 | Will the New Year bring Happiness and Prosperity? | The Oil Drum | Gazprom, Russian plans and that niggling worry... |  |
DrumBeat: January 2, 2007
Posted by threadbot on January 2, 2007 - 10:05am
World's oil outlook frightening, group says
Food shortages, cars abandoned, another depression. It's the stuff of nightmares — and the type of future an eclectic group of engineers, computer experts and others in Seattle believe could await us.They're not religious zealots predicting Armageddon, nor survivalists digging bomb shelters. They believe the world is about to start running out of gas.
Literally.
Power-Sipping Bulbs Get Backing From Wal-Mart
Which is what makes Wal-Mart’s goal so wildly ambitious. If it succeeds in selling 100 million compact fluorescent bulbs a year by 2008, total sales of the bulbs in the United States would increase by 50 percent, saving Americans $3 billion in electricity costs and avoiding the need to build additional power plants for the equivalent of 450,000 new homes.That would send shockwaves — some intended, others not — across the lighting industry. Because compact fluorescent bulbs last up to eight years, giant manufacturers, like General Electric and Osram Sylvania, would sell far fewer lights. Because the bulbs are made in Asia, some American manufacturing jobs could be lost. And because the bulbs contain mercury, there is a risk of pollution when millions of consumers throw them away.
A recent British report estimates that the projected costs of global warming to be as costly as both world wars and the Great Depression added together. Yet, with such consequences, some scientists still insist that climate change, if it is happening at all, could be a good thing.
At last, I'm hopeful about climate change
For those of us seeking to tackle the threat of climate change, 2006 was an encouraging year. At the start of the year, the conversation - when it took place at all - was about whether climate change was really happening. That discussion is now over.
Global warming: Our worst fears are exceeded by reality
During the past year, scientific findings emerged that made even the most doom-laden predictions about climate change seem a little on the optimistic side. And at the heart of the issue is the idea of climate feedbacks - when the effects of global warming begin to feed into the causes of global warming. Feedbacks can either make things better, or they can make things worse. The trouble is, everywhere scientists looked in 2006, they encountered feedbacks that will make things worse - a lot worse.
Global Warming is Here. Now What?
Changing the course of global warming could take a major upheaval to affect public policy -- a Pearl Harbor-type event in the environment.
Wind power faces gathering storm: Safety, reliability concerns raised
Energy Probe helped crank up the debate in November when it issued a report that said wind turbines are much less reliable than expected. Data collected from three wind farms near Lake Huron during the summer and fall showed the turbines produced only 22.3 per cent of their potential capacity for electricity generation. Another problem: The wind often died in mid-morning when customer demand was gearing up.
Consequences of scarce oil to go far beyond costly gas
The [Sakhalin 2] affair received scant attention in the United States, the world's largest consumer of oil. But it illustrates a future that will challenge not only companies such as Shell, but also America's foreign policy, economy and individual consumers. It illustrates some stark truths that are operative now, not some possibility for the far future thrown out by wonks with bad attitudes. Higher prices at the gas pump may be one of the most benign outcomes.
Energy to capture more attention in new year
"Manufacturing is highly dependent on energy, especially natural gas," said NAM President John Engler. "We all have to work together to develop a more sophisticated, comprehensive energy policy that invests more resources toward the aging infrastructure ... and strengthens our research and development into renewable fuels."
Ethanol: Not America's complete energy solution
Vic Knutson watches the boom in ethanol plants with guarded skepticism, because ethanol plants also require fairly large amounts of water. "We’re in a giant contest," he said. "You know it’s ironic, we’re on water restrictions looking at even stiffer restrictions, but ethanol plants get all the water they want."
Is energy independence finally in sight?
The gist being, are we going to face a monumental energy crisis in 2007? Reading Denning’s article and the news item from Agence France Presse (AFP), which tells us “Belarus signs last-minute deal to avoid Russian gas cutoff”, makes us think that something big in energy could be just around the corner.
"I" is for innovation. Problems of scarcity and depleting resources are often accompanied by dire predictions of the end of the world as we know it. Which is true. In fact, we read today that Barclay’s Wealth in the UK has recently told high net-worth clients that, "Given the likelihood of natural resource depletion and climate change it is feasible the next decade could represent the high watermark for wealth generation."Wow. So the rising cost of energy inputs into the economy has reached such a level that the world is simply going to cease generating wealth at this level. Hmmn. It’s possible. There are the laws of physics to consider, which determine how much energy you can get from carbon, and how efficiently you can turn that energy into work. But thus far, human beings, when confronted with an apparently natural limit on growth do what the species does best: adapt and innovate.
Kick back, chill out: It could save the planet
They found that the more hours a country's citizens work, the more energy it uses.Their point isn't that work consumes more energy than leisure. It's that more work leads to more pay (for some, anyway).
Which leads to shopping.
And the more stuff we buy, the more energy it takes to manufacture, transport and use it. Think TVs, DVDs, SUVs...
Coal mining deaths soared to a 10-year high in 2006, reversing an 80-year trend of steadily falling fatalities and raising safety concerns as coal production reaches record levels.
Some of the world's major energy companies are learning a hard lesson about President Vladimir Putin's Russia. It is the same lesson that Putin's political opponents have absorbed, along with independent journalists, human rights activists, and certain oligarchs who fell afoul of the plutocratic KGB veterans who form Putin's inner circle.
Once behind the WSJ firewall, Gentlemen, Start Your Plug-Ins can now be read by all.
Mini water wheel generates electricity from 8" drop
The water wheel produces one to two kilowatts of power and generates at least 24 kilowatt hours of sustainable green energy in a day, just less than the average household's daily consumption of around 28 kilowatt hours. It should cost around £2000 to install, and will pay for itself inside two years.
Astrolab Solar-Electric Hybrid Vehicle
Solar Electric CarAstrolab, the world’s first commercial solar car, will be available in January 2008 thanks to automobile designer Sacha Lakic. The car was developed by the French manufacturer, Venturi. The vehicle is powered by energy from the sun - the 16kW electric motor requires very little energy for propulsion. The solar hybrid can travel a minimum distance of 110 kilometres and has a top speed of 120kph.
Uganda: How the Current Power Crisis in Uganda Started
The greatest challenge facing Uganda today is the crisis in the power sector. The drop in the installed hydro-power capacity of 380 megawatts (mw) to 135mw as of May 2006 is unacceptable. And yet the downward trends have continued without any permanent solution in sight.Various reports, including the recent one by the Parliamentary Committee on National Economy, have recorded a big fall in the national economic growth. All accusing fingers point to the power crisis. This could have been foreseen and addressed in time by a caring government. Power shortage grew over many years till it reached the present crisis level.
Should the tie-up be reached, the Japanese firms will probably manufacture and supply steam turbines and generators that make up the core of reactors. Other topics of negotiation might include capital investment in Atomprom--a company modeled on gas giant Gazprom--and the provision of nuclear power technologies, the sources said.
Australian PM Says Nuclear Power Inevitable
SYDNEY - Prime Minister John Howard said on Friday nuclear energy was an inevitable option for Australia after the release of a report which found that 25 nuclear reactors could significantly cut greenhouse gases.
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.
Let us see some more lists of New Year's Resolutions: How are we individually going to economize, localize, and produce in the nondiscretionary sector this year.
As I posted before, my goals are to lose seven pounds (economizing by eating less), reduce my driving to 2,000 miles or less; move to a walkable community to localize and produce a best-selling book with "Peak Oil" in the title.
Hi Don;
My Resolutions often take the form of 'Promissory Christmas Presents' to Friends/Family.
For my wife, I've started developing what we euphemistically call our 'Ice Storm Contingencies', which include systems which will keep the pipes from freezing and the icecream from melting should we lose Grid Power.. of course this applies to our home's survivability in a number of climate and energy scenarios.
A) I have been assembling the 'winter fridge'[experimental, but not rocket-science], which automatically keeps the icebox cool using the outdoor chill instead of (or before) the coal-fired electric compressor part has to do its work.
B) Solar Electric - which I've started buying and am gradually getting up to the roof and running.
C) Solar Hot Air Boxes.. cheap, glazed collectors which use a thermostatically switched fan to add heat to the home when the sun shines.
D)Continuing as ever to patch, insulate, tighten the house.
E) Cool Tube, using below-frostline ground temps [Long 'sinus' Piping around basement floor] to prewarm a fresh-air supply for the house (and pipes, preventing freezing), allowing more O2 to be avail for inhabitants, combustion in heating/cooking, but without having to bring that air all the way up from winter temps with burned fuels.
F) Experiments with LED Task Lighting- eg, I have strips of whites and yellows (whites are too blue-ish) as under counter lighting, also desk lighting, atmospheric lighting (4-watt, colored Xmas lights are pretty nice!). These will be directly run from Solar and Solar Charged Batts. LEDs are Not actually more efficient in many cases than CF's, but will win out if the fixture was originally a wasteful one. A lot of lighting is wasted and/or counterproductively placed, ie, the 'Center of the ceiling' light in many rooms, where you are trying to see into your own shadow as you work at any wall (counter) of the space.
Anyway, that's a sampling. I build and test things, I have a catwalk on the roof where I'm dismantling our 3-defunct chimneys, and look forward to using those shafts to send energy DOWN INTO the house for a change, including a Tracked Mirror system for consistent daytime lighting.. with a little natural variability, of course. Further mirrors will 'dip' into that shaft from adjacent rooms in the house, as desired, or the patch of sunlight hits a thermal collector at the bottom of the shaft, prewarming domestic water..
Little in our 'lifestyle design' seems more ridiculous than putting an opaque roof over our heads in the daytime, and then turning on a bunch of lights.. but I do it every day! (Not dissimilar to Heating a house because it's too cold outside, then Freezing your Icebox because it's too Warm inside!.. and then there's A/Cing your house because it's too hot outside and the fridge/freezer is making it even warmer Inside!.. and yet you STILL have a water heater making your shower-water hot, all day long..)
I've also promised to help Mom get something up on her roof this year, probably solar hot water for starters.
Complicit, but not Complacent..
Happy New Year!
Bob Fiske
Your program looks very well-considered to me. Do you have a web site with pictures?
Thanks.
I have the url and webhosting, but building a new page (pages) is one of the numerous heads of the technological Scylla (or is it Charybdis?) that my daily battle takes a few furtive swipes at. Not to get too grandiose, but I hear that DaVinci had a similar problem.. lots of great notebooks, but limited shopspace and time in which to birth them all.. That's not to say that all of the above lives purely in the land of Theory.. but the wheat to chaff ratio can be frustrating, none the less!
Baby steps out the door.. baby steps into the elevator, baby steps into the elevator.. I did it! AAAAAAAHHH !!!
Bob
Hello Bob and all TOD'ers,
Bob, thought you might be interested in the cold box I built for our off-grid home in northern VT. It's wickedly simple and works wickedly well for at least four mos of every year (tho climate change has me concerned regarding its long-term viability). You can read about it here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/home_journal_news/2453517.html
With the cold box in operation, we're running our 2200-square foot home on approx 3 kilowatt hours/day. In the summer, we use a conventional energy star fridge. But that's no problem, b/c we're making gobs of power.
For anyone who's interested in more off-grid insight (we have 1.8-kw pv, 900-watt wind, solar hot water collectors, and a hot water loop in our cookstove), I welcome questions/comments. We also run a micro-farm (four or five cows, depending on time of year), a few piggies, meat birds and laying hens, copious gardens, blueberries, raspberries, etc. We did all this before becoming PO aware and haven't really changed anything (hell, I still drive a F150 that pulls down 12mpg on a good day). Still, I am continually amazed at, inspired by, and grateful for the high level of analysis and commentary here at TOD. Thanks to all.
ben at bittergravity dot com
Maybe you could revive the old fashioned ice box ?
I'd think if you wanted you could harvest quite a bit of ice in the winter
in VT. You might even be able to concoct one from a industrial ice maker.
Depending on how much ice you could store it could be coupled with a heat pump and provide cooling well into the summer months.
Do you have any idea how much energy is expended in the harvest, storage, and delivery of ice? There's a reason refrigerators replaced the ice trade...
This wasn't a bad book:
http://tinyurl.com/y6urwk
Garth
Nice Setup, Ben, I'm jealous! (I'm comin', Mah-tha, I'm comin'!! Jest ain't theyah quoite yet!)
Garth and Memmel;
I know of a guy in Maine who does it, and the harvest and delivery is free. He made a deep, insulated trough off his north roof, as I understand it, and lets the snow pack in there all winter, then covering it in the early spring with an insulated top. Keeps a BIG block of ice way into summer,
as I heard it. He also gave his neighbors hot showers on the AFTERNOON of the big icestorm, 9-10 years back.
Could also be done by just freezing up a pool/tank of water-brine-or propy/glycol.. (designed to take the size changes) when the nights are cold enough to run a heat exchanger of some sort.. the magic is in the insulation, which is the key in your battery for keeping one season's power to aid in the next one!
You can also do solar refrigeration with a 2-stage ammonia evaporator/condenser, if you don't have to fight the farmers for the ammonia!
Bob
With a bit of thought I can't see it being that expensive or labor intensive.
In this use case it would be for in situ usage so the design is quite different from a commercial ice seller.
You can probably get away with a big tanks of water and a ethylene glycol aka antifreeze system to cool the water. In winter you freeze the tanks in summer you do the reverse. Old chest freezers could be used.
The expense is limited to the cost of pumping the antifreeze.
Considering you have all winter to freeze the ice you could easily use wind power to power the pump. In summer a electric pump powered via solar could be used.
I've done pretty much all I can on the energy front since I've been doing it for a really long time. However, I'm adding more fruit trees to our orchard (and, maybe, another dozen grape vines). The ones I'll plant this spring will bring us back to about 50 trees. I also started converting our raised beds to high carbon/Terra Preta soils a couple of years ago and I'll be continuing that into the future. I'll also be putting on a short presentation about HC/Terra Preta soils in January or February at our place. If anyone is in coastal northern California and interested in attending, you can email me at detzel(at)mcn.org and I'll keep you up to date. I'm in northern Mencocino County.
Todd; a Realist
All that sounds pretty good, and sort of parallel to what I am doing. Except as of now we hardly have had a winter. I have a big cistern near my house which I am trying to cool down to use for room cooling during the hottest days of summer. That somewhat tepid cistern worked quite well last summer and would be adequate if it started the summer cooler.
And (drum roll here) my wood stove stirling is now working pretty well and can easily keep up my house load, which is a not so frugal 8kW-hrs/day. I am thinking of putting the whole set of drawings on a proper web site for one and all to sue me for when they get killed trying it out, but so far have been too lazy and inept to do it.
There is absolutely nothing proprietary in this stirling- just details that make it work, as contrasted with those that don't. I have made plenty of stirlings that don't work and can tell the difference.
And of course that auto transmission for bikes. Works great up hill and down hill, absolutely no shifting ever, and efficient, cheap, durable and light. Maybe next year. ---Unless, of course, the Chinese steal it, which will make it available much quicker and cheaper, and maybe even better.
Sic transit gloria mundi. ( ubersetzung- fuhgeddaboudit)
I intend to gain about 7 pounds. I am 20 pounds underweight all my adult life so I will probably fail.
After changing all the light bulbs last year, this year I intend to safe as much money as possible, to be invested in solar and/or http://www.windside.com
Keep the veggie garden as usual. Fish as usual, as much as possible. Build rabbit cages and keep a few.
The woodstove I promised to install last summer....
Play with the kids, hug my wife, and learn as much as possible.
>I intend to gain about 7 pounds. I am 20 pounds underweight all my adult life so I will probably fail.
I would gladly send you some of mine :-).
I'm going to stop using the dishwwasher. I'm going to need a rack to dry them on. This will require energy to go to the store.
How about just putting them in the rack already in your washer after you hand-wash them? No new rack or energy needed.
I was recently pointed to another big energy saving possibility in my house: Exchange the heating water circulation pump with a more efficient model.
When opening my gas boiler (high-efficiency condensing model by Weishaupt), I found it uses one of the most inefficient water pumps - and was set to full power mode, drawing 90 Watts. A sticker on it claimed it must be run in the high-powered mode (without saying why).
When I turned it down to the lowest level (still draws 45 Watts power), my heating system and the hot water generation still worked absolutely fine.
I will soon exchange the pump with a super-efficient one made by Grundfos, the Grundfos Alpha Pro http://www.grundfos.com/web/homeUK.nsf/Webopslag/DMAR-6EGDHG (I have no affiliations with Grundfos whatsoever). It draws less than 7 Watts in its lowest setting! Given that an outdoor-temperature-compensated heating system usually lets the water circle all the time the system is switched on, this should cause quite some saving and an estimated amortisation period of only 1.5 to 3 years.
Cheers,
Davidyson
I have to say, my own experiences with power compact flourescent bulbs have been underwhelming. I've used them for years on my planted fishtanks, but if I had to do it over again, I think I would go with regular flourescents. I'd need more of them, but they'd be a heck of a lot cheaper. The brightness of PCFs drops off pretty rapidly, IME, even though they're not supposed to. Changing the bulbs every six months, as the hardcore types do, is a lot cheaper with regular flourescents.
For household use...I've never gotten close to the eight years claimed in the NY Times article above. If anything, the PCFs don't last as long as ordinary incandescent bulbs. I put them up first in a couple of areas where it's a real pain to change the bulbs...but I find myself changing them just as often, if not more. I suspect PCFs are more sensitive to voltage fluctuations than incandescents.
I did not notice any change in my electric bill after making the switch. That might be because I've never used a lot of light, anyway. Or maybe the rising cost of electricity disguised my savings. In any case, I'm seriously considering switching back to incandescents. I am not convinced PCFs are helping either my bottom line or the planet.
I often use very low wattage incandescent bulbs for places where I don't need much light--fifteen watts is a lot less than sixty.
For reading I like the old desk lamps that use a few watts to focus a small beam of light.
To get a feeling of light and warmth in the winter I use my fireplace and sometimes a kerosene lamp or candle lamp for "romantic" effects.
"I often use very low wattage incandescent bulbs ..."
I've done the same simply because PCFs don't function at all in some of the old light fixtures in older homes.
I've also had many of the same problems Leanan describes for PCFs.
I wonder if it's the old wiring? The building I live in is at least 40 years old, and the wiring isn't great. I had to wait a long time to get broadband, because for several years, they kept telling me both my cable and phone lines were too old to support digital transmissions. (Not sure what eventually changed.) I've had problems with the electricity; they replaced the fuse box, and that helped, but I suspect the wiring really isn't up to the demands of modern electronics.
Though it's not as bad as the beautiful but old house my sister once lived in. The wiring had no ground. She couldn't use anything with a three-pronged plug.
It seems to be a problem with only a few of the older fixtures. It could be the wiring but I think it is more likely the individual old fixtures (replacing them is #472 on the Should-Have-Been-Done-Yesterday list).
Are you buying good bulbs or off-brands?
My experience says stay away from anything from Lights of America or Feit; both have failed rapidly. The LoA 3-way circle-tube CF's have replaceable tubes, but the ballasts will self-destruct if you let the tube go all the way to failure. This is a pity, because otherwise they are great. I have 3 or 4 of them sitting on a shelf, waiting for me to find a source of 0.18 ohm 1/8 watt resistors to replace the blown ones.
Though it's not as bad as the beautiful but old house my sister once lived in. The wiring had no ground. She couldn't use anything with a three-pronged plug.
Umm...she does realize they make adapters for that particular situation...
Yes, she did, but she also knew that it's not safe.
She used one of those for her computer, but unplugged it whenever she wasn't using it.
My experience has been quite different over the last dozen years.
The first CF bulbs I bought were made in Switzerland, and only cost about $20 - they were incredibly inexpensive at that price at the time, by the way. The lighting element could be replaced, like a normal lamp, not the entire bulb - generally, only German businesses seem to have such fixtures, as the 'bulbs' are normally what die, not the electronic base. At that time, halogen lamps were also very common. The very first CF bulbs commony available did not have a 'starter' (this made the Swiss one a real steal) - that is, when turned on, there was a noticeable delay, and turning them on and off quickly tended to damage them. The light output is also temperature dependent, and falls off very noticeably in the cold for the circa 10 year old Phillips unit we use as a porch light (one of the old non-starter types - they are no longer sold it seems).
In the mid-1990s, the first really inexpensive units, generally manufactured in Eastern Europe, started appearing, with dramatically lower prices and dramatically varying quality. That first wave of truly cheap CFs was again decent proof that quality has its price, but over time, the cheapest manufacturers improved their quality and lowered their price, forcing the name manufacturers to increase their price/quality ration to justify their higher costs - and cutting into their business model of selling incadescent bulbs (a few years ago, CFs were at the top of shoplifted goods in Germany).
At this point, the price for a standard CF bulb ranges from about $1 to somewhere over $18 - the most expensive bulbs come from companies like Osram, and they warranty an 8 year life (averaging 3 hours a day) - 6 years for their basic models.
The packaging now shows the energy class and the lumens in addition to the wattage - providing information in terms of energy consumption seems to one of the major ways the EU is trying to get its citizens to use less - after all, it saves the purchaser money, and as the EU imports energy, less energy importing means a better balance of trade.
The name brands generally have a better quality - the color temperature is better, and the amount of light higher. I just replaced some 5+ year old CF globes from a cheaper manufacturer, and the newer ones are brighter - the bulb being a gas filled glass tube, this is not a real surprise.
The CF bulbs are essentially considered toxic waste, but apparently, mercury is being significantly reduced for new bulbs in the EU.
The economics certainly work in my case, but then, Germany has the EU's highest electric rates for private customers - export countries tend to favor their export industries.
It is now possible to buy LEDs for a standard socket, but this is a longer term idea. At this point, CFs can be found for essentially all socket types and fittings, which was not true years ago.
I would like to echo this. The newer bulbs seem to be of better quality.
In the past, my main beef was that the color was all wrong. My girlfriend's kitchen has 8 65-watt floodlights, and as a test I replaced one with a CF floodlight but I didn't tell her that I had done this. I waited a couple of days, and she didn't say anything, and then I mentioned that I had done it, but didn't tell her which bulb I had replaced. She asked "which one", and I told her to guess. She guessed wrong 3 times before giving up.
My experience is the same. Time for consumer reports to to a comprehensive study.
I noticed the smell of burning electronics one day and I couldn't figure out where it was coming from. It was coming out of the CF in the lamp. It definitely didn't last 8 years. Regular lights won't emit toxic smoke when they burn out. I will use the pack of 8 I bought, but I may never buy them again. I think CF's are already obsolete. I think LED's will be the way to go. I only have one light which is on alot and it is CF. The other ones don't see much use because I just grab my LED flashlight to go to other rooms to get things.
Leanan;
I have CF's in virtually every socket in the house and shop, and there are certain ones that have had to be replaced more often than the promises would leave me to believe. I don't know about the sensitivity to voltage fluctuations, but if one of mine is enclosed in a tight fixture, I think the heat has been their undoing. The whole trick of MFRing these was to squeeze those electronics into an inconspicuous package, and the subsequent over heating is a fast killer of circuits.
Also, that burning electronic smell has some truly unpleasant VOC's in it, doing nothing to improve the buildup of the same in our lungs and bloodstream.. For me, I'm still using them, as it beats the increased Mercury and assorted Coal Residues that I'd be dumping onto my and all other kids' heads, (and paying for every month) but I'm extremely eager to get past the burnouts with better placements and cooler fixtures, as well as the Daylighting and LED's mentioned above.
Bob
None of mine are enclosed. I actually removed the shades, covers, etc., because the package says not to use them in enclosed fixtures. The bare-bulb look isn't very aesthetic, but given how often I have to replace the @#8$ things, it's convenient.
As for mercury...what about the mercury from the PCF bulbs, as described in the article?
I've read somewhere that the mercury in the CFLs is less than the mercury emitted by coal power plants to power the equivalent incandescents -- and much easier to dispose of in a controlled fashion.
I've had better luck than you with the CFLs, most of them seem to last from 2 to 10+ years, depends how much they are used. I've replaced some old-style fluorescents that had consistently short life with CFLs. I did have bad results with CFLs from the "Lights of America" brand (made in China, of course - but so are the better ones these days).
I've read somewhere that the mercury in the CFLs is less than the mercury emitted by coal power plants to power the equivalent incandescents -- and much easier to dispose of in a controlled fashion.
A couple of months ago I threw that question out here and someone responded with some great info. I can't remember when that post was, but basically with the current state of power plant regulations you wind up with less mercury using the compact fluorescents. However, with future regulations...it was sometime by 2011 or so that it was going to be a wash (because of tighter emissions regs) and after that, increasingly in favor of incandescents. However again, and you caught it...the emissions from power plants gets sprayed everywhere but CFs can be recycled or at the very least, wind up in a landfill.
The whole trick of MFRing these was to squeeze those electronics into an inconspicuous package, and the subsequent over heating is a fast killer of circuits.
I've always wondered why they don't add heat sinks to the ballast...they can get beastly hot and a few cooling fins would probably extend the life a good bit.
CFs are just too complex and the mfrs only care if they can be sold, not if they work.
A classic case for standards and regulation of the market.
What exactly is "complex" about a CF? Coating a glass tube with fluorescent powder and filling it with glass? It has been done for the past 60+ years. The main difference to a regular fluorescent light is the electronic starter and ballast, both of which are close to trivial circuits. Don't take my word for it... I just happen to earn my money by designing not so trivial electronics.
As for cost: I get mine for 33 cents each. I replaced almost every lightbulb in our home with them and not one of them has failed, so far. I don't expect them to, either. Initially some of them have a slight smell which is solder residue and organics from the cheap printed circuit boards in the Asian models "burning" off. That does not mean they will fail, it simply means they did not clean them well.
I've been using CFs for years and haven't had a single problem. I've bought cheap ones at the dollar store and they work fine.
I am getting mine from a Chinese grocery store where I suspect they are being sold to the one group of people the utility thinks will take them: the cost conscious Chinese. I haven't made any quality comparisons but believe that these are the cheapest CFs they could find in quantity. Yet, for me, they work just fine. Not a single problem in over two years of operation.
What is complex is that it is not so simple as what the mfr would much rather sell you.
Wherever do you get them for 33 cents? Cheapest I ever found was about $2.50 at Ikea. They died quickly.
I'm sure I've purchased 50 of the darn things wishing to be efficient. I have 2, the only 2 that ever worked.
A clear case for standards on color, quality, rated output(always always the claimed output is a lie). And enforcement on the creeps who keep on selling rubbish.
"Wherever do you get them for 33 cents? Cheapest I ever found was about $2.50 at Ikea. They died quickly."
Chinese grocery store. The end user price is next to nothing after a PG&E rebate of probably 90%. They save the utility from having to build a few more coal fired power plants and pay for themselves in short time. Power savings are approx. 50W per bulb. At 3h/day of use that is 150Wh/day or approx. 55kWh/year, far more in terms of electricity savings than the differential in price.
If you were a utility, would you rather finance a few million light bulbs a year at a fix an known cost that will never change or a power plant with 25-40 year depreciation schedule at a time of unknown future regulation and cost structure?
I guess PG&E did some testing of the brand they distribute because so far they work for me.
Whatever you got from Ikea was probably crap. I would go back there and ask for my money back. That is the best feedback a merchant and manufacturer can get: upset customers.
Well thx for the quick reply. I'm over 2000 miles from PG&E land. Here in Chicago Com Ed still hawks incandescents. They want to build more nukes and sell more power. Very old school.
I have complained. Stores just shrug and say that everyone knows CF doesn't work.
In my previous post I really meant it that I've had a 96% failure rate. It is no surprise there is consumer resistance to this product and it has the rep for being something that greens and old hippies do just to make themselves feel virtuous.
I just saw an "Inconvenient Truth" the other day. In the final titles they make a few suggestions what everyone of us can do. Among other things is says (and I paraphrase):
"Replace incandescents with CF lights.
...
Order green energy from your utility.
...
If your utility does not offer green energy, write and ask "Why?".
...
Write to congress.
...
If congress does nothing, run for congress.
"
I think that says it all: it is YOUR responsibility to ask (and pay) for changes and regulate your utility, not your utilities responsibility to regulate itself. PG&E happens to be well regulated (and bankrupt...) and a lot of things are different in CA. Among other things we use half the electricity of the average of the nation (and no, I never had a power outage myself). That is not because people here are crazy as many say but because they care more. In politics, you usually get what you care for. If people want to believe what stores which want to pitch the product with higher earnings over the product with higher efficiency say, one can't help.
I don't know what the law in your state is, but if I had had 96% failure rate on something, the store would have gotten to know about it and I would have brought it up with the right people to make a fuss.
Hardly worth the bandwidth but I'll reply to the patronizing tone.
Sure I've returned CFs and been refunded. When they wouldn't light up at all, when they were dead in only a few days, when the light produced was even less than an incandescent of the same wattage. If one person has that many problems with one product category, even if I am the most extreme outlier, there is a real problem with how the product is designed, manufactured, marketed. I've bought the things for a lot of years waiting for the tech or the market to mature - and it doesn't happen. You can lecture me all you want about how well tested and engineered products can be and I'll tell you I know that world exists, but the commercial world of fraud chicanery and garbage is just as big and often wins.
I spent a good part of my life attempting to make government respond to anything at all. That would include working with the Citizen's Utility Board which attempts to make the Illinois Commerce Comission do what some imagine it is supposed to do. And learned the hard way that government rarely responds to anything and when it simply has to recognize something large still backtracks relentlessly, wriggles out of the deal, distracts attention with a show of responsiveness while doing what it's always done. I learned why most people accept their lot and try to ignore the public sphere. Learned that most who make a show of civic piety are either fools or rich naiive beneficiaries of the status quo. Or just crooks with an interest in pulling the wool over the public eye.
You say you've never been in a power outage. I lived 15 years on a block that had power outages for most every big storm. At least four or five times a year, sometimes four or five times a month. Ten years later those on that block and in that ward still have outages. Twenty-five years of complaints and absolute zero results. On something really simple. Go to a seriously low income neighborhood, or a dark neighborhood, and it's much worse.
So Sir Infinite, you run for Congress. You apparently believe in the system, I don't.
I'll buy another CF when I have some reason to think there's a good one.
Just a final note: I saw An Inconvenient Truth two weeks before the general release, having been invited to the screening by my Congressman. I am not exactly the clown you want me to be.
writing to congress does no good you have to send cash $$$$$$$$$$$$
You have such a direct mind elwood. Congresspersons would appreciate that.
Just a quick reply to the phrase "there is consumer resistance". That "consumer resistance" to solar energy and wind turbines has grown both markets beyond $10 billion at 30% annual growth rates last year.
If you take a random look at a CFL program like here
http://www.northwestenergystar.com/files/9354RSI_Newsletter_January_2006...
the savings are extraordinary.
It seems that China has produced over 1 billion CFLs in 2004:
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4104
If we assume that every single one of these saves a mere 50kWh/year (which is easily possible), we are talking 50000GWh, the equivalent of more than half a dozen power plants. It is safe to say that CFLs can still save more energy than wind and solar together can produce... at a cost of a few ten dollars per household. It won't stay like that for long, but why not use the cheapest way to save energy and money first? Somehow I feel good about saving money so cheaply... if that makes me an old green hippie, so be it.
:-)
I get the impression that there are two types of CFs: expensive ones that last a long time, or cheap ones that don't last any longer than regular bulbs. Unfortunately all the articles mix the two, and quote the low prices plus the long lifetimes. The bottom line is that the economics is not as favorable as it is made out to be.
Whenever I have complained at a hardware store about the short life of CFs they direct me to the amazingly high-priced GE bulbs. And I've bit and they're just as bad.
I've put this one past a couple electricians and they tell me they won't install CFs even if the customer asks, they will be blamed for the failure.
Well, at least I know it's not just me. :-P
it's not just you. i have had some bad experences with them as well.
One should probably mention that the manufacturers of incandescent bulbs have feedbacks built into their manufacturing process to make sure that the average bulb burns for exactly the promised 2000h (or whatever they guarantee). The lifetime is not an accident of the physics of the bulb but an engineering parameter adjusted by marketing.
All companies who make promises on the lifetime of their products do that... I worked for one as a student. The company had large test jigs in a room in their basement. In one thery were testing the lifetime of hundreds of incandescent bulbs for cars to make sure they had a baseline on the bulb manufacturer's guarantee using the manufacturers instructions on how to perform that lifetime test, in another they were testing the same bulbs with their own electronics to make sure that whatever they did would not decrease that guaranteed lifetime. It looked crazy (hundreds of blinking lights) and was expensive, but as an OEM you simply have to go through lenghts to get the business.
We put in 100% CFL's 6 months ago. No problems so far.
Started using CFs many years ago on outside lights (2 porch and 1 lamppost). Changed to CFs because they incandescents burned out every six months or so. I typically get 3-4 years on the outdoor CFs which are on 12+ hours per day. I have one CF in an outlet that has been on for the last 5 years (except for power outages). I have now replaced most heavily used interior lights with CFs. Aside from 2 or 3 that have burned out prematurely, Ive had good performance from CFs --- saved time and $.
Based upon the comments here, I am thinking it would be worthwhile for people to indicate what brands of CF bulbs they are using, and how well they are working.
The latest ones I have installed were the n:vision bulbs that I got from Home Depot, but I haven't had them in long enough to say much. Color is excellent though. At startup, they are a little dim, but they warm up quickly.
I had some older (GE?) bulbs that seemed to just keep going and going like the energizer bunny (I can dig one out and see if I can figure out who made it).
Good Idea. Wish it were loggable into a format where the data could be more accessible and useful, say, the day after tomorrow when this thread is just a memory..
Still, here's two bits.
I bought a scad of 'Lights of America' 23-watt CF's on a sale rack at Home Depot, 4 yrs ago. After the state rebate, they cost me $1 a bulb.. so I did ok economically, but not in solid-waste generation. I'd say they have been 60/40% reliable for me.. a bunch were the too-quick burnouts, but many others have just run and run.. Overall, I've had pretty good performance, and wouldn't trade the 75% power-savings for even the beauty of Halogen light for most of the house.. I might relent on the reading chair.. we'll see.
I try to remind myself to write in Sharpie on the new lamp when I'm placing it in service, so then I'll be able to start getting some more reliable numbers together.. but now I'm starting to really assemble LED's into useful fixtures, so maybe the pressure will be coming off CF's soon..?
I've been using a variety of brands. The latest is Sylvania. I haven't noticed any difference between brands.
The PCFs on my fishtanks are GE and Coralife.
I've used a number of brands over the years, some forgotten in the mists of time, others recalled well:
About 6 years ago I started replacing my incandescents with CFs. I have maybe 30 CFs altogether. In the past 6 years I count 4 that have failed. In most cases, simply sending in the original barcode from a failed one will get you a coupon good for purchase of one or more replacements. I have no idea why the large variation in experiences except perhaps the differences in brands/quality. Here is a privately run site that reviews CFs and I've found it useful. It is easy to figure the wattage savings but, for many folks, lighting is a small percentage of overall electricity usage and using CFs won't make a noticable difference. Things like quitting use of a clothes dryer, using hot water heater timers make a bigger difference.
I understand that LEDs are not as efficient at CFs, but have other advantages (simpler). I think the white light LED is still elusive.
Now the first LEDs have come out with a better efficiency than CFs - I think 110 Lumen/Watt vs. 100 Lumen/Watt. I think the manufacturer is the LED pioneer Nichia, who also have invented the blue LED.
White LEDs are currently realized either by combining blue and yellow LEDs or by adding a fluorenscent element to a blue LED.
Nothing elusive here. ;-)
Cheers,
Davidyson
I went around and counted. It looks like we have 15 incandescents, about 22 CFs, and about 32 fluorescent tubes. The incandescents are in places that are only on about 5% of the time and in two locations with dimmers. The tubes and CFs are generally in places that are on for long periods of time. The tubes seem to last nearly forever. We have a few CFs still burning from the first batches we bought, about 14 years ago. Those were GE and Sylvania bulbs. Over the years, we've bought many others (including Feit and LOA), all with mixed lifetimes, but generally over five years.
There are four things I've learned to avoid with CFs. I avoid using CFs with dimmers or fixtures that adjust to lower light, like our old photocell front porch light. Our newer porchlight is designed to work with a CF. Second, I avoid using CFs in fixtures with vibration. We burned out CFs quickly in our bathroom vent fan fixture until I decided the problem was the vibration. Third, I avoid using CFs in locations with very cold temperatures. In past years, I've swapped the front and back motion-detector CF floods with incandescent floods in the winter, but last year and this year that hasn't been necessary. Finally, I prefer incandescents in fixtures that get very little but frequent use, like in closets. I learned long ago that burning out the starter is as big a problem as burning out the bulb itself. Electronic ballasts may have solved this problem, I don't know, but I still avoid CFs in those cases.
This area is very cloudy in the fall, winter, and spring. My wife has a good deal of trouble with SAD in the winter. We use lots of light in the winter, so I would hate to see our electric bill with incandescents instead of fluorescents.
NEWS FLASH:
Russian Oil Output Rises 2.2 Percent, Lowest Growth Since 1999
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aJ5Y1kvTpmC4&refer=e...
For more than an year now Russia is the FIRST not the second largest oil supplier. It is second to SA on exports only. I understand why Bloomberg does not care that Russia supplies its own people too, but let's at least try to be factually correct.
I also like this interpretation: "the smallest annual increase since 1999, after companies cut investment because the state is increasing controls on the industry". So for example US oil production has been falling for 30 years because companies cut investment??? I'm getting nervous guys - the propaganda war against Russia is heating up, and Russia has nukes. They also have the oil&gas controls, which some idiot recently ranked up with nuclear weapons. I can imagine they are getting more and more pissed off with this bullcrap, and I can only hope this will not end up in the very nasty end-point it is going to.
Relax... Russia wants your business, not your life. A dead customer is never a good customer. You really think Russia gives a hoot about what some idiot at Bloomberg writes?
:-)
Argh, I'm far from the thought that Russia wants to fight anyone. No money in that, unless you are Haliburton. But it may very well be provoked - this is a course which can easy lead to conflict of some kind. In the cold war we used to have "Proxy Wars" and it was argued that Chechnya and some of the conflicts in the ex-Soviet republics were also continuation of this. The last thing I want to see is the return of the Cold War this time with Russia & China against the West, but that's what it looks like is approaching...
Such articles are very useful in the propaganda war. There is a site in the Russian part of internet -inosmi.ru – which belongs to the STATE news agency RIA Novosti and where STATE interpreters translate all the crap from western press about Russia. Almost all the articles concerning Russia from major American and European newspapers and magazines as well as analytical texts from big western think-tanks could be found in Russian in that site in 24 hours (I don’t know how this practice relates with copyright laws). Access to the site is free for all the internet users and now the site is a major source of western information for those Russians who can not speak English, German, French or other languages.
For example last month the site was choke-full with articles about the polonium case.
But maybe contrary to the western authors’ expectations these translations bring on repulsive and strongly nationalistic reaction from the Russian audience. There is a commentary option in the bottom of every article where one can find all kinds of the Russian dislike of the West.
So, the state-sponsored translations from the western press become a potent instrument in the propaganda war with the West.
Re: The Article on Russia
Note that there are two key qualifiers in this statement: (1) By pipeline and (2) to areas outside the CIS. For a more complete report on declining Russian oil exports, see the following article:
http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/finances/26.html?id_issue=11656451
Russian oil production up 2.1% in Jan-Nov, gas - 2.5%
Study: Louisiana slowly slipping into gulf
What's causing the slippage? The weight of the silt deposited by the river:
Oh-ohh! Doesn't look good for Alan's plan to use river silt to build up the levees around the big easy.
I am sorry for New Orleans, as one of the more interesting US cities, but we can't build cities in the middle of a large river delta and expect them to be sustainable. The amount of geo-engineering required is just too large. Rivers naturally meander around the delta depositing silt all over. Trying to constrain the river to a man-made channel just doesn't work. Similar problems arise everywhere else rivers are subject to artificial restraints, e.g. the Danube. The only way to "manage" these rivers is to set aside areas for flooding.
Alan's plan illustrates the dilemma of PO. Either we make large changes to our way of life voluntarily, or we will be forced to. The only way to "save" NO is to relocate it. Sad perhaps, but inevitable.
Bovine Droppings !
The world's oldest still inhabited city is Damascus Syria at a bit over 5,000 years.
The width of 11,000 credit cards (after 5.5K years) is hardly a start towards the 100+ miles to the ocean, and further to the edge of the continental shelf.
Leanan should be ashamed for posting this without noting that this is an effect that will manifest gross effects (like New Orleans sliding into the Gulf) over millions of years.
More bovine droppings. The price tag for the Coast 2050 plan was just $14 billion and most of the measures are low energy (work with nature to do the heavy lifting).
The diversion of 1/3rd of the Mississippi River towards the Atchalaya Basin (which the Corps of Engineers stopped the movement of the river) generates 280 MW in the spring down to 90 MW (zero in August). A net energy GAIN for pumping out New Orleans and diverting the Mississippi.
Moving New Orleans would destroy it, and it's valuable culture. If you are talking 1,000+ year time scales, I might agree, but point out the fallacy of long term predictions. Post-Peak Oil adjustments will take only several decades (3 ? 6 ?) and no reliable predictions can be made about that, much less the centuries after that.
New Orleans CAN be saved for centuries, amidst GW and rising sea levels, with relatively minor and low energy solutions. We will NEVER use as much energy per capita (or even half as much) as the hell hole of Phoenix that I am currently trapped in.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Don't worry, I think Phoenix is doomed, too. Kunstler's dead right on that one. People will be fleeing the southwest like rats from a sinking ship.
When?
Meanwhile you are quite willing (eager) to abandon, for a few billion, the US population with the lowest average energy and oil use (this side of the Amish) and incomperable cultural contributions. All to save a few billion $.
You were VERY incorrect to post the article you did (old news BTW) without noting that thet time scale is millions of years, leading to the incorrect assumption that "new data shows that New Orleans is doomed, it will slide into the ocean".
False and misleading and unworthy of TOD !
But it supported your prior judgment.
Alan
No. Money is not the reason. The reason I oppose rebuilding in harm's way is that it encourages people to live in harm's way. And if TSHTF, they'll be stuck. No rebuilding money...maybe no way out.
That wasn't the point, and I assumed people here are smart enough to realize it.
The Lingering Stench of Malthus: Debunking Jeremy Rifkin's beef with cities
The article argues that capitalism freed us from Malthus:
I agree with this next bit, an element even peak oilers often overlook:
The flip side, of course, is that if resources are scarce all over, or transporting them becomes prohibitively expensive, we will once again become subject to nature's vagaries.
Freedom's just another word for cheap, abundant fossil fuels?
An example of "nature's vagaries":
Authorities try to get food to storm victims, cattle
I was talking to someone the other day about a blizzard that hit the northeast back in the '70s. He said there was so much snow he went sledding from his bedroom window...on the 2nd floor. That's how high the drifts were. Roads were closed for more than two weeks; emergency grocery deliveries were made via snowmobile.
It was a plains blizzard that switched one the great western artists from chaps to brushes. Charlie Russell was a cowhand in the 87 blizzard, his little picture (The Last of the 5,000) of an emaciated cow was all it took to tell the ranch owner what was happening. I wish I knew how to cut and paste the image here, it's classic.
The deadliest modern blizzards, cattle wise, are late winter-spring time, when the newly born calves are so vulnerable.
Is this it?
Yes. Thanks a bunch. Note the wolves in the corner.
This one?
yes that's the one ty very much !
wolf or coyote ?
could you post "the end of the trail" ?
Hello TODers,
Here is a photo of detritovores slaking their thirst moments before reaching "the end of the trail.....
http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/12/19/21569.aspx
You should have no problem "Matching" later photos.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
I wonder if that was the winter of '76. In Yancey Co. NC where I lived the temperature remained below freezing for two months several times dipping below 0 F. The town of Spruce Pine had water mains that were over 4' deep freeze and break. I spent part of the winter in Delray Beach Fla where I was working on a crew nailing plywood on new roofs. One morning the ice was to thick to get on the roof to work. It snowed in Miami that winter. One to tell the grandkids about.
Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz... ;-)
/Rant warning
Were these my over-expectations, or is it only my post-New-Years recovery period, but the new 2007 starts with even more stupidity in the press than the previous one ended with. Or maybe it is the same stupidity as of 2006 simply gaining momentum in the new year.
Half of the articles are about global warming. Same old bitching on China, hardly mentioning the word "nuclear". Australia's PM finally seems to "get it", but further down the article makes it clear that Australian greens will make sure this country will continue burning coal.
Again the usual dosage of articles about how the damned Russians don't give us enough of "our" stuff. Or control of it - same thing. Maybe we need more of it to fight Global Warming?
Now, some of the articles are about how we are going to descend into chaos when the tank goes empty. I say we are in a total chaos already, but the chaos is in our collective minds. But don't worry kids everything will be fine. Just keep the course.
Maybe you could get the nuclear debate off on a different foot this year by outlining how the capital is going to be accumulated to build the nuclear facilities needed to 1. substitute for coal; 2. replace declining natural gas and oil; 3. replace existing, decaying nuclear facilities; and 4. provide for new energy demand. I think most of us are probably more comfortable with the use of btu's and dollars as measuring instruments, but proceed as you will.
Some consideration on your part of the state apparatus required to implement and maintain your program would also be appreciated. If you intend to propose that we move forward on a no economic growth or steady-state model, could you also outline how you intend to overcome the inertia bound up in the growth economy.
I look forward to you informed commentary.
Yeah... another one of these "we can not do it because we don't want to do it" arguments. But thanks for the politely expressed scepticism.
My opinion is that after you factor in climate change and other problems like waste and prolifeteration, relying on national programs to replace coal with nuclear will end up being too slow, too late and too ineffective. What we need is a an integrated international program for total replacement of coal with nuclear and old nuclear generation with modernized one. Here's my suggestion what it should look like:
1) Total ban on new coal power stations internationally. Countries like China will receive the assistance necessary to build the required nukes on time without stopping their growth.
2) Creating an effective international organisation for cooperation on nuclear and all carbon-free technologies which will include:
- International fund for granting low-cost funding on nuclear and other carbon-free projects. Ideally the fund will be gathered by an international carbon tax, but this looks too much of a stretch right now.
- A standartization entity. Only several, low-cost, safety proven reactor designs will be standardized and mass produced. The potential from economies of scale in the industry is enormous.
- An effective coordination entity. Why does every country need to build and maintain separate uranium enrichment, waste storage, fuel processing facilities etc.? A country like Russia can do it all and has enough capacity to power half the world. Several countries - USA, France and Russia can take up the lead and do it for all the world.
3) Most important is the legal framework that this is the path we are taking, which will assure all sides that this is it and this is for good. If it is in place the resources will be allocated - one way or the other.
If all of this takes place we can easily build enough nukes to replace coal by the middle of the century. It is possible, and it has already been suggested once, but I don't think it will be everimplemented - not in the insane world we live today.
Like you, I don't believe 'all of this' will take place. Aside from the improbability of realising the pre-conditions that you enumerate, intuition suggests to me that nuclear is a technology that becomes less feasible with declining net energy from our primary, sources: fossil fuels and hydro. Whatever is the true EROI of nuclear, the real issue is the capacity of the economy to bear the costs that a massive nuclear build requires.
For that reason, I don't see the point of beating the nuclear drum, even if one is a believer. Nuclear is on the agenda in a number of jurisdictions, including my own in Ontario. Some new plants will get built, but I rather expect that in a century's time the gross production of electricity from nuclear will not much exceed today's total.
Our attention should be focused on identifying the politically and economically feasible.
Our attention should be focused on identifying the politically and economically feasible.
The fact that the ones you assume as politically and economically feasible are not technically feasible does not seem to bother you, heh?
Nuclear is economically feasible and the existing plants are very profitable everywhere around the world. But the initial investments are substantial and the utilities are not willing to rush into risky adventures without the political support in place. It is pretty understandable that you don't want to have your $2-3 billion investment buried in the ground by the next green wackoes that take office.
Again it all comes down to the question of political will - if there is a political will it can be done. Political will comes when the masses and the media change their pink glasses with more realistic ones.
I can not make bets for the end of the century, but I would gladly take a bet that within 5 to 10 years we will have started a major nuclear expansion. Expansion, probably hindered by the current delays and much growing pain but still an expansion that will soon turn out to be our only hope. After we agree on some criterion and timeframe to watch I am willing to put $1000 on this. Anybody willing to join?
To get a clear physical image of what coal mining is like and in what scale, I suggest you take a look at the new mining machine for a German strip mine.
It's a slide show so takes a bit to load then you click through each image.
http://www.up.ac.za/organizations/movup/images/minefun/WhereismyDozer.pps
People often contemplate how superior oil is based on its energy density. The argument goes on that since no other source can match it then you see industrial civilisation is doomed.
However U-235 has almost 6 magnitudes (x1,000,000 times) higher energy density than oil. Now if you just contemplate that the resources to harness some energy source are generally reversely proportional to its energy density one can quickly understand which would be the only logical choice of a resource constrained world in the longer term. This also explains the yelling paradox as of why relatively poor countries like Iran, Russia, China, India, Bulgaria etc. are scrambling to tap that "expensive" nuclear energy. Maybe they simply don't have much resources to waste, how about that?
To illustrate the energy density point - if the toy you showed in the presentation was mining uranium ore, it would have been able to mine all uranium ore used in the world (at 0.2%) all by itself.
I usually really enjoy your posts.
I cannot share, however, your view about the nuclear energy.
There is already 400 nuclear plants in the world.
If China alone wanted to produce 20% of its electricity with nuclear power, (today, it is maybe 1%) they should build 400 plants! Double the total world amount of plants!
(USA has 100, and produce 20% of electricity with them. China has 4x more people, so 400 plans)
When you have 1000 or more plants in activity in earth, the risk that, somewhere, due to human failure, a plants explodes, become more and more inavoidable...
You have not these kind of problems when you choose some others alternatives, that are uneconomical for you, but produces nevertheless electricity..
Your calculation is a little bit off because China uses 8 times less electricity per capita than US. So we are talking about 50 reactors for 20% of current China consumption, not 400.
My view about the risk of nuclear explosion is that of a person getting in his car and knowing that anything is possible - brakes can fail even the engine can explode. In my view the other, less spectacular, but more subtle long term risks namely global warming and the risk of wars over fossil fuels are far outweghting the potential risk that somewhere, some day... The equivelent would be not to get into the car and know almost with certainty that I will lose my job for example.
I am also confident that the industry has reached a level, where the risks from nuclear explosion remain highly hypothetical. The negative void coefficients of current designs and especially containment vessels makes it hard to imagine how even a major failure can result in an explosion that affects people outside the plant. Of course, I don't want to be proven wrong on this, but personally I intend to continue driving my car or taking a plane for that matter.
I have worries about 10-20 years from now, and not having enough money nor expertise to dismantal them correctly.
IF peak oil results in life being extremely different from today, can we make guesses as to how these things will END their life?
Imagine living near one that was "Closed down" in a hurry.
John
John, if it goes to ordinary people to be trying to dismantle nukes then we'd be having other, much more pressing existential problems. Like hiding from the crowds of hungry people for example...
we'd be having other, much more pressing existential problems.
Exactly, so in order to "improve" our survival chances you "bet the whole house" (of mankind).
If this screws up we will have BOTH the crowds of hungry people AND the failing/poisonous decaying reactors.
However I get the bright side, the crowds of hungry people will be wiped out by radiocative poisoning.
A clean break from the past indeed, ready to restart afresh from the surviving coackroaches up to a "shining city on the hill" of intelligent coackroaches (after a few millions years).
What is this joy that people feel of creating and fighting strawmen?
If you get out of this apocaliptofilia for a moment, can you make a rational case exactly what kind of threat will be nukes, if tomorrow goes to hell? What exactly will happen? Do you envision people breaking in the plants and blowing them up in a suicidal attempt to kill themselves and as much people as possible? Do you know after a plant has been shutdown what happens with the radioactive fuel? How many years it will sit and cool down, what will be its radioactivity until it gets to the environment, etc.etc.?
Now make your exact case otherwise I have to accept that you are nothing but the moron you are showing yourself to be.
I think the trick, Levin, is to get you to think about "if tomorrow goes to hell."
It moves the center of the discussion, changes the outlook, sets the mood for the sub-culture. I actually felt that myself, as discussions of canned goods and handgun calibers swirled around me. I reassured myself that I wasn't buying in, wasn't heading for the hills, wasn't stocking my cupboards ... but it changed my outlook. I started to see the world differently.
Now that I'm out the other side of all that I can look at it differently. I can again look at a site, like TOD, that leads with the story below a bit differently.
I can think wow, that niche is into some strange ideas:
You are right, and I was a fool to fall into this trap. You can not beat them on that ground - after all once you "accepted" that "Armageddon is coming" they can use all their sick fantasies against you. I can not accept that. Why not try to live and fight the life we have today instead? I guess it all comes down to this being much harder choice. Stacking cans of meat how stupid it maybe is much easier than trying to change something to the better.
On the bright side, I also find there is some evolution of the extremes, which proliferated especially after Katrina. Obviously outright doom&gloom has begun to tire people.
Besides, if things do start to fall apart, the guys running the nukes will be in the driver's seat. They will have the power and the organization.
These people are truly dedicated and serious about their social obligations.
Some people are BEGGING for the world as we know it to end. Losers in the modern world, we can laugh at them until they get too serious, like Pol Pot or Jim Jones.
Just wait until they know hunger. That usually snaps them out of their delusions.
My efforts have been focused on making things "better".
Solid plans that are NOT a complete solution, but an essential silver BB for the long term.
Best Hopes,
Alan
By year end, Canada, China & Westinghouse were all promising plants to any takers for under $1.5-Billion deliverable in a three year frame.
China is buying, not selling nukes. And the four that China recently bought from Toshiba-Westinghouse did not have a delivery date stated in the PR, but the assumption by commentators was first reactor finsihed within 5 years, and all 4 within 6-7 years.
AFAIK, no US reactor is expected to be commercial operational within 7 years. Chinese conditions are not typical of all nations.
As usual, your data cannot be relied upon.
Best Hopes,
Alan
My project expects first commercial operation in first quarter, 2015 so seven years is optimistic. All the others in the US are looking like 2020.
The burn is that we have to wait over two years before we pour first safety-related concrete until we write an application and get a license from the NRC.
This is for a reactor design with 2 operating plants and two in final construction in Asia. And on a US site with two reactors in operation for over a decade.
What's new that the government needs to know? All the highly touted simplification of the approval process has just about doubled the poundage of the application.
China will be making their own reactors and exporting them within a decade, IMHO.
1Q 2015 is 8 years and a month or so from today, so my statement stands "no US nuke within 7 years". I know a but about the industry :-)
BTW, what are your thoughts on the different reactor makers (I have my own thoughts)
Toshiba-Westinghouse
GE
Areva
Atomprom, Rosatom (or whatever name Russia sells reactors under)
CANDU makers
Any Others (Combustion Engineering seems to be out, despite making excellent reactors in the past, Babcock & Wilcox is of course out for good reason).
Best Hopes,
Alan
As seems to be your custom, your references are two years old. Give your pompous attitude a rest 'cuz u just look like more of a jerk each time u get caught.
China's builds and sells a 10, 50 200MW pebble htr-10 & nhr-200; Finished in Pakistan in Y2k & twin under construction. Several htr's operational and u/c in china. Much of the technology sold in South America and middle east.
Canada's has just enhanced its 740MW candu-6 (this new model available in 54 months). Two previous units built in china were under budget and under 5 years.
And from Reuters: Westinghouse's Stephen Tritch, President and CEO, said the (chinese) 1.1 GW plants will use Westinghouse's advanced AP1000 design, which was only fully certified by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission last year and estimates capital costs for the reactor at less than $1,200 per kilowatt. The company's Web site says the AP1000 plants take about three years to build.
The Chinese reactors will not be commercial 36 months from now. I would wager on that. Lots of detail design work still to be done, first time fabrication of new designs, etc. I have been around new nuke construction and it just takes time.
The Pak reactors are "nuclear co-operation" between the long time allies Pakistan & China. Pakistan gave centrifuge technology to China and got ...
China does not appear to be actively building power reactors to their own design (a la Canada & CANDU) but is, instead, buying foreign designs & equipment.
I have refrained from attacking your dubious character except when you sling mud at others and 'went over the line". Lay off the ad hominem attacks on me & others.
Alan
The fact that the ones you assume as politically and economically feasible are not technically feasible does not seem to bother you, heh?
Conversely...
The fact that the ones you assume as technically feasible are not politically and economically feasible does not seem to bother you, heh?
One question: How did France do it? They didn't seem to be disadvantaged relative to their neighbors economically.
Consider the enormous investments currently being made in oil, e.g. oil sands. At some point during the depletion curve, these oil investments will no longer be economically feasible. A major fraction of the money currently in the oil industry will end up somewhere else.
"Whatever is the true EROI of nuclear, the real issue is the capacity of the economy to bear the costs that a massive nuclear build requires."
This is true, but true of absolutely everything else as well. The money is there if the demand is there, because people will sacrifice plenty to keep the electricity going. If there is a strong shift to plug-in hybrids---and I think this would happen when gasoline is $10+/gallon---there will be a big increase in electricity demand. Along with this demand, will be a large increase in utility income. As this income increase will likely be seen to be permanent (assuming peak oil is generally recognized), then the utilities will be able to raise lots of money for new power plants. If necessary the bonds will be government guaranteed if conversion to more electrified transportation is seen as a national strategic imperative.
It will be undoubtably remaint true that low-tech high-pollution coal plants will be less expensive than nuclear. I think it is essential to avoid those.
"Our attention should be focused on identifying the politically and economically feasible."
I agree. But when you run the numbers for any other sort of alternative (i.e. non-coal-based) energy source and transportation fuel source, the gap in infrastructure, capital requirements and thermodynamic feasibility is far greater. Nobody has ever made one commercially feasible large scale cellulosic ethanol plant, yet, for example. We've been producing nuclear plants for 40-50 years and we are looking at 3rd to 4th generation refinements.
The point is that you can run numbers and see that it is conceviably feasible---though very difficult---to make a quantitative impact in oil depletion and climate change with nuclear. Most everything else (except wind, but that has upper bounds) is worse still.
If you don't go for nuclear, which is the second cheapest large scale alternative, you will end up with coal, which will be climate catastrophe. That is the realistic scenario given economics.
This is James Lovelock's---and Jim Hansen's---point.
france did it because no one else is. otherwise they would not be able to find the needed fuel.
in other words, basicly the lack of use of nuclear power by the rest of the world supports france's use of it.
bullcrap. US and Japan have more reactors thna France
Uranium is also a finite resource - how do you know there's enough?
Uranium has been explored for much less intensively than oil.
Mining companies have distinct reserve reporting from oil. In oil you can estimate with large scale geophysical measurements a good estimate over a wide area. With metals mining you have to actually drill---it is like the very conservative SEC requirements for US-based oil companies---and they don't drill beyond a certain # of years of future bookable reserves.
And then there's the facts that there are many alternative fuel cycles which can greatly amplify the usefulness of a given amount of mined uranium. And then there's thorium, more abundant than uranium.
Right now much of the nuclear waste has plenty of usefully fissionable isotopes which aren't even being used.
There is a short-term supply imbalance in uranium, but that's because primary production nearly completely shut down. That isn't at all like the oil industry which has been producing intensively for decades and they start pretty much as soon as a viable find is located.
Summary: the physics and geology of uranium for energy needs is fundamentally different from oil.
you are so full of shit. geophysics is not going to give a "good estimate (of reserves) over a wide area" . a fundamental truth about oil is that wells have to be drilled to find (and surprise!!!) produce .
Hydrogen in the Sun's core is also finite. How do yoou know it will be enough? :)
The truth about that "Uraniums scarcity problem" is revealed by just one number: 2.7 milligrams per kilogram estimated crustal abundance. So every ton of rocks contains 2.7 grams of U on average. Now multiply this by the trillions and quadrillions of tons of minable granite and phosphate rocks and you get an idea what is the true size of the U resource.
U is a periodic element spread out relatively evenly through the globe and the ocean - people seem not to understand that it's occurance is subject to totally different laws than the formation of oil or coal which is a quite specific phenomenon. Of course it is ultimately a finite resource, but for all practicle purposes it is infinite for the humanity.
It is unlikely that Uranium is distributed evenly throughout the earth's crust. If it were, it would require lots of energy to extract it. It is mostly found in clumps of varying sizes; these are exploited by mining. The problem with your naive model is that only a few cu kms of the earth's crust are mineable due to physical [under deep pools of water] and engineering constraints. Besides, a figure like you quoted is a conjecture, albeit maybe an educated one.
Again, how can it be known that there is enough Uranium to support a vast buildup in the nuclear powere industry?
I would also like to point out that the plutonium via breeder reactor and thorium as feedstock for creating U-233 still require a source of neutrons, and that source in turn is driven by energy - there is no free lunch.
However, maybe Santa will come and leave us a glowing lump of Uranium rather than a black lumo of coal some Christmas.
This often gets brought up, but fortunately the data is there:
http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/UraniuamDistribution
Well a trillion tons will only last global demand for 20000 years if we had to replace all fossil fuels.
In some alternate universe where there was only fertile fuel and no fissile fuel, you can allways create an energy positive neutron source from accelerator driven spallation; Fortunately we dont have to do such silliness, as we have far more fissile fuel than we know what to do with.
My request to the advocates of nuclear power, besides going beyond silly comments about green wackoes, is to explain the plan, do the numbers, show how the economy is going to cope with the necessary build to replace coal and the current decaying nuclear infrastructure, not to mention replacing the energy no longer available from oil and gas. I want to see this plan elaborated in the context of declining EROI of the overall energy supply. I would like it to take into account some political realities.
Saying that because we can afford today to burn money in the tar pits, we will be able to invest tomorrow in nuclear, doesn't do it for me. Nor does pointing to France's successful nuclear build program during the golden age of oil.
I'm agnostic on nuclear. Convince me. But don't just say it can be done because it should be done. Or because some environmentalists or NASA scientists believe it must be done. I want a business plan.
I want to know what happens to the economy when x-number of dollars are invested in nuclear and not in projects-y-or-z. I want to know what happens to the price of inputs when the program is large enough to be significant. I want to know how the unruly masses or privileged elites are convinced to quietly wait for the blessings of nuclear to reveal themselves.
Go ahead, nuclear advocates. Make my day. And I'll tell you what, I'll give you two passes: Let us assume that scarcity of uranium is not a problem, and let us assume that the waste problem will be disposed of without cost.
Quck calculation:
US coal capacity: ~300 GW (utilised at ~70%, but let's ignore that for now)
To replace it with nuclear at current price of $2,500/KW (this does not assume economies of scale!) would cost:
300 * 2,500 * 1,000,000 = US $750 billion
If we undertake a 20 year program - this would be 37.5 billion/year or 0.3% of US GDP. Or $100 per person.
For comparison:
US military budget ~ $600 billion/year
US cost of Iraq adventure: ~ $100 billion/year
Now it turns out that I as a taxpayer am paying $300 a year to fight who knows who in Iraq, but you are worrying whether the public (or our kids because it will be borrowed money) can not bear $100/year so that those same kids can breath cleaner air and not die in coal mines or oil wars. Do I need to comment?
A ramp-up of nuclear is inevitable, has begun, and will require lots of capital. You've touched on an issue I see is not addressed in current debates, except by nuclear advocates - what are the capital requirements for the various generation options?
I suggest you start reading http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/
As to the costs for handling spent nuclear fuel, may I recommend an article I did here:
http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1108
As to replacement fo transport fuels, I estimated that using the SAIC report as a guide and current capital costs per barrel, we could handle a 3% depletion rate for an annual additional investment rate of about $250 billion a year. None of those methods are nuclear however.
That doesn't answer your question exactly and it is one that certainly deserves a more thorough analysis. It really is several questions. First what is the capital budget to meet new electrical demand growth with only nuclear power. Second, what is the budget for all new demand growth + electric plant retirements, including coal and natural gas-fueled. Third, what do we budget to meet #2 plus take market share in transportation by displacing petroleum.
The first new US nuke is scheduled to go on line Q1, 2015. Unless that design is replicated elsewhere, the next plants would not be available until 2020.
As to "current decaying nuclear infrastructure" please don't confuse Cold War messes with civilian nuclear power plants. The latter are well maintained, as they are highly profitable, and have decommissioning funds established that are, in aggregrate, largely fully funded.
As a supporter of nuclear energy I agree these are valid points. Yesterday I discussed these issues with an employee at the world's largest uranium mine (Olympic Dam) whose expansion is somewhat hamstrung by the need for fossil inputs.
My back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest we need to 'save' or set aside perhaps 10% of remaining fossil energy use for future embodied energy capital. Instead of which we using every last drop joyriding around in SUVs. On present consumption patterns this massive investment can't happen.
Sure, math, here you go.
Most estimates assume nuclear will cost around $2,000/KW of capacity. Recent experience shows that even in the very low production world (a few reactors here and there) this is a substantial overestimate, the average is something like $1,000 or $1,500 IIRC. Anyway, $2,000 it is.
So, the US used about 95 Quadrillion BTUs in 1998, lets just say 100 QUADs, shall we. Assume the current numbers are fairly similar (10 or 20% isn't going to matter here, this won't probably be that accurate anyway). There are around 1,000 Joules in a BTU, about 10,000 hours in a year, and about 4,000 seconds in an hour, for simplification.
That means that the US uses annually around 1.0e20 joules per year. There are 40,000,000, 4.0e7 seconds in a year, so 1KW of electrical capacity (90+% utilization, rounding error....) is about 4.0e10 Joules per year, and it costs around $2,000 to build (nuclear plants here), and produces electricity for anywhere from $0.02 to $0.04/KWh once built.
These are all fairly standard numbers that can be easily looked up. Your average reactor is around 1GW capacity (4.0e16 joules/year), so about 2,500 of them would provide all US energy requirements, in the form of electricity. This would cost a grand total of 5 trillion dollars, or around 40% of US GDP for one year. That's right, for what it takes to run our government for a two years, we could produce reactors that could provide all our energy for 30 years. Spread out over 30 years, with interest, it's only 2-4% of GDP per year, not a significant number.
The operational cost of these is about (if $0.04/KWh) $1 per 1.0e8 Joules, or about 1.0e12 (a trillion dollars) for all the US energy needs.
Note one thing however. Much of the energy calculated for the US energy needs was in fact used to produce electricity, with about 40% efficiency rating. The rest is often used to do things that electricity can do more efficiently. This means that we have dramatically overestimated the cost of this whole system, probably by almost a factor of 2, and even so the price is well under 10% of the GDP. Even if we assume that we have to go through some horrible conversion process (split water into hydrogen, use hydrogen to make methanol, etc...) to make this into liquid fuels (though I don't see why we would want to, just throwing it out there), the result would be less significant than the fact that we have wildly overestimated in the first place.
Basically, even with no fossil inputs (use the unused half of the power to generate liquid fuels, etc, with large thermodynamic losses) we would still use less than 10% of GDP on nuclear power right now to supply ALL energy needs with nuclear. This is with pessemistic assumptions, no economies of scale, etc... Want to be rediculously pessimistic, assume that everything is twice as bad as estimated (4x as bad as reality, at least), and it's still only 20% of GDP, which can definitely be lived with.
There you go. No matter how you run the numbers, the truth is we just don't spend much money on energy, and nuclear is the second cheapest source (after coal), no matter how you slice it.
Go find 2500 sites for nukes and we can talk turkey.
We can build them all near the coast (but not too near I suggest :) or on major rivers. No particular problems with that.
How about 25 sites with 100 reactors each?
I would make the same request of some of the 'Solar Rollers' on the feasibility of massive ramp up for Solar PV electricity. The energy return on PV is so marginal that any large-scale diversion of available energy toward building a PV-based infrastructure would starve the economy of energy for other necessities. I'm not a big fan of Nukes, but they are probably more feasible from an EROI point of view.
I would say nuke EROEI is 50 to 70.
Uranium has been explored for much less intensively than oil.
Mining companies have distinct reserve reporting from oil. In oil you can estimate with large scale geophysical measurements a good estimate over a wide area. With metals mining you have to actually drill---it is like the very conservative SEC requirements for US-based oil companies---and they don't drill beyond a certain # of years of future bookable reserves.
And then there's the facts that there are many alternative fuel cycles which can greatly amplify the usefulness of a given amount of mined uranium. And then there's thorium, more abundant than uranium.
Right now much of the nuclear waste has plenty of usefully fissionable isotopes which aren't even being used.
There is a short-term supply imbalance in uranium, but that's because primary production nearly completely shut down. That isn't at all like the oil industry which has been producing intensively for decades and they start pretty much as soon as a viable find is located.
Summary: the physics and geology of uranium for energy needs is fundamentally different from oil.
Buzzard Oil Field Start Delayed Due to Bad Weather
This is why I think "bottom up" estimates are too optimistic...
That's a bird that ain't gonna fly.
This is all just part of that flood of oil which will be arriving any time now.
As a matter of fact, this will just make that flood the ever more so bountiful, and oil will plummet again to $20 a barrel, and all our hearts will bleed for the poor pitiful oil companies, who will just have to fall back on their meager profits from the time when Bush's high taxes and tight government controls caused so much trouble.
At some point, the numbers will pretty much be beyond dispute, and that point is pretty much about now, in my opinion, give or take. We are at a plateau, a fact supported by data that is no longer possible to dismiss, though its meaning remains open to discussion.
Especially taking into account minimal hurricane disruptions in the Gulf of Mexico, and very warm weather through the fall, the fact that the price of oil remains stable around $60 (and where are all the posters which used to trumpet oil at $58 and sinking as a sign of that coming oil flood?) seems to be the sort of 'price signal' that economists will use as a historical example to show why economics is such a useful way to approach reality. And why societies which don't follow such clear economic precepts as 'rising prices are a clear signal of decreasing supply in face of constant or growing demand' are destined for failure.
I assume Barclays meant 'financial wealth'. There are of course other kinds.
Keeping score in the coming decades will likely be by measures other than digits in a bank.
Money is just how we keep score. Except in terms of speculative excesss, financial capital represents real capital--buildings, machines, tools, trucks, etc.
I'm advising my friends to get out of the stock market and into Treasury Inflation Protected securities. Two years ago I told them to get out of real estate . . . .
sorry don the sailorman but i dont agree with you about those TIPS . they are bid down, yield wise, just like any other bond. and why are they bid down so low ? cash lots and lots of cash, mountains of cash and imo cash will keep stocks afloat as well. too many $$$$$$$$$ chasing too few equities.
Compare the performance of TIPs with the Standard and Poors 500 index over the past five years; the TIPs win--not too shabby for a risk-free investment.
The point with TIPs is that both the priciple amount and the yield are protected from inflation; no other investment can do that.
They did rather poorly this year, though...cash beat em up down and sideways.
I never look at annual performance. Instead I find it useful to look at successive five year periods, ten year periods and twenty year periods.
For example, I bought See's Candy back in 1963 for about twelve dollars a share. Not too long thereafter Warren Buffett bought See's Candy and my shares turned into Berkshire Hathaway shares. Guess what a $12 Share of Berkshire Hathaway Class A stock closed at yesterday;-)
FWIW, they are discussing them here:
http://themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com/2007/01/new-years-resolutio...
"protected" by the CPI ? i don't doubt your investment record but my experience with TIPS has been...............well i am outta them. and i gave up on anything resembling "investing". speculating is more accurate ............ just chasing the next asset bubble .
I gave up on speculation back in 1962. That year I bought several hundred shares of Pato Consolidated Gold Dredging at about $2.25 per share. A few years later they were up above $10 per share and had also paid out a couple of dollars in cash dividends. Recognizing my good luck I put my money into See's Candy, and then later on Parker Drilling.
In all my investing history my mistakes have been in selling too soon. It is hard for me to think of a stock or bond that I regret buying. Now at my age all I have to do is to protect my capital and maintain my income in real terms--relatively easy tasks with TIPs.
that makes us two horses of different colors i suppose but you are one of the few "economists" i have come across that has any practical information to give
Right Nate. I have a root cellar full of home grown potatoes, carrots, jerusalem artichokes, leeks, beets, onions, garlic, and canned goods. I have a solar greenhouse full of fresh salad greens. I have a young heifer and bull about to deliver a calf and start giving me fresh milk. I have an amish cook stove and plenty of wood to keep my house warm. I feel rich.
"and bull about to deliver a calf and start giving me fresh milk"
That sounds interesting and unique. althoug I may pass on the bull milk...
Hi Nate - how's the Amish girl doing? Its 2nd January and time to be watching movies with my family - so I rented "Snakes on a plane" and "Syriana" - which we've already watched. I think the vote goes with snakes tonight.
To get on topic - Uganda energy problems - just draw attention to the fact that Irish HQd, London listed Tullow Oil recently bought Australian listed Hardman Resources. Both are long on African oil acreage, both involved in the unfolding tragedy that is Chinguetti in Mauritania. Tullow and Hardman, however, were involved 50:50 in some oil discoveries in Uganda - a continental exploration play. Worth researching for risk minded readers.
I would like to propose a new discussion direction for TOD in 07: the economic effects of more expensive liquid fuels.
We on the site are "the converted" - so we all agree among ourselves. But lets speculate for a moment on the implications of oil going to $90, then $120, then $150 and beyond for the US economy and world economy
questions
- when will this occur? (can any of the mathematicians graph this?)
- how will demand destruction play out? (I suspect most people on this site are comfortable, well educated, middle class people. A doubling of gas prices would be aggravating but not life changing. Not so the people at the bottom of the ladder. And not so the third world - as the WSJ article showed in Africa)
- what will be the reaction of the Fed Govt? (what options do they have?)
- what will be the reaction of the Federal Reserve to the rampant inflation and stagflation (does the Ben Bernake have any options?)
- what will be the reaction of the Treasury Dept? (Paulson has said he beleives there will be a financial crisis sooner than later. He says it could be caused by China coming off the rails. Paulson has also re-invigorated the "Plunge Protection Team" which is the SEC, the Fed, Treasury, and I think the big five wall street banks. They now meet every six weeks and their role is rapid response and coordination for the next stock market crash)
- how will this affect the housing market?
- how will this affect international trade and international relations?
- how will this affect the US military globally - the global US military presence - with hundreds of thousands of staff permenanty stationed in Europe and Asia. This setup in place since WW2 can only be supported with massive excess wealth. If the US withdraws, how wil this affect the balance of power
There are several websites that discuss the coming dollar collapse, caused by credit expansion, the growth of asia, the growth of debt at all levels etc. What I find interesting is that they do not mention oil.
If these economists are correct, the US, and Europe, are on very shaky ground right now. I think when you link this with coming dramatic rises in energy prices, it could be a "perfect storm" scenario.
We have all grown up, in North America (and Europe) in the past 50 years, with a certain way of life and a certain mindset as to how things will play out. We have had cheap and plentiful resources of all types, and uncommon levels of wealth, on a historical basis.
I dont think we really understand or have thought through the implications.
I think we need to go beyond the obvious things like better energy efficiency, and a better lifestyle.
Could another Great Depression happen?
What would be the sequence of events that would lead up to it?
Is this likely?
what is the possible timing of it?
what would it look like to the average person?
My parents lived through the depression, and have stories.
so... maybe Im a pollyanna. but I think this would be an interesting discussion.
(notice I did not mention buying gold)
"We on the site are "the converted" - so we all agree among ourselves."
Do you always feel a need to classify the world into "them" and "us"? If so, I would say you fully bought into "their" ideology, already. In reality the world revolves around neither group's thinking but follows a few simple laws that science can discover. One does not have to "convert" in order to understand these laws and learn to use them to understand the world. This is not a religion but simply an intellectual exercise. And the keyword is indeed "learning"... as in "learning in school and college".
Your arbitrary choices of $90/$120/$150/barrel oil are meaningless. There are no hard decision points in the real world, although they might show up on your spreadsheet model if you happen to have one. In which case it is far more likely that you have a crappy model than that anything particularly special will happen at any of these numbers. As far as Europe is concerned, the $120/barrel scenario has already happened, most Europeans pay close to $6/gallon for their gas. Did you see anything particularly bad happen to the European economy? The Euro is doing great, so much so that my dollars are becoming rather useless.
Demand destruction will not set in. What will set in is "waste destruction". At least 70% of all oil we use is wasted with inefficient machines (think SUVs) and processes (continental trucking rather than rail transport).
The federal government will do nothing about PO because it does not have any effective means to force the planet into providing more oil. You can't declare war on geology. The federal government will, however, do something about the waste by slightly raising gas taxes and efficiency standards. And while this would have been highly effective ten years ago, as of now it will mostly amount to actionism to prove to the voter that they are on the ball. I doubt either party will have the guts to introduce a 100% gas tax and have the discipline to invest ALL the tax revenue in a fleet replacement program and renewables.
Why would there be rapid inflation and stagflation? Just because some people will have to leave their SUVs at home?
The financial crisis you are talking about has everything to do with the spending policies of the federal government and the debt tolerance of the private citizen. It has absolutely nothing to do with PO. Please compare our defense budget and Christmas shopping spree with our spending on oil imports. Oil hardly makes a dent on that scale.
The housing market's problem is caused by retiring baby boomers who are foolishly over-invested in their own real-estate. PO will change only one thing about it: your monthly heating bill.
Oil is a tiny fraction of international trade. Why would it affect trade relations? Are you going to buy less crap from China because the Chinese happen to need oil to produce it for you? Are Ford and GM going to use more expensive parts produced in the US in their cars?
The US military presence in Europe will be missed by the local retailers who sell to US soldiers. Pretty much everyone else won't care. In Germany most people will be glad when you are gone. Not that I see this happening.
The economists are correct not to mention PO in their analysis of financial markets. Oil is not driving the problems of the $. And the Euro is doing just fine on its own. It has decades of room to grow with Europe spreading wealth over an area twice the size of its initial core of wealthy Western European states.
"We have all grown up, in North America (and Europe) in the past 50 years,..."
That would be one of those "favorite religious beliefs" because many people in Europe have heard about PO a long time ago. It was discussed (although not under this terminology) in one of my highschool classes and we learned about renewable energy two decades before it actually became mainstream. Many people in Europe know that things change and they are used to it. The history of Europe is one of change and every generation is learns to adjust to very different circumstances. Nobody is freaked out about that.
"I think we need to go beyond the obvious things like better energy efficiency, and a better lifestyle."
Why? Saving 4% oil a year from 2010 on is not rocket science. You can do it simply by getting yourself a Prius. American's have an annual electricity bill of 11000kWh/person. 4% of that is 440kWh. That is roughly 1.2kWh a day. Since on average the sun shines for four hours a day on a solar panel, panels with 300W peak will get the job done. So if you add two solar panels a year to your home, you have done your part and you will be energy independent in 25 years. Alternatively you can simply sign up for green energy from your utility and they will build the necessary infrastructure for you. Big deal, not.
You could, on the other hand, invest in gold. I am sure that will solve the energy crisis for sure. At least for those people profiting from selling it to you.
:-)
"- what will be the reaction of the Fed Govt? (what options do they have?)"
See slide #21 (http://energybulletin.net/23259.html):
Don't pay any attention to National Politicians. It only encourages them. They are a colossal distraction. Stay focused.
Very good post and questions - welcome to T1 Chaos.
Poly, less than 1% of oil contracts pass thru the spot oil marketplace. It could fly to $500 and won't mean a tinker's damn.
But should contract prices rise to the $70 mark (presently $55), demand destruction would set in to increasing magnitudes that by the end of 24 months the usa would be in recession. That positive feedback dampens prices in itself, but on top of that u have the alternative purchasers (china) whose resale market for manufactured goods is ... again ... the usa.
During the 2006 price spike, we saw the usa cutback demand by 1%. Non-oecd nations increased demand by 4%.
You will never see your $90 threshold (in terms of acquisition cost) in 2007 dollars in your lifetime. Atleast not for a sustained four quarter period.
The doomsters here do not understand demand destruction and the recessionary forces inherent in higher prices. If energy costs jump 30%, that money comes directly out of disposable income and in the end out of the economy and Real GDP. Money spent on that energy differential is money that cannot be spent on consumer goods etc etc and eventually brings about a higer rate of unemployment.
When one understands the purchase process of gas, oil and electricity by the major players, it is easy to dismiss the absurd rhetoric of the dieoff and end of suburbia fraternities.
First, the fraction of chinese output that is shipped to the us is shrinking fast. The internal market is growing far faster than their exports... eg car sales up 50%. As their internal market grows they will become more independent... no doubt exchanging dollars for oil in storage is just the first step.
Second, higher contract prices support the dollar . Foreign buyers still need $ to buy, which is why the dollar was ok while oil was rising and not so good during the fall.
Third, higher prices are good for the us oil patch, which is now booming. Much of the non oil patch middle class can withstand higher prices, maybe even 2x... tho i admit a combination of lower real estate and higher oil is problematic.
I reiterate that US ng production/Canadian imports will be down a combined 1.5+Tcf in 07. This, + higher demand from warmer summers, will more than trump warm 07/8 winter... which we all hope is in store. HIgher prices will bring back some rigs, but imo never enough from now on.
Dear Poly,
In response to your question: "when will this occur? (can any of the mathematicians graph this?)"
Here is a mathematical guess at the future oil prices.
For 2007, the oil price stays above $US60 and could reach $US90 by Dec2007.
A unfavourable gap between forecast demand and supply starts in Oct2007 which could cause significant economic pain.
The oil price continues to show seasonal volatility and reaches almost $US120 by Dec2010. Price volatility could increase due to events such as hurricanes, terrorism, Middle East conflicts, cold weather and high production decline rates. For example, Saudi Arabia oil production might show an unexpected decline. Saudi Arabia's term for this is a "voluntary production cut".
Given the large number of assumptions, OPEC intervention and speculators, the above forecast has very high uncertainty.
Assumptions:
World total liquids supply declines at -0.8%/year and demand increases at 1.7%/year. The decline is estimated from scenario 1 of my guest post on the oil drum http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/12/11/231813/91
The demand growth comes mainly from China, Other Asia and Middle East and is based partly on the IEA monthly market reports http://omrpublic.iea.org/archiveresults.asp?formsection=tables&formdate=... OECD countries show almost no demand growth. Liquids include crude oil, lease condensate, NGLs and processing gains. Although forecast demand is greater than supply the gap is closed by increased price because ultimately demand must be approximately equal to supply.
Mild winter weather is assumed to continue and the price forecast from Jan2007 to Jun2007 is assumed to be a simple linear regression forecast based on the oil price (SDR) historic trend from Jan2002 to Dec2006.
Price elasticity of oil demand is assumed to increase from 0.10 in Jul2007 to 0.52 in Dec2010. The elasticity is assumed to be the same for increasing and decreasing prices. Elasticities are assumed to constant for all countries. For an interesting paper on elasticities –
http://cta.ornl.gov/cta/Publications/Reports/ORNL_TM2005_45.pdf
The oil price is forecast is SDRs (Special Drawing Rights) which simulate a global currency. The USD has devalued significantly against the Euro during the last few years and oil price increases measured in the USD gives a distorted view. It is assumed that the USD:SDR exchange rate remains constant at 1.50 from Jan2007 to Dec2010. The SDR is explained in http://www.imf.org/external/np/fin/data/param_rms_mth.aspx
The time unit of a month was selected because supply figures are given monthly. Demand data is quarterly and is assumed to be the same for each month in the quarter. Prices are assumed to be month end and are from http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_wco_k_w.htm
“All Countries Spot Price FOB Weighted by Estimated Export Volume (Dollars per Barrel)”
Ace, excellent research and references herein, but i fail to see how your forecast of "all liquids" can show a decrease when your analysis in Scenario One was purposely limited to "C+C".
There seems to be a total absence of usa demand destruction and the Recessionary effect of increased pricing from your analysis also. In 2006, the usa cut demand by 1%. Non-oecd nations increased demand 4%. Your premise that demand in the usa will follow in tandem is a serious error. At $55 the usa has reached its pain threshold somewhat. Each incremental price movement will have measurable and significant feedbacks from this point...
RE: Denial Machine
I find this terribly disturbing, but not surprising.
Coincidently, I just read a commentary by Paul Craig Roberts in which he decries the loss of scientific truth and truth in general. His commentary focuses on the history of America's wars and the propaganda that has persisted in relation to warmongering, but, nonetheless, the general culture of eschewing truth and objectivity is the true heart of the problem. The media working with honest academics could stop the unrelenting spin cycle but the will to do so is lacking.
The Disrespect for Truth has Brought a New Dark Age
Thank goodness we can rely on the the honesty and integrity of geologists Kenneth Deffeyes, Colin Campbell, Jeffrey Brown, Ron Patterson and others to lead the debate on fossil fuel depletion. I would be lost in the spin zone without them.
I have seen many articles of this nature, suggesting a decline in some or other moral feature of society. The basic premise is invariably wrong. When was a society, any society, based on truth? There never has. The hope that truth would prevail and provide a moral direction to society has been around for a long while, and is quite obviously still around today, if anything more so.
The statement by the author
In the past police solved crimes. Today they round up suspects and pressure them.
is both inaccurate and naive, or a distortion beyond rhetoric. Prosecutors and police have always behaved like that.
What has changed, is the way these events are reported, and the public sensitivity to them. In the past, a guy getting beaten up by police may not even have made it into the papers. Apart from protesting in the streets, and risking similar violent assault, there was little way for the public to voice disagreement.
Today, these events can be filmed and a video released to the world within hours. There are many more ways people can voice their dissatisfaction, even via the MSM. Sure, there is still a lot of selective reporting, news management and many things we don't hear about, but it is radical improvement to the past.
The rise of PR and spin is a response to the loss of control that those in authority have over the the media. It is an indication that the media generally are more effective at reporting things powerful people don't want heard.
Unfortunately, truth will never be the basis for human society, because that is not how humans work. But I think the truth has a better chance to get out there than at any time before.
Well, I agree with the part that there never really was a society that was a paragon of honesty and morality. There have always been corruption, mendacity, and ruthless unprincipled people highly skilled at working the system.
However, I diverge from your view regarding law enforcement and the criminal justice system. Law enforcement has literally become an industry, particularly with the proliferation of privately operated prisons, private security firms, and the increasing militarization of domestic police.
The War on Drugs and other 'law and order' initiatives have resulted in the US having one of the highest incarceration rates in the entire world. As an American, I find this fact highly embarrassing.
It is also matter of fact that most criminal cases do not go to trial because prosecutors are increasingly filing trumped up charges and then plea-bargining those charges down to what they really should have been. Public defenders provide marginal legal representation, so unless you have the big bucks to hire first-rate legal talent, you are largely at the mercy of the system.
Lastly, I strongly disagree with your take on the MSM. While cell phone and video cameras might be able to better expose a Rodney King type episode, I see little evidence of the MSM getting more inclined to expose embarrassing and damaging facts about the powers that be. What with the consolidation of the MSM into a small number of mega corporations, and the increasingly cozy relationship between the federal government and these corporations, the MSM has become quite cowardly in saying anything that will wrinkle the Bush regime.
I believe that if the MSM had really doing its job instead of being a defacto information ministry of the federal government, we might have been able to expose the bogus evidence offered as the justification for invading and occupying Iraq. The MSM now appears to be fulfilling this same function as it helps the Bush regime beat the war drums for attacking Iran.
I might even go so far as to say that if we had had today's MSM in place circa 1972 -74, there might never have been a Watergate scandal and Nixon would have gotten away with what he did.
Thank God for the internet, but the government is doing its best to eventually get that medium under its thumb.
So, as you can see, my view on these matters is not quite as rosy as yours.
I wish people would stop calling it:
Main
"Stream"
Media
as if somehow
A River Runs Through It.
Main Herd Maintenance System.
Keeps you all from cutting and running.
Stay the course.
The light at the end of the tunnel is attached to the automated butchering machine.
MSNBC answers the burning questions....Where does money come from, and how long can we keep spending money we don't have?
The reality of the demand for Treasury securities is more complex than the quote suggests. For one thing, there is a huge demand for Treasury bills, bonds and notes from financial institutions such as insurance companies and pension funds. These companies have liabilities denominated in dollars: Thus, they do not care what the rate of inflation is. Also, as nominal interest rates go up, T-Bills look like a better and better investment. Finally, as a last resort the Fed can buy a trillion dollars of Treasury securities each minute of every day if they feel like it; they have the legal authority to do so and to "write checks" on thin air.
"Finally, as a last resort the Fed can buy a trillion dollars of Treasury securities each minute of every day if they feel like it; they have the legal authority to do so and to "write checks" on thin air."
This has the smell of a perpetual motion machine. Something tells me the air won't keep these cheques afloat for long.
The name of the game is inflation.
The Fed is dedicated to fighting inflation and will do so until the burden of debt in the U.S. threatens collapse and deflation. Then and only then the Fed will give up its fight against inflation, and the behavior of the dollar will then resemble that of the Mexican peso over the past fifty years.
Enjoy 2007. It may be later than you think.
I pray every morning for another day of inflated worth for the greenback.
I'm not sure the peso is the right template. The dollar plays a different and more complex role than the peso. It has a larger group of friends and dependents. I'm not even sure that sterling a century ago provides a useful example to help us anticipate what will happen with the dollar.
The history of the pound sterling is fascinating but not helpful to understanding the dollar. From 1815 through 1913 sterling kept its value, and indeed increased in value for more than sixty years after 1815. Then World War I nearly bankrupted Britain, and Winston Churchill in the Treasury department did the worst possible thing: He kept sterling convertible to gold and kept the pound worth about five U.S. dollars. This was a horrible horrible mistake; Churchill could have let the pound float and saved the United Kingdom much pain. Then came World War Two which once again just about bankrupted the U.K. despite the brilliant efforts of John Maynard Keynes, the man who designed the Bretton Woods agreement. The pound gradually went down against the dollar, but it never really collapsed.
The U.S. dollar has seen some hard times, e.g. during the Revolutionary War and also during the Civil War. However, having said that, the dollar was worth about as much in 1913 as it was in 1815. The Great Inflation for the U.S. dates approximately to the year I was born, 1940. The dollar today is worth about one twentieth as much as it was early in the twentieth century. I expect the dollar to be worth about one tenth of its current value within twenty years.
Why?
Because to avoid the failure of financial institutions and a meltdown of debt deflation there is one and only one thing the Fed can do: Namely and to wit, the Fed can monetize the debt and accept abruptly and severely falling value to the dollar. The Fed is most emphatically not going to want to do this. They claim it cannot happen here. Well, I think the members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System will have to fall on their swords and accept double digit inflation for many years to escape worse eventualities.
Save your pennies, save your nickels.
"Save your pennies, save your nickels."
With double digit inflation, why bother? Only for the inherent metal value of the coin?
I think the feds will crank up the printing presses too, but isn't it smart with such inflation to buy now and pay later with cheap dollars? Granted, that also assumes future employment, which I think will be very risky to count on.
Pennies and nickels will hold their value, just as silver coins minted before 1965 have held their value.
If I knew the TIMING of the coming abrupt and severe inflation, then I'd say, "Mortgage to the hilt, max out your credit cards, get into debt on the good dollar, get out of debt on the U.S. peso."
Unfortunately, my crystal ball is cloudy.
If you have a good house, then a conventional thirty-year mortgage is a great inflation hedge. Of course, if your house is a piece of suburban cr*p, you should sell it, take your losses and think again.
During the German inflation of 1923 great fortunes were made by those who aggressively went into debt. For fun, Google "Hugo Stinnes."
The worst possible thing you can do in an era of increasing inflation is to get out of debt and to "stay liquid." The German middle class was wiped out by staying liquid.
History always repeats itself, but with variations.
Note that the German inflation of 1923 came after Germany lost a war and could not pay off its debts. Sound vaguely familiar?
Hi Don, what investment vehicles are you currently using an inflation hedge?
The equity markets will surely get hurt when inflation takes off, but that's no reason to "get out." Look at inverse funds like Rydex and ProFunds - make money on the way down, too.
I have my savings in a diverse set of equities. My "conservative" part is in hydroelectric utilities (or merchant power sellers that own hydro) in Canada, Brazil, New Zealand, Austria and Switzerland. On the lookout for other hydro investments.
The assets will long outlive me, give decent current income and compete directly with natural gas in each of the markets (NG is a minor source of electricity in Brazil), giving the potential for a very good uptick.
Other investments are US railroads, US based exporters, foreign mutual funds in Japan, Brazil & Switzerland and, of course, oil and gas companies.
My approach is multifaceted, "owning" real assets with enduring value (IMHO).
Best Hopes,
Alan
TIPS through the Vanguard Mutual Fund that invests in Treasury Inflation Protected Securities.
During the Great Depression, fortunes were made by those who were not in debt and had cash to buy up property at firesale prices. In little Burnsville, NC where I used to live there was a man named Earnest Briggs who had done this. He was fond of cruising around the town square in his Excaliber. Must've owned half the town.
Roll the dice and take your chances.
Isn't any of that really equivalent to admitting that we have been living beyond our means for many years and that US wealth is not nearly as much as we want to believe it is?
If that is the case, what is the measure of true, personal debt that any one person in the US would have to pay back in order to make up for the difference? Wouldn't it be cheaper to actually pay back that debt rather than to let the currency decline? Or is it all the same? What is the annual interest we are paying on not paying back now?
The debt figures are astronomical, and unless you are comfortable with parsecs and light years I suggest not looking at totals.
Debt for every man woman and child in the U.S. is humongous--but misleading. Why? Much of that debt is just a "book amount" held by the Fed in the form of U.S. Treasury securities; for various reasons, that amount of debt should not be counted except maybe as a potential for monetizing the debt.
The train wreck that is U.S. finance is mainly based on unfunded liabilities for U.S. veterans, Social Security recipients, U.S. pensions and some other obligations. The only way these future obligations can be paid, in my opinion, is by debasing the currency and letting the value of the dollar slide down to where it is a small fraction of what it is now.
When I was a kid, milk in school cost one cent. Post cards were one cent. First class postage was three cents. At a barbershop, the expression was, "Shave and a haircut, two-bits (i.e. 25 cents)." The house that my father bought in 1943 for $4,800 is currently valued at over two million dollars. Movies used to be a dime, then came World War Two and the war tax raised that to twelve cents. Twelve cents for a movie . . . outrageous!
I am very comfortable with parsecs and light years. I am also not afraid of large numbers or exponential notation. Maybe logarithmic scales are useful when talking about debt?
:-)
I guess I am thinking more practically. Debt is debt and needs to be paid back, one way or another. I understand that these securities are dated and that not all the money is due at the same time, but aren't they just another form of traded currency, in the end? So if holders of these securities want to cash out on them now (even at a loss), they will sell them and this will certainly impact the real currency just as well. I am simply wondering how bad it is in real dollar terms if we add it all up.
There is no reason why corporations or governments should ever repay their debts. Both are potentially immortal. So long as profits or tax revenues increase at say, two percent per year, then debt can increase at two percent per year forever with potentially no problem.
People die. Thus they are expected to pay off debts at or before death.
The problem is not with government debt, it is with government debt growing too fast. Ditto for corporate and consumer debt.
The ONLY way out of a debt debacle is through abrupt severe and unexpected inflation. That works every time. Nothing else can work.
As you say, "So long as profits increase", but what if these tax revenues no longer increase, but decrease? In this case, even for a government, the lesser debts the better..
When was the last time the government consistently borrowed less than by what the economy of the US grew? Or the consumer... just wondering. And actually, if you borrow more one year than what the economy grew and never pay that back, the interest will reduce your ability to borrow to the max next year without running up the tab. So the longer we borrow too much, the less we will be allowed to borrow in the future unless we are looking forward to a fiscal catastrophy. Isn't that right?
The catastrophy becomes inevitable once the interest payments on the total debt are higher than the amount we could pay back, even if we wanted to. I think they call that bancruptcy in real life and the usual consequence is that your creditors take the hit and will not like to do business with you in the future. I guess we are in for an interesting experiment to see if this also applies in a global economy... it might actually not. What might instead happen is that the US can actually extract money from the rest of the world by exploitung their fear from going down as their most important customer. That way the world creates a consumer machine which siphons off some of its total GDP but keeps it running at high rpm. And that works for the US until the world finds a cheaper and/or more powerful "engine"...
I don't think the last scenario actually works for the planet as a whole, but then, who cares... we can always buy a new one, right?
Until the end of World War Two the U.S. tended to run surpluses in peacetime and run up debts during war. During most non-wartime years the federal budget was approximately balanced, because that was thought to be sound fiscal policy.
Then came a group characterized by some economic historians as the "bastard Keynesians," i.e., economists who were identified by themselves and others as Keynesian but who in fact violeted Keynes's goal: He said budgets should run surpluses about nine out of every ten years and then a big deficit during recession or depression years.
Now the Republican orthodoxy is that "Deficits don't matter!"
But of course they do.
There is enough blame to go around. Oddly enough, you can't blame the Fed: The Federal Reserve System is always preaching prudence and restraint in spending. Congress and the President of course pay no attention, then use the Fed as a whipping boy when inflation gets out of control or when interest rates go up.
I don't think Keynes has ever been put to a controlled long term test. I don't even think the world would actually appreciate such a test.
In the US the prevalent political economics theory is: If there are cookies in the jar, grab as many as you can and then run. And always blame your brother for the jar being empty.
That theory seems to work... for those who get the cookies.
Simple answer to your first question: Clinton ran surplusses.
Good point. But debt in the overall credit market still grew as a percentage of GDP, and very fast in 1998-99. Of course, under Bush there has been a huge increase in that ratio every single year.
I have been quite frugal and fiscally responsible all my life, and it's beginning to look more and more likely that my reward for being that way will be to get eventually wiped out, either through massive inflation or destruction of buying power if the Fed should monetize the debt and thus devalue the dollar.
(If there ever was a euphemism, 'monetizing the debt' has to be one of the best I've heard. What a nice way of saying, "let's steal from everybody who has money saved up.")
I getting more and more inclined to go on a spending spree for all the things I need of a utilitarian nature, such as new car(s), appliances, home repairs, clothes, tools, building materials, and anything else of use that I can fit into my house. These will get used eventually, so why let the money rot in the bank?
I suppose gold and/or silver might also be a good hedge, but the past history of each has not exactly been inspiring. And can't the government, to some extent, manipulate the price of each?
It's a real quandry, but I guess there is no such thing as total financial security (unless you are filthy rich to begin with).
My father was frugal and patriotic all his life. During World War Two he put all his wealth into U.S. Government savings bonds that yielded two and three quarters percent interest. He died in 1956 with more than half of his wealth wiped out by inflation.
Frugality and saving do not always pay.
Your strategy of investing in physical objects you might need one day will hardly work. First of all, almost every physical item comes with a finite lifetime and even conserving items with long potential lifetimes (on the order of decades) requires continuous investments. Money was (for one thing) invented to hedge against the change of value of physical objects.
Because of the decay of value in the physical world, inflation is inevitable: if you leave the total amount of money the same but never replenish decaying goods, there would be less and less to buy, so in the end everything left would have astronomical prices. Think antiques...
We make up for this by working constantly to replenish our supply of physical items to use and to trade. And usually, thanks to progress, old items are being replaced with better versions of themselves. So if you bought a good fridge today, the inflation adjusted savings would probably be eaten up by the higher price of energy ten years from now when you plugged it in for the first time. Not to mention that chances are it wouldn't work at all and nobody could repair it.
If you are afraid of inflation, your best bet is not frugality but to live on credit. Inflation whipes out debt. That might be counterintuitive but those who had money in the bank went bust and those who owed money flourished in times of hyperinflation.
Chances are, however, that hyperinflation won't happen again and that being in debt will put you in. The credit card company surely thinks so. And they do know quite a bit about money.
Inflation is NOT inevitable. From the end of the Napoleanic Wars to the beginning of the First World War the British pound held its value, and so did the American dollar.
Inflation happens, according to Keynes, because of
1. The chronic impecuniosity of governments and
2. The superior political influence of the debtor class.
A few words on point #2: Debtors vote. Politicians know that. Creditors (banks, for example) tend to be politically unpopular, and anyway, banks know how to protect themselves during inflations--but not during deflation.
Odds of inflation vs. deflation over the next twenty years I put at nine to one.
But may I ask if that monetary stability in GB and 19th centuty US might not have come from exploitation of colonies and the taking of exploitation of Native American's land and slavery rather than proper economics?
I don't know enough about the details of Keynes' theory to comment. But my advice to those who ask me: get at least some of your assets out of US dollars...
If you work in the states, you should have at least half your assets (if you're not near retirement age) out of dollars. The reason is simple, you will most likely need your money if you lose your job. That is most likely to happen if the US economy tanks, which is also the sort of thing that will wipe out US based investments. If you move your money to a foreign country, then if the economy tanks, and you lose your job, your foreign investments will likely actually go up in value (to you) as the US dollar weakens.
Money overseas is a better hedge against the unexpected. By working here you are already betting almost everything on the continued health of the states, it would be foolish to make it absolutely everything.
"But may I ask if that monetary stability in GB and 19th centuty US might not have come from exploitation of colonies and the taking of exploitation of Native American's land and slavery rather than proper economics? "
It came from the fact that the money was directly tied to gold and neither country could increase increase the money supply faster than they could aquire and hold the gold.
Yeah, down deep I know that stocking up on major 'durable goods' is not going to do me all that much good in the long run. (Besides, my basement is already crowded with enough accumulated crap to leave much remaining room for a bunch of appliances, etc. put in storage.)
But in the short term, I think there is something to be said about not deferring the purchase of a major item that you are going to replace in a year or so anyway. I have two cars used for daily transportation (plus a '68 Beetle just for fun), and both are pushing 100K. So my thinking is: why wait until they just become more expensive and my savings have further shrunk due to inflation? So, if one believes that serious inflation is imminent, then buying non-frivolous stuff you will soon need anyway does make some sense, though it's by no means going to save you.
If you accept an advice you can buy a real estate in Bulgaria :)
Of course I am partial but if I had little more money aside, that's what I'd do... The country is still behind the curve of the global estate bubble (though catching up especially for front-end properties), has beautiful nature, compact towns, mass transit everywhere and its recent joining to EU ensures it won't be left isolated even if we have a difficult transition to make. We are also building two more nukes so most likely the lights won't go off... gosh I should get paid for this :)
Looking at debt from a resource point of view, rather than a financial one, it is clear that debt is a demand on future goods and services that have not yet been produced. In a situation with increasingly available cheap energy, even huge debts can have some hope of being paid back. In an era of decreasingly available cheap energy, the resource pie will shrink and lots of debt will go into default. Those that have the power to somehow enforce payment will naturally try to do so. But, as they say, you can't squeeze blood from a turnip, and things are likely to get ugly.
Hope I didn't mix too many metaphors:0
how 'bout unfunded ( off budget) liabilities like the search for wmds ?
There are about a thousand websites that compare the g-20 nations by measures of national debt and operating deficits (or surpluses in canada). They are run by economists and don't espouse to the negative scenarios brought to TOD by old farts.
None of the g-20 is even close to danger of their fiat currency. None. Way off the list was Argentia. A brat country that thumbed its nose at IMF offerings and paid the price in spades. It refused to conform to current economin and monetary policy models.
The usa has a bit of a problem with national debt. The amounts are mind staggering but not when addreseed in terms of percent of gdp. Japan has a deficit problem, but again, it has net worth that easily balances the effect.
Sailorman is spouting nonsense that makes the rounds on many internet fatalist websites. It is not a topic that concerns economists. The usa has immense tools via options in reduced program spending. Social Security is a nasty subject but in 2007 is easily remedied by a (recessionary) increase in payroll deductions of 1.6% to balance it to 2075.
Don't let grumpy old men with tales of the bogieman cloud your judgement and reality.
I've been following the discussions here on TOD for some months now in silence, and I have no intention of becoming a regular poster, but I can't let this go by. First, I don't know what economists Freddy Hutter deals with, but in my professional life I'm surrounded by them, and I know personally that some very senior economists in both the public and private sectors are indeed quite concerned at the US fiscal and trade deficits.
Second, I don't know what not being "close to danger to their fiat currency" might mean, but if Mr. Hutter means that G-20 countries are somehow immune from currency devaluation (which is inflation in another guise) he is wrong.
Lastly -- and this is what really caused me to post -- dismissing any contributor with age-based (or indeed any) insults is just plain rude, as well as being an ineffective form of argument. I invite Mr. Hutter to apologize to Sailorman (whose comments, incidentally, I like very much).
Laurie,
Thanks for your kind thoughts, but Freddy is always good for comic relief. He has no credibility on TOD because he obviously is trolling for customers: He sells advice and information on his website.
Now here is what is interesting. If he had good information and advice he could have used it to make his own fortune, and then he wouldn't have to always be seeking new customers. In fact, his ad hominem attack on me is the kind of fallacy you typically find from people who have neither facts nor logic on their side; it is a dead giveaway of the blowhard who has nothing of value to say.
Don't get angry with Freddy; we all need a laugh now and then.
"He sells advice and information from his website." Sailorman, u are so FULL of SHIT i don't know how u talk w/o farting from your mouth.
Please show Laurie where u came up with that load of crap. Speaking of which, most of your comments in the last week wrt economics are reworked internet hoaxes and urban legends that hold no water. Your theories on macro economics would embarrass a freshman. Another blowhard...
Over 400 sites have linked to TrendLines. U can probably see them all on Google. Our biz plan does not take advantage of the traffic, but i'll take your comments to heart and this year i'll construct a venue to translate some of that flow to dollars. I gave up yacht racing and Virgin charters when i came to the Yukon, but your suggestion of making this effort revenue producing may reawaken some pasttimes and make those trips to the caribbean more pleasant.
If the public will buy from a fraudster like yourself, i'll have no prob taking my stuff up the high road...
Once again, your resort to ad hominem fallacies shows the lack of value in your comments.
If by chance you are not (contrary to my statement) in the business of selling information in any shape form or manner, then I apologize.
So, all of your Trendline services are free, is that correct?
Don, i accept your apology with this disclosure: we have done political polling since 1990. Our Electoral College forecast in 2004 was #1 in the usa of the weekly prediction sites. Similarly our Riding Projections are among the best in Canada. And we do charge for political polling in Yukon Ridings and related feasibility studies.
Since 1995, i have been on dozens of mailing lists and forums. I found some recipients (that were bandwidth challenged) appreciated being sent a link to my tables, graphs and pic's rather than having heavy attachments churn their email servers. The site was originally setup as a repository for convenient viewing.
Many education institutions link to us. Many of our graphs have had lengthy stays at wikipedia, but strangely they have been deleted lately and replaced by khebab's.
I receive many requests for custom graphs and speaking engagements. Your unwarranted attack yesterday may be the trigger that finally convinces me to join the book whores out there that ply their wares for the bucks with full realization that they are playing to audiences' emotions and are not purveyors of knowledge. I can fill that gap...
I stayed away from drumbeat for over a year as i saw too much noise and authoratative boasts that were groundless. And i got critisized for infrequent visits. But the value add to noise ratio is getting worse due to tolerant moderation. The weekly TOD articles are marginally somewhat more professinal.
I actually enjoy many of your posts, Don. But it seems that u have recently fallen into the trap of dropping your conversation to the level of the imbeciles here rather than taking the extra work of raising the debate to your own level. I too am sorry for making "genaralized" statements about yourself.
So with 2007 upon us, look for "subscribe", "donate" and "lost your password" buttons soon...
Obviously, Freddy, I cannot know your motives for posting on TOD. However, the fact that you do sell some services causes some people to become (perhaps improperly) suspicious that you are trying to drum up business for your paid services by posting on TOD.
I do enjoy many of your posts.
BTW, you were the one to start flinging epithets, but I forgive you for that.
we have been living beyond our means, but not as dramatically as has been talked about here.
All told the US debt is less than 50% of GDP, well in line with what the debt loads look like in other countries (Japan has something like 120% of GDP for instance). That being said, times have been good and it's insane that we haven't paid this down, for which I of course blame Bush.
It should also be noted that much of the debt is held by the social security trust fund, and other branches of the government. Social security restructuring (basically fixing a couple of math errors in the original formula that has payments rising with inflation, but benefits rising with wages, which rise faster) would ensure continuous surplusses for the SS fund for the forseeable future, and thus allow about half the total debt to just be retired immediately.
The rest is somewhat more problematic, but certiainly not such a huge problem.
In any case, it is unlikely that the democrats will make substantial headway on paying that down, as they have more important priorities medical care, for instance. Also, if they do pay it down, it will just allow the next Bush like republican to swoop in and give the surplusses away to Halliburton, again. They will likely get the deficit under control, and just let the debt itself linger at nearly its present size.
That's my guess anyway.
Regardless, this situation has been produced by the export driven economies in the third world effectively manipulting their currencies to produce a strong dollar to make their exports more tempting. The result is that the US bought more stuff from abroad using that purchasing power, and these countries plowed the proceeds back into T-bills to maintain the strong dollar. This is now starting to end, and the dollar is weakening back to where it legitimately should be. The end result is that manufacturing should see a little resurgence in the US, and our economy will be healthier for it. The weaker dollar should bring our trade imbalances more into line and thereby improve our economy by providing jobs making the things that were previously imported.
As long as the wreckless republican irresponsibility (and corruption) comes to an end, there will likely be no truly lasting (beyond missed opportunities and maybe 10 years of minor trouble) damage.
...All told the US debt is less than 50% of GDP...
I'm sorry, but you have your facts wildly wrong. Total debt of the US (Federal, State, local, corporate and household) is now $43 trillion, or ~320% of GDP. This does not include the special issue Treasury bonds held by the Social Security Trust Fund (another $4 trillion, or so). Household debt alone is 95% of GDP.
May I recommend you look up the Federal Reserve's "Flow of Funds Accounts of The United States" available at:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/default.htm
Regards.
I second the recommendation. Also follow the link there to historical data.
Federal debt of course. What do I care if GM defaults, or some stupid neighbor runs up her charge cards. People and corporations defaulting on debt is not generally a problem (if you're not the creditor that is), governments defaulting is always a problem.
You should care greatly because the country is not made up of "federals" but of people and corporations. And when they become horribly overextended and can't service their debt and/or pay salaries, benefits and pensions, all sorts of nasty events occur, from bank failures to sharply higher unemployment, to stockmarket crashes, to pension funds going bust...etc.
One such event already occurring is the deflation of the Real Estate/Mortgage Debt Bubble. It is still in its very early stages and it is clearly producing a significant drop in house prices and a drag in GDP. And its effects on finance (defaults hitting CMO bonds) is still very, very muted due to time lag. Let's wait another 6-8 mos. and we'll revisit non-govt. debt. I believe you will have a very different view by then.
Regards
The hand that giveth also taketh away. The housing bubble created jobs, when it bursts, it will take them away, no surprise there. Defaults are a significant worry, but probably not as much as you think. Most of those bonds (and both sides of the CDOs that protect them) are held by hedge funds, mutual funds, insurance companies, and perhaps a few major banks and investment banks. A wave of defaults would likely be spread pretty evenly over this group, with (hopefully) the hedgefunds taking the biggest bath. In any case, the pain is likely to be concentrated at the top of the income scale, where all the benefits have accrued for a long time now. I don't cry for Bill Gates losing a billion or two if something goes wrong.
The web of derivatives has done a very good job of stabilizing financial markets in recent years (since computers became powerful enough to price them), as seen by the GM downgrade. Now, will it be enough for the coming wave of defaults (which everyone knows is coming) to be absorbed, probably. It's never been tested on this scale, but it is likely to fare pretty well.
I'm not saying that a stock market crash can't happen, but it'll take more than some simple correction (at this point) to cause it I think. The sort of even that would cause a crash even if we weren't heavily leveraged.
To put it another way. Lets say your average Joe. You make $100k a year (not very average, but it makes the math easier), and you have a $200k mortgage. Is this a problem? Probably not, even leverage of 2x or more isn't generally a problem if it has good collateral. You pay a bit in interest, but then again you're living rent free, it's probably about a wash. Lets say 5 years go by, you manage to knock $40k off of your mortgage. Even if your house didn't go up in value, inflation has carried its price to $220k already, but the mortgage is only for $160k. Even if Joe defaulted today, the debt is covered, with room to spare. Even if the house went down in value (in real terms), it'd have to go down a lot for Joe to be in trouble.
In any case, the numbers are high, but not wildly higher than elsewhere in the world, whether you are considering federal debt or total aggregate debt of everyone and everything. Anyway, we should have paid more of it off in the good years that we had (until Bush ruined them and siphoned away all the money), but I think you're significantly overstating the true danger.
Bill Gates is a major investor in "CN", Canadian National Railroad. I doubt that he has much exposure to mortgage derivatives. Too smart.
His friend, Warren Buffet (also not stupid) bought an insurance company with lots of mortgage deriviatives. First order of business, Buy no more. Second order of business, work out a plan to get rid of them over time without taking a major loss.
Inherited money can be quite stupid though.
Alan
BTW, I do own three shares of Berkshire Hathaway B (Warren Buffet) as just good diversification.
a short lesson in arithmetic: the national debt is about $8.6 trillion annual gdp is just over $ 12 trillion that is 72 % of annual gdp
that national debt as a percent of gdp declined more or less continuously from about 120% at the end of ww2, through the cold war, korean conflict and vietman quagmire to about 32% in 1980 then increased through the reagan and bush the daddy years to about 67% in 1988 , declined through slick willy's term to the low 60's % in 2000 and has climbed back to 72% under the befuddled one
I used old numbers (the debt under clinton with the current GDP), for my back of the envelope calculation, but the reality isn't far off of that mark. Thanks for the correction.
In any case, the point remains. We're not terribly badly off compared to other major countries, though still, times have been good...
well yes, we are pretty well off but isnt the increasing national debt what is keeping the economy afloat. $600 billion/yr in "free" money from china, etal. that is nearly 5% of gdp. not sustainable.
Yeah, sortof, but it goes the otherway too. The budget deficit actually boosts jobs, at the same time that the interest payments siphon them away. Currently, it's about a wash. When we stop running deficits though, interest will be a drag, but not as much as you think. About half the federal debt is held by the feds themselves, so it doesn't have much effect. Much of the rest is held by US citizens, so that wouldn't have much effect either. The rest is a drag, but it's not as large as the entire interest payment.
What's really keeping the economy flat is Bush's disasterous policies. Turns out, trickle down doesn't work. Give a billion dollars to Bill Gates, and (!?!?!?!) he doesn't go blow it at the mall, who could have thought, other than a rational person of course. Not too many of those running the country currently.
Don - I'm glad to see you getting on topic. I waited for 8 weeks in Tobermory - and you never showed... water under the bridge. This statement though requires an explanation. With ipods trading at $100 ...
And so in 20 years the $ will be worth a 200th of the early 20th century? Measured against what?
The real big question though is between inflationary bust and deflationary bust. You seem to be saying deflation followed by chicken livered reflation - and I guess this is my worst night mare - the hoards who have borrowed get rewarded for their courage? Inflation is already way out of control in the UK - IMO.
Somewhere I recall seeing an assertion that in the late 1700s a loaf of bread could be bought for a penny. Of course a penny on those days was larger than our $0.01 coin, it was a copper round about as big as a modern quarter.
The English penney was about as big as a modern half dollar; it held its value for over a hundred years. I remember using them for phones, back when a call was four pence.
When I visited New Zealand in 1960 bread was four pence half-penny (four and a half pennies) per loaf--an imperial pint of rich milk was the same price. I think eggs were about a shilling per dozen.
Back in the good old days when I was a kid, many good things cost a nickel--a candy bar, 12 ounces of Pepsi, a phone call or newspaper, all were a nickel. A cherry coke served at a soda fountain was seven cents. A dime would buy you a kite, and a dime plus a couple of pennies got you into the movies. Pennies, nickels and dimes were all coins of value.
My father never left the house without a fifty-cent piece for emergencies; it would buy two gallons of gasoline and give change back--or buy one gallon plus a phone call and a couple of Cokes--and still give change back.
Especially your 1982 & earlier pennies :-)
Worth 3 cents today (+ or -).
Alan
OK, but an compelling case can be made for deflation.
Energy prices only skyrocket as long as the economy can support it. If the economy collapses first, due to the debt load, housing bubble collapse, whatever, then the effects of Peak Oil are delayed until the economy recovers (if ever) or until the further depleted oil supply catches up with the reduced consumption level.
I think, though, that a major thrust of Ben Bernanke's helicopter speech was that central bankers don't like deflation, and they have plenty of ways to prevent it nowadays, almost irrespective of what the economy of real goods and services does. So while history may rhyme, the Great Depression need not repeat itself exactly.
In addition, many politicians probably like the illusory wealth effect that occurs at the start of inflation - initially, voters may feel good, as with the housing bubble, which no one tried to stop. Of course, after the inflation gets out of hand, it may not matter any more what politicians or anyone else happens to want. Typically, as in Weimar Germany or Argentina, it seems most of the middle class gets wiped out, although some may receive free or deeply discounted houses by paying off mortgages in play money, as happened to a degree in the USA of the 1970s.
Indeed, the lessons of the 1970s - deeply discounted houses and the need to hedge against inflation - surely play an ongoing role WRT energy. The easiest and probably best hedge against inflation for an average person is - thus far - a house plus land mortgaged to the hilt. The bigger and grander, and thus, as a side effect, more energy-consuming, the better. No one should be surprised at the explosive and ongoing growth of the suburbs.
Incidentally, if anything ever brings the Euro down, it might be irreconcilable differences arising from the fact that the Germans retain searing memories of the Weimar inflation, while other Europeans do not.
It appears that total US energy consumption is on the order of one million BTU's (one MMBTU) per person per day.
Of course, not all BTU's are priced the same. Oil now sells for about $10/MMBTU, natural gas for about $6/MMBTU. This is the wholesale price. The retail price is probably around $15/MMBTU for gasoline at the pump and about $10/MMBTU for natural gas at the burner tip.
I couldn't find any current numbers on total energy expenditures, but my guess is that Americans are paying an average of at least $10/MMBTU, about $3,600 per year. Or about $14,400 per year for a family of four. If we are, as I think, past the peak of world oil production and facing the prospect of rapidly declining world oil export capacity, the cost of buying a million BTU's per day is going to skyrocket. This is the heart of my rationale for recommending ELP.
The average European consumes roughly half as much energy as the average US citizen. In other words: a family of four saves (the economy, not themselves) an expenditure of $7000 per year. That is a significant amount for which one could surely implement something as important as universal healthcare.... and now we all know why there is no universal healthcare in the US... we simply burn it in our engines.
Good observation!
Note that because of higher energy taxes, the EU pays a much higher rate per MMBTU that Americans do, which probably has a lot to do with their lower consumption.
I am in favor of an energy consumption tax (to fund Social Security/Medicare), offset by reducing or eliminating the Payroll Tax.
Ok but how do they do that. The European Infrastructure is totally different than the American infrastructure.
"It appears that total US energy consumption is on the order of one million BTU's (one MMBTU) per person per day."
To which, you need to add/subtract the energy embedded in imports/exports. Given the trade balance, I expect you will be adding more.
An example of the power of the soverign and grabbing property:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0102/p02s01-usju.html
The developer, Gregg Wasser of G&S Port Chester, told Didden he'd have to pay $800,000 or give G&S a 50 percent stake in the CVS business. If Didden refused, Mr. Wasser said, he would have Port Chester condemn and seize his property and instead of a CVS he'd put a Walgreens drugstore on the site.Didden refused. The next day, the Village of Port Chester began legal proceedings to seize Didden's land by eminent domain.As you note, this has been discussed on other forums for a number of years. I love discussing these kinds of issues but my experience is that tbings become polarized into several camps just like peak energy. The essential problem is that everyone is speculating without any real quantative data and, further, most predictions have been wrong in the past so no one can point to some infalable guru.
From my persepctive, I see peak resources, over population, a need for growth to sustain the "system", global heating, amoral political and business beliefs, racial devisivness, etc. all combining with the result that society must collapse at some point. I call myself a "realist" because I can see no logical or rational way out of this mess.
As to when...hum? My guess, and that's all it is, is within ten years. My guess is based upon several things: First, we will be well into peak energy by then. Second, action is not being taken in an appropriate time-frame. Third, serious propaganda efforts are in operation to obfuscate what is coming (In fact, I see what is coming as a moral crisis not a resource crisis as TPTB attempt to protect their private interests and power.). Fourth, I have lost my trust and faith in the power of the people to influence what has become, IMO, a defacto fascist state. There's more but that's enough.
Todd; a Realist.
If you aren't already familiar with it, Immanuel Wallerstein's World-system analysis will certainly be of interest. In short, it describes the rise of the capitalist world-system, and the rise and fall of its hegemons (Holland (after beating Spain), England (beating France), US (beating Germany)). Right now, the system has run out of peoples and resources to exploit, and that means bending or breaking the capitalist world order.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Wallerstein
http://www.binghamton.edu/fbc/
http://www.binghamton.edu/fbc/commentr.htm
FWIW, I went to check on the Atlanta traffic before leaving work and found this at the top of the Georgia DOT page:
Knowing nothing about the market for petroleum-based road construction products, can anyone say if the dramatic price increases are related to scarce supply? Or is there a more benign market explanation for this?
It's a little of both. China's demand is mind-boggling. They are trying to spruce up Beijing for the Olympics, and the result has been shortages of cement, steel, copper, etc. (Remember that concrete chart Stuart posted last year?)
It's also just the higher price of energy. Construction takes a lot of energy. It uses fuel directly, in heavy equipment. It uses energy-intensive materials, like concrete, steel, and asphalt. When energy prices go up, so do construction costs.
Part of my job involves estimating the costs for large infrastructure projects, and the bids for certain items (concrete, steel, asphalt, and things made from them) have been coming in three times higher than expected.
This is one reason I have my doubts about nuclear, solar, wind, etc. If China trying to fix up one city for the Olympics can cause hording and shortages, what's going to happen when everyone in the world starts trying to build wind turbines or nuclear power plants?
I doubt that China's olympics is the reason for either shortages of cement or steel. China is building a few dozen facilities for the olympics and they are building a dozen cities and hundreds of power plants at the same time. Industrial demand is where the largest fraction of construction materials goes. The rising cost of these materials is simply result of cheap crap at Walmart. We are, after all, funding much of their activities. I would therefor call business with China a re-distribution of cost rather than a cheap buy. As with any re-distribution, there are winners and losers. Walmart wins, construction in the US loses.
I will agree that in terms of material use, wind turbines and nuclear power plants are not ideal. I would suggest looking at solar for that purpose. Thin film solar cells can produce energy for a silicon budget of a couple of ounces per kW peak and lbs per kW continuous and concentrating plants are even better in that regard.
Steel for the carrier structures can be recycled from the SUV bodies and engines that will become obsolete after PO. Since most people in the US seem to own at least one dino car and the material in it should be perfectly enough to make a replacement hybrid car and frames for solar cells for a whole family, we will probably not run into much trouble finding the buiding materials for our next generation energy infrastructure.
A neighborhood boy that visited China last year says that Beijing must also decrease their pollution by 30% in the city before the Olympics. This means they must build a workable sewer system throughout. He told me that at the time of his visit, there was really no such system. This type of project would probably require more energy and materials than the actual construction of the Olypmic structures.
China's total construction demand is much, much bigger than building nuclear power plants. How much concrete and steel goes into their road and building construction?
Just consider the total land area as a rough indication.
In any case, I consider the continued reliability and production of electricity with little greenhouse gas emissions to be sufficiently important that it ought to take priority over nearly all other uses.
But that has nothing to do with it.
It's politics and the market that will determine where resources are allocated, not what you declare to be priorities.
That concrete chart is pretty startling - sure could explain a lot of the cost issues. And as soon as I clicked the submit button I realized that oil had more than doubled in price the past couple of years, so it makes perfect sense that asphalt would have followed. It made me realize that in reality I've been judging the cost of petroleum-based energy by the cost of gasoline, not the cost of oil.
I find it a little disconcerting when the people who have been silently building and maintaining the infrastructure for years start constructing websites basically asking, "So... got any ideas?". When the people with the deepest pockets and most knowledgeable experts turn to the internet for inspiration... God help us.
Yeah, I've got a Big Idea: when you're in a hole, stop digging. Quit building more roads. Yeah, yeah, I know, not feasible. But until we at least stop doing the outright harmful stuff, I'm not convinced we'll do anything but drive merrily off the cliff, with silly visions of ethanol in our empty heads.
Speaking of which...digging is also getting more expensive. It's not something you think of automatically, but of course, it's done with heavy equipment, not men with shovels. And heavy equipment requires petroleum. Exacavation costs have also been coming in way higher than expected.
Except for 2,100 ton draglines:
Usibelli Coal Mine
The electricity for the dragline is produced by the coal that it digs up.
I wanted to write them just one sentence: "Build more mass transit you idiots"
But I refrained because telling somebody that he's an idiot doesn't make him less so. My observations of GDOT have been almost first hand. I was amazed at the stunning similarity between how the government here and in ex-socialist countries operates - it is a total anarchy and short-sightedness trumps all. The traffic in Atlanta has become unbearable and the thanks for this should go primarily to the city planners who were obviously not satisfied with building those spiralling roads from anywhere to everywhere, but have also promoted a very sparsely populated building pattern. Now they are stuck with the suburban madness they created and when it started becoming unsustainable are yelling, for money instead of rethinking all they've done... how pathetic.
Council for Agricultural Science & Technology (CAST) report: "Convergence of Agriculture & Energy: Implications for Research and Policy" - (12 page pdf)
From the press release:
(My apologies if TOD already has this link)
From the December, 2006 issue of Top Producer, a trade magazine for the larger farmers:
Future Vision Issue: Can Crops Feed and Fuel the World?
Why Silicon Valley's #1 investor believes in ethanol economics
Selected articles with selected quotes:
Commander of the Fleet - an article about ADM and its new CEO
(2nd bolding mine, some more info on her:
Fortune ranks her the 4th most powerful woman in business in 2006
A CNN/Fortune story Patricia Woertz, the Outsider)
ethanol worth the investment risk? Vinod Khosla, Venture Capitalist, Founder, Sun Microsystems
And a bunch of other articles.
The magazine's thrust seems to be at odds with the "interview" RR did with Khosla last year on TOD. In that, Vinod indicated his poition in corn ETOH to be short term, but was presently involved for the "trajectory", to use his term. Full set of articles can be found on the other day's 2006 TOD highlight list. The breakeven price for corn ETOH is around 4.70/bushel corn-a price we are getting close to. (Controlled by the present reactions which yield approx. 2.5 gal etoh per bu corn.)
i was recently over in Maryland and i happen to notice the Amish people with their horse buggys traveling on the roads. Fascinated by this (since we don't see that in Texas) I happen to drive over to their farming communities and observe them, the beautiful farm land with a house thats well over 100 years old, with no running water and no electricity, they were growing vegetables in the front yard and picking them for dinner even after the sunset. then it dawned on me, this is what the world will probably look like when we can't afford oil and gas.
note to self: better start converting the yard soon.
Forgive me folks, but I have been taken in by Wal-Mart's public relations campaign on energy efficiency. It started when I heard an NPR piece on LED lighting, which mentioned Wal-Mart's plan to use the new bulbs in their refrigerator cases. Their annual electric bill is $1 billion (!) and the LEDs might eventually save them 1 percent. The big deal is that Wal-Mart makes the investment in new tech, and the rest of us benefit from the economies of scale that come later.
Then I went to their web site and saw slick claims of how they will save energy at their stores, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and help improve efficiency for all of America. One of the many slick movies tells how they are pushing air conditioning manufacturers for greater efficiency, and how the world will benefit from the new A/C technology.
Sure, they were driven to ecological awareness by their need for good PR. But they have hired really good consultants and seem to be doing good things: renewable energy, waste reduction, truck fleet efficiency, experimental stores, right down to evaluating their products, packaging, and suppliers for "sustainability". And as the article posted at the top says, they're pushing CF bulbs on consumers.
OK, shoot me down for saying something good about WM, but check out their sustainability initiatives first.
There might be just a whiff of greenwash in this, in that AFAIK this is the best LED available, by a significant margin, and it approximately matches a plain-vanilla fluorescent for efficiency. (Note - both the fluorescent and the LED require electronic power conversion, i.e. "ballast", which costs some efficiency in a real fixture.) So it will be quite some time before they save any money unless they're replacing incandescents.
But yes, LEDs are almost ready to go, and it's very helpful to have someone create a mass market. After all, without the dollar signs in people's eyes from the automotive market, LEDs might have languished for even more decades at conversion efficiencies in the 0.1% to 0.5% range, and we would never have heard of them except as small pilot lights.
LEDs, today, are good for applicatiosn requiring 1) small amounts of light (night lights, I have a 1.6 watt yellow LED by my front door) 2) colored lights (exit signs, I retrofitted all my colored lights on my old Mercedes with LEDs).
Any CFL beats an LED in other applications.
My two favorite sources for LEDs (one US, one UK but they ship to US for reasonable $)
http://www.superbrightleds.com/
http://www.ultraleds.co.uk/
Best Hopes for rational decisions,
Alan
One of Wal Mart's biggest oil energy expenditures is for transporation of their products by truck. Many of their warehouses are located nowhere near railroad tracks and are usually found in small towns (away from major metorpolitan areas) next to highway interchanges. I read an article in a transportation publication a couple years ago about how they use this arrangement to keep warehouse costs down with low land costs, low building costs, low labor costs.
So if the future economy requires sending more product by energy efficient rail, Wal Mart is not set up very well to do this. Sure some products from China come to US by container ship, then transferred to rail for transporation to a major rail hub, but then go the last 300 or 400 miles by truck. This last segment over the highway uses more oil than the previous 1500 miles by rail or the previous 7000 miles by ship. If Wal Mart were truly getting green they would place their huge warehouses as close to the rail hubs as possible, not 100 to 400 miles between them and major cities.
Want green products "transporation wise"? Shop at Target or K Mart.
Exactly. People think I'm a kneejerk Wal-Mart basher because I've mentioned this. But Wal-Mart is designed for a cheap energy world, far more so than most similar companies. They use a complex computer inventory system that relies on just-in-time delivery, to save warehouse space. Their distribution centers are far from ports and stores, which are out in the boonies where land is cheap.
Other companies do this, too, but Wal-Mart has carried it to an extreme. It's why they were so successful when energy was cheap.
I wonder if Walmart or anyone using alot of trucks has considered "convoy" technology? Trucks going over the same route would travel together, maybe with the help of semi-automated driving controls and wireless interties, acting like a train. Losses to air resistance would be reduced.
Safety and traffic issues would NEVER allow this !!
Can you imagine trying to merge into an interstate highway near the beginning of half mile long convoy of Wal-Mart trucks ?
One can also think of scenarios (debris that blows tires ?) which result in a nassive pile-up of Wal-Mart trucks and several fatalities.
Ship by rail instead. Rail (steel on steel) is more efficient than rubber tires, and they "train" cars very well now with century+ old technology.
Scrap existing warehouses and rebuild at rail hubs. Build new & replacement Wal-Marts on rail spurs.
Or go bankrupt.
Best Hopes for reformed Wal-Mart (remember their old "Buy America" slogan ?)
Alan
Heard a story on Marketplace (Public Radio Show) tonight about Pemex:
Pemex faces change or drying up
David Shields was one of the sources for the two 2006 WSJ articles on the decline of Cantarell.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113945651609169248.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115448960945724335.html
I was recently pointed to another big energy saving possibility in my house: Exchange the heating water circulation pump with a more efficient model.
When opening my gas boiler (high-efficiency condensing model by Weishaupt), I found it uses one of the most inefficient water pumps - and was set to full power mode, drawing 90 Watts. A sticker on it claimed it must be run in the high-powered mode (without saying why).
When I turned it down to the lowest level (still draws 45 Watts power), my heating system and the hot water generation still worked absolutely fine.
I will soon exchange the pump with a super-efficient one made by Grundfos, the Grundfos Alpha Pro http://www.grundfos.com/web/homeUK.nsf/Webopslag/DMAR-6EGDHG (I have no affiliations with Grundfos whatsoever). It draws less than 7 Watts in its lowest setting! Given that an outdoor-temperature-compensated heating system usually lets the water circle all the time the system is switched on, this should cause quite some saving and an estimated amortisation period of only 1.5 to 3 years.
Cheers,
Davidyson