I was waiting for this.. Has anybody read the "How to Live Without Oil"
New energy sources and efficiency could make petroleum obsolete.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8769620/site/newsweek/

Look's like the solution is easy!!

Re: Sacrifice, that Pesky Idea

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/041011fa_fact

This is John Cassidy's article on the (im)possibility of U.S. oil independence: "Pump Dreams: Can America get by without foreign oil?" It provides a "mainstream media" source that readers can point to when discussing the problem with others.

(This article predates the birth of TOD, so it likely wasn't posted previously.)

Excerpts:

"There is another, more basic problem with Kerry’s proposals. Switching to renewable energy wouldn’t reduce oil imports much, because most power stations don’t run on oil, which is largely used for road and air transport. Developing a transport fuel that can compete with oil is an enormous challenge. For this reason, among others, many analysts regard the candidates’ endorsement of energy independence as a political diversion. “It makes absolutely no sense to talk about energy independence,” Ebel told me. “We cannot produce our way to energy independence, and we cannot use efficiency or conservation to achieve energy independence. It’s just not going to happen, at least in my lifetime.”

...

"Many Americans also appear to believe that they are entitled to cheap fuel, regardless of how much they consume. When gasoline hits two dollars a gallon, they look for somebody to blame—this despite the fact that gasoline is still cheaper than it was in the nineteen-seventies, after adjusting for inflation, and that it costs a lot less than it does abroad. In the United Kingdom, for example, a gallon of gasoline costs more than five dollars.

No prominent politician will say it publicly, but from an energy perspective an extended period of higher fuel prices might well be just what the country needs. Many of the problems we now face can be traced to the nineteen-nineties, when oil prices collapsed. Between 1976 and 1985, when gasoline prices were high, drivers switched to smaller, less wasteful cars, and oil consumption fell by ten per cent. Once oil prices slipped back, Americans returned to their beloved gas-guzzlers. Between 1985 and 2000, the demand for oil rose by almost twenty-five per cent."

An insightful conversation with a relative a minute ago.
It was not about "oil".
It was about "the system" and the younger generation's view of it.

How many times have you run into someone who says, "I don't need to know how a computer system works. It just does. That's good enough for me"?

How many times have you run into someone who believes they are clever because they "delegate" the responsibiilty of managing the low level detail stuff, like fixing a fatal computer crash, to someone else, "to some MIS or IT geek."

Isn't it true that your average lay person (Dick & Jane Packbrain --not to be derogatory) thinks the same way about oil & other energy or technical stuff? They delegate the "responsibility" for that stuff off onto some nebulous "system". The system will provide, they say, and that's good enough for me.

Even if there is a fatal system crash in the larger society, some geek will figure out how to fix it. It will be a non-event. The party will go on for me. It always has. That's how Dick and Jane, and even Spot their dog, "think".

Interesting perspective.

Yes, StepBack, it's an SEP (somebody else's problem). That's why we pay taxes, right?

About 25 years ago, I was called in to fix a main frame computer. The operation was down so the woman in charge ask me how long before I can get them going again. "Not sure how long or what the fix is" said I.
She did not like that answer and told me "Why can't you tell how long it will take, my husband can tell his customers what the time to repair is"
I ask " What does your husband do"?
She said "He is a truck mechanic".

She was in charge so I could not be too blunt.

Most people are not even curious about how everyday 'gadgets' work.

Don't bother me, I am dreaming..... over the cliff.

Norris,

Those who value "values" do not need any evaluation of their performance.

After all, the buck stops at wherever it has been "delegated" off to.

The "system" will take care of all problems.
Those who exhalt values are sure of that.
101% sure.

You should not question the supremecy and wisdom of the higher father or of the system.

Holey is as holey (in the head) does.
:-)

George,

The point is that computers are more pervasive than ever in our society.

Young children see Mommy or Daddy go to the machine, type in the secret code that God gave all adults, and out comes money. Then it's off to Mickey-D's for instant gratification after those short drive-through stops by the ATM and the gas station.

It's always been like that for them. There never was a "before" that stretches back 25 years ago.

So if some old-looking kook drops in and makes crazy talk about a Peking duck and oil phenomenon, why it's plain as the Big Mac in front of your mouth that the kook is koo koo.

Plain and straightforward talk with these people is impossible.
And as you say .... "They" are in charge.

Signaling to them has to occur along a different channel of consciousness.

Psst ... pass it on ... no more fries at Mc'D's ... they're running out of oil

reno,

Sorry there relocater dude. Didn't mean to rain on your party. I had not read the MSNBC piece before posting. (Don't know why one of my posts went on twice.)

Any way ... HOLY BOVINE DROPPINGS !!!! ... this MSNBC story is clearly the message I too have been waiting for from those who value "values".

WOW !!! Why didn't they let us Freak Oil Freaks in on the secret of how "the system" already has this turnkey solution for solving the problem that is not even a problem really.

What do you say Norris, about a half hour, if not less, to reboot those alternative fuel systems and get America back on the glory track? Tell me now. I ain't got patience here you know. Kids are in the SUV screaming. They want to get to Mc'D's again. Hurry up and give me the answer. Everyone else does. They always do.

For those who did not read Reno's posting at the top,
this Amory B. Lovins of Newsweek International writes at
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8769620/site/newsweek/ :

Doubling oil efficiency wouldn't be hard. A backlog of powerful ways to save and substitute for oil, amassed since the 1973 oil embargo, remains mostly untapped, even in the most energy-efficient countries. Automakers for instance could profitably increase fuel mileage to 66 mpg (3.6L/100km) for light trucks and 92 mpg (2.6L/100km) for cars. Doing so would cost an extra $2,550 for a midsize SUV, but would pay for itself in fuel savings in two years in the United States and in one year in Europe.

WOW this is great !!!

Better yet, Lovins says:

"Oil may now be poised to repeat that history [..with high prices] .... Fortunately, it doesn't matter: With cheap oil-saving technologies and alternative fuels already at our disposal, the sooner we get off oil, the sooner we'll start making bigger profits."

Lovins, I'm lovin' this already.
Bigger "profits. For "we" the people.

This is really really something wonderful.

... and it comes from "the most trusted source" in ... whatever

Thanks, Anonymous, for a link to that Cassidy article from The New Yorker. I remember reading it when it was published -- I highly recommend it.

There's been a lively and informative discussion of coal to liquids (CTL) on the "Chrystal Ball" thread -- the Cassidy article also has some nice text about CTL. I want to touch on something missing from that other discussion, not about the CTL technology itself, which is viable, but about the timing of these new energy sources as it relates to Peak Oil.

CTL is economical at $40/barrel and probably should go forward providing there is also a viable carbon sequestration program in place to go along with it. But how long will this take? Right now, there are a few small experimental CTL operations in the US. It seems to me that large-scale implementation of this technology, assuming the SASOL/China deal is a success, will take many years, somewhere in the 2012 to 2015 timeframe would be an optimistic wild ass guess.

My point is this: we don't have the time. Peak oil will be here with over $100/barrel prices by 2010, IMHO. Once energy costs have gotten to that level, and I believe they will, ramping up alternatives like CTL will become harder and harder to do. This is what the much-maligned Jim Kunstler thinks and so do I. I know Kunstler plays fast and loose with the facts sometimes but it also appears he's right on this one. American culture was built on cheap oil; otherwise the 20th century would have looked a hell of a lot like the 19th. If you don't believe this, I don't know what I could say to persuade you. It's one of those situations where most people are like fish -- the last thing they're aware of is the water they swim around in. Once the Great Depression of the 1930's really got going, the economic stagnation was so bad that it took World War II to pull the US out of it. I see those days coming again. The difference this time is that there will be no ultra cheap energy source to help us bootstrap our way out of the doldrums.

It's been built around cheap motoring, folks, and reasonable heating and cooling costs. Natural gas prices are going nowhere but up.... (Still waiting on those LNG plants, sigh).

What would I do now? Conservation/efficiency measures like its war time (which it is). Immediately start a Manhatten Project for energy. Solar panels everywhere. Wind turbnes. Public transportation and trains, no planes.

What did Ronald Reagan see? It was a McMansion On A Hill (standing all by itself miles from nowhere with 3 cars in the garage). Screw him and as usual, he's conveniently dead when we will have to pick up the pieces.

Get your kicks, (click, click), on Route 66....

When you get great news from a "reliable source"
you just gotta go googley eyed over it:

Amory Lovins: http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid166.php

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?name=View+Author&section=root&id=780

What a dance!

Reading down through this conversation is poetry.

It has not only its own rhythm, but its own energy!

Carry on!

I've written a few times in comments on this board that peak oil pessimists should read "Winning the Oil Endgame" by Lovins et al.

Optimistic? Yes, but if we can pull off half of what Lovins recommends, we'll be in much better shape than the pessimists like to predict with telltale signs of schadenfreude.

The problem, of course, is time. It would take at least a decade to implement Lovins' ideas on a meaningful scale.

I think things will get ugly, but there is (or will be) a light at the end of the tunnel.

In stark contrast to the IEA's projected global consumption of 120.47 mbd in 2025 NSSBC states:

"It's entirely possible to cut projected U.S. oil consumption in half by 2025, and eliminate it completely by 2050, without compromising rapid economic growth"

All we have to do is start building more cars, trucks and planes, with a slight price increase for the technology providing better fuel efficiency. At the same time, the nation must develop growing of biofuel feedstock and production of biofuel.

If following the path outlined in the article, "the future is so bright we have to wear sunglasses"!

More economic growth, expansion of suburbia continues, globalization marches on. Hurray!

This kind of article clearly sends the wrong message to the readers on our warming planet. It reenforces the idea that everything will be fine, there are simple solutions to circumnavigate the exhaustion of fossil fuels. For our part, we do not have to do anything more then buy a new car.

Humans are just too successful at using the resources available. Something has to give. We maybe able to find new ways to make the energy the population needs, be it CTL in combination with lots of renewable or something else. But what about the ocean's fish, global soil conditions, etc. We are 6 billion and rising.

Re: Inertia

JLA said "The problem, of course, is time. It would take at least a decade to implement Lovins' ideas on a meaningful scale".

Right, that's what I said regarding coal-to-liquids (CTL) technology. On a somewhat deeper note, the energy market system that we have in the US is failing us. It is a weird amalgam of elements like these:

1) we've always done business this way
2) not invented here
3) quarterly profits are way up
4) we paid for these tax breaks

Regarding 4) and the recent energy bill, the only "free" market system in place is the one where congressmen's votes are purchased in exchange for various government subsidies and giveaways. Ironically, the money given to our chosen representatives is paltry in comparison with the financial rewards gained in exchange. But of course, this is not really a free market because there is no actual competition in the offering of bribes in this peculiar marketplace, so this discrepancy should not come as any surprise to us.

Where is there room in such a political system for the kind of innovations that somebody like Lovins might come up with to be implemented and thrive?

Freyr,
The MSNBC article is a summary of Lovins book Winning the Oil Endgame. Lovins and his co-authors from the Rocky Mountain Institute have laid out a plan that, while very optimistic, deserves serious consideration.

Your comment about climate change is misguided. If implemented, their plan would clearly slash carbon emissions from their present level. Biofuels are at worst carbon neutral as growing plants pulls CO2 out of the atmosphere. Furthermore, much of the cuts in oil consumption they propose would come from radically more efficient vehicles.

I take peak oil very seriously, but for the life of me I do not understand why so many in this community dismiss Lovins' peer reviewed, rigorous report but apparently can't get enough of the dark visions put forth by Kunstler et al.

Check out this mini debate between Kunstler and Lovins, and try to tell me that Lovins didn't kick his ass.

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2005/05/26/lovins_kunstler/

Well, JLA: "for the life of me I do not understand why so many in this community dismiss Lovins' peer reviewed, rigorous report but apparently can't get enough of the dark visions put forth by Kunstler et al.".

Dark visions? There are plenty of good ideas out there but you've got to be totally oblivious to human reality to believe they are going to come to the rescue.

America is in "Decline And Fall of the Roman Empire" historical times, as originally written by Edward Gibbon in the 18th century, long before Jared Diamond and others weighed in on the collapse of civilizations. See my last comment.

Dave,
I completely agree with you that the prospects for implementing Lovins' ideas under in our current political environment are slim to none. My biggest worry is that, in a crisis, we might turn to CTL (time lag or not) rather than Lovins' sensible proposals. You know better than I that a major move towards coal would be a climate disaster.

Quite simply, I believe that Winning the Oil Endgame is the best blueprint we have now for mitigating peak oil without exacerbating climate change. It's not perfect (I wish he had taken on metropolitan development patterns), but RMI is trying valiently to sell their ideas to a mainstream audience NOW rather than waiting until the cow chips hit the fan. We should applaud him and promote his ideas, not dismiss him as a dreamer. The alternative (CTL? energy famine? both?) doesn't quite appeal to me.

Dave,

It is because I am so concerned that everything is going to hell that I believe we should be pushing the ideas of people like Lovins. I don't expect these ideas to "come to the rescue." I just think it's more productive to look for mitigation/adaption strategies rather than focusing on how screwed we are.

Focusing on adaptation/mitigation strategies doesn't necessarily mean that one is naieve about the scale of the problem.

I'm all for Lovins and his ideas, JLA. And I don't think you're naive. I'm arguing my case, that's all.

By the way, speaking of Kunstler, there's been a lot of criticism of him at this weblog. I'm no shill for him. My view and Kunstler's are similar but I'm not arguing for him. I'm in the throes of an egotistical moment here; I think that I'm better read and informed than he is about energy issues and the various reasons why his (general) view of things is right. For example, I think his view of the Iraq war is totally off the mark, at least as stated in The Long Emergency. And, he gets his facts wrong a lot of the time. That pisses me off.

It wouldn't surprise me that Lovins got over on Kunstler since Jim is winging it a lot of the time and doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about in some specific cases. However, he is generally right and just because somebody is wrong about something here and there does not mean that they are wrong in the general case....

On another subject, does anyone know of informed geological opinion about potential for oil in the US offshore regions where drilling has been disallowed?

This article:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0802/p02s01-sten.html

says that "less than 20 percent of the nation's coastal shelf has been mapped with modern tools".

Is there a possibility of another North Sea out there (postponing, or at least prolonging, peak oil by another decade or two)? Or would sizeable fields pretty much have been found already, and we are just going out to be sure we get all the little ones too?

I'd appreciate any pointers to references with discussions of sedimentary basins, source rocks, etc, etc in the US offshore (non-gulf-of-Mexico).

Stuart.

Stuart, (since I'm online now...)

By using the latest techniques, government officials hope to update surveys more than two decades old and, perhaps, discover new pools of oil and gas hidden miles under the ocean floor. Such discoveries could boost US production and lessen reliance on foreign oil.

When are we going to start doing the right thing with conservation/efficiency in the short term and develop real alternative energy strategies to save ourselves instead of looking at 20 year old offshore surveys?

Anonymous is me.

re: "US offshore (non-gulf-of-Mexico)" Another North Sea is not possible here. The geology doesn't predict a miracle. Screw it.

Dave:

Do you have any references on the subject to help me gain a deeper understanding one way or the other?

Thanks,

Stuart.

Stuart, you're talking Florida. Look here from which I quote:

Why is Florida the target of all this attention?
One look at the Department of Interior's map of the Gulf of Mexico holds the answer. The map is thick with symbols indicating more than 4,000 oil and gas rigs from the shores of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi to Alabama. At the border of Florida, the symbols stop. Geologists know the oil and gas don't. Little is known about the potential of Florida's offshore reserves. Thirty-nine exploratory wells drilled in the 1970s and '80s showed vast reserves of natural gas, some of it accompanied by a light, low-grade, crude oil, from Pensacola to Tampa Bay.

The federal Minerals Management Service estimates that the reserves within the first 100 miles of Florida's coast would produce only natural gas and not oil, because the discoveries have been too deep for oil -- 20,000 feet or more -- and are under temperatures too high for oil to exist.

The National Petroleum Council estimates the eastern Gulf might hold 36.7 tcf of natural gas and 5.2 bn barrels of oil. Others doubt those numbers but say there is no way to know without further exploration.

Might get some gas out of there (after huge development costs), but certainly not much oil, OK?

Me, again.

But if we let Adam Smith's machine continue mindlessly on its path towards ever more "productive" burning of fossil fuels, we soon will be the fossils.

Take a look at:
http://www.climateark.org/vital/05.htm
(Effects of main global warming gases)

Alternative hydrocarbons are not a sustainable answer.
Do we repeat the mistakes of the past and invest yet more of out resources into a technology that leads to doom?

Biomass is not net zero CO2 because human population, the part that plans to have cars, keeps growing.

We have to switch to all electric transportation powered by wind and waves.

Ok - here's a reference for what the Federal Minerals Management Service views as the best guess for offshore oil:

http://www.mms.gov/revaldiv/PDFs/2003NationalAssessmentUpdate.pdf

Their guess is 76 billion barrels of undiscovered oil. This is not quite three times current US proved reserves. Most of it is in the Gulf (40 bb) or Alaska (25bb). So looks like indeed Florida and ANWR are the major potential developments with the information available at present.

This is the federal Outer Continental Shelf, not state waters (ie starting at least 3.3 miles off the coast, somewhat state dependent).

(I'm not taking a position on what *should* be done, just curious as to what might be out there and how that might affect peak).

Stuart.

Lovins' plan would combine corporate initiatives with federal regulations—but no extra net government spending—to eliminate U.S. oil use altogether through improved vehicle fuel efficiency and the use of bio-fuels and natural gas. The plan calls for federal loan guarantees to help U.S. automakers and suppliers invest tens of billions of dollars to make advanced-technology vehicles, especially those using new, ultralight materials such as carbon fiber combined with lightweight steel.

Maybe a good idea but your still using oil to run your transportation system. Biofuels won't cut it and natural gas will peak some day and run out too.. I believe Lovin's idea's are taking the economist approach to peak oil and every article I've read stated economic's isn't going to change that facts that oil will be depleted.

Not to mention, Lovin's plans for federal loan guarantees, sound's like nothing more than another giveaway to the rich and does nothing for the common man.

Roughly:

Refinery $2 billion, 5 yrs to build, 4-5 year payback
CTL plant $4 billion, 6 years to build, 5-6 year payback
Nuke plant $2 billion, 8 years to build, 6-7 year payback

Simply put, no private corporation CEO will ever sign off on numbers like that anymore, if they ever did. Even though they would make a ton of money eventually, that date is too far in the future. There's a reason that no refineries have been built in the U.S. in twenty years, and there's a reason that most of the electrical power infrastructure was built by PUCs.

More roughly:

small no IPO company: no golden parachutes
medium Public company: parachute= $5million; cashout=5 years
large Public company: parachute= $30million; cashout= 2 years

Statement= "no private corporation CEO will ever sign off on numbers like that anymore, if they ever did." (by Tim above, but everyone believes this myth, nothing to do with Tim alone)

Facts= inconvenient truths=
Cheney's cashout:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/12/cheney.parachute.ap/

PeopleSoft cashout:
http://news.com.com/Conway+could+get+20+million+golden+parachute/2100-10...

Enron chute fails to open (oh chute!)
http://www.usatoday.com/money/energy/2001-11-14-enron-ceo.htm

ByTheWay, what "numbers" did Enron's CEO sign off on if he ever did?

But IT doesn't happen anymore, does it?
http://www.corante.com/newyork/archives/2005/07/09/the_1137_million_gold...

biomass = carbohydrate, not hydrocarbon

Can we run our metropolitan areas the way we're running them today on biomass? Lovins suggests that we may be able to with improved efficiency and "saved" natural gas, though I think he's a bit overly optimistic here.

However, imagine the following: walkable neighborhoods, public transit with a healthy dose of light rail, and -- when we do need cars and trucks -- super lightweight vehicles made carbon composite materials, with a plug-in biofuel hybrid power trains.

It won't happen tomorrow, nor will it happen before we experience some painful, wrenching change. But there technologies out there now that, combined with some changes to the landscape and transportation systems, could make for hospitable cities.

oops...substitute "biofuel" for "biomass" above...

Sure Lovins has some good ideas. And if we had spent the past decade implementing them in the overall economy and the automobile industry in particular we would probably not be in such a difficult situation now. There is nothing in the actions of the government, in as shown by the new "Energy" bill that there is any intention to go down the road of preparing in the near future. So by the time we do act it will be too late to transform the economy without widespread disruption.

to errr is .... is not possible ;-)

Speaking of Thinking out of the Shell:

"man is now co-responsible for
the state of the planet, irrespective
of current political doctrines. .... "

"The energy-and-carbon
industry:
The third discontinuity, relating to carbon emissions, is both
less visible as the full impact of carbon emissions will only
be felt in several decades, and more radical because the CO2
concentration in the atmosphere is already half as high as it would
be if our planet had continued on the natural cooling trend
that began 10,000 years ago. Scientific evidence is still debated, ..."

from:
http://www.shell.com/static/royal-en/downloads/scenarios/exsum_23052005.pdf

Nice weekend thread...

I wonder if corporate wealth is ever so foward thinking, such that , those with the capital to spend on a radical and near term transformation of the US energy economy are willing to spend it, particularly since no one can say for sure how profitiable the venture will be. Best to stick with the tried and true.

The Big Three provide a nice example. They are getting hammered with their big, but profitable wasteful truck lines (forget the modest bump of the last month or two). Have they introduced a new line of fuel efficient cars??? It's not like they have not been watching gasoline prices for the past few years. Meanwhile, the Japanese automakers (once again) are poised to do very well. (If you lived on an island with great forests, but no real resources, you'd probably be a little more keen to have fuel efficient cars too).

One last thing. Corporations in the US tend to think in terms of getting big and dominating a market to be most profitable (the closer to monopoly, the better). Once they have control over a particularly profitable market, they don't like to encourage the diversification of alternatives. Rather, they tend to spend considerable amounts of time and money squashing those alternatives. So people remain dependent upon them for their needs in that market.

Many of the scenarios in this thread seem to expect a sudden diversification of energy resources to make up for any loss of petroleum. Good luck achieving that when capital is so extremely concentrated at the moment.

If the Japanese have so much forest, and, IIRC, they import almost 100% of their oil, wouldn't you expect them to be big on cellulosic ethanol from forest products? Are they? Does anyone on this blog know? (before I go and research this myself? :)

One question I have, that I have not seen answered well elsewhere. Why is it that if the current problem, I am told, is the refining capacity and there is plenty of crude out there, the price of crude does not fall, following supply and demand. It seems that the only products that should be increasing in cost should be those produced by the refineries since that is where the supply is pinched. And if indeed the refiners have as much of all grades as they would like the, those prices should also react.

xironman ... good question ... but way outside my knowledge base

A simple answer is the the "prices" you see (in US dollars)
on the markets for different grades of oil (i.e. light sweet)
are for futures

These are not current spot market prices
Commodity traders are hedging bets on all sorts of uncertainties

The futures prices do not provide us with any sort of clear visibility picture of what is going on inside the traders' heads. Maybe they are betting on US currency strength --as valued in barrels of oil-- rather than on the oil itself. We just don't know.

p.s. to Xiroman
these charts will make verything much clearer:

http://321energy.com//editorials/maund/maund080805.html

... just kidding of course :-)

Apologies for an off topic post. Discussed a week or so ago was re-branding Peak oi (PO)l.

Just a suggestion...World Wide Oil Depletion (WWOD).

Slightly catchy and the OD part brings to mind not a happy image...

Fryer,

The DOA concept has a nice ring to it
How about something like:

Dawn of the Petro Powerless Dive

it has a bunch of "mixed messages" in it

for those who see horror movies
it brings up images of Dawn of the Dead

joe sixpack understands what a powerless dive is all about

Some technologies help us see.

Some blind us.

Monday, Monday
What will it bring?
$63 and half truths?
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/080505_half_truth.shtml

Another interesting note
A reviewer of EndOfSuburbia says "Obviously, the message here ... hasn't resonated with the general public"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446320/#comment

This reviewer understands "resonance"

Dawn of the Petroless Dive-Down ?

Dawn of the Petrol Plug Pull ? (DOT p3)
anything resonating?
we need sound logic injected into sound minds ...

I was about to write 'End Of Easy Oil', EO2, and then I thought:

Has anyone else noticed the spin that says:

'If we all just work harder, the Corporations will save us'

?

So how about End of Corporate Oil (ECO)...

meaning the end of that oil production/consumption that can be mortgaged against a guaranteed increase in the future.

It's Oil Over
we're probably going to hit $64 today

Our Consumption is $$-2-00, Double to Nothing
When we double in population, there will be nothing left

Been busy this weekend and not checked the discussion, but noted this in the news yesterday / last night...

The question to ask is why 300,000 bbl/day... that sounds like an odd number when they've been ramping up by 500K bbl/day increments of late. Perhaps its all they got. Probably not a straight line conclusion to be made there but interesting.

http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?StoryId=102736

MENAFN - 08/08/2005

(MENAFN) OPEC increased oil production by 300,000 barrels a day in the last two weeks, to around 30.4 million barrels daily, in an attempt to cool surging oil prices, the cartel's president said, AP reported.

The president of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries remarked that the market had begun returning to normal and prices have started to fall, especially after the smooth transition of power in Saudi Arabia.

Crude oil prices settled at a new high, above $62 a barrel, on Friday, rallying on concerns about refinery snags and after the release of a positive U.S. jobs report that sparked fears of inflation.

OpEd on why diesel is a bad bet for personal cars:

"Automakers are eager to sell you a diesel-powered vehicle. One of their responses to the rising price of gasoline has been to tell American motorists they can keep their large, powerful vehicles and at the same time save on fuel by buying a car or truck that burns diesel instead of gasoline. The new energy bill establishes a tax credit as large as $3,400 for diesels, matching the break allowed for hybrids."

"Diesel-fueled vehicles do afford somewhat better mileage and may not require as much maintenance as gasoline-burners. But now and for years to come, the U.S. refining industry simply cannot produce enough diesel fuel to accommodate a significant increase in the number of vehicles that burn it."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/07/AR200508...

subscription required

A lightheaded petrol moment:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/08/08/italy.leftbehind.reut/index.html

She never nagged him about peak oil, that's why he forgot.

Solar powered snowman on sale?
http://www.shopathometv.com/shopathome/network/jshop/shopdev/product/det...

seems relevant :-)