Saturday Open Thread and News Dump
Posted by Prof. Goose on March 11, 2006 - 12:42pm
Topic: Miscellaneous
...and if you need something to get you started, go read Kurt Cobb's "What if Daniel Yergin is Wrong?".
...or go check out an article about our friend Roscoe Bartlett and his appearance in Oil Crash.
The Swiss became tired of heavy trucks transporting goods through their country. Road congestion, pollution, fuel use and general "environmental effects". Peak Oil & Global Warming probably fit under the last catch-all.
As I noted before, the Swiss made do with VERY limited quantities of oil during WW II (in all of 1945 they used what they used in 26 days in 1938) by electrifying their transportation.
They are spending enourmous amounts on the world's longest tunnel (34.5 km), which, when combined with the earlier Simplon tunnel, will give 250 km/hour rail link through Switzerland. More importantly, taxes on heavy trucks will pay for the new tunnel and force shippers to use it.
The tunnel and associated improvements will be completed past Peak Oil but they will be a welcome improvement in EU adn Swiss transport when completed
One excerpt.
nvestment amounting to more than 31 billion Swiss francs will be needed to modernise the railway system in Switzerland over the next 20 years. Construction of the 34.5 km Lötschberg base tunnel will cost some 3.22 billion francs (for the first construction phase). By comparison, about 60 billion Swiss francs were spent constructing the network of national roads. The finance concept is based on the model of constructing and financing the public transport infrastructure (FinöV/FPT) which was adopted by the Swiss electorate in 1998. The fund consists of revenue from the fuel tax, the mileage-related heavy vehicle tax, an additional 0.1% value-added tax and loans from the capital market. Once the Lötschberg base tunnel becomes operational in 2007, Switzerland will then be able to levy the full rate of the mileage-related heavy vehicle tax
But I think the swiss neighbours are better in organizing such large procjects than the EU.
http://www.ita-aites.org/cms/1075.html
Can you tell us more about these Saudi fuel storage tunnels?
Matt Simmons talked about the Saudis having storage which he suspected that they used to ramp up 'production' when the need arose.
I just tried Googling for your fuel storage tunnels and found no information about them.
Are these the secret fuel storage that Matt aludes to?
I have a long term informal discovery project ongoing concerning S.A. crude storage tanks outside the Kingdom. S.A. and Shell share 50% interest in Motiva Enterprises' refineries located in Port Arthur, Texas; Convent, Louisiana; and Norco, Louisiana. Motiva refineries can process approximately 780,000 barrels per day, and have a distribution system including appx 47 product terminals with 19 MM BBLS of storage. Since these are product terminals, fortunately I don't have to identify those.
Using a WAG of 20X refinery capacity, I can get around 50MM BBLS, not counting Rotterdam possibilities.
Ras Tanura Refinery 325,000 bpd
Aramco/Exxon Yanbu 400,000 bpd
Aramco/Shell Jubail 305,000 bpd
@ 20 x 20.6 MM BBLS
Norco, La Crude: 240,000 BPD
Port Arthur, Tx. Crude: 235,000 BPD
Convent Ref, La. Crude: 255,000
@ 20 x capacity = 15 MMB
S.A. may be leasing tanks from Valero Corp http://www.valerolp.com/Customers/TerminalDataSheets/
At this Caribbean Island VLCC "service station" from Valero Corp.
http://www.valerolp.com/NR/rdonlyres/83C1FDE0-ABE8-4B18-B64E-F17DA79FE3A8/0/StEustatius1_25_06.pdf
with 51 tanks 11.3 MM BBLS of storage. (they can process only 15,000 BPD of light stuff)
Rotterdam?
S.A's. transportation subsidery can probably hold almost 10 MMB in their ships alone.
OFF TOPIC
13 March 2006
"Iran's Nuclear Plans Complicate China's Energy Security"
http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=456&language_id=1
The Swiss are building two North-South rail links. The first will open in 2007 (partially built, single track at first) with a new 34.5 km Lötschberg tunnel and the existing Simplon tunnel. 200 kph seems to be the likely max speed.
The other, with a 57 km Gotthard tunnel, will be fully open in 2015 and provide an almost straight and level track from Zurich to Milan and pax train speeds of 250 kph. Again, roll on-roll off auto & truck service plus other freight will generate most of the revenue.
Massive investments that will help Switzerland and parts of the EU adapt to Peak Oil.
WE've had an %18 rate increase in electrical service from Bangor Hydro on top of what I believe is the highest base rates in the U.S.
Our 'consumer champion' OffGas has told us to shop around for better deals. Ha! . We got lucky this year. Temps in the UK were no where near predicted from the anticipated effects of the North Atlantic Oscillation. However, it may have been just this that hurt central Europe in January.
In Theory it lets ultra cold air in from Siberia. It is possible that this effect created problems for the Germans in 1941 and Napoleon in 1812.
We got fairly warm Atlantic weather all the way through until just a couple of weeks ago and North East Scotland and the East Coast of England got Arctic air funneled down the North Sea. The gas problems are currently being blamed on the lack of supply across the Interconnector from Europe and the lack of economic harmonisation of Gas Majors in the EEC. We are at the end of a very long pipe from Russia and we found out what that means...
Though our clueless 'Elders, betters and the Great and Good' have yet to wake up and smell the peak, It has at last got Energy (or lack of it) on the agenda.
Now is not the time to be old or poor in this sceptered isle: We loose people every year due to fuel poverty.
We got lucky. But Winter comes around every year...
To seriously reduce winter heating energy use, you'd have to take extreme measures, like wearing a snowsuit in the house, with a motorcycle helmet with heated air! Sure, you can throttle down on a thermostat, but at some point, it gets dangerous, not just uncomfortable. Also, as the house temp drops to 0C (32F) pipes freeze, causing problems that are a bane of homeowners - even if you sit in your La-Zee Boy chair in your homebrew space suit.
Why home heat isn't considered "essential" for the economy is easy to understand. That energy use does not correspond to productivity, unlike propane in a forklift or electricity in a web server for a .com store. Since that energy use doesn't directly aid and abet productivity, economists call it "non-essential" - until they can't heat their house that is! Meanwhile that propane tank on a forklift does aid and abet productivity by loading and unloading semis on a loading dock. And the web server makes the .com store possible.
British Gas chaos leaves thousands without heat
You may find this site interesting re the Gas situation in the UK:
http://gasissues.blogspot.com/
WE've had an %18 rate increase in electrical service from Bangor Hydro on top of what I believe is the highest base rates in the U.S.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/contents.html
Religion has had very little influence in the overall development of population numbers.
Human technology has.
Agriculture has.
The Industrial Revolution has.
Please take your anger somewhere else.
While what you mention allow us humans to maintain higher levls of populations. Uusally the Religious aspect of our lives pushes us to have more kids or fewer kids. Regilion is a key role player in all this.
ceojr1963@yahoo.com if you want to discuss this further.
As far peak is concermed. Human faith still plays a part.
But I'm discussing sociological macro-tendencies which might be threatening life on our petri-dish here. There are not very many long lasting examples like sailorman's Netherlands. Even if they are found, one can usually find other reasons for the growth rate dichotomy which have nothing to do with religion: different levels of wealth, different levels of industrialization, education, etc...
Simply put:
Agricultural and underdeveloped industrialized regions/peoples have more kids than hunter/gatherers or complex ind. and informational societies.
Italy is a historically Catholic (known to be opposed to artificial birth control) region but has a birth rate of 1.31, about the lowest in Europe. Germany has about 25million Catholics but has a birth rate of 1.39. Now, you can argue that Catholics in these areas don't even go to church, so can they really be Catholics? But which came first, Industrialization, staying away from Church or having fewer children? They go hand in hand, of course, and offer a chicken and egg problem.
Back to the US: Those having the most children at the moment are not Catholics or Mormons (as the clichee goes) but the Amish.
Again, you can claim that it's religious - I claim it has a halibut lot to do with their agricultural (pre-industrial) lifestyle.
Birthrates among urbanized immigrants to U.S. of Catholic ancestry (primarily from Latin America) are much higher than birthrates of non-Catholics, other factors [such as education level] held constant.
Always check data.
Immigrants - I take it these are primarily Hispanics (WITHOUT checking the Data) take a generation or two to change from the lifestyles of their homelands. Demographic processes are very long winded.
The assertions I made above are hardly refuted by your comments, if that was your goal.
Quote is from following post.
Curbing population growths will take fifty years to make an effect. Only the third world has a positive population growth rate at the moment. The rest of the world hasn't been positive since the 1970s and most of their populations are still growing. It takes more than a generation to change absolute growth direction. If you want it done faster, you can either use the bomb or let nature do its devastation.
Though you could say that I make this statement because I know it is a Paradox. And somehow I am leading you into false logic.
It looks random but it is not.
Might just be my faith.
And yes if a Loved one were to die I would mourn, BUT I would keep on my course.
Charles, Aka Dan Ur (a Fictional Charactor is short story series, by Charles Owens.)
I am not saying that we should not start powering down immediately, powerdown has been my argument all along. All I am saying is we need to address the population issue. Curbing population growth in a humane, fair fashion will be the greatest challenge humanity will ever face.
Every species is biologically programmed to reproduce. Getting laid is fun. Being told what to do and what not to do is not fun. My guess is we will not rise to the challenge. We will let the only true invisible hand, nature, do the dirty work for us through plague, starvation, pestilence, and war. That will make the task of building the sustainable infrastructire of the future all the more difficult and perhaps will scatter our efforts forever. Then, once the dust settles and the species has exhausted itself and come to a population balance, we will be left with whatever disorganised ruins that may be left, and we will carve out an existence of some sort, no matter how short and brutish.
Given the internal politics of the US, and the rise of cultists who are nominally "Christians", are we really to conclude that we are going to adopt rational policies in relation to the population problem any time soon?
To finish on a controversial theological note, who exactly does Bush and his ilk pray to? Is he praying to the un-named, desert sky God from the East the rest of us worship or what? I'm serious here. I was brought up a Catholic and my church has had a long history with people who "hear voices" and use those voices to justify various forms of action. The Chatholic church has always been sceptical of these sort of people, simply because it was felt that these voices might actually be the whisperings of demons or even Satan himself. Listening to voices can get you into a lot of trouble, ask Joan of Arc!
Personally I doubt Bush is praying to a Christian God at all. He's praying to something else entirely. Something that may be Evil and dangerous. He never seems to say much about Jesus does he? But he talks a lot about his God. Given his track record doesn't it seem likely he's praying to the horned beast and his soul is doomed? How's that for Bush bashing?
1. Makes an about-face from its long-established and traditional doctrine of its first one and a half thousand (or thereabouts) years of the Church (which defined fetuses of less than 60 days as nonhuman, following Aristotle, as they did in most things--because that is the way St. Thomas Aquinas saw things) to effectively deny abortion to women.
2. Actively campaigns against the use of condoms, even to prevent the spread of AIDs.
3. Delights in the higher birthrate of Catholics vs. nonCatholics, e.g. in the Netherlands, which used to have a large Protestant majority and now has a slim but growing Catholic majority.
4. Outlaws contraception wherever possible.
5. Defines contraception as a mortal sin, which must be confessed to. Thus the Church
6. Encourages abortion among devout women in poor countries, because the abortion--also a mortal sin--needs to be confessed to only once.
I could go on, but what is the point? You want to do something constructive? Get the Roman Catholic church to be Christian instead of the reactionary male-dominated sexist institution that it is.
Good luck.
What are these other things? Well they are the people he surrounds himself with. Many around Bush are not conventional Christians at all. They have some very odd views about society. Basically, I don't believe the neo-cons are Christians. They worship another God with another name.
We need to reform the evil religious leaders of the world. There is nothing wrong with Judaism, Christianity, or Islam (or Buddhism, for that matter), but there are very serious things wrong with the way the teachings of the great prophets, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, and Mahomet have been twisted and distorted out of all recognition into evil instititutions and organizations.
I've noticed a lot of anti-Islam sentiment on TOD, and to counteract this, I am going to start posting a few of the sayings of Mahomet (in appropriate places) so that those ignorant of comparative religion may learn a few things. The problem is not with the founding principles of the great religions but with the way these principles have been distorted 180 degrees from the original intention, e.g. to the point that for 250 years "Christian" preachers in the American south used twisted interpretations of the Bible to justify slavery.
Before we start throwing stones at Islam, we should look at the evils done in the name of Christianity, notably the Crusades--which rank with what Hitler did in Poland as some of the greatest atrocities in history.
I'm an atheist, and I oppose all religion becuse now religion only generates death and suffering. As far as the soul, if the soul is REALLY immortal, all those files you deleted will be waiting for you in Paradise, ready to be gotten again when you're issued your Heavenly Laptop and your 72 virgins. Same with lost files with hard drive crashes. After all, your "soul" is data in a bio-computer system that is the brain. When you die, the data is gone - just as gone as a gallon of fuel you burn on a commuting mission.
We are doomed. Already the worshippers of the invisible sky-beings are at each other's throats.
Let the cull begin.
Signed,
A buddhist.
Human technology has.
Agriculture has.
The Industrial Revolution has.
Please take your anger somewhere else.
Why would you? Before it became popular and acceptable to be a "neo-con" hater, it was commonly known that many used the term as code-language for Jew. It must be tough trying to figure out what you're supposed to hate on any given day.
I never called you anti-semitic, nor did I say you said anything about Jews. If you will relax a moment and reflect, you will see that I am correct.
If you don't think that the term has been used as a substitute for Jew in the past, then you don't understand the history of the term. What you "think" the term means is of little relevance.
You need to do some basic research behind what "neo-con" means, if it means anything at all. You need to read up on the history of the term as it applies to a "movement" or to certain individuals on a political level.
The reason I wrote what I did was because I didn't think you were making sense.
So again, I don't understand why you would think neo-cons would have to be "conventional" Christians, since if there was a religious connotation ever associated with the term it was that the individuals labeled as such were Jews.
You mistake Administration officials with "neo-cons." And you confuse neo-con with your own sketchy understanding of what one is. I wouldn't normally go into something like this here, but you seem to have a weird hang-up with religion and peak-oil, I thought I might help you more properly form your thoughts.
Try this article by Michael Lind from early 2004
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040223/lind
The more people people blindly throw this term around, the less it means. Which is fine by me, since I have always found it meaningless - just an epithet people can use to articulate their hatred for ideas they can barely understand.
No, It would mean that America is full of Jews that shred neo-con policies. The logic in the second phrase escapes me.
No it was not commonly known.
Use of "code language" and accusations regarding who is part of the "in crowd" and who shares their secret common knowledge and who does not have this illusive common sense, is part of a charade of mental manipulation tactics.
The root "neo" simply means "new".
The suffix "conservative" used to mean one who sought to maintain the old ways, one who opposed change.
The combination of neo and conservative is an oxymoron because it implies there is a "new" way to stick to the "old" ways.
As for each of us hearing coded voices in the desert, this is an inherent part of the Jewish religion when it speaks separately of "the God" of Abraham, "the God" of Isaac and "the God" of Jacob.
Each had his own God, his or her own voices heard in the cranium. Jesus --yet another Jew-- had his own version of voices in the head, as did Mohammed and other so-called prophets.
Yes Virginia, God exists. But she's all in your head.
My main point that people throw this term around, or use it for less-than-honorable purposes, depending on how you look at it still stands, however.
Consider the fallacy of the lack of proportion. You bash Bush. But all we need is one brain transplant (to the Pope) to do 100 times more good for the world than Bush could possibly do.
In the spirit of Jonothan Swift, herewith a Modest Proposal: Let the poor of the world send their babies to the Vatican to be eaten, for the economics would make good sense.
How can you possibly defend the absolute and total evil done in the name of Jesus, when He was totally and 100% opposed to the sexist anti-woman doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.
Most satanists I know are boring people. The m