DrumBeat: December 2, 2006
Posted by threadbot on December 2, 2006 - 9:30am
Topic: Miscellaneous
Four U.S. West states adopt greenhouse gas accord
Energy regulators from four U.S. Western states, saying they cannot wait for the Bush administration to act on climate change, signed an agreement on Friday to cooperate to promote energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.The move by the public utilities commissions of California, Oregon, Washington and New Mexico is likely to draw in other states in the West, officials said.
Stern: China sees tackling climate change as urgent
China's leaders recognise that tackling climate change is urgent and that reducing greenhouse gases does not mean slamming the brakes on growth, the author of an acclaimed report on global warming said on Friday.
OPEC Expansion Ups Clout But Also Brings Problems
The already sizeable footprint of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries in global oil markets is set to become even bigger as the group prepares to enlarge its club with new members and with oil production from non-OPEC countries set to plateau within the next decade....Although the move would give OPEC more clout in oil markets buoying up oil prices, it could also slow investment by Western oil companies in the three countries, potentially hindering new supplies of crude oil coming to increasingly thirsty world markets, oil analysts said.
Scott Waterman of the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation earlier this week spoke to three southern Kenai Peninsula audiences about the importance of finding new ways to get the most out of our energy resources. The presentation was titled “Peak Oil and the Economics of Energy Efficiency,” but the lessons were about responsibility and stewardship.
Energy efficiency challenges small businesses
An Answer to the World's Energy Problems? - Bacteria Could Be the Source of an Unlimited Supply of Power
Forecast: U.S. Renewable Energy to Hit 700 GW
Leading experts predict that policy goal of 25% renewable production capacity by 2025 could potentially double.
Commodity Strategists: Oil Prices May Fall Next Year
Crude oil prices may fall 7.5 percent next year because of an increase in supplies from Russia, Brazil and Angola, said Bank Julius Baer & Co., Switzerland's largest independent money manager.
How to win the winnable war? Oil
If Saudi Arabia "strangled" Iran's economy, that would also strangle Iran's capacity to fund its nuclear blackmail program, not to mention Hezbollah and other murderous proxies. And what was that the Saudi adviser said about cutting the price of crude oil in half? A Saudi-Iranian, Sunni-Shiite rift over Iraq sounds like a win-win situation for the United States, maybe even better than the Sino-Soviet rivalry of the Cold War.
Cameroon: New Firm to Soothe Country's Energy Crisis
Algeria: Oil Tax to Vary on Field Size, Profitability
Algeria's new fiscal regime on hydrocarbons will be "sensitive" to the size and profitability of foreign partners' investments, Algerian oil minister Chakib Khelil said Thursday.
Canadian Income Trusts at Risk
Canada's energy trust sector has been left "in limbo", with firms not sure if they are allowed to make acquisitions under the country's plans to make trusts pay corporate tax, according to a income trust spokesman.
Bodman: Africa Increasing in Strategic Energy Importance
Any hopes the U.S. may have to loosen some of the control the OPEC cartel has on the crude market through increased oil development of Africa's crude and natural gas production may have been diminished by an announcement earlier this week by Angola that it wishes to join OPEC.
Video: Amory Lovins on Charlie Rose
Church heeds calling with food bank
According to Ken Brewer, head of the local food pantry, he and the 25 volunteers that assist the ministry have noticed a big increase in the number of families seeking help from them.“I have been doing this for several years and this year has been the busiest,” Brewer said. “Even people who work and bring in a regular income are having trouble making ends meet.”
The reason, Brewer said, for that increase in need are the continually high utility and gasoline bills families are faced with each month.
Analysis: Reid to change U.S. energy plan
LAS VEGAS, Dec. 1 (UPI) -- When he takes control of the U.S. Senate in January, Harry Reid's agenda will include moving the country toward energy independence -- a U.S. security issue, he says -- which he blames the Republican Congress and president for hindering.In an exclusive interview with United Press International in his Las Vegas office, the future Senate Majority Leader said Thursday he's astonished by how much oil the United States consumes and by the lack of attention paid to drawing down the crude habit.
OPEC sends conflicting signal on need for deeper cut
CAIRO (Reuters) - OPEC ministers sent conflicting signals on Saturday on whether the group needed to reduce oil production further to bring markets back into equilibrium.Libya's top energy official said markets seemed to be nearing a balance and he did not feel there was a need for OPEC to add to the 1.2 million barrel per day cuts agreed in October.
...But influential Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi reiterated the market was out of balance because of high fuel stockpiles and that 100 million barrels needed to be removed.
Peak Oil Passnotes: We Were on the Money
PARIS (ResourceInvestor.com) -- As Resource Investor has been pointing out for some time a breakout in the crude oil market has had to come. Finally the data from the United States, combined with the cold weather in the northern Americas, has woken the market to the fundamentals.That is that gasoline stocks in the United States – once presumed to at “record highs” – have slumped by 80% in just seven weeks. The momentum has all been about a draw down in the distillate stocks for the United States.
AFAIK those numbers do include Bio-fuels and in the US alone ethanol production has increased by 90 K Brl's per day over that time period. How much have bio-fuels production increased in the rest of the world? Perhaps C + C is down more than most folks suspect.
EIA Data: Ethanol production Thousands Brl's/d and Thousands Brl's/month
Jan 241 7,471
Feb 245 6,860
Mar 243 7,533
Apr 238 7,140
May 237 7,347
Jun 249 7,470
Jul 258 7,998
Aug 260 8,060
Sep 261 7,830
Oct 269 8,339
Nov 275 8,250
Dec 280 8,680
2005 255 92,978/A
2006
Jan 288 8,928
Feb 302 8,456
Mar 301 9,338
Apr 289 8,656
May 293 9,093
Jun 318 9,532
July 316 9,804
Aug 329 10,185
Sep 333 9,992
Actually you're pointing out one of my main gripes with the statistics, they are now including not just biofuels but synthetic crude from the Canadian tar sands. My personal definition of oil is that it flows out of the ground. Condensate condenses from natural gas at normal tempratures and at one atmospheric pressure-14.4 lbs PSI or so.
The rest of the stuff-biofuels, synthetic crude has huge costs compared to oil and should be counted seperately.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6158855.stm
Move to new planet, says Hawking
Hawking (BBC/Laurence Cendrowicz)
Prof Hawking is in "no hurry to die"
The human race must move to a planet beyond our Solar System to protect the future of the species, physicist Professor Stephen Hawking has warned.
Just for the sake of argument, if there is a creator, the placement of the human species on this planet may be just an experiment, one that, I think, may be failing. The problem is, the only real constraint, is the carrying capacity of the whole planet, a basic design flaw. When we get overpopulation of, say, elk, we can bring in the wolves or bring in the hunters. The only thing that is going to stop us is virtual destruction of the planet's ability to support us.
Since there are no longer four legged "wolves" capable of culling human population, human wolves long ago took up the function. From Sargon through Ghengis Khan to Hitler.
The only wolf capable of mustering that kind of ongoing death rate is that old she-wolf Mother Nature.
It's really a myth that space travel costs a huge amount in terms of energy or money. NASA budget: $16 billion, DOD: $419 billion. In fact we squander the Earth's resources creating weapons.
The cost of energy per launch is actually a minor component. Space travel is expensive because of the complexity, and the fact you have to get from ground to orbit in one go (or vice versa), and the whole system has to be designed for that. If there is a problem during flight, there is virtually no opportunity of making a controlled landing.
Ironically, it's because of the military incentive to create weapons (e.g. V2 and ICBM) that enabled space programs at all. So the question is really, would we ever prioritise space travel instead of wasting resources on weapons?
Unfortunately, probably not, which IMO is why significant space travel remains unlikely. Same conclusion, I guess, but different reasons.
Of course putting a person into orbit costs far less than putting a person on a train and sending them to Newark. We all know that. Heck, we should all put rocket motors on all our vehicles!!
Heck, I could probably get all the way to Cleveland with that kind of pocket change.
Gosh. I suspect the space shuttle bus could carry, tops, one hundred people. My guess is if we converted all the available energy on the planet into rocket fuel, we might get a million people into orbit. And, of course, that would not cost us anything. Heck, just think how many bombs we would have built if not for this grand plan of space travel.
Whooops! I forgot. We probably should build some sort of destination up there in the great unprotected space desert. That means sending stuff into space. Lots of stuff. HUGE quantities of stuff. That means fewer passengers. LOTS fewer passengers.
But on the positive side, at least we have a really great history of not fouling our nest. Because, if we were nest-foulers, we would be screwed in space where we would have to recycle EVERYTHING. We would really have to take care of our newly-settled space environment, since we would not have this already exquisite machine known as earth to clean up after us. But we do that already, right? We clean up after ourselves, right?
I have a really great plan. Let's send the engineers into space. Why? They really like this kinda stuff -- Star Trek and Star Gate and all the masturbatory tech fantasy. And, because they have such confidence in their ability to create tech without fouling the earth nest, they should be just fine out there where they get to start with a blank slate. Hey!! Guess what, Melvin? You're GOD!!! And, I'm sure they will create a great civilization out there in spaceland. No more philosophers to question their basic premises, no artists to document their folly, or woolly-headed humanities professors to stumble over on their way to techno ejaculation. And, once the engineers are out of the way, maybe we can rummage through the environment and make sure that all their assurances that what they do is harmless was actually true.
I can see it now. Late at night, we earthlings will look up into the sky and see a speeding twinkle of light arcing across the heavens and we will tell our children all about the curious race of technofixers, a race of gods, who came to the planet many, many centuries ago and boasted they could engineer better than the gods who made this planet. They worked and worked and worked until their hands were filthy and their pocket protectors blue with ink, and they destroyed the planet and announced, "It is good." Then they got back into their rocket ships and returned to heaven, leaving us poor mortals to clean up their mess.
Please never give up, I'm sustained by these periodic "dark sarcasms."
Another version, might be true
I wouldn't normally respond, but your guess is so wildly wrong, it's probably the wrongest guess I've ever seen, anywhere. I realise your rant need have no basis in plain facts, but there is a limit. As TOD is concerned with energy, and values facts over lunatic raving, I thought I would indulge you.
As mere superlatives are inadequate to describe how wrong you are, I will use numbers.
It would take about 0.001% of annual energy use to launch 1 million people into space. Or, we could launch about 95 billion people per year into space - more than 10 times the whole population.
This, perhaps, says a lot more about how much energy we use on Earth than anything else.
I've absolutely no idea where you got this hare brained idea about sending 1 million people into space anyway? We are talking about colonising other planets, you only need a few hundred for that. People have a tendency to multiply, y'know?
It is always amusingly ironic when people use the internet to complain about engineers. I should really contact the High Priest of Engineers and have your Technology Permit revoked. ;)
I was merely stating that I wish Hawkins would devote more of his HUGE brain to working on the problems and issues we are having here on our beloved planet than just give up on it and say, "Let's hitch a ride to another one and start over".
And, in less something is changed with our collective thought processes, we will still just be exporting the same mentality that ruined the first planet we inhabited.
You have misinterpreted what Hawking said. Eventually all life on Earth will be extinguished, certainly in about 4.6 billion years time when the Sun becomes a red giant, but quite possibly before that. Therefore in order to survive as a species, at least a few humans would have to travel to other solar systems. That is just simple logic.
More practically, there are some huge problems facing civilisation that will definitely occur within the next 50,000 years. It is quite likely we will be snuffed out well before we have been able to ruin the Earth irrevocably. So let's not get too worked up about travelling to Barnard's Star just yet, ok?
As for Hawking's HUGE brain, he can do with it whatever he damn well pleases, as far as I am concerned.
50,000 years?
What about 50?
Singularitarian, Eh?
The typical rate of extinction differs for different groups of organisms. Mammals, for instance, have an average species "lifespan" from origination to extinction of about 1 million years, although some species persist for as long as 10 million years.
We have already used up a few millions years, don't worry about 4.6 billion years!
I guess the rest of us starve while all these privileged folks get shot into space.
Not nearly damned fast enough, I'm afraid.
Of course I did, I'm an engineer, aren't I? I don't even make a guess without having done a rough calculation.
I still don't understand why you want to launch all these people into space. What is the point?
It's kind of sad though – if it weren't for us engineers and there were only journalists and English instructors, none of this would have happened. We'd all be sitting around in animal skins (well, maybe not, as there would be no tools to make them) reading poetry and making beautiful drawings on the cave walls. Because as we all know, journalists and English instructors would never use fossil fuels, and could never have contributed in any way to the problems the world faces now. No, it's the engineers – especially the ones who read science fiction when they were young.
Seriously, what I see in all of your comments is someone who thinks they have no blame in all this mess – no sir, its THEIR FAULT! My kind are different, and we're INOCENT! Complete stereotyping of a large part of the population, as if somehow engineers are actually a different kind of human from everyone else. What crap. I'm an Engineer. I read. I can write. I appreciate art and music. I work with my hands. I plant trees in my woods. I love animals. I love my kids. I don't fantasize about technological solutions to the problems we face, although I would imagine that technology will play a part.
And you sir, are the beneficiary of hundreds of thousands of years of technological advancements of the human race. You use this technology every day, and are more than happy to have it, in spite of your pathetic protestations.
The word is "hypocrite".
In other words, you're telling me I should shut up because I have to live in your world. You see, I must use fossil fuel in order to survive, not because I am making a specific choice, but because I was raised with this. I do not have those skills necessary to survive as a hunter gatherer. But, more importantly, engineer man, incapable of foreseeing the results of his monkeying around, managed to kill off the natural world to such an extent that I could not live off the natural environment even if I had the skills. Of course, you choose to believe that "engineering" means any built environment. That is rather a poor way to spread the blame. I guess anytime I use a bow drill to make fire, I get to claim membership in the IEEE.
You see, the problem is you cannot possibly believe that what you do you may be evil, and you must harrumph and point and bellow. You must. My world view is so different from yours it may as well be from an alternate universe. The paradigm I'm advocating is so radical that you cannot possibly comprehend it. To use your reference frame, it would be like you showing up on a completely primitive island in a spaceship, and the natives, to your utter bafflement, could not understand your self-anointed technical and moral superiority. Of course they don't see you as you see yourself. And you, reading my writings cannot possibly see what I am saying.
You are not an inherently bad person. That would be silly. The problem is you are incapable of seeing how our technological road has led to this truly screwed up planet where people actually feel that this planet-wrecking technology is good and that we, the hapless denizens of your built world should thank you for doing such a good job of wrecking things because we got STUFF. Fat lot of good that will do when millions die due to the shortsighted philosophy of man the engineer. That is the true irony. You cannot see the destructive effects of your efforts. You truly look about you in bewilderment when my little mosquito stings of insight catch those sensitive spots that still bespeak the natural world. You ask, "Why, oh why, does that bad man gripe about all the cool stuff? Why can't he see all our good things? Why can't he bow down to us?"
I can't because I see what you won't or can't see. Now I am faced with the dilemma of somehow conversing with you, a member of Flatland. You only see a tiny cross-section of my thoughts and may never be able to grasp these fundamental truths I offer.
I can't bow down to the engineer worldview because I have spent so much time trying to understand it, and once I did, I realized it was a lot like making that choice faced by Neo -- take the red pill or the blue pill. Once you know, you can't go back.
So, since I cannot go live in a natural world that remains complete enough to quit your world, I must be, as you say, a hypocrite. Here I am using this swell STUFF to write this message to you, knowing full well that you, down there in Flatland, will never be able to comprehend this message.
I would note also that Native Americans were also the beneficiary of hundreds of thousands of years of technological advancement. Of course, most of them are dead. I must note that the people who used to live around Chernobyl were also the beneficiary of hundreds of thousands of years of technological advancement. Then there are the slaves we shipped around, and yes, they were also the beneficiary of hundreds of thousands of years of technological advancement. Don't forget the millions who died in both World Wars. They were the beneficiary of hundreds of thousands of years of technological advancement. Who else? Cambodians? The killing fields? The Armenians?
The list goes on. But the truth is we are bloodthirsty lot, and though technology made this wholesale slaughter possible, it is only an extension of our Neolithic origins. Should all post oil technology somehow disappear, the killing would go on.
No. The main beef I have is with the willful ignorance of those who cannot acknowledge the obvious end result of our growth at any cost society. That is what makes me sad. Those who mistake attacks on their profession as personal attacks, who cannot understand the underlying stakes, or understand the use of metaphor will never be able to rise to the level of hypocrite. They are neither informed enough or intelligent enough to rise to that level. No. They are milling around amongst their little clique, harrumphing about their wounded pride while the earth turns to complete crap.
Congratulations.
In fact, I would probably agree with many of your ideas - while I have not used a bow drill yet, I'm very into hand tools and moving towards simple, low energy ways of doing things - but you cannot seem to present them without striking out at others. Which only makes it obvious what you're really all about.
So in short, if you want to make a difference, drop the chip off your shoulder. And recognize that maybe, just maybe, there are other people out here who "get it" just as much as you do.
The other irony I have consistently noted is that he uses a computer and the Internet to post these diatribes. You what's really funny, though? It is unlikely that he would have ever been born if he had his way about technology. The world wouldn't support nearly as many people. I guess then he wouldn't have much to complain about. :-)
If the Navy(or any other large Navy) would allow female sailors aboard submarines, we could guarantee surviving populations for anything that doesn't threaten the structural integrity of the earth.
"Of course it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition.
"Naturally, they would breed prodigiously, eh? There would be much time, and little to do. But ah with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present gross national product within say, twenty years."
--Dr. Strangelove
Any recommendations on the best new books for informing people, considering that individual perspectives range from the clueless to the alerted, political orientations from the liberal to the conservative and opinions from the cornucopian (technology and the market fix everything) to the doomist (we're done, no matter what we do) on these issues? Any that might have the opposite of the giver's intended effect on people with particular perspectives?