 | Declining net oil exports--a temporary decline or a long term trend? | The Oil Drum | ASPO 6: Have we reached the tipping point? |  |
DrumBeat: September 28, 2007
Posted by Leanan on September 28, 2007 - 9:03am
Record coal prices hammer power generators
Record high coal prices and tight supply are piling the pressure on electricity generators already hit by soaring oil markets and high gas prices, industry players say...."I do believe that before the end of the year it's possible that some generators in Asia will have to look at turning off their plants because they won't have enough coal," said a coal producer.
Conoco files month-long L.A. refinery flare notice
West Coast refined products traders said the notice could be an indication of an overhaul planned for a unit or units at the Los Angeles refinery in October.
Hovensa Shuts Catalytic Cracker at Virgin Islands Refinery
Hovensa LLC, the second-biggest gasoline exporter to the U.S, shut the fluid catalytic cracker at its Virgin Islands refinery today to repair a wet gas scrubber.
UN: Thirty-five years to half-extinction
At the United Nations' climate change conference this month, experts painted a grim picture for the future of our planet. If humans don't act within the next 5 to 10 years, they warned, not only will we cause the extinction of many of the world's vital species, but in the end, we will be wiped off the earth ourselves.
UK: Timetable set to phase out high-energy light bulbs
A bid to phase out all high-energy light bulbs on sale in British shops was announced by the Government today.Environment Secretary Hilary Benn said he wanted to see the energy wasting bulbs start to disappear from the shelves in January and phased out by 2011.
President Hugo Chávez, who made diverting oil profits to the poor a hallmark of his administration, is faced with a series of corruption scandals that are threatening to undermine the state oil company Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA).
Norway boosts antigraft rules for oil industry
Oil-rich Norway leant its support on Thursday to a global effort to rub out corruption in the oil, gas and mining industries, and a leading corruption-buster said he hoped other countries would follow suit.
IT IS a thinly populated slice of Atlantic coast backed by a large tract of rainforest. But Guyana reckons it may have struck riches, thanks to a decision by a United Nations tribunal on September 20th. This awarded most of a disputed area of sea to Guyana rather than its neighbour, Suriname. “Think Kuwait,” dreamed an upbeat foreign diplomat.
Fact or Fiction?: Black Is Better than White for Energy-Efficient Screens
Before you tune out and turn off, you should know that black isn't necessarily the new green. Because computer monitors come in a variety of shapes and sizes, and not all monitors create black and white the same way, there's no proof that, on the whole, an increased use of black images would save more energy than the continued use of white images. In fact in newer liquid-crystal display, or LCD, monitors white is actually slightly more energy efficient than black.
Uranium ban doesn’t discourage prospectors
Greenland doesn't allow any uranium mining or prospecting to take place on the island.Despite this, companies are actively exploring Kvanefjeld in southern Greenland, one the largest undeveloped uranium-rich areas in the world, with an estimated $10 billion worth of uranium.
Taiwan to Boost Windpower by More Than 5-Fold
Taiwan is planning to invest around T$30 billion (US$915 million) over the next three years boost its wind power generation by more than five-fold, by inviting private firms to bid for the right to build turbines, energy officials said on Thursday.
Yes, really. These five leak-plugging, warmth-trapping, efficiency-enhancing ideas could slice your home's energy usage by up to 50 percent.
Air New Zealand has announced it will carry out the first commercial trial of a bio-fuelled Boeing 747.
Beneath Booming Cities, China’s Future Is Drying Up
China is scouring the world for oil, natural gas and minerals to keep its economic machine humming. But trade deals cannot solve water problems. Water usage in China has quintupled since 1949, and leaders will increasingly face tough political choices as cities, industry and farming compete for a finite and unbalanced water supply.
China's gasoline imports soar in August
Amid an auto boom, China's gasoline imports hit a ten-year high in August after the country's economic planner ordered state-owned oil firms to make up shortfalls in supply.
South China faces fuel crunch as oil firms battle Beijing
"Meiyou, meiyou" -- "None here, none here!" the petrol station attendant shouts, waving his arms at a small truck pulling up to the diesel pump to signal that it is dry.Without stopping, the truck rolls on in search of the fuel elsewhere -- another casualty of the low-profile but intense battle between China's government and its increasingly independent oil firms over who should fund fuel subsidies.
The showdown has caused diesel shortages in parts of China's booming coastal province of Guangdong for weeks, according to drivers, gas station managers and industry sources, as refiners seek to staunch losses by reducing sales.
The dry pumps are a distant echo of the fuel criss in the summer of 2005 that sparked long lines and a government crackdown on oil firms' huge exports. Beijing suspended tax incentives and set export quotas to keep more fuel at home.
China: 'No-light' show sends wake-up call to save fuel
Sunday night's orchestrated blackout for 30 minutes in seven cities was intended as a wake-up call to citizens who take electricity for granted.
For Total, pulling out of Myanmar not the answer
The French oil company Total said shutting its operations in Myanmar could cause even greater hardship in the country, despite a hardening attitude by France toward new investment amid a conflict between citizens and the ruling military junta that has left nine people dead.
What adds fuel to the fire is the present situation in the entire region. Albania faced and faces a major energy crisis. Greece is constantly increasing the its imported quantities of electricity. In the wake of the closure of two reactors Kozloduy in January 2006, there simply isn't enough electricity to go round. The whole region is facing an energy crisis. Bulgaria, which was one of the biggest exporters of electricity in Europe, has recently started to import it!
Iran - Pakistan - India Gas Pipeline Stuck in Quick Sand
India is now in serious dilemma. The probable nuclear deal with U.S is getting serious political opposition; the prevailing situation in Myanmar may not favor anyone to access gas from that troubles torn country soon. Now if the IPI or to be more specific the Pakistan- India segment does not happen India will be in serious energy shortage to meet its dynamic economic growth.
Kurdistan region of Iraq faces mounting problems
Trade with Turkey has already slowed down and the Kurds had started buying more foodstuffs and all their fuel needs from Iran. With the closure of the border he food and fuel flow stopped cutting off vital supplies in the midst of Ramadan.This is creating a crisis situation in the region.
India - Food versus fuel: The emerging debate
Another syndrome emerging in the country may be called demographic dichotomy. There is creeping obesity in the cities, especially among youth, and chronic under-nutrition in rural areas, especially among women and children. This trend needs to be checked.
Digging for solutions to energy crisis
In the 1970s, Iceland was one of the poorest countries in Europe. Today it is one of the richest, with a per capita GDP higher than that of Denmark, from which it won full independence in 1944.How did it accomplish this remarkable transformation? A key element was the shift from imported coal and oil to geothermal energy. Iceland now uses geothermal energy to generate a large portion of its electricity and nearly all of its heating needs.
Green energy: Solar's Big Boom
California's push for energy from the sun could turn the Golden State into the Saudi Arabia of the solar power industry.
An energy crisis is the last thing most Americans want to talk about, but if someone doesn't address it soon we will keep going to war over power sources.
Kunstler: America’s New Religion
Okay, here’s the big problem in America; we made this unfortunate set of choices to create the drive-in utopia, the happy-motoring utopia. America’s oil consumption is the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world. We’re not going to be able to continue this living arrangement and that makes it, by definition, the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world.But we like things the way they are. So we will not change our behavior until conditions force us to change. We Americans have put so much of our resources, so much of our wealth, so much of our spirit into constructing and assembling this energy-intensive infrastructure for daily life, that we can’t imagine letting go of it.
And here's Part II: America's New Religion, Part II
Suburbia is going to fail. You can state that categorically: It's going to fail in terms of investment and it's going to fail in terms of utility. We're not going to be able to use it; we're not going to be able to make those trips from 38 miles outside of Minneapolis and Dallas.
Technological Advances to Quench Thirst for Oil
Oil markets are in turmoil, admits Saudi Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources Ali Al-Naimi in an interview in New York. With Saudi Arabia currently accounting for almost one-fifth of global crude exports and analysts expecting it to meet a quarter of the world's increasing crude thirst in the near future, the global dependence on Saudi Arabia is set to go up. As the only producer with significant excess capacity, the Kingdom has played a crucial role in alleviating temporary supply disruptions and crises. The Kingdom upped its daily production by 3.1 million barrels during the first Gulf War, for example, when oil production in Iraq and Kuwait dropped by 5.3 million barrels. It was crucial in balancing the global markets then. With geopolitics occupying center stage, the Saudi role would stay crucial to the global well-being.
What is the Iraq war's carbon footprint?
We are updated on a daily basis about the ever mounting human cost of the Iraq war, but even the US military is now starting to ask questions about how much oil the "war over oil" is consuming. Last year, Major General Richard Zilmer sent the Pentagon a "priority one" request from Iraq for "a self-sustainable energy solution" that would include "solar panels and wind turbines". The US military's carbon footprint was not his concern - rather, that "by reducing the need for [petrol] at our outlying bases, we can decrease the frequency of logistics convoys on the road, thereby reducing the danger to our marines, soldiers, and sailors".
Iran strengthens ties with South America's leftist regimes
Vilified by world leaders wary of his nuclear ambitions, Iran's president is turning to South American leftists who are embracing him as an energy and trade partner and counterweight to U.S. influence.
Week in Petroleum: Retractable roofs
Although one or more factors have put a temporary ceiling on oil prices during some periods, oil prices then continued their upward trend, as if a retractable roof had opened.
Pakistan: No respite from suffering
Angry mob blocked the National stadium road for hours and chanted slogans against KESC management. They also burnt the tires and old furniture and pelted stones on the vehicles. The residents of Gulshan-e- Iqbal are suffering with the cables faults since many days and suffering with day to night power outage.
Big Potential and Challenges for Biofuels
Biofuels offer Africa the chance to supply itself with alternative energy sources, and also to become a major supplier of these sources for developed markets. Yet, challenges -- from creating the relevant infrastructure to competition for biofuel crops from food markets -- remain.
Put up pump prices or we will all count cost
I'm positive about climate change and energy saving and alternatives. Taking a helicopter view of the problem is a bit like examining the books of a company you are considering buying out. What do we look for? Inefficiencies, ways of making savings, increasing production, selling off some under-performing assets? The worse-run the enterprise, the better, because you know how you are going to make improvements - lift sales and thereby lift share prices.
Mountain mining called "genocide" of Appalachia
Larry Gibson's tiny house sits in a green oasis on top of the Appalachian peak his family has called home for 230 years. The setting would be peaceful if not for the roar of machinery scraping away the surrounding mountain in search of coal."It's a noisy, dusty place. They dynamite constantly," said Gibson, 61. "It's the genocide of Appalachia, the destruction of a people who have lived in these mountains forever."
Analysis: Nigerian rebels end cease-fire
Nigeria’s leading militant group threatened to resume attacks on foreign and domestic oil and gas operations following a four-month cease-fire intended to allow the new president to make good on vows to reform the petroleum sector and root out corruption.
The Peak Oil Crisis: Has the Media Become the Message?
With every passing month, evidence peak world oil production has either passed or is getting very close becomes stronger. Last week, the world peak oil conference in Ireland, heard that the best available data now suggests there may only be about 250 billion barrels of oil left to find rather than the generally accepted figure of 700 billion barrels put forth by the USCGS in 2000. Keep in mind that 250 billion barrels is only about eight years worth at our current 31 billion barrel per year rate of consumptions and that, should these billions of barrels actually be found, they will be extremely difficult to find and exploit.
Lifestyle changes prepare locals for energy changes
The head of Boulder Valley Relocalization has a radically different view of the future, one in which the daily gridlock on U.S. 36 would be a thing of the oil-guzzling past, where farms would dot large swathes of Boulder County open space, Kentucky bluegrass would give way to food crops in suburban yards and businesses would plant rooftop gardens. Solar panels and other renewable energy would supply a large portion of the community's energy. Local businesses would meet many more of the citizenry's daily needs, and customers could even choose to use a local currency.
Alberta Angles for Bigger Share of Oil Receipts as Futures Soar
Alberta, once a refuge from the world's resource nationalists, could soon join them.
Statements like these could almost make one believe that the Saudis really are sitting on top of an inexhaustible ocean of oil, and that peak oil is a myth. Because if there is one problem the world isn't facing right now, it is a precipitous decline in the global demand for oil, tax policies notwithstanding. If only it were so.
Ban Ki Moon: We can combat climate change
These are the two faces of climate change - worsening cases of extreme weather on the one hand, accompanied by scientific evidence that humankind is the cause; on the other, clear signs that the world has awakened to the scale of the problem and, at long last, has decided to do something about it.
Big carbon cuts: scary, but doable
This June, Group of Eight leaders confirmed the need for "substantial global reductions" in the man-made emissions of greenhouse gases that are dangerously warming the earth. By 2050 global emissions will have to be at least 50 percent below their level in 1990.Such radical calls are crucial to prevent a climate catastrophe. They also make countries nervous. The reason? They're worried carbon reductions will hurt economic growth.
OVER the past few years the questions have been asked ever more forcefully whether global climate changes occur in natural cycles or not, to what degree we humans contribute to them, what threats stem from them and what can be done to prevent them. Scientific studies demonstrate that any changes in temperature and energy cycles on a planetary scale could mean danger for all people on all continents.
The Climate Change Peril That Insurers See
Ten years ago, Peter Levene, chairman of Lloyds of London, was skeptical about global warming theories, but no longer. He believes carbon emissions caused by human activity are warming the Earth and causing severe weather-related events. "At Lloyds, we feel the effects of extreme weather more than most," he said in a March speech. "We don't just live with risk -- we have to pick up the pieces afterwards." Lloyds predicts that the United States will be hit by a hurricane causing $100 billion worth of damage, more than double that of Katrina. Industry analysts estimate that such an event would bankrupt as many as 40 insurers.Lloyd's has warned: "The insurance industry must start actively adjusting in response to greenhouse gas trends if it is to survive." The Association of British Insurers has called on governments to "stem ominous weather related trends" by cutting carbon emissions. U.S.-based companies AIG and Marsh -- respectively, the largest insurer and broker -- have joined with other corporate leaders to urge Congress to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 60 to 80 percent by mid-century. AIG's policy statement on climate change "recognizes the scientific consensus that climate change is a reality and is likely in large part the result of human activities that have led to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere."
One of the ports of call during the last two weeks that I have been away was the 6th international conference of ASPO (the Association for the Study of Peak Oil) in Cork. This is the body, founded by former oil geologist Dr Colin Campbell, which more than any other has brought to public consciousness the imminent peaking in the availability of cheap fossil fuels.‘Fun’ was hardly the word for it, but it was good to be in the company of people who have clearly understood the pivotal role of cheap energy in creating the highly abnormal and completely unsustainable global society in which we live today. Unsustainable precisely because the cheap energy on which the whole edifice is built is getting more expensive by the month – and is set, bar the odd blip, to do so indefinitely.
Carolyn Baker: Secede from the United States?
The Vermont secession impulse is born out of our understanding that the United States - once a great republic - has become an unsustainable Empire governed by a very few. Beyond massive (and bipartisan) national electoral fraud, 9/11's unanswered questions, a "war on terror" (that will not end, we are told, in our life times), the collapse of the U.S. Constitution, the erosion of civil liberties, and the practicing of "disaster capitalism" on a massive scale by political and economic elites, the U.S. is simply too big to function as a democratic republic in its current state. In other words, as astute observers from across the political spectrum have pointed out, the Empire is essentially ungovernable, unsustainable, and un-reformable.
Small cars that could raise American pulses
Predictions that this is the year Americans will finally embrace small cars seem to perpetually miss the mark. Gas that’s cheap in relative terms, broad avenues and free parking continue to invite Americans to use roomier, more comfortable cars.But a new crop of small cars that debuted at the 2007 Frankfurt Auto Show this month could raise the pulse of American small car enthusiasts and win a few converts if they reach production and make it stateside.
Oil prices back above $83 a barrel
Oil prices rose back above US$83 a barrel in Asian trade Friday, adding to gains in the previous session sparked by a decline in crude inventories at a key Oklahoma terminal and the confrontation between the West and Iran.
Consumers may catch a break on heating bills
This summer’s run-up in energy prices pinched consumer pocketbooks at the gasoline pump and helped put a dent in overall spending. With crude oil prices at near-record levels, many are looking at the potential for high heating bills this winter, especially in the Northeast, where homeowners are more likely to rely on heating oil.But customers who depend on natural gas could catch a break, especially if forecasters are right when they predict a milder-than-usual winter this year.
Gunmen in Nigeria kill oil worker
Gunmen wearing military fatigues and traveling by boat attacked a riverside compound Thursday in southern Nigeria, killing a Colombian oil worker and kidnapping at least one other foreigner.
Candidates talk of alternative fuels, different goals
When Democratic and Republican presidential candidates push renewable energy from wind farms, solar cells and biofuels, one might think they're all talking about the same thing.They're not. Democratic candidates talk about renewable energy as a way to cut greenhouse gases that cause global warming. Republican candidates talk about renewable energy to reduce the use of foreign oil or, as they call it, to achieve "energy independence."
Bush seeks new image on global warming
Myth: The president refuses to admit that climate change is real and that humans are a factor. Myth: The U.S. is doing nothing to address climate change. Myth: The United States refuses to engage internationally.So begins a hand-sized handout, easy for reporters to pocket, issued at the State Department where President Bush on Friday was to cap two days of talks at a White House-sponsored climate change conference that is as much about salesmanship as it is about diplomacy.
The U.N.'s Hot Air on Climate Change
At the end of the one-day session, the delegates hadn't come much closer to achieving the next meaningful step in the battle against climate change: negotiating a more complete successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires at the end of 2012. Though political awareness of the need to grapple with climate change was clearly at an all-time high — scores of national leaders don't suddenly convene at the U.N. without a decent reason — the global political will to actually do something still seems lacking.
Climate change bill calls for 50-cent fuel tax
U.S. drivers would pay a 50-cent tax on each gallon of gasoline they pump to encourage less fuel use and cut greenhouse gas emissions, under draft legislation to fight global warming released on Thursday.
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.
A new Finance Round-Up by ilargi has been posted at TOD:Canada. An Energy and Environment Round-Up will follow over the weekend.
Et tu, Canada?
There's a country just south of here that pretends to be the world's richest economy, but in reality seems headed for the Halliburdened poorhouse. Et tu, Canada? Depends on where you look.
The papers' front pages show Prime Minister Stephen Harper, knowing there's no opposition left to speak of, though he leads a minority Cabinet. Stephen, too stiff to even play golf, shuffling the greens with Tiger Woods for a photo-op. Then a broad media smile: an alleged record federal budget surplus ($13.8 billion). To top it off, the new King of Nadamaskakas magnanimously hints at tax cuts. Little detail: it's $35 per person per year, less than 10 cents per day. But it sounded good at first, right, tax cut? Bienvenue à la politique.
In the finance pages, a different take: lax laws have allowed trusts, funds and your pet parakeet to issue non-bank commercial paper (ABCP), to the tune of $40 billion (bank ABCP: $80 billion more). On August 16, the biggest gamblers tried hard to change this from short-to long term debt. Turns out, that won't fly: nobody can even figure out where it is or what it's worth. Caught in their own trap.
Québec's massive Caisse de Dépot pension fund holds $20 billion worth of it, a sizable chunk of their $240 billion portfolio, and that's just their domestic toilet paper. Our advice: Keep the day job. Till you're, like, 95. Your pension has been gambled away.
About that federal budget surplus: Canada's federal debt is $467 billion. Which, to our untrained eye, means the term "budget surplus" is the victim of acute and intense inflation. Harper actually said on TV that the surplus will be used to pay off the debt. On our untrained calculator, that would take, at the current rate, a negligible 33.8 years, or until 2041, providing no new debts are incurred, and inflation stops dead in its tracks. But we kid you not, at the moment of writing this, Harper's on TV, saying he does this for future generations.
To finish off this sunny newscast, while TD Bank raves about the tar profits, despite royalty reviews, Big Oil has launched the first lawsuit against Canada under NAFTA law. We'll see much more of that, soon, as in the Alberta royalty revision plans. Send your kids to law school.
As American as apple pie, as Canadian as possible under the circumstances....
A couple of points:
Nobody's alleging that, since it's well-known that the budget surplus 2000/2001 was significantly higher ($18B).
That's not at all the first NAFTA lawsuit against a part of Canada; see, for example, this NAFTA lawsuit by UPS against the Canadian government.
Inflation and having a federal debt are very different things, and getting rid of the latter will do very little to the former.
On some definitions, inflation is a measurement of change of accumulated federal debt. Thus, it is a direct measurement of anual debit.
And on all definitions, federal debt sooner or later reflect on inflation. Of course, the governement can make it be later, increasing interest rates for a while.
Could you link to such a definition? I've never seen anything even remotely similar.
The most common definition is similar to this one: "Inflation is a general increase in prices across the economy over a period of time."
Could you please provide some evidence for this claim? Because it doesn't seem to fit reality; Canada had incredibly low inflation during the early 90's (link), which was precisely when its debt was highest.
So the available evidence disagrees with you.
I would define inflation as an increase in the money supply relative to available goods and services. Price increases are a only symptom of too much money chasing too few goods and services.
During the recent expansionary years, we have seen large asset price increases as a result of the money supply increasing, but monetary expansion has not ignited a wage-price spiral as it normally would due to downward pressure on wages from international wage arbitrage and downward pressure on prices from globalized trade.
Nope, That’s Not Money
What is beginning to happen now is the converse - the definition of 'money' is tightening, as confidence in exotic credit instruments created through financial alchemy is ebbing quickly. The result is a reduction in the effective money supply, which is leading inexorably towards a very painful credit crunch. We cover this progression at TOD:Canada twice a week.
Just as price increases eventually follow an increase in the money supply, price decreases (at least in nominal terms) will eventually follow a decrease in the money supply (deflation). Once all those fancy derivatives that make up such as large percentage of so many portfolios are actually marked to market rather than to model, then exactly such a downward readjustment of asset prices will occur over a relatively short space of time. A firesale by even one troubled institution can be enough to taint an entire asset class, with cascading effect.
Stoneleigh
thanks for you're careful explanation.I appreciate you'er
economic work here & as a newbie to such but discovering P.O. necessity i felt
i needed to study this area a lot[took control of my ira etc.
]
in the deflationary scene u & mish [mike shedrock], etc. envision i question if dollars[cash]would be king for more than a moment due to the dollar[us] dropping & our debt. & if the loonie et tu canada, then loonie's would fair some better but not as good as preps or other tangibles or pms.at least the loonie has reasources to support it. The US only has what's left of perception[ which subprime & helicopter drops are killing] & a what's left of saudi oil supremacy[which might be perception too].
swiss francs?
thanks, & again for you're contributions!
[having trouble w/ seeing text i'm typing w/ new system]
stoneleigh or others
Can We Have Inflation And Deflation All At The Same Time?
-- Posted Friday, 28 September 2007 | Digg This ArticleDigg It!
Copyright © 2007
A. E. Fekete
http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1190991990.php
above my ability to analyse. comments.
one more thought. In stuart's recent thread
he quoted Krugman re some saying essentiallythe runs on the banks were the clincher in the great depression. i know the old timers refer to this the most
[few i know had stocks].It hit virtually everyone.
today a loss in home value, retirement fund down significantly, with a few bank runs[countrywide had a run in calif.] would again hit virtually everyone.
I actually think the US dollar is bottoming and a reversal may soon be on the cards. Everyone is bearish on the dollar, which is a signal that the trend has gone about as far as it's going to for now. The best bets are generally those made against the herd when the herd is nearly unanimous.
As for why such a thing should happen, I am expecting credit spreads to widen dramatically in order to reflect increased risk perception - that is the interest premium over treasuries paid on other forms of riskier debt should get larger. Money should flow into short term treasuries on a flight to quality, and away from perceived risk.
The value of the dollar needs to be compared against domestic goods and services, against which it should go up very significantly in a deflation when a firesale of assets is being conducted. It also needs to be compared to other currencies, where it could go up against some and down against others depending on which currency is deflating faster. (The problem is that there is no fixed point against which all other things can be valued.) I would expect both the dollar and the yen to rise relative to other currencies (the yen due to the unwinding of the carry trade), although the situation is likely to remain complex and fluid.
Thanks to our Canadian friends for noting that even our "friends" are telling us they don't like the smell of our money.
Next thing you know the homeless guy on the side of the road at the busiest intersection asking for work will have a sign reading, "Will work for food or euros, no $"
Sam Penny
the Prudent RVer
This story about Israel asking for aid in Euros is certainly not true. On top of coming from a dubious web site, the article was intended as satire.
Sam: One of the funniest pieces of satire I've seen in a long time. What makes it so hilarious is its utter plausibility- coming soon to a MSM outlet near you.
Right. Google "Tzipi Levni" (note that the name is spelled wrong-- her name is Tzipi Livni) and you will find a huge flood of responses and derivatives of that story. Some of them seem to take it seriously, and just go off the deep end. Some of them seem to think it is satire.
The strangest thing is that almost any news is a parody of itself these days.
And all those responses and derivatives come from anti-Jewish conspiracy sites. Try Google News. There's nada. This one's up there with the 4,000 Jews called in sick story.
Are you saying you didn't laugh out loud when you read this one?
Yeah. My fault though. Gonna go slap myself with a rubber chicken now.
Just heard Kenneth Heebner, CEO of the CMG Focus Fund on CNBC. He talked about Cantarell being in steep decline, he talked about Ghawar declining by 4.5 percent but quoted someone from Rigzone saying that the decline was much steeper than that. Anyway it was a little shocking to hear such talk on CNBC. The moderator quickly changed the subject however and that was the end of that.
However the word is getting out about the decline in the world’s major oil fields. It had to happen. With oil above $83 this morning, people are wondering why. Of course the collapsing dollar has a lot to do with it but also so does the decline of world oil supply.
Ron Patterson
Someone from Rigzone? I wonder who?
They usually archive their stuff, don't they?
It is up now:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=534709189&play=1
It was the CEO of Baker Hughes who said Ghawar was declining by 4.5% but this CEO said he had heard it was much steeper. It was not Rigzone. My mistake.
Ron Patterson
Heebner. He's no oil man.
But you can't say it any plainer than that.
And WT laid it out.
The widening crack spread.
Refineries-just like in Africa-can't make money
off of $2.69 gas while paying $83.50 for crude.
Like the Soviets and dirt cheap bread prices.
Soon, the only place you get that price for bread
is in the Capitol at, say, 6:00 in the AM.
Arkansaw of Samuel L Clemens
But Baker Hughes is an oil field service company. They have a lot of operations in Saudi Arabia. If anyone should know about decline in Ghawar it is Baker Hughes. We have all been waiting for inside information confirming the decline in Ghawar. Well, now we have it!
Ron Patterson
Its real easy to call a decline when a countries production is cut back for a year. If it increases next year, will it be just as easy to say it wasn't a decline?
If you want to be provocative, at least learn the basic terminology. Saying an oilfield is in decline is not the same as saying production has been cut back. In fact, couldn't be more different. He said the former, not the latter.
Gads
You must understand. Ghawar represents >50% of the production from KSA. As WT is fond of stating, as goes Ghawar, so goes KSA (and the world). We've had a number of articles posted talking about how Ghawar was in decline because a million bpd were watered out in the northern areas of the massive field. This is just a natural extension of the claims and work that has been presented here at TOD thus far. The logical connection, should this claim be true, is that KSA is indeed declining because Ghawar is declining.
If KSA somehow increases production, then it would appear that Ghawar is not the carrot thats leading the oil production of the world into oblivion.
You must understand. Words represent slightly more than half of the perception that people have about you - the other half is the "tone" of the words. If you use a juvenile "tone", people will think you are juvenile. As Mark Twain was fond of stating "The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter - it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning". We've had a number of posts from Mr. P. Guy talking about how nothing is proven until it's proven, and, even then, it's not really proven because you can't prove anything. This is just a natural extension of the claims and work that has been presented by countless governments, oil companies, and self-imagined sages thus far. The logical connection, should this claim be true, is that Mr. P. Guy is indeed declining in age because the quality of his posts is declining.
To respond to your attempt at proving "Ghawar-not-in-decline":
If KSA somehow increases production for "one whole school year plus summer vacation" above the 2005 (and 2006 all liquids) maximum, then it is possible that Ghawar is not in as serious decline as discussed previously.
Most of us believe that SA carries an excess capacity cushion, which may be small but is there. They say they have a cushion themselves. If they are finding reduced capacity due to decline, they then reduce total production to maintain their spare capacity. As such, they maintain the ability to increase production to a limited degree (perhaps up to 1 mppd) at any point for some period of time. However, this doesn't mean their underlying capacity is not in decline. They can at least temporarily increase production even during a decline phase.
Evidence will come in hindsight, after more experience and time. Temporary fluctuations won't tell us. Whether it is logical to you or not, SA has considered the state of its fields a national secret and unless policies change, they won't be telling us any time soon.
I agree entirely. That means we still need to play the waiting game.
PartyGuy, you just don't get anything right do you? If Saudi is choaking back on production then that is an entirely different matter than the decline of Ghawar. Baker Hughes, the second largest oilfield service company in the world, says Ghawar is in decline. That should settle it unless you are a PartyGuy and just don't get anything.
Note: Baker Hughes was the second largest oilfield service company at the time of the merger between Baker and Hughes in 1986. I have no idea where they stand today. Haliburton is of course, by far, the largest oilfield service company in the world.
Ron Patterson
So why doesn't KSA come out and say Ghawar is in decline? Mexico did it for Cantrell. The UK did it for the North Sea fields. We did it for Prudhoe Bay. Hell even China has done it. Why aren't they saying 'golly gee, Ghawar is declining'. Instead we get one source from a third party person that tells YOU exactly what you want to hear, and suddenly its 'THE TRUTH(tm)' and no heresy is tolerated!!
I don't take things on blind faith. I require real, concrete, hard data to convince me of the truth of any subject. I don't heed rhetoric from third party sources, no matter how responsible they have been. If Ghawar is declining by 4.5%, they should be able to furnish us with PROOF.
Not figureheads.
The countries you named, Mexico, the UK and the U.S., are open societies that keep largely transparent records of energy sources, production, and consumption. Saudi Arabia is an extremely closed society.
So why doesn't KSA come out and say Ghawar is in decline?
Why didn't AT&T come out and tell the government about DNR's?
Why didn't the players of Iran Contra come out and say what happend?
Why didn't ...(blah blah blah where one lists some form of deception was later found out)
Do you have a point to your question beyond advocating open records?
I don't take things on blind faith. I require real, concrete, hard data to convince me of the truth of any subject.
Then Why the hell are you here? Really. Because ANYONE could be lying to you, unless you make the test instrument yourself and take the measurements yourself, you have no way of knowing if something is TRUE or not.
It's time for Party Guy to join Hothgar and OilCEO
Leanan,
Posters, including yourself, have made an effort to address PG maturly. But, what I have seen is a never ending stream of useless posts and considered responses. Not only does it make TOD look like some sort of intellectual kindergarten but it wastes everyone's time.
Please pull the plug.
Todd
As I said some weeks ago, PartyGuy = Hothgor.
That someone does not agree with you does not make them a troll. If anything, PartyGuy appears to be the target of problematic behaviour:
Perhaps you could explain how attitudes like those demonstrate addressing PartyGuy "maturly", whereas the following is so awful it calls for banning:
"I don't take things on blind faith. I require real, concrete, hard data to convince me of the truth of any subject. I don't heed rhetoric from third party sources, no matter how responsible they have been. If Ghawar is declining by 4.5%, they should be able to furnish us with PROOF."
How is expressing an opinion on the necessity of evidence so offensive to you? If anything is going to make TOD look like an "intellectual kindergarten", it's a closed-minded harassing of and calls for banning The Unbelievers.
One of the hallmarks of wingnuts is that disagreement gets shouted down and people get ridiculed for "not getting it", when "it" is the pet fringe theory of the group. Don't want to seem like another wacky internet conspiracy theory group? Don't act like one. Let people disagree, answer their challenges with calm information, and let 'em make their own decisions.
If you need to browbeat people with your message, it's lacking.
TOD is like going to Thanksgiving dinner at my In-Laws...you find the people and conversations that appeal to you and avoid the Uncle with opinions about everything in the world. All's well, unless he seeks you out. Then you just say you got to take a leak and move to the kitchen for awhile.
"I don't take things on blind faith. I require real, concrete, hard data to convince me of the truth of any subject. I don't heed rhetoric from third party sources, no matter how responsible they have been. If Ghawar is declining by 4.5%, they should be able to furnish us with PROOF."
And again, I ask - if one has such an attitude about 'truth' and 'third party sources'
Why the HELL are you here "partyguy"?
This whole site is nothing but 3rd party sources, with the occasional claim that a poster is a 1st party claim.
No matter what is said to "PartyGuy" he is saying that he will not be convinced. The "partyguy needs to be stopped' posters should just provide a link back to his statement on how nothing said here will be taken as proof and remind people to not reply to his post.
So then, why the hell is partyguy here? It is not for an honest debate, is it?
You appear to have misread PartyGuy's statement.
He didn't say that he ignored third party sources; he said that he ignored rhetoric from third party sources.
It's easier to tell why someone is here if you take the time to read his posts clearly and understand them.
Not quite.
The head of an investment fund says that the head of Baker Hughes believes that Ghawar is declining. That's not exactly the most ironclad proof in the world. Off the top of my head, potential ways in which that information might not be 100% factually correct:
Mind you, it's not like it appears to be a big deal - Saudi production has been steady at their quota level for 8 straight months, so whether they're getting it from Ghawar or somewhere else is somewhat immaterial.
Thank you.
But I am still somehow a troll.
Actually Schlumberger is the #1 Oil field Service Co
Capitalization 125 billion
Operating Income 19.23 billion
Employees 76,000
Halliburton
Capitalization 34 billion
Operating Income 13 billion
Employees 50,000
Baker Hughes Inc.
Capitalization 28.8 billion
Operating Income 9 billion
Employees 34,600
http://ir.halliburton.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=67605&p=irol-homeprofile
[Halliburton
Capitalization 34 billion
Operating Income 13 billion
Employees 50,000]
I think this understates things because it doesn't include the tens of billions in the budget of CENTCOM or the tens of thousands of military personnel in Iraq currently de facto working for Halliburton.
In most cases facts understate folks perception of reality.
Again, potshots aren't going to help, PG.
Please take some direct actions to address your own uncertainties, so that you don't need us to wet-nurse you.
Ron: If this allegation had been made on CNBC 18 months ago, wouldn't it have been considered to be totally outrageous? It appears that large segments of the MSM are catching up on peak oil subjects a lot quicker than I personally expected.
Half his face is saying that oil supply can't meet demand, and then the other half of his face goes on for two minutes about the growing global economy and how it can't be stopped by the US consumer anymore.
It's so interesting that it's becoming easier for people to say the words yet there doesn't seem to be, in my opinion anyway, a recognition of what that fact implies to global growth.
I suspect he really understands what he is saying, but he can't very well put his money in CDs when his fund is up 90% in a year. I'll bet he has lots of stops set all the same.
He said the same things on Bloomberg too, to an equal lack of interest.
As long as oil, gold and currencies are all rising together against the dollar, this scenario will be called dollar weakness, not peak oil.
yes right, smekhovo
Well obviously the oil is getting more expensive in the US at 83$ - but ever since the fed. interest cut a month ago – the $ has fallen in the neighborhood of 10% against other currencies – so we (the others) still “mentally” pay 10% less than the USA’ans (Americans that is) - and there "is no peak oil" in those kind of numbers...
The good thing to the 83$-barrel though, IS that the most gluttonous oil gulper is taking the hardest hit … so far…. It tends to spawn some second thoughts, which is for the better
Brent oil price hits new record above 81 dollars
7 hours ago
LONDON (AFP) — The price of London Brent crude oil Friday rocketed above 81 dollars a barrel for the first time owing to concerns over stretched global energy supplies, traders said.
Brent raced to an historic peak of 81.05 dollars. London's Brent North Sea crude for November delivery later stood at 80.95 dollars per barrel, up 92 cents.
The Pound hasn't been devalued.
This is about the Cushing shortfall
as much as devaluation.
Arkansaw of Samuel L Clemens
The price is stated in US dollars.
I don't think this is an accurate way of viewing impact.
Which industries/consumers/countries are hit hardest depends on how much leeway they have to absorb higher prices. If they're already running with tight margins, even if they only use a little oil they may have a harder time absorbing the cost than if they used a lot but had more leeway.
It's a weak dollar AND a rising price of oil.
Year to date, the dollar is down about 8% vs. the euro, and 3.5% vs. the yen. Oil is up 24% in dollar terms. That means euro oil prices are up 16%, and yen oil prices are up over 20%. Dollar depreciation accounts for one third of the total dollar-denominated price hike.
Since Sept 1, dollar is down 5% vs. euro, oil is up 10%. So euro oil price is up 5% in last three weeks, and dollar depreciation accounts for half of the dollar-denominated price hike.
The recent surge is certainly more dollar-depreciation-driven than pre-Sept, but half or more of the price increases are still REAL, as opposed to just currency effects.
YTD down 16% vs Cdn dollar.
Good year, eh?
Long term, the oil is increasing on every currency I took the time to look. This includes Euro, Canadian Dollar, Australian Dollar, Yene, Brazilian Real...
Shor term, the oil got a bit cheaper the last two weeks, unless you measure it in Dollars. I call that the US going out of the biding market.
In a world in which any one currency can almost be instantly traded for another currency, do explain how the US would, hypothetically, be unable to bid for oil?
I'll answer this one because I'm bored, and it's so easy.
Assuming the price of oil doesn't change,
If the value of the dollar drops by 50%, the world will demand 2x as many dollars in trade for each barrel of oil.
Unless all Americans get a 2x raise in the same period, they will need to spend 2x as much salary on oil than people who are paid in a currency that did not drop by 50%.
Ah, but in that case US companies and workers will be able to charge twice as many devalued dollars for the same quantity of goods and services that they produce and sell. So it will all cancel out. You just move the decimal point (or binary point) one place to the right and carry on as before.
Next Question?
No, that would be true only if America had no trade deficit. America does not trade local goods and services for imports; America trades dollars for imports. If the value of the dollar goes down by 50%, America's power to import goods goes down by half.
Yet 95% of the worlds oil is traded in Dollars....
This doesn't stop exporters from demanding MORE dollars per barrel as the dollar falls. This makes oil more expensive for Americans, but doesn't make it more expensive for Japanese or Europeans, as long as their currencies don't fall.
And, you're a troll. Please, leave The Oil Drum. I don't like you.
Currency can be exchanged, but many things that used to move like currency, such as short term credit paper, are now frozen due to the debasement (leverage) of the "currency". When you've got a billion dollars in debt with the only underlying support being fifty McMansions populated by people struggling with just the interest payment ... well, not a pretty picture, is it?
Seriously, do the math ... fifty liar loans can become a billion dollars in the hands of a hedge fund. You sell the fifty homes at $500k ea or $25M total, then you leverage forty to one, and then take that money and go bid up some other assets ...
So the dollar is going to shrink in terms of what it can buy and in the meantime lots of things that used to flit here and there are sitting and waiting until things play out with the fabulous ARM reset of 2008, in which half a trillion dollars will get turned into perhaps a hundred billion if we're lucky. Oh, and those people who used to get paid to make things flit around? More jobs lost, just like the million that went with the mortgage and home building industry, and when a chunk of high rollers go out of community that gets child care, lawn care, massage therapists, yoga teachers, auto detailers, home improvement contractors who already got bit by the housing downturn, and a host of others along with them.
And while our fraudulently inflated economy unwinds we pay the price for the arrogant, abusive, irresponsible Bush administration. Iran is insisting buyers pay with euros or yen rather than dollars when they buy oil. Once they've broken through the "crust" that has protected the dollar as the oil trade currency that will be coupled with the flaky nature of the currency itself ... and then the best we can hope for is to be one of three equals; dollars, yen, and euros. Ours no longer being the currency for the oil trade is a huge deal ...
If I suddenly found myself holding a winning lottery ticket the very first thing I'd do would be turning 90% of it into something other than USD.
So ... not black/white unable to bid for oil, just weakened in many ways and when all else is equal does one want to sell product to a customer who is a rational actor, or to a customer that is devolving into an icky fascist theocracy?
Bush pissed away our soft power trying to deal with peak oil, but over half of the waste was purely his ego ...
When exactly is the ARM reset in 2008? Do you know a month?
ARMs reset based on the date of the loan and how the contract is written. There have been projections that a very large number reset this October, but there was a list on Agora Financial (sorry, I don't have the link) that showed the dollar amount of loans resetting from September '07 through June '08 to be 58, 55, 52, 58, 80, 88, 110, 92, 76, 75 respectively (in billions) so Jan to Apr will be extremely ugly. Many of these resets are from initial teaser rates so will be fairly dramatic jumps.
Here is an excellent link with a graph on the number of ARM resets month by month as well as some commentary by bonddad of DailyKos on the matter.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/28/172611/602
Yup, definitely at the top of my list of global warming concerns - making sure the insurance industry survives. This encouraged me to make my top ten list of industries that should be protected at all cost against both gw and peak oil.
10. Plasticrap manufacturers
9. Agribusiness
8. Automotive
7. "Big Box" retailers
6. Coal Strip Miners (maybe miners of all kinds)
5. Marketing/Advertising
4. Insurance
3. Lawyers
2. Politicians (ok, not an industry, properly speaking)
1. "Wall Street"
If we procure the survival of these industries, all will be right with the world.
{Sarcanol Alert}
Are you suggesting one should just rely on the kindness of strangers when fire or wind leaves one homeless?
No - on friends and family.
Whether it "should" be that way or not, it probably will be. Keep in mind that's been the reality for most people for most of human existence - maybe not so much the kindness of strangers, but the kindness of people you know. It's really just community, and that is why it evolved. Large organizations require large amounts of energy to maintain their complexity, and as the available energy is reduced they fail. Likely so too with the large organizations that we've grown accustomed to providing our social safety net. If those large organizations are not providing your backup for a fee (or dues or taxes), then who will? Might be worth considering in your plans for the future.
Change is coming.
Good Point from both of you.
The Insurance Corp's are point men for the SP 500.
The Oracles if you will.
The Insurance Corps make $ by betting that you won't get hurt.
As the Coastline is inundated/Drought becomes permanent, the Insurance Corps
will only be able to insure those who don't need it.
Like Alan/Stracnet, the Outliers are being left on their own.
The Center contracts. In Collapse you won't here about it.
The Area affected will just go silent.
Tom Whipple-
For a while we will be in the silly season, with proposals to drain the strategic petroleum reserve, lift all restrictions on drilling, and perhaps invade a hapless oil producer or two.
The key question is can anything happen before the gas lines form to mitigate the damage that is coming? Obviously the President could seize the initiative, lay out the problem in a major address and propose a package of legislation– mostly conservation -- that might actually do some good.
At the minute, the prospects for such an initiative do not seem good unless some unforeseeable development makes the situation so obviously perilous that the administration feels impelled to take action as the lesser of two evils.
http://www.energybulletin.net/35172.html
As Collapse happens you must run faster to stay ahead of it.
For instance, we must assume we're in Depression now.
And take steps to mitigate it.
Once everyone acknowledges Depression, then we have to take steps to just hang on to Electricity.
And on and on.
Arkansaw of Samuel L Clemens
I think that's the million dollar question for 20, 30 years out - do we keep centralized electricity?
I don't think we have decades.
More like single digit years.
«Other factors remaining constant, culture evolves as the amount of energy harnessed per capita per year is increased, or as the efficiency of the instrumental means of putting the energy to work is increased. … We may now sketch the history of cultural development from this standpoint.» — Leslie White, “White’s Law,” 1949
3) A projected depletion rate of ~15% per annum equals ~seven years [1/15 = 6.6], or year 2014/2015 for year 2007 lifestyles to devolve back to ca. 1886 or before lifestyles. Circa ~1886 is an arbitrary date chosen to represent the time at which liquid fossil fuels generally began to create ‘modern’ Western lifestyles, and to allow the creation of this Industrial Civilization. When liquid fossil fuels are gone, lifestyles must of necessity, retrograde back to that of a prior time fueled by something other than liquid fossil fuels.
One can have his “time-to-collapse” interval however he wants it!
http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/arnett05.htm
Arkansaw of Samuel L Clemens
RE: Peak Oil Crisis: Has Media Become The Message?
Then there are those out there that still qualify peak oil theorists as 'nutty.' But they are now more of the fringe element, like we were many years ago...and yet another theory about our invasion of Iraq...
'First, Engdahl unnecessarily explains his abandonment of the silly ‘Peak Oil’ theory by taking up the still very controversial – some would say ‘flaky’ – Russian theories concerning the creation of oil. The Russians may well be right, but Peak Oil falls on its own. There’s tons of oil around. In the United States itself, there is enough oil in the oil shales to satisfy current levels of American requirements for over 100 years. The problem is cost of production. Let me state it clearly: the reason why the American Establishment agreed to the attack on Iraq, an attack they knew was going to be a disaster and would indeed lead to insecurity over Middle East oil supplies, was to force the price per barrel of oil up over the amount where exploitation of the Canadian oil sands would become economically viable.' ...snip...
http://xymphora.blogspot.com/
Well, it would be hard to say this person doesnt think out of the box...
I have said before that we CANNOT say they are FAILING in IRAQ since we don't know their TRUE goals.
Very similar to knowing the true URR of KSA...
Exactly. The goals seem to be coming into view: 1)destruction and depopulation of Iraq 2)Division of the remainder (the US Senate apparently just passed some bill to divide Iraq into three parts -- as if that was their business) 3)Permanent garrisons for strategic purposes -- not just oil, of course, but that is a big one. 4)A frightened, demoralized, docile domestic population to support the Empire.
From one point of view, things are going pretty well
NeverLNG, you are so very right.
NeverLNG I'd add that a major goal of the Iraq war was to destroy Iraqi oil consumption. If westexas' Export Land Model is right (and this seems likely) domestic consumption in export countries is public enemy #1 to import countries.
That is (a) ridiculous, and (b) entirely counter to what has actually happened. Iraq's oil consumption is up 15% since 2002, the last full year before the invasion.
I'd add that a major goal of the Iraq war was to destroy Iraqi oil consumption.
That is (a) ridiculous,
Of course it is ridiculous, as the reasons stated by the government are the reasons. Right?
It's ridiculous for a variety of reasons.
First, because there's no evidence to support such a brazen accusation. You're effectively accusing the US military of destroying whole countries for convenience. That's an extraordinary claim, and hence requires extraordinary evidence.
Second, because Iraqi consumption is such a trivial part of world consumption - about 0.6%. Destroying that level of consumption would do nothing to resolve an oil crisis, and preventing it from growing would have no meaningful effect within either the short or medium term.
Third, because Iraqi consumption was already growing very slowly, at about 1% per year. Compare that to the consumption growth rates of other countries in the area, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Fourth, because the amount of money spent on the debacle in Iraq each year could have paid for the total amount of development in the tar sands in the last five years, making it a woefully inefficient way to obtain more exportable oil.
Well then Pitt, what's your explanation for why America invaded Iraq?
As for Iraqi consumption being up since the invasion, doesn't sound likely to me. Before the invasion, there was no news about how there was no oil for Iraqi cars and boats. Since the invasion, there's been plenty such news.
I'd bet that what they call "Iraqi consumption" is code for "US Army consumption" or "Blackwater consumption."
Sounds instead like an interesting hypothesis, I'd say; they've certainly been aiming to destroy lots of other things in that country. So let's allow the possibility, and perhaps we might begin to question the data from EIA. I mean, the stories of people lining up for *days* to fill up have been coming out for years, and this does not speak of high domestic consumption. Electricity supply is still declining, down to few hours/day, so presumably it's not going there.
Hey, is it possible that the US military machine's consumption is included in these EIA figures? (I see nothing at the EIA site that tells how the calculations are conducted, nor *whose* consumption in fact represents "Iraq".)
But really, given the USG's well known disinfo campaign on Iraq, why would you put any credence in these figures whatsoever?
...
OK, I'm even more skeptical after noticing that tiny Kuwait (pop. 2.5 million, size of New Jersey) has been steadily consuming 50-66% of what Iraq consumes, for decades. I want to ask, genuinely, how? Where does it go? (I think power generation, transport, manufacturing - all of which I would think would be many times higher in Iraq - pre-1990, anyhow.)
Interesting data set, at any rate - will be interesting to compare to others' calculations (EIA is a bit of a renegade organization when it comes to data, from what I've seen.)
We can't address GW, sign on to kyoto or any truely meaningful action as it will damage our economy.(not true by the way)
We can't address PO, power down, conserve, etc. because it will destroy our economy.
The economy is collapsing.
So NOW can we address the big issues?
Maybe that was the plan all along.
I don't think you understand the implications here. The message is that the insurance company is becoming one of the largest monied industries to actively support reducing greenhouse gasses. It is one thing for some nut standing on the corner with a placard announcing the end of the world from carbon gasses, but when Lloyds of London starts swining its weight around.
They can sit down with a company, any company, and state that they are not an insurable risk if they do not reduce their carbon footprint. Imagine the possibilities.
Anti-corporate just to be anti-corporate accomplishes nothing.
Not being anti-corp. I have read where multinationals have cut cost by cutting carbon,(sorry no links at this time).
It's big Gov that says they will not risk economic growth.
Well if growth is possibly in decline that renders that argument moot.
In fact perhaps it provides an opportunity for a rallying call for economic growth driven by concerted effort by biz and gov to address these issues.
Just a thought
Scotjen61,
Lloyds of London isn't a company, but rather an association of private individuals who agree to take certain risks in exchange for money. In essence, every insurance contract is a new joint venture by groups of individauals. The New Yorker magazine wrote a great article explaing it 3 or 4 years ago, and its likely available in the archives on their website. Maybe someone else here can remember the author or the article title?
Bob Ebersole
Who cares? So their the Visa of the Insurance industry. The point is the same. The reinsurers are getting religion fast, its a good thing. Get it. Good.
Why you think Warren Buffet is buying rail. His interests include the biggest reinsurers out there. Think maybe he knows he is going to be forcing industries to cut their carbon footprints and maybe switch transport to rail, which by the way he will own.
See how it works??????
Of course, all of these companies are making one assumption that may simply not be true - that growth will continue. While they may be "getting religion fast," they are doing so without changing there fundamental value - profit.
That is another issue. I am of the camp that growth is over. The financial markets and energy production markets are going to diverge in the near term. As far as humanity being utterly unable to solve problems, the jury is out. We are still here.
Three cheers for capitalism and the free market.
yea yea yea we are saved
www.tripledistilledsarconol.com
triple distilled sarconol
If only it really existed!
Xeroid.
Why you think Warren Buffet is buying rail.
He knew in advance of passage of Hoyer's rail legislation.
It was probably Julian Barnes' article on the Lloyds of London scandal. Thousands were wiped out. That article came out in about 1996 though.
the Names (individuals) are pretty much entirely out of the market now: Warren Buffett bought out Equitas, which was their residual fund (for the big losers on the asbestos liabilities).
It's a corporate market now. eg if you are a telecommunications company, insuring a satellite launch, you go to Lloyds. The capital comes from the big insurers like Berkshire Hathaway (Buffett).
While we're on the subject of insurance, just read through a column in the 9/10 edition of National Underwriter (ins industry trade magazine). Something I hadn't seen before, State Farm (largest US insurer) has announced "aggressive steps" to protect environment, including a 35% reduction in their greenhouse gas emissions per policy in force. (The article wasn't clear on the date, it may be by 2012.) This is the first significant stance on global warming by an American insurer that I've seen. (European reinsurers have been sounding the alarm for awhile.) The American insurers are definitely late to the party (I could name three reasons), but with State Farm's announcement, I'm glad to see they are finally joining in.
Unfortunately, the column also noted that the CEO of Marsh & McLennan (largest US insurance broker) remains unconvinced on global warming. As the columnist puts it, though: " My concern is that if we insist on waiting for absolute proof, the damage will already be done, and then it will e too late. Given the stakes for insurers covering catstrophic losses, waiting for proof instead of taking action now would amount to just plain foolish behavior."
And why, pray tell, would that company become a better insurance risk for Lloyds of London merely because they reduced their carbon footprint? One company changing it's ways is not going to significantly change global warming, so that means one company changing it's ways isn't going to significantly reduce the risk Lloyds takes on by insuring them.
Unless you are suggesting Lloyds is acting on the altruistic motivation of helping the planet rather than for business reasons.
Lloyds of London, a syndicate of a whole bunch (400 or so?) of insurance companies, none of whom may take more than 2.5% of the risk in any one venture, is acting based on empirical evidence.
The last refuge of deniers will be the "increased human footprint" - in other words we have more troubles and expenses because there are more of us with beach homes in harm's way.
Lloyd's first business? The slave trade ... the things one learns from fact checking via Wikipedia before posting.
SCT,
Its also helpful if you read the Wikipedia article all the way through before posting a criticism based on info in it. Wikipedia says that the primary names at Lloyds are individuals. I'd also like to remind you of the legal fiction that corporations are persons.
The article also links to an article on LLoyds in the Economist from 2000. Their articles are generally bigoted towards a 100% capitalist point of view, but their facts are well researched.
I'd like to remind you, my friend, that I'm just as big as horse's ass as you are!
I suppose a little more thought behind TOD postings might be a good thing all around, but I've been taking a powerful antidepressant known by its trade name, "kayak", to counter the gloom and doom that flows from TOD and this disrupts my thinking process.
Flickr map play this morning shows twelve lakes containing eleven islands within twenty minutes of the house. I've been in three of the lakes and on six of the islands so far this year and I should be able to visit two more lakes and all of the remaining islands if the weather holds today and tomorrow.
http://flickr.com/photos/avyakata/sets/72157602127321950/
http://flickr.com/photos/avyakata/sets/72157602116426240/
America’s New Religion by James Kunstler
His understanding of the Google-elite is perhaps misguided though because he hasn't lived their lives and seen the world through their eyes.
Imagine yourself as a 20-something employee of the Google-plex.
That means you were born in the late 1970's or early 1980's. The microprocessor had already been invented. When you were around age 15-18, something called "the Internet" (circa 1995) began to spread around like wildfire.
Upon becoming the graduate from high school, the guy at Mrs. Robinson's house party said his one word to you: "computers". You had been thinking about going into plastics, organic chemistry and all that; but no, the oracle from Robinson's had said computers were the future. So you "went into computers".
In other words, you specialized in computer technology. And it turned out that the plastic smiling guy from Robinson's house had been oh so right. Now you are a Google gizallionaire. Who is going to argue with success?
In your mind there is this burning bush image of the plastic smiling guy from Robinson's house milling around like an invisible hand and taking care of everything. No need to worry. He was right and creeps like Kunstler were wrong. What does an old fart like Kunstler know? Heck, he didn't specialize in the study of deep technology (C++, Java) like you did. He doesn't get it. The singularity cometh.
Kunstler is amusing.
and completely closed minded. Kunstler believes in his agenda and ain't nobody telling him anything otherwise. Here and there he makes a point or two, but overall he has a blind hate for certain things, and is more like a cheerleader than a predictor of the future.
Yeah Right! Anyone who does not believe "technology will save us" is closed minded.
The Anti Doomers are the real closed minded people. They insist that "science or something else will come along and save us all." They never seem to explain exactly what will happen or how it will happen but if you are an "anti doomer" you must have faith, absolute close minded blind faith!
Ron Patterson
I have never said i'm 100% sure that science or technology will save us. For that purpose I support Alan Drake's electrification of rail, I support conservation, I support electric cars, I support higher gas taxes, all of the above. But I also know that its possible that new discoveries in science will lead to a better future than we have now. People like Kunstler give that 0 chance.
I think technology will save us. I'm just not sure if the technology will be cold fusion or seed-saving :-)
"...its possible that new discoveries in science will lead to a better future than we have now. People like Kunstler give that 0 chance."
I'm not so sure that Kunstler is saying we will not have a better future. I read him as saying that we'll abandon the suburbs, abandon the automobile infrastructure and that the 21st century will look a lot more like the 19th than the 20th (i.e. more people working in agriculture, better public transportation, less fascination with the celebrity quasi-news-o-rama, etc. I think he sees PO as forcing us into a better and less technological future after a very turbulent time.
Anti: Actually, Kunstler's record as a predictor of the future is pretty good (so far).
Scary good, I don't like where he ends up:(
Not really. From kunstler.com:
"Writing this in April of ‘99, I believe that we are in for a serious event. Systems will fail, crash, seize up, cease to function....Y2K is real. Y2K is going to rock our world."
Or his dow 4000 prediction which never seems to come every year.
The singularity ain't even breathing hard.
ROFLMAO
That is all.
Cuchulainn
I'd like to disagree with you, being into computers for my bread, but there's all too much truth in what you say.
The other aspect, is that, when you're programming, you're doing maths, nothing is impossible. You think the real world works like that too, it's a tempting thought.
It's hard to accept that the world of infinite easiness won't last and that you'll have to go back to much harder work (though just as rewarding if you find the right outlet).
We're so used to technology solving everything that we half expect immortality in our life time. Reajusting's hard.
We live in interesting times...
David
David,
While perhaps hard to believe, I used to code for a living too. So I know what you mean. Perhaps others here don't because their minds never fell heels over grey matter into the code zone.
Actually I was tempted to go into a rant about how the colleges don't teach Computer "Science" graduates any real "science". But maybe we shouldn't open that Pandora's box.
In general, our complex civilization is based on "specialization". CS majors specialize in algorithms and data structures. EE majors specialize in making tiny minaturized circuits. Finance majors specialize in creating money out of thin air. Nobody is responsible for the big picture. The Invisible Hand is left in charge of that one.
As a longtime professional programmer, I can add this:
If you've been into computers since the 1970s, you've experienced what we call "Moore's Law:" From the 1970s to the 1990s, computers got about twice as good, every eighteen months.
That is like 48% yearly growth, for twenty years. Sure beats the 5% yearly growth of energy production after WWII!
After my first ten years of Moore's Law, it was all too easy to believe that it would continue forever and produce ever-more-fantastic results.
It stalled out sometime in the 1990s. Just as nobody got their flying car because of peak oil, nobody got their intelligent robot slave because computer technology hit its physical limits.
Only after ten years into this decline, I was disillusioned enough by computers to comprehend peak oil and its consequences.
Computers lately have gotten back on the exponential-growth track, but only in terms of "supercomputing."
That is to say, computers haven't gotten better at doing random tasks, but lately have gotten very good at doing extremely simple, repetitive, high division-of-labor tasks.
bmcnett,
Your feelings are appreciated here.
However, allow me to clear the record on "Moore's Law" because it gets so much urban legend attached to it here at TOD:
1. Gordon Moore did not announce a law but rather made a historical "observation" at the time of his talk that the size of the "transistor" seemed to be shrinking by about a factor equal to the square root of 2 every two years, thus arguably allowing the number of transistors on a standard sized IC chip to double roughly every two years.
2. A "computer" is much more than a bunch of transistors just like the human brain is much more than merely a holding tank for a large number of neurons.
3. "Computers" do not evolve on their own. Instead, it is "people" and the societies in which they live that determine how far and how fast the technology of computers changes (not always for the better --> change does not equate with forward progress).
4. Similarly, "Oil" does not creep up out of the ground on its own. Instead, it is "people" and the societies in which they live that determine how far and how fast the technology of oil extraction and oil utilization changes (not always for the better --> change does not equate with forward progress).
Hubbert's curve is an observation of how people behave within the context of a free market capitalist system and geological constraints.
Moore's law is an observation of how people behave within the context of a free market capitalist system and material science constraints (e.g., those of silicon).
In both cases it very much depends on whether we live in an Idiocracy or in an enlightened civilization.
Allow me to make a Step Back observation (Step Back's Law): The current American system of politics, education, mind control and free market economics is an Idiocracy; and if allowed to continue as is, bodes well for a doubling of Idiocratic behavior every four years (every presidential election) by its stay-the-course leadership and sheeple-like citizens.
Here's one little window into the challenges of keeping Moore's law on track:
http://www.news.com/IBM-promotes-making-chips-in-the-bath/2100-1008_3-60...
The key evidence that chip technology is hitting the wall is the emergence of multi-core chips. My laptap has two CPUs on the chip. Anybody would prefer to have one CPU that is twice as fast. But the technology just isn't there. So we put up with multiple CPUs.
I just dropped out of the chip business. My experience is exactly what Kunstler relates from his Google experience. It isn't just the 30 year olds.
One incident that drove me out: at a big team meeting, where we review proposals for future research projects, somebody handed out copies of Kurzweil's Singularity book. That really helped me realize: I didn't belong there.
I did talk many times with my boss, and even with the company president, about the energy business. "We have a lot of smart engineers. Instead of just helping to develop more powerful chips, why don't we get into the business of figuring out how to build more energy-efficient farms and factories?!" Ha! But I owed it to myself and my colleagues at least to try!
Really, who willingly leaps into monster risk? Of course, sometimes monster risk arrives unbidden. I figure, maybe if those of us who can see that energy production is set for dramatic decreases can get ahead of the ball a little, that might reduce the level of panic as events unfold. Just how to get ahead of that ball.... now that I am out of the chip business, what will I do? Nice puzzle!
Why is the high tech field so filled with people who have such great faith in the inevitability of progress, meaning steady movement in the direction of Star Trek? I suspect it isn't just computer folks. Look at biochemistry, for another example of spectacular progress. Anyway, I don't think it's just that working in these fields puts people into the Star Trek mindset. Folks who fell into the Star Trek mindset in adolescence are the folks who got into such fields.
I think Kunstler is right: there is an amazing amount of money = power in the hands of people who have deep faith that somehow the future will continue to bring us ever more miraculous technology, freeing us from every sort of constraint. It's a sick religion, and the global industrial culture has it bad.
Because they were brain washed. Because they went to college where the educators sold them on the illogical lie that more education, more specialization and greater levels of complexity beget success.
It was to teacher's benefit to perpetuate the lie.
It still is.
The Welsh Dwarf,
you're exactly right. I know several computer guys and they think that all technology follows Moore's Law. In fact, that is the main premise of Kurzweil's book "The Singularity Is Near" that Leanan made reference to above.
Actually, I find that the long list of massive software project failures makes software engineering a good example of how humanity cannot handle complexity beyond a certain level (yes, I'm also in the 'code zone'). The IRS spent $9 Billion on a new system and scrapped the project. There was a similar massive failure to upgrade air traffic control systems. And lest anyone bring out the 'governments do things badly, private corporations are more efficient.' argument, I've seen plenty of corporate millions spent on boondoggles.
How human society handles complexity is IMO the greatest obstruction to the technology fairy saving us, not the actual parameters of a given technology.
I get very worried every time I interface with a system whose complexity I don't understand (at least to a first order level).
At present, I don't understand "The Economy" or how "The Market" will save us or how the folk at Google will save us.
Yeah, but they got Vista out the door!
Progress.
Always we will have Progress (and abominations like Vista).
[/sarcasm off]
Progress?
http://www.progress.com/
Much more telling is this one:
http://www.progress.gov/
If anyone hasn't yet read the adjacent Net Export thread, you really ought to, especially this graph posted by GliderGuider and the associated discussion. Chilling stuff, IMHO.
A new record low today for the USDX?
Commodities at Freecharts
http://www.pandemicflu.gov/
The feds have started running PSA's with this link.
News Items on the website:
http://mnweekly.ru/local/20070927/55279368.html
27/09/2007 | Moscow News,№38 2007
Russia's Geology in Dire Straits
http://mnweekly.ru/business/20070927/55279349.html
27/09/2007 | Moscow News,№38 2007
Russia Beginning To Feel the Heat
As a friend of mine of Russian extraction is fond of saying, "Russians do everything with an axe."
Gee, ethnic generalizations are so much fun. When you reduce it down to the essentials: western backed compradors take an axe to the countries they occupy so that they can suck them dry and run away with the loot. Like the "hero" oligarch that was a prime player in the coup against Chavez. One never hears the parasite oligarchs in Venezuela, Russia and the rest of the world described accurately in the western MSM, just some BS about entrepreneurs and magnates. But when an elected, popular leader (Chavez, Putin, etc) puts them in their place the leader is demonized to the point of inanity by the western MSM.
From Q3 2006 to Q3 2007, Russian crude oil exports to countries outside the former Soviet Union declined at -9.7%/year.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKL1480706120070914
As you bolded yourself, with your cut and pasted article from two weeks ago in which I similarly asked you this, it stats the Russia is tending to refine more of its crude at home. So:
1. Is this entirely for growing domestic demand? Provide numbers of course.
2. Are their refined product exports falling an equal amount or are they increasing?
Since you seem to have abundant resources to find these numbers, the burden of truth rest entirely on you, or your laurels. I look forward to your response!
The most recent consumption numbers I have for Russia are for 2005 to 2006, when they showed a +5.6%/year increase in consumption (total liquids). Because of a rapid increase in consumption, their net exports fell slightly from 2005 to 2006, despite an increase in production.
The reason I am paying so much attention to Russia is because the HL plot shows their mature basins to be hugely depleted, which is supported by the recent Alfa Bank report warning of rapidly rising water cuts in Russian production.
The only real question for Russia, and for most of the top net oil exporters, appears to be how fast their net exports are falling. As I noted over on the other thread, our mathematical model, recent case histories and recent production/export data suggest that net export declines tend to accelerate with time.
Oh I understand all that WT, believe me! I'm only curious on how their '+5.6%/year increase in consumption' is utilized. Is it ACTUALLY for consumption IN Russia, or is that a reflection of the fact they refine more of their own products for export at much higher margins? It's a distinction that needs to be made, especially if the refined products are being exported out and offset much of the decline in crude exports!
The +5.6% number comes from the EIA Total Liquids data base. Regardless of how exporting countries choose to use their liquids production, a barrel not exported is a barrel not available for consumption in importing countries.
The EIA is showing basically flat Russian production since October, 2006, and with rising consumption, flat production = declining exports.
The Reuters article shows that Russian crude oil exports to non-FSU countries dropped by 390,000 bpd from Q3 2006 to Q3 2007 (note that part of the Q3 2007 data had to be estimated). This also corresponded to unannounced curtailments of crude oil exports to German refineries.
To me, the picture is pretty clear. IMO, the best case for Russia is declining net oil exports. I suspect that the more likely scenario is a rapid crash in net exports.
Not ELM, but would you care to comment on the crackspread?
Recently, the spread has been around $6, very low. This afternoon the news stories are saying the spread is pulling down crude prices-usually it's the other way around-high crude pushes up gas prices. Locally, we're at 3 a gallon, cheap compared to last spring 3.50+. It's not like the market won't pay over 3 for gas, or is that the bet?
It's been a mystery to me. I am beginning to suspect that there are not enough buyers, buying enough gasoline, to allow US refiners to run at higher utilization rates. On the other hand, note that the crack spreads are a lot better on diesel, and presumably on heating oil.
Gas prices are WAY UP over last year and from even a month ago. I don't understand the concern.
www.fuelgaugereport.com
Current Avg. $2.805 $2.978 $3.086 $3.076 $2.326 $3.061
Yesterday Avg. $2.811 $2.984 $3.093 $3.074 $2.334 $3.071
Month Ago Avg. $2.758 $2.927 $3.035 $2.930 $2.480 $3.263
Year Ago Avg. $2.342 $2.487 $2.577 $2.696 NA NA
Get the heating oil and crude price aves for those periods, last spring too, then go here:
http://www.nymex.com/calc_crack.aspx
Pretty low, eh?
Here are some evidence that Russian oil consumption is going to increase over time. Look at the map that tells you the situation at the Finnish border:
http://alknet.tiehallinto.fi/alk/rajaliikenne/e18_en.html
At the moment there 1s a 52 km long queue at the main border crossing at Vaalimaa. The cargo consists mainly of new cars, electronics, boats, all the expensive stuff...
Look at this video about the situation:
http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/artikkeli/Vaalimaan+rekkajono+kasvoi+50+kilomet...
It really is a crazy sight! Can you imagine 52 km of trucks waiting in lines to get over the border, 7/24!
If you ask the question, it becomes incumbent upon you to go search for the answer. Westexas is not your personal slave. If you care, go find it. But if no one answers you cannot just assume that exports are rising. Before you make such an assertion it would be your responsibility to prove it. Westexas may indeed provide that data but if you really want an answer, you will go find it yourself. On the other hand, if you are being your usual under-the-bridge dwelling lifeform, then I fully expect you to not research it and then to make the unbacked assertion that exports are rising because Westexas didn't prove otherwise. Now let's see if you go get the info or not.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Dr. Albert Bartlett
Into the Grey Zone
Thank you for butting in. My response was part of a kind of 'friendly banter' the two of us go at on some of our posts. I'm dreadfully sorry you failed to realize that :P
If you post on a public forum you should expect responses. This does not constitute "butting in" as you claim but mere participation in the thread of discussion. But once again we find PartyGuy distorting reality to fit his trolling goals or being so ignorant of common netiquette that he does not understand that a public thread is not his private domain of discussion. Which is it?
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Dr. Albert Bartlett
Into the Grey Zone
Running around harassing other posters doesn't reflect particularly well on you, GreyZone, and is against the website's guidelines:
"4. Treat members of the community with civility and respect. If you see disrespectful behavior, report it to the staff rather than further inflaming the situation.
5. Ad hominem attacks are not acceptable. If you disagree with someone, refute their statements rather than insulting them."
Apparently you and I have different opinions of what constitutes an "ad hominem attack". I have stated before that I am of the opinion that PartyGuy is a troll - i.e. someone whose presence in an internet forum is intended to create disruptions rather than contribute to real debate. To use "trolling goals" in a sentence is consistent with that opinion (which is widely shared, even by TOD staff, whether you like it or not).
Further, he made the mistake of assuming that I had no business replying to him, which I pointed out was incorrect, as he had posted in a public forum. I then asked if this behavior was part of his troll persona or if he was genuinely ignorant of common netiquette.
Finally, Pitt, take your own advice and report me. Or does not the hypocrisy of your own post stink rather badly in your nose?
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Dr. Albert Bartlett
Into the Grey Zone
"4. Treat members of the community with civility and respect. If you see disrespectful behavior, report it to the staff rather than further inflaming the situation."
"4. Treat members of the community with civility and respect. If you see disrespectful behavior, report it to the staff rather than further inflaming the situation."
I don't see an exception for "people you think are trolls".
"If you disagree with someone, refute their statements rather than insulting them."
I generally assume that people are willing to be reasonable, and hence assumed that you could be talked down from being aggressive, insulting, and disruptive.
Accordingly:
Pitt the web-lawyer, you advise other people to refute claims here and there
YOUR words from above
Why don't you yourself act like you just said ?
==>> ref the uranium debate down thread - and that "1980 funny report from LevinK" can hardly be "ALL" YOU three can point at --- I mean considered YOUR HARD AND RIGID ARGUMENTS
Again, I did not launch an ad hominem attack against PartyGuy. I refuted PartyGuy's assertion that his banter was private between him and Westexas. In fact, I did exactly what Pitt urges and what Pitt himself has failed to do.
Pitt's hypocrisy is amusing.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Dr. Albert Bartlett
Into the Grey Zone
– echo !
Actually I’ll range Party Guy much higher than Pitt the Lawyer –
At least PG has his own and original reflections although seldom backed with links - PG is just spraying his imediate mind -
And people should stop responding to this - if they are annoyed by him - its called ignorance, and in a short time this renders silence (!)
Pitt the Lawyer on the other hand is just “a self-righteous unprofessional quarreler” – with NO substance what so ever … (to my knowledge ….) Of course others may have a different view on this fellow .
Well, the western MSM is extolling Russian oil field abusers such as Khodorkovsky as dissident heroes.
Biofuels are on the cover of the new National Geographic Magazine. I haven't read the article yet to see how balanced (or unbalanced) they are, but the material is also online at: http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/2007-10/biofuels/biofuels.html
Enjoy!
Thanks Squid. Good Article. Look I agree with Robert Rapier that a lot of biofuel setups right now are not the greatest thing in the world, but I think we disagree on the future of biofuels. I believe as stated in the article that there is enourmous potential in biofuels with new biotechnologies. There are some here that in the 1800's they would have saw the first oil wells and saw they were only getting barely barrel worth of energy for every barrel used and just given up! If it was for them we'd still be living 1800's style. Then again I think that's the life some here at TOD yearn for. Sad.
I'm still waiting for a working biofuel model that wouldn't require the arable land of about 35 earths to replace current fossil energy usage. While I'm waiting for that, I'm still waiting for a decent level of funding for fusion research since deuterium (or perhaps eventually protium, i.e. 1H) seems to be the only truly large potential resource around. Given the complexity of the problem and the large potential value of a solution, the current $300 million or so a year for fusion is so derisory that it isn't even pocket lint.
But while I'm waiting, all I'm getting is cornstarch ethanol, which is just the usual stinking cesspit of governmental corruption, enabled politically by the usual and rather stupid romanticizing of the idiocy of rural life. (That's one thing Marx got right.) And, sad to say, it's almost enough to make me a doomer rather than an 'antidoomer'.
Why are you waiting for fusion since fission is already here?
Reasonable estimates are of trillions tonnes of recoverable Uranium. Currently the world uses 70,000 tonnes of U annually for 5% of its energy; so it would use 1.2 mln. tonnes to replace the 87% supplied by fossil fuels. Then 1 trillion tonnes of U would be enough for "only" 850,000 years, or 85 times our civilization lifespan... All of this without breeders or reprocessing. With breeders - multiply by ~50.
850,000 years is a reasonable timeframe to develop fusion, don't you think?
Wow, cool stats. There's no reason we can't revive the nuclear industry and build many safe reactors. Then convert to electric vehicles.
As it seems my (sarconol) post was quietly removed, I will again ask: Isn't this a manner in which 'Technology Will Save Us?'. The world economy is supposedly propped up because of cheap, abundant energy. Well this seems to be just about as abundant as you can get, and relatively cheap! So why couldn't using these Uranium reserves enable us to continue the 'happy-go-free' lifestyle we have grown up with? :P
OK if you are not fond of the "Technology will save us" idea, try the following:
"Technology may help us not cut our throuts over the last drops of oil"
Note the "may" world. People don't understand that technology is just a tool... it is us, the humans doing the things with it.
Wow, cool stats. There's no reason we can't revive the nuclear industry and build many safe reactors. Then convert to electric vehicles.
Then can have electric Airplanes and PolyEthylene and PolyProp made from Electricity too???
And can we have all those medicines made from
Fossil Fuelsfrom electricity too?Should be "medicines (and aviation fuel) made from low grade hydrocarbon synthesized using nuclear generated electricity." Get with the program.
LevinK - you should know better than to equate existence (even if hypothetically "recoverable") with usable. Unless of course you've invented that matter transformation machine.
The point is that the resource is there and is readily accessible with current technology and with strongly positive EROEI (16-32 from the studied source rocks). This is all that matters to qualify nuclear power as sustainable in the very long run.
For 1 mln. years we could build renewable/fusion or whatever economy we come up with.
LevinK - is this presented with or without sarcanol ? Because normally I often agree with your thinking, BUT ... here … jeezz..
ASPO 6: Have we reached the tipping point? from the second key-post here at TOD (entry page) , this is my understanding of yellowcake/uranium for the years to come ..
excerpt -
Tipping Point 4
Not enough Uranium
Using official nuclear industry statistics, CERN nuclear physicist Michael Dittmar showed that there was insufficient uranium to grow nuclear power at more than a modest 0.3% per year, and worse still – the flooding of the Canadian Cigar Lake mine would cause shortages in the next few years, possibly leading to existing plants being shut down because they have no fuel. There will be no nuclear renaissance without sufficient Uranium. Dittmar also dismissed fast breeders: no peer-reviewed evidence that they would work in a valid commercial way; and fusion: not enough tritium can be produced to run them
This is complete BS.
U price is on the rise and so is uranium mining. Mr. Dittmar can not make projections 20-30 years down the road based on a flooding of a single mine! The U price has been high for mere 2 years now, and it recently DROPPED almost in half. Indicating it was just a speculative runup and U supplies are sufficient now and the foreseeable future. Two years is nothing - you can not even get a permit to build a mine for that time.
LevinK “your“ 850,000 years vs the Energy Watch Group-report from dec. 2006 , they're claiming 30 years of “cheap uranium at today’s level"
CLICK LINK FOR URANIUM-PROD-CHART
http://www.oljekrisa.no/images/uranproduksjon.jpg
IS this a marketing stunt for your private Uranium-pit?
- I think your post is utterly .... (fill in the blanks yourself)
Well, if you check the numbers, we have mere 20 years of lithium, 15 years of copper, 40 years of iron etc. etc... And believe it or not we have much less than a year of grain available now. What are we going to do in 15-20-40 years without all these goods or minerals?! Die?
I am amazed by the low level of the argument you are trying to push.
Realism LevinK, realism!
Its more realistic to hope for little – THAN the diamond in the sky … which you seem to try to get hold of.
What are you drinking tonight(?) , I'd like some of that !
... some time back you had good arguments on WTs - I mean realistic ones ... but you just turned one of them I'll need to read when I'm feeling .. low on fuel ... just to get awake (-: you are bookmarked :-)
Paal you are doing all you can to lose every bit of credibility you have left. Do you lack ANY knowledge about how resource extraction and economics work, or are you just not paying attention?!?
Don't you know that it is very expensive to explore for any resource, and much more expensive to actually mine it? Why the f@&*k would anyone do it if current resources are more than enough? From wikipedia:
Now read carefully:
4.7 mln. tonnes (or 70 years in current consumption) are in exisating mines and identified undeveloped deposits.
Further 35mln. tonnes are found that are minable, but are not currently economic. This is a whopping 500 years of current consumption.
And then ultimately there are trillions of tonnes in the earth crust - based on simply measuring the average content of U of certain rocks.
The initial point was that it is expected that a trillion of those would be minable with strongly positive EROEI - 16-32. Which is enough to sustain nuclear for all practical purposes, indefinitely.
Now either say something more meaningful than pointing diamonds in the sky or shut up.
He he yeah, you are really unprecedented LevinK and now also Mr Sterling is cranking in – Welcome to the pleasure-dome … or was that doom ?
FIRST you claim “Cornucopia y Utopia” (this stupidity made me reply to Yah)
FIRST you cite some really old stuff January 1980 –than you use the calculator COMING UP WITH –“ numberos fhantasia de Cornucopia y Utopia” claiming …
850,000 years, or 85 times our civilization lifespan... blah blah
… further they claim “The total abundance of Uranium in the Earth's crust is estimated to be approximately 40 trillian tonnes” …WTF is a trilian Levin ?????? now again ?? Your funny report doesn’t know how to spell trillion.
LevinK the camelon – don’t switch team at half time , the referee will spot IT, and the public will buuuu you.
(Holy crap)
You have some nerve accusing someone of drinking and then making the kinds of shabby arguments and ad hominen attacks that you have. Levin is making a serious argument with the best available evidence. Pay attention and you might learn something.
Could you at least attempt a coherent argument or stop blubbering.
Stirling , are you LevinK's web-lawyer or something ?
Please add some realisms and/or corrections to all the wrong and crappy info from Levin. I’d rank Donald Duck higher than Levin on his INITIAL CLAIMS – because “their taken from thin air” – the ideas that Levin is trying to “correct” himself by quoting Wikipedia, doesn’t make his ANNOYING AND STUPID initial -claims true in a scientific manner
I have provided the latest OF TRUSTWORTHY info out there – as far as I know. The Energy Watch Group-report (as of dec. 2006 ) is the latest- Please if you can add some I would appreciate that !
Just so you know, you've largely stopped making sense. If that was not your intent, you might want to take a deep breath, slow down, and write more carefully.
Your info doesn't contradict LevinK at all, though, which is something I'm not sure you realize.
Your link is talking about cheap uranium; LevinK is talking about energy-positive uranium. Those two are not at all the same; in particular, your link completely ignores any uranium deposits that cost more than $130/kg to extract.
Accordingly, it's entirely possible - and, in fact, likely - that the information provided by each of you is correct.
Pitt, fine - maybe we are both right – you say!?!
... hmm have a look at Levins claim again , for your own sake!
But FIRST
Pitt you didn’t read it either … you say : "your link completely ignores any uranium deposits that cost more than $130/kg to extract"
It is mentioned - but on the shelf "of the moonlandings.."
Then the REST
Now – if you have gotten the grasp on the various discussions on Peak Oil – you will recollect that the BIG EASY and CHEAP fields are found and extracted first … and in the future there will be a SCRAMBLE FOR THOUSANDS OF SMALL DIFFICULT AND EXPENSIVE FIELDS - cutting a corner here…. THE SAME GOES FOR URANIUM – ( I hope you are not complicating this further)
Where we are on the Uranium-curve (also bell shaped… remember), frankly I don’t know (personally that is) – and I sort of don’t care
– BUT what I do like to know is what do the people in the business say about them matters, … and what is the latest …. And so forth. Those latest “TRUSTWORTHY” sources I’ve referred to are – probable AWARE OF the “1980-funny-report flown in by Levin “ – but this info is not considered viable to peruse – in resent years.. due to circumstances … LIKE ..deeper understandings of:
Dwindling oil(for machinery) EROEI . Receding horizons, slow actions from humans to understand stuff … OR simply there ARE not possible TO GET HOLD OF SUCH amounts that Levin is claiming are there, ALSO known as UTOPIA.
My main point is – Plan for less, everything above is a bonus (!) – but start today – because these issues are as real as the sun rises in east.
AND for the record, I’m in favor of nuclear and thorium – as of yesterday (!), because there are ONLY so few ways of generating power
Let's try a little thought experiment. You think the industry projections for Uranium are somehow comparable to those for oil and therefore we can assume that the Uranium reserves reflect the entire world URR like the oil reserves do. Let's think about what it took to get the oil numbers and then see if we think the same thing was done for Uranium.
First with oil we know, or have discovered from experience, that it can only exist in a very limited set of places in the world. I do not know them all but they are limited to sedimentary basins where the source rock has been buried into but not all the way through the oil window. This might exist in say 5% of the surface land (and near sea floor) area and maybe 5% of the strata within them. We know that in probably 70% of the volume of the crust where these conditions prevail the rock has been drilled and where they have found hydrocarbons they have drilled multiple wells to prove the reserves. The world has spent [edit: hundreds of billions] of dollars on this and we think we have found all but 250GB of the original 2,000GB (88%).
Now if the industry reserves for the Uranium industry are as reliable, we will have to assume that the industry has done about as thorough a job, right? What do we know about Uranium distribution? Well, an ancient supernova created all the heavy elements (beyond Helium) and as far as we know, they are distributed throughout the crust, but not uniformly. Now most of the ore that has been extracted so far has probably been extracted from near the surface but since we are trying to determine the supply for all times we will need to explore and assess down to whatever depth we think they might eventually mine it. Now as I think you can see this will probably have to be 100% of the surface land area and 100% of the rock down 2-3km (lets say to the bottom of the oil window). Now my math is not great but I think that is 400 times the volume of the oil bearing area (20x20).
Now to explore and assess the potential Uranium bearing areas in the same way the oil industry has, the Uranium industry would have to have drilled test bores into all that 400 times volume. And this they would have had to have done even though they had no business reason to do so since they already had plenty for their foreseeable business horizon. And have done so with 1/100 of the money per year (and a much shorter period of years) than the oil industry has spent on their 1/400 volume. That also begs the question that since the Uranium is not going to flow out of the bore hole, do you really know how much there is down there by this method?
Now if you think the Uranium mining industry has really done the previous in spite of having no business reason to do so then maybe we could believe those identified reserve numbers that the anti-nukes keep citing are as reliable as the oil reserve numbers. If not, your only recourse is to do what Levin did and estimate the URR based on what we know about the distribution throughout the crust. I believe that the latter method will produce the best available estimate.
Someone said elsewhere in this thread that several countries have already exhausted their Uranium supplies. I think that is not at all what happened. I think that there were mines in quite a few countries but then the Canadians discovered deposits that are 21% U (that’s 210,000 ppm) and many of those other mines, including all of them in the US, shut down. The lower costs for their competitors and all the dumped weapons material priced them out. That was not because they ran out. At some point, those mines will be reopened. They are already looking into that in the US.
He claims:
Your link only really addresses the first of those points, which it supports. His links address the other two points, and support them.
You have misread your link. "< $130/kg" means less than $130/kg, not more. The other category - "Unassigned" - doesn't give a cost estimate.
However, these resource levels are still regarding what is currently commercially viable, and not what is ultimately extractable at strongly positive energy returns.
The only place your source does address the question of recoverable energy-positive resources is in Annex 4; however, since they rely heavily on the discredited Storm/Smith, the shortcomings of which have been discussed a few times on this site.
Actually, the fact that your link relies heavily and unquestioningly on the Storm/Smith study calls all of its claims into question.
There're plenty of ways to generate power; the question is which ways can efficiently and rapidly scale up. The main attraction of nuclear is that it is a mature technology that has already been proven on the largest of scales.
Table 1 in their source also claims that 32% of the Uranium resources of the entire world have already been found. Let's use my analysis above to estimate an exploration intensity (exploration dollars / resource bearing volume) for Uranium compared to oil. Since Uranium has had 1/100 of the annual exploration dollars for 400 times the resource bearing volume = 1/40,000 the annual exploration intensity for perhaps 1/3 as many years gives a cumulative exploration intensity for Uranium that is 1/120,000 of oil. So we believe we have identified 88% of the world’s oil resources but with only 1/120,000 the cumulative exploration intensity we have found 32% of all the Uranium. Is that plausible?
Good catch about Storm/Smith. That study apparently estimates EROEI in the low single digits whereas actual measurements put it close to 100. Anyone who would use that source is agenda driven and not credible.
Levin,Pitt and Sterling ...
Pitt U say "Unassigned" - doesn't give a cost estimate,
….Believe me Pitt its above 130$ - because “The long-term uranium price remains at US$95/pound, according to TradeTech’s latest Nuclear Market Review on Friday, August 31, 2007”
Pitt you are very imaginative as to how much uranium there are worldwide– BUT the idea that unassigned/fictive uranium is the most expensive (alternatively Not there) IS HARD FOR YOU to understand – How do you actually work ?
Excessive and Hyper-hypothetical stuff has always annoyed me for some reason, and as you understand this initial torch from Levin – even though it was probable meant to provoke – started my keyboard and kept it running.Levin is a layman and should thus not play around with such googolplex numbers - and "tell all is fine"
Now, let this be my last reply to all this, AND READ WHAT’S inside my “block quote”
I could easily live with an “Energy Watch Group-report”claim MULTIPLIED by 10-50 …. But Levin went all the way for the diamond in the sky, not less…
What annoys me is people who try to shout down people like Levin who make serious and well founded comments about the nuclear issue. I know we are seriously at odds with the sources you quote but that does not mean we are wrong. I strongly believe that Levin's claim that there is a million years of Uranium is unassailable because it is so conservative. I will argue that the correct number for fission fuel should be in the billions of years.
Some people are so opposed to nuclear energy that they will cite evidence over and over again that is clearly completely wrong. The Storm/Smith study, that is the underpinning of your main source, is a good example. Anyone who thinks that is acceptable evidence is blinded by their political agenda.
The other main objection of your line of argument is that it totally misrepresents what we know about Uranium resources. To claim that we already know where 32% of all the worlds recoverable Uranium is, is ridiculous as I have been trying to demonstrate above. I have made what I think is a strong case that in areas where there might be Uranium we have cumulatively spent just 1/120,000th of what we have spent to looking for oil in comparable potential oil bearing areas. This means that we could not possible have located anywhere near 1% of the potentially recoverable deposits, especially since almost none of them are on the surface. The stuff down at the bottom is the stuff that we expect people to use a million (or maybe a billion) years from now.
The good news is that if you can open your mind to this thinking, the implications are not that bad, unless you were really looking forward to the end of the world. I am in no way trying to be provocative. Just to get the discussion onto a reasonable and factual basis.
Why? You've given us no reason to. Even your latest link has no bearing on your claim - it's just an unrelated article about the current price of uranium.
(a) Incorrect.
(b) Against the guidelines of this website:
"4. Treat members of the community with civility and respect. If you see disrespectful behavior, report it to the staff rather than further inflaming the situation.
5. Ad hominem attacks are not acceptable. If you disagree with someone, refute their statements rather than insulting them."
That I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand. In this particular case, it just means that you're wrong.
However, you appear to be just fine with biased reports based on discredited research.
You might try gathering relevant information to try refuting some of the links you've been provided with, rather than just ranting about how anyone who disagrees with you obviously isn't smart enough.
5. Ad hominem attacks are not acceptable.
Defined: A fallacy that attacks the person rather than dealing with the real issue in dispute.
Thus far you've not:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3027#comment-243718
You're a piece of work.
You might try gathering relevant information to try refuting
And I've gathered links withing 5 minutes of looking - and I note how you've not even bothered an attempt at refutation.
You appear to have missed the other sentence:
"If you disagree with someone, refute their statements rather than insulting them."
And the other guideline:
"4. Treat members of the community with civility and respect."
You are, however, quite right that LevinK and Sterling should also abide by the requirement for civility. paal myrtvedt appeared to be primarily responsible for damaging the tone, though, so I directed the reply to him.
Do you expect everyone on the site to be reading and replying to everything you write? That's awfully optimistic of you.
Pitt - have you turned web-lawyer, as well ?(how much does he pay ... )
Pitt – your horizon is narrow but very long, if you see what I mean. And your understanding of “receding horizons” is null , nill, zero – zipp and zilch.
The “fresh” Energy Watch Group-report (from dec. 2006) is no longer fresh, because of “receding horizons” ,,,
Try this -
“you” switch the 40$ in the report with 95$ AND you better find some HIGHER NUMBERS for them 80$ and 130$ … The 130$-kind-a-Uranium is “maybe” 400$ today – BUT why do I tell you all this – because you can not understand this due to Coupernicoupianism
- things are shifting all the time Pitt … up –up – up and one day maybe down again, but not for the better (my gestimate)
BTW pitt - what the heck do you base all your "INFO" on ---- please LINKS --- many links PITT THE ELDER (where are they?)
And your evidence for this claim is?...
What "info"? Most of what I've done is just point out that you're misreading your own link - which, since you've helpfully linked to it, anyone can verify for themselves.
The only "info" I've claimed is that (a) your link relies on the Storm/Smith study, (b) that study has been severely discredited, and (c) that fact has been discussed here previously. The first of those is, again, in your own link, while the second two are documented by the two links I've given.
What information do you believe I've given that I haven't provided links for? Specifically.
Let me rephrase everything and boil away the water …. Let’s just make it simple –
As you probable know ”MY REPORT” is used in German political energy planning –
Pitt – Let me ask you ONE simple question:
Who use your numbers? …. I mean for future energy planning?
AND for once – DIRECT links please , just as you endorse others to provide – just for once !
paal... just forget it
no problem - I’m searching the truth or as close as I can get to it - at any given time and subject in mind.
This time around I read some stuff which I could not accept to stand without contradiction
If you spent some time reflecting on my info or what Pitt, Sterling and me are trying to explain, you would reach to the conclusion that there is no contradiction at all.
I know that the idea that there is an energy source which could (at least potentially) replace FFs contradicts your anti-cornucopian sentiment. But please look at it that way - we as a humanity must have the goal of reducing our impact on Earth - this is our ultimate goal isn't it? We must persue it by all means and conservation and some form of power down should be our primary priority - and will have to happen with or without nuclear. But is conservation and power down an option for the people in India? China? Bangladesh?? How much more powered down should they go from their current level?
And then what happens after we in the west have powered down? We need something to keep the lights on and keep the most essential of the utilities and at least some of the conveniences of our civ running. For this we would need a replacement of FFs... and nuclear is the only one proven, low-impact, large-scale replacement that really works. I'm ready to bet that in 50 years it would be the primary civilization energy source, that is if we don't self-desintegrate into runaway energy wars by that time. Hope we live and see until then.
But please look at it that way - we as a humanity must have the goal of reducing our impact on Earth - this is our ultimate goal isn't it?
So man should work on concentrating radioactive heavy metals and transmute them into even MORE toxic forms?
Yes. If the only viable alternative to this is burning billions of tonnes of coal, oil shales or tar sands and spewing all of the CO2, heavy and radioactive metals they contain into the environment.
Compared to that - we have a minuscule amount of radioactive waste, measured in thousands of tonnes and kept in specialized storage sites. All high-level radioactive waste ever produced by humans indeed can fit in a stadium. And the point is that we are managing it - we are not leaving our kids to face the consequences of just dumping it around. Ever heard anyone harmed by improper disposal of radioactive waste?
Now... how many are those harmed by FFs waste? Billions?
Compared to that - we have a minuscule amount of radioactive waste, measured in thousands of tonnes and kept in specialized storage sites.
Interestingly enough - you ignore the toxic heavy metal part.
we are not leaving our kids to face the consequences of just dumping it around. Ever heard anyone harmed by improper disposal of radioactive waste?
There are a bunch of people in Kosovo, Afganastain and other places who'd offer an argument about how others choose to dispose of their byproducts from processing radioactive material.
I TRY to educate you (and others), but you keep posting about how 'safe' fission is, no matter what the actual history shows.
2 more links for your education:
http://www.epa.gov/R5Super/npl/illinois/ILD980824015.htm
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=kerr+mcgee+karen+silkwood&btnG=Search
And you are welcome.
There are a bunch of people in Kosovo, Afganastain and other places who'd offer an argument about how others choose to dispose of their byproducts from processing radioactive material.
WTF? Did any of the civilian NPPs deploy the radioactive substances at those places? Next thing you are going to accuse the chemical industry for the gas chambers and the Holocaust. Ridiculous.
WTF? Did any of the civilian NPPs deploy the radioactive substances at those places?
There you go again, moving the goalposts when you have been shown to be wrong. Are you that desperate to not say "I am wrong?"
Now, is that any way to treat someone who's trying to provide you with an education? Its like you are resistant to reality.
Next thing you are going to accuse the chemical industry for the gas chambers and the Holocaust.
To the best of my knowledge, chemicals were not used in the mass killings of the Armenians. Other than the making of the powder to propel the bullets.
Pathetic.
Pathetic.
A frank self-assessment, so there might be some hope for you yet!
You realize you are acting like 12-years old, don't you?
There was nothing in your answer that was relevant to our discussion, and I simply spared my energy for answering it. Not worth it.
Now if you have something meaningful to say (other than announcing "goal posts"?!?), please do. Otherwise I will probably not answer at all.
You realize you are acting like 12-years old, don't you?
Says the poster who is on the loosing end of the argument and will not say "I was wrong" or "thank You"
There was nothing in your answer that was relevant to our discussion,
*I* have responded to your changes. *YOU* are the one who can not handle my wider breadth of knowledge.
Like how The Holocaust was used to describe the mass death of Armenians.
http://news.independent.co.uk/fisk/article2901136.ece
Or how 'waste products' of radioactive processing (depleted uranium) is being spread about in many places.
Now if you have something meaningful to say
I have. But you have not bothered to thank me for your education. I accept your inability to say "thank You" and hold you no ill-will.
Otherwise I will probably not answer at all.
I understand. Your ego does not let you admit you were wrong and have received an education because of my postings.
That, and what you have used as a response has been shown to be wrong.
Good luck to you in convincing others of your position. Because anyone who's read your tripe here knows all you have is hand waving VS how *I* provide links showing the failure modes of you position.
Its OK that facts scare you. Hopefully facts are not scary to others.
In the 1980s we thought that is was technically feasible to bury the long term waste as the best way to deal with it. Since then, this has become a big political issue and the idea no longer seems the best solution, at least for the political problem. We now have the technology to reprocess the partially spent fuel and burn up all the elements with long lived radioactivity. This way we will be able to run the fuel through other reactors to use more of the energy in it and only dispose of further reduced wastes that have radioactive half lives in the few hundred years.
The problem of Plutonium proliferation from power reactors has also been significantly lessened as well. The current reactors turn enough of the produced P239 into P240 soon after new fuel is loaded so that the Plutonium is no longer weapons capable. This significantly reduces the proliferation risk.
In the 1980s we thought that is was technically feasible to bury the long term waste as the best way to deal with it.
Which would be after the demonstrated failures of the processing business.
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF8&q=karen+silkwood is one of the more well known failures.
Since then, this has become a big political issue and the idea no longer seems the best solution, at least for the political problem.
Well, if processing has been a failure, and burying it is a failure - what then?
We now have the technology to reprocess the partially spent fuel
Back to processing then! If the masses have forgotten 'the oil shocks', its been long enough to try what didn't work last time, just promise you'll do better this time!
Reprocessing was then premature from a cost basis and may still be because there was and is plenty of Uranium. At some point it will become cheaper than digging it up. We may also want to do it sooner to clean up some of the waste so it can be disposed of without any of the long lived stuff.
Reprocessing was then premature from a cost basis
My link was about the failure mode of reprocessing - the death of someone who was 'following procedure'.
Why is your "response" "a cost basis"?
Do you, like KevinK fear an honest discussion about the failure modes?
Reprocessing was then premature
Did I not just say 'but this time it is different'?
Now, I note how you do not deny the history of failure.
Do you deny that the 'promise' about Fission power was the safety?
Do you deny that the 'promise' of 'safety' was going on during the failures?
Hi Eric – you are a hard nail!
You know you are up against the Nuke-Super-Max-Triangle here ?(Levin, Pitt the Elder and Sterling) And that’s worse than arguing with the wall – those folks don’t see any limits to growth, whatsoever at any point in time ...., be it in "1 million years"… no problems on their sky.
And if I know those kind a' people right, they’ll personally go out there (where? ask them) and pick one by one Uranium-atom up from the ground, “just to try to prove their claims…”
That said, I agree totally with your comments up thread.
You know you are up against the Nuke-Super-Max-Triangle here ?
LevinK has been spanked and shown to be wrong more than once by me.
I'm sure that Pitt the elder and Sterling are as easily done away with. LevinK has admitted I am correct, so at least KevinK is trainable - once reality beats him/her about her head.
I'm sure Pitt the Elder and Sterling arguments will fail - simply because they are wrong. But they need to actually post arguments VS hand waving crap.
Whenever you have been correct I have admitted it. Unfortunately this has been so rare that I can hardly remember this happening at all.
Unlike you at least I am not twisting discussions around. When you decide to argue the points of your opps instead of talking crap, then be my guest. I had decided not to turn you any attention, and now again I see I was right... you need some reality check, but I'm not the one who can help you with that.
Whenever you have been correct I have admitted it.
You are a liar.
Next:
Unlike you at least I am not twisting discussions around.
Go ahead. Prove this. Show others. Provide links.
Or, anyone who's still reading this ill judge you as a liar.
You're a piece of work. How do you think people who read this will judge you? Will they think you are trying to advance understanding of an important topic?
Why should anyone read or respond to your posts, troll?
Eric will be judged all fine, he is afterall backing his claims with links (fresh if I may add) and those claims are within "a possible and realistic range” ……… to grasp for average Joe.
BUT I would have pinched my arm, if I were you Sterling, when writing this – COS you back NOTHING and you base everything on personal gestimates and extreme Cornucopian y Utopian thinking –
I feel lucky today – I have met 3 REAL Cornucopias within 24 hrs …. On a forum
(ps I’m gonna brag about it ….ok?)
You're a piece of work.
That is the best you can do?
I asked for links, and you've got nothing.
How do you think people who read this will judge you?
As correct. Thanks for asking.
Will they think you are trying to advance understanding of an important topic?
I provide links - you provide hand waving. And so far only you and LevinK have bothered to post a response (ok and Paal).
And thus far, the responses from you is, well, lacking.
Why should anyone read or respond to your posts, troll?
Troll? When you have the maturity to provide links to back up your POV, you might have a case.
But right now, you are hand waving.
Another link showing a failure mode of fission reprocessing:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,2763,1479527,00.html
You are hallucinating.
I've posted links supporting my position - you have hand waving.
You are gonna have to do better if you want credibility.
(edit)
And here's another link on the failure of reprocessing
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/nuclear_power_plants/n...
How about another:
http://www.american.edu/ted/andreeva.htm
I can keep posting links all day long - but the readers get the idea.
Paal,
We are not making this stuff up (unlike some on our opponents). Look at the evidence and this is what you get.
I don't think there are any energy limits to growth. I do not like the fact that the world has as many people as it does but I am not going to sit by and do nothing to try to avoid a disastrous power down that I think would wreck the world, beginning and hitting hardest in the poor countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America.
Here is a favorite map of mine showing Population Growth Rate in percent, as listed in the CIA World Factbook (2006 estimate) from Wikipedia:
Note the correlation between development and growth rate. The developed countries all have low growth rates and the poor developing countries almost all have high growth rates. Seems like the cure for overpopulation might be development. This graph also shows why the developing world is going to take the biggest hit from a big power down. They are the ones who have had the great overshoot from cheap oil.
I do not think that all growth is bad. Here in California, we like to think that we are the world's most important source of growth in intellectual capital: entertainment in the south and technology, especially computer and communications software here in the north. I do not think that is bad for the world. I am going to keep trying to insure that we continue to have the electricity that we need to keep writing that software. I hope you make it, too.
Sterling
We are not making this stuff up
O really?
I don't think there are any energy limits to growth.
You don't "THINK" there are any energy limits to growth?
Oh, what pray tell makes you 'think' that your 'thinking' is nothing more than something "made up"?
I do not think that all growth is bad.
A whole lotta 'what I think's going on it seems. But keep swinging for the fences. And pretending your hope matters.
I am going to keep trying to insure that we continue to have the electricity that we need to keep writing that software.
Paging Jay Hanson. Paging Jay Hanson - please pick up the Sterling clue phone. Feel free to explain how you predict "that it would be electricity, not oil, that would be the actual cause of collapse. "
http://www.jeffvail.net/2007/07/blog-post.html
Sterling you are a funny bloke – I don’t know where to start ... so I’m not starting.
Just for your mind – the entire country of Tanzania (37 mill people) uses the same electrical power as it takes to run the New York Subways System per year. 2-3 TWhrs….
Tanzania is roughly, if memory serves, using 1/350 electricity per capita – as compared to Norway/capita.
on powerdown :
The developing countries “are there already” ….. there is little to power down
When the power-down comes around WWide – the US is the last place on the planet I’d like to live out “the concept of Power Down” … see if YOU can figure why – Mr Sterling?
(hint : western movies)
Interestingly, none of that is true.
I haven't argued in favour of nuclear power.
I haven't said there are no limits to growth.
I haven't said there are no problems.
All I have said here is that your claims are nonsense.
In other words, you're just making shit up. Why am I not surprised?
Sorry Pitt – are you not aware of what you distribute around from your own keyboard ? Do you disregard your own support to Levin ... please come forward, if you like to stand on the other foot (!)
anyhow your own words ..
And in backing LevinK’s claims far up tread … and thus from my neck of the woods you are part of the Nuke-Super-Max-Triangle!
And people supporting LevinK in these statements – obviously believe in infinite growth … and more of the goods – for ever and ever.
Please read your friend Sterlings latest updates …...on your common thinking-
Here is Levins “interesting big diamond claims”
Don't complicate yourself Pitt
You have misunderstood my posts.
I have not said I support LevinK, much less everything LevinK says. I have said that specific claims of his appear to be supported by the available evidence, and specific claims of yours appear to be contradicted.
If you believe that I support everything he says, that is simply your own mistake and nothing more. Overgeneralizing like that has a tendency of leading one to make lots of foolish mistakes.
you bite your tung Pitt -
I never received any documentations from yah ... to me you look like “a professional quarreler” nothing more but nothing less either ( bye)
Levin could not be more on target.
On target - what target? .. never mind, dont fill the HDs at TOD with crap.
Read the linked report of dec. 2006, its the freshest on the subject.
... OR alternatively knock your heads together - go for the diamond Stirling, THEY say its there ... hehehe
You know why Uranium production is so far below demand? Running out? No! FSU dumping weapons material on the power market. That's going to spur a lot of exploration, right? And keep industry reserve numbers down, maybe?
You know what utilities pay for Uranium? They get it through long term contracts and the average price is apparently about $35/lb. That's going to spur a lot of exploration, too, right?
IF you have read the report - then you will know that I know all this , and more !
The U that gets used is U-235 - only about 0.7% of the total. The rest is U-238 which is useless ... unless converted to Pu-239, in which case we have about 140X the supply of fissionable material. This is why you build breeder reactors.
Of course, we'll fight like cats in a sack complete with nuclear booms long before this happens, but those are the facts ...
Just to complement myself, it maybe counter-intuitive but there is a big circle within nuclear physicists who are trying to prove there is an impending problem with uranium supply. These fall into 2 categories:
1) Those who work on fusion research. How could they justify their subsidies if fission is the obvious choice long term?
2) Those who work on breeder reactors or fuel reprocessing, for the same reasons
Michael Dittmar supposedly cited Uranium industry's reserve numbers. Such reserve estimates will never be more than about 50 years no matter how much resource there is. Once the mining companies have enough for the foreseeable future, they stop looking. Finding and proving reserves costs money. Unlike oil, finding more will not drive more use because free Uranium would only cut the price of power generation 1-2%. Think of Uranium industry reserves as their mid term inventory.
Levin is exactly right about how to think about how much Uranium we have. And there is three times as much Thorium.
Why should we expect a physics professor at CERN to know about Uranium supplies? Should a car designer know about oil supplies?
Actually the same is true to some extent for oil... if oil companies did not see demand for the marginal oil they discover they would not move their finger to look for it. The difference is that for the most of the past 100 years you could sell any extra oil at some profit - the market is huge and there is always a customer at a price.
For Uranium demand is fixed. Any "extra" uranium would have to be stored somewhere at loss.
The result of all of this - oil exploration has been intensive for a century now and has costed trillions of $. U exploration was intensive in the 1950-s and 60s and has taken meager amounts. The U exploration for 2005 amounted to paltry $200mln. for the whole world. For comparison - Exxon exploration budget alone is $21 bln. - 100 times more!
It is amazing how the same crap about U availability is reappearing all the time.
It must be the terrible news we are bearing.
The other important difference between the oil and Uranium industries is that for oil the mid term (50 years or so) demand projection is greater than the known world supply. Therefore the oil companies need to try to identify and prove the entire world's supplies. This makes people who do not think about it jump to the conclusion that industry reserves in any industry will approximate the total world supply. It just is not so for an industry like Uranium where the total world supply far exceed the projected demand for the foreseeable business horizon. In that case the reserves will always be about what they expect to produced in the foreseeable business horizon or less. Unless, as you noted, the demand is price elastic. In such an industry case your methodology, looking at crust distribution, is the only obvious way to get an estimate of URR.
Sterling serious - Why should a blogger like yourself .... hehe ... know about .. it?
Impressive theantidoomer … you say :
From the time-stamps above you just read 4 344 words / 21 900 letters in 10 or less minutes – all included reflections and end-conclusion AND a reply here at TOD –
7,2 words/second All inclusive - Bravo ! ...
probable you have an effective speed of 10-12 w/sec...
Actually I had already read the article this morning linked from another site, I'm sorry I meant to say "thanks for posting squid". My bad.
which other site/link ? ;-O ....
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ngreene/national_geographic_on_biofuel... I often google "biofuels" and "ethanol", I like to stay informed ;)
thanks TAD - I hoped for a dedicated bio fuel-site, do you know of any good ?
Cos' understanding bio fuels are our most important mental-task in the years to come. And personally I've not read any (trustworthy) positive paper on bio diesel till date ... have you ?
Oil and gas are easy - those will dwindle away ...
OAP Invents Car of the Future
http://www.dumbartonreporter.co.uk/article.php?sec=1&id=15580
Does anyone here know how a electro-magnetic drive motor might work? I believe he's saying that electromagnetic drive motor would use much less friction that a normal drive shaft since the parts are not actually touching?
ROTFLMAO. Gotta love this perpetual motion machine, it's a lot more fun than the still-secret Steorn device. As it says on page 18 of the patent app,
Maybe you "stoke" the pistons of this Rube Goldberg electric motor with coal and oxidize the coal with the displaced air, I dunno.
Have I ever mentioned that IMO too may reporters are reporters only because journalism can be a ridiculously easy slide through college? This one seems very much like a case in point...
But I digress. In answer to the question about how it works...most likely it doesn't. The "reporter" on the "case" doesn't mention seeing it work.
I love this stuff! It is so sad that our education system has failed so badly that people do not have even a basic concept of the laws that govern the universe. I'm sorry, but anyone who takes an article like this seriously for even a moment needs to spend some time learning some basic things about how the world works, and should refrain from commenting on anything having to do with energy or physics.
Sometimes I think that we have been awash in so much energy for so long that we've lost the ability to even recognize the role that energy, and the access to it, plays in out lives. I'm sure that people who've had to supply the energy they use with their own bodies have a much greater appreciation for how it works.
Actually, it looks like it might work ... just slightly longer than a Steorn unit!... but wouldn't produce enough motive power to pull the skin off a rice pudding!
At least it's not a complete pepetual motion machine for a change ... it might work until the batteries run flat as he proposes a starter motor to get it turning ... an electric motor to start an electric motor ... ingenious! ... but it probably is the most ineffectual electric motor ever proposed ... seems like 2000 Watts going in ... less than 3 horsepower even at 100% efficiency ... I wonder how long it takes the electromagnets to burn out if it stalls?
As well as the 'stoke' he's got a 48V power supply marked as 24V ... bizarre!
I wonder how many patents are of this calibre ... we seem to see about one a week on TOD ... each more bizarre than the last and almost always involving magnets!
Xeroid.
I'm becoming concerned that the NE US is entering a drought. We've been very dry this summer, after the spring floods (roads in S NH are still being repaired from the April storms), and the hoped-for rain last night and today mostly dried up before it got here. The forecast for the next week is dry.
People tend to think the main problem with GW is increased bad weather, but too much "good" weather can be just as problematic. Ask any Australian farmer.
I'm with you on that. I live in central New Jersey and my garden plants and the hay farms here are dry as a bone, again. I couldn't believe the rain passed us right by again last night.
I hate watching my grass turn brown and trees flowers and shrubs wilt while my neighbors pump tons of water out of the ground to throw on their insta-scapes.
-Don
In NH as well...
I am holding out hope of the Autumn rain pattern we've settled into these past couple of years.
Remembering my leaking roof last Columbus Day....
Fortunately, a few dry weeks don't make a drought. (But tell that to my garden!)
See the US Drought Monitor for current US conditions. Things have been bad for quite awhile in northeast Alabama, but New England is merely a bit dry.
"I'm becoming concerned that the NE US is entering a drought. "
Welcome to the club
Industry Report Says Ghawar Past Peak
Unfortunately, it's behind a paywall, but Dante has posted an excerpt at PO.com:
Ghawar past its peak is most likely. But there is a lot of space between "past peak" and crashing.
Ghawar's official stated capacity is 8.5 mb/d. Right, and my bicycle can theoretically go 100 mph.
When an article has the phrase "Saudi Arabia has ... more than 1,000 oil wells", you know useful information is not forthcoming. 'Ain Dar alone has over 500 wells, and Ghawar probably over times that.
Ghawar's problem is too much water, not too little pressure. And Ghawar fields don't produce heavy oil, so perhaps they are talking about somewhere else (like offshore).
Dante also gave a brief summary of the rest of the report:
Pretty pictures:
Arctic ice retreats into uncharted territory
NASA Finds Greenland Snow Melting Hit Record High in High Places
09.25.07
A new NASA-supported study reports that 2007 marked an overall rise in the melting trend over the entire Greenland ice sheet and, remarkably, melting in high-altitude areas was greater than ever at 150 percent more than average. In fact, the amount of snow that has melted this year over Greenland could cover the surface size of the U.S. more than twice.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/greenland_recordhigh.html
====
*Remarkable Drop in Arctic Sea Ice Raises Questions*
Melting Arctic sea ice has shrunk to a 29-year low, significantly below the minimum set in 2005, according to preliminary figures from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, part of the University of Colorado at Boulder. NASA scientists, who have been observing the declining Arctic sea ice cover since the earliest measurements in 1979, are working to understand this sudden speed-up of sea ice decline and what it means for the future of Earth’s northern polar region.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/arctic_minimum.html
Well that settles it. The only way to stop the melting is to get rid of NASA. That will stop this endless bad news.
Leanan,
Any reason you post some stories in the comments, and others up top?
Sometimes I'm just lazy. ;-)
Mostly, though, the stuff I post below the fold is stuff that I consider more marginally on-topic (economic news, say).
In this case, I didn't post it up top because it wasn't really news. I've posted this story before. More than once, I think. The only thing different this time is the high-quality images/video.
I usually post the weekly petroleum stuff below the fold because I only started doing it when no one else did. Plus it usually generates discussion, and it's good to have the story and the discussion together.
Thanks for all the work, can't be lazy to keep it up 7 days a week, week after week.
I just got the news on Norwegian TV, that GW Bush on behalf of the American people WILL NOT work alongside the rest of the world – to mitigate the climate troubles ……… “Americans will cut back CO2 and more based on the free and private personal will” – as he said –
Just like they'll volunteer in overwhelming numbers to die in his wars without unprecedented cash bribes.
And stop borrowing while there's still bad loans to be made.
And feed the hungry and house the poor without angling to increase the power of their particular extremist church.
Then again, a free and private personal will, even if it were capable of these wonders, would need accurate information sources that weren't sponsored by powerful vested interests.
Oh well.
For Pete's sake, just what we need - more incentive to overpopulate!
I know couples who have only one or two kids because of concerns about the cost of educating more.
Clinton: $5,000 for every U.S. baby
Whats wrong with this? $5,000 now put into a private investment would cost the government a lot less than Social Security, Medicare etc 65 years into the future....
What's wrong with this?!?!
YOu mean besides the fact that it's a 20 billion handout?!?! Every year?!?!
Why not just give every American $5000? Or if $5000 is good, why not $20,000? Or better, yet - let's give everyone a million bucks! This is America, everyone DESERVES to be a millionaire!!
Gotta remember - no feeding the trolls.
G
My apologies, I thought this was an 'endowment' for future expenditures, such as retirement, medical costs, etc. MSM seems to think this is only for college education. I agree, if this were just for that, its a bad idea. I shouldn't have jumped the gun so to speak :P
On a related note, what is wrong with this kind of idea for Social Security? Surely it takes in more than '20 billion a year' in revenue. Why doesn't the government set up a retirement fund like this when you are born, paid for by Social Security revenue in the present fiscal year? Seems like it would save them a lot more money in the long run :P
what is wrong with this kind of idea for Social Security?
Oh, how about how the government becoming shareholders means the government becomes the owners of companies.
I look forward to your post explaining how that has all worked out.
Last time I checked, weren't there several European countries that have just this kind of scheme?
I'd take time to provide you education - but as you say here:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3027#comment-243360
Your mind is not open to education.
Hillary knows Americans can be bought.
That's it. This should qualify for the most short-sighted proposal of the decade! Why don't you just hand this money when and only when the child goes to college, stupid?!?
Gosh, just thinking how likely is she to get elected. Are we going to see Bush-lite, but with even more stupid ideas?
Every single Republican candidate and every one of the Democrats still in double digits has refused to guarantee that the US will be out of Iraq by 2012. That is the end of the next president's first term in office, for gosh sakes. Further, Hillary is being directly coached by GW on Iraq, the situation there, Iran, the situation there (as this White House sees it), and why the US needs to stay engaged directly in the Middle East. Finally, Hillary has made it abundantly clear that she is "tough" and will want to prove it so that being a woman is not counted against her in the history books. Take a few guesses at the short list of possible targets against whom she might choose to flex her political muscles?
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Dr. Albert Bartlett
Into the Grey Zone
Can somebody explain this one for me?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47627
Jerome Corsi. Now that attacking gays, Jews, Islamists, Democrats, Catholics (etc. etc.) is passe, there's nothing left for him to bash but dead plankton.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100404_abiotic_oil.shtml
In fairness to Corsi, bodies in our solar system such as Titan and other, contain signifigant amounts of methane and LNG, in fact there atmospheres are made of it. More than likely nothing ever lived there, so it is possible that the earth does generate abiotic natural gas/methane.
If you dig back to the scientific references behind the Jerome Corsi's tabloid sensationalism, you get this:
Juvenile Petroleum Pathway: From Fluid Inclusions via Tectonic Pathways to Oil Fields
Alexander A. Kitchka
CASRE, Nat’l Acad. Sci. Ukraine, kitchka@casre.kiev.ua
Introduction
Fluid inclusions are natural occurrences in rock bodies that were in the fluid state at the time of entrapment. They may exist as vapor, liquid or solid or any combination thereof. Hydrocarbons, mainly methane and its homologues, are not rare constituents of fluid inclusions, which also include liquid oils..."
and concluding with this:
"Practical consequences and conclusions
...within an active fault zone, such as a regional strike-slip belt, that the crushing and mylonitization of rocks propagate to significant length, width and depth in the crust and involves thousands of cubic kilometers of host rocks and releases enormous fluid volumes from juvenile inclusions. Therefore, proof of the petroleum potential for any sedimentary basin is given if its crystalline basement is enriched with inclusions of HC-dominated composition..."
Good luck finding a geologist fluent in both petroleum geology and mantle-fluid geochemistry to decifer this. For me (with a plain-vanilla BS geology degree), this is mostly plausible-sounding gobbledy-gook. At least there are some testable predictions at the end.
I looks like the surge in coal spot prices is being driven by a looming shortage of "freights" - already-loaded shipments of coal on ships at sea.
Here's the site for the major coal market:
www.globalcoal.com
Spot prices are up almost 100% in the last three months!
Price quotes are on the left side. RB = South Africa; Des ARA = Rotterdam; NEWC = Newcastle, Australia.
The best news for the day. The only good news from the list actually.
I hope they are not right the bottleneck is freight capacity. If it's only that it could be overcome relatively soon.
Yes and no. The coal en route in the "freights" is traded in the markets as it heads to a port. Evidently, Asian manufacturers have been bidding up the price of the freights, so European cement manufacturers and utilities are finding i harder to secure extra coal.
Short term, the freights will return and get more coal. Medium term, "we're gonna need a bigger boat."
Getting more coal out of the ground to the export ports is relatively simple. So coal prices will spike, decline but stay higher than they were previously, and then drift down as more shipping becomes available. Hopefully, the short-term high costs will push more utilities and consumers to seek longer-term supply from local renewables (wind, solar, tide, etc...) and more efficiency.
Still, I had long thought that nothing short of a carbon tax would hurt coal prices. This is at least a positive move in the right direction.
Carbon tax will never come to life... because they would have to tax gasoline too. And ultimately - because it would work - in the sense it would reduce fossil fuel consumption. Which we - the populace ultimately don't want to do.
So they invented carbon trading... thus making utilities absorb and hide the costs. Then they overallocated allowances so that utilities don't rise prices too much. In the case of EU - they overallocated allowances to the "old members" and cut them on the newer and weaker ones so they take the true burden. This whole thing must be the most ineffective, cynical and unfair scheme I've seen in my life. Just thinking that it is done in the name of "saving the planet". Goodness
The coal port at Newcastle, Australia already the world's busiest is to be upgraded by 60 Mtpa http://www.greenleft.org.au/2006/688/35742. Think an extra quarter billion tons of GHG. This might explain why the Australian government likes GWB's voluntary targets rather than Kyoto.
Burn the bloody lot a.s.a.p. I reckon and then see what happens.
http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article3005291.ece
Light bulbs in a cold climate.
Dear Mr Benn,
I recently sold one of my children into slavery in order to buy half a dozen "energy saving" light bulbs.
Since then the house has been so cold I have had to turn up the central heating. In a cold climate, I don't understand why heat given off light bulbs is considered waste. Combined heat and light?
Mr Benn - please explain. I'd like to draw some comfort from the knowledge that you and your team of advisors are on top of the energy situation.
PS. When you switch them on they take several seconds to start giving off light. Has a full risk assessment of this rather dangerous feature been conducted - will our hospitals cope with all those broken legs?
PPS. Why all this concern about saving the odd Watt when your government is expanding all our major airports and the road system? Do you know something we don't know or are you just plain stupid?
http://www.bentbay.dk/pacific__ocean.htm
once in a lifetime chance of catching this.
underwater volcano in the Pacific forms
nice series of pictures.
Anyone else catch all the heavy earthquake activity today, pretty heavy stuff and several. Marianas trench/island area/location
not a place you wish to see heavy activity.
Today a 7.4 and several 6's .
Thanks for the link to the pictures. Yes, looks to be quite a few quakes lately:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/quakes_big.php
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/
Not that they are all that important and they aren't all in the same area either. The 7.4 was sitting out there all by itself at this location:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Maps/10/145_20.php
For what it's worth, I've always thought that quakes might be triggered by the high tides around full or new moon(s). The moon was full last Wednesday. There's probably a study of quake correlation with tides hidden in the literature somewhere, but I'm not going to attempt to dig for it.
E. Swanson
"I recently sold one of my children into slavery in order to buy half a dozen "energy saving" light bulbs."
I wouldn't like to be one of your kids - last week I saw some in a discount store at £1.99 for a pack of two, in various wattages. Only 2-3 years ago they were at about £5 each.
"When you switch them on they take several seconds to start giving off light." - chill out, take your time, life after peak oil will be slower, one of the benefits of it. Take your TV to the recycling centre, say goodbye to useless, idiot "celebrities" on it and see how many extra hours of USEFUL time you have every week.
[I wouldn't like to be one of your kids - last week I saw some in a discount store at £1.99 for a pack of two]
That's how he sells them? He packages his kids two at a time? Wow, tacky.
Re hot light bulbs being helpful
1. They are so much hotter that the target for the room that they contribute little practical heating. They just form a mini updraft of overheated air that rushes to the ceiling.
2. Creating heat via electrical resistance to voltage from a distant fossil fuel plant is way less efficient than a "modern" furnace in the building directly burning fuel.
3. If your CFLs don't come on instantly then you have been sold some antiques. All mine are instant on and totally silent. Although I do have a few that take about 10 seconds to fully brighten. I speculate the gradual brightening is a service life extending trade-off.
I think if you do the arithmetic over a whole country "the odd watt" is actually thousands of mega-watt hours.
You know Silver BB's not silver bullets. :*)
"They are so much hotter that the target for the room that they contribute little practical heating. They just form a mini updraft of overheated air that rushes to the ceiling."
I call BS on this one. I can assure you my wood stove is also very much hotter than he target for the room. It's not as if convection creates a vacuum as the air rises, rather more, cooler air comes in behind it to be heated. In fact, the efficiency of heat transfer is increased as the temperature difference is increased (not the same as the efficiency of energy use).
A given number of watts for a given period of time equates to a certain amount of energy. That energy mostly all ends up as heat. Some forms of heating have different "feel", but if you put X watt hrs into a room, it heats it the same regardless of if it was a light bulb or a TV or a toaster.
Even a radiant heater eventually heats the objects it radiates on, heating the room the same as any other heater - it just is a focused heat which allows you to turn it down.
Not all countries generate electricity with fossil fuels only. Electric heat is just fine if 80% of it comes from hydroelectricity, nuclear, wind, and a little (far off) coal with decent scrubbers. Especially, this allows natural gas and oil to be preserved for transport, and uses mostly fuels that are hard to transport.
Your point is taken on the "mini-updraft" though. My condo is mostly heated by the two units below me and my computer, but if I did need to turn on the heat, I might prefer to use the registers instead of incandescents.
roy says
Gee, and I thought that the point of CFL's was to reduce the use of FF's.
Euan, there is no need for this question! Of course, he's just plain stupid!
-
James Gervais
The serious points I'm making are:
1. There is a big difference between hot and cold climates when it comes to conserving energy through reducing "waste heat". If you are in a hot climate, the waste heat from lighting and chargers etc is a big problem as you will likely be running AC at the same time. In a cold climate, waste heat does contribute to household heating. So energy savings that are made are perhaps overplayed IMO.
2. The UK governemnt is tinkering with energy trivia whilst ignoring the big issues of transportation, house insulation and household waste.
Much higher building standards need to be introduced and enforced immediately. Our transportation policy needs urgent revision to reduce dependency on liquid FF and a program of burning household and garden waste in local CHP plants needs urgent attention.
The UK's energy security is balanced on a razor's edge and we are about to be lacerated by rising energy and food costs and perhaps energy and food shortages within 5 years. Energy saving light bulbs are but a sticking plaster.
Hear! Hear!
The honourable member from Aberdeen has made a great speech, incorporating scientific truth in dollops which are not normally heard in this House.
Would that those in power were listening.
We can't even get the EU to retract an anti-dumping tariff on Chinese CFL light bulbs, so the cost here is twice what American consumers pay.
UK - PM Brown to call an election this weekemd?
Some UK newspapers today were again propagating rumours that Prime Minister Brown is to call an autumn election, possibly naming the date this weekend. Other papers have reported that his Labour Party have already recruited specialist election staff ready for an autumn poll. Brown, who took over from Blair just a few months ago, could wait two-and-a-half years before calling an election, but seems in a rush to call one now. Lucky for him, he is not stuck in the US system of fixed terms. The question is, why is he considering doing this? Only once in the last 100 years has a PM taking over from a resigning/retiring predecessor, called an election so much earlier than needed.
IMHO, it is because he thinks it likely that some serious S is about to HTF, possibly as early as this winter (May being the next popular election time after early November). Remember, this guy has been Chancellor (Finance Minister) for a decade and knows the UK economy inside out. He is also renowned for being cautious, not one to take unnecessary gambles. I think he would not be seriously considering an election now unless he had a very good reason to try to grab a 5-year lease on government, fearing something (e.g. peak oil related recession, credit meltdown, US attack on Iran), that would make winning much more difficult even a few months later.
If anyone has a more plausible explanation I'd be glad to read it.
Bob Morgan, Cymru.
Bob,
These rumours have been around for a while. I'd be surprised if he actually does it, but it's his last chance, and likely too late already.
Northern Rock was but the vanguard of the credit crisis that is about to hit the UK. When it spreads, Brown is done. He was Chancellor when it all built up.
He seems to bet the government and BoE can hold off disaster long enough to last him till an election. No guarantee there.
TVA expects a shortfall of $200 million this year:
http://www.al.com/business/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/business/11909...
No water = no electricity.
Climate instability = energy drain.
PNM [New Mexico] is trying to project a 20 year future electric energy plan.
Meet the pnm "head shed" people
International Poker Network Drops US Dollar in Favour of Euro
http://gamingintelligencegroup.com/gig/content/view/542/2/
28 September 2007
Maybe this US $ Index chart (NYBOT:DX) explains why the Euro replaced the USD
http://quotes.ino.com/chart/?s=NYBOT_DX&v=w
In the future they’ll gonna gamble with KWhrs or calories, as far as I can understand