We need an Al Gore of PO. What's Bill Clinton doing these days?

realist, warming has contunued unabated more or less in the lifetime of most people alive today. warming is sensible(in the thermodynamic sense)
we already had a false peak (shortage) in the 80's. imo people are sceptical that we are depleting the earth's resources. most dont seem to understand the problem. many i talk to just say "there is plenty of oil, the major oil companies are hoarding it" or "there is plenty of oil, everywhere i drive i see idle oil wells". many are just convinced, absolutely convinced, that there is a conspiracy to make gas prices high. there seems to be a common belief in the us of a, at least, that we 'merkuns are entitled to cheap energy. something to do with "providence", i think.

The assumption underlying a lot of these long-term contracts is that the counter-party will be around when you want to cash your chips.

I wonder. In the end, climate change is not really something you can blame on your political opponents. You can argue that there is no climate change, or that it's just natural variation, but you can't say it's the fault of liberals, conservatives, the French, the Arabs, the president, etc.

Peak oil, though...if there is a drop in Saudi and/or Russian production, peak oil deniers will have plenty of people to blame. They're already warming up. They're blaming big oil, the NOCs, the environmentalists, etc. I have a feeling few will be blaming geology.

Could it be that global warming is readily accepted because it is simply a nice, classifiable problem that can be looked at as something that at first glance can be solved with the proper actions? Meaning that it is readily digestible or "fit for consumption" by the masses. Whereas peak oil, on the other hand, when it's meaning is truly internalized, suggests an inherent flaw in the capitalist perpetual growth system, a problem so endemic to modern industrialized society, that it is simply insoluble to the common person. Something sort of like the quote, "It's impossible to convice a person of something when his salary depends on him not understanding it." or the like. An analogy might be criticising a persons actions. The person could modify behavior and respond to this criticism. However, a critique indicating that his belief system is inherently flawed would be another thing entirely.

Hey, I thought geologists were/are real scientists. PO takes much more explanation than GW, and nobody wants to hear that it's all over soon...You know, that bad word -- die off. People shake in their boots thinking about PO, me too....geeeeeeeeeez And then there are many "scientists" going around for years and now too telling everyone not to worry, as solar energy will save the day.
The day is now pretty close and I don't see that I am being saved. Yes, I know the high solar rollers will say that it could have been different if we had developed a solar economy starting in the 1970s. Well, as someone who knows a little about the real world, not the world of illusion, that is baloney.

Your thoughts about scientist involvement are interesting and probably explain things to an extent, but I think the difference in a person's (including a news reporter's) receptivity to GW over PO may include bits of a more simple reality:

Global Warming: I suspect that many people just don't see GW as a major threat, even among those who understand the basic physics of GW. If the summers get hotter, for instance, then the AC will just be cranked up a bit more. Warmer winters simply might mean a lower heating bill to offset the higher costs of summer household cooling. If there's a drought, then water can be pumped or trucked in. A crop failure in one location can be offset by importing successful crops from another region. Etc. etc, etc. And those speculative GW-fed superhurricanes only strike the "other guy" like all the unfortunates in New Orleans (this kind of reasoning is probably applied to other GW effects, too).

Peak Oil: Once one grasps the connection between energy-production growth and economic growth, or even more so the deep and far-reaching systemic response like will likely result from PO, one will quickly realize that PO would hit very close to home in a very tangible, and disturbing, way. Hence, many shy away from the cold reality--including many scientists themselves.

Well, that's my $0.02 anyway.

-best,

graywulffe in CVO, OR

Unlike climate change, peak oil has not really impacted people in the same way. Climate change is killing people. A growing drought in the US is scaring citizens. They have to ration water.

The price of gas in my location is at $3.00/per gallon. My driving habits have changed, along with my neighbors. I have cut down my miles-traveled about 1 to 2 thirds. On the weekends, the apartment parking lot, which used to be empty, is full, indicating that the young are partying in their apartments instead of roaming about the city.

This is causing gas inventories to remain stable, somewhat, and causing a headache for the oil people. They are trying everything to get people to travel more but it doesn't seem to be working, at least in the blue-collar segment of our society.

When service oriented businesses start declining, laying people off and disappearing, there will be more clamor for information as to why it is happening.

The price of food is a major consideration to most of us workers. We just don't buy the higher priced items anymore, concentrating instead on the base goods and being creative in our food preparation.

Most of my neighbors don't realize that how they spend their money impacts the economy in a great way. Most of my neighbors don' t realize this fact and attempts to educate them fail. Most are A type personalities, more concerned with their performance within society and less inclined to change their collective environment. We are the herd, upon which the rest of society feeds. Most have little time to educate themselves with the tools of the internet, even though they all have computers

The middle class has more time to make themselves aware but have to deal with the fact that if they reduce their impact on the environment, they will end up in financial ruin and become a regular worker.

My neighbors are more concerned with water rationing than peak oil. As long as they can get to work, they can deal with gas prices by just staying home. Climate change, however is definitely staring us in the eyes, and focusing our attention. Peak oil is a nag in the back of our minds, not too impressive yet.

Collective self-sacrifice is only wrought by impending devastation. That is why more people are concerned with Climate change and not peak oil. But, they can smell something in the wind. When I shop, I see the workers looking hungrily at the shopping carts of the middle class. They sound of crying children in the markets is growing as their parents just say no. They are aware but wrapped up in a blanket of helplessness.

Darwinian, You say ***Now how many scientists are telling us about peak oil? None that I know of. True, we have a few geologists that are trying to warn us but they are largely discredited by oil company executives telling us there is nothing to worry about.*** Hmmmmmmmm geologists are scientists and more than a few have been warning us, and there are the Club of Rome/beyond the limits scientists, and the sustainability scientists, and the 300 NAS scientists pf the 1977 report:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=energy+in+transition+1985+-+2010&bt...
and many solar scientists. Why not go through the archives of theoildrum.com and energybulleting.net and research this before you insult people for not doing the work they did. Also, you are out of date, now oil company executives are coming around. Take a look around you before making statements that just show you don't know your stuff. Do a Google search of "Peak Oil" and look how many hits, and think about how many of the writers must be scientists. The people on this site should not need to give you an education, thus wasting their time. You should assume the responsibility of your own education. And when you are wrong, which is often, you should admit and not dig yourself a bigger hole by defending erroneus ideas. The end result of your current path will be that people will ignore you.

"Peak Energy is a different animal - the cause is a geophysical certainty with a known time frame. All you get to argue is the degree of the effect. And the outcome, once you come to a full and honest appraisal of the ramifications, is rather daunting. It is far more difficult to offer up objections and viable solutions to PO than it is for GW."

Interesting. The level of difficulty of solutions as a reason for popularity is probably a real factor. I remember reading something a while back on a blog regarding the "order of complexity" of peak oil/peak energy as a problem in relation to other problems that were more logisitical or organizational in nature. I.e. the physical resources and energy to solve the problem just had to be marshaled properly. An example is winning WWII or going to the moon. These problems were essentially a largely "different animals", as you put it, than "solving" peak oil.

Jimmy Carter's famous "Sweater Speech"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_energy.html

After going over the points he says;

I am sure each of you will find something you don't like about the specifics of our proposal. It will demand that we make sacrifices and changes in our lives. To some degree, the sacrifices will be painful -- but so is any meaningful sacrifice. It will lead to some higher costs, and to some greater inconveniences for everyone.

But the sacrifices will be gradual, realistic and necessary. Above all, they will be fair. No one will gain an unfair advantage through this plan. No one will be asked to bear an unfair burden. We will monitor the accuracy of data from the oil and natural gas companies, so that we will know their true production, supplies, reserves, and profits.

The citizens who insist on driving large, unnecessarily powerful cars must expect to pay more for that luxury.

We can be sure that all the special interest groups in the country will attack the part of this plan that affects them directly. They will say that sacrifice is fine, as long as other people do it, but that their sacrifice is unreasonable, or unfair, or harmful to the country. If they succeed, then the burden on the ordinary citizen, who is not organized into an interest group, would be crushing.

Spiritual: "To consume is human; to conserve, divine".

| _{The problem will solve itself.}
|  _{But not in a nice way.}

There are two types of navy vessel - submarines and targets.

As usual, the War Nerd sums it up with penetrating insight and pithy humour...... http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779&IBLOCK_ID=35&phr...

Regards Chris

I wonder about putting in one small nuke per cruiser (for normal steaming around, say the undersized 32 MW Seawolf sub nuke) and an oil fired plant when extra speed is needed.

If problems develop with the solo nuke, use oil for a while.

I suspect that a single small nuke could replace 90% of the oil used over a lifetime deployment at much lower cost, etc.

And, in extremis (Persian Gulf cut off, no easy resupply of fleet oil) it could remain on station with a max speed of, SWAG, 15 knots.

Just a thought,

Alan

'Once the futility of this notion becomes painfully obvious, it will be an important moment of clarity for the US.'

Joule, no American Misadministration will be seen as 'weak on defense'...

I suspect that instead of a 'moment of clarity' there will be a very brief pause, perhaps a nanosecond, before the nukes are launched.

We have made this bed and we will die in it.

I've seen the rough number 6% for the carbon intensity wrt coal of nuclear power plants. But stationary sources, and shipboard power are likley a bit different.

The savings could be greater due to indirect savings, not having to have oil-tenders supplying ships at sea etc. The logistics of getting fuel to where the forces are deployed can be pretty expensive.

Lots. Most of the hydrocarbon energy input in the nuclear fuel cycle is diffusion enrichment run by coal power plants. Diffusion enrichment is largely being replaced by centrifuge enrichment and that can be run by nuclear power plants. Nearly no petroleum at all is used in the nuclear fuel cycle.

Yes, aircraft carrier catapults require a certain amount of steam for their operation. While the operation of such a catapult requies that a great volume of steam needs to be expanded over a very short period of time, this is simply solved by using a reservoir or 'steam chest'. As such, it hardly matter a wit whether said steam is generated by a fossil fuel heat source or a nuclear fission heat source. Steam is steam.

If I understand correctly, there has been some work in trying to use a powerful electromagnetic drive to replace the steam catapult. Either way, a certain amount of power is required to operate a catapult, and the 200,000+ HP or a supercarrier is more than enough to supply such power, albeit if some of the energy must be stored in a steam chest.

The only reason $100 oil hasn't been a problem yet is because the price of gasoline hasn't caught up to where it should be, which is about $3.75 a gallon.

The lack of energy pass-through has provided a very significant buffer to consumers by maintaining or even raising growth of disposable income. At the same time, it has kept a lid on headline inflation and, by extension, inflation expectations, thus allowing the Fed to reflate by 0.75% over the past six weeks.

(http://macro-man.blogspot.com/2007/11/energy-blues.html)

According to recent research from Morgan Stanley, the consumption effects of a 10% decline in house prices is the same as that from a $0.70 rise in gasoline prices. So to put it another way, another dollar on the price of gas would have the same impact as a house price decline more than three times as severe as the current one.

I believe Robert Rapier is correct--that we will see these higher (normalized) gasoline prices by next summer.

So when is the price of oil a problem?

If 100 US$/barrel corresponds to about 9% and if 15% is a problem, then when oil is 150 US$/barrel we would be in recession.

If you assume a decline of 4% and a price elasticity of 0.5, then the price of oil would rise 8% per year. So it will double within a decade.

That means: We will be in the unrecoverable peak oil recession before my daughter goes to college.

4% is not that aggressive, and an elasticity of 0.5 is actually the long term elasticity. Short term is more like 0.2.

You do the math.

Congrats are due to our Aussie friends. A welcome and long overdue change of government. I'm hoping we will soon do the same thing to my own government (US).

Oh, is Labour running a ticket here next year? You didn't think that you'd get a change from the status quo by the two official status quo parties, did you?

Hi Laurence,

While the fact that the Green party has increased its vote in an election which demonstrated a major swing to the centre left party is impressive, the Green policy outlook is likely to have only a marginal direct effect on government this term.

The Greens still have no Lower House seats, and have never held any lower house seats, IIRC.

The Greens look to have secured 3 new senate seats this term, to hold a total of 5. The Greens best senate results in the past have been to secure 2 senate seats, which they did in 2001 and 2004. Thus, this years result represents a new peak in Green influence on Australian politics.

While 5 senate positions do not afford a genuine outright balance of power, they will be enough to veto any proposition not supported by the opposition. 32 senate seats appear to be in the hands of the centre-left party that won the election, with 37 senate seats being retained by the outgoing governing party (senate terms are also 2 terms in Aust, with only half the senators turning over each election. This explains the large overhang retained by the outgoing government).

The 5 Green senate votes are relatively well alligned with the 32 centre-left votes, yielding a 37-37 voting split.

The remaining two senators appear to be a better part of the balance of power, and these senators comprise of a left-leaning independent, and a right-leaning minor party senator (called Family First).

So, although the centre-left party has achieved a remarkable swing to form government, and holds a large majority (22 seats; turn-around from a 14 seat deficit) in the lower house, in order to get any proposition through the senate, then:

if they have the support of opposition, it passes...

or

if they dont have support of opposition, then, in order to pass any piece of legistlation, they must get the support of all Green senators, AND the independent, AND the centre-right alligned minor party senator.

As you can see, it will be a very tricky period for the newly elected government. As far as the Greens are concerned, you can see that any successful legislation needs the support of (at least) the centre-right minor party or one government senator. Thus, any legislation which is characterised as particularly left-leaning is almost certain to be blocked.

It is really very unusual for votes not to break along party lines in Australia, although it does happen occasionally. We are in a situation this term where a single defecting senator from either party may be able to create or derail legislation depending upon the split in the minor senators. It must be an interesting 3 years.

If the Greens are able to increase their primary vote to above 30% in some seats, they may be looking at the possibility of displacing Labor in some lower house seats. However, in order to achieve this, I beleive they'll need to broaden their policy agenda. It will be interesting to see if they can achieve this over the next few years, and become a bona fide third leg of Australian politics.

The example of the rise and fall of the Australian Democrats party (whose last senator exited unreplaced this election) and this rise of the Greens are both examples of the benefits of preference system voting.

Fat chance. Top of the world per capita CO2 emissions comprises a narrow group.

First, a cloud of ‘arabian’ countries - Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, and as runners up or hangers on, marginally less ‘polluting’, the US, Canada, Luxemburg, and Australia.

The differences in magnitude with other countries bear contemplating, they are stupendous; rank order doesn’t tell the story.

From Nation Master. Some of the stats are quite old. It is only indicative.

nation master

on edit, a small correction

Exactly. If it weren't for those tree-huggers, we'd have drilled ANWR years ago, and the tanks of our SUVs would be full of cheap gas. ;-)

Vote: who's more annoying, O'Reilly or Beck?

As in 'Hilton'.

Not the Eiffeltower one.

Hello Burgundy,

Thxs for responding. Yep, I like that little article mention of American golf course grass taking hold in Antarctica--I betcha the PGA and real estate developers are going crazy in anticipation of building the first luxury resort and championship golf course in Antarctica.

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

I use the analogy that it isn't like adding wood to the fire but like insulating the house; the biggest difference is out at the walls. Same fire, different thermal slope. Antarctica is out at the walls.

One of the effects of less slope is to reduce mixing and potentially reduce the amount of ocean moisture penetration of the continents. What is happening in the American West is what was predicted thirty years ago and similar to what happened in the last warm period of the 30's. The question isn't whether it's happening but whether it's more or less permanent. The Southeast drought looks to be anomalous and transitory but the West could be in trouble. The 30's went away.

Good 'mixing' conditions imply a fast and reliable jetstream that maintains a fairly straight path; oddball non sinewave type inflections and static standingwave anomalies are typical of poor circulation. Recent jetstream patterns are, well, troubling. Poor circulation and mixing lead to more extreme and anomalous weather.

I tire of hearing pros and cons and nays and yeas from those who lack a basic understanding of climatology. Rather than pronounce upon it, study it. It isn't that complicated and quite fascinating. I'm not sure if we are having much of an effect or if we are just finishing off our emergence from the Little Ice Age of 1700 but it is beginning to look like serious business. While you're getting yourself to the non discretionary side of the economy I'd also recommend sufficient freeboard.

As often the case, Wikipedia seems to be a good place to start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet#Potential_collapse...

References to point to the actual detail etc, the key one seems to be: _{Otto-Bliesner, Bette L.; Marshall, Shawn J. & Overpeck, Jonathan T. et al. (24 March 2006), "Simulating Arctic climate warmth and icefield retreat in the last interglaciation", Science 311 (5768): 1751–1753}

[edit: for clarity, below is from Wikipedia, not the research referenced above]

In January 2006, in a UK government-commissioned report, the head of the British Antarctic Survey, Chris Rapley, warned that this huge west Antarctic ice sheet may be starting to disintegrate, an event that could raise sea levels by at least 5 metres (16 ft).

"Parts of the Antarctic ice sheet that rest on bedrock below sea level have begun to discharge ice fast enough to make a significant contribution to sea level rise. ...

Jim Hansen, a senior NASA scientist who is a leading climate adviser to the US government, said the results were deeply worrying. "Once a sheet starts to disintegrate, it can reach a tipping point beyond which break-up is explosively rapid" he said

...

However, historical data shows that the last time that Greenland became this warm, the sea level rise generated by meltwater destabilised the Antarctic ice. That means that the models of sea-level rise used to predict an increase of up to 1 m (3 ft) by 2100 may have significantly underestimated its ultimate extent, which could be as great as 6 m (20 ft).

--J

Head for the hills - literally - no valleys okay...

Hi totoneila and john macklin...

Now let's see-
... if ONLY that ice sheet broke away and drifted into warmer waters and melted (almost) nothing would happen to the sea level. Why?

• Ice has a density of 0.9167 g/cm³ at 0 °C , USE 0.9
• whereas water has a density of 0.9998 g/cm³ , USE 1.0
• and as we know 1/9 part of a floating ice berg/sheet is above sea level …

From this derives that the ice sheet “just goes flat” and morphs into the sea, after melted.(sea level will actually shrink a little)
The trouble concerning melting ice is the kind making up glaciers on land, eg. Greenland and Antarctica (land portion)

You can test this postulate in taking some ice from your refrigerator and a glass of water, and remember to put a marker on the container just after you add some ice cubes … wait and see ;-)

I think we're all going to have to be very nimble and open to change.

That happened during the twilight of Rome. People left the farms and came to Rome, because it was easier to get food in the city than on the farms that grew it. Rome taxed farmers to the point that they were abandoning their land. So laws were passed forcing the children of farmers to be farmers, too.

Paul--
We need to decide if making a profit by moving people is the goal,
or if moving people at a loss for the benefit of society is the goal.
Or maybe there is another model?
It would be great if we could move people, benefit society, and make a profit,
but superstition based economic modes currently embraced by delusional humans make this impossible in most instances.

Good point, but for ethanol we'd also have to consider disruptions to food supply and that kind of thing. Also, does the cost of oil necessarily involve war, or was war just the preference of the current crowd in power, in which case it should not be included in the price of oil?

Still, you've made a good point.

I think the original scenario was this:

Saddam would definitely sell us all the oil he could, but he invited Russian and French oil companies to do the work and make the profits.

The particular interests of the Houston-oriented mid-size oil exploration and services industry---the Bush & Cheney base---were shut out.

Some truly international oil majors would have eventually gotten into Baathist Iraq after sanctions ended.

But not the fully 100% American companies which rule Texas and Wyoming Republicans.

Removing Saddam and inserting the Bush proconsul would let these people make enormous profits, a portion of which would go back to the specific Bush & Cheney powerbases.

Won't ever. lost cause.

RBM

The two terms we should be talking about are air barrier and vapor barrier. An air barrier impedes the flow of air but is not impervious to the flow of water vapor, a vapor barrier (4 mil or greater poly or like product) is impervious to the flow of water vapor/vapor pressure. Caution must be used when placing any air or vapor barrier, this barrier must be on the warm side. In Minnesota this means the inside (room side) of the wall, in an area where AC predominates the air barrier is on the outside of the wall. In a cold/dry climate I use a poly vapor barrier on the warm side continuously sealed, insulation of your choice with a fiberboard sheathing (joints sealed) and tyvek or other housewrap. This wall will dry to the outside (cold side), a wall has to be able to dry to the inside, the outside, or both, according to the building scientists. I have successfully used poly on the inside along with a high-R sheathing such as styrofoam or Thermax which defies the building science law but if the wall section is virtually air and vapor tight on both sides, this works nicely. Pay particular attention to flashing details, the exterior drainage plane and soil grading and building moisture problems can be avoided.

Vaporlock,
Can you share the name of the insulating paint you used? I need to do my attic.

Thanks,
Gunga