 | Coal in an Engine does not need Fischer Tropsch | The Oil Drum | US News and World Report looks at Ethanol |  |
DrumBeat: February 6, 2007
Posted by Leanan on February 6, 2007 - 10:13am
The oil world seems to have learned how to get along with the prospect of war with Iran, which is to say that it is choosing to ignore it. The Bush surge in Iraq with the prospect of fresh and heavy fighting is old news. The news that Mexican production fell half a million barrels a day last year caused not a ripple. The shutdown of most of Nigeria’s refining capacity has evoked the equivalent of a mighty yawn. The fact that OPEC production fell last year, even before the production cuts announced in September began to take effect, evokes derision rather than worry. “OPEC just can’t get its act together.”The announcement in December by the Kuwaiti government that production had peaked and is now declining at the world’s second largest field, Burgan, passed without comment or even a blip in the price slide.
The fact that Iran on current trends is set to become an oil importer in six or seven years causes not the least anxiety. The world’s oil replacement ratio, that is to say the percentage of consumption that is replaced each year with new discovery, has fallen to 30% and keeps falling.
The truth of the matter is that the world is in the midst of an energy crisis, but neither the NYMEX nor the IPE seem to have noticed.
Spot natural gas prices hit record high in NY
Prices for next-day delivery on Transco in New York jumped as high as $60 per million British thermal units early Monday, well above the record high average of $47 per mmBtu set in early January 2004, according to Reuters data. But late deals were heard closer to $21, traders said.
Gas to prop up output in Daqing
China's biggest oilfield, facing depleting output, is increasingly relying on natural gas to maintain production levels.
Bush Budget: $168M to Begin SPR Capacity Expansion
U.S. President George W. Bush on Monday proposed to spend $168 million in his 2008 budget primarily for administrative costs relating to the expansion of the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve from its current capacity of 727 million barrels to 1.5 billion barrels by 2027.
Works forging ahead on Al-Qurayyah Seawater Project
With the project's completion, the plant will have a treatment capacity of 14 million bpd, making QSWP the world's largest seawater treatment plant intended for oil recovery, according to a report carried by Saudi Aramco web-site.The expanded plant will include nine treatment modules, sedimentation basins and head shipping pumps and the extension of an above-grade canal. The plant's refitting includes a whole new electrical system and the upgrade by Saudi Electric Co. of the 230 kv incoming power supply.
China: Crude oil reserves decline sharply last year
China was still the world's fifth-largest crude oil producer in 2006, but dropped to the 13th worldwide in terms of proven crude reserves from the 12th in 2005, according to statistics released by the United States-based Oil & Gas Journal, the world's most widely read petroleum industry publication.
Pakistan energy demand to reach 361MT of oil equivalent by ’30
Pakistan’s energy demand has been estimated to reach 361 million tonnes of oil equivalent (MTOE) by 2030 and this huge surge could pose a serious threat to the future development programmes, a senior government official told Daily Times.
ConocoPhillips Seeks Arbitration with CNOOC Over Oil Tax
U.S. oil major ConocoPhillips (COP) has asked for arbitration in a dispute with China National Offshore Oil Corp. over costs incurred due to Beijing's windfall tax on oil sales, according to people familiar with the situation.
OPEC Revival Looms Over Big Oil's '07 Production Outlook
As major oil companies work to boost production in 2007, they're experiencing fresh angst from an old rival: OPEC.
Bush Budget Axes Oil, Gas R&D Funding, Targets Two Tax Breaks
The Bush administration Monday proposed to ax two federally-funded oil and gas research programs and modify two separate tax breaks for the oil and gas industry in its 2008 budget.The administration's budget primarily focuses on funding for new renewable energy, biofuel and nuclear programs, and the proposals would, in a small measure, help offset the new spending priorities.
Blood of the Earth: Dilip Hiro on the Battle for the World’s Vanishing Oil Resources
I’ll give you a very quick figure. In the USA, there are 800 vehicles -- passenger cars, buses, minivans, etc., etc. -- for 1,000 American men, women and children. In India, there are eight vehicles for 1,000 Indians, men, women and children. Now, suppose India progresses economically, and you change that figure from 8 to 18 or 80, can you imagine how much oil will be required? And that is something which one has to face up to. And as I show, you know, there’s what you call, you know, oil, any mineral, you have a bell curve, and peak will reach in ten years time, and then you start to go down. And at that time, India and China, the demand will rise. So what will happen? The price of oil will go up to -- take a deep breath -- $200 a barrel.
Interior Reverses BLM Lease Sales in Utah
The Interior Department's Board of Land Appeals last week suspended the Bureau of Land Management's roughly 14,000 acres of oil and natural gas lease sales in central Utah on the grounds that BLM did not adequately identify sensitive archaeological sites before offering the leases.
Peru's Amazon oil deals denounced
Environmental and human rights group in Peru have denounced the government's campaign to auction off large swathes of the Amazon to oil and gas companies.
Putin sees Israel as a possible customer for Russian gas
During his visit Ben-Eliezer will also promote the "infrastructure corridor," in which Russia is expected to play a key role. The project involves laying 610 km of pipes on the seabed between Turkey and Israel, mainly to supply natural gas and oil. Supply of water and electricity is also under consideration.
Opec-style gas group ‘unlikely’
Qatar, which has the world’s third-largest natural gas reserves, has said a form of cartel between producers of the fuel is unlikely.
Russia, Iran, Qatar to Assess Need for Gas OPEC in March
Iranian Oil Minister Kazem Vaziri-Hamaneh said that Iran, Qatar, and Russia will assess the formation of a natural gas exporting group, similar to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) on March 6.
Massive biofuel program to go ahead despite concerns
International criticism of Indonesia's massive biofuel development program will not affect the project, which is expected to turn the country into one of the biggest biofuel producers in the world, says an official.
Food industry calls for a more balanced biofuel policy
With the increasing use of some of their raw materials for the production of biofuels, the food industry is starting to call on the European Commission to take measures to ensure they do not face further price hikes for their supplies.
Saudi Aramco Signs Manifa Contract
Saudi Aramco has signed a contract with Belgium dredging contractor Jan De Nul to help develop the 900,000 barrel per day (bpd) Manifa offshore oil field.Scheduled for completion in 2009, Jan De Nul will carry out dredging works in the Arabian Gulf before building several drilling islands and a 41-km causeway that will provide Saudi Aramco with a direct link from the coast to shallow-water offshore man-made drilling islands.
China has no plans to radically change its reliance on coal and other dirty fuels despite already feeling the impacts of global warming, according to a leading Chinese meteorologist.In the first official Chinese response to a stark UN report issued last week on climate change, Qin Dahe said China lacked the technology and financial resources for a wholesale conversion to cleaner energy sources.
Grim global warming prognosis for Western U.S.
Now the scientists can make regional projections about "where people actually live."
Turkey prepares action plan on climate change
The Turkish government is preparing an action plan of measures to combat the fallout of global warming, focusing mainly on economising water.
Britain working toward international clean energy project
Britain wants to launch a major international clean energy project with other European countries, Japan and the United States in a drive to combat climate change, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said on Tuesday.Blair said the project could focus on carbon capture and storage -- where carbon dioxide produced from burning coal is buried under the ground or the seabed instead of being released into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming.
Oil, Chavez, and the Orinoco Belt
With the lightning speed that only a would-be dictator can muster, Hugo Chavez grabbed power in Venezuela last week. Greedily grabbing all the levers of authority, Chavez made the next move in his promise to deliver utopia to his people. And when all of the votes had been counted, Chavez promptly took his place in the string of history's other leaders who also boldly proclaimed, "I am the state."In the meantime, however, it is his country's position as the number-four supplier of imported oil to the United States that promises to deliver his socialist misery to our doors.
Bolivia Aims to Restructure Hydrocarbons Sector, Quell Unrest
Bolivia faces a growing rift between the east, which features La Paz and the seat of the government, and the country's hydrocarbons-producing west.
Mixing Oil and Water - Industry's quest may end in the sewer
This is the second in a two-part series examining the growing debate between industry and the province of Alberta over the use of water for the surging oilsands sector.(Part 1 is here.)
Electricity usage sets a record for winter
The operator of the power grid for the mid-Atlantic and parts of the Midwest said Monday that it reached an all-time record for winter electricity use amid frigid weather on the East Coast.Valley Forge, Pa.-based PJM Interconnection, which operates the power grid in 13 states and Washington, D.C., said demand Monday morning rose above 112,500 megawatts. The previous record for winter use, set in December 2005, was 110,414 megawatts.
The all-time record for summer use on the PJM grid, 144,644 megawatts, was set during a heat wave in August.
Alaska oil pipeline operator loses part of a pig
The operator of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System was on the lookout Monday for a piece of a cleaning device -- called a pig -- that mysteriously got dislodged somewhere inside the 800-mile oil pipeline in December.
Everybody in the United States could switch from cars to bicycles.The Chinese could close all their factories.
Europe could give up electricity and return to the age of the lantern.
But all those steps together would not come close to stopping global warming.
Declining energy sources huge problem
Our only hope is unrestricted domestic oil drilling accompanied by a massive construction of nuclear power plants, akin to the Manhattan Project, but this is unlikely to happen. The media and the left have painted oil production and nuclear power as detrimental.Forty percent of Americans lived on farms in 1900. Oil-dependent modern agriculture has reduced that number to 2 percent today. Our nation's history of reacting to crises, rather than preparing for them, will lead to millions starving in our not too distant future.
Pakistani firm to export sugarcane crushing mill to USA
The rapidly intensifying energy crisis that grips the world today has generated tremendous worldwide interest in renewable sources of energy. One of the major sources of renewable energy is the world’s cane processing & distillation industry which produces ethanol as a by-product or as its main product.
Dedicating all present U.S. corn and soybean production to biofuels would meet only 12% of our gasoline demand and 6% of diesel demand. Total U.S. cropland reaches 625,000 sq.mi. To replace U.S. oil consumption with biofuels we would need 1.4 million sq.mi. of corn for ethanol and 8.8 million sq. mi. of soybean for biodiesel. Biofuels are expected to turn Iowa and South Dakota into corn-importers by 2008.
Saudi cuts Q4 oil supplies to Asia, Iran exports more
Saudi Arabia cut oil exports to its three largest Asian customers by nearly 4% in the fourth quarter against the third, while Iranian shipments rose to near year-ago levels, calculations based on official data showed.
Saudi to boost fuel supply to US forces in Gulf
Saudi Arabia has steeply raised the amount of its jet fuel earmarked for the United States military, which is expanding its presence in the Gulf, Middle East trading sources said.
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.
BP is cutting its production goals:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070206/bs_nm/bp_results_dc_6
"BP forecast production in 2007 would fall to 3.8-3.9 million barrels of oil equivalent per day (boepd), from 3.93 million boepd in 2006. The 2006 result was down 2 percent on 2005.
Investors had expected BP to return to growth in 2007."
Also...
Production has fallen for 2 straight years. Production is expected to only grow slowly (I expect it to fall) for 3 more years before any hope of returning to stronger growth occurs and it will cost much more than previously anticipated. But the world is not at peak so party on dudes!
Declining production and increasing capital expeinditures. The future outlook for all of the major integrateds is a treadmill that is speeding up and getting steepr at the same time.
According to today´s earnings release the russian TNK-BP oil production is down sharply by 100.000 B/d from Q4 2005 to Q4 2006. (936.000 bd versus 837.000). Multiply that by two to get the whole company, not just the BP share. This represents a sizeable chunk of total russian production.
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/STAGING/global_assets/...
Not exactly carrying over a discussion, but this late link from yesterday is fascinating - http://www.thestreet.com/pf/funds/fundmorning/10336832.html If you visit http://www.gmo.com/america and register, you can download a PDF of the newsletter by using the Site Map link, and then looking for Jeremy Grantham's Letters
The time period described also describes the ascent of the baby boom to the peak of American power, as they became the establishment.
I might throw out that the idea of American undergoing catabolic collapse since 1970 is an interesting one, as long as it is realized that a number of other places are not exhibiting American symptoms at this time. The broad discussion about collapse remains open, of course, but there is something which makes The U.S. fairly atypical at this point, at least in the eyes of many people who aren't American, or those Americans who have experience with other societies.
Thanks for the link.
This line cost me a little coffee.. good thing I don't wear white shirts.
"After my article appeared in the Boston Herald, I received a snotty letter denying there was any such thing as "an Iowa corn growers' racket." It was from the "chairman of the Iowa Corn Growers' Association.")
disclosure.. my wife's family consists of a lot of Iowa farmers, and they're great people.. but I still won't wear white shirts when reading about Farm-politics.
Bob Fiske
"...I received a snotty letter denying there was any such thing as "an Iowa corn growers' racket." It was from the "chairman of the Iowa Corn Growers' Association."
The chairman also had an oped piece in the Lincoln (NE) Journal Star a couple weeks back. He declared that there was no problem with corn supplies due to the ethanol industry ramping up.
This is something that I've wondered too. Is it coincidence that the peak of US petroleum output, the high-water mark in middle-class earnings, and the onset of America's status as a debtor nation all occurred within about 18 years? I suspect that they are related. That some sectors have continued to thrive doesn't say much except that some are better at grabbing the remaining crumbs than others are. Nothing new there.
I don't think it's a coincidence, either.
Many Americans think we became a world superpower for cultural or moral reasons. Democracy, freedom, Christianity, capitalism, our "can-do" spirit, etc. The truth, I fear, is baser than that. We became a world power because we were a huge country, filled with unexploited natural resources.
We have used up many of those natural resources. Peak oil USA was a turning point of sorts. That turbo-charged globalization - the movement of economic activity to places where energy was cheaper. And made it much harder for working class Americans to get good jobs.
Something that I think is under-appreciated. I've finally gotten around to reading Charles Mann's "1491" and it's an amazing (and heart-breaking) story: Europeans apparently walked almost unchallenged into a vast country from which the indigenous peoples had only recently been all but annihilated. There has been little to compare that with in recent history (except for Australia, of course).
The other thing that I think is under-appreciated is how much America's geographic isolation from the twentieth century wars in Europe, N Africa, Asia and the Pacific gave it a "leg up" in the years following WW II. I've had this discussion with many who have argued that American hegemony in the 20th century owed almost entirely to the strength of our culture and our institutions.
Now, we're in the position -- as Asebius put it the other day -- of having "eaten our lunch" and trying to figure out where we are going for our next meal.
This (vast resources of Western Hemisphere) is the first of the two 'unrepeatable events' that Wm Catton cites in 'OverShoot', the other being of course the development of fossil fuels, especially oil and gas.
...and I should add that it looks like we're going to have plenty of company.
Me neither.
Culturally what we're are 3 or 4 greatest accomplishment? I'd say:
1. defeating Hitler
2. reubilding Japan and Europe after WW II
3. the civil rights movement
4. putting a man on the moon
Not coincidentally, these all occurred between 1945 and 1970 right when per capita oil and per capita energy consumption enjoyed their best ever yearly increases.
the constitution and jazz music
Leanan,
I ran across this while doing a bit of research on another posters link to a guy named Pain in France who uses a methane digester for all his energy needs.
Anyway...I ran across this in one of my college text books. It does give you a bit of a chill down your spine. From the book: "SOILS; An introduction to soils and plant growth" by Donahue, Miller and Shickluna. A standard college horticuture textbook still in use today, revised of course, but soil science hasn't changed all that much.
Page 153, TABLE 7-3 "Costs and yeilds at two locations of seven vegtables grown using commercial fertilizers and pesticides(chemical garden) compared to similiar gardens grown according to recommendations for organic gardening (1972)"
SITE 1
Chemical garden
Cost, total $147
Cost chems & ferts $12
Cost, hauling organic fertilizers $0
TOTAL YIELD lb's 1,768
Organic garden
Cost, total $212
Cost chems & ferts $0
Cost, hauling
organic fertilizers $22
TOTAL YIELD lb's 384
SITE 2
Chemical garden
Cost, total $119
Cost chems & ferts $12
Cost, hauling organic fertilizers $0
TOTAL YIELD lb's 1,056
Organic garden
Cost, total $111
Cost chems & ferts $0
Cost, hauling
organic fertilizers $22
TOTAL YIELD lb's 150
Source; R.C. Lambe and J.G. Petty, " 'Chemical Garden' Out-Yeilds 'Organic' Garden," Agri-news newspaper, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 4, No 2(Feb 1973),1,3.
I won't debate if thier results are skewed by funding, and alot of knoledge has been gained in the 'Organic' realm since 72', but if these numbers are even relatively close...this isn't a pretty picture.
"I won't debate if thier results are skewed by funding, and alot of knoledge has been gained in the 'Organic' realm since 72', but if these numbers are even relatively close...this isn't a pretty picture."
Not even remotely close, and probably not close even in '72. It sounds like total bullshit propaganda. Sponsored by Monsanto and whoever.
Organic yields today are typically 80-100% of "chemical garden" (ugh!) yields. The thing to keep in mind is that the chemical garden produce is mostly water and cellulose, and the organic produce actually contains nutrition. I.e., poundage of yield is irrelevant. The point isn't pounds of stuff per acre... it's human nutrition per acre, sustainably.
Add to this the synergy you get by growing more than on thing in a field and whole new dimension for measuring yield will emerge. Corn was never grown alone, until Europeans applied their own agricultural knowledge (or lack of). In fact, maize wasn't even eaten or used the way we see today. Soaked in wood ash, the nutritional profile changes significantly. This is to say nothing of the multitudes of plants cultivated in ways the Europeans wouldn't even recognize as a food production system. Science seeks to isolate to understand. However, nature depends upon synergy.
many confuse hybrid sweetcorn (for kernels) with cornmeal varieties: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize
I garden purely organically and from my 600 square foot back yard garden I get about 500 lbs of produce a year. From an urban lot surrounded by buildings and trees (ie only get partial sun) in the middle of Chicago.
I'd put my yields up against those of any conventional agriculture regardless of whatever magical chemicals and genetically modified seed they might use.
Most of the folks worrying about food shortages are probably those who don't know how to feed themselves.
SpeedEbikes horray for you, you're a member of the landowning class. From what I see around me, the vast majority of Americans are not of the landowning class and never will be.
The point I was trying to make is that fossil fuel based inputs (fertilizers, pesticides, etc) are unnecessary to produce adequate supplies of food. Perhaps your point is that our socio-economic system will prevent land from be appropriately utilized? That's a risk but it is not a problem without solutions.
A lot of what happened to the U.S. economy since about 1970 reflects a shift to a new monetary scheme. Love it or hate it, the way the world is would be vastly is different without pure fiat money. Many of the the excesses of the world economy could not exist it. Reading Churchill's words about his fear of not having enough gold to pay for the UK's involvement in WWII drove home this point with me. Even in a dire emergency everything had limits.
The seventies were an opportunity to learn that resources are finite, but unfortunately the packaging & lessons learned were wrong or at least premature. The oil crisis taught a lot of people that oil really was limitless, shortages are / were just politics. James Earl Carter in a sweater, taught a lot of people in retrospect that we weren't going to run out of oil and gas iin the very short term just because a politician told us so.
In the seventies, although the American oil frontier was closed there were others. Now? Well now we have even some very thoughful people with long memories that focus on the premature messages of the seventies. More easy pickings for CERA.
The message of the fable of the Boy that Cried Wolf was not that there are no wolves. For the record, I am an early peak believer simply because of the lack of new provinces and the age / state of development of existing fields. It bothers me that my opinion may just be another wolf siting. Damn, I wish I knew what the true oil situation was in the KSA.
reposted with recession bars below;
Proof of consumer peak & collapse:
Freddy, thanks for posting this. I'm going to show it to my boss. It looks like he's been shorting me by a few percentage points on my annual raise :)
Yeah right, and now it's my turn to say b-shiit. Anybody who seriously believes that disposable income went up between 1970 and 1980 is either (a) an idiotic or (b) so young as not to have to have lived through that helll.....
RC
Remember we are only one cubic mile from freedom
i bought my first house & 2 new firebirds in the 70's. i guess u were at the wrong place at the wrong time, eh.
Try putting yourself in someone else's shoes... ooops sorry I forgot, your kind has a genetic defect that prevents such complex perspectives from cropping up, nevermind.
moo
Well, the good news is this Freddy. If the 1970's were a great period, that peak oil whenever it comes will be the best thing that could happen to America....remember that the U.S. peaked at the front of the 1970's, and we had two major (MAJOR) energy crisis in that period, with oil prices going even higher inflation adjusted than they have been at anytime before or since (near the magic $100 a barrel inflation adjusted to todays dollar) and real gasoline shortages. Oh did we forget double digit unemployment, double digit inflation, double digit interest rates....what a time, gee it just ain't like the old days is it?
RC
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom.
Sorry grasshopper, but u are confusing four very different events. Mostly u seem bodychecked by the 81-82 Severe Recession and the effects of Monetary Policy at that time extinquishing Inflation. Please look up your history down there. The mid 70's Recession was technical only.
Canada did not feel that '74 recession nor '71, nor your 2001 technical recession. That is not to say that certain sectors probabley got clobbered and those caught within seem to think it was huge. To them, i'm sure it was. But in the big picture, tech recessions are just a blip ...
Interesting speech, fairly conservative in his outlook.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
This guy has an interesting comment about the article:
A few comments on is calculations. First, based on his numbers, he's assuming .4 Kilowatt hours per mile for the Prius. The estimates I've seen are closer to .25 Kwh/mile. Second, he's assuming the new Prius will get 100 mpg on gas. Now that may happen, but it seems very optimistic considering the current model only gets around 60 mpg. A more reasonable guess might be 80 mpg. If I substitute .25 Kwh/mile and 80 mpg into his calculations, I get a fuel savings of about $250 per year. Or about 5.1% return on the $5000. Though I'm not sure that calculating a return like that is useful, since you've sunk your principle into the price of the car. Like he said, it's a rapidly depreciating asset.
I think payoff period is a better measure. Though even with my figures, it would take 20 years to recoup the $5000. If they could reduce the price of the batteries to $4000 and if the price of gas is around $4/gal, the pay off period gets closer to 9 or 10 years. Assuming the battery will last that long of course. Since I tend to keep a vehicle at least 10 years, that's what I would consider a reasonable period of time.
And finally, if it only cost $6.50 per month to switch to wind power, then he should be doing that anyway. It's not an either/or situation.
Btw, the 100 mpg is the assumption for a plug in. That was used for the purpose of computing the gas costs once you have converted to a plug in. The analysis does not assume a straight hybrid can get 100 mpg, it assumes a plug in can average can get 100 mpg which is being claimed by the plug in advocates.
This is compared to the fuel costs at an average of 50mpg. Then, one has to add the assumed costs for electricity. I have seen figures of .4 kwhr per mile or 2.5 miles per kwhr. Perhaps you have differenct references. And again, the 8 cents per kwhr may be too conservative.
The purpose of the wind power calulation is just to illustrate that there is a better alternative use of one's $5,000. It makes sense to look at alternatives, when you are talking about spending or investing your money.
We also haven't considered the other costs of converting the prius to a plug-in.
People might argue, but look at what we are doing for the environment. While a valid consideration, one should consider that one could probably do more for the environment by taking that $5,000 and investing in wind or some other alternative.
I don't claim to understand how they calculate what to charge me for electricity (what the heck is a fuel adjustment?) but if I just divide my last bill amount by the number of Kwhs I used, I get about .11 per Kwh.
I forget where I originally saw that .25 Kwh/mile figure. I just now googled for "prius Kwh/mile" and found several different estimates. The estimates range between .25 and .4.
I like the Prius. I'm not sure that it really does much to help the environment, but at least it's not another SUV. That being said, it's still a car, and is part of the problem.
.25 Kwh/mile is equivalent to 7.5 horsepower at 30 mph or 15 HP at 60 mph.
.4 Kwh/mile is equivalent to 12 HP at 30 mph or 24 HP at 60 mph.
Can you propel a 2500-pound vehicle at 60 mph with 15 hp?
For an aerodynamic / low rolling resistance car, on level ground, without blasting the AC, that sounds like the general vicinity of correct. See this MPG pedantry.
Electric start-assist allows you to downsize your engine by a significant amount - the maximum sustained power you're ever going to need in a system that can jack-rabbit from a battery corresponds with the the flat cruising power plus the simple gravitational power maximum incline allowed on an interstate times 65mph or so (or you can neglect that if you have enough batteries to work an entire mountain, and enough power storage capability to take it back on the downslope with regenerative breaks).
Truckers, as people who spend a bundle on fuel driving the most aerodynamically disastrous (to cruise power) and massive (to climb power) vehicles on the road are experts at this stuff. With laptops, wifi, and growing public understanding of networking, quite a lot of them are on the internet now. Do we have any on TOD?
I can not believe no one jumped me on these numbers because they are wrong.
They should be 10 and 20 HP at .25 Kwh.
16 and 32 HP at .4Kwh. I got in a rush to post because my wife wanted on the computer.
double post
I did a somewhat similar cost analysis two years ago when we were going to replace my wife's car. The choice was between a year old, low mileage Toyota Corolla and a new Prius. We keep cars for a long time and I had to include the cost of a battery replacement on the Prius. Taking all costs into account, the Prius was an economic looser even at $5/gallon gas.
Further, from an overall energy usage point of view, the Prius, IIRC, uses about 40% more than a "regular" car to build so it didn't make sense that way either.
FWIW, our other vehicles are a 23 year old Subaru and a 20 year old Mazada 4x4 PU (The Mazada replaced my '55 Jeep 4x4 PU...but it did have a '63 Ford six so there were lots of years left.).
In what way was it looser? I'd imagine a brand new car would be tighter.
Now I'm lost. Was it loose, or was it a loser?
Once he got loose, the running back faced only open field, but the fact that his right shoe was looser than his left shoe caused him to stumble and lose the footrace with the defensive tackle. A loose shoe, a lost footrace, and a former hero became a loser.
This is why we don't have to worry about this board being taken seriously. Most of the posters seem to not be native speakers of English or to be just barely literate.
Iz datz why a major oil company invited TOD to da fone conference? Gorsh fleam, you be so literary.
I agree. And it's not lack of knowledge, it's lack of effort.
"Further, from an overall energy usage point of view, the Prius, IIRC, uses about 40% more than a "regular" car to build so it didn't make sense that way either."
I keep hearing this number but I have yet to see a source. Do you happen to have one? Preferably one from a Toyota production engineer or accountant who actually made the spreadsheet based on engineering data...
And, by the way... the Prius takes 40% more energy to build than a regular WHAT? Which car? Than another Toyota? A car of the same weight? Than an SUV? Or 40% more than a greyhound bus? That would really suck, if it were true.
I am not doubting that you can't afford buying a Prius, by the way, but I am kind of troubled by the quality of your financial estimates.
I am considering buying a Prius for us, by the way, for our next car. The least of my concerns is if I will ever break even. The most of my concerns is if we should get the leather seats and which color will look best.
:-)
This is the link to one study http://www.cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/
at the bottom of the page is the link to the dust to dust analysis and a zipped word doc, which has all the details they used.
When I look at the document the main flaw I see is the milage estimates - all the numbers depend radically on the expected millage for the car.
For example the accord has an estimated lifespan of 209,000 miles, and the accord hybrid has an estimated life of 117,000 miles. i.e. exactly the same car with a battery and an electric motor.
The prius is expected to last 109,000 miles and an F series truck 268,000 miles, a hummer (H1) 379,000 miles.
I think the numbers for the expected hybrid life times came from the car companies (as they haven't been around long enought yet), and may be based on the expected cost of replacing a battery vs the cost of the car. For example if you have a prius with 120,000 miles on it and it needs a new battery (the decline of which may both reduce milage and performance) is it worth paying $5,000 for a new battery or do you consider it a financial write of? What about at $3,000? Hopefully batteries will be a much better deal then and you wold instead make it into a plug in hybrid for the next 100,000 miles as (if Toyotas reputationi is anything to go by). Also in the second hand market if the price of Gas/pertrol is as high as we think it could be then priuses could have a good resale value compared with other cars being sold today - but all of this is an interesting question.
I am not sure how this will be much different from having 2 clutches relaced over the lifetime of some other cars with much longer life time milages however, but it might suggest that the probably more reliable mechanics of pure electric cars may have more advantages than we think.
With the accord it is almost a silly question though - I expect people would (if gas prices are reasonable) just take out the battery, and take the 20% hit on the milage. (the accord I looked at in 2006 when the study was done, was a V6 with a hybrid to provide extra power and increase the mpg (us gallon) from 20 of the normal V6 to 25, as well as adding a fair amount of horse power, to an already fast car. you also lost the ability to put the back seat down for the exra power)
For me as a Prius owner (this study was rubbed in my face by a slightly right wing brother in law) I have resigned myself to spending $3000 a year or so on car ownership alone per car. So I hope for the prius to last 10 years (the first year went just fine) and then I will be happy even if I give it away. The main way I save (money more than gas) is by living close enough to work (in Houston) that I can bicycle and so only need to have one car rather than two. This means that the car we have has to be reliable (and so far being pleased in this respect really dosen't mean anything in this regard - ask me 8 years when the warrenty if over) and ocasionally borrowing a car from a friend for a weekend.
As for the most important questions - I liked the black, with Beige leather. the only other option I got was the extra airbags. Were I to do it again the things I would like are the review camera, as rear vision is not as good as I would like for reversing out of driveways, parking ect, and a slighlty better stereo - one that comes with the aux input in the center arm rest compartment so I could throw the iPod in there for long trips. The iPod radio transmitter thing is just no good in Houston, so I have been making mix CDs. Still you will have to look at the cost of the packages and see if you like the other things.
Thanks for the source. I am looking at the documents. I am somewhat worried about the following disclaimer:
"This is a general-consumer report, not a technical document per se. It includes breakdowns of each vehicle’s total energy requirements from Dust to Dust but does not include issues of gigajuelles, kW hours or other unfriendly (to consumers) terms. Perhaps, in time, we will release our data in such technical terms. First, however, we will only look at the energy consumption cost."
This is not the way to do it right. It inserts a whole different level of uncertainty than a direct energy analysis would and is very hard to track. I give it to them that they did compile something. And they are talking about their methodology. I will focus on that because it looks most promising.
Speaking about milage...
This report gives the energy cost for the Prius as $3.249/mile. If they estimate the lifetime of the car to be 109,000 miles, that makes for a total energy cost of $354,141!
Wow... let's see...
Prius price tag is $30,000 with extras. Fuel economy is 40miles/gallon, so it needs approx. 109,000/40 = 4750 gallons of fuel. Let's assume a gas price of $3/gallon, shall we? That will set me back $14250. So to own the car (without interest, of course) will have cost me $44250 before it dies around 109,000 miles. In other words:
Toyota/society lost $354,141 - $44250 = $309,891 on every Prius they ever sold! I believe they sold like half a million of them, i.e. so far the company/society must have lost over $150 billion on this car.
What do you think, guys? Let's try the same for an H1:
H1 lifetime 379,000 miles. Energy cost per consumer mile according to report is $3.505. So now the total cost of H1 ownership is $1.329 million. That is one expensive car, oh my!
Amazing... that we are still here! Either that or this energy cost per consumer mile does not pass the laugh test.
Something tells me that there is a huge problem with this compilation and that the authors haven't even made this trivial reality check.
Correct.
Their first edition of this "study" came out a year ago, and had exactly the same problems and nonsensical results. It got them a great deal of publicity, though, so it's hardly a surprise they're trotting it out again.
Among the many fundamental errors in their methodology - which at least they've described a little this year - is conflating how a car is used with how efficient it is. A driver's behaviour affects his choice of car, not the other way 'round, so calling hybrids "inefficient" because they're often bought as second cars is nonsensical. Maybe second cars are inefficient, but that has no intrinsic bearing on whether a hybrid would be a better or worse choice for that role.
Not to mention their unexplained concept of "social energy", which apparently costs over $400,000 for a $17,000 Volkswagen Golf.
I don't know how they can throw out numbers like those and expect to be greeted with anything but laughter.
I suggest you get the leather interior, and the lightest color possible, white or silver.
I did a long 3 page rebuttal here on TOD of that piece, including links to the fact that it was done by a sales marketing firm in the employ of the automakers, and was not in anyway a peer reviewed or techncial study, along with a history of the remarks by said firm. I offered it to TOD as a guest post, but at that time interest in what was obviously a bogus study was luke warm to non existant. I said then that as long as such studies were allowed to go without refutation, they would damage advances on the hybrid front later, and well, sure enough....
RC
Remember, we are only one square mile away from freedom
"I said then that as long as such studies were allowed to go without refutation, they would damage advances on the hybrid front later, and well, sure enough...."
I kind of doubt that. There are two kinds of people in this world: those who think with the frontal lobe and those who act on an itch of their wishbones. The thinkers will easily identify any of these claims as nonsense, do a four line cost analysis and buy that hybrid (like the PhDs in my company). The wishers will go with their gut feeling that they "absolutely need" that SUV or pickup (like our technicians who were all trained on the job and do not have math skills). You can not find a single PhD here who drives an SUV or pickup to work. You can not find a single technician here who drives a hybrid.
IMHO the SUV/pickup buying habit of Americans is simply correlated with poor math skills and underdeveloped financial planning habits. All studies about the credit card debt of America underline this nicely. And the rate at which "interest only" mortgages go belly up speaks volumes.
Anyway... can you link to your analysis, please? I feel like laughing hard this morning and I am sure you have done an excellent job beating the crap out of this "study".
PS: if I were the car companies paying for this crap, I would ask for my money back.
Toyota's life-cycle analysis of the Prius (PDF file)
They claim the break-even point with a traditional car is 20,000 miles. From there on, it's all gravy. (Or gasoline, as the case may be.)
Whatever a traditional car is! By the way, here's a rundown of year 2006 world cars, fuel economy, total lifetime CO2 emissions, etc. Scroll down to get to the list. Most of the best aren't for sale in North America. Too bad.
Now this list makes a lot more sense than the energy cost/consumer mile thing. What is amazing is that the Prius gets a 20% advantage in mass over cars that have the same consumption but aren't hybrids. Only 24% (50kg) of the roughly 200kg higher mass are due to the battery. Now what we need to see are next generation lightweight diesel hybrids.
I would, however, like to write to the author and see if he factored in a new set of batteries at 10 years/100,000 miles for the Prius.
Why should he do this?? They don't need replacing even at 200,000 miles.
I've talked to people who've put high mileages on Priuses and so far..... no batt changes needed.
My guess would be that the batteries do not die but simply deteriorate very slowly. The electronics firmware might correct for that and the car will still get excellent milage (because of its high special engine design and superior power matching in comparison to most other cars) even after the "soft loss" of the battery pack. The driver will also not notice because the ever earlier power cut-offs of the electrical drive will set in very slowly. Humans adapt to these slow changes quite well and the technological aging will probably be compensated by adjustments in driving habits (softer acceleration etc.). Until the driver gets to drive a new Prius, he will not complain about the difference. After he gets to drive a new Prius, he will probably attribute all of the difference to the "new" design of the latest production model. He might even see this experience as a good reason to buy his next Prius. And the good news is: nobody gets hurt. Not the driver because he or she is happy. Not the maker because they did a great job designing the car and certainly not nature because the car beats the crap out of US average even with the battery practically removed.
:-)
This was one of the things I asked about when I was in a Prius taxi. No battery replacements needed for their fleet, and the only two they'd sent in for major work were both at about 500,000 miles at the time.
At this point, there seems to be enough experience with heavy use of hybrids to discount the notion that they'll wear out unusually quickly or that the batteries are likely to need replacing.
Does anybody know why the concentration of Methane in the atmosphere is going down:
Is it an effect of the Kyoto protocol?
Here is an article in newscientist about it:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn10643-emissions-of-k...
Khebab, it's not an answer, but a very clear trendline, from the UK, on a Defra page/site with tons of info, maybe you can find it there:
Methane emissions by source: 1990-2005
My first guess: emissions rise in the developing world, but go down substantially in rich countries. To figure out Kyoto's effect, all you have to do is find US emissions. If they go down as much as the UK, it's not Kyoto. My guess is they do.
In 2005 methane accounted for about 8 per cent of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions. Methane emissions, excluding those from natural sources, were 52 per cent below 1990 levels. In 2005, the main sources of methane were landfill sites (40 per cent of the total) and agriculture (37 per cent).
Emissions from landfill have reduced by 61 per cent and emissions from agriculture by 15 per cent since 1990.
Yes, I wondered about landfills... we in the Western world have been great dumpers, and that is turning around, mostly due to environmental concerns about land use and water pollution. A side effect of less and cleaner landfill dumping is much lower methane production. I would expect that trend to be similar throughout western Europe and perhaps even the US. The Third World dumps a lot less, it recycles out of necessity.
Downside : trash is incinerated instead of being dumped = more CO2.
In Austria deposting untreated garbage in landfills has been outlawed. All garbage must be burned, the energy produced in the garbage burning plants is counted as "renewable" energy. In my eyes a prime example of creative statistics
Not entirely - if you are burning food related (scraps, peels, etc.)/organic garbage, it can be reasonably considered renewable.
No clue - it is kind of interesting though. I used my old friend google, and found more detailed discussion here:
http://www.epa.gov/methane/scientific.html
There is a link to the IPCC report here:
http://www.ghgonline.org/humaninfluencebig.htm
that shows that before human influence, that the methane concentration was about 750ppb.
Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas - 21 times more powerful than CO2, in fact. The IPCC report suggests that the radiative forcing for the methane is about 25% of the total right now, with CO2 being the bulk of the rest.
According to a recent study... nobody knows:
reduction in CH4 emissions seems a lot more easier that for CO2:
src
Khebab, methanol
I took in a seminar about using methanol to increase plant grown/yield. At the time there appeared to be something to it, mainly for Ag. There was a designation between C3 and C4 (carbon) type plants and thier uptake of foliar applied methanol. Worked for one group but not the other. Contrary to generally accepted cultural practices of not applying a petroleum like/related (VOC) product in high heat, this was not the case with methanol. If memory serves me correctly temperatures need to be above 85 deg F. Available carbon was believed to be the limiting factor under heat stress conditions. Methanol was to be applied with the intent of volitalization and subsequent plant uptake through plant stoma. Stoma or stomate are small openings in the leaves of plants to allow gas exchange. You can see them easily under a microscope. I never followed it up as it didn't pertain to my field of horticulture. Could help explain some gas leveling(?)
Don't know if this adds much to the discussion, but I often wonder about plant response to global warming and greenhouse gasses.
In nursery production it is not uncommon to add aditional CO2 to closed greenhouse air in combination with good air circulation (fans) to get he CO2 in close proximity to plant stoma. It increases plant growth.
Methanol applied to nursery plants is not used to the best of my knowlege. If there are any midwest farmers out there they might be a better resource on this.
Btw, Thanks for all your work on those charts you make.
D
Here is a link from typing in "methanol c3 or c4" into google. This querry had the greatest hits to research.
http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/plantbio/1994-April/003003.html
Just an obsevation applying methanol to a field might be cost prohibitive to the return on investment, considering drift of a gaseous vapor, I think conditions would have to be almost perfect - no wind and I mean none!
If it is in existance already then I think plants will use some of it, the only question would be how much?
We're talking methane, not methanol, no? Big difference
Good catch yes you are correct very different. My missing point is that eventually methane gets converted. The information of into what gets a little less clear but CO2 and water is likely. I guess my point is that plants can use a lot of carbon. Looking at the graph it (methane) must be going somewhere.
Some plants, er weeds, like a lot of CO2. In many instances you can turn the heat up in the 90's with CO2 cranking around several hundred PPM, and the weeds take off. I've watched time lapsed video and it's something. Growth is 4-5 times faster, yielding 2-4 times more fruit, but it also needed 4-5 the water(oh 4 got this is in a hydro setup).
And what kind of weeds were these? Wink, wink, nod, nod, nudge nudge, say no more!
Statistics like these make me question the IPCCs assumptions. Dont get me wrong, I firmly believe in Global Warming, but Methane was predicted to continue to increase long with C02 throughout the rest of the century. The fact that it is not is a very loud and clear indication that the scientific community doesn't have enough information to model the atmosphere yet, let alone make best/worst case scenarios regarding it.
And imagine the godz of science trying to alter the atmosphere by whatever means... just like 3 year-olds playing with loaded guns.
You can question the assumptions all you like. It's healthy to do so. A lot of the forcings, and most of the feedbacks, can't be modelled very well, yet.
But don't forget about the stuff we DO know :
* CO2 = biggest global warming agent
* Mostly human-produced
* Lowering CO2 production is the key to get global warming under control.
The rest is often highly debatable, but it's details. And anyone who advocates "business as usual" on the grounds that "we don't understand enough yet" is, knowingly or not, an agent of planetary destruction.
Garbage in = Garbage out, not "planetary destruction".
Let me know when YOUR next climate study papers appear in Science and Nature. I will be glad to read them.
I would not waste my time and energy on such assinne trivia at this TimezUP.
"I would not waste my time and energy on such assinne trivia"
Of course not. And for the same reason you are also not training for the Olympics or apply to be an astronaut. None of these are worthy of your time.
Either that or you just can't do either.
Here is a hint: the adult response to the work and achievements of people who are way ahead of you is to accept it for what it is and to try to understand it the best way you can. And if you really try hard that might even lead to the ability to criticize EVENTUALLY. The childish response is to dismiss it UPFRONT.
Time's up? Maybe so. But it is high time for some to grow up.
Thats not what the IPCC reports said though. It made no reference at all to planetary destruction or any other alarmism. Climate change certainly is likely to impose some costs, but its dishonest or ignorant to say that it implies planetary destruction.
And there are some nearly free CO2 mitigations, such as simply replacing all old coal power plants with nuclear.
[This article http://bostonreview.net/BR32.1/emanuel.html] by Kerry Emmanuel speaks in detail regarding our ability to model the complexities of the climate.
You know of course that of the many uncertainties in climate modeling the single largest one is how people will behave. That's why they run so many different scenarios. I guess they didn't have one for changes in landfill management and coal and gas mining. But you're right in that they don't have a crystal ball, so we all have to use our judgment here.
Let me know when YOUR next climate study papers appear in Science and Nature. I will be glad to read them.
Right, only those published in Nature can make a logical argument based on the facts, huh? That dog don't hunt, beeyotch.
What a logical and fact-based rebuttal. It's not like there's a correlation between "has papers published on the subject in prestigious scientific journals" and "knows what the hell he's talking about" or anything.
We bow to your superior factiness.
No. Not only those. But chances are that if you spend your life doing something AND somebody looks over your shoulder all the time (they call that peer review), you are better at it than the next best guy who likes to blow his horn at anything and everything.
OK, here is an example for you: The brakes on my car are broken. I can either bring it to the car dealership where they have the right tools to take them apart and replace the broken parts with the originals. Or, I can pick a random person on the street, give them a screwdriver and ask them to repair my car for me. Which one, do you think, will have the higher chances of success?
Same with climate science. I can look at the work of people who are doing it 24/7 with access to the best available data and who have plenty of discussions among themselves about the results of their work. Or, I can listen to anyone who knows how to use a keyboard and log onto a blog site.
I happen to be a physicist. From where I stand, at least I have a fighting chance to read a relevant climate science paper and, putting many hours of work (>100) and a bunch of visits to the library into it, judge if the authors got the fundamentals right. But even if I did that, I would never be able to judge if the details are correct until I had had discussions with the authors and access to their data set.
And, honestly, I would not expect a climate scientist to write a paper on experimental high energy physics or a "how-to"-textbook on nuclear resonance experiments (both of which I could actually do). And no climate scientist in their right mind will claim that they could do any of what I can do unless they have been working in my field(s) for years. Not that I have met one climate scientist in my life who made that claim....
Having said all of that, what makes you think that I give much on the opinnions of people about climate who are not active climate scientists?
Or, more to the point, what exactly makes you believe that you should? Unless you like random strangers repairing the brakes on your car, of course.
That's not so clear.
It's possible to have an effect be clear and robustly modelled while not having a good handle on what the causes of that effect are. For example, the general nature of gravity's effects were pretty well understood long before General Relativity proposed an explanation for it.
Now, admittedly, climatology isn't as well understood as the effects of gravity; however, history suggests that when a scientific consensus is reached, it's generally pretty good.
(If anybody is thinking about rebutting with "Galileo" or "global cooling", I refer your attention to the words "scientific" and "consensus".)
Ultimately, graphs are graphs and sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...
Unscientific, anecdotal evidence sometimes shines through.
Blackbirds are singing their sweet song (in late jan / early feb).
Bulbs are springing to life.
My Bonsai trees are budding. (bad news, too early, i may have to bring them inside against a rogue frost)
I walked the dog in shirt sleeves last saturday
I shiver in snow today, but it was gone by lunchtime.
We are warming up Hrothgar.
60 years ago, the lady that lives next to me went to school on top of a meter of packed snow.
10 years ago I photographed my daughter while midnight-sledging (going down a hill with no lights on is pretty well life - affirming). Was it terror or excitment on her face? - or a mixture of both? Any how, she got the schoolday freebies of snow days. And the dual hit of:
Snow + No school = fun.
No snow days this year for my son. The sledges and snow shovel stayed in the shed.
This year at least.
The world is a turning place.
Graph or no Graph.
OTOH, if we're going to go by shining anecdotal evidence, well, we could use a healthy dose of that warmth in the Upper Midwest right about now - even if, as the IPCC suggests, we are 1C warmer than we might have been on another historical timeline that never happened. You didn't mention your location, but the truth is that interior continental weather is enormously variable. That's one major reason why people move to the coasts, especially the western coasts. (Once upon a time, proximity to seaborne shipping was also a factor.)
With little more than 100 years of truly quantitative records to go on in most places, we have no real notion of how variable weather can be. It is correlated over many different timescales, so a brief time like that only samples a couple of standard deviations. The proxy records (isotopes etc.) aren't much help because hot spells or cold snaps lasting a few weeks tend to blur out.
Come back in five or ten thousand years and we'll have a much better idea of what the range really is...
Does the declining methane correlate with deforestation of rainforest...? Damn trees - git rid of 'em ;)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4604332.stm
There is an article in the February Scientific American about that, written by the scientists themselves, Frank Keppler and Thomas Rockmann.
One of the fundamental things about science is that it can prove we really don't know much of anything if we do enough trials. And I love it :)
Yes, the Sap-ant's in The Smoke work themselves up to a tizzy over imaginary threats created by their grant-seeking, bandwagon jumping blind drones trivia contest... meanwhile the ant's "larder" is depleting rapidly.
Global Warming should only be taught in Political Science and Economics classes.
Could it be that CH4 is approaching its equilibrium level? With CH4 building up the amount of CH4 oxidized also increases. 7 years atmospheric half-life means 7% of CH4 in the atmosphere is oxidized to CO2 and water. At some point this process will balance the emission process and the atmospheric concentration of CH4 will reach a stable level.
From Leanan's story about Saudi Arabia cutting its exports to Asia comes this ominous piece of information:
Iran?
Is the Khuzestan Gambit still an option for stabilising Iran?
http://www.defense-update.com/newscast/0107/analysis/analysis-070107.htm
In the Persian Gulf, the US will need lots of jet fuel to supply hundreds of warplanes under the control of the newly appointed Admiral Fallon.
"The Jerusalem Post reported that the assault ship, USS Bataan, steamed through the Suez Canal on Tuesday(Jan 30, 2007) on its way to the Persian Gulf. The seven-vessel battle group includes 2,200 US Marines and sailors, helicopters and Harrier fighter jets. The aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis and its associated warships are due in the region later this month, joining the carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower which is already in the Gulf. In all, Fallon will have around 50 warships as well as hundreds of warplanes at his disposal."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SYM20070...
Here is the USS Bataan's vision: "BATAAN VISION" To be the most capable warfighting platform to help win the war on terrorism in order to preserve our freedoms, the freedoms of our families and future generations. The website is
http://www.bataan.navy.mil/
The Khuzestan province of Iran produces about 90% of Iran's oil and is a plateau (oil basin) surrounded by mountain ranges. It is located in the southwest corner of Iran and borders Iraq close to Basrah.
Here is a map from EIA showing the oil fields in Iran's southwest corner including Khuzestan.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Iran/images/iran_ogdetail.gif
This is an old article about Khuzestan.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11743.htm
The US occupation of Khuzestan may not happen but the threat of occupation could be used by the US to intimidate Iran.
This is another link which discusses the Khuzestan Gambit (about a third the way down the web page) from Al-Jazeerah:
"The arrogance of military power has led to a grave crisis - and to a decline of the United States' role and influence." Mikhail Gorbachev.
"The president is living in a dream world," US Sen. Barbara Boxer.
http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2007%20Opinion%20Editori...
I heard on CNBC this morning that Saudi's discount to WTI was the lowest in three years. As you can see here:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip_crude.html
As of 1/26/07 it was about 5 dollars. A year ago it was 7 dollars. Today it is less than 5 dollars but CNBC did not say exactly what it was.
This means that supplies are getting tight.
Note: CNBC did say "Saudi's discount" however the link is for "OPEC" crude as there is, to my knowledge, no page where we can find Saudi crude prices. But we can assume that Saudi prices track OPEC prices pretty close.
Ron Patterson
Sure there is. One thing you can say about americans is that we collect more data than anybody.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_wco_k_w.htm
WTI data is here
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_spt_s1_w.htm
Eyeballing the weekly data, I don't see any changes over the last month. It would be interesting to plot a couple of years worth of data.
People keep forgetting (or refusing to admit) that Saudi Arabia was and remains a major player in dictating US Middle Eastern Policy. This is one reason why the Saudis have never vocally backed the Islamic hardline against Israel - they know they would be placing the US in an untenable spot and they don't want to make the US choose between Israel and Saudi Arabia. However, in concession to this "soft" line from Saudi Arabia, the US has to take into account Saudi concerns. Right now the primary Saudi concern is not Israel (and has not been for decades) but is Iran. Iran is reaching for world power status, or at least preeminent status amongst Middle Eastern powers, though with the nuclear card in play, I suspect that Iran really wants to be a "world player" and recognized as such.
Unfortunately, Iran is primarily driven (at the government/policy level) by Shia fundamentalists. Ultimately I believe many observers are correct that the next generation will replace these hard liners with more moderate politicians, but only if we leave them alone. However we remain with the problem of what will the current government of Iran do before its own people throw it out? Right now there is strong evidence of Iranian involvement in Iraq, of Iranian efforts to thwart inspections and hide nuclear activities, coupled with constant threats from Iran's president against Israel and the US openly and more importantly against Saudi Arabia in thinly veiled terms.
The situation is a mess and we're married to one side of this feud whether we like it or not. What we have to hope for is that the other side doesn't take the feud "hot" and that this remains relatively low key. I do not expect that to remain so though if Bush actively starts attacking Iranian assets (even if they are illegally in Iraq). Instead I see that as the sort of move many fear - one that would cause Iran's population to rally around the flag and in that case things might get very ugly.
Let's see your proof.
Greyzone is spot on with his observation.
There is no proof, that's a strange request. But there is plenty of evidence. Take a look at how Iran has challenged the status quo (questioning US policy at every turn to weaken US hegemony), cemented alliances (China, Venezuela, Malaysia), how active they have been in international diplomacy (Amadinajad globetrotting), and how they have worked within existing international legal frameworks (IAEA).
This is a judgement call but have you even read Ahmadinejad's statements over the last few years? He is very clearly talking about Iran's leadership in the Middle East, it's growth in science, economics, and military power, and Iran's own movement into "nuclear power" status (his own words).
Now before you assume that I am saying this is bad, I am not. But it is diametrically opposed to both the US and the Saudi positions about the Middle East. Saudi Arabia has been the preeminent Islamic power of the Middle East and now they are feeling challenged by Iran. If this remains strictly an economic sort of competition, then it will probably turn out to be good for the whole world. But will it remain so? Can you guarantee that?
In short, two old powers (US and KSA) are being challenged by a new power (Iran). How this challenge plays out and how far either side is willing to take the confrontation are huge variables. You do yourself a disservice if you think that either US/KSA or Iran might not feel the need at some point to resort to further military force.
"Now before you assume that I am saying this is bad, I am not"
Why would you not say its bad??
If you lend credence his bold statements on the previous stated goals then how can you not lend it to his statements of the destruction of Israel and the US?
I see the fool as a clear and present danger.
There have been issues in how his words have been translated. Reading other translations, what the president of Iran has been saying is simply that the US and Israel will pass from the scene, much as the USSR did. Certain translations appear to have been made that were as deliberately inflammatory as possible. The question remains of just how the US and Israel will pass from the scene so there ought to be some concern there but not the chest-beating march towards another preemptive war that we see oozing out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue lately.
Greyzone - what do you think the fundamentalist rulers would do if they thought they were in real danger of losing power at home?
How much do you think their time-horizon for oil production and exports affects their "plans?"
As far as leaving them alone, how much time to do you think this would entail - until they were "peacefully" voted out (if that is possible)?
The reason I ask this is that there may be a window of opportunity for them to produce bomb-grade uranium, and as "moderate" Rafsanjani, said in 2001: "If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the… application of an atomic bomb, it would not leave anything in Israel, but the same thing would just produce damage in the Muslim world." ?
I do not necessarily disagree with you about leaving them alone. Given enough time, using increasing international pressure (financial, political, etc) might help undo their fundamentalist revolution.
But is their enough time and what how would they react if they thought they were in danger of losing power in Iran?
(note - also, how much nuclear material may they already have from blackmarket sources - which is how they aquired much of their nuclear technology?)
No one in power today would do what I would do anyway, Darwinian, so it doesn't matter what I think. But if I were I would simply tell Iran to go ahead and build their reactors. I'd even tell them to feel free to build a bomb if that made them feel safer.
But I would also warn them and the entire world that if they used nuclear weapons to hit Egypt, Israel, or Saudi Arabia, (our primary allies in the Middle East) that I would unleash so many nuclear warheads on Iran that the entire country would be uninhabitable for centuries.
Yes, I am very familiar with the 12th iman eschatology that drives some of the mullahs and the president of Iran. Yes, I am aware that they might do things we consider irrational. But my own ethics prohibit me from striking first just because someone might attack with a nuclear weapon. However, my ethics do not forbid me from utterly destroying an opponent who has proven his intentions and that is precisely what I would do if Iran moved against Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, or any other US ally in the Middle East.
But the above is not what will occur because I am not the person in charge. Instead we (the US) are on a course towards another "preemptive" war, which I find reprehensible and unjustifiable.
That point of view is affordable by you, and "US" who would not be on the receiving end of the fanatic's apocalypse.
But were I a saudi, jordanian, egyptian or israeli, I do not think I would be comfortable being at the mercy of the West/US protection, and at the mercy of the fanatic mullahs in Iran.
Our fickle leadership might decide "they are not sustainable" as some here have put it (imagine their anxiety watching our elections with a Hillary Duffus as a prime candidate!).
If they have the Hidden Imam on their side they may not fear the reprisals you threaten anyway.
And for the record, I hope you confused me with Darwinian and did not mean to besmirch his good name by suggesting I am an alter-ego-alias of his.
I am my own nutcase, thank you.
Yes my error on Darwinian versus you. I was reading too many replies in this thread at once. ;) My apologies.
I suspect much of the anxiety in KSA and other ME countries is precisely because of their fear of how fickle the US might be.
However, I still do not see how anyone can justify a preemptive strike against Iran. And despite your rhetoric, the US lived with precisely this sort of apocalyptic problem for decades during the Cold War without resorting to a first strike against the USSR. Further, the level of rhetoric from the USSR was, for quite some time, similar to the level of that from Iran.
Agreed about the coldwar, but...
The USSR was not ruled by religious zealots with a Imam's-are-wild card up their sleeve, and we were not facing Peak Energy at the time...
I don't like the situation anymore than you or others here. I don't have any idea how to solve this situation peacefully - or if that is even possible, considering the waning influence and power of the Needy/desperate West, verse the ascendency of the Energy Rich Block (and of course the possibility of a Jehovah vs Allah rematch in the minds of some of the contestants).
We are mere spectators here. Batten the hatches locally and hope for the best.
Time to do some remodeling and quit the intellectual self-stimulation for today...
"I watched with glee while your kings and queens fought for ten decades, for the godz they made..."
Stoned Lucifer
Ha Ha!
We are all nutcases here. In our own way, we understand that the lunatics have taken over the asylum.
Welcome to your room...
IMHO the preemptive war you are talking about is nowhere but in the heads of the last neocons on the hill. And that is where it will stay. The US as a whole had enough of that idea and we won't go there. Iran will get its nukes. Like everyone else who got them they will find out that the safest way of committing collective suicide is to use them. They will find, just like the USSR, that being a nuclear military power does not buy bread for a starving people. They will probably share their technology with other nuclear wannabees and we will see what we haven't seen in the past: total nuclear proliferation. To be honest, it was only a matter of time. That it would happen, sooner or later, was predictable. Did the world get any less safe? Not really. I don't care much if it is an all out nuclear war between two super-powers that kills me or an attack by a wannabee. The likelihood is probably comparable. From history we know that it was always more likely for a human being to be killed by a human than by a lion. Nothing has changed. We are still our own predators.
IP, you are very much correct that we are currently still our own worst predators (but the microbes revenge will change that soon... watch out for primoridal ooze!).
When forming YHO, please remember the Iranian Mullahs do not think like you do. Try to think like they do. That requires an honest assessment of their culture, religion and history.
And please remember they do not limit their thinking to the politically correct fantasy world often passed off here as "reality."
Indeed, the Mullahs do not think the way I do. There are, however, a lot of commonalities with the thinking of the Nazis. Radical Islam is only a notch or two away from Faschism and its self-image. There is, for one thing, a victim-complex (we are poor because the West stole our goodies). There is also a superiority complex (Islam is the ultimate religion and we are the ultimate masters of Islam). There are messianic aspects of bringing truth to the world and there are certainly apocalyptic aspects which also can be found in Hitler's writing during the last days (he felt betrayed by the German people). Not to mention the hate of Jews...
I remember that the German journalist Peter-Scholl-Latour compared arab/islamic society with a collective self-amplifying psychosis more than a decade ago. The man was up to something. What we are seeing is a people going crazy. You can look at it from a gender perspective (the role of women in traditional Islam), a psychological one (how disturbed a mind straps on an explosive belt, how disturbed a society creates hundres of minds like that?) or a political one (openly faschist tendencies of the Iranian revolution) and you can not but arive at another conclusion than that the only permanent solution would rest in two hundred million people receiving therapy for life. Which is illusory, of course.
As it is, the Iran situation, IMHO, has a lot in common with Germany before the war. But despite what Churchill might have said, a pre-emptive attack on Germany was not in the cards. And G.W. is certainly no Churchill... neither is Condi Baby.
The world will have to take the Mullahs for what they are and live with them UNTIL they make their move. That move might be catastrophic for some of us, but it will certainly be catastrophic for them. Which is all I was trying to say. If Islam needs to go through a nuclear purification before the survivors will come on board the 21st (or 22nd?) century, the US will certainly not be able to prevent it. Just like GB was not able to prevent the Nazis from starting the war.
Don't get me wrong. I am not happy about any of this. I just don't see how we will get out of it without things getting a lot worse before they will actually get better. God, I hope I am wrong.
The reason Islamic societies are extremely backward is because they believe that the final word on everything was written 1500 years ago and everybody in this day and age must live his life according to the opinions, beliefs, superstitions and prejudices of an illiterate man who lived in 7 century Arabia. So Islamic societies lack the flexibility and dynamism that is needed to compete in the modern world. KSA produces more graduates in Islamic theology than any other subject. The only Muslim country in the world with some dynamism is Malaysia; they owe it to the presence of a very large Chinese minority (around 40% of the population). It is telling that the "Silicon Valley" of Malaysia is located in the Chinese majority Penang province while the Malay majority Kelantan province has Sharia. Other Muslim countries are mostly basket cases that are breeding grounds for terrorists, obscurantists and believers in religious absolutism who are more concerned about men's facial hair and women's clothing than anything else.
It is shame that the countries in the middle-east have nothing to export other than oil. A poor country like India with enormous problems (too many religions & languages, caste system, overpopulation) creates a booming economy with a thriving IT and Pharmaceutical industry. Whereas the Islamic republic of Pakistan next door has nothing to export other than jihadi terrorists and soccer balls made with child labor.
For a good look at this religion, go to http://www.faithfreedom.org/. This website was created by an Iranian who lives outside of Iran.
Hello suyog,
This is pure ignorant bigotry and nothing else. The Muslims are actually quite comfortable with the modern world, modern thought and modern technology. People living in the 7th century A.D. cannot defeat a Superpower's military so effectively as the Iraqis are doing today. People living in the 7th century A.D. cannot create nuclear weapons (Pakistan) nor nuclear power plants (Iraq and Iran).
More bigotry. Your hate reveals more about your own character than it does about the Muslims.
You are bigoted against the Hindus, too, I can see. At least India has a booming economy. That's pretty much all that you see.
More bigotry. Hatred of this sort cannot possibly lead to peace.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Islam is not superior to Judeo-Christianism.
Nor the reverse.
All these peoples are 'peoples of the book'.
Fundamentalist Islam is currently against both Jews and Christians.
Just as fundi Jews and fundi Christians are currently against Muslims / Evolution/ Science etc (tick box here and win a talking doll of GWB , yours to treasure for only $99.99)
This is an abberation.
It is in fact a heresy.
No Muslim tract requires the the extermination of Jew or Christian because of their beliefs. True Muslims believe that all men should be guided towards God. By whatever path. They happen to believe that they are on the right and straightest path.
The people of the book have absolutely more in common with each other than they have difference.
- The importance of Family
- Obsvervance of the 10 commandments : sensible rules (who can argue against them?)... who lives by them?
- Charity and hospitality
- The protection of women and children.
- A strict dietary regime that makes plain sense in a hot climate.
All these traits were forged in a desert environment.
Frequently while at war.
If you have ever been to an Arab country, and if you have ever experienced Arab hospitality then you will know the true measure of these remarkable people.
The earlier verses in Quran are fairly tolerant. They were "revealed" to Mohammed when he was weak and had few followers. As Mohammed became stronger, the verses "revealed" to him became more and more bloody and intolerant. The later verses in Quran supersede earlier verses. They clearly and unambiguously call for suppression and extermination of other religions. During his life, Mohammed waged numerous wars of aggression; tribes who refused to convert were often slaughtered and their women and children distributed as war booty. He encouraged his followers to commit banditry in the desert and kept 25% of the loot for himself. By the time he died, Islam prevailed in nearly all of Arabian peninsula. On his death bed he declared that no other religion should ever be followed in Arabia.
The central message of Quran is that you should believe in the revelations of Allah as given to Mohammed and make others believe. There are numerous passages that make it clear that Allah hates non-believers, they will be sent to hell, they should be humiliated and persecuted and treated harshly and that they should be killed if they don't become Muslims.
If you don't believe me, go here: http://www.faithfreedom.org/
This is a website created by an Iranian ex-Muslim. Quite an eye opener!!
Hello suyog,
I will take it for granted that you are not a Qur'anic scholar.
I don't imagine that there is a religion in this world which has not sought to dominate the Earth. The Muslims were no more violent in the spread of Islam than the Christians behaved as they conquered Europe and then colonized the world.
Yes. Have you heard about the atrocities committed by Europeans and Americans?
That's a common trait to all religions, especially the monotheistic religions. Persecutions of minority religions has occurred throughout the world by the followers of many different dominant religions.
An eye-opener only for bigots who seek to justify their prejudice & hatred.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Correct! However, the sins of the Christian fanatics are mostly in the past; the sins of the Muslim fanatics are in the present. It is the present that I am interested in. Islam has not gone through reformation and enlightenment unlike Christianity.
Certainly. But the founder of a religion should be held to a higher standard. Muslims consider Mohammed to be a perfect human being whose example is to be followed. The founder of Christianity didn't commit any atrocities, did he?
Correct. But again, the sins of other religions are mostly in the past; the sins of Islam are in the present.
One major difference between Christianity and Islam is that the founder of Christianity was a saint; the founder of Islam was far from holy.
Huh? You agreed with just about everything I said about Mohammed and Islam. And I am still a bigot?
Hello suyog,
You are mistaken, suyog. The sins of the Christian, now post-christian secular, cultures continue to this day. American bombs & bullets are killing Iraqis today. The United States of America has threatened nuclear war with Iran, fortunately that is an idea which is now off the table.
Jesus did not possess any political power at all. But His followers who did possess political & military power committed atrocities all over the globe, including numerous acts of genocide which continue today. Christianity is a more violent religion than Islam.
Christianity and Jesus Christ are two entirely different things. Jesus was never a Christian. The Christians killed millions of people in Jesus name.
The bigotry arises out of ascribing the present condition of Islamic society to Islam itself. Christianity has gone through phases of the same sort and worse. The West is distinctly post-Christian secular today but still flawed in many ways.
How do you explain the 20th century, suyog? Europe was a terrible bloody mess for decades. Was Christianity responsible?
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Civilized "religions". "Primitive" cultures/religions have taboos against this meme. This particular meme practices agriculture and refers to itself as "civilization". The attempt to separate humanity from Nature sometimes leaves one to wonder if "civilization" thinks there is a war with Nature. Humanity isn't the center of the species universe.
I think responding to you is a mistake but I will give it a try.
I have studied Islam. Have you? I have read the Quran. Have you? I have read the biography of Mohammed ("Sahi Hadiths of Bukhari"). Have you? Why should Islam be above criticism? Why is it bigotry to criticize it?
There are 57 countries in the world in which Muslims are a majority. How many of them are secular democracies? The only one I can think of is Turkey which is secular only because the Turkish army is secular and wields power from behind the scenes. How many have given equal rights to women? How many have freedom of speech and expression? If you go to a Muslim country and criticize Islam or the behavior of its founder, what happens to you? If you preach a non-Islamic religion overtly in a Muslim country what happens to you? Why is criticism of Islam such a big taboo in Islamic societies? What are they afraid of?
Why is Islam the only major religion today in which fundamentalism is a mainstream ideology?
A part of British India which had a Muslim majority broke away in 1947 and Pakistan was born. Other than religion, India and Pakistan have basically the same culture. Pakistanis are mostly descendants of Hindus who were converted. Why has democracy thrived in India whereas Pakistan has successive military dictatorships? Why is India secular whereas Pakistan is a backward theocracy ruled by a military dictator where raped women are sent to jail for adultery? Why do you see world class educational institutions, thriving industries, culture and enterprise in India whereas Pakistan is a breeding ground for medieval Al Qaeda/Taliban fanatics? Why is India a feminist paradise compared to Pakistan? Why does India have a Sikh prime minister, a Muslim President, an Italian Christian woman as the leader of the ruling party whereas this would be unthinkable in a Muslim majority country?
Did you go to http://www.faithfreedom.org/ ?
Or are you just going to call me a bigot?
Hello suyog,
Yes, I have studied Islam. Yes, I have read the Qur'an numerous times. No, I have not read Muhammed's biography.
And: No, Islam is not above criticism. I am in favor of criticism but am opposed to prejudice, bigotry & irrational fear.
The Muslims have whatever governments they wish to have. If these governments don't coincide with your ideals there's a pretty good chance that is because the Muslims have different ideals.
As to the subject of equal rights for women: American women had to fight for their rights and they received them only grudgingly. The Muslim women will get their rights by their own efforts and not as a gift from West.
As to the question of freedom of speech & expression: These freedoms are eroding in the West in a pretty dramatic fashion. Maybe the Muslims will gain these freedoms after Americans lose their freedoms.
The Muslims aren't yet perfect by any means. These are all problems which the Muslim nations will have to resolve on their own.
There are plenty of sins committed by the West. Shall we compare our sins to their's?
You are speaking from your ignorance in the above comment. Islam is far more complicated than you imagine.
1. India was a desperately poor country for much longer than it has experienced relative prosperity (which still means dreadful poverty for the majority of Indians).
2. Democracy hasn't exactly thrived in India, either.
3. India is most certainly not a secular country: there are millions of gods worshipped in India. India probably has more gods than the world has American citizens.
4. India's industrial phase is, at best, only temporary.
5. Pakistan's extremists are no worse than India's: Both countries generate terrorists and they both have committed crimes against each other.
6. India's diversity is a wonderful thing and a trait which was first exemplified by one of India's greatest rulers, a Muslim.
You certainly are a bigot. But this is a trivial point and not relevant to the present discussion.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
So in other words, Muslims in general are not in tune with modern thoughts and ideals. Which directly contradicts what you had said earlier. The KKK and Nazis too have different ideals. Perhaps criticizing them also makes one a bigot?
And when it happens we will all celebrate. Until then societies which sanction gender apartheid and female genital mutilation deserve condemnation.
And when it happens we will praise the Muslims and criticize the West.
True, but irrelevant for India/Pakistan comparision.
False. Except for a brief 18 month period of emergency declared by Indira Gandhi in 1975, democracy has very much thrived in India.
You idiot. Secularism doesn't mean absence of religion or gods. It just means that the government doesn't impose a particular religion.
Worship of many deities doesn't make India a theocracy.
Maybe, but how is it relevant to India/Pakistan comparision?
What the hell are you talking about? You are truly a moron. Contemporary Indian and Pakistani societies are as different as day and night.
India's tolerance for diversity was first exemplified when Buddha was allowed to preach and live to a ripe old age. In any other society they would have declared him a heretic and killed him.
Are you are really a moron. And this is not a trivial point and certainly relevant to the present discusion. I am done with you. This is my last response.
Hello IP,
Pure bigotry combined with irrational fear.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
"used nuclear weapons to hit Egypt, Israel, or Saudi Arabia, (our primary allies in the Middle East")
I am certain Israel has very good intelligence and if they felt the time was right they would without a doubt loose their nuke-tipped cruise missles at the other.
I would also hope if we knew they were planning such for the US that we would do the same. How can you profit from unleashing nukes on them if they have already struck your allies(Israel)? Its too late.
Yes they are not technically our allies except perhaps in Nato but we promised them and we support them.
What you have to do it warn first and back it up with real action when the time comes. If you don't back the warning with action then your regarded as a paper tiger and you are now in an even worse position.
Putting our carrier battle groups in the Mid East is just such a warning. Its the wisest course though many here wave hands and cry at the very horror of it. It a guerilla war. The enemy uses terrorist tactics. We must hold the nation that drives them accountable if they bring more bloodshed to us.
I say this. Never again another 9/11 or Pearl Harbor. Never again.
Its my understanding that every new IDF recruit it taken to Masada and vows the same. "Never again."
airdale
Now will come the religious attackers and apologists.
(and knowing before hand that most Europeans despise jews, perhaps as much they despise Americanos)
Note: I have lived among, was partly raised by and worked with many jews. The same for Europeans and I firmly believe that all the hate expressed here by europeans is not the reality of the rest.Its just that this site appears to attract some of the worst. Not knowing BTW where GreyZone lives either.
Not an apologist, but I would temper the 'Never Again...' with Never Again a Gulf of Tonkin, Never Again a USS Maine. Plenty of examples of trumped up reasons to start a war in US history. This is my worry of having huge military in the Mid East. It is extremely easy to escalate into a huge bloody war based on picayune, often exaggerated incidents. Better IMO to ratchet down the rhetoric and the saber rattling.
I've heard there's strong evidence of German involvement in France. Also strong evidence of Canadian involvement in the USA ... etc... hooda thunk it?
I've also heard that they were preparing a whizzbang powerpoint conference about Iran supplying nasty weapons and stuff to insurgents in Iraq... but that Condi Rice cancelled at the last moment because the evidence was actually pretty flimsy... wanting to avoid a Colin Powell/WMD moment I suspect.
Iran has interests in Iraq, and that's perfectly natural and legitimate. I haven't seen any rational explanation as to why Iran should be seeking to "destabilize" Iraq... after all, the democratically elected government are their allies; if the country were pacified, that would be all to the good for them.
Both Iran and Syria are willing to talk turkey and stabilize the region. Unfortunately, they have nobody to talk to. The US admin is hell bent on war. Sadly, Ahmedinejad has been behaving like an objective ally, hitting all the right buttons to excacerbate the tension (just like Saddam did!) because he thinks he can get away with it (just like Saddam thought)... he can't quite believe that Bush would be crazy enough to go ahead with such an obviously disastrous war...
You are underestimating Ahmedinejad. He already KNOWS that he can get away with it. We have no means to subdue Iraq and Iran is half an order of magnitude larger. From which follows that we will have absolutely no means to subdue Iran. The US does not even have the means to keep an embargo on Iran up for any length of time because it has no allies to help it. In that sense the man is acting completely rationally. But then, so was Hitler when he invaded Poland.
That's got to score a 10 on the "well, duh!" scale. As far as they're concerned the US is not willing to take them on their own terms, starting with the installation of the puppet Shah. A popular revolt was suppressed with the help of the CIA, so when the next revolt came it was much more extremist. The US didn't just back Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, they sunk half the Iranian navy and took out oil platforms. Now the US occupies Afghanistan and Iraq, patrols the waters off Iran, and Pakistan is little more than a US tool, so that they're surrounded on 3 sides. Of the countries we've labelled the "Axis of Evil" Iraq, with oil and no nukes, has been invaded while North Korea, with nukes and no oil, has not. Probably they realize that they have oil and no nukes -- not a wonder they're trying to get nukes. Public statements by the US like "Real men want Tehran" sound rather scary in the US but probably sound really scary in Iran.
What I don't understand is why we've unwittingly strengthened the hardliners every chance we get. Is it a wonder they're doing everything they can to weaken the US in the ME? How exactly do we expect them to react? Why do we continue to act so stupidly?
Greyzone, you're the one who claims that Iran is reaching for world power status, and I think it's fair to ask for proof about a statement like that.
But nothing is forthcoming. Let's see it, or admit you're just expressing biased opinions (I'll assume the latter till you deliver). Thing is, this is not that kind of forum, TOD is supposed to be about facts.
75% of the world bases 75% of their opinion on Iran on a distorted translation of one single speech.
Still, Ahmedinejad never said that Israel should be wiped off the map, but it doesn't seem to matter anymore, we're all following US media rhetoric. I personally think that a halfway intelligent forum should steer clear of Fox News-level innuendo, but that's not an easy thing to accomplish down here.
I even read that proof of Iran's world power ambitions can be found in the fact that they signed a deal with China for oil sales. That kind of thing makes me wonder about the people who write that.
1. I already stated this was my opinion.
2. I never once referenced any statement about "wiping Israel off the map". That is your own creation. Why you choose to drag that up here and now would be a good paper for a psych student but since I am not a psych student, I will simply observe that you are the one that brought up this strawman. Go bark up another tree.
3. You refuse to read Ahmedinejad's own words and take them at face value. Since you refuse to read his blog or any of the Iranian government's own press releases, I'm not sure what else to say other than I have little interest in talking to someone who chooses to deliberately ignore such public statements. Iran itself heralds its own remarkable progress in science and technology and proclaims their own leadership status without relying upon the US, Russia, or other nations. Am I supposed to assume that they don't mean exactly what they say? If that is what you are suggesting then I think that you are the one that should supply proof.
4. No, I do not feel like playing Google for you and dredging up hundreds of public statements just so you can dimiss them anyway. If you refuse to read, it's not my fault.
Since you stick to your words without any back-up, I have no choive but to conclude that we are different people with a different opinion on what a serious forum should look like.
In case you ever care to look: the posters here DO substantiate their claims. Your words have no foundation.
Enjoy your self-imposed ignorance. I have no need to prove that the sky is blue. Neither do I have to prove repeated statements from Iranian government representatives demonstrating their drive towards Middle Eastern and perhaps world power status. The sky IS blue and those statements DO exist. Your willful refusal to research the issue is your problem, not mine.
By the way, you are not a moderator for this site nor do you appear to have the permission of the moderators to even attempt to moderate this site. So stick that fact up by where you are staring at the backside of your navel.
you are right
continue your baseless war mongering all you want
Here is one public statement:
President Ahmadinejad told Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Mualem just last week that 'the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives.'.
No source needed. We all know he said it.I don't the translators got it wrong.
I am taking it at its face value. You think he means ..oh the PO thing? Wouldn't that apply to more than just the USA?
No I think he means what he says. Whether its just for 'effect' doesn't mean much. He has laid his cards on the table. Nopsychoanalysis needed . This is not a wise thing to say or boast for it could mean that a superpower takes you serious and doesn't step back from the brink. He is giving the administration much of the testimony they need.
I also don't buy they have peaceful intents for gaining nuclear power. Not when you babble statements such as the above.
Aaaw enough of this shit.
Ladies, Gentlemen.
There is enough war going on without, without starting one here. (do you like the Shakespearian use of English? :-))
Some things you may want to consider:
The Jews have a right to Exist.
So too the Palestinians.
The Iranians have a right to make their best fist of a crap situation (= nukes will help us keep the lights on, because in 7 years time they start to IMPORT OIL).
The Iraqis have a right not to be machine gunned and bombed to death. After that, they may also have a right to work out that Hallibuton and Exxon and Chevron is not the best way forward for the production of the one soveriegn good that they sit upon that they can use for the benefit and enjoyment of the Iraqi people.
We all have a choice.
We can all hang together.
Or we can all hang seperately...
OK. It gets worse from here. And I was enjoying how informative and non combative this Drumbeat is. Let's just delete this whole Iran thread. It is full of heat and no light.
EDIT : (I tried to insert this after the first couple of Iran rants.)
And you believe the propaganda of the mainstream media against Iran??? There is no evidence that Iran is supporting anyone in Iraq.
Bush & Cheney are waging a propaganda campaign so they can attack Iran.
And from the comments on this thread, it appears to be working ;)
Just Clickl your heels together and go back to sleep kidz. Whatever you do, don't give up on your paranoid delusions and face reality.
Does anyone know if Saudi Arabia refines and exports large quantities of jet fuel? If so are these figures available?
I would caution against putting to much weight on the statements of "Middle East trading sources", especially if the underlying facts don't seem to support the case.
I went to check on Google map for any info on Manifah (or Munifah), note how the ocean has been completely sprayed with a green-blue color
.
Maybe it's iridescent interference from an oil slick ;)
I dont know what you have done, but if I log off and then log on, your bloody graphics boot up an automatic switch on to a windows 2000 upgrade.
Foock knoes what happens if i say 'yes'
I will probably end up owning a time share in Bulgaria...
Please stop it.
Weird! I used a simple IFrame (i.e. a page within a page).
algae bloom. similar to our red tide off BC coast.
You're kidding me!
You can see clearly land features on the coastline disappearing in the green fog:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=Manifah,+Saudi+Arabia&sll=45.485...
KSA & Aramco have contracted this week to build a causeway to its offshore drilling islands and many would like to blame that (future) activity if it is close. But i surmise that u are seeing fog formations that are refracting the underlying ocean colours from seasonal plankton and algal blooms.
If it doesn't move, it is similar to colours of the Caribbean. If the colour moves, it's a bloom. On the sea-to-sky hwy, we could see them travel and spread via currents at about 2km/hr.
Lack of a plume would indicate to me that it is not industrial sourced in nature. If u can locate a harbour live-cam, u will see that the fog is white, imho.
They are common and studied on the east coast of the Arabian Sea as well: http://www.nio.org/projects/sgpm/project_sgpm.jsp
Re: The truth of the matter is that the world is in the midst of an energy crisis, but neither the NYMEX nor the IPE seem to have noticed
Truth
Agreed, but the "why" part?
I think your alias explains the "Why" part... remember the nymex did not start trading oil futures until 1983 - waaaay after the shocks of the 70s.
Calm before the storm.
You mean the world is in an energy waste crisis? I completely agree.
Yesterday I found out that my fridge is totally shot. It uses almost three times the energy that it should. Simply by replacing it (which I will do shortly), I can save 30% of my electric bill. That is more than halfway there to my plans to lower my energy consumption at home by 50% over the next five years (as far as electricity is concerned).
I dare to bet with you that there are a heck of a lot of people with bad refridgerators out there. Or with sheet metal genital enhancements they could trade for appropriately sized cars.
Fortunately, there is a refrigerator that needs no energy to manufacture or distribute. Unfortunately, it only lasts a couple of more months and is not available everywhere. And unhappily, it leaves the milk very difficult to pour into my tea.
I'm building a solution to that. Simple Heat transfer device to use the winter-cold to keep your fridge cold before the compressor has to kick in. Thermostatically driven, any time it's below around 36-38 fahrenheit and the fridge needs it, the coolant would move through.
Ideally, this would also have a massive storage stage, so you could hang onto a lot more cold, instead of just using the ambient temps momentarily.
Bob Fiske
this is a good example of "only two modes: complacency or panic"
there will be a break point, and this becomes the "issue du jour"
then you'll see the stock markets and the dollar take a tumble. They are going to crash anyway, so I'll predict the fall, as bad news seems to register best in the fall.
we are headed for the perfect storm
... "grandad, what did you do to prepare for the crash of 07?"
..."wow did people really live like that then? that would never happen now"
The markets are complacent, and the people seem to have largely retreated into the cocoon of busy-ness within the ratrace and
Many people seem unwilling to engage in discussion about Iran, and I sense an attitude of "I can't do anything about it anyway, so let's just get it over with."
That is my impression -- not data based, but anecdotal.
My guess is that the cocoon is quite fragile, but then people can be ingenious when alternatives are few.
If war breaks out and the economy tanks, I wonder if a fair amount of authoritarian domestic policies will be enacted to order the market and to keep order amoung the masses.
(apologies if this info was posted previously...)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070204111710.htm
http://www.ocean.udel.edu/windpower/
Just the point I've made in the past. It required a War Production board to redirect resources from consumer goods and into military hardware to accomplish that task. One weakness we now have is we no longer have a significant consumer good manufacturing capacity which resources can be diverted from.
So it looks like we'd be using the hulks our of old, empty factories and once again be using the resources of the 1940's~!
"...On the practicality of producing 166,720 wind turbines, co-author Richard Garvine noted, “the United States began producing 2,000 warplanes per year in 1939 for World War II, increased production each year, and, by 1946, had sent 257,000 aircraft into service.
“We did that in seven years, using 1940s technology,” he said."
YOU did not do that. Your grandparents did. But then, your grandparents were honest people who had learned their stuff in school and were not too proud to spit in their hands and actually get something done. YOU are a generation of whiners who fail highschool, crouch on the couch watching "American Loser", "Backstabber" and "The Humiliated" and are afraid of their own shadow until you have air support.
Very good points both of you.
Maybe if we sell it as "Giant Ocean Fans to Combat Global Warming" we can sell it to the gullible, sleepy public and start rebuilding our industrial infrastructure... that is, if the dollar holds up, world peas sprout, and mother nature turns off our shell-fish genes.
Ouch...
Americans have always been underestimated; however, this time I do think it is different. The Great Depression created a survivalist mindset that allowed America to endure the sacrifice necessary to win WWII. There is a big difference between a lean mean Okie who survived the Dust Bowl and an obese couch potato who is wondering what the next flavor of Doritos will be.
I simply do not see this country being able to rationalize the sacrifice that is coming. The country is in the terminal phase of "Affluenza", there is no differentiation between needs and wants.
I'll stop now, but I could go on....
There are some that believe that another Great Depression is on the way. Huge trade and budget deficits, huge amounts of consumer debt that could be uncollectable.
There will not be another Great Depression.
That being said, rampant inflation is entirely possible. My bet is on Stagflation, from more costly energy (inflation) and the ripple effect on the economy from those costs.(negative GDP growth)
1/ Take out a map and let's see locations.
2/ 166,720 turbines for 9 states is about 800.000 for the US?
3/ need stats on raw materials
I agree - especially with #3 (raw materials) as well as politics etc being hurdles.
As usual, It all looks good "on paper" but we'll see what happens over time when reality interfers with the lucid dreaming.
I think it takes longer to do this sort of stuff today than it did back then. My wife worked in a building in downtown Cincinnati which when it was built around 75 years ago was the fourth tallest building in the world. In 11 months, the previous building was torn down and the entire 570 foot tall building was built and occuppied. this process today would take several years. And what do we get for all the extra effort and time? A slightly safer and more energy efficient, but far less attractive building than those built prior to WWII.
Wasn't the Empire State Building built in a little over a year?
Yes, 410 days start excavation to opening.
What happens when there's a hurricane?
Every once in a while they do get up that far.
And now for something completely different:
Since I see both Khebab and Dave Cohen present, a question for the two of you, and others:
An article from Australia, below, got me thinking about this, and I've never seen it addressed before. The article says that nuclear reactors' prodigious use of water may be a deterrent to building them. Which makes sense in view of the country's droughts, now and expected.
And from there, along the lines of 3 of Leanan's posts today:
Mixing oil and water, about the oilsands water problems, and
Grim global warming prognosis for Western U.S. , which obviously will affect ethanol crops
Works forging ahead on Al-Qurayyah Seawater Project, on KSA's water use for oil recovery
You know, it looks like a lot of energy forms will at some stage be in danger of water shortage impacts. Maybe it's no coincidence Leanan picks up 3 in one day.
Hydro power all over the world is at risk from diminishing river flow. Come to think of it, are there any energy sources that don't have to deal, now, or later, with water shortages? Windturbines: aluminum, lots of water. See NY Times: Smokestacks in a White Wilderness Divide Iceland
Has anybody ever addressed this, for instance in the form of Water Use Per BTU?
Note: many of the facilities to be built have expected lifespans of many decades, and there's no doubt that water shortages will be much worse in 2050 and beyond.
Why, why are we not using the waste heat in greenhouse food production? 68 deg F soil temp DOES AMAZING THINGS TO PLANT GROWTH.
Inland power plants typically use fresh water evaporative cooling. However, many power plants, both nuclear and conventional, are located on the coast, in which case waste heat is dumped into the sea, essentially an infinite heat sink. Most of Australia's population is on the coast, so presumably all plants would be located there, with no fresh water consumption.
Regarding overall heat ejection/MW, traditional nukes are less efficient than conventional plants because they operate at around 600F, much lower that fossil plants that generate steam at 1000F, so would dump more heat... high temperature gas reactors (HTGR), probably more expensive, eg the British Dragon, US Fort St. Vrain and Germany's pebble bed reactor, are comparable in efficiency to coal/ng because their higher operating temp allows steam generation at 1000F. (The older British plants, due for retirement, have corrosion problems that are avoided by the US and German reactors, which use inert helium for the coolant.)
If sea levels rise, Nuclear reactors near the sea may be underwater. Perhaps not the best location.
Levees are a minor cost if needed.
Magnus, I disagree.
Coastal protection in a thrue sense is extremely energy- & financially intensive. I'm from Holland; I know.
You could google "Delta works"
So I agree with Gail. And I've posted before on the dangers of storing nuclear waste at sea level.
http://www.theoildrum.com/comments/2006/8/7/195721/3132/228
Sorry, I cant see any danger for dry cask storage at sea level. If sea level rises its easy enough to put the casks on a train inland if you're really that worried about it.
The reactor is not expected to last forever. Typical life expectency is 40 years, maybe extended another 20. So, projections of rise over the next 60 years is probably no more than 10 ft, if that... siting the reactor around 30 ft above sea level should be ok. Of course, the replacement in 2070 might have to move inland a bit...
More misinformation from our Lunatic Fringe. IPCC AR4 2007 Sea level estimate for 2075 is eleven inches.
(edit: bad position. post not aimed at JK ... i know your reference was rhetorical).
Hello Freddy,
> More misinformation from our Lunatic Fringe. IPCC AR4 2007 Sea level estimate for 2075 is eleven inches.
No one knows how much the sea level will rise by 2075, but an eleven-inch sea level rise is not trivial by any means. Those living along the world's coasts would face some pretty serious impacts by that point and that would only be the beginning of sorrows. Over the next several centuries the seas will rise by many feet and the world will lose its coasts. The economic losses will amount to trillions of dollars and recovery will be difficult because by that time, undoubtedly, the world's fossil fuel resources will be depleted.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Very little infrastructure or anything else built these days lasts more than around 50 years (or a lot less), before it needs replacement, or else remodeling or reworking that is just as expensive as replacement. So it's not exactly clear to me why people can't adapt to this, should it become necessary to do so, simply by failing to replace the stuff after it is clapped out and before it is in truly serious danger, and spending the same resources to build elsewhere instead. After all, virtually no one has to live hard by the sea any more.
Now I know people like ocean views, which is why the East and Gulf Coast barrier islands are full of stuff that ought not to be there even without GW, if the owners don't want the risk. But if TSHTF, there is no reason for anyone to take seriously - i.e. subsidize - someone else's desire to have an ocean view. Caveat emptor.
Hello PaulS,
This is silly, PaulS. The behaviors you describe above occurred within the context of a nearly unlimited supply of nearly-free fossil fuel energy on a planet still well-stocked with natural resources.
Those people who live a hundred years from now will have very little energy and resources. Rebuilding everything every fifty years won't be an option.
What humankind loses it will loose forever.
Well, they're going to lose most of the current and near-future infrastructure and so on in less than 50 years time regardless of what happens, 'cos it's simply not built to last. And if they really have fallen that far, it's even better reason to rebuild however little they can well out of harm's way, since scarcity would make the stuff all the more precious. I guess I'm still hard put to see any logic in the notion that anyone ought to build or rebuild in what is blindingly obviously harm's way even absent any GW.
Except for the siren song of those lovely ocean views...but of course that's not logic, it's emotion, but I expect that sometimes people need to override their emotions - or else be willing and able to pay the consequences themselves...
Reality Check: Backing off the shorelines has been commonplace and manageable. After the methane bomb ended the last glacial advance, sea levels rose and avg of 1 metre/century to 2 metres/century. That's 200cm/century. Or 2000mm/century. Or 20mm/year. Equals less than an inch/year.
While the 2m/century rises were rare, there were occasions when there were decadal deluges via temp spikes or ice dam collapses where waters rose 70mm/yr. These were the all time extremes. 70mm/yr = less than 3 inches/yr.
If every glacier on Earth and the whole arctic ice cap melted tomorrow morning, the waters would only rise 50 cm or 16 inches. If the next day we lost the Antarctic Peninsula, the exact same amount would prevail. And as i mentioned the after the IPCC release, Greenland will take about seven thousand years to melt if we exceed the forecast temp's for 2100 by another degree - adding 1mm/yr x's 7000 = 7000mm = 700cm = 7m = 22 feet ... in 7000 years. Enuf said.
Thanx Paul. Most Americans do not realize the oceans have risen over 100 metres in the last 10,000 years. The polar caps, glaciers and ice fields all going bye-bye as vestiges of the last ice age. A cycle. And the 1F degree of extra avg temperature since 1930 has not been helpful.
Being usa-centric, they similarly are not aware of the dozens of cities that have been submerged by rising waters off the former coasts of china, japan, india, uk & the mediterranean. Most of these cities were built four to seven thousand years ago but they are part of cultures in which the avg american has zero interest ... and thus oblivious to this part of nature.
Ancient settlements and offshore islands have similarly disappeared of the West Coast of North America. But loss of native american culture is off their radar also.
Actually it is 120 meters in the last 20,000 years. In the last 10,000 years the rise has been about 50 meters. It is all laid out here, exactly how much the sea rose and how long it took.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/
The ice age was at its height 20,000 years ago and was essentially gone by 5,000 years ago.
Freddy wrote:
It is extremely unlikely that any cities were submerged by the melting of the last ice age. They would have to be over 5,000 years old. And anyway, any evidence of these cities would be underwater and ravaged by 5000 years of seas. But if you have a URL or some reference Freddy, I would love to see it. I am a student of history and have never heard of any such submerged cities covered by melting ice. I think you just made that up Freddy.
I just love URL and other references Freddy. I always try to post them. And you occasionally post a URL yourself, especially if it is to your web page. But you never post URL to back up your tall tales. I wonder why?
Ron Patterson
mooo.
unmoo
That was a good post. A moo was uncalled for
Of course he made it up Ron, quit wasting your superior intellect of half-man, half-buffoons (or "haboons" as I like to call them) trying to address the insane rantings of a cult member.
There is a relatively simple answer to the cooling-water question. Build the reactors on the coast, and use seawater. Works well in France : the coastal reactors are not affected by water shortages, the ones on rivers sometimes have to lower output in summer.
In fact, it's misleading to say that nuclear "uses" a lot of water. It requires a big volume of water for cooling, but it spits it out again with very little actual consumption (just warmer).
(Anthony Albanese is an old mate, but I suspect he's talking rubbish here)
I have read that cooling water supply has been a constraint on geothermal development in the western US. Air based cooling systems are possible (imagine a huge auto radiator) but it triples the cost of the cooling system.
You could just build Integral Fast Reactors instead and do away with the need to use water at all.
Plus, you get the advantage of getting 99.5% of the energy from the Uranium instead of the 1% we currently get.
Are there any operational IFRs anywhere in the world? AFAIK there was one experimental prototype (EBR II), but it was decommissioned in the early '90s. Given that, how do we know the concept, as technically attractive as it is, will translate into usability within the next quarter century?
We'll be seriously trying lots of things, eg not just breeders but solar and fusion (local solar), as energy goes up in price. SOme will work better than others. IMO the latter is much less likely than the first or, to put it differently, the breeders will be attractive at lower energy prices than fusion.
Earlier breeders have usefully provided a lot of info, eg on liquid sodium systems, that need not be repeated for commercialization. All that is needed is high electricity and uranium prices.
North Korea energy aid not yet broached
How much do they want?
Quotes for Today:
December 2007 6366
December 2008 6460
December 2009 6449
December 2010 6420
December 2011 6402
December 2012 6392
December 2013 I don't think they're trading this yet
Just two short years ago those far-dated contracts were well below spot prices (See figure 1 in PDF link below)...
The sleepy saps making the market may be slowly awaking from their delusion... (what out for asymptopes ;o)
Front page of yesterday's Sacramento Bee featured an article regarding more freeway construction, and inside is an article on the latest IPCC report on global warming. Missing is any link between household vehicle usage and global warming, and I did some quick calculations for the Sacramento region (1) in advance of submitting a letter to the editor. I am rather staggered by the result - over 30 millions lbs of CO2 emissions per day - and would appreciate any sanity checking of my rough calculations:
1) Sacramento region includes: Sacramento Metro area, Yolo/Solano, Placer, El Dorado, Feather River
2) Sacramento Metro Air Quality District, Page 18
3) Sacramento Area Council Of Governments Population Projections, page 3
4) Stuart Saniford TOD Article on Auto Efficiency
5) EPA
Your calculations look correct to me. That's a huge VMT per household per day.
Here's another calculation that may be of interest. 41.9/19 = 2.205 US gallons or 8.36 L. At 32 MJ/L that's 267 MJ per household per day. Perhaps you'd like that in kWh: 74. That's equivalent to a constant power of over 3 kW!!!
I dare say that's more than the average household's electrical consumption.
Electrical energy is, for the purpose of comparison, not the same as energy content of fossil fuels. Most of the energy in gasoline is wasted in badly designed car engines and even the best car engine will barely get over 30% thermodynamic efficiency. And if the gasoline/oil was burnt in an average power plant, it would deliver no more than 40% of its energy content at the power outlet. In other words, that 3kW of average power you calculate really turn into 1.2kW at the power outlet, which is comparable to many people's average consumption (at home, at work etc.).
And if you do the calculation the other way round, it turns out that much less energy would be needed to propel our cars if they were electric (or at least hybrids) than is used now by oversized ICEs. We could easily reduce our transportation energy demand by a factor of three over the next two or three decades if we had to. It looks like we will have to.
So what actually looks bad is good news that the situation is not as dire as it seems because there are plenty of losses in the system.
U.S. military: Iraqi lawmaker is U.S. Embassy bomber
Terrorists: we're for them, except for when we're against them.
Cheney's Fund Manager Attacks ... Cheney
Step forward, Jeremy Grantham -- Cheney's own investment manager. "What were we thinking?' Grantham demands in a four-page assault on U.S. energy policy mailed last week to all his clients, including the vice president.
Titled "While America Slept, 1982-2006: A Rant on Oil Dependency, Global Warming, and a Love of Feel-Good Data," Grantham's philippic adds up to an extraordinary critique of U.S. energy policy over the past two decades.
http://tinyurl.com/24ybbj
I appreciated that. It's refreshing to see someone from the financial sector stick his neck out for something other than money.
Disney Bahrain?
Re: Disney Bahrain?
A timely reminder that the human condition is also hilarious. However —
Disney's new venture in Hong Kong is
struggling in customer satisfaction
Maybe Disney is not getting the same mileage out of anthropomorphized rodents that they used to get? How can this be? The Mouse is Universal.
They could try an "End of the World" Theme Park! Only $12 to get in — kids under 6 admitted free!
What will you be doing at the
End of the World?
"Maybe Disney is not getting the same mileage out of anthropomorphized rodents that they used to get?"
My first thought when I read that was that by "anthropomorphized rodents" you actually referred to Disney's customers, not their merchandise IP. Then I relized that this could only make sense when we were talking about US customers. Then I realized that it still made sense because Disney is not doing nearly as well anywhere else as it is in the US... :-)
Something in the darkest parts of my soul would like to see Mickey, Minny, Goofy, and Donald trying to defend Disneyworld from wave after wave of enraged anti-western Arabs.
Only if the Bush, Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld are the ones sweating it out in the heavy costumes.
I would like to point out the MSM's once again egregious retardation, if not plain evil streak, when it fails to mention that Chavezes' so-called grab for power is simply a function of the Venezuelan constitution. He is not the first Venezuelan president to use this device, which is completely legal and part of the law in Venezuela.
I invite people to check out the following article which explains the history of this political tool and how and why past Venezuelan presidents used it. The article also explores why the MSM would raise a hue and cry about Chavezes' perceived perfidy yet conveniently fail to note that this is a common occurence that incites no worries in the rest of the WELL-INFORMED world.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_eric_win_070126__22enabling_22_a...
Hello, TOD. I'm a 20 year old student, and I've been reading this blog intensely for past couple years. I see a perennial complaint in these threads that TOD is full of geezers - so here's the perspective of a young guy.
The Sanders article points out an important truth that escapes most of the young students around me - that our current way of life has no future, and that our Democracy is a transparent sham. It is not true that young people are not 'politically aware.' Many are very much so, but they tend to fall into groups organized by emotion rather than thought. A student might become a Republican because 'multiculturalism' makes him uncomfortable. A student might become anti-war not because they understand it to be in their interests to do so (as politics in the young seems to have been completely disconnected from personal interest), but because the stance of being opposed to a war simply pleases them.
Most students simply go to university because there really is no other socially acceptable choice for them to advance their lives after finishing high school. Judgements of whether or not a teacher is "good" or "bad" typically revolves around how easy it is to receive a good mark in the class. And this is at some of the best schools - I have no idea what it's like at lesser institutions. Although this is primarily a disease of the liberal arts, it finds its way into the sciences as well.
There is no understanding that things will not continue as they have been. There is no expectation that current events will ever affect their lives. To them, the news is either joke fodder for Colbert and Stewart, useful as a sign of social sophistication, or a combination of the two. I believe that the socio-psychological consequences of a serious escalation of the war and its accompanying global economic implosion will be severe. At least the young in Weimar Germany knew that they were a doomed generation - in America, they just believe that things will get even better. Forever.
It's really just a question of when this generation's political cherry gets popped. For the boomers, it was perhaps the '68 Chicago Democratic National Convention. For us, it might be when Bush explains what a Civilian Reserve really means. A lot of people my age seem to really believe that the Democrats will do something about it - but I remember just how enthusiastic the Senate was when they were all lining up to approve the Iraq war and support the President. All Bush has to do is look Decisive, to come out with a Plan to Fix Everything - and everyone will be lining up again to sing his praises.
Are you, by any chance, majoring in apologetics?
Nobody expects students to be perfect human beings. You are young and collectively you are idiots like all young people. The only expectation I have of you is that you will not be idiots twenty years from now, neither individually nor collectively. Can you do that for me? Better still, can you do that for your own and the world's sake?
And while you are at it, stop apologizing. It is a waste of your and our time. I would rather have you go and get yourself a power measurement device and check your fridge. It might be just as bad as mine. Oh, and did you replace all your incandescents with CFLs already? And what car are you driving, anyway? I hope it is small and efficient. Don't forget to turn the AC off in summer and the heat down in winter: your girl/boyfriend looks way more sexy when they are sweaty and if you are cold at night, just cuddle up under a blanket. Trust me, body heat is the best heat there is.
:-)
Do you, by any chance, hold a PhD in Condescension Studies? I'm embarassed that I haven't heard of you before, you must be quite a luminary in your field...
What indicates that I am 'apologizing' for the lack of political conciousness among American students? I could care less about that. I was responding in the context of yesterday's discussion about the Kunstler post in which "young people" were characterized as the hope of the future. If the "next generation" is supposed to stand up to the challenges of global political crises, Peak Oil and Global Warming, how can they do it when they are being prepped to lead a collapsing society?
What's the best way to tell them that what they have been told is their birthright has been utterly squandered?
Yes, he does. Just ignore him. That's what most of us do.
I appreciate your post. It hadn't occurred to me that young adults' politics are not connected to their own self-interest. That certainly wasn't the case when I was in college. But according to Neil Howe, your generation is much more civic-minded than most. Howe, a Boomer himself, thinks the Boomers are ill-suited to political power, because they are too idealistic. He says the one thing Boomers do well is raise kids, so he's expecting the children of the Boomers to be exceptional. If his theories are correct, if there's any generation that can handle peak oil, it will be yours.
Civic-minded, maybe, but it seems to me driven by a desire to excise personal guilt. One of the most passionate student debates at a cafeteria table that I have ever witnessed concerned whether or not they were responsible, as citizens of the United States, for the crimes committed by the government. There seems to be an irrational focus on something like sin and how to atone for it. There isn't an understanding politics exists as something other than a game. When there is political engagement, it strikes me as more of a "Red vs. Blue" variety - oddly remeniscent of Constantinople under Justinian. In most cases, it is motivated by emotion rather than intellect.
I think that up-and-coming youngsters are raised exceptionally well... to do the tasks that they were expected to do. I'm not familiar with Howe, but I think David Brooks' assessment of my generation is more on the mark (and I loathe David Brooks). They believe that all the Big Questions have been solved, and that all that is left for them to do is to enjoy life and perhaps to cure the world's ills (Stop Abortion! Cure AIDs in Africa! Liberate Darfur! Destroy Islamofascism!).
We're trained to be professionals based on scientifically understood precepts of how things should be done. The method for fixing any major problem has already been worked out. Such a delicate cohort is not in the least bit prepared for a major social and economic collapse. I believe that has much to do with how education works in America. It works well for what it is intended to do, which is to prepare people for working in a strong framework. For a look at what happens to the educated when the economy collapses, examine Russia in the immediate aftermath of the 1998 collapse. The most educated were some of the least employed...
Re war crimes and direct guilt:
No , you are not.
The 'controlling mind(s)' are guilty.
In this case, Bussh,Cheney, Rumssfeldt. etc. etc.
But. You are guilty by association.
'Went with , caught with , hung with'.
An old German saying....
Good luck and God's speed, whoever you are.
Learn from our mistakes, and make the world a better place. Err...we have just woken up to the fact that, actually its the only one we got.
And we foojked it up.
Nobody thought to bring along a spare....
Something we failed to do. (while we were making money)
Dont live by our rules. That's what I tell my children.
A couple of thoughtful posts...good way to start out here. Kindly ignore some of our resident trolls; you'll figure them out quickly, I'm sure.
Neil Howe is a demographer who wrote a book called Generations. Basically, it argues that there are four types of generations, that have repeated in the same cycle since America was settled by Europeans. Nothing mystical or anything; rather, each generation reacts to the ones before it, with predictable results. (Your generation is the "reincarnation" of the Greatest Generation, which is why he expects so much of you.)
I don't know if that's the best example. There was a strong anti-intellectual bent there even before the collapse. Or so my Russian friends tell me. It was part of the Communist ideology. Manual labor was valued over professional jobs. Many engineers and scientists would moonlight as construction workers, because the pay was so much better.
Uh, isn't there a pretty strong anti-intellectual bent in the US?
Yes, there is. But we don't pay ditch-diggers more than scientists. Yet.
Barbara over at PO.com says that in Italy during the war, it was the white collar workers who starved. People who had practical trades - farmers, mechanics, tailors, carpenters - could trade their skills for what they needed. Office workers had nothing to trade.
This is a perennial question. When it really takes on meaning is in the case where a population is 'punished' for the sins of it leaders. This has happened throughout history. WWII is replete with examples. Iraq is an immediate example. Some would argue that 9/11 is an example of US innocents being punished for the sins of US leaders, present and past.
A worry I have about GWB leading us into WWIII is that the rest of the world will find ways of punishing the US for the sins of the GWB cabal, basically putting the US into the position Germany and Japan were in in WWII. Won't matter what kind of arguments you can muster about the rightness of US actions if we are perceived as being the bad guys. All will suffer for sins of the leaders.
Yes, but a couple of the questions weren't condescending, they were completely pragmatic - including measuring power consumption, using energy efficient lighting, and either not driving, or driving an efficient vehicle.
And those are actually real questions, by the way. The only way to change how you live is to change it.
This is something that is currently unfathomable for many people outside of the U.S. - for example, the Dutch are planning to deal with higher sea levels, because if they don't, they will lose lives and property. And by planning, I don't mean they are discussing it - they are spending money, developing the materials and technologies and structures (or seeing what gaps currently exist and trying to solve them) required to deal with a sea level increase of 5 cm, 50cm, or 5m, because they don't see any alternative unless they want to live underwater (or on top - the floating houses are one idea, as is the massive floating farm/pig raising platform).
Germans are working on renewable energy technologies, and building better insulated houses today - they are not really wondering what the price of oil or natural gas will be in 6 months or 5 years, since essentially everyone here realizes that finite resources run out.
But what are Americans doing? This is a question which is worthwhile to ask, if only in terms of yourself.
And then you can decide whether the answers you develop push you into the 'doomer' category, or you can decide merely to ignore everything, or you may find an answer which is realistic in your eyes.
Good luck - some of us have been thinking about these things since the mid-1970s (yes, from junior high on in my case), and sometimes, you realize that much of what you learned was wrong. For example, conservation is not merely a personal virtue, it is a necessary aspect of any society that expects to survive over generations.
I think it was pretty damned condescending.
For example, he assumed I had a car and that I wanted sex tips from a creepy, environmentalist lecher. I am so poor that my energy imprint is less than miniscule. I take public transportation everywhere.
I'm aware of what life is like in Europe. I lived in Switzerland for three years when I was much younger. Voluntary cutbacks is not really a winning strategy for mitigating PO and GW. It's a winning strategy for making you feel better about yourself, and little else.
'Voluntary cutbacks is not really a winning strategy for mitigating PO and GW.'
Well, you may want to find another forum for discussion, as essentially everyone discussing things here assumes the cutbacks in oil are inevitable, not voluntary, regardless of how fiercely the arguments concerning the timing are. (Though the implications for GW are frightening in many posters' eyes, if coal is massively used to try to make up for falling crude production.) Some of us believe that the cutbacks have already started, though it is a murky picture at best.
There is a fairly well accepted belief at TOD that as oil production declines, conflicts will increase - the shifting tone of discussion here probably has nothing to do with it, but these days, it is harder to avoid the implications of an unstoppable decline in crude oil production being soon if not now, since production growth is at best flat.
At the moment, the articles, as compared to the open threads, are painting some fairly dire pictures, when contrasted to much of the information produced by interested parties.
Far be it for me to defend IP, but he seems to have grown up in Germany, and as an American living here now, much of what he writes actually makes some sense with that as the background - and in some ways, his condescension is quite typical of how many Germans look at the incredibly wasteful American way of living, or at American proclamations that it is impossible to live differently, while 80 million Germans do it daily without difficulties.
I've been reading TOD since 2005. By 'voluntary' cutbacks I mean relying on ordinary people to decrease their environmental footprints on their own without government regulation.
Well, maybe in the U.S., but in many places, when the price of a good increases, or availability decreases, people change their behavior, regardless of the reason why. Generally, they become more efficient, use less, or look for alternatives - but for the last decade or two, the U.S. essentially has said 'charge it!' in the Flintstones mode, and kept living exactly the same way.
This is again what makes the U.S. so hard to understand - nothing has been there for a generation in terms of a future which was pretty well understood by 1980.
I can also see, after reading the comments more carefully following this reply, that I misunderstood your first post - PO is not something just discovered, it was the people around you who have yet to realize they live in a finite world.
As if my opinion matters anyways - but please, post as you wish.
What has that got to do with what he said?
He'll do just fine in this forum. I daresay most of us believe as he does. GW and PO are not just societal issues, they are global ones.
As noted to him, my mistake - I thought he was the one just discovering certain information, not those around him.
I agree that IP was condescending, but I disagree that "Voluntary cutbacks are not really a winning strategy for mitigating PO and GW".
Certainly personal cutbacks are not a sufficient societal strategy, but from 30 years experience I can say that conservation is very frequently a winning personal strategy, at least in economic terms. The money I and many others did not waste on inefficient homes, SUVs, appliances, etc was instead invested, providing financial independence that eludes many unthinking and wasteful consumers. If this strategy has been successful over the last 3 decades of cheap energy, its' effectiveness will be multiplied many times over in the current era of increasing energy costs.
Actually, this is also an effective societal strategy, if you look at places like Sweden, Japan, Germany, the Netherlands, France, and so on - and the oft heard American excuse that such societies 'have to' conserve is really blind.
I think this will become much more clear in a decade, when 'cutting back' will have been seen as the right social choice, though it is possible that such cutbacks would mean the end of the American Dream as portrayed in America's media.
Let's give him/her credit for thinking. Don't stomp til next time. I"m glad for your input.
Your observations really reflect what I see with my students (both University and Jr. College).
Yesterday, in discussion checks and balances, I was trying to get students to repond to the Congressional debate over Iraq and the potential for escalation by the way of an attack on Iran. (Might I add to some of the posters above that it might be a good idea to actually read up on the history of US-Iranian relations before making grandious pronouncments about what's really happening there.) They sort of just sat there with that "Is this going to be on the test" look on their faces. When I asked why there was so little interest in a potential war against Iran, one student honestly answered, "There isn't a draft so we are not really affected."
Thanks for posting - please keep doing it to keep us old farts honest!
did you reply by telling this student that if a attack was launched on iran a draft would be the only way the government would be able to put enough people on the ground to do the job that they will realize that air-craft can't do.
Hello TODers,
Link to the transcript of USDA Secretary Mike Johanns News Conference regarding USDA's FY 2008 Budget Request:
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=2007/02/0025.xml
-------------------------------------------------
Concluding remarks and press question:
Again, I want to emphasize the president is deeply committed to improving the security of our country and promoting its economic growth. He is working for a stronger and a more robust America. This budget helps to accomplish his goals for restraining spending while continuing to meet our priorities. USDA will continue to be a team player in strengthening the nation and will implement reforms that will improve our programs and generate savings that will help balance the budget and strengthen the economy.
Thank you for coming today. As I said, I'll take a few questions and then I'll step down and our staff can take it.
Q Mr. Secretary?
SEC. JOHANNS: Yes?
Q Thank you. Let's start with the biggest share of USDA spending, public nutrition. Could you tell us how many people would be added to Food Stamps under the administration proposal to allow more elderly and working poor Americans into the program. Also, how many people will be denied Food Stamps under the administration's recycled proposal to deny automatic access to Food Stamps to people on (TANF ?) and Supplemental Security income programs? And then the essay question, your department says 35 million Americans have trouble getting enough to eat during the year. Why did the administration decide to do nothing on increasing the monthly benefit for Food Stamp recipients?
-------------------------------------
I was hoping the USDA would announce programs for relocalized permaculture, victory gardens, massive building of wheelbarrows, and so on, to strengthen the citizens' self-reliance & food security, but it looks like more business as usual, and devil take the hindmost.
If the GW projections for the Southwest come true: at some point, millions of Americans will be migrating towards areas of greater precipitation--the Govt should be jumpstarting programs to maximize relocalized permaculture in Cascadia, New England, and other Northern States.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
With dinosaurs the exodus north or south was called 'poleward migration'. But they died anyway.
Hello TODers,
Many will recall my earlier postings on my advocacy of turning the last piece of city-owned vacant land in my neighborhood into a community garden---well, the city ignored my emails and spent millions for this instead:
http://phoenix.gov/srcntrs/cntrshad.html
The huge parking lot is continually empty except for the employee vehicles and a few visitors. The lights burn 24/7, the lawn is flawlessly manicured, and I don't believe there are any rooftop PV panels onsite. It has already replaced glass and equipment from burglars. As far as I can tell: the police drive the homeless away from the property so they can't 'scare' any potential senior visitors.
I wonder how long it will take before the Overshoot forces young thugs to hijack the food meant for the 'Meals on Wheels' delivery program.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than YEast?
I looked at your link :-(
Sort of like God's Waiting Room
I wouldnt worry about the young thugs hijacking meals on wheels.
The feral, canibal youth will have pan-fried the old long before it gets to that.
HA!
My structural professor had the driest wit.
Hello Mudlogger,
Thxs for responding. The open hours are 9-5: convenient for the employees, but does nothing for the area homeless. The facility already has grafitti, so some people aren't happy with the results. The city's PTB evidently prefers that the homeless sleep in alleys and beside the dumpsters behind strip malls.
I would have accepted a Peakoil compromise whereby part of the structure would have been dedicated to free solar-heated shower and laundry facilities, along with overnight sheltering for the homeless in exchange for them preparing meals, helping seniors shower, doing laundry for the elderly, and other public service. We can be postPeak poor, but we don't have to be dirty and unkempt. As electricity skyrockets, the elderly will be spending large sums on heat & A/C to protect their health, but won't be able to afford helpers for many of the tasks that younger people easily accomplish.
At crunchtime, not all families will be able to care for or house their elderly. The govt. could do much to mitigate the demographic bubble if they get started early.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
I looked up your link.
And looked up the menu for lunches.
WHERE DO I SIGN UP?
HOW MUCH DOES IT COST?
AND WILL THEY TAKE A FAKE ID?
I can do a pretty good impression of a 65 year old...
Bob Shaw, I think I understand you now.
But Bob: If you are elligiable, grab some of that food while you can.
Good Luck Bob Shaw.
Bob,
I don't know why but your post made me laugh hysterically!
Hello TODers,
Many will recall my earlier postings on my advocacy of turning the last piece of city-owned vacant land in my neighborhood into a community garden---well, the city ignored my emails and spent millions for this instead:
http://phoenix.gov/srcntrs/cntrshad.html
I just knew before I even clicked on the thing that it was going to be some giant glass "clusterfuck" and it sure didn't disappoint me.
I pulled up the Google satellite/map for that address. The pictures are old, of course, so what I see is this huge gash running northwest to southeast and eventually continuing on as what looks like well-watered, i.e. green (!) parkland with a watercourse running through it. What in the world was it? An arroyo? Where does the water go now? Or was it a railroad yard?
Hello PaulS,
Thxs for responding. It originally was a dry wash that runs only very sporadically with flash floods as our rains are very infrequent here. But the freeway runoff is now funneled into this wash, and all the extra neighborhood asphalt contributes that much more runoff when it does rain-- which can quickly turn this dry wash into a very sizable downstream flood. It is not unusual for this flood to now be 100 yds wide and 6-8 ft deep during a intense monsoonal downpour. It all eventually drains into the Salt River--which is not a river anymore because of the upstream dams and the associated canal systems, but a huge, dry, flood control, mega-wash running through the Asphalt Wonderland.
The city has turned parts of these dry washes into parks, golf courses, and other whatnot that can withstand periodic flooding. Usually within a day, the water is gone, and operations return to normal. But gardening in this wash would not work because the flood would wash the topsoil and anyone's gardening efforts downstream.
The patch of land where the senior entertainment center was built was above this wash, but directly adjacent to it--relatively safe for gardening, or so I had hoped. Such is life.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
The lead in article in today's drumbeat is a nice summing up. I guess that all the market cares about is today's storage, which looks ok.
Has anybody noticed that per eia avg production thru oct is 84,565kb/d, and that 2005 was 84,564kb/d? So, freddy's right, so far 06 is higher, but it does look pretty plateauish... So, can 07 keep up? Cantarell effect still only partly felt, sa ouput down 1+Mb/d pre sa and falling, but a wall of oil about to hit... wait, what happened to the wall that was due in 06?
It is amazing to me how little attention the production problems are getting - I have sort of an Alice in Wonderland "Through the Looking Glass" feeling.
Besides all the things you mentioned, and are mentioned in the summary article, we have been hearing about declining production in China. There is also the story above about the production decline in the BP's joint venture in Russia.
I don't know if there is any connection, but the EIA data is late this month. Usually it seems to be out right at the beginning of the month - sometimes even the last day of the previous month, after the close of business. It looks like it will be at least February 7 before this month's (i. e. November) data is out. Is someone busy double-checking unusual looking data?
Gail, yes the EIA data is quite late this month, but it has been later. In June of 2004 the report was over two weeks late and there was no indication or real reason that I know of as to why it was so late. They could have had personnel problems, or some major data that was late.
Angola is now an OPEC country so perhaps they are delayed by reformatting or something like that. But it will be here by and by....I hope.
Ron Patterson
jk, January numbers could be very telling. February is quota month for opec and we already know it will be down. But January had a record demand call (86.2-mbd). Fortunately the OECD was at record inventory levels at the end of October and draws during november and december and early january didn't matter.
But now with inventory levels threatened, orders were probably hot and heavy regardless of the heating oil situation since mid December. I expect a new global record for January despite the OPEC quota restrictions. It will satisfy reversals in demand destruction due to nicer pricing than the $60-$69 of mid 2006 and it will replenish depleting inventories.
86.13 is the all time record (july 2006). It will fall before Valentines Day. And the new record will be broken before Thanksgiving Day 2007.
Well, we'll see. I doubt if jan will show much, have no view on a new peak month, or interest, my focus is peak year.
I have long seen 05/06 as twins. It remains to be seen whether 07 can keep up and make it triplets.
I agree world demand continues to grow, depressed only on account of warm winters, which have kept price in check while supplies have been flat since late 04, now into the third year. PO-now doubters have all expected much more oil in response to high prices... over a billion barrels, and low prices, have gone missing.
I don't think demand affects anything except price... all suppliers are flat out, nobody holding back, excepting only those members of opec that are respecting the cuts - and this is very murky, imo most are ignoring, only sa is really 'sacrificing' sales to boost price. IMO most of sa cuts are involuntary. Meanwhile, while today's eia does show 06 thru nov running 0.03% (not that's a plateau!) above 05, dec imo is likely to bring the total to below 05.
Xerxes, king of the Persians, demanded the tide stop rolling in. (In defense of the king, he did not expect the tide to do anything of the sort, it was a response to fawning courtiers.) We can demand the oil keeps rolling in as much as we want.
The EIA report is consistent with IEA i.e. it paints a gloomy picture on inventories. If true, the OECD is likely down to the lowest level (2500) in over three years (from the highest in three only in August).
This has set up the ten dollar upward move in price thru january & feb. Could be more due to OPEC feb 1st restrictions.
But then we have new production facilities coming on stream in Q2 at the same time when demand call is dropping from 86-mbd to 84-mbd. Contract Oil Prices will be below $50 before Halloween, perhaps before Labour Day.
Globally we have just seen major records set for Demand. But they came fraudulently as the supply was assisted by robbing global commercial Inventories. That is why there was no press releases on these events.
But it can't happen in Q1 or Q4 'cuz the present inventories are mostly structural. KSA does not want recession inspiring Prices. KSA will increase its production flow to 9.5-mbd by year end to maintain global economic equilibrium. The other 1-mbd will come from non-opec as i mentioned prior to christmas.
Hello TODers,
Zimbabwe prices quadruple in one week:
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=298122&area=/breaking_new...
In a futile and stupid response, the Mugabe Govt. has declared inflation illegal:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/4531891.html
Article entitled, "Mugabe the author of smart genocide":
http://www.zimbabwejournalists.com/story.php?art_id=1711&cat=4
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Hello TODers,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070206/cm_csm/ypress
----------------------------------------------------
Crack down on Mexico's crackdowns
OAXACA, MEXICO - Before he was tied up, thrown in the back of a truck, and tortured in prison, Gonzalo heard words he'll never forget. "The poor will always be poor and the rich will always be rich," a police officer taunted. "So why don't you go home and abandon your struggle."
------------------------------
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
"The poor will always be poor and the rich will always be rich," a police officer taunted. "So why don't you go home and abandon your struggle."
Isn't that the e-mail signature of every troll on this board? j/k