 | TWIP (This Week in Petroleum) 8-29-2007 | The Oil Drum | Saudi Arabia - production forecasts and reserves estimates |  |
DrumBeat: August 30, 2007
Posted by Leanan on August 30, 2007 - 9:02am
Black-Gold Booster - A onetime oilman admits we need alternatives, but says there's plenty of petroleum left.
Lee Raymond succeeded as an oilman by staying focused on oil. (In the mid-1980s, he was responsible for unwinding the alternative-energy program at his former company, Exxon.) Now chairman of the National Petroleum Council, Raymond says that petroleum remains plentiful, and a new report he's prepared for the Bush administration argues for developing new sources of oil and gas. But the report also advocates moderating demand, especially by raising fuel efficiency in cars. As for global warming? Raymond, who is also chair of President Bush's alternative-energy committee, says, "No comment."
Heat stressing California's power grid
Scorching temperatures across California created a near-record demand for electricity Wednesday, drawing down the state's energy reserves and prompting officials to urge residents to restrict their use of appliances.With Californians seeking relief via air conditioners, pools and sprinklers, the state's electricity grid manager declared a Stage 1 emergency, the first of three steps preceding rolling blackouts, in which power is cut to certain regions to avoid a systemwide crash.
The great global coal rush puts us on the fast track to irreversible disaster
The dirtiest fossil fuel of all is on the resurgent, dressed in climate-friendly garb. We'd be wise not to flirt with it.
Nuclear just too hot for Alberta
After at least a decade of trying to gain a foothold in Alberta, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. has teamed up with an obscure private company with a mystery customer to launch a gigantic nuclear power plant -- the first one in Western Canada -- to fuel the oilsands.
In a world where the National Petroleum Council talks about "continuing risks" to the oil supply, Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez is said to pose a significant threat to the interests of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries. Venezuela's production has declined since 2000, and the country is home to the world's largest unconventional resource under development, the Orinoco extra-heavy crude. A lot is at stake in Venezuela, so it is prudent to assess the risk there now and down the road. Do Venezuela's policies affect the peak of global oil production?
Important but Trivial (podcast)
In this installment of the C-Realm Podcast, KMO welcomes Professor Albert Bartlett back to the program to do an advanced seminar on his basic lecture on population, energy and the exponential function.
The end of civilization and the extinction of humanity
As I wrote in one of my recent books, the problem is not that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions - it's that the road to Hell is paved. We have, to the maximum possible extent allowed by our intellect and never-ending desire, consumed the planet and therefore traded in tomorrow for today. And we keep making these choices, every day, choosing dams over salmon, oil over whales, cars over polar bears, death over life.
Living Wealth: Better Than Money
If there is to be a human future, we must bring ourselves into balanced relationship with one another and the Earth. This requires building economies with heart.
The Rise and Fall of Sea Levels and Civilisations
Indeed, there are legends in both Scilly and Cornwall of a lost land between the two, called Lyonnesse. Legend tells of a land of rich pastures, abundant orchards, beautiful people and a city called Lions. It was said that from its highest point you could count the steeples of 140 churches. Legends persist of sailors being able to still occasionally hear the bells tolling beneath the waves, and there is apparently a family in Cornwall, called Trevelyan, who claim to be related to the only man who escaped the inundation, he scrambled out on his horse, which lost a shoe in the flight; their family crest featuring 3 horseshoes.It is thought that much of this legend is to do with the Bronze Age inhabitants of the islands who first arrived there 4,000 years ago when they were all connected. Their submerged field walls and round houses, some of which can still be seen at low tide, may well have been what inspired the storytellers to begin to weave the legends of Lyonnesse.
USGS Greenland Survey Shows Much Lower Resource Potential
The northeastern shore of Greenland could provide the U.S. with significantly fewer billions of barrels of oil and gas resources than previously thought, the U.S. Geological Survey said Tuesday.The lower resource estimate will mean that, as domestic production declines, the U.S. will have to increasingly rely on other major producers such as Russia, Venezuela, West African states and the Middle East.
The USGS published the first review of the hydrocarbon potential of the region in seven years, estimating more than 30 billion barrels worth of petroleum reserves.
The government agency said it believed the area - which lies under massive sheets of ice in water depths up to 500 meters - holds 9 billion barrels of oil, 86 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 8 billion barrels of natural gas liquids that are undiscovered but recoverable.
The 2000 survey estimated 47 billion barrels of oil, 81 trillion cubic feet of gas, and 4 billion barrels of natural gas liquids.
German Foreign Minister Warns Against Exploiting Arctic
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier has cautioned against countries breaking the law in attempts to reap the Arctic's natural energy resources. The warning comes shortly after Russia laid claims to the area."I very much believe that everybody should respect international law," Steinmeier said while visiting a research station at Ny Alesund on Spitzbergen, a Norwegian island in the Arctic Ocean. "The North Pole is not a law-free zone; there are international accords which must be respected by all nations who have interests here. If everybody sticks to the rules, there will be no conflict."
Right, schmight, left, schmeft
I had the pleasure of reading an advance copy of Richard Heinberg's new book, Peak Everything recently, and I found it to be typical Heinberg - engaging, wise, scrupulously balanced. It comes out this month, I believe, and it is well worth a read.My personal favorite thing about it, however, was not the writing or the subject matter, but the subtitle, which (on my copy), included the phrase "Transitioning gracefully from the Age of Excess to the Era of Modesty."
I admit, I was struck by the sheer aptness of the phrase "era of modesty" to what we're coming to.
Pemex Plans 10-Year Contract to Maintain Pipelines
Petroleos Mexicanos, the state-owned oil company, plans to award a 10-year contract to a private company to maintain a section of pipeline in southern Mexico to cut costs and reduce accidents.
Thai entrepreneurs not yet affected by Myanmar fuel price unrest
Thai entrepreneurs in Myanmar have not yet been affected by disturbances arisen from the military regime's decision to double local oil prices, according to Thailand's Foreign Trade Department (FTD).Ittipol Changlum, FTD deputy director-general, said he had queried Thai entrepreneurs about the disturbances in Myanmar caused by some people, who are angered by the government's abrupt move to raise fuel prices sharply.
Most viewed the incident as just a political turmoil, which had not escalated to such an extent that worried them. However, should oil prices rise further, it might affect transport along the common border and lead to a border closure. But the situation had not reached to that point for the time being.
US / Mexico : Failed System and Failed State
South of the border is Mexico, whose fiscal wagon is quietly and dangerously careening down a hill, most assuredly over a precipice. This would constitute another extreme development. The decline of their giant oil field Cantarell, combined with the mismanagement of their PEMEX national oil industry, hampered by their corrupt powerful labor union, stymied by their compromised Parliament, these guarantee a monstrous fiscal problem in Mexico . The reduction in their FOREX trade surplus accelerates from greater gasoline import, a whiplash factor. This story has so far eluded the sleepy lapdog press, but not the oil industry. This story was covered in the August Hat Trick Letter in greater depth. My forecast is for Mexico to disintegrate into a failed state within two years, owing to its lost FOREX trade surplus and utter breakdown of law and order. Mexico City soon will be forced to turn to desperate measures.
Now that a global fuel shortage is at hand, President Gloria Arroyo has given Energy Secretary Angelo Reyes the go-signal to study the use of nuclear energy as a cheap source of power. Nuclear power, if properly handled, can meet the country’s energy demands. It will cut power costs for both household and industrial users.
Gov: We'll change Ohio's energy
Gov. Ted Strickland today called on Ohioans and the state’s utility companies to be global leaders in producing alternative sources of electricity that will attract jobs and reduce pollution.Ohio is fifth among all states in energy consumption, the Democrat said, meaning we can do better in conserving. “Ohio will no longer be a status quo state,’’ Strickland said after a Statehouse speech. “To wait is to fail.”
1973: Sorry, Out of Gas at the Canadian Centre for Architecture
Running from November 7, 2007 to April 20, 2008, this exhibition examines the oil crisis of 1973 as a major precedent of contemporary concerns about energy resources and fossil-fuel dependency.
The Peak Oil Crisis: The Quiet Time
On the surface, very little happened during the past week. Hurricane Dean did little damage to oil production and the next major hurricane of the year has yet to form. Oil prices gyrated in the low seventies in response to changing credit crunch news. For a while, Wall Street decided the credit crisis was coming under control and the stock market had some good days.Beneath the radar screens however, there were a number of developments that could foreshadow important changes in our way of life, much sooner than we would like to think.
IEA Says Subprime Crisis Won't Affect Oil Demand
The subprime crisis and turbulence in financial markets isn't likely to reduce demand for oil and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries should increase its output to reduce prices, a senior official at the International Energy Agency told the Financial Times Wednesday.
The changing face of energy security
For three decades, the rich world has talked about curbing its addiction to imported oil. But, despite the anxious rhetoric, the oil-supply problem has become worse and energy security more complex. Notwithstanding politicians’ repeated calls for energy independence, over the past 30 years the United States, for example, has doubled its dependence on imported oil, which now accounts for nearly two-thirds of its oil needs.
Brazilian government must ensure oil bonanza continues
While the trend in South America has been to nationalise oil and gas production after the rise in world oil prices, Brazil’s success has been based on the opposite strategy. Ten years ago this month, Brazil passed the Petroleum Law, which ended Petrobras’ monopoly. Since then, dozens of private companies, including Shell, Chevron and BG, have invested billions. These companies are all now seeing returns after a series of huge finds in deep waters off the coast of Brazil.
Public backs nuclear energy to help power Britain’s future
An overwhelming majority of people believe that nuclear power will have a role to play in meeting Britain’s future energy needs, despite continued opposition from environmental campaigners.
Antarctic Ozone Hole Appears Early, Growing
A hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica has appeared earlier than usual in 2007, the United Nations weather agency said on Tuesday.
Coalition to Defend the Amazon issued the following statement: Amazon leaders are accusing Chevron of fabricating evidence and engaging in a "campaign of intimidation" in Ecuador to derail a class action rainforest pollution trial as it nears completion, said a spokesman for the Coalition to Defend the Amazon, the non-profit group bringing the case.
'Dead-end' Austrian town blossoms with green energy
For decades, the Austrian town of Güssing was a forgotten outpost not far from the rusting barbed-wire border of the Iron Curtain.Now it's at the edge of a greener frontier: alternative energy. Güssing is the first community in the European Union to cut carbon emissions by more than 90 percent, helping it attract a steady stream of scientists, politicians and eco-tourists.
Reflective Mirrors Seen Raising Solar Potential
Reflective dishes may be the answer to make solar energy competitive with conventional sources of power, Israeli scientists say.
Global oil reserves up only 1% last year
Record global oil and gas profits of US$243-billion and record spending of US$401-billion have resulted in a marginal 1% increase in world oil reserves last year -- all of it coming from a 1.9-billion-barrel addition from Canada's oilsands, according to a new study.Without Canada's contribution, 228 public oil and gas companies active globally and included in the study would have collectively produced more oil than they found, John S. Herold, a U.S.-based independent petroleum research company, and Harrison Lovegrove & Co., a global oil and gas advisory firm, said in the 2007 Global Upstream Performance Review, released yesterday.
...The challenges are heating up the debate over peak oil, the report says.
"Without expressing a position on the matter, we believe that the issue has become part of the industry's long-term planning," the study says.
"If the peak oil theory is correct, and a decline in world production is imminent, a company must choose among four alternatives -- try to become a dominant participant, find a niche operational talent, harvest assets or liquidate quickly."
Gas prices rise for the first time in weeks - Traders also eye unexpected decline in refinery activity
Gas prices rose at the pump for the first time in weeks and energy futures jumped Wednesday after the government reported unexpected declines in refinery activity and inventories of gasoline and oil.The price hikes and inventory declines suggest the refining industry is easing back from what had been a scramble to produce more gasoline to supply the peak summer driving season, which ends this weekend.
Peak Oil Passnotes: Debt Contagion in Crude?
There are a series of issues that are confusing the oil market at the moment, and just to add to the confusion come the problems with U.S. debt. The main difficulty with U.S. debt is the same as predicting the path of the storm 94L, which is threatening to become a tropical depression, then tropical storm, then hurricane. Just how far will U.S. debt develop? Will it be blown away amidst the markets or will it be a financial cyclone that zaps consumption?
Thaddeus Phillips returns to Earth with a peak oil parable
The main point we're making regarding energy is the peak oil theory — or that all the oil on the Earth will soon be discovered and because of that, the world as we know it will cease to be. Humanity doesn't have a clue how to deal with this problem — there's no way we can come up with alternative sources to meet our needs. The USA is built as a nation for cars. We won't have stuff to run those cars on. We're presenting the fact that my grandchildren will not know what it is like to fly in a plane. We're sacrificing the future.
Many scientists predict oil reserves will run dry in the not-too-distant future. What would a world without oil look like?
Eni's fading Caspian dream shows shades of Sakhalin
When it was discovered in 2000, it was hailed as the biggest oil find in three decades, on the scale of Brent and Prudhoe Bay. Estimates of its reserves are between nine billion and 13 billion barrels with peak production of more than one million barrels a day.Kashagan revived hopes that the geology of the Caspian Sea might conceal more giants, making the Caspian a resource on par with the North Sea or the Gulf of Mexico. But since Kashagan's discovery, exploration has failed to uncover further monsters from the Central Asian sea, raising the stakes even further in the struggle to secure Kashagan's riches.
China gambles on Somalia's unseen oil
CNOOC has acquired a reputation for risk-taking - a reflection of the fact it is serving China's strategic need for oil rather than commercial objectives.
Libyan Oil Market Builds Momentum
Libya hasn't poisoned any dog food or toothpaste, but the US prefers China to Qaddafi's country. I understand the history of US-Libya relations, but I also understand the present and future of Peak Oil.
Russian Minister of Agriculture Alexei Gordeyev will discuss a possibility of creating an OPEC-like grain cartel with his colleagues from Australia in September.He said the United States is reviewing the idea, and somewhat earlier Ukraine and Kazakhstan accepted it as a rational suggestion. But agricultural experts are not too optimistic about the idea to control the production and trade in grain.
Mexico Forecasts Four More Hurricanes in 2007
A Mexican meteorology agency said Tuesday that four more hurricanes will probably form and hit Mexico during the remainder of the 2007 hurricane season, which ends in November.
Global warming could delay next ice age: study
Burning fossil fuels could postpone the next ice age by up to half a million years, researchers at a British university said Wednesday.
Climate change impact worsening, Ireland getting wetter: report
Climate change is affecting Ireland at an increasingly rapid pace, the country's Environment Minister John Gormley said Wednesday, as he launched a major report on the issue.
Germany's Merkel urges U.S. to support climate deal
The United States must support a global deal to cut carbon dioxide emissions and combat climate change as time is running out in the fight against global warming, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Thursday.
U.S. plays down split with EU on climate
The United States and Europe are working together to tackle global warming, the chief U.S. climate negotiator said Wednesday, deflecting growing criticism within the EU and the developing world over Washington's perceived go-it-alone stance.
Flooding risk from global warming badly under-estimated: study
Global warming may carry a higher risk of flooding than previously thought, according to a study released on Wednesday by the British science journal Nature.It says efforts to calculate flooding risk from climate change do not take into account the effect that carbon dioxide (CO2) -- the principal greenhouse gas -- has on vegetation.
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.
"Without Canada's contribution, 228 public oil and gas companies active globally and included in the study would have collectively produced more oil than they found"
I thought we've been producing more than finding since 1980 or so, and the deficit has grown to a current ratio of about 5:1 - 30 Billion barrels consumed, 5-6 billion found per year lately.
What gives?
That has been the case for additions from new discoveries. However, additions to existing reserves (as economics and technology changes) have always made up the difference.
So John S. Herold is - intentionally or not - misleading when they use the term "found" in the above context. They refer not to new oil discoveries, but to additions to known reserves, which may be newly accessible, but not newly 'found', correct. So the bottom line is that globally we did not collectively discover anything near 30 billion barrels last year.
If you truly want to know what is going on, read the actual Herold & Lovegrove Report.
Well you are forgetting about the "magic oil" of the Middle East. Since their dramatic upgrade of oil reserves in the mid 80s, Middle Eastern OPEC nations have automatically replaced every barrel they have produced. Their reserves have never gone down. Every barrel produced is automatically replaced by a barrel that just "magically" appears in the ground to replace it.
In fact some OPEC nations show a slight increase almost every year. I guess that in some cases about 1.1 barrels of oil magically appear in the ground for every barrel pumped out.
Ron Patterson
This is the Fractional Reserve Petroleum Production System. It is based on Fractional Reserve Banking. Once OPEC get the same leverage the west enjoys with financial products all of our problems are solved.
It might be useful so do some more numbers. That 1% increase cost a whopping net $158 billion. Yes, of course that is simplified, but still....
It would be interesting to do a plot of capital cost (which is increasing exponentially) per bbl of added oil reserves (which is increasingly linearly). It would probably only take a few years before you have it requiring more than the entire GDP of the planet to add one additional bbl of oil to reserves -- which obviously isn't going to happen.
Recede, you pot of gold! Off with the little green guys you go.
======
Speaking of which:
Here is a 'positive' of using DNA damage via radiation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/28/science/28crop.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&ore...
Though poorly known, radiation breeding has produced thousands of useful mutants and a sizable fraction of the world’s crops, Dr. Lagoda said, including varieties of rice, wheat, barley, pears, peas, cotton, peppermint, sunflowers, peanuts, grapefruit, sesame, bananas, cassava and sorghum. The mutant wheat is used for bread and pasta and the mutant barley for beer and fine whiskey.
The mutations can improve yield, quality, taste, size and resistance to disease and can help plants adapt to diverse climates and conditions.
Right. No doubt the world will be much better off with all the lovely new mutants to be generated by the coming irradiation of Iran -- which no doubt will spread around somewhat due to geo-political factors that won't be very well controlled.
The NYT has zero credibility with me any more.
Eric's point was rather simple - in any group of radiation induced mutations, some of them will be beneficial. We can generalize that to any mutation, not just radiation induced. That is precisely how natural selection has worked for billions of years. Creatures don't mutate in response to environmental pressures. Mutations occur and if one of those mutations is more adept at surviving in a particular ecological niche then it is passed on. Most such mutations are not passed on as the individual possessing the mutated gene fails to survive.
This is not an attempt to justify depleted uranium in Iraq. The article simply pointed out that rather than using genetic modification techniques (which have already been shown to be unexpectedly dangerous), this process simply takes an existing genetic set and mutates it exactly as nature does then sees if we get a viable offspring. Huge numbers of failed mutants get discarded this way but the few that are useful have entered our daily lives as useful products. The fact that this process simply uses the exact same steps as nature itself is reassuring, as opposed to combining DNA from completely different creatures then wondering what the heck you got out of that transaction and discovering the dangers months or years later.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Dr. Albert Bartlett
Into the Grey Zone
The fact that this process simply uses the exact same steps as nature itself is reassuring, as opposed to combining DNA from completely different creatures then wondering what the heck you got out of that transaction and discovering the dangers months or years later.
Keep in mind that ANY mutation could 'be dangerous' - but I agree with your POV.
A bit OT. There is research showing tendencies for mutations on parts of the genome that deal with parts of the phenotype that are under increased environmental pressure to mutate faster than other parts of the genome. Partially directed mutation in essence. Read Jablonka and Lamb's 'Evolution in Four Dimensions' for an excellent summary of the state of the research in evolution.
They simply argue that the data to date is inconclusive. But something they fail to consider is the role of natural selection coupled with mutation to produce what appears to be a "directed" mutation.
Mutations (which are random events) become naturally selected upon more readily when those mutations correspond to an area of environmental pressure (and thus directly related to survival). Thus one mutation might get lost in the genetic shuffle because it does not currently provide a survival advantage in the current ecological niche (while it might in some other environment), but another mutation becomes an advantage and gets selected for survival thus ensuring its transmission downstream to descendants.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Dr. Albert Bartlett
Into the Grey Zone
Also not considered is that a species is not separate from its environment. Pressure from the environment to change the species stimulates a response from the species to change its environment. Plants respond to overgrazing by producing toxins. The species that are overgrazing respond by less grazing. The crux is in the PID response curve and the timing. Also, some changes don't appear as genetic mutations because DNA has so much unknown ability to respond with its reserves that what appears to be a systemic response is probably due to past genetic mutations which are merely dormant, and thus don't show up as changes in electrophoresis (sp?) testing.
Species are also stupid. They have little understanding of how their actions are modifying the environment.
The best example is that of the Oxygen Catastrophe.
The key question is "Are we smarter than Cyanobacteria?"
I guess you find it also 'positive' to eat, to have your 'positive' X-Ray taken or being 'positively' cured from cancer.
I've always asked the neo-luddites - why don't you just stop using all those horrible products of the industrial civilization? Go live off the land, fight the beasts and diseases by yourself and leave the preaching to the Pope. I hear he's busy condemning condoms now, but I'm sure he'll find time to ban everything else soon.
And I always ask snotty technocornucopians - just because some technology is useful and appropriate, does that mean any and all technology should be uncritically adopted without any consideration of unintended consequences?
SG--
In developing my own neo-ludditism, it looks like I will get a team of Belgians instead of oxen. But it has been years since they have logged, and I have zero experience. If you need a gopher (or just don't mind an observer) some time you are working your team, I would enjoy coming and seeing how you log with them.
Rick
Hi Rick,
I don't have a team - just a single Percheron mare. My logging schedule is sort of "whenever I feel like harnessing up the mare and getting a few logs in and the weather's dry", but maybe we could work something out for a demo.
If your prospective team of Belgians have ever logged, even 10 years ago, it will come back to them in no time, I'll bet.
But if you are even remotely considering logging with horses, you should very seriously consider taking the beginner's draft horse workshop at Fairwinds Farm, down in Brattleboro. The Baileys are wonderful people who have been organically farming with horses for over 30 years.
I was in a similar situation - I acquired a horse that hadn't worked in years. I got a harness, could harness her up and such, but soon realized that she knew much more what was going on than I did, and that I was screwing things up. I hung up the harness and went to the workshop. In the first hour I learned probably 10 things I was doing wrong!
Check them out at www.fairwinds.org (not .com). Again, I can't recommend them enough. You will learn everything you need to begin working with horses, but also a whole lot more...
If you want to talk more, email me at nobody@sgage.com and I'll send you my real email address.
Cheers,
- Steve
sgage,
Your referenced website "fairwindsdotorg" sends me to
a credit union website. While 5.28% on a money market
is nothing to sneeze at, it wasn't exactly what I was
looking for.
:-)
Oh hell - it's fairwindsfarm.org. I guess I can't edit it now, but by all means check out www.fairwindsfarm.org !!!
- S
Folks,
It's www.fairwindsfarm.org
Sorry about that...
- S
Y'all might also want to check out this event, Northeast Animal Power Field Days: http://www.uvm.edu/pss/vtcrops/articles/NE_AP_FD_Brochure.PDF I met the organizers, Carl and Lisa, recently whilst supporting the NE tour of What a Way to Go http://www.whatawaytogomovie.com They are good folk, living the self-sufficient lifestyle in many ways that will be a model for us all in the years to come.
Clifman--
Regarding energy self-sufficient lifestyles (or at least green building), there are open houses of green buildings in most of the NE states October 6. See http://www.nesea.org/buildings/openhouse.
Rick
There will also be workshops on that sort of thing at Maine's Common Ground Fair end of September. See Maine Organic Farmers and Gardners Association. Far and away the best fair in Maine.
A good recommendation!
Say, had to ask...
Is "Belgians" a kind of horse, or are things farther along than I thought?
I call Funniest post of the day! :-)
Yes, Belgians are a common breed of draft horse. They can get quite large, and do a lot of work.
Another popular breed is the Percheron (which is what I have). An up and coming breed is the Suffolk Punch. The Budweiser horses are Clydesdales. There are a few others, less common.
One of our local media 'stars' is a young Shire mare who is going for Guiness title of 'world's tallest horse'.
I bred a Percheron-TB cross foal that grew to over 17 hands and 900 kg. It's now taking little kids on trail rides at another location. All things considered I think it's easier to gather timber by pickup and chainsaw, for now anyway. The acreage used for horse grazing now grows hay.
Anybody thinking of a hay burner to pull logs oughta think of a plain old gasoline tractor fed by a wood gasifier like in WWll. I have been playing with gasifiers recently and find:
they are easy to make
they burn hay or logs or any cellulose
they feed any spark engine and it works more or less normally.
they are big and ugly and take some tending
but so do horses despite being bigger and not so ugly-mostly.
See volumes of info on the web under wood gasifiers.
(If you wanna have horses, have horses. But if the fecal matter impacts the rotary colling device to the point where batteries are no longer able to be had (making horses a better plan) is a rather bleak place and I'm betting if you have a nice little place of you own it won't stay yours when you get sniped with a .50 cal from a mile away. If of course you have not eaten your horse(s) if you have a crop failure.)
I agree. I'd go so far as to plan on using the gasifier to charge a battery and "go electric" - machines like "the gorilla" are $7000 today and can move your batteries to the woods/help move the wood bits back to your processing area. 1Kw of solar panels can slow charge your batteries and PV does a far better job of taking photons and doing work then a horse. Wind can be used to charge the batteries.
USe the tech levels we now have and access to cheap materials. A horse only is "one horsepower" - but electric winches are more powerful. The electric chainsaw(s) I have were $100 and the 16 inch bar was $50. Buying steel to use a 'steel rails' would let you lay down a way to get material up hills - or move a large item with less effort VS skidding. Buy the pulleys and block and tackle now, while material is cheap.
Decided to omit the tacky reply for fear of offending Belgians everywhere. The referenced Belgians are a draft horse, light colored with a blonde mane.
sgage,
Your post leads me to ask, "Why isn't the Precautionary Principle ever part of discussions involving peak energy mitigation?"
It would certainly be germane to bioethanol and many of the other schemes to maintain business as usual.
Todd
"Why isn't the Precautionary Principle ever part of discussions involving peak energy mitigation?"
That is the question, isn't it. I suspect that somehow it just goes against the grain of the can-do American ethos. American "boundless optimism" has simply spilled over into unthinking techno-cornucopianism.
For precautionary principle and peak oil, check out Rachel's Environmental News. I was fortunate enough to catch Dr. Peter Montague discussing Peak Oil from a public health perspective last year. Precautionary principle is big. Cost-benefit doesn't cut it because the evaluators rig the numbers and discount what they don't care about or ignore unknown risks - like all the rice being contaminated by GMOs. [Score 1 for Aventis.]
cfm in Gray, ME
The precautionary principle strikes me as a weak basis for decision making, because it does not consider the potential risk of inaction. A better approach is coast/benefit (risk) analysis.
Just as there may be some risk that taking action will cause serious harm in some circumstances, there is also risk that not taking action will cause serious harm in some circumstances. In the context of peak oil mitigation strategies, for example, clearly both must be considered.
The precautionary principle strikes me as more a persuasive tool rather than a genuine decision making principle. An attempt to confuse the enemy.
findrbob,
"A better approach is coast/benefit (risk) analysis. "
I would argue that your statement is precisely why the PP is necessary. Clearly, a cost/benefit analysis would be predicated upon the current situation, i.e., business as usual. It cannot be otherwise.
My personal belief is that BAU is not sustainable even with tweeking around the edges. How could one develop the c/b analysis of something that has yet to exist? This is where application of the PP comes in; it allows one to consider different outcomes and what their impact might be.
I would also argue that taking time now, that is, inaction, might be the best thing to avoid wasting time and effort on deadend mitigation efforts. Let's face it, it is already too late so what's a little more time.
Todd
I don't think the PP is attempting to replace C/B analyses. It is simply trying to arrive at a realistical portrayal of the potential costs instead of glossing over very real costs as is so often done, and, most importantly, weight them by the nature of their potential impact. In other words, C/B analysis can't render down to a scalar - at some point you have to use judgement, and the PP is trying to make explicit some of these issues.
E.g., if a coal-fired power plant blows up, people are killed. This is tragic, but that's that. If a nuke plant blows up (perhaps a much lower probability), people are killed, but the ecosystem around is contaminated for a very, very long time. There is a human genetic consequence. There are cancers. Etc., etc. This sort of thing needs to be weighted in, and a simple C/B doesn't do it.
I think the PP is a tool for trying to come to grips with this sort of qualitative thing. You simply can't render every decision down to dollars and cents.
As far as "an attempt to confuse the enemy", I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that.
I'm not an expert on decision making theory, but my understanding is that, at its heart, risk analysis involves estimating the expected value of both the action and the inaction and selecting the decision with the higher expected value. When applicable, expected value calculations involve multiplying the estimated probability of an outcome by it value (positive or negative). Consider deciding whether to take a gamble, such as playing the lottery. The expected value of not taking the gamble (inaction) is zero. The expected value of taking the gamble is the cost of the gamble plus the potential reward times the probability of winning the reward.
Applying this approach is not guaranteed to yield the best outcome for any given decision, but is the best way to achieve the best aggregate outcome over thousands of such decisions. We ignore this tool at our peril.
If taking an action has even a small probability of destroying the world, and if destroying the world is properly evaluated as an infinitely negative outcome, then risk analysis would never recommend that action (unless I guess the risk of destroying the world is greater in the case of inaction; All infinities are not created equal :)
I guess the problem comes when there is an unrecognized severe risk that is not incorporated in the calculations. But this could be the case on either the action or inaction side of the equation. If it is the case that the unrecognized risk is more likely to be on the action side of the equation, then I suppose PP has some merit.
Of course there are many situations wherein there is not enough information to apply any formal risk estimation, and decision making boils down to expert opinion and intuition, but it is still preferable to consider c/b for both action and inaction in those circumstances, no?
Risk analysis does not have to be framed in terms of money of course. It can be framed in terms of lives lost/saved, or anything else.
"The expected value of not taking the gamble (inaction) is zero. The expected value of taking the gamble is the cost of the gamble plus the potential reward times the probability of winning the reward."
You have neglected cost. And the key word "expected". It gets convoluted - if the expected value of not taking the "gamble" is avoiding the destruction of an ecosystem, well that's what PP is all about. What are the stakes of this "gamble"? And who has the right to impose things on the world that might have rather dire and quasi-permanent consequences?
"Applying this approach is not guaranteed to yield the best outcome for any given decision, but is the best way to achieve the best aggregate outcome over thousands of such decisions. We ignore this tool at our peril."
Best way? I disagree. It is the way to reach a foregone conclusion, and go ahead with whatever scheme that capital wants to do. The accounting is bogus - PP is an attempt to remedy that.
I honestly don't know what you mean above. The gamble example was just intended to illustrate the notion of expected value calculation.
Of course all decision making techniques seek to avoid negative outcomes.
Who has the right to make any decision for the world regardless of the technique used? None of your comments appear to speak to the relative merits of the techniques.
You seem to associate PP with noble motives and risk analysis with nefarious motives. Techniques don't have motives.
"I honestly don't know what you mean above. The gamble example was just intended to illustrate the notion of expected value calculation."
I was trying to point out that you can come up with all the game theory calcs you want - the calculations are simplicity itself. It's all in how you assign values to the risks, costs, benefits, etc. And which risks, costs, benefits, etc. are even included in the equation. And right there, that's how the game is rigged. PP is an effort to address this.
"Who has the right to make any decision for the world regardless of the technique used? None of your comments appear to speak to the relative merits of the techniques."
That's because I'm not pitting the various techniques against each other. I'm trying to explain to you that a sensible C/B analysis, on an ecosystem or indeed global scale, needs a PP input to make the terms of the "calculation" at all reasonable and fair.
"You seem to associate PP with noble motives and risk analysis with nefarious motives. Techniques don't have motives."
No, no, and no. I'm trying to explain to you that PP concepts are a way to try and make C/B analyses work. Although it can not be denied that overly simple C/B analyses are often jiggered for extremely nefarious motives. Techniques don't have motives, but some lend themselves to overly simple application and deceit. You can see it every day in the news.
Again, the actual calculations are simple. It's all in how you assign numbers to the terms, and what terms you deign to include, that is the crux of the matter. PP is an approach towards properly including and weighting the inputs.
How does one add a PP input to a risk analysis? How is it weighted, other than in terms of probabilities and costs (i.e., in terms of risk analysis)?
By the way, i do not use the term "costs" just to refer to monetary cost. It could refer any kind of cost (lives).
As I stated earlier, if the liklihood of a risk not having been considered is greater for the case of action than for the case of inaction, then there may be merit to PP. Else, there is not. To take PP seriously, I need evidence that that likelihood is, as a rule, greater in the case of action. It is indeed simple.
I don't particularly care what you "need", and nor do I feel compelled to provide you with evidence of any kind. I need evidence that conventional C/B analysis has led to anything but crap decisions. But I don't expect it.
Yet again... it is all about HOW you assign probabilities, to WHICH parameters, and HOW you weight them, and WHICH parameters you bother to include in your model. That's the point.
Actually, it's a LOT about how you weight them, and identifying what to include. The typical C/B analysis GROSSLY overestimates the benefits, which never quite seem to materialize ("electricity too cheap to meter", anyone?), and grossly underestimates, or omits altogether, the downsides. This is historical fact.
At some point, you need to actually think. You see, at the end of the day you can't just cover your ass with a simple scalar number. You have to think, and make judgements, and consider consequences. That's what PP is about.
It is NOT at all simple, indeed. PP is a taking into account of the fact that we are not all that good at identifying unforeseen and unintended and undesirable consequences. All of these C/B analyses are simply models, and they all suffer from the same weaknesses that all models suffer from - garbage in, garbage out.
I can't tell if you're just stringing me along, or just don't know what you're talking about. When dealing with ecosystem matters, humanity has proven time and time again that our interventions are full of undesirable consequences. In fact, the belief that we have some sort of fine-grained understanding of how ecosystems will react to this or that intervention has proven false time and time again.
The precautionary principle is all about recognizing that we don't have this fine-grained understanding, and maybe we should go slow. And trying to work out ways to introduce this fact to important and long-ranging decision making.
Complex decisions don't render down to simple scalar evaluations. But people tend to measure what they can measure, whether it's useful or relevant or not. Sort of like the drunk under the lamp post, or Wittgenstein's Net.
False precision, leading to bad decisions.
jeez, and I would have thought the precautionary principle was just common sense. How far have some gone?
"The precautionary principle is all about recognizing that we don't have this fine-grained understanding, and maybe we should go slow. And trying to work out ways to introduce this fact to important and long-ranging decision making."
I don't know how you could make it any simpler. Should be right up there on the masthead of TOD. Gives me hope;-)
Also triggers a Doonsbury moment from long ago. All panels of the strip simply show a law professor, addressing his class, perhaps mid-semester.
panel 1
Professor: "Let me put it to you all, then -- what should a knowledge of the law tempered with a sense of morality produce?
panel 2
(no response, silence, blank stares, waiting....)
panel 3
Professor (exasperated): "Why justice of course."
panel 4
Voice of student, not seen: "Will that be on the exam?"
Professor, shaking head: "No, no. Of course not."
Well it was funny at the time.
The state of modern education, another Doonesbury. Same type of strip, a professor behind a podium addressing the class:
Prof: "... and in my view, Jefferson's defense of these basic rights lacked conviction. Okay, any discussion of what I've covered so far?"
Students: (scribble)
Prof: (thought balloon) Of course not, you're too busy getting it all down.
Prof: (irritated) "Let me just add that personally I believe the Bill of Rights to be a silly, inconsequential recapitulation of truths already found in the Constitution. Any comment?"
Students: (scribble, scribble)
Prof: (angered) "No, scratch that! The Constitution itself should never have been ratified! It's a dangerous document! All power should rest with the executive! What do you think of that?"
Students: (scribble, scribble, scribble)
Prof: (enraged, arms flailing) "JEFFERSON WAS THE ANTICHRIST! DEMOCRACY IS FASCISM! BLACK IS WHITE! NIGHT IS DAY!"
Students: (writing furiously)
Prof: (collapses, head down on podium) "Teaching is dead."
Students: (to each other)
"Wow, this course is really getting interesting."
"You said it, I didn't know half this stuff."
Wikipedia discusses a number of criticisms of PP, including and going far beyond mine. It is clear that I am in the minority on this point among this group and that emotions run high. Experience suggests that further debate in this case will just degenerate further. I will just note that a number of other very thoughtful people have criticized PP.
The expected value is generally something like the mean or median. Any sophisticated analysis will try to estimate the whole probability distribution. In risk analysis, the focus is really on the tail, the nasty business that happens infrequently. Simple metrics like the mean are really inadequate for understanding the tails.
One could characterize the tail by a number like: how bad would the 99.9th percentile disaster be? Or, what is the likelihood of a disaster of 1 trillion dollars or more?
A simple example would be in planning for retirement. The basic disaster is running out of money before you die. The average amount of money left when you die, this is not so interesting. Maybe there is a 10% chance that you will die extremely rich. But one also has a 40% chance of dying in debt - it's not so easy to get in debt beyond $100K or so, unless it's capital gains taxes and the capital gains evaporated.
So one's expected assets at death will generally be positive - but it is really meaningless. The interesting number is: what is the probability of dying in debt, or broke.
Beyond that, we have the deeper problem of different types of unknowns. I don't know how long I will live, but the actuarial tables can give me a good probability distribution. The more difficult unknown is where the probability distribution iteelf is wildly unknown. What is the probability that plutonium will seep out of Yucca Mountain sometime over the next 100K years? It may be partially a matter of luck, like whether an asteroid hits nearby. But our level of knowledge about things like how the radioactivity corrodes the various materials proposed for the containers, how that corrosion can weaken the material... we just don't have enough experience at anything like those time scales.
The problem here is not just mathematical!
I agree, and I noted this earlier. Risk analysis can be performed informally, in the sense of considering c/b of both action and inaction.
I'm all for probabilistic models when possible.
I would like to assert that there is a greater than zero probability that if I sneeze this may cause a resonance with the rest of the environment which causes the world to be destroyed. Minus infinity times a positive number equals minus infinity.
So me sneezing is the worlds biggest evil... do I sneeze or not?
I think your assertion is without merit :>) How do you know that sneezing is more likely destroy the world than is suppressing your sneeze! :>)
:)
I'm assuming that releasing some energy in the environment has a greater chance of producing the above mentioned sequence of events than suppressing it :) Don't ask me to prove it though...
Of course, if the coal plant doesn't blow up, then it destroys ecosystem thousands of miles away for a very very long time.
Hi Todd--
Let me ask quickly what the Precautionary Principle is. Is it different from 'hope for the best but prepare for the worst' and, if so, why isn't that principle used considering the incredible impact of failing to prepare?
Rick
Hi Rick,
Ok, let me give the the basic Wiki definition:
"The precautionary principle is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action."
Now, in reality, the PP has become a can of worms. The best real life analogy is the FDA (assuming it really did what is suppose to). A drug manufacturer cannot sell a drug unless the manufacturer proves it is efficacious(sp) and does not cause harm.
Steve (sgage) really goes into this whole thing up thread so I'm not sure I need to say more.
I will say that I see current areas where the PP should be applied rigorously. Among other things I'm a licensed pesticide applicator. There has been a lot of research that indicates that high exposure to glyphosate (Round Up) results in a higher risk for Parkinson's disease. Now, I would argue that it should be taken off the market until this is clearly resolved - the PP. Others would argue that it is of such benefit to farmers that it should still be used even where a high percentage of them to develop Parkinson's.
In the case of energy, it seems reasonable to me to argue that all of the proposed "solutions" are an attempt to maintain an unsustainable life-style/economy/et.al. Therefore, why not reject, at least for them time being, until we know what the best course of action (for global society).
Todd
Todd
Hi Todd--
Thanks for the response. I did see Steve's explanation later on, but I had already sent my request to you. I agree that the energy 'solutions' seem primarily geared toward continuing an unsustainable lifestyle/economy. One difficulty is that a 'sustainable' lifestyle might not include 6.5 billion people. Another difficulty is that our concept of an economy is based on the hope of increasing personal wealth (which requires infinite growth), an obviously unsustainable goal but not one individuals give up lightly.
Rick
And what is your basis to assert it is NOT being used responsibly? Just because it involves radiation? That same radiation that through mutation spurred evolution and all life on Earth? Come on guys you've got to be better than this.
LevinK,
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but... Having had my fill of snarkanol lately, I was responding to your unnecessary tone as much as anything. E.g. :
"I guess you find it also 'positive' to eat, to have your 'positive' X-Ray taken or being 'positively' cured from cancer."
Yes, there are some benefits from some technology. Yes, there are many downsides. "Technology" covers an incredibly wide gamut from stone axes to nuclear reactors - to portray it as a monolithic good is absurd.
It's not so much any given technology that's at issue here - it is the non-critical "technology == good" knee-jerk techno-cornucopian reaction :-)
And your smarmy, sarcastic, whiny "I guess you find it..." is really irritating in the extreme. But perhaps you would rather be Right than effective in conversation.
More, e.g. :
"I've always asked the neo-luddites - why don't you just stop using all those horrible products of the industrial civilization? Go live off the land, fight the beasts and diseases by yourself and leave the preaching to the Pope. I hear he's busy condemning condoms now, but I'm sure he'll find time to ban everything else soon."
What arrant, arrogant, snarky, pointless crap. How does that add anything to the conversation other than to make yourself feel good for blowing away a few strawmen? Someone questions a new technology and they're neo-luddites?
Some new technology comes along, and it's automatically good? Haven't we been burned enough? Do we really know what we're doing? See "precautionary principle".
Look, I work with a horse to get my firewood. This involves some pretty well-evolved technology. It's a mature technology that works well in its place. No one, least of all me, is against "technology".
Your arguments by exaggeration are ridiculous. To imply that anyone who questions any one of your precious shiny new toys is a neo-luddite who wants to starve and die of cancer is simply absurd, and no one is impressed by it.
It's been a while since anybody called me a troll and a techno-cornucopian, but here we go - I got a pair of those in just one post. The thing my friend is that you are the one building strawmen and fighting them. The sad thing is that you don't even see it.
First of all where did I say that any new technology is good? Or bad? Like you rightfully pointed out - each technology has a good and bad sides, and it depends a lot on how and where it is used. Microbiology can feed and cure the world, but can also wipe out all humanity if used to produce bioweapons. Objecting one-sided views was the whole point of my answer to eric - his post was tedious, lacked any evidence to support what he was implying and escaped all the complexity of going into the subject by simply dismissing the technology altogether. On what exactly basis, if I may ask (for the third time already)?
Was there any basis other than irrational fear of any technology that you don't "like"? How is that different than what the luddites did?
Please answer these questions before labeling me - maybe I was not right for the neo-luddites remark, but you are not helping your side either.
"The sad thing is that you don't even see it."
Whatever. When you say things like "microbiology can feed and cure the world", you are surely at least flirting with the edge of technocornucopianism ;-)
I suspect eric's basis was simply the application of the precautionary principle. I.e., the onus is on the proponents of a new tech to show that it does not cause harm. As an ecologist myself, I think this is a good policy. This is not a court of law, where a new tech is innocent until proven guilty. We need to be careful in advance...
Incidentally, the Luddites were not against any and all technology. They rightfully perceived that their culture and economic freedom were under dire threat from not only a new technology, but a new way of organizing work and means of production. They fought back and they lost, but they were right. I would suggest to you (and everyone who throws the term "luddite" around) to look into the real historical Luddites. That said, I understand that "luddite" has come to mean "anti-technocornucopian" in modern parlance. :-)
Again, proposing caution in adopting a new technology is not irrational fear - it is a very rational anxiety given the demonstrated unintended consequences of what were thought to be benign technologies. I think it is a good reflex, especially when it comes to our food supply. GM foods got out "in the wild" with not nearly enough research and testing, IMO.
As an ecologist, population geneticist, and evolutionary biologist, I know that everything comes with a cost in plant breeding. A plant has so much resource to work with, and what you do in selective breeding is apportionate it in different ways. E.g., the vaunted Green Revolution developed plants that apportioned more of the plant's resources to the seed heads, and less to the stem, with the result that you had bigger harvests with less falling over of plants, nominally a good thing. Of course, these seeds don't work without extra inputs of water, fertilizers, and pesticides, with all sorts of ramifications to third world farming cultures, land ownership patterns, exports, etc. etc. The results are not always adequately and usefully measured in yields/acre.
I would say that zapping plants with various ionizing radiation and using normal plant breeding techniques to segregate out desirable traits might have some utility. Hell, plant breeders have been zapping plants with x-rays and dosing them with mutagenic chemicals like colchicine for decades, simply to generate the genetic variability from which to select. This is different from so-called genetic engineering, which is yet another instance of concentrating on a small focused problem and not seeing the large scale consequences. Let's save that for another thread, if you want to discuss it. Maybe it doesn't belong on TOD.
Anyway, I've gone on long enough. Yes, labeling people sucks. Let's all try to stay cool (very difficult today - it's 90 and very humid) and try not to get too sarcastic and all. We surely all have our hot buttons. Speaking of buttons, the "preview comment" button is a good one ;-)
Cheers,
- Steve
Steve, I can only agree with all you say.
The precautionary principle must be the basis for anything science produces. Anything. What I would like to plead for is only... to apply the precautionary principle when applying the precautionary principle :) There could be unintended consequences of being way too conservative, and they maybe way more destructive than the original consequences that caused the concern.
In most cases the risk is that being too cautious against a promising but causing some concerns technology effectively promotes an established but otherwise destructive technology. Forbidding GMOs may cause expansion of agricultural land at the expense of old ecosystems; opposing nuclear power may promote coal or biofuels (e.g. burning wood unsustainably); opposing fossil fuels in California may lead to burning them in Wyoming with all the inefficiencies and costs of bringing them to California etc.etc. Life is complex.
Does PMS stand for PreMenstrual Syndrome, Precious MetalS, or Peak oil Motivated Sarcasm?
Methinks a dollop of conservation and a dab of Midol might solve the two troublesome interpretations of that particular acronym.
Peak Meaningful Suggestions
BTW in the face of the Arctic becoming ice-free practically as we speak, I can assure you that my Peak Sarcasm will be positioned way in the future. I've got plenty of URS left.
"Life is complex."
By George, I think you've put your finger on the heart of the matter :-)
- S
sgage, as a neo-luddite myself and someone who has advocated for the precautionary principle, I pass along my thanks for your thoughtful knowledge in defense of these ethics.
Long live King Ludd!
Nature does not make political compromises with anyone.
Let me wipe my nose first.
No, let the market settle which technologies are truly the best.
A caveat to that is that the market cannot always price in the full cost of a product or service. A car pollutes and increases demand for imported oil. The cost of that should be reflected in the price of a car, and gasoline. Taxes are good!
Moreover when somone rides public transit, they are decongesting roads, and burning less fuel. They should get subsidies!
So, from this we learn that 1) Markest are Good. 2) Taxes are Good. and 3) Subsidies are Good.
Now, you can sally forth and have arguments with yourself.
I guess you find it also 'positive' to eat
Eating has what to do with this?
to have your 'positive' X-Ray taken
I try to avoid 'em.
being 'positively' cured from cancer.
And that is going to paid for exactly how?
why don't you just stop using all those horrible products of the industrial civilization? Go live off the land, fight the beasts and diseases by yourself
When you provide a way to keep the tax man away while I live off that land - I'll go. So come on.....show the way!
Because on the planet where *I* live - there is this thing called 'taxes'. And I've not come up with a way that I can 'go live off the land' that does not involve the tax man - be the tax man local, state or federal.
Oh, and really.... the use of radiation to create mutations is not about 'radiation' as much as man forcing mutation via tools at hand. But you just keep pimp'n for power via fission - tie it in anyway you can!
I'll look forward to your article on the peaceful atom - such should be the topic if Iran is attacked over their 'power plants' and 'desire to master the fuel cycle'.
(To have a article or series 'ready to go' on the debate about fission power back in the 1950's and the 'solution' being "the peaceful atom" should be a traffic pull if a fission plant gets attacked. I do not have the background to know what speeches of the day (like Admiral Ricktover) matter now, nor can I quote chapter and verse international laws that are being bent or broken by whom and where in the whole fission power realm. )
Eating has what to do with this?
Obviously much of the food you eat is from crops created with the help of irradiation. At least this is what your article asserts. Since we are eating probably the same food and I don't think I am mutating as a result, I would suggest you put some meat behind your statement instead of using dubious rhetoric. Putting quotes around 'positive' is proving exactly what?
Obviously much of the food you eat is from crops created with the help of irradiation.
Golly gosh, considering that with out the radiation from the sun no crops grow.
So:
1) What is your point
2) If you wear a hat will anyone see your point
I've never called for a banning of someone because of their LACK of an argument. I've pointed out how 'this is a spam account', I've thought how someone being gone would be a fine thing, but congratulations LevinK.
You are the 1st person I can remember asking, in public, to be banned. When asked direct questions you respond:
Sun shines on what you eat.
You have poor rhetoric.
Amazing. And SO vapid and worthless a response I never thought I'd be asking for sanctions in public vs another poster.
Go on, if it makes you feel better
The WSJ has an article today called Big Questions for Big Oil.
It's behind a paywall, but you can read it for free if you go in through Google News.
Actually, with respect to the several climate change articles in today's Drumbeat, the Arctic sea ice collapse seems more pressing at the moment that oil depletion.
When satellite imaging began in 1979, the summer sea ice area (a measure of actual ice coverage, vs. extent which includes open water leads within ice floes) bottomed out at 5-5.5 million km2. This remained true through the 80's. Then in the 90's, the summer minimum occurred at 4.5-5 million km2. And in the 2000's the minimum fell to 4-4.5 - a clear pattern of decline of half a million per decade. Significant, substantial, scary... but perhaps not yet catastrophic and past the point of no return. But... the minimum had never gone below 4 prior to this year. Excerpts from http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ below:
Thursday, August 9, 2007 - New historic sea ice minimum
Today the Northern Hemisphere sea ice area broke the record for the lowest ice area in observed history. The new record (3.98 million sq. km) came a full month before the historic summer minimum typically occurs. There is still a month or more of melt likely this year. It is therefore almost certain that the previous 2005 record (4.01 million sq. km) will not just be broken, but annihilated by the final 2007 annual minima closer to the end of this summer.
In previous record sea ice minima years, ice area anomalies were confined to certain sectors (N. Atlantic, Beaufort/Bering Sea, etc.). The character of 2007's sea ice melt is unique in that it is dramatic and covers the entire Arctic sector. Atlantic, Pacific and even the central Arctic sectors are showing large negative sea ice area anomalies.
UPDATE: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - New historic sea ice minimum
While the pace of sea ice retreat has slowed, the Northern Hemisphere sea ice area continues to decline. There is currently 2.99 million sq. kilometers sea ice area in the Northern Hemisphere.
So 19 days after first ever falling below 4, it fell below 3, and there are still weeks of melting to go.
http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_index.html also has some excellent graphics and discussion of the melting, focused on extent rather than area. Most pertinent section pasted below.
In short, the Arctic is melting precipitously.
Oops, here's the nsidc excerpt:(sorry, graphic didn't copy)
Ice concentration can also tell us about changes taking place within the icepack. For example, take a look at Figure 3, which compares maps of sea ice for the same day, August 27, in both 2007 and 2005. First, you can see that the extent of the ice--anywhere in which you see white grading to blue--is clearly lower. You can also see that the ice edge has pulled further back from the shore of north Siberia, this year.
However, when you look at the concentration of the sea ice, with white indicating high concentration, grading to the dark blue of open water, you see an additional level of detail. You see that within the pack ice, ice concentration this year is much lower throughout much of the Arctic Ocean than it was in 2005, especially near the pole. In areas with low ice concentration, dark open water between ice floes absorbs more solar radiation, promoting further melt. These areas are hence susceptible to additional melting over the next few weeks.
Back in the early 70's I spent six weeks working on the ice between Canada and Greenland at the northern entrance to the channel. Cold War stuff.
The ice pack was about 10 feet thick, and in that region due to the pressures of moving through the channel, it would pile up on itself 30 to 40 feet thick making movement across the ice extremely difficult.
The ice is ancient and ranged from white to the most beautiful blue, about the color of the default task bar in Windows XP.
I learned that arctic ice doesn't melt in quite the same way lake ice does. It turns to slush holes, 10 feet thick. The seals charge up through the slush and onto the ice. That's when the bears come down onto the ice looking for dinner.
The slush holes, which were generally about 10 to 20 feet in diameter, are again a beautiful blue. I nearly lost my life on my last day in the artic when I tried to walk, alone, between two ice holes which were clearly visible to me by their color. To my utter shock and horror, there was slush under the white snow between the holes. I sank through and might have been lost forever had I not immediately flopped backwards onto my back and managed to scramble out.
The point of my story is not my near demise. I had other near death experiences during that operation. My point is, the ice turns blue. There is very little snow in the high arctic. It is effectively a desert with only about 2" of precipitation per year. That blue slush captures more sun energy than the white snow, rapidly enlarging the slush hole which in turn rapidly absorbs more energy.
As the sea-ice melts during the Arctic summer warm period, the melt water has no place to go, thus it forms ponds on top of the ice. The ponds have lower albedo than snow or ice, thus the solar energy absorbed increases. This is part of the snow/sea-ice/ocean albedo feedback. As the Arctic can be expected to experience increasing warmth due to increases in greenhouse gases, the area of these melt ponds would also increase, lowering the albedo and increasing the fraction of solar energy absorbed compared to earlier, cooler periods. This process speeds the overall melting of the sea-ice, which we may be witnessing both as the reduced extent or area and as the reduction in average thickness of the sea-ice.
One of the projections of the climate models is that at some future date, all the sea-ice may melt away by the end of the melt season. A complete melting of the ice cap would imply that no multi-year ice would be left in the mix the next year, thus melting would then proceed even faster. It might be that once the ice cap disappears completely, the result could be that the climate would be so changed that there would never again be any multi-year ice.
This summer's remarkable decline in sea-ice would appear to move the date for this occurrence to the near future, not 2050 or 2075. That would certainly qualify as a "Tipping Point", the results of which would certainly be dramatic. At the very least, the large area of relatively warm open ocean would constitute a major source of moisture during the seasonal shift to Winter. The equivalent of "Lake Effect" snows could be expected and the area impacted would be much larger.
E. Swanson
When I first started looking closely at this data two years ago, my extrapolation pointed to 2028 as the first ice free summer. Now I'll be surprised if it doesn't happen within a decade. In any case, the IPCC and similar forecasts of 2100 or 2050 at the earliest are fantasy. The consequences? Climate chaos, at the very least.
And people are worrying how they are going to be able to drive their cars. How can you even compare the two? We are wrecking this planet in front of our very eyes.
Has anyone ever thought that maybe that's the plan? That "wrecking the planet" is perhaps the reason people exist? :) ;) Hmmmm?
Hmmm... if there is such a plan I don't think humans created it. I don't think Mesopotamians planned to ruin their soils or Easter Islanders planned to cut all their trees.
It is plain old human stupidity and tragedy of the commons. Which is the same thing on a certain level of abstraction.
People aren't the only life form on this planet that uses all the energy (food) that is made available to it as fast as possible. The same holds true for everything from bacteria to whales. There is no built in mechanism that says "conserve by eating less so that your progeny will have something to eat". On the contrary, the mechanism says "eat as much as possible, procreate as much as possible, because that is the path to species survival".
Ever see what a herd of sheep will do to grazing land? Life burns thru what it can until the convenient source runs out or some other life form stops it. Usually by eating it. I see no reason to believe that people are exempt from that process simply because we happen to be the currently dominant life form. Especially since we are working like crazy to modify ourselves and/or create new life.
"People aren't the only life form on this planet that uses all the energy (food) that is made available to it as fast as possible."
Darn right - that's why they invented predators. Except we don't have any predators, so we seem to always grow our population right up the food supply, with the predictable result (famine, pestilence, etc.). No matter how big the food supply gets, no matter the technological advances in agricultural yields, it seems we will always grow our population right on up to food supply.
Don't get me started on sheep ;-) Godz above, they are bizarre and perverse (not to mention incredibly stupid) creatures! I know, I have several. However, a thick wool blanket is a good thing, and with care, you can use them to keep the brush down... so I keep 'em around.
- S
I'd like to expand on the thoughts surrounding our views.
In a very real sense, predators are the control that keeps other life "in balance". Since we (people) don't have any predators that we know of at the moment, we have invented (over the centuries)other real or imaginary predators. Ever hear of werewolves, demons, devils, etc.? And who is the "enemy" except a predator we have defined? This lack of real predators is the foundation of all religious beliefs, and the resulting political systems. I'm sure the various founders of the original religious beliefs understood this and used it to manage their tribes, cultures etc. What purpose does a witch doctor serve if not to manage the tribe? Next time you get a chance, review the various religious texts in this light. they all contain the same fundamental message: "Adhere to what I say since I speak for (the deity), or the demons, etc. will get you". This is not a bad thing by the way. Lacking a natural, real predator, it is the only way humanity can hope to sustain itself, and manage it's available energy.
As for being "smart", go naked into a wilderness area sometime and see who's the smartest. You or the grizzly bear. :)
And who are today's predators? We have many to pick from. Including space aliens, the "other" culture, illegal immigrants, Democrats, Republicans, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, blacks, whites, asians, and so on.
At risk of repeating myself, we must have predators to control us, or we will as you say eat everything in sight. In this case our "food" is Fossil Fuel.
"This lack of real predators is the foundation of all religious beliefs,"
I think you're stretching it here. Many other candidates for religion's basis, including that religion evolved as result of being prey. It's only recently that man has been predator free. For an excellent contemporary account of places/people where man is prey, read "Monsters of God" by David Quammen.
That's what I said.
That is not a very smart thing to do :p
Flood Maps
Find out if you're going to get your feet wet.
Is anyone aware of modelling for how
sea ice loss will affect weather?
The little I have seen is guesstimate/
intuition.
Intuitively there should be much
instability.
Same question has been put by others
over at realclimate, no real answers.
Dr. Jeff Masters at Weather Underground said in his blog that loss of arctic sea ice would result in more moisture and heat in the atmosphere in the northern hemisphere, likely delaying the onset of winter this year. He didn't mention a model for it, and I can't seem to locate an archive of his August blog entries. It was just a few days ago.
Perhaps we don't need modelling any more, we just need to look out the window and see what's happening.
Extreme conditions: What's happening to our weather?
http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2901009.ece
As a rough analogy and working hypothesis, I believe we can use what happened in the 14th Century and the onset of the Little Ice Age. The question mark is whether we are witnessing climate forcing or not, which would possibly alter the outcome.
I'd also note that the climate modelling to date seems to have been way off the mark (or at least what I'm aware of) and hasn't allowed for abrupt climate change which we may now be witnessing. All my layman's view of course.
I don't kown of any models but the minimum winter temps in the US are changing fairly quickly. Check out the updated USDA hardiness zones ab updated by arborday.org.
http://arborday.org/media/zones.cfm
Try clicking on the huttons to the left of the map.
The melt of the arctic will push cold, fresh water into the Atlantic, very likely stopping the thermohaline conveyor. The MSM often says this will "stop the Gulf Stream". This isn't quite right, as the Gulf Stream is wind driven warm water proceeding west towards the Caribbean, then another current takes it north along the U.S. coast, and yet another force propels it across the north Atlantic, but the effect will be quite awesome. We should see the end of the current mild climate experienced by Europe and raise the strength and frequency of hurricanes in the tropical Atlantic due to warm water not dispersing in this way to which we are accustom.
This would be one of those "sledgehammer from the shadows" sort of moments. I am eager to hear the take Senator Inhofe (R Exxon) has on this event.
We should see the end of the current mild climate experienced by Europe and raise the strength and frequency of hurricanes...
Maybe... but it would be a lot worse for us if one of the unforeseen effects is major rainfall in the mid-west at the wrong times.
If the cereal crops (corn, wheat, oats, etc) get trashed, we'll be on the wrong side of exponential growth very quickly.
We've had a third of our annual precipitation here on the Iowa/Minnesota border in the last ten days. The last time it did this our basement filled 3' deep with flood water and the power company was called out at 0400 to shut down the juice. The washer ran constantly, trying to empty itself ... and we're on top of the small bluff, maybe 40' above the flood plain.
This time it came for us over a weeks time, rather than the 12" we got in one busy night in 1975. August is normally crazy hot and crazy dry, but we got steamed and now frozen - it was down into the 50s last night and only hit 65 yesterday when 80 would be more normal.
I'm in Wisconsin and yes, the rain this August is a real anomaly and a real concern. I have a 1000 square foot garden and the monsoon hasn't been kind. Our local farmers aren't happy either. It's ruined the root crops and the tomatoes. I am assuming the corn is OK, but I can easily see where soggy, moldy fields could have much smaller than expected harvests.
Of particular concern to me is wheat. Wisconsin is not a wheat state, but if the Dakotas were to experience our recent weather, we would have serious problems.
This arctic melt is not going to be good. It will change the jet stream. I think that is disrupting our weather.
[Senator Inhofe (R Exxon)]
Nicely done!
Over at DailyKos I don't think they actually know what state the man represents - they always refer to him in that fashion. I think Senator Vitter is the butt(OMG HAHAHAHAHA) of the largest volume of jokes, but Inhofe definitely makes the top five for having his head inserted far enough to give himself an instrument free colonoscopy.
Thanks for this, but I was a bit confused by your quoted figures. At:
http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_index.html
it says “Sea ice extent (at 28 August 2007) continues to decline, and is now at 4.78 million square kilometers (1.84 million square miles), falling yet further below the record absolute minimum of 5.32 million square kilometers (2.05 million square miles) that occurred on September 20–21, 2005.”
According to Figure 2 there, the low point is usually reached in early September, but at the time of the previous record low, there was a further dip in mid September after the line flattened for a couple of weeks earlier. The line for this year is beginning to flatten now, but we won’t know the true minimum until the last week of September. Even without a late dip it will probably get down this year to about 4.6 million km2, a shocking 13% below the previous minimum of just two years ago.
So, it would not surprise me to see a more or less ice-free Arctic in summer, by the end of the next decade. One research team quoted by Jay Hansen in his May 2007 paper (sorry, can’t put my hand on it just now), suggest that an ice-free Arctic for even part of the year could significantly destabilise the Greenland ice sheet, due to lowered albedo of the sea surface as compared to ice, warming the area generally. As someone wrote above, we seem to be destroying the planet that gives us life, in front of our own eyes and it sometimes looks as if we don’t even care.
As someone wrote above, we seem to be destroying the planet that gives us life, in front of our own eyes and it sometimes looks as if we don’t even care.
It's the one's making money on it, that don't care. Those that care, lack the power to stop them.
Cold Rush
A report on Channel 4 news in the UK about the rush to get at the oil and gas under the Arctic. It talks about "Vast energy reserves" and says
"Up to 25% of the world's remaining untapped energy reserves" are there.
Is there evidence for any oil and gas in the Arctic or are they just guessing?
Until basin analysis, Extensive Siesmics, mapping, and then exploratory drilling with Geochem, coring and a lot of head scratching,then a lot more appraisal drilling, the 'reserves' may be 2.5 trillion bbls or 2.5 barrels. Or on the moon for that matter.
Nobody truly knows until it is drilled.
And it may be some time yet.
Near by Evidence suggests that there may gas fields or possibly oil.
But you have to drill it and test it before you can book it.
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=49572
Of course even if the hydrocarbon is there, it isn't really "domestic", and later in the article, the author does admit that Greenland currently is not part of the United States. "Greenland, although the country governs itself, is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and it is thought it would be a politically stable and a reliable supplier."
That is to say, Greenland probably wouldn't be able to put up much of a fight
Iceland has long tried to be Greenland's "special friend". They set up their forestry program, built & manned a small hydroelectric dam (got one village off oil), import Greenland reindeer meat (the only meat allowed to be imported into Iceland), cultural exchanges and overall treat them with more respect than the Danes.
The Icelanders did fight two Cod Wars with the Royal Navy, and won both.
Alan
and where does that leave the cod?
While Iceland won the cod wars, they only staved off the population collapse.
Iceland has a stable and sustainable cod harvest. Their fisheries management is considered to be a model for the world. Fish are still about 60% of their exports.
Best Hopes for excellent fisheries management,
Alan
The cod population also collapsed on the Grand Banks off Newfoundland during the 1880s. It was thought, but not scientifically proven, that overfishing by Blue Nose Schooners (think Captains Courageous) from several New England States were partly to blame but overfishing was the practice of the Portugese, Brits, Scandanavians, etc. The cod made a comeback but their habitat was not destroyed as the big bottom dragging sein nets are doing today. Some fisheries experts have reported in the last several years that the cod are still abundent but have moved to more northerly latitudes to find the colder water temps that they prefer.
So basically the USGS changed its earlier claim of 47 billion barrels of oil to 9 billion. Will it suddenly decide all of the 2000 survey is equally erroneous? Should we expect its previous claims of 3 trillion barrels (or whatever their actual guesstimation was) to become 1 trillion barrels, much closer in line with ASPO's statements all these years? It will be interesting to see if they offer any explanation for the rather massive error in the 2000 survey.
'...Global reserves up only 1%...A company must choose among four alternatives...'
The discussion missed the fifth alternative, as seen by OPEC, namely lock in your reserves and sit on them. Ther eserve becomes more valuable if you produce it later. After all, would you rather sell oil for $70 a barrel now or for $300 a barrel perhaps rather soon?'
Uranium prices are falling:
http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_Prices.aspx
Current U3O8 price is $90 from a $135 high 2 months ago. What everyone knew - that the uranium roller coaster is one more speculative bubble is starting to become apparent.
I wonder should we use this price drop as an argument that U will last forever? After all the previous run-up in prices was used as an argument that U is about to run out... both statements are similarly striking with their shortsightedness and plain stupidity.
Actually those who were most strongly pro-nuclear were using the price increase to indicate that we would never run out, based upon the amount of uranium in the earth's crust and in sea water, upon the assumption that ever lower grade ores would always be economical to mine, and that ever increasing prices would provide the incentive to do so - a triumvirate of assumptions that beggars the imagination.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Dr. Albert Bartlett
Into the Grey Zone
The argument you cite does not make any sense. I wonder who in the right mind would argue it like that.
May I suggest that maybe you have met incorrect interpretation of the way common logic goes - the logic goes that when uranium from conventional ores becomes scarce (which is not expected soon IMO) then the price will increase and lower grades or sea water uranium will become economical. So will fuel reprocessing and maybe breeders one day.
Now the previous price increase may only serve as evidence that current deposits are strained. How can it serve as anything else? High price always indicates scarcity it can never indicate existing or potential glut.
Personally I think a price fluctuation in the timespan of 2-3 years by itself indicates absolutely nothing about the future supply of a resource. It is similar to claiming that oil was running out during the oil crisis of 1979.
Here's me from two months ago:
Gosh I used to be smart. But by "they would summon" I meant of course "it would summon".
The rest of the posting quotes Martin Sevior, who reviews how, as the price of uranium in recent years got over a dollar a barrel [oil equivalent], known reserves accessible for less than US$1.30 a barrel increased about five times faster than consumption.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html :
oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes
CNN actually covered the inventory situation this morning. They said the slide in gas prices was over, based on the inventory situation.
From the Drumbeat story:
Global oil reserves up only 1% last year
(Financial Post)
Quoting a US petroleum research firm, Harrison Lovegrove...
Of course, this was confirmed a while back by the NPC report which explicitly used estimates by long-time peak oilers as what they called the "lower bound".
Peak oil is now part of market place calculations by big players. I wouldn't be surprised if it is also now part of credit market calculations. Which is exactly what we need to begin the transition.
Scores of bridges 'deficient' since '80s
This article gives you a faint taste of what a Sisyphean task maintaining our infrastructure is. It's neverending. By the time you fix one bridge, more have deteriorated toward structural failure.
From the article posted above:
Hello Ilargi,
Sometime ago, I have posted much info on Mexico's world-class leading deforestation, desertification, and aquifer depletion, but it is always worthwile when new confirmation arises [link poached from Savinar's LATOC]:
http://www.counterpunch.org/ross08302007.html
-------------------------------
The War on Mexico's Tropical Forests
Mexico's 56.000.000 hectares of lush forestland covering a quarter of its national territory and comprising 1.3% of the world's forest resources, are increasingly littered with the corpses of dead forest defenders.
With the highest deforestation rate in Meso-America--272,000 hectares of tropical forest disappear a year--Mexican forests are a violent battleground between narco-gangs clearing land for illicit cultivation, guerilla groups encamped under the canopy, heavily-armed wood poachers who steal 2,000,000 board feet of timber each year, and those who seek to defend the trees.
In recent years, Mexico's forests have become a killing floor every bit as lethal as Brazil where such environmental martyrs as Chico Mendez, Sister Dorothy Stang, and young Dionicio Ribieras have been cut down by the pistoleros of ruthless landowners.
-----------------------------------------
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Gas to $8 or $9 a gallon if we leave Iraq, or so Petraeus and Crocker are claiming.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/051922.php
Westexas...I'll be dam*ed, you were right!
The camel's nose is under the tent.
Perhaps Bush & Cheney will have a "Coming Out of the Peak Oil Closet" party at the White House.
Shamelessly taken in whole from Dave Cohen's comment Nov 6 2006, from thread:
http://www.theoildrum.com/comments/2006/11/1/154940/816/7
WT - I had suggested something like this several weeks ago, and it still sounds possible. What is your guess as to when? Maybe along with the State of the Union Message?
Sam Penny
the Prudent RVer
I suspect that it is an ongoing evolutionary process of gradually shifting the argument to one of defending the oil fields against Iran and the terrorists.
Not at all impossible.
To invade and occupy another nation is morally reprehensible but if the US leaves, it will be regarded as a great strategic blunder.
Probably the same price if we were to bomb Iran.
Hey...wait a minute. One stone. Three birds. Outta Iraq. No nuclear Iran. PO cliff sidestepped till post 2009.
$9 per gallon gas. That's the ticket.
Shameless promo for Jim Willie...
We used to hang out a lot together on Silicon Investor. He got me started buying PMs when Au was $308 and Ag $4.25. Spring, Ought 2.
Thanks, Jim. And thanks, Leanan.
Rat
More contagion from the financial implosion:
Unpaid bills for natural gas are up sharply
http://www.startribune.com/535/story/1388623.html
Yesterday, California had a Stage 1 Emergency issued for electricity power generation. Today is looking much worse. Where yesterday the demand curve touched the supply line, today it clearly violates supply. It's not even 9am and already an Alert is posted.
http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html
Add this to the list of third world countries with electricity shortages.
What did Richard Duncan predict about 2008?
I'm familary with Duncan's writings, but I can not quickly find a reference to 2008. Can you direct me to the reference?
Go here for the link to the PDF of the revised version, Winter 2005-2006.
The Olduvai Theory of Industrial Civilization
Actually, I was mistaken (I was referring to spreading blackouts).
http://www.dieoff.org/page224.htm
Figure 4. The Olduvai Theory: 1930-2030
Notes:
(1) 1930 => Industrial Civilization began when (ê) reached 30% of its peak value.
(2) 1979 => ê reached its peak value of 11.15 boe/c.
(3) 1999 => The end of cheap oil.
(4) 2000 => Start of the "Jerusalem Jihad".
(5) 2006 => Predicted peak of world oil production (Figure 1, this paper).
(6) 2008 => The OPEC crossover event (Figure 1).
(7) 2012 => Permanent blackouts occur worldwide.
(8) 2030 => Industrial Civilization ends when ê falls to its 1930 value.
(9) Observe that there are three intervals of decline in the Olduvai schema: slope, slide and cliff — each steeper than the previous.
(10) The small cartoons stress that electricity is the essential end-use energy for Industrial Civilization.
The updated 2006 version I posted above does shift the blackouts forward to 2008. You were not mistaken.
Thanks. I couldn't find the graph, so I thought that I was mistaken.
Chevron: Production Down After Plant Fire; Demands Being Met
Yesterday evening I stumbled on a great website;
http://www.culturalresourcegroup.com/pdf/inchlines/pdf
for some reason this site doesn't want to click through, but if you will look at yahoo.com for"Big Inch pipeline"
you can click through there
This was while researching for a post on Jerome's gas pipeline post. Its a short history of the construction of the Big Inch and Big Little Inch pipelines during WWII and reviews the history of the construction of the Big Inch pipeline from Longview, Texas and the Big Little products pipeline from Baytown, Houston and Beaumont for the refined products lines that went to the East Coast during WW II. It talks about rationing and has some wonderfull US Posters on it too.
The German Navy posted five submarines to the Atlantic and the Gulf Coast at the beginning of WWII, and they sunk 75 tankers, about 1/3rd of the US tanker fleet, before the Americans learned how to deal with them. Its important, because before WW II there were no pipelines to the East Coast from Texas, Louisiana or Oklahoma. The USA relied on tankers to send oil to the East Coast and abroad, the US was the largest oil exporting country in the world at the time.
This had a very significant effect on WWII. Hitler invaded Russia and wasted a million young German soldiers trying to pass through Stalingrad on the way to Baku, and didn't invade England because he couldn't fly his airforce and had no way to supply his soldiers if he invaded, and likewise the Allies didn't invade Europe at Sicily and Normandy because they didn't have fuel either until the pipelines were completed.
This is a history of the construction of these pipelines. The history was part of the Texas History classes when I was in 8th grade, and I'd forgotten a lot of it. But reading that website I noticed that it shows what true patriotism is instead of loud mouthed flag waving.
The pipelines were built on a no profit basis by the major oil companies and independents who tore up their own pipelines to get the valves and steel. I suspect a lot of the people think I'm selling out to call the oil companies heroes, but here's documentary proof. They were heroes then.
It also shows what Americans can and will do if they are called on to do it by great leaders. And that's why I'm not a doomer. I believe we can overcome the peak oil threat with a resurgence of real American can do spirit. I know it sounds hokey coming from a commie rat bastard like myself, but its the truth. I listen to the insane traitors like we have in the White House, and I'm repelled. They've mistaken obstinacy and loud accusations of other people for leadership and real patriotism. I see scum like Lee Raymond denying the reality of peak oil and climate change so that America doesn't face its problems and devalue his stock options and I'm sickened. Free market decide my ass, we need leadership. The car companies didn't make any new models for 3 years out of patriotism-they made Jeeps and tanks, and didn't worry about the stockholder. They could do the same with hybrids and diesels and solve the problem. We could adopt Alan Drakes Electrification of Rail and save at least 10% of the oil in this country. But we lack leaders. FDR and Harold Ickes, the Secrterary of the Interior provided actual leadership, and the US rose magnificently to the occasion. The next ten or twelve years are going to be miserable unless we provide the leadership ourselves, but, we can do it.
Bob Ebersole
And at that time we had real industrial capability - we had the oil, we had the engineering and manufacturing ability, we had steel making, a widespread agricultural capability, a more-or-less cohesive society, strong unions and an organized workforce, and a populous that was engaged in a functioning political process. We have none of those things now.
We might still have a can-do spirit, but it is only a spirit - we sold the actual "can-do". When the bell rings now, the only response will be only the echoing of a bell.
This link appears to work directly:
http://www.culturalresourcegroup.com/projects/biginch-littleinch.htm
PDF link is on the left sidebar.
I'm right with you on this, Bob.
I think it's there in the hidden weaves of this double-knit country, yet it doesn't show until we're under the gun. There must be a Twain line that captures both the Repugnant Sloth as well as the Heroic Might that characterize our culture. Best I can do is Churchill's 'Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing, after trying every else.' I mean, look at the dandies and the wastrels who were profligate in the years before WWII, the organic matter that would germinate 'The Greatest Generation'.. (Unless you want Howard Zinn's characterization of our part in the 1940's) But I bet it WILL take a peak oil and climate change to wake the oil-fattened and monstrous Yankee Rumplestiltskin this time.
"War! The Republic is crumbling under attacks by the ruthless Sith Lord, Count Dooku. There are heroes on both sides. Evil is everywhere."
Bob, you make the rest of us Commie Rat Bastards proud!
Bob.
I guess I'm off-topic again, but, hmmmm... how about, if only we can confront the coming problems with this much humor and creativity...anyway:
I call this "A bad day for the KKK":
http://asheville.indymedia.org/article/107Clowns
“White Power!” the Nazi’s shouted, “White Flour?” the clowns yelled back running in circles throwing flour in the air and raising separate letters which spelt “White Flour”.
“White Power!” the Nazi’s angrily shouted once more, “White flowers?” the clowns cheers and threw white flowers in the air and danced about merrily.
“White Power!” the Nazi’s tried once again in a doomed and somewhat funny attempt to clarify their message, “ohhhhhh!” the clowns yelled “Tight Shower!” and held a solar shower in the air and all tried to crowd under to get clean as per the Klan’s directions.
At this point several of the Nazi’s and Klan members began clutching their hearts as if they were about to have a heart attack. Their beady eyes bulged, and the veins in their tiny narrow foreheads beat in rage. One last time they screamed “White Power!”
The clown women thought they finally understood what the Klan was trying to say. “Ohhhhh…” the women clowns said. “Now we understand…”, “WIFE POWER!” they lifted the letters up in the air, grabbed the nearest male clowns and lifted them in their arms and ran about merrily chanting “WIFE POWER! WIFE POWER! WIFE POWER!”
Brilliant!
" And although John Steinbeck probably was not aware of the term, he was indeed engaging in the process of midrash when he wrote East of Eden. Reflecting on this work, Steinbeck said “I believe that there is one story in the world, and only one . . . . Humans are caught—in their lives, in their thoughts, in their hungers and ambitions, and in their avarice and cruelty, and in their kindness and generosity too—in a net of good and evil... and it occurs to me that evil must constantly respawn, while good, while virtue is immortal.” "
Timshel
http://www.timshellfarm.com/Timshel_Thou_Mayest.html
In East of Eden, the source of information about this word is the Chinese servant Lee. He recalls that when Samuel had read the Cain and Abel story to the family, Lee was intrigued by it, and examined it “word for word” (p. 346). He consulted a couple of translations, the King James and the American Standard, and was not satisfied with them. King James translates the phrase, “thou shalt rule over him” as if to “promise that Cain would conquer sin.” (p. 346) The American Standard, on the other hand, says “Do you rule over him,” which is not a promise, but an order. Lee decided that he needed to find its original meaning.
Lee explains that he went to San Francisco, to his family association to consult with the revered sages. He discussed the text with four of these sages, all of whom were over 90 years of age. The engaged a rabbi to teach them Hebrew, and then, when they had learned more than the rabbi, another rabbi was brought in. Two years later, they were ready to tackle the verse in question. Their conclusion: the word timshel should be understood to mean “thou mayest rule over it.”
Lee explains to his family why the King James and American Standard translations are inadequate and why the Hebrew is so important: The “word timshel—‘Thou mayest’—that gives a choice. It might be the most important word in the world. That says the way is open. That throws it right back on a man. For if ‘Thou mayest’—it is also true that ‘Thou mayest not.’” (p. 349)
Lee continues, “’Thou mayest’… makes a man great, that gives him stature with the gods, for in his weakness and his filth and his murder of his brother he has still the great choice. He can choose his course and fight it through and win.”
.. Maybe the clowns said it just as well, AND funnier.
Bob Fiske
Asheville's a funny town:
http://www.mountainx.com/news/2007/082207protest/
Re. the USGS Greenland reserves estimate - this was a portion of the USGS 2000 world URR estimate that was roundly criticized by Campbel and Laherrere. Here's a review of their methodology by Campbell (with my edits):
A Reply by C.J.Campbell to Global Petroleum Reserves - A View to the Future by Thomas S. Ahlbrandt and J.McCabe, United States Geological Survey, published in Geotimes, November 2002.
Ahlbrandt and McCabe have written an elegant article choosing their words with extreme care to present what seems to be an authoritative account of the world's oil and gas situation, based on a study made by the United States Geological Survey in 2000. But a closer look shows it to be a thoroughly flawed study that has done incalculable damage by misleading international agencies and governments.
The study was in fact a marked departure from earlier sound evaluations made by the USGS over a thirty years period under its previous project director, the late C.H.Masters. He showed that he understood the situation well, using great skill to deliver the message, albeit at times between the lines, as he recognised its sensitive nature.
Neither of the authors claim practical oil experience. That is betrayed by their mindset, which is more appropriate to the mining geologist for whom resource concentration is as important as occurrence.
No one need be seriously concerned about when the last drop of oil will be produced. What matters - and matters greatly - is the date when the growth of past production gives way to decline from resource constraints.
The authors present the comforting notion of a resource pyramid implying that the World can seamlessly move to more difficult and expensive sources of oil and gas when the need arises. But there is a polarity about oil that they fail to
grasp: it is either present in profitable abundance or not there at all, due ultimately to the fact that it is a liquid concentrated by Nature in a few places having the right geology. They speak of "crustal abundance" when a glance
at the oil map shows clusters of oilfields separated wide barren tracts.
They give emphasis to "reserve growth" as a new element, dismissed by their predecessor, yet fail to point out that the text of the study itself expresses grave reservations. "Growth" is in fact more an artifact of reporting practices than a technological or economic dynamic. In short,
reserves described as Proved for financial purposes refer to what has been confirmed so far by drilling, saying little about the full size of the field concerned. Clearly, it was absurd to apply, as the study did, the experience of the
old onshore fields of the USA, with their special
commercial, legal and reporting environment, to the offshore or international spheres, where very different conditions obtain.
The authors speak of their impressive probabilistic methods, which in the study allowed them to quote estimates to three decimal places. In, for example, the famous case of little known NE Greenland, the study states with a straight face that there is a 95% subjective probability of more than zero, namely at least one barrel, and a 5% probability of more than 111.815 Gb (billion barrels). A Mean value of 47.148 Gb is then computed from this range, being incorporated in the global assessment.
Can we really give much credence to the suggestion that this remote place, that has so far failed to attract the
interest of the industry, holds almost as much, or more, than the North Sea, the largest new province to be found since the Second World War?
Could this be pseudo-science at its best? (end quote)
- Dick Lawrence
ASPO-USA
As I understand it, there are 2 main camps in the PO debate:
1. Those who think that we will find enough energy for human civilization's needs (ever-increasing, because of population) via oil or some number of future energy resources (through improved technology and/or developing new technologies).
2. Those who think the above is not possible, due to limitations in oil production/discovery/development, geopolitical reasons, technology/scientific reasons, economic reasons, and/or, more generally, human nature.
To fully disclose beforehand, I am firmly in camp 2.
I have a question (please bear with this brief setup for the question):
In the history of the human species, humans have transitioned energy sources - wood, coal, oil.
To my knowledge, each time human civilization transitioned, there was still plenty of the current energy source available when the transiition happened. For example, there were still plenty of trees (and new trees growing) when humans transitioned to coal. One could disagree with this in certain aspects (by my use of the word "plenty"). However, the main point is that humans did not think they were at "Peak Wood" and went out to find a new energy source. Likewise there was not a "Peak Coal" event that caused humans to search for oil.
Each of the new energy sources was discovered and replaced the current energy source (for various reasons, not the least of which was that EROEI increased for each transition).
However, whether you believe PO has passed, or will occur in the next few decades, there is a mutual understanding that oil is finite in supply. Therefore, a technological solution or the adoption of a new energy source must be found at some point in time. The only disagreement is in the time available to find/implement that new energy source before PO impacts human civilization negatively.
My question is: because humans find themselves confronted with a necessary transition to a new energy source, doesn't that mean that the next energy transition will be, by its very nature, much different from previous energy transitions?
And, to be complete: in what way(s) will/must it be different, or why will it be the same?
Even as Peak Wood approached and passed us by, many of our species had houses built with an integrated wood-burning fireplace.
There was a place outside where you stacked and dried the fire wood. There was no coal bin. There was no coal compatible stove. There was no money for buying the new fangled things.
We are in the same kind of jam now, only more so. Our entire infra-structure is built around diesel and gasoline powered transport.
You are correct. I am ignoring the question of infrastructure.
I am also making an assumption that there was no "Peak Wood" event that approached and passed by.
Instead, I am making the assumption that there was plenty of wood left when the transition to coal happened, and that the only reason there was a transition to coal was because the positives to civilization (increased EROEI, etc.) outweighed the negatives to civilization (the need to create new infrastructure to use the new energy source).
Additionally, I am making the assumption that any energy source transition will entail a need for new infrastructure. If the next energy transition requires new infrastructure (just as the older transitions required new infrastructure), then IMHO the question of installed infrastructure can be ignored in my original question because it is a prerequisite of an energy transition.
Certainly, you may disagree with my assumptions. However, now my assumptions are at least spelled out better.
Well, I'm not sure that there was plenty of wood left - certainly globally, but locally places like the UK had cut down a very large percentage of their wood. And they were not alone. It does not really matter how much of a given resource exists if it is beyond your ability to economically transport it, or if someone who lives where that resource is might take offense at your absconding with it.
There will be plenty of fossil fuels for energy transitions if we stop most of the wastefull uses of oil.
This will probably happen thru market mechanisms. It will be a nicer and more efficient transition if those who get riches enough to flaunt extreme wealth instead of using MW toys brag about their investment portfolios in redeveloped urban real estate, nuclear power, biofuels, electrified logistics, etc intended to give their grandkids an inflation proof dividend by creating real tanglible value to be sold in the future society.
Can anyone identify one "wasteful" use of oil that, during the production or elimination of that "waste", does not put food on someone else's table or provide someone else a way of life?
710: Magnus was referring to all the unnecessary miles driven (I think). Yes, if I purchase gasoline and drive in circles it helps the gas station owner pay his mortgage but it would still be considered wasteful- one could just as usefully spend the money on drugs or candy bars.
With this question is the assumption that removing redundant processes that use energy unnecessarily will cause great numbers of job losses, and perhaps an implication that this then becomes a moral question, or at least a 'don't mess with the economy' issue.
We might be facing a new dustbowl economy as these transitions occur, with homeless camps and worker-gangs waiting to be picked.. but I see no justification in continuing bad practises that are tightening the noose around the same necks that you're still spooning ice-cream into. The same dire warning has met all the environmental programs, which have often later shown to be a boon to the job markets and economies in the Northwest and elsewhere. There is work to be done, and it'll still require drivers, equipment operators, etc etc.. just that they won't necessarily be trucking cans from this coast to that, just to get labeled.. sending organic beef from Australia to a Whole Fud market in Maine.. (We bought our beef from <30miles out..) there'll be altogether TOO much work out there to be done.. including that of organizing the effort.
History is a little more complicated than you make it out to be.
First of all, at least in England, it is not true that there was still "plenty" of wood when coal started to be used on a widespread basis. The island had come pretty close to being stripped bare, relatively speaking. (Seen pictures of the Yorkshire Moors, for example? Those used to be covered in forests!) At the same time, it wasn't just a case of deciding "Well, wood is all used up, time to switch over to coal." There was plenty of coal there, and they knew it, but until a practical steam-powered pump was invented to drain water out of otherwise flooded mine shafts, they wouldn't have enough coal, either. It is only the invention of that pump that allowed the subsequent industrial revolution instead of England having its "Olduvai Gorge" moment back in the 18th century.
On the other hand, it is true that there was still "plenty" of coal around when oil first started to come on line. Even then, though, in England they were starting to realize that Peak Coal for them was not far away.
The bottom line: beware of oversimplifications. History does not present itself in neat, repeating patterns. While we can learn from the past (and are fools not to, as Santayana said), it is mistaken to think that a template from history can be fitted neatly to future events.
Thus, to answer your question: Yes, the next energy transformation will be different from the previous ones. The reason is because all of the previous ones were different from each other as well; each energy transition is a unique set of circumstances, and is thus different.
BTW, I would disagree with your preface. I see three camps instead of two: optimists (technocornucopians), realists, and pessimists (doomers). Put me in the realist camp. Unlike the optimists, I believe that our present economy is unsustainable (not just in terms of energy, but for many other reasons as well). Unlike the pessimists, I believe that there IS a level at which the US (& global) economy can operate that IS sustainable, and that it is at least theoretically possible that we could decline to there and level off rather than crashing all the way back to neolithic or paleolithic levels, or indeed to total extinction.
Thus, to elaborate on my answer per your final request:
The fundamental difference between the post-peak energy transition from previous energy transitions is that the previous transitions were expansive, whereas this transition will be constraining. What I mean by that is that each previous transition removed previous limits and opened up new possibilities. The next (and final) transition will be to renewable energy resources, for renewables are the only energy resources that are appropriate and feasible to support a sustainable economy. Unfortunately, all renewable energy resources come with inherent limitations. For example, solar only works during the daytime; one must therefore either come up with elaborate, costly, and inherently inefficient storage mechanisms, or else one must limit one's usage of solar power to match its availability. Wind (and to a lesser extent, hydro) is intermittent, and wind, hydro, tidal & geothermal are all severely limited by location as well. The expansive nature of our present energy sources has given us the luxury of expanding our energy demand as well, not just in terms of absolute volume, but also in terms of expecting energy to be available any time, any place. It is not just our supplies of energy that will have to change, but also our demand for energy. This goes beyond mere conservation; we are going to have to learn how to restructure our economy and our lifestyles so that they adjust to the less convenient and more constrained availability of renewable energy sources.
Unlike some people, I don't see this as being the end of the world. If we have to do it (and I believe we will), then we could so adjust. It will be very difficult and painful, but it must be done. The type of economy that we have, and the types of lifestyles that we live, will look very different than at present. In general, we will be much poorer people in a much poorer country, living considerably simpler lifestyles than is typical now. But there are ways in which such lives could even be happier and healthier than what we have today.
Guilty as charged. I was attempting to focus on the differences between past energy transitions and the next transition. This required simplifying the scope. I had secretly prayed for your indulgence. My prayers are rarely answered. :)
I agree. However, my question did not focus on a particular country. Rather, it focused globally. In present times, there are certainly some countries that are in the midst of their "Olduvai Gorge" moment, though none of them are as Imperial as Old Britain. "Rule Brittania! Brittania rules the waves. Britons never, never, never shall be slaves..." ;)
Again, I agree. In fact, my question attempted to point out the fact that the next energy transition will NOT be neatly fitted to past transitions. It is, by definition, different because of its necessity. I was attempting to prove your point. Or, were you disagreeing to show that you agreed with me? ;)
Certainly. However, the scientific method is based on an attempt to simplify a specific aspect of Nature, via theory and experiment. Is it not acceptable to (over)simplify an aspect of PO in similar ways, in an attempt to draw a conclusion that has some meaning? Of course, with the understanding that one MUST simplify, since we cannot currently simulate any system perfectly?
I think my definition of camp 2 included what you write above. But, then, I wrote it, and I thought about the item you describe when defining camp 2. So, I had a head start.
Perhaps it could have been clearer. However, by defining camp 2 as those who think it is not possible that human civilization "will find enough energy for human civilization's needs (ever-increasing, because of population)", I believed that it was understood that "ever-increasing" excluded those who thought a smaller population might be sustainable. I do not think the words "neolithic or paleolithic" appeared in either definition. Wait. Stop. I am oversimplifying again. It is a weakness of mine. I beg your indulgence again. :)
Some final thoughts:
Your elaboration is very expansive, yet succint. I agree with it.
Except, it feels too certain to me. Just because one cannot see a possibility of transition to a non-constraining energy source does not make it so. I say this as someone who agrees with what you wrote. I expect many of the same things. Yet that does not make it certain.
There will be no "end of the world" until our Sun goes into its Red Giant phase. Life will survive. Even human life. Or, perhaps the next step in evolution for human life. The Earth does not require that we are the dominant lifeform. Life will survive (even if it is only microscopic), though I would prefer that I was counted in the non-microscopic part that survives.
"Mark Twain" wrote:
Yes, the Big Rock called Earth will be spinning around long after humans have evolved or gone. Remember, however, that Earth's place puts us between Venus and Mars, neither of which can support living things as we now see them. Think of the three as in the story of Goldie Locks and the 3 Bears. One planet is too hot, another is too cold and the last (where we live) is just right. If we humans really keep on screwing things up, Earth won't be Just Right for us anymore.
As for Twain's comment on madness, my view is that we are all a little crazy, but the people that don't know that are really insane. Sort of like our Fearless Leader, Gee Dubyah and his Nation Building expedition in Iraq. Looks like the probable solution is another repressive government like the last one, as that may be the only way to prevent a massive killing spree. Meet the New Boss, same as the Old Boss, as the Who wrote.
E. Swanson
WNC, for lack of more substantive thought on your longer post, I nonetheless offer an alternative description of your three camps. In a quantum-mechanical sort of way appropriate for large objects (for which others whisper personality disorder), one can live in multiple states: doomer, realist, optimist, but none discrete, all continuum.
Then given a post, an idea, or a mood, one pops down as something definite. For me, my probabilities are typically associated with doomer, 5%, optimist, 1%, realist:48%, with the balance everywhere else.
I guess in other words we're all, all these things, but always a matter of context (for which others whisper personality disorder).
I have the same thought every time I hear:
It's used by those who believe peak oil to be a non-issue, although I think it actually implies the exact opposite. No, we didn't run out of stones, we found something better, be it bronze, iron, coal, oil, or what have you. We changed the foundations of society not because we ran out of the old thing, but because those who didn't switch were overrun by those who did.
The peaking of oil is a completely different matter. If there were an obvious successor to oil (cheaper, more available, etc.) we would already have switched to it. This is not to say that something won't come along, but we're scrambling... not usually a good sign when you're looking to replace the world's infrastructure.
'The Stone Age..'
Yeah, something that I don't hear people using to rebut this one is that the Stone Age was not POWERED by stones, and that we didn't actually Consume the stones, just chipped them up a bit. Similarly, all the 'Metals' ages were to describe simply what we bludgeoned and bled each other with, not how we fed ourselves, communicated, produced medicines and fertilizers, built our cities and homes, stored our foodstuffs and made our clothes, etc, etc.
Of course when it comes to bludgeoning one another, you could just cut the line short at.. 'The Stone age didn't end.'
Peak stones with nothing better to come along probably would have written a different ending for the stone age.
Forgive me if someone else already noted this Common Dreams post of yesterday re Peak Oil:
I'll be growing my own food, purifying my own water, composting my garbage (there will be a lot less garbage to deal with when there are no petrochemicals), and the only thing that's tripping me up is the sewage. I guess I'll have an outhouse. I'll likely heat the house with my wood stove using trees felled on my land.
Will I have a job? Sure, growing that food I'm going to eat. :)
~Durandal (http://www.wtdwtshtf.com/)
Humanure may be the way to go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanure
Let your s**t hit the sawdust after the SHTF :-)
There are lots of composting toilets you can buy or build. Do a searach.
That article was originally from the San Francisco Chronicle. It appeared in Sunday's DrumBeat, I think, and got quite a bit of discussion.
Yesterday was a remarkable day. Not only did we get that horrible news about the extent of arctic ice melt (1 million more square kilometers in the last 19 days!!!) but we also get the report that they have confirmed the first human-to-human transmission of Avian flu.
Microbiology Bytes has a blog entry titled This is the End, that discusses the mutations discovered in layman's terms, identifying the mutated receptors and what this means generally. It looks like Avian flu is getting closer to its Spanish influenza counterpart.
So what happens to global oil demand and production if we get an outbreak of human transmittable Avian flu? Do they shut down the airlines sending them to bankruptcy or do they let people fly so that "business as usual" can continue while the disease spreads? If there is an outbreak will people stay home, refusing to drive to/from work? Remember that the Spanish Influenza killed roughly 3% of the world's population not quite a century ago. A similar event today would mean roughly 200 million people dead worldwide. And that assumes that the spread of the disease is contained as well as the Spanish influenza was contained. What happens to the stock market? To demand? All very hypothetical, of course... for now.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Dr. Albert Bartlett
Into the Grey Zone
It's only a matter of time. Mike Davis "Monster at Our Door" does a really good job for laymen discussing bird and pig flu, industrial farms, DNA and how it all works. Me, I want to survive long enough to see the fireworks.
Just to say "I told you so".
cfm in Gray, ME
We're overdue for a thumping good pandemic and H5N1 is just the ticket.
I am quite sorry and wish we could do something for the anywhere from 7% to 40% of adults in sub-Saharan Africa infected with HIV, but truth be told that region is a hazard as is. The 1918 pandemic was so ugly due to all of the soldiers who came down with the disease. They'd lay close together, coughing and exchanging the virus, and the virus mutated and mutated, with waves of infection crossing the globe every six weeks for a period of time as new strains arose. Now instead of a theater full of relatively healthy men we've got a whole continent full of large groups of people with compromised immune systems. Sub-Saharan Africa will be a giant culture plate for H5N1 once it gets into the human/avian population there.
If for nothing other than curiousity...
Has anyone seen so many INVESTs in the Atlantic region before??
Last count FIVE (5),numbered is 3.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/gtwo_atl.shtml
That last tropical wave to belch off Africa is very large...but hindered by shear and dry air...but something in my gut tells me to name this one - GABRIELLE. (Yep...I skipped one - one of the others will have to step up to TS before this one - most likely 94L(#1 on the map))
Now 4 named Invests.
94L definitely looking like FELIX now.
GABRIELLE is a potential elephant...a couple/few days of westward movement should get it out of the dry and shear.
And, already an new cyclonic wave brewing over Africa.
Anyone, tell that I think Hurricanes are our short term NIGHTMARE... :-P
What would your guess be for an ETA for a Gabrielle US landfall?
Is it not a conflict of interest for Mr. Raymond to serve as the chair of the National Petroleum Council and Bush's Alternative Energy Committee simutaneously?? What is the purpose/function of the Alternative Energy Committee? What options/alternatives have they studied? Is this the group responsible for pushing corn ethanol into the spotlight? Promoting an inefficient/cost-ineffective/non-viable alternative would be a sensible move for an oil-man.
sdstrong -good questions.
Hell f..in yeah!
The goal is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, with an ancillary, but unspoken parallel goal to keep things humming as they are now as best as possible and make money doing it. Ethanol 'fits' the current political and economic system. Reducing car usage, living locally, and many of the things people that understand the very big picture, are not very appealing to status quo organizations. (even though if we got through the initial bottleneck, things might just turn out better than anyone expects)
Big business has a big say in how our government policy is run. Living in a 'democracy' we think its one person one vote, but in reality its one dollar one vote.
thanks for the questions. You can google more about those organizations if youd like more details. But dont believe everything you read, or hear, (even here..;)
I don't think there is any conflict inherent in having the same person head the two committees.
There is however, a clear conflict of interest in having the head of Exxon head the alternative energy committee.
Exxon does have a track record of crushing evidence that proves a threat to their business model and Raymond himself has disparaged alternatives to oil if I recall correctly.
The story I posted above on the Big Inch pipeline shows a real contrast with the actual patriotism of men like Alton Jones who reired from the chairmansip of Cities Service to buil the pipeline that was essntial to the Allies winning in Europe 60 tears ago and Lee Raymond. Mr. Jones took no salary and did not personally profit on his service, while Lee Raymond lies to the world to hold up his stock price by denying climate change and peak oil .
Mr. Raymond, let me introduce you to Mr. Halliburton, one of your own son-of-a-bitch-smokin'-CEOs. And over here is....
Conflict of interest? Surely you jest.
Hello TODers,
Are we close to repeating the '70s energy crunch and long gasoline lines because of Peakoil? Is it significant that the American Petroleum Institute [API] is televising this commercial now?
http://www.api.org/aboutapi/ads/upload/API_Seventies_TV_7_23_07.mov
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Wow, Bob, nice catch. Ahhh the 70's.
Gonna watch that a couple of times. Gosh, makes me yearn for the days of waiting on line for gas. The comradre, the fistfights. The gunshots. But of course that wasn't really the disco years. But what the heck.
That API really knows how to market their product. Heeeyyy, wait a minute. I think I saw a station wagon in there...
Hello TODers,
http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=378068&rel_no=1
--------------------------
Dutch Dyke Building Spills Over Into Design
New toilets separate fluids from solids
The Dutch have a way with water. That's not just nice alliteration, but unsalted truth. Their dyke building is taking an unexpected twist; in a drive to save the environment, the Dutch have manufactured toilets that come with a little dyke to separate urine from excrement. The change is as simple as it is subtle. But the effect on the environment is drastic.
It doesn't take a genius to spot the logic. General water drainage systems contain less than 1 percent of urine, yet the fluid itself contains half of all phosphates and 80 percent of the ammonium in the wastewater. Dutch Professor Mark van Loosdrecht says there are more advantages to recycling urine than making the water cleansing process easier and saving energy.
-----------------------------------
I hope everyone will read the full article!
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Wow good catch!
The spelling should be "dike" shouldn't it? It alters the imagery quite a bit.
And this after I envisioned Belgians being yoked as used as oxen uplist.
My apologies, I clearly can't help myself.
Hello TODers,
Since many Zimbabweans now cannot afford petrol-derived cooking and heating fuels:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200708300080.html
---------------------------------
Zimbabwe: Zim Loses 400,000 ha of Forest to Illegal Fellers
Intermittent power outages, increasing population and general lack of monitoring have resulted in a 100 percent increase in deforestation from between 150,000 hectares and 200,000 hectares two years ago, a situation that has also been blamed on general lack of effective monitoring.
"We are losing our forests at an appalling rate. The wood is usually destined for resale in Harare and other urban areas," Mr Marufu said.
--------------------------------
Since my Asphalt Wonderland is in the middle of a huge desert: We will burn trash and abandoned housing to cook our food.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
"Since my Asphalt Wonderland is in the middle of a huge desert: We will burn trash and abandoned housing to cook our food....
Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?"
Move it or prove it.
Rat Hoping You Move
"We are losing our forests at an appalling rate. The wood is usually destined for resale in Harare and other urban areas," Mr Marufu said.
This is what really ticks me off. People burning exotic hardwoods, when those same hardwoods cost me $10 to $150 per boardfoot (depending on species)! And please don't rail on me for using exotics. It isn't furniture maker's and other woodworkers that are decimating forests. We know the value of them and do our best to keep them alive and healthy, so that future generations will have raw materials to perpetuate one of the worlds oldest crafts. It's the idiots who burn them down for biodiesel, etc. that need to be yelled at.
No individual raindrop feels responsible for the flood.
But Mugabe is a Big Drip