 | The Top Energy Stories of 2006 (and Happy New Year!) from The Oil Drum | The Oil Drum | Will the New Year bring Happiness and Prosperity? |  |
DrumBeat: January 1, 2007
Posted by threadbot on January 1, 2007 - 10:05am
Ukraine still feeling gas pressure: "Life is desperate and with the energy bills going up, it's going much, much worse"
There is now speculation in the media that some people may simply stop paying their bills."This problem may lead to a negative chain reaction," says political commentator Volodymyr Fesenko.
"If the public doesn't pay, this may cause a shortage of funds for the energy companies. This is fraught with political problems and risks."
Belarus avoids cold new year by bowing to Gazprom demand for price increase: Russia's tough line adds to Europe's energy worries
The five-year contract will require Belarus to pay $100 per 1,000 cubic metres, a steep rise on the previous tariff of $45, but a reduction from the $105 that Gazprom had demanded. The agreement requires Belarus to pay gradually increasing prices after the current contract until world market levels are reached by 2011.
US panel to review CNOOC-Iran gasfield development deal
WASHINGTON - A US congressional committee will review a gasfield development deal between China National Offshore Oil Corp (CNOOC) and Iran to determine if US sanctions are called for against the Chinese company, a US lawmaker said.
Concern for rainforest forces RWE to scrap palm oil project: Sustainability of supplies questioned
A leading German utility has abandoned plans to convert a British power station to run on palm oil, in a blow to the promotion of biofuels in Europe.The decision by RWE npower to scrap the project at its Littlebrook plant in Dartford, Kent, which was seen as a test case for palm oil as an alternative energy source, comes after it was unable to secure sufficient supplies without risking damage to tropical rainforest. The move highlights the mounting alarm over the scramble in South-East Asia to bring more land into palm oil cultivation.
The best business books of 2006
Internal Combustion: How Corporations and Governments Addicted the World to Oil and Derailed the Alternatives. Edwin Black. St. Martin's Press. 396 pages.The relentless author of the essential IBM and the Holocaust presents a meticulously researched case that leads to the inescapable conclusion that our present energy "crisis" is just the latest chapter of a criminal scheme as old as civilization itself.
Britain closes 2 oldest nuclear plants
LONDON - The two oldest commercial nuclear power stations in the world were closed down Sunday after 40 years of service, the British Nuclear Group said.
U.K.: Fuel bills could fall by 30%
The cost of heating and lighting our homes could fall following a 50% drop in the wholesale price of gas in 2006.
Divers seal broken Gulf oil pipeline
A ship trying to moor in the area, where the water is about 90 feet deep, might have dropped its anchor on the pipeline, Plains Pipeline spokesman Jordan Janak said.It was too early to say when the line would be repaired or how much the damage will cost the company, Janak said.
Keys fear disaster if Cuba taps nearby oil
Experts say the size of Cuba's offshore oil deposits is still in question, but the potential is impressive. A U.S. Geological Survey study estimates that a curving belt of ocean floor north of Cuba may contain at least 4.5 billion barrels of oil and nearly 10 trillion cubic feet of natural gas....For impoverished Cuba, the oil prospects are dazzling, and Fidel Castro's government has wasted no time in pushing to develop the fields. The region has been divided into 59 exploration blocks, and Cuba has signed deals with foreign oil firms to begin drilling in earnest.
Uganda to test-run Kiira power station
Uganda has seen hydropower production drop from 265MW to just 120MW in 18 months. With Lake Victoria water levels yet to recover, however, the new turbine is not expected to bring an immediate end to the energy crisis.
Islamic Banking in 2007 Set for Massive Growth
With oil prices and liquidity projected to be sustained at roughly the same levels during 2007, the budget surpluses of Gulf Cooperation Council countries will continue to be high. The Saudi budget for 2007 is projected at a staggering SR160 billion. This is important for the Islamic finance sector given that it will further drive both the public and private sector involvement in the sector.
World faces hottest year ever, as El Niño combines with global warming
A combination of global warming and the El Niño weather system is set to make 2007 the warmest year on record with far-reaching consequences for the planet, one of Britain's leading climate experts has warned.
Huge Arctic ice break discovered
The chunk of ice bigger than Manhattan could wreak havoc if it moves into oil drilling regions and shipping lanes next summer, scientists warned....."The risk is that next summer, as that sea ice melts, this large ice island can then move itself around off the coast and one potential path for it is to make its way westward toward the Beaufort Sea where there is lots of oil and gas exploration, oil rigs and shipping."
The U.S. Geological Survey suggests that the Arctic Circle may hold more that 25% of the world's untapped reserves. And this number doesn't reflect the vast unknown potential the area contains. Fact is, the Artic Circle is one of the most unexplored areas left on earth, and could very well include oil fields that would rival those drilled in the Middle East.
Travel Habits Must Change to Make a Big Difference in Energy Consumption
...picking a large sport utility vehicle that goes two miles farther on a gallon of gasoline than the least-efficient S.U.V.’s would have an impact on emissions of global warming gases about five times larger than replacing five 60-watt incandescent bulbs. The dollar savings would be about 10 times larger. And the more-efficient light bulbs would have a negligible effect on oil consumption.
Oil prices may cool in 2007 after record year: analysts
Despite hitting record highs in July, oil futures in New York ended the year about 1.5 percent lower than at the beginning of 2006, with futures in London up just 2.0 percent."This year, the main story has been the political risks story," Global Insight oil analyst Simon Wardell said.
Nissan to launch auto production in India
The factory will turn out one-liter-class subcompacts, the daily said. Some 30 percent of the vehicles will be sold in India with the remaining 70 percent to be exported to Europe and other markets....Nissan, which currently only exports some 200 vehicles to India from Japan a year, will work on developing a dealership network and eventually open about 100 branches in major urban areas by 2010, the Nikkei said.
Energy and the environment: will we be able to resolve the conflict?
1. Will the world's increasing population make energy shortages inevitable?(The answers, according to the article: yes, maybe, no.)2. Can China's growing energy needs be met, or is a resource war between China and other major energy-consuming countries inevitable?
3. Is there a realistic hope that new and renewable energy sources will be found before pollution from the use of fossil fuels has produced irreversible climate change?
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.
http://www.thedanielislandnews.com/artman/publish/article_1695.php
No mortgages from that bank for beachfront properties?
If you can't get insurance, you can't get a mortgage.
If you can't get a mortgage, you won't buy the house.
This is what you call large scale capital destruction. The owners have insurance, but can't sell anymore. Plus, their premiums go up bigtime. Not a nice position to be in.
Think it's bad now? Wait till after the next big storm.
A "managed retreat from the coasts" is what we should be doing. If the free market prevailed, the retreat would happen, though "managed" is probably not how it would go down.
The free market isn't prevailing, of course. Unfortunately, the government is really screwing it up. In Florida, the state - IOW, the taxpayers - is insuring homes that insurance companies won't.
In North Carolina, Hurricane Fran decimated some towns in areas that weren't supposed to be rebuilt with federal money. They were supposed to pay people to relocate, but not to rebuild. But emotions ran so high after the disaster that they got a waiver. The result was a huge jump in prices. Houses that used to cost 1 million started going for 2 million. And more people moved into harm's way.
A predictable development. Governments have votes as their no.1 priority. They must see the sign on the wall, but if that is more further out into the future than the next election, guess what?
Politicians can afford to wait for insurers to act first, and they in turn proceed with caution, since they need clients. Moderately higher premiums, more money down, the kind of thing that rolls out of computer models.
Still, it just that next big storm, and everything will change.
By the way, isn't it hilarious somehow that a bunch of Germans, as in Munich RE, and Swiss, in Zurich RE, cast the decisive vote on the value of large parts of US real estate?
My Energy Resolutions for 2007
I will be moving to Scotland by the end of January, and as a result we will be selling our house in the U.S. (as well as both vehicles). This gives me an opportunity to make some positive changes in 2007. Here are my resolutions (feel free to add your own or suggest additional ones):
1). I resolve to get the most fuel-efficient car I can find in Scotland.
2). I resolve to search for a house that allows me to take public transport or my bike to work.
3). I resolve to place a very high priority on energy efficiency as I search for a new house.
4). I resolve to reduce the meat in my diet (it takes much more energy to produce meat than to produce vegetables).
5). I resolve to support local farmers’ markets.
6). I resolve to continue instilling the importance of energy conservation into my family.
7). I resolve to get completely out of debt (easy, since my only debt is a mortgage).
8). I resolve to talk to at least 1 person a month about Peak Oil.
9). I resolve to preach conservation as something each one of us can do to stretch energy supplies and better prepare for Peak Oil.
10). Not energy related, but I resolve to read at least 40 books in 2007. I read 48 in 2005 and 34 in 2006.
I expect my posting frequency to be spotty during the transition, but I hope to make substantive contributions to TOD in 2007.
Happy New Year to all.
Robert Rapier
Robert,
hope you get used to the weather :-)
Hogmanay celebrations in Glasgow and Edinburgh were curtailed because of the weather (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6221557.stm)
Still, looks like a good set of resolutions.
re: 2) - should be easy if you are in the Central Belt (Glasgow / Falkirk / Edinburgh); it was one of my considerations when I moved back 10 years ago
5) - having got off to a slower start than in England, there are at least 3 that I know of in Glasgow that are every two weeks or so
6) - it's hard. I still have to remind my sons to turn off lights when they are not in a room :-(
regards,
Alasdair (Not ManCon)
it's hard. I still have to remind my sons to turn off lights when they are not in a room :-(
Ditto. I am constantly walking through the house turning off computers, Playstations, and lights. I try and try to explain why we shouldn't waste energy. I have found that it is difficult to instill conservation in children.
Ditto,
Came into the computer room to find the kids had left the computer on all night. They absolutely don't get it.
I explained to my children and explain to my grandchildren that electricity and gasoline cost money. Kids as young as four or five can get the idea that the more money that is spent on electricity the less there is to spend on getting them stuff that they need or want. Sometimes it is hard to do this in a very gentle way, but patience pays.
A child who is wasteful at age five is likely to be a wastrel at age fifty-five. And definitely, if not by eight, then too late.
My own parents drilled a fanatical frugality into me from as early an age as I can remember--about three. I think one reason my wife left me was because of my strict habits of conservation and thrift.
BTW, it is tough to avoid a "holier than though" attitude as a stingy old man; I find that firmness, gentleness, and good humor help.
My seven year old gets on my case when I leave a light on because it hurts the earth.
If you have a toddler it's easy. Starting at age 2&1/2, I started carrying my daughter around the house to turn off lights at bedtime, or when we left a room. She gets it.
Put stickers on the switches when you do that. Having to remove a sticker to turn something on will be a reminder.
Maybe put a Kill-a-watt on the offending devices and charge for energy?
Best of luck, Robert. Keep in touch.
I read 48 in 2005
I'm really amazed by the amount of books you have read per year. Assuming that you are reading every day of the year: 365/48= 7.5 days per book! How do you do that?
Happy new year!
How do you do that?
I just read constantly. I don't like to waste a minute, so if I am watching a football game, I am reading during commercials and between plays (I am watching the Cotton Bowl right now and reading). I read while working out, during lunch, etc. I can usually knock out 30-50 pages a day just by utilizing down time.
Robert,
Good list!
Let me urge you to read some of the older books this year. IMO most of the most important and worthwhile books were not published during the past twelve months.
For a specific suggestion, Garrett Hardin, "Voyage of the Spaceship Beagle: Exploring New Ethics for Survival," 1973.
If you don't mind looking for a hard-to-find book, let me also recommend Earl Cook, "Man, Energy, Society," 1976.
My rule is that every time a new book comes out, I read or reread an old one:-)
Don,
I have a list of books that were recommended the last time we talked books here. You are right, there are a lot of good older books. One of my first priorities is to get Taintor's Collapse. It seems like everyone but me has read that one. I also try to mix it up a little bit; right now I am reading Deepak Chopra (Life After Death) for the first time. I think he is full of crap, but I intend to finish the book.
happy new year Robert:
good luck with your resolutions:
1). I resolve to get the most fuel-efficient car I can find in Scotland.
VW LUPO / You can get a Prius but a Deisel VW Lupo does better miles for less outlay.
2). I resolve to search for a house that allows me to take public transport or my bike to work.
FAT CHANCE OUTSIDE OF EDINBURGH - GLASGOW
3). I resolve to place a very high priority on energy efficiency as I search for a new house.
BETTER BUILD FROM SCRATCH
4). I resolve to reduce the meat in my diet (it takes much more energy to produce meat than to produce vegetables).
TATTIES AND NEEPS WILL HELP
5). I resolve to support local farmers’ markets.
LOCAL FARMERS MARKET = TESCO
6). I resolve to continue instilling the importance of energy conservation into my family.
FAIR ENOUGH
7). I resolve to get completely out of debt (easy, since my only debt is a mortgage).
YOU GOT A HOUSE IN SCOTLAND?
7 TIMES AVERAGE WORKERS SALARY GETS YOU A 3 BD
HOUSE
8). I resolve to talk to at least 1 person a month about Peak Oil.
THATS EASY.... THERE IS A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE WHO UNDESTAND PO.
TRY TALKING TO UKGOV, SCOTGOV, LOCALGOV.
9). I resolve to preach conservation as something each one of us can do to stretch energy supplies and better prepare for Peak Oil.
NICE....GOOD LUCK...SEE ABOVE
10). Not energy related, but I resolve to read at least 40 books in 2007. I read 48 in 2005 and 34 in 2006.
BTW: Hope it works out for you and yours.
Truly.
Enjoy.
Scotland has a lot going for it... unless you are young and poor
Its young, educated people are leaving in droves.
The smart ones are heading for NZ or Canada.
I am hoping to put number 1 son off the pursuit of Pure Physics at University and steer him to plumbing.
NZ Needs plumbers.
Scotland is a great place for book-lovers. All those wonderful used book stores...
Scotland is also a good place to buy excellent foul-weather gear, the kind used by Scots fishermen. And in Scotaland, staying dry can be a challenge . . . .
Being happy has a lot to do with being dry and warm enough.
Hi Robert,
Just a note to say I'm glad you started this topic! (Lots to think about.) And to wish you and your family many happy days in your new place.
And, in view of your patience with my previous questions (thanks)...I'm wondering...something hearkening back to the posts about your interview with your friend Jerry.
Is it possible, do you suppose, for people of "like mindedness" *within* the oil industry, (such as yourself) to make the proposal Jerry was talking about, when he used the word "pro-active"? (eg., to suggest companies voluntarily give up subsidies, say). (Which I assume would be part of a greater plan or announcement of some sort?)
I'm just wondering if you see any possibilities for what you might consider positive action "within the system" so to speak. If not personally (for your own situation)...(because I'm actually not trying to put you on the spot, I'm truly curious)... then in general?
Happy New Year to one and all. Here are some predictions from earlier in the year on TOD: (Oops, forgot to copy the person or the date. Mea culpa)
Some made it (Oil production and price). Some didn't (Dow)
Looks like prediction is still a black art.
(Oops, forgot to copy the person or the date. Mea culpa)
This post:
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/1/2/172633/2721
I had a kooky idea yesterday, and I could use one of our physics PhDs to debunk it. If we were to put solar panels in the desert, we would produce a good deal of electricity, but there would be an offsetting effect that I haven't found mentioned anywhere. According to this website, one of the references for the Wikipedia article on albedo, the albedo of sand ranges from .2 to .4. I'll assume an average of .3, meaning that about 30% of the sunlight hitting the sand is reflected. I haven't been able to find a good reference for the albedo of solar panels, but the few I've been able to find say that they have an albedo of about .1, so only about 10% of the light is reflected.
So if we replace the albedo of sand with the albedo of solar panels by putting the solar panels in the desert, we increase the light being absorbed by about 20%. If the solar panels are 15% efficient, doesn't that mean that we're adding ground-level atmosphere heating for the remaining 5%? How would that 5% compare to the GHG forcing of the fossil fuels used to replace an equivalent amount of electricity?
On the other hand, the oceans have a very low albedo, so if we put the solar panels on the surface of the ocean we would be getting the electricity as well as an improvement in albedo, at the expense of phytoplankton. (Gotta watch those storms, though.) Likewise, there are lots of man-made surfaces (parking lots, for example) that we could cover with solar panels with little or no added heating.
Is this completely or just mostly wrong?
Come to think of it, one problem is that burning fossil fuels produces heat too. I bet no one talks about it because most of our ways to produce electricity produce prodigious amounts of waste heat. It isn't as though nuke plants are cool-touch. Wind looks a little better from that perspective, I suppose.
Roofs are still by far the best places to put solar panels. Putting the panels close to the place where the electricity will get used is a good idea. A program to install solar panels on roofs coupled with a program to use high albedo roofing materials for all roofing would make a lot of sense.
If the roofs are covered in solar panels, you are not going to get the 'reflect the energy back into space' effect you are seeking.
eric unrelated:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,240542,00.html
happy new year
I would imagine that a single melted glacier has a much greater albedo impact than all PV solar panels combined. And there are many melted glaciers.
What's the albedo of solar thermal electricity generation plants?
On the converse, Los Angeles is trying to get local factories & warehouses to paint their vast flat roofs white, to reduce the "island" heating effect.
The heat generated by burning fossil fuels is an insignificant part of the global warming problem, as would be the heat added locally in comparison to the cumulative effect of the forcing due to the added CO2 (i.e. it keeps on giving over the years).
The immediate local effect is interesting, though. I had (naively) assumed that local heating would be lessened by solar panels (taking energy away as electricity), but it seems that, with current efficiencies, it's a wash at best.
With roofs, it's better to have PV on it than burn the equivalent fossil fuel, but one covered with PV will cause more urban heating than a white one (high albedo). Not good news for Phoenix, AZ.
. If the solar panels are 15% efficient, doesn't that mean that we're adding ground-level atmosphere heating for the remaining 5%?
Any electrical power you get is, mostlikly, going to be converted into heat at ground level.
You have an incorrect problem setup. You must compare the effect of avoided GHG emissions vs the local heating caused by PV. My prediction is that the second effect would be insignificant, compared to the first one.
Theoretically the whole energy used by humanity can be captured by solar panels with an area of 317,000 km.^2 (assuming 8 kwth/day, 15% efficiency). This is just 0.06% of the world surface and is about the size of US paved area (as a side note - does anyone know about the climate change effects of paved areas?).
Urban areas are known to be warmer than rural areas in what is termed the "urban heat-island effect". Some of the worst places are Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Miami, but the effect can be seen in almost any urban area if you compare their daily temperatures to surrounding rural sites.
There are lots of data and articles on this effect. A google of "urban heat island" should get you started.
This effect is supposed to be taken into account in the GHG studies, but I personally cannot vouch that it has been done properly.
This urban heat island effect "issue" is a load of paid shill skeptic BS. As if all weather monitoring stations sit in urban areas and climatologists are too retarded to account for station biases. How about that (in)famous denialist "proof" in the supposed lack of sea surface trends. Where is it now? Sitting with the rest of the irrelevant drivel that denialists concoct. BTW, one of the clearest indicators of global warming is the increasing temperature and moisture trends in the upper troposphere. This is solid prediction of the models and is verified by observations.
This (concisely) talks about all of the adjustments done on the data. Go to the site for revealing graphs...
The US Historical Climatology Network
Its funny how what one writes isn't necessarily interpreted as what one means. I won't elaborate more than to say I regret how I worded the last 1/2 of the last sentence that I wrote earlier in this thread.
The USHCN dataset is a great example of one dataset that has undergone quality control, but it cannot be all that is in any of the climate models (if any), for it is limited to the USA. It is good you mention it, though for it brings up a point I was trying to make.
I am familiar with the article referenced in (6) above: "Urbanization: Its Detection..." It is an excellent piece of scientific work. It has been a while since I've read it, and I seem to have misplaced my copy (yes I have one), but I seem to recall that for the urbanization adjustments, they revised the temperature data lower to try to find the "true" climate that would have been there in the absence of urban warming. If you are interested in the future climate, wouldn't you want to adjust the pre-urban data to better match the present conditions for input to the climate model rather than take the warmer data and adjust it cooler to get a better estimate of what the "natural" climate is doing?
Frankly I don't know the exact detail of what the IPCC people have done other than what are in the published reports. The input to the climate models I have run (admittedly a couple of years back) all start with gridded data that are aggregates of datasets not unlike the USHCN.
Anyway, I wasn't trying to start an argument on climate models, for yes there are other venues for that. In that light, I must say I found dissident's remarks surprisingly shrilly.
Hello TODers,
I hope my spiderwebriding idea can contribute to reducing the heat island effect. The concentration of railbike transport on these pipelines eliminates the need for pavement, and the maintenance of this pavement too. Thus, most of this formerly paved urban and suburban land can then be converted to gardens, orchards, and livestock areas.
If PV panels are built above the spiderwebs-- it can help shield the webriders from harsh sunlight, rain, or snow. Steel wheels on steel rails give off much less particulate pollution than the frictional forces of rubber against pavement, and gives much better wear mileage too. If solar water-heating panels are built above the spiderwebs: even drifting snow can be quickly melted away from the webtracks--no snowplows or shoveling required. Once the snowstorm passes, flip the valves so hotwater is again routed to homes or industry.
Railbikes could be designed with a collapsible outrigger so that they would take up very little parking space when the webrider transfers to the 'urban spine' of the Mass-Trans system or RRs.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Some more pluses of my webriders:
The elimination of most pavement and asphalt vastly reduces stormwater runoff and resultant flooding because the water can soak in locally. This can reduce acquifer pollution and help acquifer recharge rates versus this water just flowing back to the sea with silt, chemicals, and DNA altering bio-pharmeauceuticals. Any surface water collection schemes will thus need much less filtering and chemical additives to achieve safe levels of drinkability.
Never forget that a crude barrel= 25,000 physical man-hours--this will dictate the level of human activity postPeak. A logical starting point in the desert is the redirection of human force to potable water supplies when FFs become too expensive or scarce. Energetic water recovery from evaporating reservoirs and depleting acquifers will force quality water to become very, very expensive. Human reliance vs no-more cheap energy can greatly offset this price increase and encourage further conservation.
A web-bike should be designed so that it can be easily converted to hook up to a generator or a mechanical pumping device. Using one's legs should be preferred to using a person's arms or back to transporting water. A person could hook a hose to the spiderweb, then pedal in a relatively short time the water needed for a family to cook, wash dishes and laundry, and take daily PTAs, plus a little more for practically waterless toilet usage. Then, switching to another hose/device, they can macerate the sewage and pump it back to the sewage spiderweb with the household greywater too.
Many people not actively tending the relocalized permaculture will have jobs stationary pedaling to augment whatever electricity we are generating in a true, sustainable, biosolar method. For example, surgury and dentistry could be augmented by the patient's family and friends gen-pedaling away outside to help charge the batteries that power the lights and medical tools.
I can easily forsee some people pedaling water into a large neighborhood solar-heated watertank where people can enjoy the luxury of a once-weekly, private 10-gallon hot shower or tub-soak; everybody will be given the chance to be happy and clean-- this can reduce much violence and increase community cooperation --nobody would dare blowup or vandalize something that is so cheap and benefits all.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than YEast?
You're dreaming, Bob. A society with the energy to forge steel for your pipes, rails and bikes (and making glass!) is going to have energy for pumping and other things. If humans are reduced to muscle power there will be no pipeline networks or factories to make bicycles.
EP;
You may say he's a dreamer.. but he's not the only one.
Why is it when someone suggests USING our own muscle power as one of our options, that it gets taken to the extreme that there isn't anything else available? It sounds like your dream is just at the other end of the scale, with the unlikely conclusion that without an ~abundance~ of power, we'd stop making things from metal at all, stop contriving machines and using the now obvious and unavoidable processes of mass production that we know can make some of the most efficient use of what power we can access.. but smelting can be done with electric furnaces, concentrated solar heat, other gases burned.. we aren't going to stop producing, we'll just be making some major changes to the scale of it all, and discovering what non-essentials (like most cars) will have to be removed from the 'to be built/powered' lists.
Hello EP,
Thxs for responding. You may be eventually correct, but it is yet unknown. I am not an engineer or finance expert, but a fast-crash doomer looking for crazy ways to avoid the worst befalling upon our society. I just hope some engineers can work out all the numerous details.
Recall that before the age of cars and electricity this country managed to build lots of steel rails, pipes, bridges, and early steel buildings. If periodic postPeak production of these items is synchronized when the wind, tidal, and hydropower is strong we might be able to make/recycle/reform these steel items far into the future. Ideally, since the Law of Diminishing Detritus Returns will be so forceful--I think we need to prioritize energy flows towards producing those items that mechanically maximize human leg efficiency along with PV, windturbines, and other biosolar sources; to avoid as much as possible turning us into just groaning and moaning beasts of burden.
150 million wheelbarrows sure beats 400 million backpacks! No wonder the Chinese, upon inventing the first models so very long ago, classified them as secret weapons.
A bicycle beats walking, a railbike beats a bicycle through mud or snow, a wheelbarrow beats a shoulder-pole with two swinging sacks, a rickshaw beats a Cleopatra-couch carried on the backs of eight men, a pedal pump beats carrying sloshing pails of water... and so on. I think it will be a long time before horses, mules, and oxen become plentiful enough again for us to harness their horsepower. Hopefully, we can avoid eating them into extinction! Time will tell.
Weaving cloth or blankets by hand is a slow, boring process-- far better to mechanize it. A bunch of people websurfing or singing, while gen-pedaling in unison to power a small machine can probably far outproduce the equivalent number working separately. I am sure you can think of other low-embedded energy examples that allow human power substitution for detritus energy.
The really arduous, dangerous, joule-intensive tasks are best left to high-power electrical tools powered by biosolar sources: sawmills, steelmills, cranes for heavy lifting, etc. Also for those items that rely upon assured chemical manipulation like pharmaceuticals, soaps, paints, glues, certain plastics, and solvents that we can't live without. It will be too expensive to have waste caused from blackouts halfway through the processing.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Railbikes could be designed with a collapsible outrigger so that they would take up very little parking space when the webrider transfers to the 'urban spine' of the Mass-Trans system or RRs.
And how does that system work when someone else in front of you is slower?
Yes, that occurred to me later. I think PVs are foreign enough to make the scales involved confusing. It's like GW in that respect. Most people have a hard time getting their heads around the concept that people could have such a large effect with what seems like small energy use. I have a hard time getting my head around how much sunlight we would need to capture. It isn't that we use too much energy necessarily, it's that we chose a source of the energy that increases the greenhouse effect.
Maybe I should have finished my thought... my point was that PVs would take much less area than other low albedo human created structures like pavement. Since we don't have evidence that such structures contribute to GW in any significant way, I suggest we should not worry about it. Obviously the commulative CO2 effect is much much stronger.
Your more-or-less kooky idea is being put into practice. Check out www.solarwall.com. They mainly sell dark colored walls for use in space heating, but they have a "co-gen" idea of using the heat in the solar panels (caused by the lower albedo) for space heating. Personally, I think it is a brilliant idea and has potential of improving solar efficiencies tremendously.
WRT traditional electricity production, over 60% is now wasted as unused heat (mainly coal and nuclear plants), so any increased unused heating from the solar could/should reduce the amount of wasted heat in traditional plants, but it is tricky, due to the variability of solar power. It should also be pointed out that we are a long way from covering the deserts of Arizona with solar panels.
A group of climate scientists doing research on factors involved in local and regional climate effects is that of Roger Pielke Sr. at Colorado State. They have a blog Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group Weblog where they post components of their papers, debate commentors, comment on other papers and so on. If it was in the context of their discussion, they likely would respond to your question about such effects.
As an aside, his son, Roger Pielke Jr., runs the blog Prometheus: The Science Policy Weblog from the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research within the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado-Boulder just down the road.
Does anyone think that solar collectors/panels will be deployed on a scale sufficient to affect the albedo? Get real.
well on a related note of all this i have found the hardest thing to do above all else is talk to your family about the situation, because without them you really do not have much of a chance..
i have been trying to provide a counter point to balance the information presented by tv shows(where my mother gets all of her information).
i think it's reached a new low that she said to my face i need a lobotomy because i do /not/ think some smart person will fix everything and we will go on the way we have been except what we drive and what the buildings look like.
Don't feel alone. My family reacts the same way.
That is what makes this place so attractive to me. Disagreements about "little" things but agreements about the "big" things.
Rick
I tried to talk to a close friend that i hadn't seen in some years about PO and GW.
His reaction was outright hostile. Under the words there is recognition that there is a problem But also an outright voluntary blanketing of the facts. It was just "more of the same" for me. It is almost totally useless. People will go doing everything in the same manner until some really devastating price/enviro input makes it unaffordable/directly unhealthy to do it.
Awareness is unthinkable to most.
The only thing that seems to catch attention of others is talking about reliance on foreign oil. In the words of NYT columnist Thomas Friedman, "Green is the new Red, White, and Blue." I start by pointing out we have peaked in the USA in both oil and natural gas production, and that isn't going to change, even by ethanol, and the people we are dependent upon, besides Canada, all have issues with the USA or we have issues with them. The only logical choice left, if one wishes to obtain personal energy security, is through green choices: solar, PHEVs (if only!), etc. I don't get many arguments about that, only the excuse that it is that they can't afford it or that it is too expensive. One day, that excuse will go away too.
Dear "TrueK", Rick, "Pleio",
"That is what makes this place so attractive to me."
I'm also grateful, and, as I believe it was Nate who said one time, kind of "bonded" or "attached" (my word), in the sense of feeling some kinship with everyone on this site. It's such a relief even just to read.
I'm sad you didn't have the connection you wanted with your Mom, TK. Plus, it sounds like a huge reaction to get. My only successes (and those are w. non-family, for the most part!) have been when I bring up feelings "first" and openly. Like talk about how shocking the subject is. Or something along those lines.
I just wanted to make a suggestion, if you'd like one (not that it will work for your Mum!). If you have time, check out http://www.cnvc.org/. This is part of a genre - www.gordontraining.com I believe is another one. Anyway, just to share something I've found helpful. I'm open to talking about this in more detail.
Best wishes for a happy New Year.
Alot of the focus here is on where the peak is. I have been wondering about the decline. Assuming we are at peak now how long would it take for production to fall 50%? At a 2% decline per year it would take 34 years to go down 50%. It takes a really good crystal ball to see that far. My own WAG is 2035 which more like 2.5% decline per year.
Actual decline rates from a geological peak may mainly be determined by above-ground events--boycotts, embargoes, rioting, sabotoge, wars, long-term contracts, revolutions, strikes, cartels . . . . Think Iraq. Or Nigeria. Or what happens if the Saudi royal family is overthrown by a fanatical Wahabi group that dictates reduced output based on ideology and politics?
Thus a potential decline rate of 2% per year could easily be amplified by disorder into an irregular bumpy steep decline interrupted by plateaus.
Getting to 2035 without anything going wrong would be a major challenge. Especially when the major exporters are hostile towards the US. US consumption of oil could drop much faster than world production as westexas says. The oil exporters and manufacturing powers will have our money , so that the US will no longer win the bid for oil.
The double whammy is NG declining at the same time. I think in 5 years it will be obvious our goose is cooked. We are doing nothing. With Bush in 2 more years guarantees the government won't do anything. By 2020 the US will be a total mess. When they can't afford to drive their SUVs to work Americans will be a bunch of whining, crying helpless little babies. By 2020 the SPR will probably be dry.
I did a short spread sheet on this a while ago. One of the things that become apparent is that you have to look at not just decline of production but growth of demand. This means that the decline of production will accelerate at some unknown rate. When you factor in some of the obvious effects such as transportation decreases in poorer parts of the world due to higher costs, population levels off, then may even decrease. Throw in the occasional pandemic that will bring it down even more and you are struck by the sense that the human population is at or near its peak. There will be substitution for oil, but it is very evident that our energy usage from all sources will decline over time. If so, then you divide the population into the total power usage from all sources, you have a rough estimate of the carrying capacity of the planet.
One other item seen is that there is too many factors to make anything but the most gross estimates for any length of time. This is why that we get such widely varying estimates of how much petroleum reserves there are available. You just have to prepare for your worst case and hope it ain't that bad.
kunstler looks spot-on this time around.
Just add something else:
A Sunni- Shia genocide / war - in the middle of oil central
All brought to you courtesy of George.
Are you sure that Dubya works for the US?
Looks to me that he is on the Chinese payroll.
Looks to me that he is on the Chinese payroll.
This is an obvious possibility : Is George Bush “The Manchurian Candidate?”
Oh! What a doomer am I...
Kunstler's disastrous 2006 predictions (and soon-to-be 2007) are a case study in the type of exaggeration that pervades TOD.
Most of the forecasts of doom that chew up our bandwidth are ridiculous speculation that have little or no merit in facts. Inherent in boomer instant gratification phenom is the impatience to see predicted results. Thus, the timelines are exaggerated. Folks hope for events to happen in months or years (or already eg Peak Oil) that deep down they know will take decades or centuries (deglaciation & rising waters) to unfold.
The result is that much of the good content is lost in the noise and the site gets DISMISSED. So sad. And directly attributed to the decision to limit Moderation of the site in its present format.
I have had my good years and bad in the forecasting of economic, climate and energy trends via different TrendLines venues since 1973. My best advice is to put the bold statements aside for a day or a week and then rewrite them. Time and reflection have a way of putting emotion filled statements in better perspective. And don't let one's inner depression (also pervasive here) cloud what one see's for the future of others.
Reminds me of the concept that the world we see is a reflection of what is between the ears. The doomer outlook is a reflection of depression, paranoia, and general hostility toward the world. We can look at the enormous challenges facing civilisation and see opprotunities to prosper or total collapse. Some doomers look at a die-off as a verification that the world must pay for its sins but because they are virtuous (hoarded gold and guns in their backwoods bunkers) they will be the new overlords over few surviving serfs of the next dark age.
What personality abnormalities does the typical cornucopian display?
Mania? Delusions of littleness? Blind and undiscriminating altruistic love?
My point is that projecting psychological problems onto those with whom you disagree is an old and disreptutable practice--notoriously indulged in by Freudians and Marxists.
Indeed, such characterizations are a variety of the ad hominem fallacy.
"The result is that much of the good content is lost in the noise and the site gets DISMISSED."
Freddy...who exactly is dismissing this site? Certainly not you!! What brings you back so often?
Methinks you greatly exaggerate the following Kunstler has here. (Now, if you'd said Deffeyes, I'd have to agree with you... but then your conclusion would be very different.)
I am not much of a prognosticator, but I told the world that Kunstler was writing (dystopian) science fiction before he admitted it to himself.
Kunstler has been looking for a plausible mechanism which will destroy the suburbia he hates, and peak oil seems more reasonable than Y2K at this point.
Unfortunately, for both supporters and detractors of Kunstler, much of the facts he marshals to support his arguments remain facts.
It is the use of those facts which is open to discussion, especially as Kunstler himself doesn't really generate much in the way of information, he simply collates it through a filter.
There is a saying, "In the long run, pessimists tend to be right"
Kunstler, and many other prominent doomers have a consistent history about over-calling and prematurely calling events. I disagree with attempts to predict timelines as it brings discredit to one's thesis (for starters).
An inability to accurately predict something as complex as unfolding human history does not IMO, invalidate their analysis. As someone else in this thread pointed out, the facts Kunstler cites are indeed facts, and I for one can't disagree with the direction of K's thrust.
Methinks you are underestimating Kunstler's following here. Even if world farms in ten years are massively producing carbon, making batteries with it for electric cars, and sequestering CO2 via terra preta and algae manufacturing you will be able to say Kunstler woke people up from sleepwalking into the future. If Americans invest in New Urbanism as Kunstler writes about it could be another silver bullet preventing a catastrophic future just in case charcoal doesn't completely save the world.
And if we don't get this Engineer Poet Charcoal plan going, whether or not it can work, you will be the (utopian) science fiction writer.
Me, a science fiction writer? I tried, but I gave up. The science keeps becoming product faster than I can write it!
In all seriousness, I didn't propose one single link in the energy chain which hasn't been demonstrated in the laboratory; several of them are already for sale at the megawatt scale. To get fictional I'd have to come up with something like a photosynthetic panel which takes a water connection, absorbs sunlight and CO2 and outputs hydrocarbons. If I postulated slapping panels on your roof and getting diesel fuel and heating oil, THAT would be science fiction. (Probably dystopian, because who'd control the polluting tendencies of fuel if everyone could make their own?)
Sounds like GreenFuel technology. Algae filled plastic tubes on your roof with a small wind driven air pump bubbling air through the tubes. All that's left to design is an automated oil extraction and transestrification system.