Wednesday Open Thread (and News Dump)
Posted by Prof. Goose on March 29, 2006 - 1:31pm
Topic: Miscellaneous
Tags: peak oil [list all tags]
For all you do, this thread's for you!
Posted by Prof. Goose on March 29, 2006 - 1:31pm
Topic: Miscellaneous
Tags: peak oil [list all tags]
Global warming is suddenly really...er...hot.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/3/29/122054/644
Chevrolet has a site up where you can design your own commercial for the Chevy Tahoe. Environmentalists and peak oilers have been adding their own text.
Re: Watching the Import Numbers
Last week, average daily oil imports into the US rebounded slightly to 10.1 mbpd, but the average for March, 2006 (9.9 mbpd) was down about 4% from the average for March, 2005 (10.3 mbpd).
There is always the possibility of statistical variations, but the concerns that Khebab and I have about net export capacity are based on the Hubbert Linearization (HL) method--which accurately predicted 99% of the post-1970 cumulative Lower 48 oil production. Therefore, if the HL method is screaming problems ahead for net export capacity, and if average daily imports into the US for March are down about 4%, year over year, I think that we need to sit up and take notice.
I predict explosive increases in oil prices.
The "Export Land" Model:
A critical point to keep in mind is that an exporter can only export what is left after domestic consumption is satisfied. Consider a simple example, a country producing 2.0 mbpd, consuming 1.0 mbpd and therefore exporting 1.0 mbpd. Let's assume a 25% drop in production over a six year period (which we have seen in the North Sea, which by the way peaked at 52% of Qt) and let's assume a 10% increase in domestic consumption. Production would be 1.5 mbpd. Consumption would be 1.1 mbpd. Net exports would be production (1.5 mbpd) less consumption (1.1 mbpd) = 0.4 mbpd. Therefore, because of a 25% drop in production and because of a 10% increase in domestic consumption, net oil exports from our hypothetical net exporter dropped by 60%, from 1.0 mbpd to 0.4 mbpd, over a six year period.
Note that car sales in Russia are up 15% year over year.
No one knows for sure because no one tracks inventories on the basis of quality, but the price spread between light, sweet and heavy, sour is certainly suggesting a falling light sweet supply.
I thought that is was generally accepted thet we passed "Peak Light Sweet Oil" in either 2000/2001 (statistical tie) or 2004 (depending upon how "light" is Light).
So today, increasing heavy and/or sour crude, decreasing light sweey crude. Question is, are heavy/sour increases larger or smaller than light sweet decreases ?
Yesterday oil rose because of the drop of gasoline inventories (by 5 mln.barrels), even though the oil inventories are on the rise again (by 2 mln.barrels).
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/markets/energy.html
Second, and more importantly - worldwide there is a shortage of capacity, capable of processing heavy/sour crude. And a lot of refineries are upgrading now. It is possible that a lot of the piled up sour/heavy crude is simply waiting for somebody who is able to process it.
The result of both things is that oil inventories would rise, but there will be shortage on finished products.
IMPORTS go down:

DEMAND goes up:

STOCKPILES go down:

What more do you need?
The more important question I was trying to answer is why gasoline production and imports are dropping even though oil stocks are on all times high? The relation between sour/heavy and light sweet crude could be the answer.
Now that's an explanation.
The last few weeks of threads about oil prices and futures markets has got me thinking about what I should do when we have the next oil spike. At what price point should I start thinking about increasing my food/supply reserves. Here's my general breakdown for the cost of a barrel of oil (assuming I wake up tomorrow and there has been a terrorist attack that knocks out supply for an unknown amount of time but probably at least 1 month) :
$100-Go to Costco on the way home. Increase food supply by one month.
$150-Go to Costco on the way to work. Buy non-perishables. Go back on the way home to get frozen stuff if it seems necessary.
$200-Go straight to Costco; buy everything we can get our hands on.
Am I overreacting? Will $200/barrel cripple the economy? Seems like that would be about $6/gal gasoline?
If I am wrong, you will have less debt, with a lower stress lifestyle and you will have more money in the bank. If I am right, you will at least be better prepared.
George Ure, over at Urban Survival, has PDF essay that you can purchase for $10 on "How to live on $10,000 or less per year." (I have nothing to do with his website/publishing efforts, and I'm sure there's tons of similar stuff out there). George's #1 recommendation is to arrange your life so that you can get by without a car.
But when the hurricanes come, FEMA will not be there to move you out in time. Curses!
And I keep a car for evac, but drive only ~180 miles/month.
In the richer European countries it is the American lifestyle everyone wants. Bigger houses and bigger cars and increased enegry use. In our lane every adult has a car. Houses are getting bigger too. Bathrooms and kitchens are growing bigger. As people get richer they spend more and more. A rough rule of thumb is that people seem to buy the biggest house and the biggest car, they can possibly afford. They seem to believe that providence has granted them a life of luxury and hapiness, which is somehow their birthright, because our civilization is morally superior to all others.
http://www.sbs.com.au/whatson/index.php3?progdate=01:04:2006
(Scroll down to 2013 - La Fin Du Petrole.)
And April Fool jokes only work up to noon, I have always been told. After that it is on the jokester.
However, a wonderful, BBC TV edition of Panorama with Richard Dimbley, one April 1st over 40 years ago (at 7.30 no less) showed "The annual spaghetti harvest in Italy" with people pulling spaghetti off trees.
In common with half of Britain, I and my parents murmured, "I never know spaghetti grew on trees".
I'll be watching.
I haven't been able to sleep tonight. We had a company retreat, and the big boss told us that the future is bright and all the firms he knows are extremely busy. When asked to suggest hopes for the firm, most wanted more high-style design projects while I just hoped we would be agile enough to adapt to changing realities. People were somewhat receptive last year, but I think they've decided it was all about Katrina/Rita.
The disconnect between what I see locally and what I read here is really driving me nuts. No one seems able to explain how this economy seems to chug along in the face of rising fuel prices, massive job losses in the hinterlands, ridiculously overpriced housing and a debt bubble. But it does.
I think the latest energybulletin post is worth discussing:
http://energybulletin.net/14442.html
Basically points out that Peakoil Doomers should rightfully be seen as the 'ghost of Xmas future' and not as the Grim Reaper incarnate; that only a full disclosure of possible Peakoil ramifications can be the best motivation to generate historic political and social change.
I heartily agree with this author's assessment of looking at the worst, then encouraging the best. It is much too easy to continue the habits of the easy-motoring status quo, the need to develop a constant awareness that civilization is only three meals deep is, by far, the best way to achieve Powerdown.
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
I am a'feared we are the victims of our own success...we have had far too many "a'feared periods in the recent past, all of whch came to nothing and made those concerned folks like chicken littles ....
The biggest most influentual segment of the population are the baby boomers...it is their money, their votes, and their decisions in the corporate world that direct America's energy and direction. This is why 20 year olds become exasperated watching the news...there are still more news reports about boomer icons, and more commercials for the Geritol crowd than real news....(would you have watched the news or cared about "current events in 1970 if all the news had been about WWII (the boomers still view Vietnam and Watergate as "only yesterday") and the icons discussed were Benny Goodman and the Glenn Miller Orchastra (you still see more features about surviving Beatles and the remainder of the Kennedy clan than about current figures...heck, Jackie O. is gone but still gets big press!
Now on energy, the boomers still see the 1970's energy crisis as "only yesterday". They well remember when the "predictions of immediate doom" were all the rage. The crisis was HERE, NOW, and there was NO WAY OUT!!
opps.
Instead the 1980's and 1990's were the boom years of a century. How sad are the ones who were a'feared, and kept their money in safe places like bonds and CD's when right at the moment the catastrophe was UPON US in 1982, the stock market took off. They saw their friends building gigantic new homes, and buying boats and SUV's, while they lived in small insulated basement houses, still driving their Diesel Rabbit pickup truck because CATASTROPHE WAS JUST AROUND THE CORNER.
THE LAST TIME, THE A'FEARED WERE THE LOSERS. Their friends and families, including their sons and daughters in their formative years, saw it, and felt sad for them.
And the sons and daughters of America said, not me. I ain't going to live like that. I am going to live, buy and enjoy, and not miss the boat like the semi-hippie "a'feared" set who are now on the edge of old age and retirement, having missed the greatest known boom in world history, and have nothing.
The truth is, the wolf may finally be here. This may be the delayed catastrophe so long predicted. But after the 1970's so called "catastrophe", the Cold War so called "catastrophe", the Y2K so called "catastrophe", the current terrorist post 9/11 "catastrophe", the global warming "catastrophe", and now, the "Peak Oil" catastrophe", the Peak Oil issue is just one catastrophist theory in the cafateria of doom scenarios. And it suffers in the boomers mind from the "been there, done that" stigma (remember, even in ripe old age, the boomers always something new, not a '70's redux...)
So when the Peak Oilers shout, "BE A'FEARED", the mass weight of the population shout back, "YOU BE A'FEARED, I'M LIVING AND BETTING ON THE FUTURE, BECAUSE IT'S WHERE I WILL SPEND THE REST OF MY LIFE, NOT IN THE 1970'S DARKNESS I GREW UP IN."
The sad part is, evidence is starting to favor the Peakers. But they are, as the writer Virginia Woolf said not too long before she gave up and walked into a river with stones in her pockets, "shouting with our face pressed against a closed door."
partially correct.
1982 gas rabbit. http://www.prosefights.org/msd/msd.htm
but still at that time we were driving gas-guzzling [10-12 mpg for 33 years, about 265k miles] 1972 3/4 ton 4x4 f250.
http://www.prosefights.org/sellford/sellford.htm
white ford was sold in the fall of 2005 for $6,400 to an herb farmer.
white ford was bought new in lewiston, ID in 1972 for $4,050.
reason i got into rabbits, grey and green [http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bpayne37/green/green.htm],
was to save gas money commuting to sandia labs after the 1980 gas crunch.
senior citizen did both the 1973 and 1980 gas crunches.
this time i think that IT is for real. too real.
green revolution may be overthrown by peak oil.
i just finished rototilling my garden.
later ... with senior luck, from the class of '56
http://www.prosefights.org/shattuck/shattuck.htm
"He said that he had been around since the 1950s, and that then people tried to use fear of nuclear waste to get people to change, in the 60s it was fear of chemical pollution, in the 70s it was the fear of nuclear power, in the 80s nuclear bombs and so on... . All of those positions tried to terrify people into change and none of them really worked."
As it see it, far from "none of them really working," all of those fears were addressed and acted upon. Fears of nuclear waste lead to pretty much the end of the nuclear industry in the US. Fear of chemical pollution, initiated by "Silent Spring" pretty much kicked off the modern environmental movement, fear of nuclear weapons lead to many arms control treaties.
The trouble with the fear motivates action approach is that, more often than not, the fear-driven action is the wrong action.
The nuclear fear HAS created some irrational reactions on both sides, but are you sure it's actually a paralysis from finding a 'suitable plan to deal with the waste', or is it a state of denial by nuclear proponents and desperate energy-doomers that no suitable waste plan has emerged despite extensive efforts, and that we might have to admit that this power-source is, in fact, "To Expensive to Meter" ?
Is there anything else currently 'on the shelf' that does what wind and solar already do, which is to completely recover their invested energy and continue to produce power for some 4 to 5 times that span? (Even afer a couple decades, PV panels are likely to still offer some 50% of their original ratings) How much Solar capacity could you generate in the time and costs of building a single reactor and fueling it for 25 years?
I totally agree with your final statement about Fear-based-decisions. But I think the other problem that comes out of the tendency towards Nuclear energy reminds me of the admonition against foodshopping when you're hungry. The eyes get bigger than the stomachs, and we don't pick healthy foods, just stuff we can glut ourselves on, as if that's a real solution to our hunger.
Nuclear waste can be vitrified (incorporated in glass), and, if one want's to 'gild the lily', encase the glass in stainless steel and buried in a stable geological formation.
Nuclear waste can also be recycled and all trans-uranics reused as fuel. But uranium has been too cheap to make this economically viable.
Technically, problem solved.
Politically is another story.
Emission of massive (alpha, beta, neutron) particles leads the material to recoil, driving it into and through its surroundings: High-level waste migrates through and out of its containment.
The claim of a "stable geologic formation" reeks with hubris. Perhaps you'd like to 'splain all that water inside the salt domes in Nevada? Our moment's eyeblink into planetary history is only enough to show us that our geology is in flux, in unpredictably punctuated ways.
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml
Yeah, but what about all the oil and natural gas we don't have because the formations weren't tight?
Dilute the waste in the glass if need be (perhaps with a pure glass outer shell). Any embrittlement issues disappear between just waiting for the more than mildly radioactive stuff to decay and dilution so that any microstructure cracks are trivial.
"Salt Domes' in Nevada ?? You are ignorant of geology.
Max case (I would argue less time) we need only contain waste for 250,000 years; a mere eyeblink in geological time. Finding a stable formation for 250,000 years is easy (except for political, unreasonable fears)
A little water leaching through depository is, quite frankly, no big deal. Time to interaction with human beings is VERY long, Pl is a CHEMICAL riak (a bit worse than beryllium as a carcigen) not a radioactive one, and the metal and common compounds (oxide, sulphide, nitride) are not water soluble).
The biggest issue is future generations coming back and mining the waste for valuable metals (waste is VERY high grade platinum group metal ore for example, as well as a source of uranium, etc.)
Except for the mining issue (hence the plan to make the waster recoverable), only a political issue driven by unreasonable fears.
I agree with you there is plenty of available geology from a structural sense. Everyone wants to use nuclear energy but nobody wants the waste in their back yard. It would be political suicide for a politician to allow it. Why not drop the vitrified waste in a subduction zone off the coast. It would plow under the tectonic plates? Either that or just store it in pools until recycling is feasible.
Letting the shorter half life/more radioactive isotopes decay for several decades (a century ?) is probably the best first step in any solution. Less radioactive used fuel if one choses to recycle makes it easier/cheaper to process. Less radioactive heat and resulting material degradation if one buries whole, or dissolves waste in glass or some other medium (ceramic, metal, etc.)
While sheet-mulching for this Summer's vegetable beds, I found this fascinating, frightening article from the March 15th Wall Street Journal:
"As Utilities Seek More Coal, Railroads Struggle To Deliver"
A confluence of various issues. Lack of rail capacity (Kunstler) *
Consolidation of rail industry (Corporate mergers and monopolies) * Coal displaced by consumer goods(!) as cargo (Overconsumption) * Coal is not fungible (Stuart?) * Wall street likes tight capacity --> higher prices (Corporate capitalism?) * Flooding damaged tracks, adding to problem (Climate change?) * 100 more coal burning plants in the works as nat. gas fades!! (End-of-the-world AWKI) * And...Conrad Burns greasing the rails!Ultimately, I'm afraid this helps confirm that yes, the American Way of Life IS non-negotiable! We will not change until we really really really HAVE TO.
The drought has also impacted hydroelectric and nuclear power plants.
"They can't make up for years of underinvestment within a single year. Now they're playing catch-up," said Richard Price, managing director of Westminster Securities Corp. in St. Louis, Mo.
Both railroads are expanding capacity on all Powder River Basin routes, according to the companies. And both have instituted aggressive hiring plans nationwide to run more trains while at the same time making up for a retiring work force.
"They're putting significant capital in rolling stock and training crews," Price said.
The problem
Railroad delivery fell 20 million tons short of commitments between Powder River Basin coal producers and the utilities they served in some 35 states in 2005. And although coal production and rail delivery are expected to reach record levels this year, rail delivery is expected to again fall short by 20 million tons.
Rail expansion efforts are simply outpaced by the growing demand for Powder River Basin coal, according to those in the industry.
Price said it's a dilemma of logistics: Neither the producers nor the utilities want to slow train traffic in order to make way for expansion work.
http://www.ble.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=15774
A classic example of the "cost of complexity." Building new infrastructure is easy compared to expanding existing. Once the infrastructure gets built, we get dependent on it.
and all of the energy that goes into heating all buildings, and our homes, much of which is unoccupied
Hey, we don't have to heat the whole cave. Only the part we are sitting in.
there may be a BIG PROBLEM [waste] transporting and burning all of the coal [global warming] from wyoming to electric power stations.
We hope to visit powder river basin and triple tracked
train system [with digital and analog cameras with notebook with wireless connectivity to internet] on way back to my 50TH!
http://www.prosefights.org/shattuck/shattuck.htm
They reduced track mercilessly, and when volume picked up, they could not handle it. But instead of declinign business they could not handle, they signed up and then screwed some major customers.
They are putting back double track between Los Angeles and El Paso, at 50 miles/year !
They had a parallel track from Yuma to Phoenix to somewhere east of Phoenix. (This could have taken load off LA-El Paso for a few hundred miles AND served the massive metroplex of Phoenix from East & West). They abandoned Yuma -PHX segment and run Phoenix bound frieght (like Asian imports, CA fruits & veggies) from West to East south of Phoenix to middle of desert and then loop back west towards Phoenix. Adds several hundred miles to route and congestion on tracks.
Needless to say, most Asian imports and fruits & veggies for the 4+ million in Phoenix are trucked in.
Here's a taste from the introduction:
It's worth a read. I invite your comments.
Making A Living On The Farm
With respect to energy:
A telling figure is how much money is made from these products after they leave the farm. For example, this document makes the case that agri-business (corporations that buy from and sell to farmers) represents 12% of US GDP, yet producers represent less than 1%. Moreover, that gap has been widening for the last 40 years.
I know several farmers that net about $35k per year off about 6 acres. That's far from a fortune, but their per-acre profit is many many times what they would get from, say, growing corn. There's really nothing special about their operations other than that they are selling directly to consumers and that they deal as little as possible with agri-business companies. So, there is room for profitable small farms.
From the Energy Bulletin article that Khebab and I coauthored:
Proposal: Replace the Payroll Tax with an Energy Tax
Some have argued that the suburbs are dead; the suburbanites just don't know it yet. It's probably more accurate to say that the suburban commutes are dead; the suburban commuters just don't know it yet.
We recommend that the United States abolish the payroll tax (Social Security + Medicare tax) and replace it with either a liquid transportation (petroleum) fuel tax or an overall (nonrenewable) energy tax.
The majority of American households pay more in the payroll tax than in the income tax. This would be a tax cut for most households and it would a massive tax increase on those who are profligate in their use of energy. No matter where one lives, the cost of goods would go up, but if you lived close to where you work, your effective tax rate would go down. Of course, those who persisted in long commutes would pay the price.
There would of course be very powerful forces opposed to this idea--the housing industry; auto industry; airlines; trucking--the list goes on. But the fates of these industries are sealed. It's not a question of if they will contract; it's just a question of when. The sooner it happens, and the sooner these industries start emphasizing energy efficiency, the better off we all will be.
A high gasoline tax does not necessarily equate to a lower standard of living. Norway, with the highest gasoline tax in the world, has the highest standard of living in the world, perhaps partly because their car ownership per 1,000 people is about half of what it is in the US.
There would be some other benefits. As we turned to walking, biking and mass transit, our health would improve. There is pretty much a linear correlation between obesity rates and total miles driven (here in the US, we are the world champs in both categories). In addition, since this is in effect a consumption tax, everyone who now avoids paying Social Security taxes would no longer be able to avoid paying them.
However, the primary reason for implementing the proposal is that it would cause an immediate and massive across the board push for greater energy efficiency and it would unleash enormous free market forces against profligate energy use.
Of all the oil-rich nations, it has used its endowment quite wisely and has avoided the 'oil curse'.
It has progressive ideas regarding civil society and yet at the same time has maintained social and familial cohesion. It has not forgotten its roots such as fishing and the role this particularly difficult harvesting method plays in northern waters and has played in Norwegian society over the last millenia.
It is also endowed with access to the potential of Hydro Power, wind power, tidal / wave power like no other modern industrialised nation on the planet
Now Norway is looking for ways forward beyond oil. It is directing wealth towards this goal. It is helped by consensual politics, an ordered and civil society and a very high degree of quality education. It is not perfect and does suffer some social problems. But Norway is pretty well placed to find a route through. Norways biggest challenge (IMO) is not peak oil. I think Norway's biggest challenge may be Global Warming. An obvious impact would be fishing, but then the possible loss of the Atlantic Conveyor could be very dramatic on much of Norwegian climate and then society.
But generally speaking, they are in good shape: rich, intelligent, socially and environmentally active and forward thinking... Watch this space: Any Nation that can get a away with calling a UK Environment Minister a Dritsekk has my vote.
Norway is a special, rather than general case. Perhaps it will get through Ragnarok better than most.
I think the greatest of these faults was mentioned early in the evening; "They steal our fish !"
This is an issue that Icelanders TWICE went to war against the Royal Navy over; and the only nation to ever best them !
Iceland has a VERY different take on social cohesion (think hybrid between Texans & Danes) than the Norwegians, but they will do OK.
They have survived three nuclear wars in their history (massive volcanic explosions with fallout that poisons all with fluorine afterwards), they will survive Peak Oil.
Something's going on. Price goes up to U, there's a little profit taking, price goes down to D. Prices goes up to U1, where U1 > U. Profit taking lowers price to D1 where D1 > D. And over and over. At least that's my take on it. And the primetime driving season isn't even here yet.
Go to TFC Commodity Charts and look at the weekly chart. For some reason, they won't let me link it in here. Folks, we're headed toward $70 for sure sometime soon.
And I'll add that the displayed upward zig zag can not possibly reflect reactions to Nigeria, Iran, or other geopolitical events which in and of themselves follow no such pattern.
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic1071-1740.html
But yeah, $70 doesn't seem at all unreasonable.
I'm just trying to understand what's going on just like everybody else.