DrumBeat: August 5, 2006
Posted by threadbot on August 5, 2006 - 9:35am
Topic: Miscellaneous
Bill Powers, an energy analyst and energy-focused investment manager, talks about issues relating to peak oil, natural gas, alternative energy and more.
Stunning news: OPEC is beginning to fear biofuels. An industry publication claims OPEC thinks by 2050, the value of a barrel of oil will be zero, with oil completely replaced by biofuels. (Is really fear of biofuels, though - or acknowledgement of peak oil?)
Airlines may be nearing ceiling on fares: Industry faces issue of whether consumers will pay to cover fuel costs.
Simplicity and resourcefulness pick up the slack in our lower energy future
Afghan Capital Faces Energy Crunch
Afghanistan's capital, Kabul, faces a crippling energy shortage with basic electricity only available six hours a day. Officials say demand is soaring, but international support for the city's energy needs is being cut and widespread power outages are expected throughout the coming winter.
Antarctica Under Siege: Icy Continent Faces Threats From Countries Vying For Oil And Other Minerals.
Some here have wondered where to find or post peak oil-related art, fiction, poetry, etc. This could be the answer: Where are the poets? A peak oil rallying cry to artists.
...at So Long, Hydrocarbon Man, we will now take submissions of poems, short films, short stories and images that speak to the realities of peak oil, climate change and life at the end of the era of Hydrocarbon Man. Visit the site and read our submission guidelines. Spread the word to artists: a challenge has been issued to create stories that tell the truth about where we are and ones that imagine the possibilities of where we can go from here.
I wrote on Thursday: "All crude oil is crude oil and everything else is something else."
Oil CEO replied:
Well, I still stand by my statement. I am forced to mix condensate with my crude because the EIA does. All their data for individual nations is "crude + condensate". I simply have no choice in the matter.
But the question remains; why does the EIA mix crude oil and concentrate together. Well, I must confess I really do not know but I believe it is because that is really what happens. That is, condensate is just dumped in with the crude and the two are refined together, producing whatever motor fuels, and other petrol products that comes out.
But just because I am forced to mix my crude and concentrate when I am trying to glean the peak form all the data available, such as it is, that still doesn't mean that I must mix products from the corn field or cane field with it. And I am not going to mix palm oil or canola oil with it either. And I sure as hell am not going to mix pressurized bottled gas with my crude oil.
Peak oil will peak when crude oil peaks, not when palm oil or butane peaks. And when crude oil peaks it will mean the peak of all crude oil, whether it comes from the Alberta Tar Sands, the Orinoco Bitumen, the Arctic or the deep-water continental shelf. All crude oil is crude oil and it doesn't matter where it comes form.
Thank goodness the EIA does mix all crude oil together when figuring crude + condensate. As far as the EIA is concerned, there is no such thing as "unconventional crude". So all we really have to do is use those numbers. Not that they are accurate because they are not. The EIA constantly over reports, but not nearly as much as the IEA. The EIA is reporting Nigeria down by 325,000 bp/d from their high last December. But Nigeria itself is reporting numbers twice that amount.
But that is the best data we have. And mixing alcohol, vegetable oil and bottled gas with our data just does not make any sense. It only adds an unnecessary confusion factor to the mix.
I know I have thrashed this same straw for weeks now so I will let up for awhile, unless of course someone else brings it up.
It's to a point that a "football pool" could be made where you get to guess in months until gas is $5/gallon. By then, a small amount of the demand destruction will go down, as I mentioned coworkers and myself.
If you're one of those lucky six-digit earners, ask your secretary about the gas prices! An office loaded with six-digit earners will not be anywhere near as inconvienced by high gas prices as are we working stiffs who'll never earn a six-digit income in Y2K6 dollars. A four gallon commuting mission is a bigger bite if you earn "only" $50,000/year vs. $150,000/year.
Ummm... The coner office folks might be a little put out when they come to work and find that the proles upon whome they depend to actually, GET SOMETHING DONE aren't there 'cause the gas price made it more reasonable to stay home with the kids, or tend the veggie garden etc.
I know some people who bought their house a long time ago and can make the payments on min. wage just fine - trouble is, they're often earning less - they're not always working fulltime. But they squeak through, and they live in Huntington Beach! But, no car payments, no cable, no bigscreen, they live a lot like people did in the 1950s or so.
There will be a lot of Former 6-Digit Earners in bread lines in the future.
Many are extremely complacent and up to their eye-balls in debt... so do NOT walk under open windows of Banks and other former bastions of the parasitic 6 digit earners.
(Ok, bunkers are fun and great to have when there is war but they are not a place to live in. )
from what little i have heard they have all the protection that a normal military bunker has but also they have some trappings of the rich. hence the champagne :)
No, those guys really do fear alternative fuels. They bought into that silly idea right from the start. Kuwaiti officials have made statements in the past that they need to produce all the oil they can now before it is replaced with something else. Also that is the reason Saudi (up to recently) has tried to keep prices low. They were afraid something cheaper might replace oil and they would be left with all that worthless black goo.
You guys must understand that even the average US public has bought into this idea for years. "The stone age did not end because they run out of stones." Remember that one? And the OPEC countries bought the entire concept hook, line and sinker.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-08/asop-sia072806.php
... one of those things that might be worse than we hoped, but better than we feared.
Gasoline fumes go boom.
Sad.
When in the US Navy, they used JP-5 and F-76 fuels for diesel-engine devices. The ship's boilers could burn F-76 or the JP-5. The JP-5 is better for washing out paint brushes. Sometimes, you could get some good JP-5 that was white like water. Great for washing out a paint brush, but the same fuel (if not tainted) can be used in diesel liberty boats or the Tomcats.
It's great to watch a Tomcat getting slingshotted off. At night, you get to see those blowtorches, and listen to a good roar. Getting fuel next to a carrier is one great military expierence. Too damn bad the USS Belknap could only do 30 knots on a good day. And that's with all 4 boilers going. :(
The hybrid will lead to Fuel Twitching. Any substantial shift in Transportation from gasoline to electricity will cause electric rates to sky rocket.
Same story as last year's comedy starring the corn or wood pellet stoves - the Herd stampedes blindly into the Newest, Bestest Fad and causing shortages adn a very rapid increase in the price of the latest, greatest fossil fuel "alternative."
The fact is, you can't get from here (mass hydrocarbon consumption) to there (a sustainable energy future) without passing through various stages of improvement. Hybrids represent an improvement ... not the end of the transition.
i can easily see 9 out of 10 people easily driving more often if they have a hybrid then if they had a normal car or suv. not to mention building a hybrid is harder then building a normal car mainly because of how complex a hybrid is compared to a normal car and the extra costs of the battery's. the costs of upgrading the electrical infrastructure for plug-ins(if our grid is strained just from seasonal ac/heating usage a massive number of people switching to plug in hybrids will send it over the edge).
Also one has to figure in the costs of making the disposal facility's for the hybrid battery's once they bite the dust as well as the facility's for building and recycling(note you cannot recycle for ever you will always have a percentage that cannot be recycled) them. Then we have to go about re-training the mechanics to be certified to work on them, since car company's are very paranoid about joe blow working on their cars(to the point they have to buy multi-thousand dollar machinery to just decode the error messages the on-board computer spits out) not all of them will be able to complete it. Add to this the cost of continuing the up-keep of the present system for the percentage that will not be able to afford the hybrids and for the hybrids themselves which still use gas/diesel.
End result is a system more complex then the previous needing more energy to keep the whole thing going, more points of failure, and more environmental destruction as people rush around looking for the materials needed to keep it going.
oil, coal, bio-diesel, etc for the liquid fuel parts of it including their own costs.
Copper, platinum, lithium, etc for the raw materials.
It looks like to me both Jevon's paradox and Jason seem to win out here. jevon's paradox because the more efficient technology will just have the effect of people using it more as well as the increased energy usage elsewhere either by the system or by the people who save money on the new technology spending it for other more energy intensive things.
Jason because he points out that civilization solves it's problems by moving from a less complex system to a more complex system and because of this they require more energy to run it.
FWIW, I switched from a 22 mpg car, and drive less miles in my 50 mpg car. So I've cut my fuel by more than half.
(People stuck in traffic all day simply don't have time to put on 2x the miles, which is what it take to make up for 100% greater MPG)
And what do you do with money you save?
And what happens to the price?
And what does that allow other, less fuel- conscious, people to do?
Q: And what happens to the price? Of gas? A: It follows a broad curve based on aggregate demand. I personally have affected that demand in a vanishingly small way.
Q: And what does that allow other, less fuel- conscious, people to do? A: they will respond to prices, which I understand I have affected in a vanishingly small way.
... I think the expectation of all our national plans for increased efficinecy, be that with washing machines, light bulbs, or cars, depends on achieving a change in aggregate demand. We certainly have not done that with fleet mpg.
the majority will either drive further or use the savings from using less fuel in the car to finally take that over-seas vacation.
as for sources, if your not too lazy you can look them up yourself. i rather not be bothered and expend extra effort to point to something people like you would not read anyway.
The operative phrase, from my point of view, was "Feel free to provide solid data [...]"
John, be serious, having taught political science at Orange Coast College, being a member of Phi Rho Pi and Republicans for Environmental Protection does not give you ANY plausible credentials to discuss technology, complexity or economics (Jevon's paradox).
OK, you're not (entirely...) a troll, an asshole, a lobbyist, a psychotic or a PR guy, but CERTAINLY a badly deluded Republican, did you REALLY sign this hallucinating piece of a petition to George BUSH ???
Dear President Bush and House and Senate leaders:
The Republican Party has a proud and distinguished tradition of conservation and environmental protection. Keeping with this tradition, and drawing upon its proven wisdom, we have joined hands as Republicans for a Responsible Energy Plan. We urge you and members of Congress to build for America an energy policy that emphasizes efficiency, conservation, and development of clean energy sources. A truly conservative energy policy can secure a bright and prosperous future for America, and protect our environment and national treasures, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We are confident that America's energy needs can be met without sacrificing our irreplaceable natural heritage, weakening clean air protections, or ignoring the very real threat of global climate change, while also enhancing the competitiveness of American industry.
To meet our energy and environmental challenges, we need an energy plan which will:
In sum, a plan to meet America's energy needs should emphasize improving energy efficiency, increasing fuel economy, investing in renewable energy, and using natural gas as a bridge to a clean energy future - at the same time as we work for a stable climate and clean air and protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and America's other wild places.
This is GROTESQUE.That's what Republicans for a Responsible Energy Plan stands for. With your help, our nation and its leaders can take action that is responsive to our energy challenges, our environmental responsibilities, and the clear preferences of the American people.
Sincerely yours,
Remember: "On the Internet, Nobody Knows You're a Dog" :
Click on image to see the REALITY CHECK.
So, you are worried about the environment in Newport Beach?
Does anyone wants John's phone number to help him cope with the problem or just have a chat?
Not only against my pseudonym, but seeking to call out my real name and location?
FWIW, you got some of that right, but there is a certain anonymity in having a common name. Some of that is not about me at all.
I hope you'll drop this though, and simple discuss the issues without attacking the person. That's what I've been trying to do. I certainly never dreamed of piercing anyone's pseudonym here in this group.
How does posting odo's name further any of your arguments? It is a little creepy actually.
Matt
This must be some sort of paradox. When confronted with a problem, do nothing, and then tell everyone that none of the alternatives are an improvement that is "worth it".
There is no paradox. It is just a different modeling of the world.
When you are a Smithian, you believe yourself to be making these brutally honest and "rational" calculations about what is the most "worthy" (meaning, least costly or most profitable) option. Given that externalities such as polluting the atmosphere and encouraging continuation of the non-negotiable auto way of life do not enter into the brutally honest calculations; then the $3,000 extra you pay for a hybrid does not pay itself back in sufficient time.
Therfore, "it's not worth it."