent discharges. They are inappropriate for personal vehicle use and they aren't cheap either.
>That much oil will be available for a few more decades. After that...
With a dollar crisis, Oil and gas will become very expensive, making even items like toothbrushes extremely expensive. You think domestically produced oil will be any cheaper than foriegn oil when the dollar goes bust? Take a few minutes and reason this out. How did price controls and rationing work out during the 1970's?
>It does not take much land, to grow fruits and vegetables. Even suburban NJ which is fairly densely populated should have enough land for many small scale gardners.
%1 or 2% reduction will not have much of a impact. Bigger reductions in consumption will occur because food prices will go up. Plus what happens to water supply when millions of families water their small gardens?
>Corollary of high debt levels: Americans are short the dollar. Who should worry? Those who are long the dollar. As you say, that is certainly not Americans.
Do you believe that they will just be able to walk away from thier debts? Hardly. What will happen to the unemployment rate which consumers stop spending, or start spending larger portions of thier incomes on less goods and services? Americans will not profit from shorting the dollar with debt. Argentina shorted their currency. Read articles on what happened to Argentina's population after the country defaulted.
>The entitlement mentality has to change. Public education, thorough the media?? But yes currently a big problem.
Ask a roomful of boomers if its OK to cut entitlements by 50% to 75%. Thats a real good way to make lots of angry old people. Current retirees living on SS, have difficulty today putting food on the table. Second, during a economy downturn businesses ditch thier oldest and youngest employees first. 50+ boomers already face challenges finding employment because of thier age. The majority of boomers will find it nearly impossible to find jobs, except perhaps at Walmart. Oh Wait! Walmart is dependant on globalization!
Just one observation:
>Do you believe that they will just be able to walk away from thier debts? Hardly. What will happen to the unemployment rate which consumers stop spending, or start spending larger portions of thier incomes on less goods and services? Americans will not profit from shorting the dollar with debt. Argentina shorted their currency. Read articles on what happened to Argentina's population after the country defaulted.<
They do not walk away. Just pay them with dollars that have less intrinsic worth. The lender takes the loss. After all the debt is denominated in dollars. And the Fed ultimately answers to political bosses. Therefore going forward the chances of a rate cut are much higher than the chances of a rate rise. The average American will be able to find the physical dollars.
You are right that middle class Argentians were scavenging trash for food. The United States economy however, is more dynamic (with entitlements a big risk) - also has a lot of refreshment in the economy with skilled immigrants (yes I am one :-)), new ideas, business creation. The right to private property is powerful. We can always sell overpriced condos on the CA and FL coasts to wealthy Arabs, Europeans and Chinese - that creates a nice demand for dollars.
Will the lack of flowable (liquid and gas) fossil fuels kill the US economy? We shall see!
when I hear they are just IOUs!
Not true. Take a look at the recent guest post by Professor Cutler Cleveland, who I'm told helped originate the concept of EROI. PV had a EROI of 10-20 several years ago. Now it's at least 25 with recent reductions in silicon use.
"Wind power - OK, but Wind farms will need to be backed up with a storage system. The only practical option is to store energy in reservors, but this requires lots of land and water."
It takes a fair amount of land, but we have it. It doesn't take that much water in the grand scheme of things. Pumped storage is doable, and relatively cheaply at about .6 cents per kwh.
"CTL (for Jets) - Too expensive for the Average Joe."
How expensive do you believe it to be? Everything I see say it looks to cost about $1.50 per gallon - it's just slow to build because the projects are huge and capital intensive.
On batteries: check out A123systems' Dewalt batteries: 2,000 cycles promised, 5,000 likely. A whole new generation of li-ion batteries are just now coming on the market with very long cycle lives. Regarding toxicity, you're thinking of Ni-Cad's. Li-ion's are very safe.
On the grid: natural gas is only 18% of generation. Wind is growing faster than coal: we could do all wind for new generation with a social decision to do so.
You've picked up a lot of incorrect info here. I'm curious: where did you get it?
Sorry, I am just not buying that arguement and I am really not interested in a debate about this. If the EROI was really that high it would be completing with Oil and gas and coal which in many cases has a lower EROI than that claim of 10 to 20. Let me know when some one builds a 1000 MW PV plant & infrastructure that can produce electricity at $0.06 Kw/hr.
>How expensive do you believe it to be? Everything I see say it looks to cost about $1.50 per gallon - it's just slow to build because the projects are huge and capital intensive.
Probably $4 to $6 a gallon when you include the costs for maintaince, transportation of feedstock, water, etc. I don't recall the actual price, but it was from a US Airforce Study on the CTL process. I think the prices thrown out in the media of $1.50/gallon is to attract investors. Will companies making CTL products make money, yes, will the do so selling it $1.50 per equivlent gallon of gasoline, definately no. CTL is best suited to produce DME or ethanol, which is what China is doing. The efficiency for making diesel and jet fuel is pretty low, and even worse for gasoline.
>On batteries: check out A123systems' Dewalt batteries: 2,000 cycles promised, 5,000 likely.
We'll see. I doubt real world figures will be anywhere near this figure. A Lithum-ion battery car fire will sure make an interesting story. Especially if they decide to use water. Li-ion batteries life are very susceptable to temperature. Think how hot the interior of a car gets during a hot day in August.
>Regarding toxicity, you're thinking of Ni-Cad's. Li-ion's are very safe.
Oh really?, Is it safe to throw them away in a landfill?
(Better ask a Battery Manufacture engineer, not their PR Rep). Lithum while not a heavy metal is still is toxic. If I recall Li-Ion batteries also contain cobalt which may or may not be toxic depending on what its bound to. Not to throw more egg into the pan, but Lithium-Ion batteries aren't cheap either. Can the average Joe afford the Tesla? Perhaps Cheap enough for small power tools. But powering a car is a completely different league.
> Wind is growing faster than coal
Really? How many Coal Plants is TXU building these days? and under construction World Wide, How many in under construction in China? Currently, very little is being invested in storage systems for wind (at least in the US). With a very quick google search I found the US currently has about 9000 MW of Wind installed. TXU alone is currently building or has planned projects of 9000 MW of new Coal fired plants. While these figures may not be accurate, I am pretty sure there is more MW of new coal fired plants under construction today than there are new Wind farms under construction. Considering the length of time to build large coal plants I can conceed than its possible that wind might overtake coal construction. The Coal plants are obviously intended for base load and the wind is likely for peak loads since there isn't a lot of storage construction yet. Base load plants keep the lights on and Peak load plants keeps the AC running.
>You've picked up a lot of incorrect info here. I'm curious: where did you get it?
Reading scientific studies and papers, not the crap presented in popular science magazines or PR campaigns.
Now, on to the issues.
1) EROI. You're confusing energy Return on Investment with financial Return on Investment. It's perfectly possible for something to take little energy to manufacture and yet require a lot of expensive labor which makes it expensive. This is the case with photovoltaics. They're currently manufactured with techniques developed for computer chips which are very expensive, though the energy component is not that large.
I know that some people think that oil equals energy, and that energy equals cost. These really aren't true, especially the 2nd. Energy cost is a relatively small % of cost for most manufacturing (and even smaller for most services). This is why oil prices could triple in a year or two and yet many manufactured products didn't rise in price at all.
I'd be curious about the Air Force study (a brief google search failed to turn it up). A recent proposal for a CTL plant projected a capital cost of $6B for 80K Barrels/day (gasoline). That works out to about $17 per barrel, assuming 7% interest and 30 year amortization. Coal is cheap: IIRC perhaps $10/barrel of output (including transportation - you'd likely place the plant near the sources of coal). Add in perhaps $10 for operating costs and that gives a cost for $37 per barrel, or about $1 per gallon. Don't forget that CTL output requires no further refining.
">On batteries: check out A123systems' Dewalt batteries: 2,000 cycles promised, 5,000 likely. We'll see. I doubt real world figures will be anywhere near this figure."
Why? I've read the technical explanation for the greater longevity, and it made sense to me. Actually, I think EV performance will be much better than powertool performance: tradesmen can be very hard on their tools, and they're pretty happy with the Dewalt 36V stuff.
"A Lithum-ion battery car fire will sure make an interesting story."
These batteries use a different chemistry which isn't susceptible to thermal runaway. I've read hobbyist accounts of short circuiting them with no problem.
"Li-ion batteries life are very susceptable to temperature."
1) that applies more to conventional li-ion, and 2) most li-ion batteries are used in very simple devices with no cooling or power management - it's sort've like comparing a lawn mower to a car.
"Oh really?, Is it safe to throw them away in a landfill? "
I haven't had time to research this in detail, but according to Tesla the answer is yes. If you have specific info to the contrary I'd be interested.
"> Wind is growing faster than coal"
TXU is proposing coal (and old tech at that) and getting a lot of flack for it: those plants may or may not get built.
Take a look at stats for proposed generation in 2007:
page 8, http://www.nei.org/documents/Energy%20Markets%20Report.pdf
Look at the table keeping in mind that wind has a 1 year planning horizon, so the 2008+ numbers will rise dramatically.
Doesn't extracting Conventional Oil or mining Coal have capital expentures too? When we refer to EROI we need to consider the entire process, from minining the sand to installing the panels at a plant and mantaining them. If we consider just the raw materials and not the processing costs, Oil and Gas have a EROI of infinity since no energy input it used to manufacture oil and Coal. We discuss EROI of fossil fuels we consider all the costs for extracting and delivering it to consumers. We need to do the same for Solar energy.
If you expect Solar to replace Fossil fuels with out any serious economic affects, Solar energy must be able to match the cost consumers pay to consume that energy.
>A recent proposal for a CTL plant projected a capital cost of $6B for 80K Barrels/day (gasoline). That works out to about $17 per barrel, assuming 7% interest and 30 year amortization
Sorry, your numbers don't make sense. Where are the figures for the cost and transport of the feedstock, consumables, waste disposal, plant maintainance and manpower? Your figure only includes the infrastructure costs which does not reflect the actual production price. The costs infrastructure costs are likely grossly underestimated as are all of these types of programs. For instance, One of the projects for oil sands was originally estimated at $9 Billion for 100 kb/d but the actual figure was about $19 Billion, which was more than 100% of the original estimate. Gross underestimatation of plant construction costs is the normal, not the exception.
>These batteries use a different chemistry which isn't susceptible to thermal runaway.
To power a car its takes lots of power. A 50 hp engine produces 37.5 Kilowatts. A failure in the cars electrical system can kick off a fire. Or perhaps the car has an accident which causes an internal short that bypasses the cars safety systems.
> I've read hobbyist accounts of short circuiting them with no problem.
Electrical or other controls are included in the design for short circuit protect. This is fairly simply to do with a battery suppling just a few dozen watts, but its not so easy when the battery will supply 10s of Kilowatts.
>I haven't had time to research this in detail, but according to Tesla the answer is yes. If you have specific info to the contrary I'd be interested.
Google it. You should have no trouble finding disposal procedures for laptop, cell phones, and batteries for power tools that use Li-ion batteries. Consumers are instructed to return dead batteries.
>TXU is proposing coal (and old tech at that) and getting a lot of flack for it: those plants may or may not get built.
Consumers need base load plants. The choices are Coal, Nuclear, Hydro, or Wind backed with Hydro. All it would take is a round of blackouts in the hot Texas summer to change sentiment. Wind backed with Hydro is a problem in Texas because water shortages. If the water will be continuosly recycled it would need twice the land and One area need a much higher elevation than the second area.
>Look at the table keeping in mind that wind has a 1 year planning horizon, so the 2008+ numbers will rise dramatically.
The total for new coal generation over the next 4 years is 37,153 MW and for Wind its only 23,470. Natural Gas is the highest at 49,776. I suspect figure for Natural Gas will dramatically decline since the cost of Natural Gas is rising pretty fast. Coal will probably win long term because of its much smaller land requirement (Wind Turbines must be distributed as a coal plant is centralized), and coal plants are far more practical for base loads.
again, you're confusing energy ROI and $-ROI. The analyses of E-ROI for PV that I referred to include all of the energy costs for mining & transportation of raw materials (especially silicon), processing of raw materials into components, assembly of the components, transport of the finished panels to the final installation site, installation, etc. They include everything. This kind of analysis is not that hard to do: the energy costs of all these steps are not mysterious, and there are standard methodologies.
Sure, PV needs to become cheaper, and it will. It's at about $.25 per kwh now, and likely to drop in half in the next 4-5 years, and drop in half again in the 6-7 years after that. At $.25 it's economic in Japan, Hawaii and parts of California even without subsidies. As prices fall it will become economic in more places. From 1992 to 1998 PV volumes doubled every 3 years. From 1998 to 2006 they doubled every 2 years (40% per year). PV is at a tipping point of accelerating growth which is less and less dependent on subsidies: in about 10 years it's likely to be cheaper than grid electricity in most places, and solar will look even better than wind does now.
On CTL: I included the costs for feedstock - that's the coal (remember, this is Coal to Liquids). "consumables, waste disposal, plant maintainance and manpower" are included in what I called "operating costs" and which I estimated conservatively high at $10 per barrel. You have a point on the upside risks of capital cost estimation. On the other hand, if the capital cost doubled that would only raise the cost per gallon from about $1 to about $1.40, and raise the break even point from $37 to $54 per barrel. That's significant, but if oil costs rise as Peak Oil analysis suggests, it's no big deal.
On the risks of electric cars: you're really reaching. Do you really think EV's are going to be riskier than driving around 15 gallons of highly flammable gasoline?
On battery disposal: of course consumers are instructed to recycle. Heck, they're instructed to recycle pop bottles - it reduces landfill, reduces the need to mine for raw materials, saves money, etc. That doesn't mean they're toxic. My understanding is that ni-cads have cadmium, some old batteries have mercury (primary batteries like alkaline-manganese, zinc-carbon, button cell mercuric-oxide, and other mercuric-oxide batteries), and lead-acid have...lead. But li-ion has no toxic heavy metals. Again, do you have any specific info to the contrary?
On wind: this is a long discussion. I would note that pumped storage is cheap, and works mighty well with the sea (which Texas has a lot of) and with the great lakes as a lower reservoir: take a look at Ludington, MI. Spare generating capacity isn't that expensive to build: natural gas "peakers" have been built that were expected to run less than a week per year, and be economic. Alan Drake estimates that wind could provide 52% of our generation needs, with the balance from nuclear, hydro, and solar in that order. I think he's right, though I think a somewhat cheaper mix would be 35% wind and 35% solar, and the balance from biomass and hydro in that order. I would estimate the costs for such a grid 25 years from now as slightly higher than the current costs: say $.14 per kwh vs the current $.10.
On wind vs coal: again, you must disregard the 5 year total for wind, as these figures are only accurate for 2006 and 2007 - most 2008 wind projects haven't started the formal permit & planning process yet. I agree that nat gas will decline. I don't understand why land requirements for wind would be important. In any case, wind turbines don't "use up" much land: maybe a quarter acre per turbine, which doesn't cost much (though the lease payments make farmers awfully happy). Turbines must be spaced apart, and that means they "occupy" about 60 acres each, but that land can be used for farming, etc. Off-shore turbines don't "use up" ocean area. Finally, as discussed previously, wind intermittency can be handled in a wide variety of ways: geographical distribution, pumped storage, storage in electric vehicles, negative correlation with solar, biomass and very occasional fossil fuel backup.
Energy is Money and Money is Energy. You need to grasp that fact.
>Sure, PV needs to become cheaper, and it will. It's at about $.25 per kwh now, and likely to drop in half in the next 4-5 years
Sorry, it will not. Do you know how to construct single, multi crystal, and thin film solar panels? What are the processes used to refine raw materials into silicon? How are dopants added and what parameters are used to prevent them from migrating? How are junctions formed in cells and how are the cells connect to extract electricity from them. How does bandgap affect efficiency and ultimate cap efficency? When you can design your own solar cells, then lets talk about how much the costs will fall.
> On the other hand, if the capital cost doubled that would only raise the cost per gallon from about $1 to about $1.40, and raise the break even point from $37 to $54 per barrel. That's significant, but if oil costs rise as Peak Oil analysis suggests, it's no big deal.
How much do you really know about CTL? Can you construct a CTL plant? What is the efficency of producing Diesel and Gasoline using FT? Why is the production of diesel and gasoline with FT inappropriate? What is the most common design of a gasifier used and how efficient is it producing syngas. What type of coal is best suited for gasification. What is the average precentage of H2 liberared during gasification. What process is used to enrich H2 in syngas? How does containents in coal affect the performance of FT catalysts. What are the most abundant raw FT products and what steps would be required to refine it into Jet fuel?
>But li-ion has no toxic heavy metals. Again, do you have any specific info to the contrary?
It has toxic metals. Lithium and Lithium salts are toxic. Li-ion batteries also contain Cobolt which can also be very toxic.
> would note that pumped storage is cheap, and works mighty well with the sea (which Texas has a lot of) and with the great lakes as a lower reservoir:
Sea water is inappropriate in Texas. I'll leave that up to you to discovery why. For water to serve as a energy storage you need to have a height difference between the storage reservor and where you discard/pump it from. Any ole lake will not do. Its more complicated that you suggest and I believe you are using pop-tech as the basis for your understanding which is far from complete. Too often, people tend to asssume what looks good on paper will also look good when its implemented in the real world.
Second, where are these storage systems being developed for Wind today? Are there any wide scale develop of them in the near future? When you throw in "using the Great Lakes" you are spinning your argument, since the Great Lakes are thosands of miles away from Texas. Please Don't cherry pick places in order to fit your logic. That is the same as CERA saying that when the world oil runs out, we'll just get it from Jupiter, Saturn and other planets that are loaded with hydrocarbons. We Landed men on the moon in 1969, so it shouldn't be any trouble today extracting hydrocarbons from the gas giants since we have better technology today than we did back in '69, and its going to get even better in the future!
It's really, really not. It should be obvious that some things take more labor but not more energy. For instance, handmade art is expensive, even if it takes very little energy to make. A human consumes much less energy than, say, a very high temperature kiln. Work done by highly paid people is proportionately more expensive than that done by low paid people.
Energy is necessary for, and multiplies human labor, but human labor is the key to cost. Something can be high EROI and high cost, or high EROI and low cost - energy is only a small portion of manufacturing costs.
You could make some kind of metaphysical argument that life is a form of very low entropy, but the relationship between energy and life is very, very complex and not at all linear. Again, as a practical matter, energy costs are very far from the most important cost in manufacturing.
"When you can design your own solar cells, then lets talk about how much the costs will fall."
How about Professor Cleveland, an acknowledged expert on energy EROI and a recent guest contributor to the The Oil Drum? Here's a quote from someone who's company has designed a few solar cells: the CEO of Sharp, the leading producer of PV and an extremely large and reputable company:
"BERLIN - Japan's Sharp Corp., the world's biggest maker of solar cells, expects the cost of generating solar power to halve by 2010 and to be comparable with that of nuclear power by 2030, Sharp's president said.
"By the year 2010 we'll be able to halve generation costs," Katsuhiko Machida said on Thursday.
"By 2020 we expect a further reduction - half of 2010 - and by 2030 we expect half the 2020 level.
"By 2030 the cost will be comparable to electricity produced by a nuclear power plant," said Machida, speaking on the fringes of the IFA trade fair in Berlin, the world's biggest consumer electronics fair.
Asked how the costs were likely to compare with those for producing electricity from fossil fuels such as coal, Machida replied: "Fossil fuel resources will be totally out by then.""
I don't suggest that I'm an expert on CTL - my correspondence with people like Robert Rapier, and my reading on the subject (like the Hirsch study) suggest that there are no obstacles besides the size of the capital expenditures involved - CTL has been used for many decades. On the other hand, you haven't provided any actual specific answers to your questions. The debate would be greatly advanced if you would provide actual info, rather than questions.
On li-ion toxicity: Teslamotors says that their li-ion batteries aren't toxic. My reading suggests that lithium is much less toxic than, say, lead or nickel, though cobalt could be a problem. OTOH, if they're recycled, who cares? Non-toxic would be a little better, but we still use lead-acid batteries. Given that the alternative is cars with lead-acid batteries and gasoline combustion, with global warming, NO2, etc, I don't see a problem either way.
The technology of pumped storage is pretty simple - it's been around for many decades. Alan Drake indicates that it's possible to develop enough pumped storage in the US to make large amounts of wind feasible (52% of grid). The Great Lakes are already being used - see the Ludington, MI installation. There are a number of installations further south, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raccoon_Mountain_Pumped-Storage_Plant Sea side applications have been done: Kunigami Village, Okinawa, Japan http://www.jcold.or.jp/Eng/Seawater/Summary.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_tidal_power_plant Are there a large number being planned right now? Of course not: natural gas was the preferred method for smoothing out peaks in consumption until just the last couple of years. These are big projects, and wind is far from being big enough to need them. Right now wind is about 1% of generation, and you don't need pumped storage untill wind gets to at least 15% and probably 20% of total generation.
Furthermore, pumped storage isn't the only storage method or method of handling intermittency out there. There's hydrogen in stationary fuel cells (much more practical than for transportation); EV batteries; flow batteries (see VRB); compressed air (CAE); demand management, etc.
Human labor takes energy too. It takes energy to transport laborers to the work site, feed them, etc. If the worker travels an hour by car or even by train, it could very well take more energy that an kiln. While money does does not directly translate dollars and cents into BTUs and joules, it still does't change the fact the Money and energy are permanently connected at the hip. Money represented work accomplished. Energy is the input for work.
>Something can be high EROI and high cost, or high EROI and low cost - energy is only a small portion of manufacturing costs.
The bottom line is that if it costs 20 times for a PV plant to generate a kw/h than a coal or gas fired plant, energy produced from the PV plant will be sold roughly 20 times the cost of the latter. When someone can build a 1000 MW solar plant and make a profit selling electricity a $0.06 KW/h, then lets talk. Until this happens this is just a big pipe dream. I can absolutely gaurentee that the future will not be powered by solar PV plants because its too expensive to build and there are environmental issues which make it impractical. The three primary sources of future electrical generation will be coal, nuclear and Hydro. Wind will be the leading minory source followed by the rest (Geothermal, wave, perhaps ocean thermal).
>"BERLIN - Japan's Sharp Corp., the world's biggest maker of solar cells, expects the cost of generating solar power to halve by 2010 and to be comparable with that of nuclear power by 2030, Sharp's president said.
Go look and press releases in the 1980s, and the early 1990s about PV promises. You will find the same promises about PV cells back then. Back in the mid to late 1980's there was a company(I don't recall the name) that promised PV panels as cheap as paper by the early 90's. The price of paper has gone up, but the costs of PV panels has not fallen significantly. Its quite possible that someday in the future, that the price of PV panels will as cheap as paper, but not because the price of PV dropped but because the price of paper has risen.
Press releases are intended to attract investors, not to deliver on their promises.
>On the other hand, you haven't provided any actual specific answers to your questions. The debate would be greatly advanced if you would provide actual info, rather than questions
"The Air Force tested synthetic JP-8 derived from natural gas on B-52s (known as big ugly fat fellow in military circle). It guzzles 47,000 gallons (around $100,000 fill-up) in a single mission. Try to fill it up with synJP-8 which costs $23 a gallon to Pentagon."
http://www.energybulletin.net/21330.html
During early 1980s there was a huge push for alternative fuels (GTL, CTL, Shale, etc) when Oil was at $40 bbl (in today's dollars: about $85 bbl), Major energy companies back then determined CTL and fuels would not be afforable to the average US consumer. Another words, all that you see and read today about CTL and other alternatives was already investigated decades ago.
The figures thrown out today is the same rehash of the promises made 25 years ago. What has changed since then? They are still using the same designs and and same processes as they did 25 years ago. There hasn't been a major new breakthough with gasification or FT in more than 25 years. So how is it cheaper today than it was in 1980? As the demand for coal goes up so will its costs. Back in 2005, costs for coal rose from about $9/ton to about $20/ton (I haven't looked at it recently so I don't know what it is today). Any large scale production of CTL will certainly drive up prices much further.
>Teslamotors says that their li-ion batteries aren't toxic
Teslamotors doesn't manufacture batteries.
>My reading suggests that lithium is much less toxic than, say, lead or nickel, though cobalt could be a problem. OTOH, if they're recycled, who cares? Non-toxic would be a little better, but we still use lead-acid batteries.
The issue becomes a huge one when you try to replace the existing personal transport system using batteries. Already there significant issues from the small amounts of desposed cell phone and laptop batteries, most of which are Lithium based.
An as I stated Li-ion batteries is non-debatable issue because:
- High cost (The population will not be able to afford to buy $60k+ electric cars, since the majority of jobs are dependant on cheap energy and will dissappear as oil and gas deplete). Today demand for SUVs and cars is falling as consumers need to spend more of thier income on other items (debt, food, heating, electricity, and transportation fuels)
- Suspectiable to high temperatures that kills their ability to hold charge.
- Lack of raw materials for large scale use. Lithium is extracted from sea water and rare spodumene deposits. As volume increases prices will rise because the materials have extraction constraints.
You need to find a different power storage medium for vehicles.>There's hydrogen in stationary fuel cells (much more practical than for transportation);
Very expensive, Impractable for multi gigawatt loads. Plus storage of hydrogen is a problem.
>EV batteries; flow batteries (see VRB);
Expensive, impractable, PEM flow batteries have short lifetimes before they must be rebuilt.
>compressed air (CAE);
Low efficiency, not available everywhere, high maintanance costs.
>demand management, etc.
Yes. but this does but a crip on the electric power future.
>These are big projects, and wind is far from being big enough to need them. Right now wind is about 1% of generation, and you don't need pumped storage untill wind gets to at least 15% and probably 20% of total generation.
Doesn't matter, water storage systems would also work nicely with existing base load plants and would save them the need to construct peak load plants. Why do power companies continue to build new gas fired plants (49,000 MW of new planned construction) instead of building water storage systems. There are obvious economic reasons despite the steady double digit rise in Ngas prices over the last 5 years.
One thing holding back hydro pumped storage is lack of excess coal fired gneeration in most markets. And uncertainity about the future (these are LONG term investments). Not all utility executives start off their day reading TOD :-)
You have some valid points. I am also reluctant to assume specific technological progress on a timetable (but I acknowledge Moore's Law). However, I can see the curve on costs for WTs continuing for some years yet. Larger market > more design $ > better designs > lower costs. And simply more operating experience improves the next generation. And WTs are not at their maximum size yet. Small economies of scale for cranes, transmission, other factors.
So improved economics for WTs are coming. Not revolutionary, but significantly better.
Also TBMs (tunnel boring machines) continue to show improved economics (-3%/year assuming no inflation). They are a critical part of hydro pumped storage and run-of-river schemes.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Jeavon's "How to grow more vegetables..." is a great book on biointensive gardening. Master gardeners are getting enough food to support a person indefinitely on 1,000 sq feet per person. That's 40' x 25'. Someone less skilled might require twice as much land, which is 40' x 50'.
In Cuba, Havana now produces almost enough food to support it's own population. Admittedly it is a moist tropical climate with three crops a year, but it shows what is possible.
On the general energy front, it's my contention (since my wife and I have gone off grid, PV), that the vast majority of electricity used is wasted. Americans could cut their electricity use by 90% without any danger to their health or well being. In fact, most of their energy usage is BAD for their health, and they would be better off without it.
Over 20 years, gasoline consumption could go down dramatically. Replace Ford trucks with "smart cars" and cut consumption by two thirds; and make it safer for alternative vehicles to drive around.
As for the economy, lets' face it, the debt bomb is probably going to pop and leave a lot of people stranded. How we deal with that issue determines what sort of socieity we leave our grandchildren.
As a ChemE you should well understand many of the manufacturing processes required to sustain the American dream. It isn't JUST about the automobile. Enormous fossil fuel inputs are currently required at all levels of production in food, pharma, etc. That is not to mention the issues that will occur with NatGas depletion which is occuring on a parallel path.
re. "Dollar weakness: who cares; The avg. schmuck will spend the dollar that he can earn, beg, borrow, steal - whether it is on Gas or Chinese imports who cares - most spending is non-essential anyway. Food is grown locally. All of us have more clothes and DVD players than we need."
A large and growing % of your fellow Americans are having a hard time making ends meet. Not all single parents, elderly pensioners etc are wasting the few dollars they currently have. Dollar devaluation will mean fewer choices and harder lives for many people.
Not that I expect you to give a damn about anyone besides yourself.
Unfortunately, the response BushCo is likely to give to this question is thousands and thousands of nuclear warheads delivered to the exporters' doorsteps on top of fast missles.
Think of it this way: the seller of oil is paid in dollars but also wants to buy things priced in euros, eg a red Ferrari and a vacation in Paris. So, up goes the dollar price he wants for his oil.
This is an extreme oversimplification, of course, but you get the idea.
But here is a corollary: if America has little of value to sell to the oil exporter, will the exporter continue to accept payment in dollars?
A total myth! The Euro was trading at about 90 cents during 2002 and in 2004 it was worth an average of $1.20, a gain of 33 percent. Therefore if oil rose 64% in US dollars from 2002 to 2004, then in Euros oil rose by about 42.5%.
Ron Patterson
But that's irrelevant, since oil rose so much further after 2004, even in Euros.
I study econ/finance in college and am finishing my degree in May and I wanted to offer some insight. Price is suppose to communicate scarcity, but price signals can be wrong and it happens most often when there are large externalized costs such as the pollution that oil creates.
Imagine the true cost of a gallon of gas if we figured in ALL the costs, not only of production, as is common now, but also these externalized costs are borne amongst the commons and we all pay indirectly instead. Imagine if pollution costs including health care costs were figured into each gallon of gas. This new price would communicate the true value to a person and he or she would make their choice. For many, they would choose to not drive a car since the cost would be prohibitive.
Think about it for a second. One gallon of gas that currently costs me around $2 can propel a 6000 pound SUV 20 miles down the road in 20 minutes assuming 60mpg and 20 mpg (conservative). It would take how many grown men to do the same thing? How much would you have to pay them to hurl a 6000 pound hunk of metal down the road 20 miles in a mere 20 minutes. It's amazing that it's THIS cheap in all honesty.
Consider the cost of gasoline in light of the fact that Starbucks charges about $18 to $36 per gallon for water, sugar, some flavoring, and sometimes some milk.
I also wonder if Daniel Yergin may have to go into the Energy Analyst Protection Program.
Interesting headline on Drudge: "Dollar hits 15 year low"
One worrisome item, among many, many others, will be what happens to heating oil supplies if we have both a cold winter and (as I expect) a continued decline in oil export capacity.
As I have repeatedly said, the first round of bidding for declining petroleum exports was easy--we just had to take the oil away from poor Africans. The next round of bidding--against China and Europe--will be much, much tougher.
Consider what would (will, IMO) happen to the world economy.
In case I haven't mentioned it for the past 30 minutes, you might want to consider ELP.
You can't say I haven't--repeatedly--warned you.
I agree with your concept of examining exports. However your model is static, i.e. it does not take into account the drop in demand from a possible slowing global economy, due to higher oil prices, yes, but also other factors (eg no more borrowing capacity).
For example: If the US economy slows significantly (say 1%-2% per year) what will happen to the demand side? Considering that the US economy is globally dominant, a 1% drop in US GDP may translate to a 3-4% drop in global export demand (the US is currently importing abt. 30% of all oil that is exported, as I recall).
What do you think?
A slowing (crashing) economy is essentially a given. IMO, we are simply seeing a series of auctions for rapidly declining net oil export capacity. So far, the forced conservation has mostly been in regions like Africa.
Soon, some consumers in richer countries are going to be forced to conserve. I suggest everyone read the following article, even if you have already seen it, if you want an idea of what forced conservation looks like.
http://www.energybulletin.net/22775.html
As Fuel Prices Soar, A Country Unravels
Chip Cummins, Wall St Jounal
There is every indication, at least here in the US, that price reduces demand very little. In addition, fluctuations in economic activty also seem to have almost no effect on demand.
It is thought that the US economy has slowed in the last two months, yet overall product demand remains very strong.
I think we will have to see a significant drop in economic activity before demand drops. More likely, demand will only be forced down by higher prices (such as $3 US gasoline) or actual physical restrictions of some sort (such as we saw in the early 70s).
Conversely, the US and most all rich, energy profligate economies can cut their energy use (and thus oil demand and thus imports) by much more by initially reducing non-essentials. Take leisure travel, for example or second homes etc etc. And this can happen due to an economic slowdown unrelated to Peak Oil.
As I have said b4 you really need to look and dynamically model more than the production or even production capacity side of the oil market.
Unfortunately consumption is not a linear function and it is certainly not always that dC/dt>0 (C= consumption). You cannot easily model human behavior, as OPEC discovered to their dismay in 1980's.
Regards
Having to fight to get to the cash counter of a convience/lottery/gas station checkout is not easy with many standing there scratching and buying lotto chits endlessly.
Most poor looking and eating cheap cheesy junk food at that.
They always seem to have plenty for games of chance.
Well soon they will get to play on the BIG ONE,IMO.
Outside of Hickory,NC at one such place I had to almost threaten physical violence to 'prepay' for my gas due to lotto scratchers holding up the line.
This is why we are doomed. They spend what little they have on state sponsored gambling that has odds that are frankly despicable. Little Johnny then has to get free breakfast and lunch at school cause mum can't fix a damn peanut butter sandwich or fry a friggin egg.
It was worse in the redder neck areas of the south I found via my extrememly effective statistical sampling. And remember that I am a southern both by birth and choice.
Then seeing highway billboards advertising The Cherokee Tribal Bingo palaces? That was the pits.
We have won over the Amurkan Indian to bolster his life and culture via building gambling casinos for the white man.
Good or bad? Hard to say but I think its largely negative anyway.
Tell me about your samplings then?
airdale--I don't write whitepapers on it, I just observe it.
Thats called more or less ...experience! We all can look , see and judge, can't we?
What you write about scares me.
I read this article (free reg yada yada yada) yesterday.
I think about the people unable to evacuate from New Orleans during Katrina.
How much of the US population is dependent on some sort of government handout or support? How many live pay check to pay check (or welfare check to welfare check)? Go to any major US city and look at the size of subsidized housing. How many people use foodstamps to help put food on the table?
For these people ELP is impossible.
I worry they will become the vagrant class in the event of a post peak crash.
Getting into cooking at home now, and into a more frugal way of life, I can look back and see that I was living quite frugally in my 20s compared to most Americans, but I was still spending an awful lot on prepared foods, and blowing out a lot of money I could have saved.
In my 20s I was in the process of trying to get an engineering degree (Yeah, I was an idiot, white and no money, kick me hard for this, the quote system sure did!) and felt that since I did not make much $$, saving was not anything to worry about or do, since I was going to make all this money LATER. I made $5 an hour as a student eventually and was used to living on $3.15/hr so I could really save if I wanted to, but no, nevermind, since I was going to make all this money LATER. And later, as a bench tech, making the amazing sum of $9 an hour, real amassing of savings were still a thing for LATER because I was going to somehow advance in the company (a majority not-my-tribe company, yeah, right, did I mention I was an idiot?) or continue my degree LATER and then the money would roll in.
I got to see up close the spending habits of the down-and-out in the US and have observed the same thing over the years since I was a kid. At least I stayed away from the beer, cigs, and lotto tickets for years and years, and still stay away from the cigs and lotto. I've hung out with various lowlifes or type society view as lowlifes (there are some that are just modern bohemians and won't actually cut your throat, there are a few cool people in the lowest strata, and in our stratified society you only make friends within your stratum) and they never-ever think about tomorrow.
They seem to have had the same "training" I did, that if you have it, spend it NOW because otherwise it will disappear. It will sublimate somehow, like ice on a windy day, waft away into the air.....
Now, I have figured out that money is like matter/energy, and does not just spontaneously disappear, and if I budget, the saved dollars don't disappear, they end up right in my bank account and a surplus starts to build up. I write down all the money in/out every day, and and will start doing monthly reports. But 7-11 types don't do this, it's hard enough for me to!
Since the lower class in the US is encouraged to believe they'll all become rich LATER somehow, I guess they believe the Lotto tickets will be what makes them rich.... LATER. They also fall for Amway, Amsoil, and other late-night TV get-rich-quick scams. Impulse control is low in this group, so you see feel-good-quick things like beer, cigs, and tattoos. Well, maybe tattoos don't feel good, I've heard they're painful, but the decision to get one is famously impulse-driven.
I hate to confirm a stereotype but the poor are most likely to have a TV and an $80 a month cable bill, and the more affluent/intellectual to have no TV. Go to any convenience/"liquor" store and you'll see tons of the lower class buying their Lotto tickets.
The old-style poor, the people who cook at home and make do with very very little, exist in the US but they're immigrants, Chinese and Hispanics and so on. They live the old way because they've not learned the behavior patterns of the US native lower class, yet.
My man! I had you pegged wrong perhaps.
I too grew up 'poor' in that there was a war (WWII) going on and rationing. My father was gone for a long time. My brother and I begged for food and stole what we could , while in St. Louis living in tenement buildings. Think of 4 or 5 story wooden structures with wooden stairs in the back and toddlers playing on these rickety stairs.
I was whisked back to the farm and never went had to go back to the cities. Yet on the farm there was zero money. Lots of hard work but good food , fresh air and lots of relatives in the huge extended family. Yes poor for my grandfather raised us two even though he had 14 children of his own , a 100 acre farm he didn't own but sharecropped.
Now out of this I pulled myself up by my bootstraps. Read anything I could find. I finally retired and had lived the Amurkan Dream and prospered ONLY because I put lots of effort and work into it. Nobody gave me shit. Nothing. If you didn't earn it you didn't get it.
So I have little compassion for those who I see 'gaming the system' and spending all it on lotto and gambling. Used to see them on the gambling boats.
Our state governments are bilking the poor and whats left of the middle class with dreamscapes of getting rich on lotteries and gambling.
End of story. I will never wait in line while some jerk is playing with lotto cards and holding me up be they rich or poor.
In the 1950s there was hope. You could climb up. No racial quotas. No racial groups monopolizing whole sectors of vocation, keeping one out for being white.
People growing up poor and having access to some form of farm, which many did, pre-1970s really grew up a lot richer than I or my post 1970s coherts can imagine. I get you were not perpetually hungry, underweight, wracked by every little cold that came along because that stuff knocks you out for weeks when you're malnourished. I bet you didn't have your superior-race neighbors stealing anything you tried to grow for food and anything else that wasn't nailed down.
Yes, I've gotten somewhere in spite if the system - no one is looking out for me and I know it. In the 1950s, the system actually did work for most Americans - I've read the tech magazines from that time and the companies weren't trying to prevent whites from getting into tech professions, they were running ads in the mags begging 'em to come work for 'em!
We are talking about two COMPLETELY different Universes.
Which is why, given that I'm in my 40s now so most of the fighting-age population has grown up in my Universe, if things get bad I expect intertribal warefare to cut the population down nicely. I hope to take plenty of the other guys with me to light my way to Valhalla! Folks from your Universe still have a basic niceness and decency, I can't imagine you guys making lampshades out of the other guy's skin. I and my ilk however, would consider such a thing quite fun and witty. You guys had Audie Murphy, we have Timothy McVeigh.
Why? Seems like the global picture would be a fraction of the US slowdown, not a multiple.
When push comes to shove, China not only has a $trillion in the bank, they also have manufactured goods to export. What they need is energy. Russia has oil and gas to export. Their combined trading partnership does not need the US. Note that this oversimplified analysis is based on physics. The monetary repercussions will work themselves out, but are obvious. Unless WW3 happens instead.
I remember the discussions on Yahoo EnergyResource list around 2002-2004ish timeframe with Andrew et al.
BTW, he has one out today at FinancialSense.com
PEAK OIL TO PEAK GAS IS A SHORT RIDE
http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/mckillop/2006/1129.html
John
Not only that, but as I have pointed out before, it is inconsistent. Early in the year, exports were falling, while coincidentally (as I pointed out at the time) refinery utilization was at a very low level as spring turnaround season was under way. If refinery utilization is low, refiners aren't going to be buying as much oil, and therefore not as much will be imported into the U.S.
However, later in the year when refinery utilization went back over 90%, exports came way up, and we actually set new export records for product coming into the U.S. When I pointed this out, WT said that the U.S. is not the entire story, and that exports may have dropped everwhere else in the world. To that, I say that we can apply the same logic to the first quarter, and say that just because imports dropped to the U.S., it does not mean that worldwide exports dropped. As the U.S. imported less, other countries may have been importing more.
So, forgive my skepticism, but I don't think the case is convincing. I am a die-hard skeptic (as a result of my training as a scientist) so I am looking for a model that I can't poke a lot of holes through. I am looking for something that could pass peer-review. This model could not.
I think that we killed off a lot of demand later in the year (because of the high prices earlier in the year), and we probably killed off quite a few Africans, which allowed US to set product export records later in the year.
However, the export/import numbers are just symptoms of the key problem--the top exporters are far more depleted than the world is overall--compounded by rapidly growing consumption in most exporting countries.
But Robert, the key thing that literally amazes me is your continued prediction that we won't peak until after 2010, when it's a virtual certainty that all four of the current super giant oil fields are watering out. The best case for Ghawar is that it is one-third water, after being redeveloped with horizontal wells.
Robert,
What proof are you looking for? When we reach zero net world oil exports?
Texas, Lower 48, Total US, Russia, North Sea, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and now the world have all shown lower production (at least crude + condensate) after crossing the 50% of Qt mark.
The top three net oil exporters are vastly more depleted, based on HL plots, than the world is overall, and consumption in two out of three is growing very rapidly (11% year over year increase in car sales in Russia).
Eight of the top ten net oil exporters (all but Russia and UAE) are showing lower crude + condensate production relative to December. And Russia is showing lower exports.
In January, I predicted that Russia and Saudi Arabia would join Norway in showing lower exports and that is precisely what we are seeing. Earlier this year, I predicted a renewed bidding war for declining oil exports, and IMO that is precisely what we are seeing. Only this time, the bidding won't be so easy.
I have 10 articles on the Energy Bulletin that virtually all quantitatively address world production and/or world oil exports.
Instead of carping about import numbers and refinery runs, I think that it is way past time for you to offer some kind of more quantitative case for your prediction that we are going to see rising oil production.
It is not proof that I am looking for, it is evidence. It is a model that doesn't cherry-pick its data points, as you have shown a tendancy to do.
Instead of carping about import numbers and refinery runs...
Import numbers are a key piece of evidence that you have used to support your model. Refinery runs are closely tied to this. Why wouldn't I carp on that, when it also explains what we actually saw take place? It also explains why imports came up so much this summer - and they stayed consistently above your December import metric (which was skewed up a bit anyway because imports had to come up as a result of Katrina).
I think that it is way past time for you to offer some kind of more quantitative case for your prediction that we are going to see rising oil production.
You wish a quantitative case to be made for situations in which we actually have little quantitative data. You build your case on a presumption that the Saudis are lying. I build my case qualitatively, by knowing many places that aren't producing full out and by knowing that imports could come up if needed. That is not my opinion; that is something I know to be true.
Robert,
This is a complete falsehood. I built my case based on a quantitative (HL) analysis that Saudi Arabia, in 2005, was at about the same stage of depletion that the prior swing producer, Texas, peaked.
Regarding, the higher US import numbers in the summer, IMO, as I have repeatedly said, it was a result of our ability to outbid regions like Africa. But again, the export/import numbers are symptoms of the underlying problem--the fact that the top three net oil exporters are far more depleted than the world is overall and the fact that they are all showing lower exports.
Do I think the Saudis are lying? Yes, but the case that they have peaked was built on a quantitative analysis.
No, it isn't. You have continually asserted that 1). They are lying about their reserves; and 2). They were lying when they said they had extra oil for sale earlier in the year.
Now, they may be lying about their reserves. There is no easy way to verify that. But it would be quite difficult to lie about having oil for sale, because you run the risk that buyers will inquire about it.
Regarding, the higher US import numbers in the summer, IMO, as I have repeatedly said, it was a result of our ability to outbid regions like Africa.
Yet we had rising imports and falling prices. This is what I mean about you cherry-picking data.
I have an idea that might be of benefit. I propose a debate between the two of us. In the first round, you would explain your import/export model, state the evidence in support, and hopefully address the pieces that don't fit. In rebuttal, I would address what I think are the weaknesses/inconsistencies of the model, and I will propose my own explanation for the import/export data we have seen. I would propose 2 or 3 rounds, with a limit of 2,000 words or so. Are you game?
sure
You can e-mail me at: westexas@aol.com
We need to have a tight debate resolution, though, so we don't wander all over the place. So, here is my proposal:
Resolved: The import/export model proposed by Jeffrey Brown provides compelling evidence that world oil production has peaked.
If you don't like that, please suggest an alternative. Or if you feel that is not an accurate characterization of what your model proposes, feel free to suggest an alternative.
Also, what about word limit? I don't know how many words you feel you need to cover your model, but let's make sure we have an agreement on this.
Finally, you can either e-mail me the essay, or send it to one of the other staff members. We will put it up, and I would suggest 3-7 days between postings. Do you think 2 rounds is enough, or do you prefer 3? Or would you rather play it by ear?
I look forward to seeing the debate.
I suggest no more than 2,000 words, with two rounds of point/counterpoint.
How about one per week for four weeks so that we don't interfere with other scheduled posts?
Your second item is what I proposed to debate: Your model, and whether the evidence supports it. I don't wish to get into a field by field debate on world oil production, because nothing will ever get resolved. There is far too much haze surrounding that subject. I want to debate the merits and predictive capability of your model.
Perhaps we could rephrase and say Resolved: Evidence supporting a peak in world oil production is that world net oil export capacity, as predicted by Jeffrey Brown, is declining.
After all, this is your claim is it not?
I believe the TODer WT vs R-squared debate is the best on the web bar none!Prof. Goose, please help set up a format for these gentlemen such as keythread posts, or maybe Global Public Media could have a audio debate w/Powerpoint slides.Have the various ASPOs, and other key Peakoil groups discussed this debate much? What debate sides do Simmons, Skrebowski, Campbell, Hirsch, et al, choose on this Exportland Model? How much evidence can be gathered to reduce the claims of data cherry-picking and enhance peer-reviewed validation? Does the EIA, DOE, & IEA have any documents on this issue? What about the IOCs--have their websites talked about this?
When will someone from the CIA/NSA, KGB, or Aramco disclose the info to finally clarify this debate?
Or is this debate already being waged with gunshot corpses in the bloody snow and polonium sushi?BTW, Heinberg--if, and only if you can find matching corroboration-->What does your 'undisclosed insider source' have to say on this Exportland debate?Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
What I would propose is that Jeffrey post an essay in which he explains his model, and talks about the evidence in support. A few days later I will offer my contrasting explanations, the evidence for it, the evidence against Jeffrey's, and then I will address any other aspects of his post. I would anticipate that this would go on for 2 or 3 rounds. I see this kind of thing as a sort of peer-review amongst ourselves, which is important for maintaining credibility.
As far as audio debates, I don't recommend them for technical subjects. I think people need to have a chance to look at, verify evidence, and digest the evidence. I have seen Creationist Kent Hovind get the best of many evolutionists in oral debates by employing the Gish Gallop. (However, Hovind never engages in written debates because his claims are too easily checked). What happens is that the audience is unable to follow the technical discussion (or one side doesn't have enough time to address all of the arguments that are thrown out rapid-fire), and the debate becomes merely a contest of persuasion. Not that I think Jeffrey would do this, but there is always a danger of losing your audience when technical material must be presented.
Whatever you, WT, and Prof. Goose decide is fine w/me! If you guys want to, I even have no problems with allowing no comments by other TODers for the first 24 hours so you guys can really stake out your positions and evidence.
Are you ready....Are you ready? Let's get it on!!!used by referees in the Ultimate Fighting Championship [UFC] to kickstart a match.
Oh boy, will I be
upsetif my power or WWW connection goes down while you guys thrash this topic.Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Why the fugure is so hard to predict? Is it because we don't really understand the underlying dynamic patterns? Is it because we don't have accurate data to fit into the patterns we do understand? Or maybe there is some kind of openness or freedom involved in reality, and we can still make choices that will affect the future.
A statistical approach to prediction seems to work better than just about any other approach. One can generate such statistics by using a fixed deterministic model of how the world evolves, randomizing the initial conditions inside some uncertainty bounds around the present situation. Another way is to use multiple models.
I would not advocate any kind of pitched battle to decide finally on the one true model. Would the results be worth the effort? Can't we get better returns elsewhere?
You two, WT and RR, are prize gems of our little community here. I think we would be losing something if there was some fight to determine who is the top dog. I guess I am a classic liberal! I find great value in diversity! Different interpretations of data and events help to flesh out the reality. The range of perspectiveness is a richness.
Thanks to both of you for sharing that wealth.
To be clear, I am not debating to determine who is top dog by any means. I think a debate will better prepare Jeffrey for mainstream criticism. I think I will poke holes in his hypothesis (unless he makes some changes in his first essay) and if nothing else, it will help him tighten it up, address the weaknesses, and make it more resistant to criticism. Or, if there are too many holes to patch, he might abandon it for something more defensible.
And that is one of the problems - while it is possible to view a model on scientific grounds, knowledge seems to come from insight which is then rigorously tested.
The debate is necessary, and to the extent that someone makes predictions based on a model, this is properly within the realm of what is considered science.
But the insight, that an exporting country like Russia will not only export less due to naturally declining production, but will also consume more as its wealth increases, adds an interesting dimension to the broad debate. To just assume that because Land A can produce X amount is not the same as saying X amount is for sale to the highest bidder automatically. Which tends to be the framework assumed by the 'fungible' side of commodity economics.
This insight alone is a worthy broadening of the framework in which to explore peak oil.
I too can imagine ways in which it may not be that valid, with the not minor exception of Russia - for example, weaker exporters may be forced to export to whoever 'controls' them, with no opportunity to use oil wealth for their own benefit in ways which increase domestic consumption. Whether this describes much of oil exporting Africa would be an interesting debate in itself - I honestly doubt that Angola's domestic consumption will increase in any significant sense in the next decade, and to the extent that it does, much of that 'domestic' consumption will likely be connected to oil production itself.
I think it should also be necessary for opponents to WT's model to explain how a country in a general peak-oil situation will maintain its export capacity given that :
The best part of TOD is that no individual nor their ideas are beyond reproach.
It'll be a great education, if nothing else.
What do you mean, "if needed",?
Certain, struggling NA auto makers 'need' oil at current price minus x in order to sustain growing demand for the type of vehicles which would maximize return on capital invested. They are not alone. In order to reduce the current price by x then additional supply is required. Where is it?
I can understand the debate about the timing of peak oil: which day, week, month, year of whatever combination of liquid fuel supply one chooses. Very important symbolically and a piece of information that will ignite fires and gore a few oxes.
But the peak oil event is on, exact start date unknown. Perhaps it was when the business case for tar pits extraction suddenly improved. It doesn't matter.
What matters now is the impact of declining EROI, the struggle over the intra and inter generational distribution of available energy, and the search for new means to stretch the usefulness of each unit of energy. It is for insights into these points that I take time most days to visit TOD.
If refiners demanded it. I could go out and secure extra oil right now if my refinery needed it. But a quick look at oil inventories will tell you that it isn't needed.
In order to reduce the current price by x then additional supply is required.
I don't believe that refiners are interested in reducing the price. Besides that, the refineries are the bottleneck. The refiners are already getting what they need.