DrumBeat: May 19, 2006
Posted by threadbot on May 19, 2006 - 9:15am
Now for some wise words from the readers of The Oil Drum...
“This order [i.e. capitalism] is now bound to the technical and economic conditions of machine production which today determine the lives of all the individuals who are born into this mechanism, not only those directly concerned with the economic acquisition, with irresistible force. Perhaps it will so determine them until the last ton of fossilized coal is burnt.”
—Max Weber, 1905
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
What You Need to Know about Peak Oil
Have a look and tell me what you think. On "Web Based Resources" at the end, The Oil Drum and LATOC are both listed. In hindsight, I should have gone into more detail on tar sands. In the case of each alternative, I tried to present the pros and cons. By the time I got around to tar sands, I was rushing a bit and didn't really go into the cons. I didn't realize that until reading back through it after publishing. That might leave the impression that tar sands are a greater hope than they really are, but that was not my intent.
RR
Only if we consider the total global energy supply and understand the volumes involved here, people can understand what is the real problem. All fossile fuel supply is tight. Also coal is depleting badly. The may be a lot of it left, but much of best coal is gone and the rest has lower EROEI - much of it lower than one, ie. it is not possible get net energy from it.
Tar sands and extra heavy are low EROEI fuels. What does this mean? If we have oil with EROEI of 20, this means that to produce 20 barrels net we much produce 21 barrels gross (1 barrel goes to the energy input needed in the production). But if we have very heavy oil, the EROEI might be just 2. To produce 20 net barrels we have produce 30 gross barrels (10 barrels as energy input). Now also the CO2 emissions are 50% higher in the latter case. Production volume will rise also 50% to get the same net output. This would be utterly destructive and in the end not feasible. You will be producing only lots of C02 but no net energy. The absolutely worst scenario.
I don't think nobody wants to try this "EROEI heroism" - a desperate push to produce more fossile fuels with heavy governments subsidies - but in the end with negative net energy gain. The Soviet Union tried just this - and collapsed. Don't think that the American leaders are so much smarter than the Soviet leaders. The Soviets didn't understand this, because it is not easy to see. How many American politicians understand the concept of decreasing EROEI?
This is because in converting coal to liquids for example (fischer tropsch for black coal, bergius process for brown coal), the energy you need comes 90% from the primary source and 10% from other sources (mainly electricity). You still need fuels for mining and transporting your primary source or your endproduct. If the spread of price between your primary source and your endproduct is wide enough, you can begin considering the process economically.
This doesn't mean it will be feasible. Clearly the process is very expensive to run not only because of energy input from other sources, but also because of costs involved in catalyst management and high maintenance costs of the plants in the first place. Then you should consider transportation costs, construction costs of the plants.
Another limitation could be the surge of, the price of the primary sources could because of mining problems and scarcity to begin with. Totoneilla and Pr Goose have already tried to draw our attention to the importance of exponantiallity in trying to understand some of the problems induced by peak-oil. I believe that the real problem lies here. EROEI serves in this case to show how spoilfull these processes are but a negative EROEI isn't in first approximation an absolute limit.
Producing synthetic fuels (os mining coal or pumping oil) at EROEI one is in essence transforming one energy form to another. That's OK in principle. But Peak Oil means also diminishng energy supply - not only diminishing supply of one energy form. The lost energy must be compensated by producing more of some other kind of energy - coal, natural gas, nuclear etc. If you can do that you can then transform it to liquid fuels. If the transformation takes more energy than it gives, you must produce still some more energy to compensate that.
This has been discussed here already earlier. If we have to compensate the energy lost by a 10% decrease in the oil supply by coal, the US coal production has to grow a lot, may be 20% - 30% (oil is more energy intensive than coal). If you have to convert coal to gasoline, it takes energy and so more coal to provide that. So increase the coal production still some more. Now the US coal production grew 1.9% in 2005.
Tar sands and extra heavy oil are like coal. You must increase the production immensely to gain the necessary net energy.
Profitability is not the issue. You can have fat government subsidies and tax deductions - the Soviet government did just that. So they got more coal with a very low EROEI. They argued just like Neuroil and thought that it didn't matter as long they got their coal. But it did matter. Producing that coal just ate away other energy resources. They tried to beat the EROEI - but it took them.
In fact the Americans could easily do with much less gasoline than they use today. People naturally think how awkward it would to live now driving considerably less - with everybody else driving like before and the social and urban structure being like today. But as soon as everybody has to drive less the necessary changes start. They start absolutely. Then everybody wants public transport - and it will come. They don't need it now, so just wait.
But everything will go smoother if there are people how know what to do. People who can tell not to panic and try to commit EROEI suicide or start new wars to get the oil, but arrange things better in the new conditions. I think here is enough to do.
I just want to make clear that I agree with most (if not all) of what you write, at least with your global conclusions.
My considerations about the EROEI parameter just tried to show that it is not always very well defined (or in fact computed differently by various authors).
- In fact some consider the energy invested as the total amount of energy requirements for a certain process, regardless of the source. In that cas you have to compute the total value of energy inputs (X BTU's in primary source, Y BTU's of electricity, Z BTU's of fuel and other energy sources) and compare this to the N BTU's of the final energy source. So EROEI would be (X+Y+Z)/N. This value can also be viewed as the ratio of energy recieved versus energy dissipated.
- Others only want to consider the energy from other sources you have to "import" in order to make your reactions work. In this setting, EROEI is (Y+Z)/N, Y,Z,N beeing as in 1.
I think both values are important. Of course we all agree that if EROEI in the second case is <1 then our process doesn't work at all, neither thermodynamically nor economically, unless you have a cheap largely available energy source (which don't have any more). I think your answer refered to EROEI in this setting.But take the example of XTL as discussed by Rober Rapier. In this case the energy for the reactions comes most predominantly from the primary source, in fact 85% in the case of coal. Only 15% of the energy requirements stem from other sources, 10% from electricity, 5% for mining and transporting coal, in the case of an in-situ fischer-tropsch plant. I this case, EROEI as computed in my second example, is largely >1 but this number is misleading as the reactions still dissipate a lot of energy because of the waste of the primary energy source. Some of this energy dissipated could be used for the generation of electricity but the waste is still huge. This accounts also for the high CO2 emissions of the process. The EROEI as computed in my first example is <1. You can however get more fuel from this process than you input.
In order for CTL and XTL to work, for some time at least, we should experience a very slow decline of oil production in the coming years. It seems that these techniques are very expensive. The construction of plants will exceed the price of a refinery. Operation requires a lot of catalyst, price of which is increasing, a lot of brain-power (price of which decreases :( ), and heavy maintainance. To bring these plant up, economy should be working fine in order for these heavy investments to be made. The environmental toll will probably be disastrous. If oil declines faster, I think we won't ever be able to bring these techniques to work.
1 + 1/20 + 1/40 ....
not 20 + 1 + 1/20 + 1/40 ....
EROI of 20 is one barrel to produce 20 barrels.
I wish my Greek philosophers knowledge was much better (an arrow does not hit a target because after each unit of time it is one half nearer the target, so the arrow never actually hits the target because of decreasing fractions keep on going to infinity) as this is the same argument put forward. In real life, I would not like to rely on a philosopher's hypothesis to protect me when an arrow is shot at me from a long bow.
However, carrying on with your thought experiment, what happens if I use an electrical generator (powered by coal) to power the pump to get the first bit of oil out of the ground, which is then used to pump more oil out of the ground.
http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=hamilton/Layout/Article_Type1& c=Article&cid=1147729811918&call_pageid=1020420665036&col=1014656511815
The oil peak of course is all the same ominous as Peak Oil. Just today, I had to slightly move my car due to a third party complaint. I parked my car on an obtuse angle to take into account a motorcycle user, no doubt useing it to save gasoline. The problem is that in his parking space he leaves the arse end of the car out like a stretch limo to accomodate that bloody bike.
By parking on the angle, I would have an easier time during departure to work. But a Jeep owner was inconvienced by my angle-parking procedure. So, I get to modify my parking procedure, no big deal. I guess I will have to extricate myself from the passenger side. No worries, mate!
And storage has always been part of the natural gas system. We store gas produced in summer for use in winter.
The problem we are facing is that we're using more and more natural gas in summer, raising the possibility that we may run out in the winter.
Odd isn't it that energy producers can "control' oil prices but not natural gas prices.
Natural gas is different from oil in two fundamental ways - first, the north american market is mostly isolated from the rest of the world, so both supply and demand is local. The weather, traditionally cold or warm winters, but increasingly hot or normal summers, have a major effect on demand.
Second, the pipelines from the major producing areas are not sufficient to supply the major consuming regions even during a normal winter, much less in a colder than normal one. For this reason, each region must store large quantities in underground caverns to meet seasonal demand. The caverns are supposed to be full by late fall to meet winter demand. The concern last winter was that, with lesser supply available following the hurricanes, there might be insufficient ng in storage to meet winter need, so utilities bid against each other to fill their own caverns. This activity has nothing to do with greedy suppliers, who did indeed enjoy the higher prices, but entirely resulted from worried utilities. The warm winter, combined with pride-incuded cutbacks by major industrial users (eg fertilizer makers and brick/glass manufacturers, who temporarily laid off thousands of workers) resulted in much less consumption than expected at the onset of winter.
As an aside, the hundreds of natural gas producing companies have been in an absolute frenzy in renting drilling rigs and drilling for gas as fast as they can to meet the nations's need for ng, to the extent that over 85% of all us rigs are drilling for ng and only 15% are drilling for oil, in spite of record world oil prices. Of course, if ng falls sufficiently in price while oil remains elevated, some of these rigs will switch back, which could result in higher ng prices in the future.
http://energybulletin.net/16128.html
Seems like a ringing endorsement of Westexas & Khebab's exporting theory, with the additional twist of further politically driven exporting constraints to importing countries [especially the US].
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
"As the world approaches oil depletion, the United States carries an especially heavy burden. We have blundered into a dependency on imported oil that approaches 70 percent of our consumption and can only end in disaster. The US position as the world's current military and economic power has built up a reservoir of resentment and ill will around the world. Issues range from support for Israel to growing tension between militant Islam and other cultures, to unfair exploitation of foreign resources.
"Thus, the American lifestyle faces a double-edged problem: worldwide oil depletion and soon the inability to import oil at anywhere near the current rate. When world oil depletion arrives and oil supplies start to dwindle at anywhere from three to eight percent a year, the rate at which oil ceases to be available to the US economy will be higher-- perhaps much higher."
Excerpt from the Fortune article on Richard Rainwater:
Some possibilities that Rainwater foresees:
An economic tsunami is about to hit the global economy as the world runs out of oil. Or a coalition of communist and Islamic states may decide to stop selling their precious crude to Americans any day now. Or food shortages may soon hit the U.S
Will look into it this evening and give my comments.
I was just reading the XTL thread. Apart from the obvious GW implications which are terrifying (I live in Holland)I was a little surprised that the viability was not really discussed. OK, at present it is technically and economically possible.
But how many XTL plants needs to be constructed before what date to soften the pain of a lack of oil? Do we have enough raw materials and engineers for the plant construction? If you plan to construct a plant today, by how much will you overrun estimated costs by the time it's finished? Is it still economically viable then? And can we arrange for XTL to be scalable in respect to availability of raw materials and engineers, to replace oil production loss?
After all, we don't need XTL for runaway GW if Lovelock's right......
In the long run, if oil companies raise their projections for long-term oil prices, they will build more GTL plants. But they have to anticipate the demand 10 years in advance, so there is a danger of some serious supply/demand imbalances as GTL plants come online.
RR
Having a "backbone" of electrified transportation (see my proposed steps) would significantly increase our elasticity of demand (see recent German & French 6% drops in gasoline use because they had a non-oil alternative vs. US ~flat demand) AND reduce the negative economic impact of supply falling short of demand.
Going large scale GTL means an economic roller coaster. My proposals would "flatten" that roller coaster quite a bit.
http://tinyurl.com/j6jus
In the last year or two, these speeches have tried to raise awareness of how big the energy challenge is. Naturally they talk up the big projects in Qatar Gas-to-Liquids and Tar Sands, and research scale work on Oil Shale and Biofuels. However, stated calmly enough to avoid scaring anyone (especially the markets), but firmly enough to encourage Governments to provide the funding, they are effectively indicating that we need global 'Manhattan' scale investment and projects to meet increasing demand.
The other point that most of the oil majors are publicly making is that they need greater access to OPEC and other 'closed' producing countries, who they say will be unable to meet demand without the new technology and investment that the majors can bring. Whether we believe that will help is another matter entirely - the OPEC myth of abundant oil potential is just as strong inside the industry.
cheers
Phil.
Incidentally, I used to live in Dusseldorf. We made trips into Holland on a regular basis. Definitely one of the friendliest countries in Europe (after they realized we weren't Germans). :)
RR
Before moving to France, I also lived in Düsseldorf, now some 27 years ago.
Have you returned there ? I've been back over there last year and noticed quite some changes : all coal-fired plants have closed. The nuclear plant of Kalkar is still working, but a lot of windgenerated electricity is now supplied to an increasign amount of the Ruhr-industry.
The most efficient CTL plant of the 1944 era was based in Essen near Düsseldorf. It seems the germans haven't moved back in that direction, probably not only because of bad memories but they seem inclined to more sustainable energy.
There is however a trend in french and german policies toward heavily increasing biodiesel and ethanol, because of the strength of the agricultural lobby (heavily subsidised). I regret this because it already begins to compete with agriculture for food.
One day, as I was coming through the plant entrance, one of the guards handed me a piece of paper. I got to my office, and translated it into English. It said "Please remain in your offices from 11:00 until further notice as we have uncovered an unexploded Allied bomb behind the cafeteria." I asked my boss about this, and he said it happens all the time. He once told me, "Think about what it would have been like during the war, for an operator working out in a unit." Talk about your dangerous jobs.
RR
I would like capital data for "XTL" to compare to my proposals. ($2 million/track mile to electrify at 2003 copper prices).
Over time, my proposals will save significantly more than 10%, new XTL plants will not organically grow in volume.
My proposals have expected lifetimes in centuries, XTL plants typically have a 30 to 50 year life spans (local resource depletion + wear and tear + technological obsolence).
My proposals will cost less to operate (by far !) than XTL plants.
And my proposals are environmentally benign vs. ongoing environmental disasters !
WHY are not the better alternatives considered more seriously ?
I would like capital data for "XTL" to compare to my proposals. ($2 million/track mile to electrify at 2003 copper prices). _Do your trains go back in time to 2003 to retrieve the copper, if so buy me some gasoline.
Over time, my proposals will save significantly more than 10%, new XTL plants will not organically grow in volume.
explain organic growth in reference to rail._
My proposals have expected lifetimes in centuries, XTL plants typically have a 30 to 50 year life spans (local resource depletion + wear and tear + technological obsolence).
__We can't predict 20 years out how can you be sure your train system won't be sitting unused like Blain in stephen king's wastelandsMy proposals will cost less to operate (by far !) than XTL plants.
__XTL plants are capital investments to generate profit. Your rail proposals are socialist institutions....this is not a criticism of social programs just an observation.And my proposals are environmentally benign vs. ongoing environmental disasters !
___I'll give you this one.WHY are not the better alternatives considered more seriously
Alan you look at the world through rail colored glasses. XTL plants solve the problem of the automotive gas industry. You are trying to solve mass transportation. THEY are trying to solve a different problem than you.
Organic growth comes from the fact that the ultimate carrying capacity of a double track rail line is quite high. Just add rolling stock and more power. (Electric freight ultimate capacity is higher than diesel freight due to better braking & acceleration). The joint Union Pacific/CSX line to the coal fields of Wyoming is AFAIK, triple tracked to deal with the demand. It may be quadrupled tracked in the future or electrified to increase capacity.
The four track NYC Lexington subway is the only US subway line at saturation; 600,000 pax/day. A 20 lane freeway does not carry half as many people. The two track DC Red Line is getting closer to saturation at over 300,000/day (data from memory). Rail can grow in use, once built, until it hits saturation.
I am unfamilar with King's novel, but I will point out that it is fiction. NYC subways are 100 years old, I used daily a line open since 1834 and electrified since 1890s (and will use again in a couple of months).
When Miami finishes their 103 miles of elevated "Subway in the Sky", I am confident that 95% to 100% of it will still be in use in 2140, barring a major social and economic collapse (in which case XTL plants will also be idled).
Our rail freight lines pay dividends and make money today. The US railroads have said in the past that they did not electrify (and tore up many double tracks) because of property taxes. Zero taxes on their diesel, high taxes on the electrical infrastructure alternative.
Only one US city over 100,000 does not offer city bus service, Arlington Texas. It is a de facto given that cities will have mass transit in some form or other. Urban Rail offers much more and better mass transit at typically less than half the marginal unit cost.
In 1970, 4% of DC commuters used the city bus system, Today, over 40% use mass transit. Yet the operating subsidy, inflation adjusted, is comparable. Washington Metro covers over 80% of their costs from the farebox + ads. The old bus only system did not cover a quarter of their costs that way.
If one factors in the externalities (land lost to freeways & low value parking lots, medical and lifetime disability costs of auto accidents, pollution and related health costs) there is no doubt that DC Metro is MUCH cheaper than the sprawl alternative.
DC Metro also provides a non-oil altrnative to keep the federal gov't going in a severe oil supply interruption, fulfilling a national defense role.
The same could be said on an enlarged national electrified rail freight system and every US city (except Las Vegas, which does not supply an essential good or service :-)
Simply on the grounds of socialized National Defense (yes it is a social function), my proposals should be weighted against XTL plants.
Longer trains require longer stations and I (from having ridden Portland a couple of years ago) think Portland still has some room left. (Also, more seats per train, one possibility is to make cars single ended with an operators console & cab on one end only, adding about 8 seats on the other end plus more standing room).
When in DC I noted a subway station ad that the Orange Line will go from 6 to 8 car long trains. Unfortunately, the DC stations can only handle 8 car trains.
More trains and longer trains require more cars. Portland like most agencies needs more, BUT the feds are VERY tight on providing matching money for more rolling stock.
One more way to encourage auto use :-(
Your last sentence: WHY are not the better alternatives considered more seriously?
Alan, your arguments for railroads and other forms of mass-transit make a hell of a lot sense to me--I really wish scads of politicians would be emailing you for advice-- the best way to start mitigation is to start rebuilding RRs, trolleys, and other forms of efficient transportation. Even the corp. executives of the 'Iron Triangle' should be reading your posts. Have you received any positive feedback from any influential personalities besides what you have accomplished locally in Nawlins?
Keep plugging away--I am pulling for you to make a bigtime breakthrough to national visibility--maybe Roscoe Bartlett will put your ideas in front of Congress!
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
So, imo there is no $15 fear factor, except to the extent that refineries do not want to be caught with insufficient crude in the event that something goes wrong with their crude supply, eg hurricanes. And, if the world was producing more than buyers wanted at this price, we would see tankers wandering around without takers and/or every possible storage location jammed full. And, while it is often said these days that us supplies are around 15mb higher than a year ago, this would not be true if the refineries paid back the 15mb loaned to them from the spr last fall. The truth is, the spr is today's swing producer.
Sadly, Zimbabwe seems to be using a new tactic to cull their 'undesirables'. After knocking down their little shanties, Pres. Mugabe's milgov troops forcibly load the poor, sick, and enfeebled on vehicles, then dump them miles from the city in a rural area. Those that survive the foothike back into the city then try their best to play 'cat & mouse' until caught again. Lather, rinse, and repeat until society is cleansed. Thus, using fossil fuels to make humans burn up the last food calories in their bodies is a very efficient way to reduce population headcount.
Imagine in the future when Phx and Las Vegas institute the same policy: a quick ride about 30 miles into the summer Sonoran Desert and 115 F temps with no shade-- nobody will survive the hike back. Using fossil fuels to induce dehydration and heatstroke is vastly more efficient than starvation.
I would prefer we start early mitigation, because nobody knows how long the Hubbert Plateau will last.
http://allafrica.com/stories/200605180346.html
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Unfortunately, not yet as my mother is still living [but I hope she lives forever], and then I doubt if I will have adequate financial heft to relocate to an biosolar enclave that offers a chance at survival. My girlfriend, of 20+ years together, is in absolute denial--she refuses to discuss these topics at all. Therefore, we will probably be early US victims when it all starts to unwind. Such is life--like the Zimbabwean headline says, "Destitutes Are Not Entitled".
Basically, I think many of these forum postings are the 'canaries' singing that things are going badly, but the world at large is ignoring our sad songs.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
This is easily the most offensive thing I've seen on this site to date.
If you're kidding, let me make this painfully clear: IT WASN'T FUNNY.
If you're using exaggeration or irony or whatever to make a point: IT DIDN'T WORK.
If you're serious, then you live in a very different world than I do, and one that I'm glad I won't ever see.
I cannot help but recall Sinclair Lewis's masterfull cautionary tale: "It Can't Happen Here."
Thxs for responding. No, I was not kidding-- without meaningful and early mitigation, I really believe at some future collapse point: this will be a normal occurence. I am certainly not advocating for this 'solution', but if we are capable of handing infected blankets to Native Indians, as we have done in the past, future deranged leaders are certainly capable of inventing new atrocities. Please consider the full trajectory of historical inhumanity.
Your being offended is a subjective emotional moment, the elite topdogs don't think that way--Hell, they don't think properly at all-- otherwise huge leadership for mitigation would be already underway.
Consider that Zimbabwe was, at one time, recognized as the breadbasket of Africa. The UN or the US could have deposed Pres. Mugabe years ago to head off the calamity, and then educated the people to voluntarily have one child and build biosolar sustainability. Instead, they purposely ignored the problem to let it fester further, and the IMF bankers were glad to cash Zimbabwean repayment checks even as people were already destitute. I have googled and posted on Zimbabwe for several years in the Yahoo energy forums trying to warn people. Thankfully, Matt Savinar's LATOC is regularly carrying the message to others.
The MSM would much rather talk about Brad & Angelina, McCartney's divorce, and the latest American Idol, than really give us the news that we should be hearing. They are, IMHO, seriously undermining American security and future sustainability. Sadly, we will reap what we have sown.
Lou, if the US does not practice meaningful mitigation, how would you expect our future leaders to treat 100 million destitute Americans? I would like to read your hypothetical future scenarios. Don't forget to include detritus entropy, pop. Overshoot, and the normal range of human response to crisis.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
One could also say that continuing to burn fossil fuels for private profit while ignoring climate change is doing the same horrible thing in a more indirect way, but on a much larger scale.
The "milgov" can't be blamed for a disaster you can outwalk. If you live in a bowl and someone says it will be flooded in 3 days....leave. If you are mayor of a city in a bowl and (the previous years disaster drill was a CAT3 hurricane, the determination of which was levee failure) a CAT5 hurricane is 3 days away order evacuation. If you are a Governor of a State with this problem show some leadership.
The "milgov" you speak of is not nearly as responsible for NOLA as the people that did not evacuate. The corrupt local government that let the levee's fall into disrepair. The savages that looted their own neighborhoods and shot at Police and EMS. The Police and EMS who abandoned their posts or looted themselves.
Federal policy did not cause this...people along every link in sosieties chain did. New Orleans should blame themselves first.
- We did not have "3 days", we had 44 hours from the time that the ball dropped (more than a 3% chance of hitting New Orleans) till the highways closed. The ball dropped at 10 PM Friday, just about as bad a time to start an evacuation as one could hope for. (One does not evac for a 2% or 3% chance)
- Texas had 100+ hours warning, it took them over 24 hours to get some fo their contraflow working (US 290 I think). Texas killed 40 people in their evac (not needed, as 90% of evacs are). 23 burned alive because they waived all safety regulations on evac buses and an unsafe bus caught on fire and 17 from heat exhaustion in their cars.
According to WWL radio, traffic began to back up at 2 PM Saturday, traffic into New Orleans was blocked at 3 PM and the various contraflow lanes started between 3:55 and 4:15 PM.The last radio broadcast I heard was at noon to 1 PM Sunday. The Mississippi Gov asked for both sides of I-59 (previous agreement was contraflow lanes for New Orleans and regular for MS Gulf Coast) because he could not get his people out. Blancio agreed and, with a 1 hour delay due to logistics, would divert east I-10 from New Orleans to I-12 and around the north side of the lake to I-55. I-12 would close some hours later than the I-10 East beidge and the last cars out could still make it via I-12 then I-55 rather than I-59.
Blanco deserves an A+ for making contraflow work like clockwork. It could have been improved by a few minutes here and there, but that is how close it was to perfection. Virtually everyone locally agrees on that point. Texas deserves a D- to F.
Reality was very few more vehicles could have gotten out in the VERY short time that we had. I listened to Nagin's plea "to not evacuate an empty seat" and took 3 people without cars with me to Birmingham, dropped them off and went to KY.
An order earlier would not have gotten more cars out, except possibly 2% or 3% more.
More later on some of your misconceptions.
Yes, that is the sad translation. To get an gut-wrenching taste of how badly people will treat others in order to get a crust of bread please read:
http://dieoff.com/page226.htm
THIS WAY FOR THE GAS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN
by Tadeusz Borowski, #119198
--------------
Despite the madness of war, we lived for a world that would be different. For a better world to come when all this is over. And perhaps even our being here is a step towards that world. Do you really think that, without the hope that such a world is possible, that the rights of man will be restored again, we could stand the concentration camp even for one day? It is that very hope that makes people go without a murmur to the gas chambers, keeps them from risking a revolt, paralyses them into numb inactivity. It is hope that breaks down family ties, makes mothers renounce their children, or wives sell their bodies for bread, or husbands kill. It is hope that compels man to hold on to one more day of life, because that day may be the day of liberation. Ah, and not even the hope for a different, better world, but simply for life, a life of peace and rest. Never before in the history of mankind has hope been stronger than man, but never also has it done so much harm as it has in this war, in this concentration camp. We were never taught how to give up hope, and this is why today we perish in gas chambers. -- Borowski, pp. 121-122
---------
Or consider the thousands of Jewish slaves forced to build the Roman embattlements against Masada--how they must have despaired--more tears than sweat!
http://mosaic.lk.net/g-masada.html
Of course, you are probably already familiar with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago". I suggest the '3 Days of the Condor' scenario will be just as debilitating to the average worldwide citizen as these three brief examples. The historical list of cruelty is endless.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/050806EA.shtml
GW ALSO implies a redistribution of effects/phenomena in space AND time
Sure, more snow may fall, but if it all melts in spring, or more falls as rain... what then for summer? I believe the current thinking is that glacier melt provides a more reliable, consistent base flow through much of the summer... after the spring snow melt. If the balance of water storage as ice/snow in winter vs melt in summer changes then the seasonality/timing of discharge in river systems will change. This may well effect the timing of other ecological processes downstream. IF the extra water falls not as snow but as rain (after all - it is getting warmer no?) then you can antcipate an increase in flooding.
"When a low-density city collapses," Fletcher says, "it takes out the entire region".
The water infrastructure "became so inflexible, convoluted, and huge that it could neither be replaced nor avoided, and had become both too elaborate and too piecemeal."
IE Prior investment hindered their adaptive management to a changing situation...
For just a hint of what's there, I broke the wells down into 4 size categories: Strippers (less than 15 bbl/d), small (15-100 bbl/d), medium (100-1600 bbl/d), and large (>1600 bbl/d). For reference, in 2004 large wells were roughly 25% of all oil production, small + medium about 55%, and stripper wells 20%. Decline rates for the categories 1990-2004 were:
Stripper: 1.6%/year
Small: 3.6%/year
Medium: 3.7%/year
Now, consider the period 2001-2004. Decline rates:
Small: 4.9%/year
Medium: 6.6%/year
And finally, year over year 2003-2004: Decline rates:
Small: 6.9%/year
Medium: 9.4%/year
What appears to be happening is that folks are pushing their small+medium wells harder and harder in response to the recent high prices, and those wells are depleting ever more quickly. For the time being, this is being compensated by the addition of large wells in the deep water GOM that mask that depletion. However, the net result of this is that the US is relying ever more on a relatively few large wells for its oil production. Of course, these big wells themselves deplete at a roughly 10% or better rate per year (this can be confirmed by comparing 1995 data to 1990 for large wells, prior to the beginning of deepwater). The shocker is that as of right now 80% of the US oil supply depleting at something on the order of 8-10% per year! If only we had data like this for all countries (sigh)...
I start to believe that the 9/11 attacks will be the marker of the beginning of the end for the hedgemoney of the U.S. and it's super power status. I mean really if we weren't attacked anyone propose what happens next?
I just feel like history will look at the 9/11 attacks as the start of the collapse. Following that incident, the liquidity in the market exploded and has never looked back, in addition to financing two wars in under 5 years. I mean when you are monetizing debt, if you were to really somehow figure out the math of it, we have to be increasing our national debt exponentially, rather than the $3.5T or so that Bush has added.
http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2006/05/15.html
What if the Japanese and Chinese would actually cancel U.S. debt in exchange for the U.S. greatly reducing stockpiles of nuclear weapons?
Not to mention doesn't that make us worse off? Russia still has them and they are increasingly wielding their political clout w/fossil fuels.
The Dems will likely be in control, after the lurch to the left that I predict, and all the baby-boomer, I-was-anti-nuke-before-you fifty-somethings in control of politics would seem like likely candidates for trading 80% or 90% of our nukes to mitigate run-away stag-inflation? It would also allow the holders of our bonds, who have been rooked, a face saving way out the door, sort of.
That is a truly brilliant idea, Kudos! Hopefully that will come up at the upcoming G8 Conference. The big question is: will the elite worldwide 'humanimal wolves' be willing to hunt with no nuclear teeth?
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Once net exports get lower, we'll be at the critical juncture. So what would we do with nuclear weapons at that point? Hunt what? It's not exactly clear to me -- especially once people in the developed world realize peak oil. "Isn't uranium more valuable as a fuel than a bomb?" we will say.
So it seems that we could possibly get a (Dem speak) "global conversation of international organizations commited to a multi-lateral worldwide solution implementing cooperation of international scope regarding mitigation of currency and security issues" -- i.e. disable our nukes for dollars. Debt problem solved.
Then the only thing we're left with is the actual peak oil problem. But survival focuses the mind doesn't it? Rail lines get extended again, Arizona gets plastered with CSP Stirling engines, George Olah builds methanol plants, etc.
I also see them switching to coal fired engines, but I've talked to some old timers and they tell me some stories of a powerful steam engine that lost luster once diesel became standard. If it's true, then the RR would have no problem getting new engines built in a limited time frame.
I've read that even though we have gone back and ripped up a ton of track, that RR's still hold the "right of way" to summarily kick anyone on the property out with compensation and start laying track again. Anyone know about this?
Are you serious about switching to coal-fired RR engines....of the Casey Jones variety?
Since the demise of the Baldwin Locomotive Works about half a century ago, there has been no company in the US capable of manufacturing traditional steam locomotives that I'm aware of. Aside from being terribly polluting, their energy efficiency was only about half that of a diesel locomotive. They were also far more expensive to build and maintain.
Unless there is some high-tech modern version of the steam locomotive that I'm not aware of, I just don't see this happening in the US.
I would think that if the RRs wanted to switch to coal, they would do in indirecly by building more electrified rail lines and running more electric locomotives.
The enviro wackos would scream bloody murder the first time they saw one belch a ton of black smoke when they clean the flues.
Don't forget - they tore up all the infrastructure for steam: water towers - coaling towers and steam shops.
BTW - if they wanted to experiment with steam again there are a lot of late model locos preserved in running condition or close. Some examples are the NKP Berkshires (2-8-4) #765 and #769. The NW class A 2-8-8-4 #1218 in Roanoke and the UP Challenger, etc, etc.
- You do not say "completely dismantling our nuclear arsenal", just "reducing it". Mind you, what is left would be more than enough to turn these countries to lifeless deserts.
- China has nukes by itself, so they don't have a reason to tremble too much from our nukes. The real reason countries want nukes is not to use them, but to have the potential to use them. Thanks God.
- Japan would actually get sick if it hears about such "deal". We are their ally, and have taken some security obligations towards them. How would you react if your sole protector suggested to desarm itself and damand that you pay him a load of money for that?!?
I have another suggestion, that IMO has a great chance of passing and can save the world great deal of problems:this deal from the point of view of Japan and China will look like peanuts for pure gold.
Re: your proposal
I believe in CRIC. (1) Crisis, (2) Response, (3) Improvement, (4) Complacency. Politicians and the public have essentially no history of dealing with problems before a crisis occurs. Crisis must occur first! Example: Katrina/New Orleans. Politicians are constantly borrowing from the future to provide pork-barrel today. This builds up until it can't go on any longer, and boom! Crisis! (Incidentally, I believe this is how Rainwater described investing in his interview. Buy stuff after crashes. This works until a TRUE paradigm shift actually occurs.)
Here I're reaching to your CRIC methodology... I thought our whole discussion, your initial proposal included was an attempt to go exactly the opposite way of CRIC :) If we wait for a financial/energy/whatever meltdown to make us change our ways than we are in really deep sh*t. Hope I'm wrong, but the crisises of the future promise to be far more devastating than the previous ones...
Again, there is no reason to believe from historical evidence that politicians will take on a difficult problem until they are forced to do so by circumstances. I was just suggesting a way out once the crisis occurs. A way out that could actually accomplish something. And if we could do this after a mini-crash, instead of the real thing, then we've really accomplished something. If we roll over peak oil AND have to pay back our debt at any where near par value then we deserve what we get! I do not doubt that the politicians will try to find a way to declare bankruptcy without actually admitting that that's what they are doing.
"Home foreclosures soar, with Georgia leading the way"
http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/stories/0512bizforeclose.html
This article points out something that is disturbing.
Those are going to really hurt as they are renewed at higher and higher rates. Not to mention those who are actually equity negative. Rents are going up as these people are pushed back in renting.
"Mortgage rates return to four-year high.
The 30-year fixed rate ticks up to 6.60 percent while markets try to 'decipher' economic reports."
http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/18/real_estate/mortgage_rates/index.htm
It took 26 tonnes of prehistoric plant material to yield 1 litre of petrol, which could power a fuel efficient car for 8.5km. And planet earth provided (for free) all the additional heat and pressure to process all that material as well.
Corn, Sugar Cane, Switch Grass and Oil Shale may be better starting materials than our prehistoric plant material, but the numbers must be broadly similar. And we have to provide all the processing energy as well.
26 tonnes to drive 8.5km (or 5.3 miles) - Oil is precious stuff!
cheers
Phil.
This caught my eye. In what world is 11.8 litres per 100 km "fuel efficient"? There have been fifty years of cars that consume only half of that. They might be smaller, less luxurious and have manual transmission, but they are there and they have been there. I kind of frown at anything that consumes more than eight or nine litres per 100 km.
Or maybe I'm just being European.
Question: This doesn't fit together. A place with - officially - so much oil reserves invests in renewable energy? Any ideas?
I mean what is easier, to get 300 Million people in the same thinking, or a powerful family that decides for a country? You would think that all that money and not to mention power, would give you some insights that everyone else chooses to ignore.
I think they understand the basic problem that there will be an end and they should invest SOME of the money into diversifying energy infrastructure. I mean it's sunny ALL the time right?
Oh, they know very well what is coming.
I presume this investment is not taken seriously by other OPEC members.
marotti, berlin (no sun here anymore, just dusk) :-)
:^)
RR
I doubt any thing changes though.
By DAVID IVANOVICH
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON - The Republican-led House shot down proposals Thursday to lift bans on drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, as well as the eastern Gulf of Mexico.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/3874055.html
I've read most projects are near a decade time frame. So even if we wait a few more years, eventually the money talks and we will open up whatever is necessary. In addition I'm sure ANWR will open up with the opening of these coasts.
In the end though I think one thing is becoming polarizing and that's the people want SOME kind of change. The choices all blow, but I truly feel the people of this country are going to give Dem's control of Congress. I know I'm tired of Bush and I supported him at one time.
Perhaps longer if hurricanes and other severe events [GoM Loop Current eddies, earthquake in CA] consistently rip up the infrastructure. Imagine if a 100 miles of CA or FL beaches get coated just once with black goo--it will then be shut down for another twenty years. If Cuba has an 'accident' on their future rigs in the Florida Straits--we will militarily confiscate their oil wealth under the pretense of environmental protection.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
"Commodity prices are about 50 percent higher than they would be if they were based on the fundamentals of supply and demand, as a surge of investment sent prices for metals and energy to record highs, Merrill Lynch & Co. said yesterday. "
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/markets/commodities.html
So who is wagging who here? Is speculating driving up oil as well as metals? Or is oil driving on the speculating?
See, this is why I was asking for an econ primer!
The real question, then, is:
Have the values of commodities "fundamentally" increased between 50 and 100 % over the past few months (peak oil? inflation/devaluing of the dollar?)? Or is this increase primarily speculative?
If the dollar rebounds slightly this week, as the futures contracts come down, then is it possible that the volatility is more financial then energy-related?
Temporarily prices can move because the amount of insurance available is in short supply. Ponder, for instance, that you cannot buy flood insurance without a grace period for coverage. Nobody sells that insurance on short notice! The price insurance that the markets provide in any given short period of time may be constrained -- peak speculators!
An interesting side observation of this is that the speculators that make the most money, are the ones who have bought when the market needed a buyer and/or sold when the market needed a seller. Thus, we should praise the most profitable speculators rather than villify them. Think about it.
When you adjust it for inflation all these years, it's finally catching up in terms of price.
When you adjust it for inflation all these years, it's finally catching up in terms of price.
http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/willett/070802.htm
Second, gold *is* probably "cheap" now, inflation adjusted. But if it doesn't return to currency status then it will be dis-hoarded at some point in the future, causing the price to crash.
Third, my preference would be to use copper in a monetary fashion -- it would be counter-cyclical. When times are bad, copper consumption falls (less cars, houses, computers, etc) which would be naturally re-flationary -- stimulative during the down part of the cycle. Of course, conversely, when times are good, there is big demand for copper, and it gets more scarce, the price tends upwards, and is naturally self-regulating against the cycle. Ever heard of "Dr. Copper"?
Plus, and this is a big one, it is very hard to hoard copper -- I could literally put a ton of it in my garage and still not have accomplished much hoarding. If I put a ton of gold in my garage then I'd better hire a security guard -- that I really trust! It's not that the price of copper couldn't be manipulated (ref your article link), but it would be very hard I would think.
https://www.neb.gc.ca/PublicRegistries/Gateway/pubreg_e.htm
Enjoy.