 | 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?