DrumBeat: December 9, 2007

Tom Whipple: We Know We'll Run Out — the Big Question Is 'When?'

Not only are supplies of cheap oil dwindling; the world's demand for oil is climbing rapidly. This is the primary reason we have seen the price of oil go from $20 to nearly $100 a barrel in this decade. Most of the increased demand is coming from China, India and other Asian countries. However, the oil exporting states such as those in the Persian Gulf, Russia and Venezuela are starting to keep an increasing share of their production for domestic use.

For the United States this is all very bad news.

We Need To Face Prospect of Dire Effects On All Of Us

When supply for oil and natural gas can no longer keep pace with demand, prices will rise and problems begin. Since oil and natural gas are the most concentrated and flexible energy resources ever found and account for two-thirds of the energy we use, the implications of them declining are ominous. There are no magic bullets — not nuclear, coal, oil sands, biofuels, hydrogen, wind, or solar — that will fully replace oil and gas. We must learn to get by with less energy – a lot less.

Peak oil: A problem that’s not going away

The Cantarell oil field in the Bay of Campeche in Mexico was a national treasure — the third-largest oil field ever found. But after 30 short years the field’s production is petering out. Mexico’s national oil company has informed the United States that the field is in terminal decline and will not be able to export by about 2012. That’s very bad news for us. Cantarell supplies about 12 percent of all U.S. oil. Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay, Britain’s North Sea fields, Kuwait’s Burgan field, Russia’s Samatlor field-the list of mega-giants in decline goes on. Sadly, the second half of an oil field’s production is typically harder and slower to extract than the first half.

As Iraqis Vie for Kirkuk’s Oil, Kurds Become Pawns

his unstable city can ill afford much more delay and uncertainty. The fusion of oil, politics and ethnic tensions make Kirkuk one of the most potentially explosive places in the country, and its fate is seen as a crucial issue by all sides in the debate about whether Iraq will eventually be partitioned among Kurds, Sunni Arabs and Shiite Arabs.

Playing politics with heating costs

Chairman Markey says there is an oil shortage, but wants to keep the ban on oil and gas exploration in some of the most prospective U.S. areas - the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, much of the West, and Alaska. He wants to raise taxes on oil companies and change offshore leasing terms put in place by the Clinton Administration. Those tax and lease terms allowed Chevron, a U.S. company, to make a huge oil discovery in the Gulf of Mexico that was otherwise impossible. Billions in additional investment could add 50 percent to U.S. proved oil reserves by 2011. These measures would prevent any such effort, raise prices, cut domestic oil exploration, and increase imports.

Koreans Struggle to Clean Up Oil Spill

Thousands of people used shovels and buckets Sunday to clean up a devastating oil spill at a scenic beach in South Korea's western coast, some battling headaches and nausea from the stench.

Country may face 60 percent LPG shortage after de-linking of prices

The country may face a shortage of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) by 60 percent in near future after de-linking the LPG prices with international market, a senior official in Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (OGRA) told Daily Times here on Saturday.

Petrol smuggling blamed for Mekong farmers’ fuel shortage

Farmers in the Mekong River Delta are faced with a serious shortage of fuel for the upcoming season as thousands of litres of fuel are being smuggled out of the country every day.

Hundreds of boats on the waterways of the south-western province of Kien Giang are carrying petrol to Cambodia where it can be sold at a higher price than in Viet Nam.

Hydrogen Car Is Here, but Where’s the Hydrogen Economy?

It’s one thing to have a few hydrogen cars, and another thing entirely to transform an energy and transportation system built on fossil fuels into one built on hydrogen generated without producing carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse-gas emission linked to recent global warming. In a 2004 report, the National Academy of Sciences said such a transition was probably decades away.

A Personal Evaluation of Nuclear Energy in Turkey - 2007

We shall enter into a serious energy crisis in 2008-2009, which is foreseen by all parties. Our big players of public and private enterprises have foreseen the bottleneck. They had meetings one after another. Turkish energy market is not so easy, not so profitable. It is a very tough sector. It is a very difficult market. Public enterprises cannot make new investments, they have no financial resources to allocate, no money to spend.

$10b Petro Rabigh project to diversify Saudi economy

The integrated oil refinery and petrochemical complex of Petro Rabigh will prove a tipping point in the kingdom's efforts to diversify its economy and forge the development of sustainable downstream industries.

Kingdom Hikes Subsidies of Rice, Baby Milk

Saudi Arabia yesterday announced plans to subsidize sales of rice in the country at the rate of SR1,000 per ton. The subsidy for baby milk will go from SR2 to SR12 per kilogram as part of efforts to reduce the financial burden on public caused by soaring consumer prices.

Efforts to Harvest Ocean’s Energy Open New Debate Front

Chris Martinson and his fellow fishermen catch crab and shrimp in the same big swell that one day could generate an important part of the Northwest’s energy supply. Wave farms, harvested with high-tech buoys that are being tested here on the Oregon coast, would strain clean, renewable power from the surging sea.

They might make a mess of navigational charts, too.

“I don’t want it in my fishing grounds,” said Mr. Martinson, 40, who docks his 74-foot boat, Libra, here at Yaquina Bay, about 90 miles southwest of Portland. “I don’t want to be worried about driving around someone else’s million-dollar buoy.”

Forest Loss in Sumatra Becomes a Global Issue

Here on the island of Sumatra, about 1,200 miles from the global climate talks under way on Bali, are some of the world’s fastest-disappearing forests.

A look at this vast wasteland of charred stumps and dried-out peat makes the fight to save Indonesia’s forests seem nearly impossible.

Trucks Power China’s Economy, at a Suffocating Cost

Every night, columns of hulking blue and red freight trucks invade China’s major cities with a reverberating roar of engines and dark clouds of diesel exhaust so thick it dims headlights.

By daybreak in this sprawling metropolis in southeastern China, residents near thoroughfares who leave their windows open overnight find their faces stiff with a dark layer of diesel soot.

Radars Taken Out by Arctic Warming

In another weird sign of global warming…

The Pentagon is closing down three of the 20 NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) early-warning radar sites in northern Alaska because the ground they’re built on in some cases is literally crumbling into the Arctic Ocean as a result of erosion caused by waves on ice-free waters, military officials at the U.S. Northern Command tell me. One site, Point Lonely, a short-range radar on Alaska’s North Slope, was closed specifically because of soil erosion. In two other cases, short-range radars in Bullen Point and Wainwright, are being shuttered for both erosion and budget reasons.

Warming and the Right

LAST June, Jim Manzi, a longtime software executive, laid out a case in The National Review for the need for conservatives to accept the “reality” of global warming (nationalreview.com). It is, he wrote, “no longer possible, scientifically or politically, to deny that human activities have very likely increased global temperatures; what remains in dispute is the precise magnitude of the human impact.”

To The Last Drop?

The world's supply of oil is reaching a production peak, while demand continues to grow rapidly, the panel of experts told the dozen or so lawmakers in attendance. With production unable to meet demand in coming years, oil prices will rise dramatically and gasoline shortages will develop, panelists contended.

The scenario described was one of looming disaster, a calamity that the state of Connecticut and the rest of the United States are ill prepared for. And this is not a catastrophe that will come and go, but persist for years, even decades, as the country goes through the painful process of weaning itself off cheap oil and settling into a lifestyle that recognizes the new reality of oil scarcity.

Geothermal power should fuel U.S. military

In times of crisis and shortages the military has always been necessary to preserve order. But this time they too will be in a crisis short of oil and power.

Efficient bulbs given out door to door

Calling their effort "The Light Brigade," the men had collected nearly $160 in donations to purchase bulbs and other people had purchased the light bulbs and donated them, according to Basford.

...The men are members of the Central Maine Peak Oil Group, which meets at 10:45 a.m. the first Sunday of every month at the church in Waterville to determine ways to curb energy use in central Maine.

One writer finds it's not easy building green

In these times of combined threat from climate change, peak oil, pollution and toxic waste, green home building not only makes sense, it is imperative.

But the roadblocks put up to stop residential green building (some on purpose, some accidental, some absurd) are keeping Americans and Vermonters from investing in eco-friendly homes.

The Central Bank: Silent Partner In the Bloodletting

There could be anarchy or tyranny or martial law or detention camps. Who really knows? It’s perfectly normal that the public is worried about “what could happen” in the near future. But, consider this: can we continue moving in the same direction that we are now? Can we keep pouring the blood of innocent people all over the planet while claiming to own the world and all of its resources? Can we keep ignoring the species-threatening challenges of global warming, peak oil and nuclear proliferation?

Australia: Desal option doesn't hold water

It is expected to get the go-ahead, even though the only changes since the original inquiry are "peak oil" and the spectre of climate warming, which are likely to make this type of infrastructure even more redundant in a city striving to maintain liveability.

Cheap Oil is So Yesterday. Time to Start Writing Expensive Oil into Our Plans?

Our fundamental assumptions about the continuing availability of cheap oil to fuel the American lifestyle are being tested. Last year the topic of peak oil – the idea that the world is approaching a maximum limit to oil production - was virtually taboo in polite company and business journals. This November, however, the Wall Street Journal ran a Page One piece: “Oil Officials See Limit Looming on Production”. If that's not the definition of peak oil, I'm not sure what is.

Victims of record world oil prices?

Fuelled by geopolitics and speculations world oil price reached a record level of US$99.25 per barrel over the last three weeks. This is beyond what anyone could have predicted 10 years ago. In fact, in the late 1990s the worst-case prediction of many energy economists and experts was that oil may average US$30 per barrel by 2015. The world has seen prices consistently above twice that level since 2002.

UW campus to plug in electric bikes

You're a University of Washington medical student and you need to run an errand at University Village, but you rode the bus to school and it's a long walk from the university health-sciences campus to the shopping center.

Beginning next fall, the university will have a solution: electric bikes.

Malaria climbs into warmer highlands

In one New Guinea hilltop village the message was rooted deep in lore: If you hunt in the valley below and sleep there overnight, evil spirits will possess you, you'll become sick, and you'll die.

It was a homespun kind of malaria control in the highlands of this western Pacific island, long free of the disease-bearing mosquitoes that plague the hot and humid nights of its lowlands, said Dr. Ivo Mueller, a lead scientist at the Papua New Guinea Institute of Medical Research.

As the Earth warms, however, "malaria epidemics in the highlands are now basically happening every year," Mueller said.

US 'not ready' to commit at Bali

The United States will come up with its own plan to cut global-warming gases by mid-2008, and won't commit to mandatory caps at the U.N. climate conference here, the chief U.S. negotiator said Saturday.

"We're not ready to do that here," said Harlan Watson, the State Department's senior climate negotiator and special representative. "We're working on that, what our domestic contribution would be, and again we expect that sometime before the end of the Major Economies process."

In Bali, developing nations push for climate aid

High in the Himalayas, Bhutan is scrambling to fend off the onrushing effects of climate change. Two dozen lakes swollen by glacial melting are in danger of bursting their earthen dams and sweeping through the mountain kingdom like an inland tsunami.

"This is a big problem for Bhutan" as it tries to adapt to climate change, says Thinley Namgyel, with the country's National Environment Commission.

Venezuelan president promises oil supply for Belarus

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez promised Saturday to supply oil to Belarus signing an agreement with the former Soviet state's visiting president for a joint venture to exploit oil and natural gas in Venezuela.

"The oil your nation needs ... is here, as much as you need for 100 years, 200 years," Chavez said at a ceremony at Guara Este oilfield in eastern Venezuela.

Editorial: Conserving oil

Turn on the television news, almost nightly, and there will be some story speculating about the price of oil. The price is going up. The price is going down. People are driving more despite the high price.

And, of course, ethanol is coming. In reality, ethanol would be a Pyrrhic victory -- trading higher food costs for marginally cheaper fuel. Think the world is mad at us now? Think we're a target for terrorism? Wait until it's cheaper to buy a rocket launcher than food for a block.

Kenya: Outcry Over High Petrol Prices

Kenyan motorists Friday asked the Government to act on the escalating fuel prices.

Through the Motorists Association of Kenya, they said the Government had the power to control fuel prices yet it was being reluctant.

Crabber to deliver emergency fuel under unique state plan

The diesel fuel that powers buildings and heats houses in the Aleut village of 460 is critically low, said Phyllis Swetzof, city clerk.

"If we don't get something in soon, we will stop delivering to homes, because we'll have to focus entirely on serving the power plant," said Swetzof.

Indonesia: Jambi has 500 million tons of exploitable coal deposits

Jambi`s calculated and exploitable coal potential with calories of 4,500 to 5,400 kkal/kg reached 500 million tons.

This vast energy potential needs to be exploited and used for economic development, especially electric energy generation, Jambi Governor H Zulkifli Nurdin said here on Friday.

Britain's wind power revolution

Britain is to embark on a wind power revolution that will produce enough electricity to power every home in the country, ministers will reveal tomorrow.

US plan to cut greenhouse gases by 70 per cent signals change of heart on climate change

Key measures to tackle global warming have been approved in the US Congress, signalling the first crack in the granite face that the Bush administration has set against cutting the pollution that causes climate change.

GCC to consider revaluation soon

Gulf Arab oil producers are considering revaluing their dollar-pegged currencies together and will hold talks on a change in the exchange rates "in the next few days", Bahrain’s foreign minister said yesterday.

Saudi Arabia and five neighbours preparing for monetary union as early as 2010 ruled out dropping pegs to the tumbling dollar after a summit last week and said any talks on revaluation would be kept secret.

Riyadh may allow foreigners to invest in stocks

Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil exporter, plans to allow foreigners to invest in its stocks and initial public offerings through domestic funds, the stock market regulator said in an interview aired yesterday.

Minister: Iran, China set to sign major oil deal

Iran and China's Sinopec could, as early as Sunday, sign a final multi-billion dollar agreement for the development of the Yadavaran onshore oil field, the Iranian oil minister said.

Oil industry in Beiji makes it bomb target

A truck bomb killed at least six police officers and wounded 16 people Saturday in the northern oil hub of Beiji, the second attack in two days to take aim at Iraq's most lucrative industry.

Water becomes the new oil as world runs dry

Western companies have the know-how - and the financial incentive - to supply water to poor nations.

There's a story in today's New York Times regarding the problem of declining exports from oil producing countries. Looks like Jeffrey Brown's Export Land Model is gaining some acceptance.

Oil-Rich Nations Use More Energy, Cutting Exports

E. Swanson

Already been posted several times in yesterday's DrumBeat.

The full print version on the front page of the paper is quite a bit longer than the summary that the Times posted online yesterday.

Congratulations !

Any links to longer version ?

Best Hopes,


The link that Black Dog provided goes to the longer version. IMO, Cliff Krauss wrote a very good introduction to the topic of declining net oil exports.

I don't recall your getting a citation in the article, though you've acknowledged they spoke to you.


Cliff and I had several conversations, but I am in no way taking any kind of credit for this story. This is his work, and I think that he did a very good job. I don't know what kind of discussions went on behind the scenes at the Times, but my guess is that trying to discuss the mathematical models of future exports was too complicated for an introductory article, and perhaps too scary.

My only real complaint is that I think that the MSM guys should reference the fact that Yergin's price and production projections have so far been way off the mark.

Even such an original thinker as Darwin acknowledges in the "Preface" of Origin of Species that all his ideas have "predecessors," and he cites every single one.

The least the reporter could have done was acknowledge a paraphrase. Some of it sounds awfully familiar:

Experts say the sharp growth, if it continues, means several of the world’s most important suppliers may need to start importing oil within a decade to power all the new cars, houses and businesses they are buying and creating with their oil wealth.

That "Experts say" is one of the crappiest phrases in journalese. The whole passage sounds lifted from graphoilogy.com.

Of course, we were building on prior work too, by Simmons & Deffeyes, among others.

But fundamentally the MSM guys that are willing to start talking about declining oil production and oil exports are only to be congratulated.


Der Spiegel ran an article quoting the NYT, but mentioned that the NYT had drawn its information from a study by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC).

Here is the link.

They also quoted Yergin at the end!

That being said, Spiegel has been pretty good and comes out regularly now with articles that would have been unimaginable just six months ago.


Why does everyone keep quoting Yergin, when he's been so wrong? What does this guy have to do to discredit himself?

Why do media report on Paris Hilton?

Why does the most moronic presidential candidates get the most air time?

It's all in the entertainment value, not in the newsworthiness of the content :)

Why do media report on Paris Hilton?

Because then each of us can delude himself (herself) into thinking we're smarter.

Good to see it in the MSM. Still full of dumb ass statements though. From the article:

"In some cases, the governments of these countries subsidize gasoline heavily for their citizens, selling it for as little as 7 cents a gallon, a practice that industry experts say fosters wasteful habits."

This is rich! It may be true, but selling it for $3/gallon to Mr and Mrs America fosters wasteful habits too - would they prefer that it be used so Mrs America can drive her darling bubs to school in her SUV, or so Mr America can drive 50 miles to his finance job where he helps the world along with more derivatives scams? Heh :)

I think you'd be very lucky to see anything criticizing "experts" like CERA...

Um.... NZS .... you're obviously not inside the Empire or you'd know that many Empire subjects feel it's extremely unfair that "those ragheads" pay pennies to the dollar of what they spend on gas. That gas "should" be burned up in an American SUV, in America!

And in fact the pennies-per-liter (or gallon) price "those people" pay overseas pay is being used as an argument that we should only pay that here. And this is in the more liberal news sources....

I kind of am in a mini version of the Empire, here... [sigh]

Hi WT,

Appreciation for your contribution and efforts to educate.

re: "real complaint".

Perhaps a short letter-to-the-editor would do the trick. (Just a general suggestion - not meant for you, specifically).

That article ran as the big front page story in my local paper this morning (Times Union of Albany, NY) so it's getting picked up by other papers.

I found it to be a strange article. They kept bouncing back and forth between "OMG, oil producers aren't going to be able to export nearly as much oil in the future! We're in big trouble!", to "But we don't expect there to be any shortages or anything because of that fact, so no big deal".

IMO, one word: editors, but I could be wrong.

WT, I am sorry that you are not getting credit for your work. At least you are secure in the knowledge that those of us that read TOD realize and appreciate your efforts. Thank you.

What else can we expect? If you were an 'Original American' (whoever they were), not only would editor-thieves be stealing your ideas...but your land and resources, killing you and family, trampling on your culture and traditions, and forcing you to learn a language that you didnt need in the past...and then re-writing history to cover their dastardly deeds...While labeling you a heathen to justify the entire process.

Absolutely you should get some credit for the model. At least everyone here knows this is analysis you've been beating the drum about for a long time now.

This is after all the Grande Dame of the news (advertising) business. The same sort who would report of the Emperor with no clothes on, "The Emperor was seen wearing stylish haute couture see thru clothes."

Reminds me of a quote I heard recently:

"It would seem that the Emperor has no clothes, but that nudity is now in fashion".

A good link with the details of the House Energy Bill.


Still unclear to me is if the tax credit for tankless gas & propane water heaters will continue. Tax credits for conservation will continue, but details are missing.

Best Hopes,


Alan, the missing details can be had here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills...

All One Thousand and Thirty-Six pages of them. (PDF warning)


Good luck with sorting it out.

This is a common tactic. fill a bill up with so much language that it makes it impossible for the senators and congressmen to read the whole thing before voting on it so they have to rely on skewed abstracts/summary's.

Thanks but No Thanks !

Best Hopes for Detailed & Accurate Summaries,


Re: the above story on Britain planning to fulfill all electrical needs from wind. I had to check my calendar. Is it April fool's day?

But they are also pursuing nuclear, so perhaps they plan to see some excess electricity to wind. Does anyone believe they will actually be able to do this?

It's doable. Not doable, it is easy.

The only thing between "doable" or "easy" and "done" is lobbyism and politics. Nuclear lobbyists fought against this a lot, and oil/coal lobbyists did that for ages. But now, with energy prices skyrocketing, these lobbyists are losing solid grounds.

It was a matter of time, really, before this kind of decision was made. The only remaining question is: is it enough?

Storage? What form of storage are they planning to employ? No mention of that. Intermittent is better than nothing, but in the long run you need some form of smoothing.

storage is one of the reasons Lovelock used against WT. did he purposely overlooked ammonia?


I am wading through the papers you pointed out here:


I've not yet had a chance to follow up on the wind to ammonia projects out there - apparently one is at a Minnesota University and the other is somewhere in the Pacific Northwest.

Do you have any sense of what the benefit would be for a hybrid system? The H2 from water is an easy thing and the actual ammonia formation is not yet perfected, so perhaps a hydrolysis H2 with the final stage being done in the traditional fashion with NG is the way to go?

This is pretty exciting stuff - no need for a water impound area, no need for an air pressurizable underground reservoir, just store the created ammonia in a tank and burn it in a device very similar to today's large scale diesel generations. The safety training on this stuff occurs around here every year for farmers and its just not the big of a deal to handle the stuff in an industrial setting ...

Those Hydrogen Engine Center guys are already selling ammonia powered Ford 300-6 engines based on Ford cores or their own block design into the irrigation market. Its a teeny, tiny step of mating the engine to an electric generator assembly, putting sheet metal around it, and then you'd have a working electric generation, albeit limited to at most 250kW ... definite proof of concept on the single farm scale. I strongly suspect a turbine solution is the right way to go for large scale generation as opposed to a piston engine, but if there is research on this I've not found it yet.


Do you have any sense of what the benefit would be for a hybrid system? The H2 from water is an easy thing and the actual ammonia formation is not yet perfected, so perhaps a hydrolysis H2 with the final stage being done in the traditional fashion with NG is the way to go?

since SSAS is still in development stage, the immediate and proven solution is via electrolysis and HB synthesis if the electricity from WT is already in place. but if the WTs are yet to be installed, then one should take a look at the SSAS more closely. the folks working on that are very decent. last time i checked with them, it is only about four months away from production ready.

for electric generation from NH3, you can also read the ammonia fueled turbine work in the presentations.

Re: the above story on Britain planning to fulfill all electrical needs from wind.

Careful, they said "the electricity to power all homes". Which means not counting commercial/industrial use. I don't know what the ratios are. From the article, they're talking about tripling 8 TW existing to 25 TW by 2020, primarily offshore. That's about 10%/year compounded exponential, which seems doable if they're fairly aggressive about heading off NIMBYism.


GW. not TW. 25TW is more than the world's total energy (not just electricity) consumption as of today.

what do you mean by "actually be able" to do that? the wind resources are certainly out there - enough to fulfill all their energy needs not just electricity.

Ah, but their permits for WTs are almost impossible to get !

England (less so Scotland) is the center of the anti-wind campaign, would make Mr. Wakefield proud.

Unsure if the proposed 100 MW offshore wind farm off the mouth of the Thames ever got the permit for a transformer onshore, but it was held up for a year.

Best Hopes for British Wind Farms,


sure. even Lovelock is against WTs.

WTs, even the off-(but near)-shore ones, will run into tons of resistance not just from the NIMBYs and BANANAs. that's why it should be done like here.

Alan, you just gotta provoke a fight don't you.

I'll be clear one more time.

If the wind is there build the WT and use the power. But not all places have sufficient wind to justify their construction. Seems much of the construction, such as here in Ontario, is subsidized big time to only bend to political pressures. And like ethanol, will show in some areas to not be a viable option in the long run.

The issue will also be one of scale. WT are seen as a panacea that will solve a major part of our demand for energy (all homes in the UK). They will in no way be able to do that. As time goes on, my prediction will be, that they will provide some energy some times, but in some places be a huge disappointment. What they will be in time is monuments to our desperation.

So please stop trying to characterize my position.

Richard Wakefield

Ontario has sufficient wind, 29% capacity factor observed in the first year vs 32% average in the USA. Combined with the very large dispatchable hydro in Ontario, wind is a very viable source of power in Ontario. Your own utility, Ontario Power Generation (OPG), plans for 12% of total MWh from wind (a program you strongly oppose). (I think they can double that % with some transmission expansions).

From 2006 data, this would make OPG 54% nuke (w/o Pickering or Bruce mothballed reactors), 33% hydro (I think 2006 was a slightly wet year. expansions should increase that to 34% or 34.5%), 12% wind for a 99% non-GHG grid in "slightly wet" years and without growth. My review of OPG shows that this goal is eminently achievable at economic costs. Wind will be ideal for the growing winter electrical demand to fuel ground loop heat pumps.

Yet you incorrectly characterize the Ontario wind as "only working 20% [not 29%] of the time. Leaving aside the issue if 20% capacity factor would be adequate to support WT expansion, this repeated and willful mischaracterization of the facts, combined with your personal word of mouth campaign against wind, marks you as extremely anti-wind. Anti-wind enough to be willing to distort the facts to support your position.

You much prefer burning coal instead because it will lower your monthly bill a couple of dollars. Burning natural gas would likely be more expensive than wind in Ontario.

I have spent a couple of days patiently explaining to you the technical facts of wind power and the specifics of OPG, how hydro is dispatched, etc, but you appear to be immune to facts. A trend that continues with your anti-GW positions.

Wasting so much of my time on you is a major source of my irritation.


BTW, you did not even comprehend the difference between capacity value and capacity factor in the article you quoted. The quote supported my position.

I did suggest that OPG, due to improving WT technology and appreciating loonie, reduce their buy price for wind a bit.

Wasting so much of my time on you is a major source of my irritation.

Then you should not have brought my name up in your original post. Of course I'm going to respond.

I have no idea where you are getting the 29% from. No where in that report does it say anything other than:

The overall yearly capacity value is approximately 20% for all wind penetration scenarios. In other words, 10,000 MW of installed nameplate wind capacity is equivalent to approximately 2,000 MW of firm generation capacity.

So please provide your reference for the 29%.


...the capacity value approaches the overall yearly capacity factor.

As for the goal of 12%. It's one thing to want to do that and quite another to be able to do that.

Ontario currently consumes 20,856Mw. 12% would require 1668 turbines at name plate capacity. But since the "firm generation capacity" is only 20% that means 5 times more turbines to get to that 12%, or 8342 wind turbines. For a total cost of about $13B. But how long would it take to build them? At 50 per year 167 years. You would have to built more than 800 per year to get them built in 10 years (the same as a nuke plant).

But what does 8000 turbines actually look like? They need to be 500 mtrs apart. Thus if you were to build 2 per kilometer in a straight line it would be FIVE times longer than from Windsor to Ottawa (800km). That means a wind turbine every 500 meters from Windsor to Ottawa is only 1/5 of the required to get to that 12%.

Couple this with the threat of oil decline, and a possible economic collapse, and I can in now way see how this could possibly be done.

Richard Wakefield

I have no idea where you are getting the 29% from. No where in that report does it say anything other than:

From YOUR own post !


Ontario's large wind farms completing one year of service generated on average 29% of what they could have under ideal conditions

I previously brought this to your attention (note immunity to facts, saying you had no idea where I got the 29%)


OPG I am sure is full of incompetents that need the expert guidance of Mr. Wakefield to save them from their errors (a Mr. Wakefield that does not understand the delta between capacity value and capacity factor)./sarcanol

Storage hydro (i.e dams) uniformly has a capacity value > capacity factor which matches up nicely with wind that has a capacity value < capacity factor.

Your calculations are wrong and misleading. First, use 29% and not 20%. Second measure square area (Ontario has a lots of that) and not linear distance to get a better idea of the impact.

Since I have already wasted 43 minutes on you again, I will not review your calcs in detail (although I suspect that they are wrong), although an average (rather than max) output of 20.85 GW seems a bit high. OPG has real time generation stats on the web and they seem to be running 12 to 15 GW in the last couple of weeks.

Best Hopes for You Going Elsewhere,


That quote is from the National Post for the 29%, and quite frankly that is probably a misquote on their part (so is the bottom range they quoted at 13%, for the report says 16%). So you are accusing me of using wrong data that comes from the actual source, but instead I should use the news paper (obviouosly) misquoted rate of 29%?

So yes, I did not see that in the National Post, but it's number is suspect. The report is clear it's 20%. So I'm correct in using the 20% as that is what the report says is the actual output.

So sure square area. What is it? Assuming 5 per sqr kilometer for 8000 turbines it's 1670 sqr kilometers or for an area 40km by 40km is a sea of wind turbines. Stand in the middle and they go off beyond the curvature of the earth in all directions. Bascially the size of the City of Toronto and surrounding regions.

Interesting you bypassed the time it would take to build them.

Richard Wakefield

The quote is YOUR quote. selected & highlighted by you from the Financial Times (from memory) ! See link to YOUR post !

It is *NOT* an "obvious misquote" (Again Mr. Wakefield to the rescue of incompetent copy editors).

It seems slightly low (first year break-in bugs I suspect). I own stock in Canadian Hydro Developers which is now diversifying into wind. From memory, they were getting capacity factors in low 30%.

So you do NOT like the facts, so you make up your own.

You conflate two entirely separate metrics (more likely just immunity from facts), capacity factor and capacity value (heh they sound alike) and ascribe data for one to the other metric.

I told you earlier {sigh} that Texas WTs had a capacity factor of 33% and a capacity value of 10% (with links) and T Boone Pickens has announced a decision to invest $6 billion into them (others are investing many billions more). I once hoped (vainly) that this would illustrate the difference.

Texas appears likely to install 4 GW of wind next year. Ontario should be able to install 5 GW (much closer to truth than your false 8 GW) in ten (or less) years to give 12% of total annual MWh generated.


8000 wind turbines sounds like a lot, but isn't so scary if you consider that something like 16 million cars / light trucks are built each year worldwide, and there are near a half-billion of them now.

And a 40 x 40 KM plot doesn't sound like the end of the world either. Besides - you'd never do it that way, you'd want to build several smaller wind farms over a larger geographical area so that the chances are better of some of them having wind at any one time.

I think the days of thinking we can hide our energy infrastructure out of sight are over. I think it might be a good thing(tm) if we all have to live with the monsters that feed this 6 billion human beast.

People, we have half the oil left. The first half built nearly everything you see, which is unsustainable. I see no alternative to using the second half to re-make a sustainable civilization. (But that's just me and my jar of Johnny Walker talking.)

I drive through any area with many 750kW wind turbines - much larger than the sited 40km x 40km area. There are 252 units ...

And it should be noted that beneath the turbines there are row upon row of corn plants. The turbines get less than an acre of cleared land around their base and a little rock road so they can be serviced year round. Wind turbines on land already in agricultural use is very, very low impact ...

I am ashamed to have inserted myself into the middle of this ongoing duel, as the word debate no longer applies. No offense intended to either gentleman seeking satisfaction, but perhaps someone can produce a Reader's Digest version for those of us who've grown tired of the rancor?

... perhaps someone can produce a Reader's Digest version for those of us who've grown tired of the rancor?

Oh please! Please???

Only half tongue in cheek on my response - if its really that interesting I would suggest less sniping and maybe apply all of that energy to a guest post?

From My POV.

Mr. Wakefield came onto TOD with an early lambast against wind turbines in Ontario, supporting coal burning instead "because 12% wind will not work". Later he mentioned that "it's economics", i.e. cheaper and he did not want to pay a penny more for wind (a point that I granted him).

Several queries showed that he had no understanding about utility operations, particularly in his own province. His reasoning for opposing wind was founded on a series of false beliefs about hydro operations, expansion possibilities for hydro are more limited than he imagines (I showed in great detail), wind operations, etc. Every reason given (except coal is a little cheaper) by him has been consistently overturned by facts.

See also his recent claim that enough WTs could not be built in time. (Ontario will have 1.25 GW of WT installed by 12/08, they need about 7 GW "within ten years" to meet their goals).

I quite patiently went over each of his errors in understanding utility operations, etc. (and with a neutral voice at first) and spent well over a day on him, but Mr. Wakefield has shown himself to be consistently immune to facts.

I have no doubt that this personality trait carries over into Global Warming as well.

Hope that Gives a Quick Summary,



I really get tired of these never ending pissing constests. Either put up your best shot with links and a couple of relevant responses or shut up. You haven't made any points with me. Why don't you find another forum.


Todd, I ask:

The official report is what I have already posted.


This is the offical report on wind turbines in Ontario.

On page 7 it states this:

The average capacity value of the wind resource in Ontario during the summer (peak load) months is approximately 17%. The capacity value ranges from 38% to 42% during the winter months (November to February) and from 16% to 19% during the summer months (June to August). Since 87% of the
hits (periods within 10% of the load peak) occur during the summer months, the overall yearly capacity value is expected to be heavily weighted toward the summer. The overall yearly capacity value is approximately 20% for all
wind penetration scenarios. In other words, 10,000 MW of installed nameplate wind capacity is equivalent to approximately 2,000 MW of firm generation capacity.

The definisions of the two capacities is noted specifically as:

The classical definition of capacity factor is the average power output during all the hours over a defined period of time divided by the nameplate rating of
the generation resource. Capacity value is a measure of the generation resource output during critical periods throughout the year, such as when the load is within
10% of its peak.

No where in the document it says anything about 29% capacity factor. No where. What is it about the firm generation capactity that I'm wrong about?

The question comes down to is 20% from generation capacity worth the investment if there is other forms of electrical output that is relyable, constant, and cheep? And don't take as long to build.

Even if we could gear up like we do with cars, it would take decades to get there, as the auto industry has been built up. It might be possible to build 800 a year, but would any one be physically able to?

Richard Wakefield

Capacity value is of no concern to OPG. Thus your focus on this obscure utility accounting measure is misplaced.

OPG has a significant surplus to peak demand, especially in the summer. Almost none of the OPG hydro plants are classic run-of-the river hydro plants, outside of Niagara, they are classic dams with capacity values significantly larger than capacity factors. Thus wind turbines, with capacity values (20%) smaller than capacity factors (29% or 30%) can be balanced by existing hydropower plants in Ontario.

I even documented for you during one day of posting (noted is a series of posts) how OPG hydro production (available on-line) went from a bit over 1 GW to a bit over 4 GW in a single day. A crystal clear example of capacity value far in excess of capacity factor.

Sir Adam Beck (Niagara), because of the 3 km2 forebay, is a hybrid between run-of-the river and storage. They can shift power from late night to daytime by storing water in their forebay.

If OPG was concerned about capacity value they could:

1) simply add generators to existing hydropower plants (including Sir Adam Beck). This would add no more fuel (it would lower capacity factor) but increase capacity value. (Note that this is what is done at USA dams. USA hydro capacity factor averages 50% since we boost capacity value. Canada averages 60% capacity factor since you have a surplus of capacity value).

2) Buy hydropower from Quebec and/or Manitoba (both hydro power exporters). Buy a block of, say 50 GWh in the spring and use it as needed during peak demand. The selling utility will set aside enough water to generate that 50 GWh as requested by OPG during peak.

But OPG is *NOT* concerned about capacity value since they have a significant surplus. Their one natural gas fired plant is another source of surplus capacity value. I daresay that NG plant has a capacity value >90% and a capacity factor of 1% or 2% or even zero for the year.

Texas (ERCOT) assigns a lower capacity value (10%) to wind than OPG does (20%), but that is of no concern to the Texans. Please note the graph at


The light blue at the bottom of Texas, but the graph is only through June 30, 2007. As of September 30th Texas had 3,953 MW in operation and over 1 GW more under active construction. Soon transmission lines will need expansion in Texas to take the ever increasing generation from wind.

As a side note, the average turbine size is almost 2 MW in Texas "under construction". 116 Siemens 2.3 MW, 169 Gamesa 2 MW, 38 Suzlon 2.1 MW, 155 GE 1.5 MW, 209 Mitsubishi 1 MW plus some "unspecified". 2 MW WTs would cut the # required WTs by half in your faulty example (5 GW WT is much closer than 8 GW to produce 12% of the MWh @ OPG).

So I have shown, once again, in some detail that capacity value is unimportant in calculating how many WTs are needed in Ontario and their energy contribution. Capacity factor is the key metric and OPG, per FT, claimed 29% in their first year of operation. Canadian Hydro Development also gets good results from their WTs.

Another hour wasted, and I suspect that you will once again be immune to facts.


BTW, Canadian Hydro Development recently signed a 20 year contract with OPG for 18 MW of wind near Picton ON. CHD will be paid for electricity delivered only. CHD anticipates 47,300 MWh/year generated from the project. A few seconds with the calculator shows a 30% capacity factor is expected by the company.


Ontario currently consumes 20,856Mw

Another error apparently by Mr. Wakefield.



Ontario used 151 TWh in 2006. My calculator shows 17.24 GW average demand, not 20.856 GW (it sounded high).

12% of 17.24 is 2.07 GW of average wind energy.

At 30% capacity factor that would be 6.89 GW nameplate and 7.13 GW at 29% capacity factor. So I was wrong in stating that 5 GW was closer than 8 GW, but correct that 20+ GW average demand was too high. Ontario is scheduled to have 1.25 GW of wind installed by 12/2008.

Using 2 MW wind turbines, that would require about 3,500 WTs to be installed (see recent Texas "under construction" list).


Also of note was that winter peaks are only about 1 to 2 GW lower than summer peaks, Winter (as I have explained earlier) is the weak point for hydro (all that water is frozen) and the strong point for wind. All time actual peak was 27.005 GW on August 1, 2007.

Normal Weather Peak (MW)Extreme Weather Peak (MW)
Summer 2007........25,773.......27,585
Winter 2007-08.....24,745.......25,548
Summer 2008........26,028.......27,840

How many natural gas or oil furnaces need to be converted to ground loop heat pumps in order for the thw winter peak to equal the summer peak.

If each conversion is, say, 9 kW for winter heat and saves, say, 1 kW in the summer (higher efficiency), then 200,000 or so conversions to ground loop heat pumps should make winter peak = summer peak. With current trends, entirely possible IMHO.


Easy way to double % of power from wind: use 50% less power.

There's really no reason why most all users, residential and commercial/industrial, can't get by just fine on 50% less electrical usage.

Hi econ,

re: "can't get by just fine on..."

What about an *on-going* decline in available electricity?

If you're serious about this (I'm not good at sarconal) - a few Qs:

How to implement this? Or, do you just want for...rolling blackouts? or...?

Are you saying a 50% cut in usage has no effect on output for industrial and/or on products moved for commercial?

I can see the residential cutback being accomplished more easily, for some reason.

Why Wind?

1. Easy , soft option for a morally degenerate bunch of non-scientists in charge of UKGov.

2. Looks like they (UKGov) are 'doing something'. - Always nice for a politician to look as if they are doing something

3. Coal is nasty and dirty. Nukes are nasty and dirty (At least according to the media, hippies and generally legalised idiots that pass for a government in the UK).

I am pretty sure that most of them have no clue how energy is generated.

Some inconvenient factoids:

1. UK has not fed itself for over 90 years.
2. UK Population is currently running at circa 61m
3. UK Population is due to grow to 70 m - We dont have enough acreage to live like Samwise Gamgee, despite what the hippies think.
4. 20% of our coal capacity and about half our nukes are scheduled to go offline before 2020
5. We can no longer solve the problem with domestic supplies of gas.
6.Wind is between 30 - 40 % name-plate.
7. In order to cover the shortfall, you will need the same capacity on standby
8. When it gets cold, the UK population turn on the juice. But when it gets cold, the wind stops blowing. - About once or twice a year, usually in January.
9. You cannot store enough using H2, Ammonia or pump storage from wind to cover the shortfall when the wind aint blowing.
10. Above 20% WT Generation, the grid blows. The Germans and the Danes have met this little problem. Beyond 20% it needs to be stored. Grids require stability.

Sure, WT is a nice to have in some locations, so too is tidal, solar and sheep farts, but if you want security and stability of supply with back-up then you need:


About 40 should do it.

But UKGov has not got the bottle for it.

So, it looks like back to the bronze age for the 2 million survivors of the bottleneck. Maybe the wind power will be enough to let them listen to Jethro Tull, Genesis and Yes, On vinyl - assuming they have the nouse to wire a plug.

I wonder if it is too late to get a Degree in MadMaxology?

Brainless, fooking Brainless.

Last week when presenting to a Parliamentary meeting on peak oil and climate change, in the Palace of Westminster no less, Jeremy Leggett said that un-named 'powers that be' in Westminster will not even consider making a contingency plan assuming peak oil in case people got to hear about it and panicked!


Hi xeroid,

re: "...in case people got to hear about it and panicked!"

Someone needs to have a heart-to-heart with this PTB in the Palace. Or, rather, cold logic:

1) It may be (no scientific studies, lots of anecdotal evidence): most people who hear, will not be able to understand it, as they lack the context for doing so.

2) Some who very much have context, experience denial (natural enough) - so the result is exactly the same.

3) Of the category of people who can understand, a certain percentage may contribute toward a positive plan. (perhaps of their own) -

3) A "Plan" would give people something positive to work toward. A sense of control, and thus go far to ameliorate panic.

4) Keeping quiet means you have to live with yourself. If you live.

Nukes are good only for baseload, not much use for winter demand peaks.

Besides more nukes (and the UK does need them in the worst way !), the Brits also need for wind as a natural gas extender (same way the Texans use their WTs). A nice WT mix makes the available NG go much further.

What you REALLY need for those very cold calm winter nights is pumped storage. Take a half dozen or so of Welsh and Scottish mountains and store your excess wind (and nuke) in them.

Grid connections to Iceland and Norway/Jutland would also be quite useful as well !

Best Hopes for the Lights Staying on,


“Does anyone believe they will actually be able to do this? “

No, but I do believe that desperate times lead to absurd proclamations.

Back when Reagan was president, he decided to build a high tech missile shield, with lasers and such, to save democracy. What followed was an absurd break with reality, where politicians dictated to scientists and engineers what was possible, and where disagreeing with the president was considered unpatriotic.

Of course, none of the laser/particle beams every worked out.

Besides, in the end, it is kind of true. Wind power, solar and biomass will run the country. The politicians are just leaving out the required horrific transition period, where england becomes a third world country.

star wars was the beginning of the looting of the treasury, briefly interupted during clinton's terms because of the spiteful gop congress and accelerated since 2001 with bozo in command.

debt as a % of gdp here

You must not be paying attention. The ABL (Airborne Laser) program is still going along and they are about to load that big Laser aboard the 747 and shoot some missiles! They have already tested the beam forming and pointing system with lower powered lasers successfully.


I am familiar with the project.

Including it's missed deadlines and cost overruns.


It looks like congress is finally going to kill the flying boondoggle.

There is a video showing a drone being hit by a laser and exploding, during one of several "successful" tests. What they don't tell you is the laser only drills a small hole in the target, and if the drone wasn't lined with explosives it would carry on flying...

It is obvious by now that lasers are not going to be the general purpose beam weapons envisaged by science fiction.

It is obvious by now that lasers are not going to be the general purpose beam weapons envisaged by science fiction.

It seems the Marines have asked for them however - so they can cause people in Iraq to 'burst into flames'.

Say what?

Yes, so they can burst into flames.

The idea is to make a CO2 laser portable and rugged enough to be useable the way a "mini gun" is now. A "mini gun" only perforates everyone within its swathe of fire with lots of holes. The US Marines, to help instill love for the Empire and to win hearts and minds, want to have this new toy so they can make people literally burst into flames as their heads or chests explode.

CO2 lasers emit an IR beam. They're the workhorses of industry in the US, used to cut metal, etch, burn, do all kinds of neat stuff. The beam is invisible, being IR. Since it's a beam of light, aiming comes down to simple parallax between the beam and sighting 'scope, allowing VERY precise usage. Thus, being able to pick someone out of a crowd, a mother holding a child perhaps, or an elderly person, or a child, and POW! Before they knew what happened, their chest or head explodes. Or the babe in arms explodes.

All to help win hearts and minds for the Empire, you see.

Star Wars, indeed.

We're the Death Star.

Snipers miss and hit the child instead of the parent holding the child. Also, the high velocity round goes through the parent and into a child behind the parent.
I do not oppose laser weapons, I just think that they don't work in real life.

Something like this exists. It works much like a microwave oven, except the energy is focused into a beam instead of flooding a chamber with it.

A conventional microwave oven operates at 2.45 GHz, while the militarized version runs at 94 GHz. Being a higher frequency, the "skin effect" is much more pronounced and most of the energy goes into heating just the skin. Its specifically designed to cause a lot of pain at a distance.

This link is about a year old, but explains in more detail.


Or. if you google for "94 GHz" pain weapon


You'll get lots more.


Exactly one year ago today, the First Marine Expeditionary Force in Iraq signed off on an "urgent operational need" for an airborne tactical laser that could, in the words of the formal request, create "instantaneous burst-combustion of insurgent clothing, a rapid death through violent trauma, and more probably a morbid combination of both."

In other words, the lasers don't just kill people, but they kill people in really gruesome, frightening ways -- particularly because the beam from such weapons, like the Advanced Tactical Laser, is invisible to the human eye. That means you could have three guys standing around, and one of them suddenly burst into flames.


Fear and more fear seeking the illusion of safety, the yield is psychological trauma for the wielders of weapons, as well as for the survivors of weapons.

Re: Geothermal power should fuel U.S. military

U.S. military had its fuel ”depot project"1 worked out almost half a century ago. replace the U with W in that scheme, the problems of PO and CC can be addressed. 2

1. http://www.energy.iastate.edu/becon/downloadNH3/2007/Agosta_NH3.pdf
2. http://www.energy.iastate.edu/becon/downloadNH3/2007/Wang2_NH3.pdf

This was an interesting quote:

"wouldn’t it make more sense to turn biomass into organic fertilizer, rather than bio-fuels such as ethanol — and use ammonia as fuel, rather than fertilizer"

I don't know anything about the practicality of burning ammonia in a combustion engine, but good food for thought. Thanks.

Export Land model in "Der Siegel"

There is an article in DER SPIEGEL online which is actually about Westtexas' export land model.

"Öl-Staaten brauchen ihre eigenen Vorräte auf"
= Oil nation consume their own ressources"

A study from the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC), is cited and there is the - for all TODers familiar - list of examples like Russia, Iran oder Mexico. As well facts like sinking exports from Saudi Arabia.

It is encouraging to read such kind of news in such an important news magazin. The energy topic becomes more an more known in the wide public.

The article (in german language)

There's also one on the front page of the New York Times titled Oil-Rich Nations Use More Energy, Cutting Exports. It doesn't talk about the ELM by name, or give people information about the current level of consumption in various exporters, but that's pretty clearly what they're talking about.

Yes, but:

At the end they quote Danny Yergin, trumpeting that oil production could "rise to as much as 20 per cent in the next 10 years". "Plunging exports from oil producing nations wouldn't necessarily lead to higher prices".

Of course not ..

RE: GCC To Consider Revaluation Soon...

What the Bahrain Tribune Daily did not point out is this bit from Gulf-Times Qatar...'$3.5 trillion reserves are roughly three times the size of China's'. This article was originally published on Oct. 6, 07.

Gulf currency revaluation risk could ‘squeeze dollar further’


...snip...'“The Opec states’ defection from the dollar could potentially have far greater implications for global capital flows,” said Jan Amrit Poser, head of research at Bank Sarasin in Zurich.
“With ($3.5tn), the currency reserves of the oil-producing nations are roughly three times the size of China’s, and their current account surplus of $500bn is more than twice as high,” he added.
A diversion of even part of this financing base would further undermine the dollar, which has been hammered by the large and growing US current account deficit, analysts say.
Already, Qatar’s $50bn sovereign wealth fund has cut its exposure to the dollar by more than half to around 40% of its portfolio over the past two years.'...snip...

From the Bahrain Tribune Daily 'Consider Revaluation Soon'...The US Fed is exporting inflation to the Gulf Oil Producers and causing headaches for governments that hate any instability...Because they rely on harmony among the populace to retain their royal heads on their royal shoulders...They have little choice imo...Will this be an xmas gift to the Fed?


...snip...'The dollar pegs force the region to shadow US interest rates. Gulf central banks are cutting rates in tandem with the US Federal Reserve to prevent currency appreciation, ignoring inflation at home which is running at its highest this decade.
With more Fed cuts expected and the dollar hitting record lows on global markets, investors expect the Gulf states to eventually give up on their pegs and allow their currencies to appreciate.'...snip...

'UAE Central Bank governor Sultan Nasser Al Suweidi backtracked on his call for regional currency reform last week, saying his country had no plans to change exchange-rate policy. Suweidi nourished market expectations of an imminent change in policy when he said last month that he was under growing social and economic pressure to drop the peg and track a currency basket.
Unlike Kuwait, the UAE would only act in concert with its neighbours, Suweidi said in a series of interviews that led investors to push the UAE dirham to 17-year high and the Saudi riyal to 21-year peak.'...snip...

Hi River,

As Aaron Wissner said in yesterday's Drumbeat:

"Let me lay it out for you as succinctly as I can...

Money is nothing. Energy is everything. "

Just another nail in our Evil Empire's coffin.

Errol in Miami

Usable calories, usable BTUs, and other - those are your three categories. Other doesn't count much in a post peak world ... and GDP definitely doesn't fit into the first two, nor does the prime interest rate, the DJIA, or any of those other meaningless, endless growth metrics.

My finances, they are not the greatest, but I do believe I have more days of consumable staples than anyone else in the county. Ask those who went through the collapse of the Soviet Union what that means.

(we won't have an SU style collapse here, at least not across the board. Things here are distorted by the government's policies, but not outright controlled. As soon as the government is prostrate the people will do as they have always done, farming, building, and trading. Many sustainable areas will sustain. Unsustainable areas ... well ... unsustainable is the keyword)

And just how many days of consumable staples do you have?

Mormons, God bless them, have a year or two, I think it's two years? At least a year's, provisions.

Mormons have a year of food if they're following their rules. I'm Buddhist and thusly more into that whole cause and effect sort of thing ... but my squirreling away behavior is in full effect.

I really should inventory properly - with a quick look I see 40# sugar, 50# corn meal, at least 250#rice, bean are harder to count so I was getting varieties but maybe 60# of small mixed bags and one 25# bag of red lentils, 25# of quinoa (wheat substitute), 30# of hamburger ... lots of canned stuff ... not a full year, but we can stand a looonnngggg grocery store draining oil shock.

Unfortunately I have not too much food stored presently. With the ice storms in these parts not a good idea. I’m going to go to a Sam’s Club soon and stock up on some bulk foods. One good thing is my property and the surrounding woods have an incredible amount of wild species I can live off in a severe situation. There are Jerusalem artichokes (both wild and developed strains) than I could possibly eat in a lifetime, dandelions, lambs quarters, ramps (introduced these), pokeweed, raspberries, blackberries, morels, puffballs, nettles (another introduced plant), and too many other plants too numerous to list. A squirrel or rabbit, a trip down to the pond to catch a bluegill could help supplement the protein. This is why when searching for country land to relocate so as to try to get close as possible to an area where wild foraging is possible.

A dream place. To which general direction can one reach such a destination?

All directions. It is amazing how many good small acreages in the mist of good woodlands are available in the US at a reasonable price. The real finds usually hide in the normal real estate listings for single family homes - but they are not there long. Those farmette and rural land sites usually list stuff that only Ted Turner could afford. I like the Midwest and Central areas, but I’m sure there are finds elsewhere. One caveat, be prepared to take employment at a lower pay scale, usually much lower, unless you are lucky enough to have a job that allow telecommuting or is in great demand. Also be prepared for physical labor in working the land. Who said living in “God’s country” came without sacrifices.

Thanks for the tip. I could have expected to live out the rest of my days in peace but for the consequences of PO/CC. Physical labor and peaceful mind will do everybody good.

Out here minimum wage is REAL good money.

SCT, do you know the story of 3 vinegar tasters?

Ooh! Me! I know it!

One tried it and said, "This is too sour!"

One tried it and said, "This is too sweet!"

And the last one tried it and said, "Yuck, Ptui! This is Two buck chuck from Trader Joe's!"


I'm curious, on those bulk items. Do you plan on being able to cook them somehow?

Hi notintodenial,

It seems some one has stepped up pressure on Gates (Sec Def) recently. Yesterday Gates addressed a regional security conference in Bahrain and came under heavy fire for his (and the neo-cons) double standard on Israeli vs Iranian nukes...As I said long ago, we are backing the wrong horse in the Mid East...And, the GCC is telling us just that while holding meetings concerning decoupling their currencies from the US $. Even shrub should be able to connect these dots.


Gulf Challenges US on Iran, Israel

The Associated Press
Saturday, December 8, 2007; 3:33 PM

'Several delegates at the regional security conference in Bahrain said U.S. was hypocritical for supporting Israeli nuclear weapons, and questioned Washington's refusal to meet with Iran to discuss the Islamic state's nuclear activities'...snip...

'"Not considering Israel a threat to security in the region is considered a biased policy that is based on a double standard," said Abdul-Rahman al-Attiyah, the secretary general of the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council.'

'Soon after Gates' speech, the defense secretary was challenged by Bahraini Minister of Labor Majeed al-Alawi, who wanted to know whether Gates thought "the Zionist (Israeli) nuclear weapon is a threat to the region."

Gates paused, and answered tersely: "No, I do not."

Asked if U.S. acceptance of that was a double standard in light of Washington's pressure on Iran, Gates again said "no," and described the government in Jerusalem as more responsible than the one in Tehran.

"I think Israel is not training terrorists to subvert its neighbors. It has not shipped weapons into a place like Iraq to kill thousands of innocent civilians covertly," said Gates. "So I think that there are significant differences in terms of both the history and the behavior of the Iranian and Israeli governments."'

Yeah, the Israelis are not killing Iraqis but they are doing a number on the Palastinians.

"I think Israel is not training terrorists to subvert its neighbors. It has not shipped weapons into a place like Iraq to kill thousands of innocent civilians covertly," said Gates. "So I think that there are significant differences in terms of both the history and the behavior of the Iranian and Israeli governments."'

That's not true and he knows it. The Israelis training and supplying of the Kurds comes to mind. I'm sure there's countless others like Hamas and now Fatah, the Chritians in Lebanon, etc. But of course Israel doesn't come anywhere near the US for instigating and fostering terrorism around the entire planet.

Chinese crematorium dumps half burned bodies; not enough diesel to finish the job.


How soon before fuel shortages start increasing their work load? Very, very scary ...

better to have the Tibetan "skyward burial" mentioned in a previous posting.

I would like this myself, but I think more acceptable to western culture would be a burial followed by the planting of a fruit tree over my grave.

There is, I hear, a place outside Auckland here where you can be buried (with no enbalming of course) and have trees buried over you.

A quick Google reveals this: http://www.naturalburials.co.nz/media3.php

They may be the people I've heard about...

Ahhh, great! Now the wealthy eco-conscious among us can have our remains flown (at great energy expense) to Aukland for a 'proper ecological' burial and tree planting. (/sarconol)

Oh, ET, just get yourself an orchard and offer the service locally. Funeral proceeds should be a nice way to pay off the land, no?

Yeah. In the USA 'guns for everyone' mentality rules. I could hang out a sign like the old Tumbleweeds cartoon, "Claude Clay, Undertaker. You plug 'em, we plant 'em."

LOL. Best comment of the day!

Heh :)

No need to fly to Auckland.

I posted this link awhile back...

Boomers Seek 'Green' Death

When the first green cemetery in the United States opened in South Carolina in 1998, it was an anomaly. Ramsey Creek Preserve invited people to bury their loved ones—or plan a burial in advance for themselves—in a forest setting, with simple grave markers of natural stone or greenery.

"The body is wrapped in either a cloth shroud or put in a highly degradable coffin like one made of cardboard or pine," Harris told LiveScience, "and returned to the Earth to renew the cycle of life."

Maybe we'll eventually wise up and stop wasting all this fuel and start composting human remains so the survivors can have something to eat.

The survivors already have something to eat.


You just need the right recipe book, and a willingness to invite the neighbors over for dinner :-}

Bitteroldcoot, someone in this area might be honeing their cannibalisim skills already...Tomoka State Park is a very popular spot for families to camp, fish and cook out...Mmmm Bar-B-Que...


'Police: Body parts belonged to one young adult


ORMOND BEACH - The human remains found in several plastic bags inside Tomoka State Park belong to one person, likely a white teenager or man between the ages of 16 and 20, police said today.

Ormond Beach police Sgt. Kenny Hayes said the person was probably between 5 feet 6 inches to 5 feet 8 inches tall and weighed 135 to 150 pounds. The victim appeared to have been shaving his arms and chest, police said'...snip...

Humans prepared as food are also known as "long pig".

Google it for nauseating reading.

"Soylent Green is PEOPLE"

But the EROEI isn't very good. Consider all the energy lost in processing the raw material into a small dry green cracker.

And doesn't industrial processing of food removes nutritional value?

Ruins the flavor too.

Nothing a little Tabasco won't cure.

hmmm. I see the need for a new product.

Industrial sized solar oven crematoriums.


Note to self:

Best not to read Drumbeat if sensitive and expecting to sleep.

Best hopes for sweet dreams,

Thanks Leanan, for all you do

Re: It's not easy building green

This article makes some very good points about the current monolithic home building industry in the US. Who do you think helps write the building codes in this country? Yes, it's the very same production home builders that build the vast majority of the cookie cutter, poorly planned and energy wasting homes. Be assured straw bale construction is not going mainstream because the lumber industry would never allow it. Home building is much like auto manufacturing in the US, there is some sort of secret pact between them and energy producers. Give the people a pat on the head occasionally with a hybrid car or so called zero energy home but the vast bulk of the production continues to waste vast amounts of energy, all by design.

Hydrogen Car Is Here, but Where’s the Hydrogen Economy?

In my opinion, the Hydrogen Economy is a red herring. It will take too long and cost too much to put in place.

In my opinion a much better and more rapidly scalable solution is a grid - based transportation infrastructure that relies on plug in hybrid and all electric vehicles. The energy infrastructure for distribution is already there -- the grid. And the technology for producing these vehicles at a competitive cost is also readily available.

So I might have to ride an electric scooter for a few years before I can afford an electric car or plug in hybrid? Again, in my opinion, better than a petroleum based automobile that is far too expensive to operate on an increasingly unreliable and costly fuel source.

Phased Alternative to the Hydrogen Economy:

1. Massively increased standards for vehicle fuel economy.
2. Scaled mandates for percentage of vehicle fleets being hybrid and plug-in hybrid.
3. Tax incentives for the purchase of hybrid, plug in hybrid, and all electric (yes tax breaks for scooters!) vehicles.
4. Industry recognition, legitimization, and franchising of independents who produce quality plug in hybrid kits/conversions.
5. Tax incentives for alternative energy sources feeding the grid -- Wind, solar, hydro, geo, and nuclear where they'll take it.
6. Mandates for a percentage of the grid to be powered by alternatives by a certain date.
7. A massive effort to increase grid efficiencies -- saving power = producing power.
8. A world-wide treaty/body to help countries coordinate and assist their neighbors through the transition (sharing technology, resources, etc).
9. Research into alternative fuel systems for aircraft (here, in my opinion, is where hydrogen and ethanol may have a fit).
10. Scaled systems looking to switch hybrid vehicles to first a high percentage of biofuels and later all biofuels.

It will take too long and cost too much to put in place.

What will take too long? It will certainly take a long time until there is enough free hydrogen to compare to the amount of fossil fuels available. Until then one must use energy to create the hydrogen. Hydrogen is a scam.

The energy infrastructure for distribution is already there -- the grid.

The grid is not up to that role right now, and it will take a large investment in this infrastructure before it is. Of course, just creating a lot of EV is a large investment in infrastructure.

Does every possible future need to include cars?

"What will take too long? It will certainly take a long time until there is enough free hydrogen to compare to the amount of fossil fuels available. Until then one must use energy to create the hydrogen. Hydrogen is a scam."

I agree in that the hydrogen economy is a scam. It's a boondoggle. A delaying tactic. Hydrogen isn't an energy source. It's a storage medium. What would take too long is developing the infrastructure to store energy in hydrogen and then distribute it. The other piece is that the hydrogen would most likely come from natural gas. So we are back to square 1.

"The grid is not up to that role right now, and it will take a large investment in this infrastructure before it is."

We'll need more power plants. But the grid is up to the role. There are no hydrogen pumps today. But we do have a massive grid and plenty of plugs that would do the trick quite nicely.

"Of course, just creating a lot of EV is a large investment in infrastructure."

We create millions of CV every year. Why not create EV instead?

"Does every possible future need to include cars?"

A lot of people like cars. Some people would like to force others to get rid of their cars. Today cars are expensive, pollute, and consume a valuable resource. Today cars are a major driver for the largest global engines for economic growth. Cars do have value, in my opinion. While some countries may go without cars and do quite well I think some others would be severely hampered.

In answer to your question, I think, whether you like it or not, a future that includes a technological civilization and human beings will also include cars in some form or another. I think attempts to force people to get rid of their cars will be met with folly. In my opinion, it is better to surf the wave of global technological human civilization and to look for ways to responsibly and wisely innovate its trends, its ebbs and flows. For my part, I'm looking for a more responsible automobile.

Yes. Never ever give up cars. Cars good. People who don't like cars bad.

AAA stats say the average American spends about $8k to own and operate a car. That's about $13k they have to earn, since they spend post-tax dollars on it.

My stats are a couple of years old though, it's probably gone up a K or two.

Here you go.

The Fleam post TSHTF Rock n' Roll concert prototype. 

Un-intelligible Un-American garbage in an un-viewable format.

Translate for humans please, it is some footage of some really lame rock band?

When I click on it they are singing "Total Eclipse of the Heart" in English. Just let the video run a little.
I think the instrumentals with one guitar and old stoves and washing machines are hilarious.

Ummm...a masterpiece.

How is the guy in the middle able to slam that horizontal freezer door up and down that whole song? Wow.

The exposed hindsides and blue jumpsuits are also lovely visuals.

I think it encapsulates the absurdity of today's society quite nicely. Or, it's a bunch of bored guys wishing to butcher an already horrible song. Not sure which.

The future will certainly include automobiles of some kind, but not as they are used now. And there is no reason to "force" people to stop using cars. All that is required is to stop subsidizing the use of personal automobiles, and the cost will become prohibitive. Such infrastructure investments do not happen unless the society, in one way or another, decide to make it happen on a top-down level (like the highway systems). It is not just a matter of refusing to let people exercise their god-given right to have an automobile and a road system to drive it on.

When people start to think about peak oil, and the ramifications of it, the first stage is always "but how will we drive our cars?". The magnitude of the problem we face goes beyond that. I know people like to drive cars, but they also like to do other things - like eat. And no, I do not like the idea of my tax dollars being spent to further the car culture at the expense of other, better possibilities. We have spent the vast majority of our fossil fuel wealth, and completely changed our planet's climate, just driving cars. Switching to EVs will only continue this failed concept further.

Also, I work in the electric transmission and distribution industry, and it is in no way ready for large scale adoption of EVs.

What will determine the type and style of vehicles is the state of the road system. If there are potholes, dirt, broken pavement it will favor certain size wheels etc.

The condition of the infrascucture will dictate many design considerations.


This is quite right - I am thinking a Yamaha TW200 with balloon tires is on the menu for me next spring. I'm also nosing about looking for an old Ford four wheel drive truck with an inline six. This would be a snow pusher/load hauler.

I'm traveling so little any more I'm tempted to let the bank just have my Nissan Versa back. If I could sell it and cover the difference I think I'd rather have the $470/mo free for other things ...

Hello SCT,

I had a TW200 years ago--excellent little ride! I was considering another after finding out about Peak Everything in 2003, but I decided that for my Asphalt Wonderland: a scooter better fits my needs with its lockable underseat storage. The TW200 is the better choice if you have a need for offroad riding, of course. Don't forget a helmet!

I want the mileage but I cringe at the thought of falling - could equal permanent disability for someone in my condition :-(

A scooter doesn't work - I've got 24 miles of open Iowa road between me and work. I really need the speed to deal with traffic and there are a lot of places I'd like to visit now that have sketchy roads. If I could pull a little kayak carrier with it I'd be set ...

Hello SCT,

Thxs for responding. Honda has two scooter models with ABS, and the larger 600cc Silverwing will accelerate much, much faster than most traffic with a top speed that I strongly doubt the police will appreciate. The advantage of automatic transmission frees you to concentrate more brainpower on the traffic and road conditions, and also allows your feet to move about to maximize comfort. They currently sell used very cheaply, but I expect this to change rapidly if FFs become Unobtainium.

I have previously owned a Goldwing and a full-tour Suzuki V-twin hog, along with other bikes over the years, so I had much trepidation on a scooter not having enough 'beans' for me. My Silverwing is plenty quick & fast, even though its engine size is 1/3 of my previous rides, and with the additional GIVI tourpack--it has lots of total storage.

There are even scooter forums that detail how to build a hitch--so that you could pull your kayak!

The TW200 would seem the only solution given the problems I face. The displacement of the Yamaha Vino 125 is sufficient, but I don't think it goes everywhere I want to be:

The road to Eagle Lake

"I want the mileage but I cringe at the thought of falling - could equal permanent disability for someone in my condition :-( "

Extremely valid concern. I actually know someone who a couple of months ago got sideswiped, almost bled to death, had a couple of ribs removed, lost a kidney, and half his liver. I would recommend simply going for any number of the available econo-cars. Older Honda Civics (1988-91), Toyota Tercel or Corolla or Echo, The much maligned Chevy/Geo Metro/Suzuki Swift. Any of these should get your fuel mileage well into the 30's mpg and some will only cost about four of the payments you're making already (imagine paying your car off in only four more payments...). Visit www.gassavers.org and www.metrompg.com for some ideas on aerodynamic modifications you could do if you want to push that up a few more mpg.

"A scooter doesn't work - I've got 24 miles of open Iowa road between me and work. I really need the speed to deal with traffic and there are a lot of places I'd like to visit now that have sketchy roads."

There are plenty of big bore scooters (Honda Silverwing, Suzuki Burgman, Vespa, etc) but if you know how to ride a motorcycle you might as well just go with a motorcycle because you'll more easily find something cheaper.

Its a little uglier than that - simply falling down would likely put me in a world o' hurt :-( Herniated disks are not a problem I would wish on my worst enemy ...

Hello SCT,

One other thought. You would have to check your state's laws, but it might be cheap and easy to make a 4-wheel ATV street-legal. I have seen some running around in my state. Then you wouldn't have to worry about falling. If desired, the racing sport quads are fast and quick. They sell very cheap on the used market too.

This fascination with cars is completely ignorant. It is only in America (and similar places like Canada and Australia) that people are dependent on cars. In the REST OF THE WORLD, from Thailand to Morocco to Germany to China, there are alternatives.

In densely populated areas there are alternatives to cars.

Even in some of the densely populated countries car usage is growing faster than mass transit usage. Britain for example.

You can point at people who live in different conditions and call them ignorant. That is really easy to do. Sometimes it is even true. But doing that also causes ignorance on your part because then you don't take the time and effort to understand what local circumstances cause people to behave differently.

Just had a brainstorm....tell me why it won't work.

Not every future has to include cars but they will of course, unless there is absolutely no alternative.

We can think differently though.
As in ownership. Would it be possible that transport be owned by a utility power company?

Electric cars would be stabled at "refuelling points" at thousands of locations along main roads. As your car runs low, you just stop plug your car in and grab another, which has been left by another motorist.

When we swipe our cards in the car we are then in possession and get billed for time in use and power consumption.

That at least would give power companies a reason to build energy supplies/power stations, as returns on investment would enable construction and a chance to broaden their market.
It may encourage investment in alternative renewable mining practices and other supporting industries.

A possibility IF there is plenty of electrical power available to power a billion vehicles and necessary infrastructure... or were you just talking about the elite few driving? (Technically a billion vehicles is only for an elite few, but let's forget that for a moment...)

As for power utilities owning the cars, and having loads of spares lying around - wouldn't that require massive infrastructure - and wouldn't it then be better to just have a great public transport system instead? Much more efficient, lower complexity.

Yes there are numerous reasons why it won't/can't be done. You only mentioned a couple.
The problem is electricity will be the power of choice in the near future.
We need an incentive for investment now, not later.
Billions of cars is quite fanciful.
Cars being shared not owned probably won't increase the amount needed.

I'm dreaming though I don't really think it can happen, I believe in a fast crash scenario, there will be no need after that anyway.

this is specifically written for that.

I have downloaded several versions of the same file from your links and have stopped downloading from you, even though I may be missing one or more interesting files. Also it is customary to give a pdf or large file warning on links.

It is "cute" to hide links behind a single word, but not necessary. Please post full length links at the bottom of your post (so I know what I am getting) and also pdf & large file warnings. You can leave the red link words if you like.

Just constructive criticism.

Best Hopes for NH3,


my apologies for being ignorant. hence the link in plain sight:

"loved much, hoped little, desired nothing."

nh3, I think the idea is to describe what is at the link. That URL tells us nothing useful.

Nothing wrong with one-word links.

However, it is polite to put up a brief description of the article/file, as well as a PDF warning, if applicable.

Don't make people have to click on it to find out what it is.

About Kirkuk the allies should see that anybody but the Iraqis get the oil. It was all down to a mistake Britain made after WW1, when the region was taken from Turkey and given to Iraq. We could have had the oil owned by a pro western Turkey instead of that violent and unstable state Iraq. We must not make the same mistake again.

Pro Western Turkey??? Perhaps the government, not the population.

Violent and unstable Iraq??? The US advised Saddam that we would not intervene if they invaded Quwait. We lied and Saddam was a sap to believe shrub sr.

Yes, Iraq has become violent and unstable the last few years, I wonder why???

One historical question that I've never had satisfactorily answered is Was Kuwait guilty of stealing Iraqi oil by horizontal drilling in an oil field that crossed national borders? It was the casus belli given by Iraq at the time, as I recall. It was summarily dismissed mostly by dismissing Iraqi government credibility, but given that Iraqi government WAS far more credible about it's intentions and capabilities than the US government in relation to WMD, I wonder if it would be fruitful to re-visit this question, especially since it would seem to have echoes in cross-frontier oil reservoir management today.

Another version I have seen is that Kuwait was overproducing its OPEC quota, thus keeping oil price low and hurting Iraq's sole source of income.

Kuwait has the lowest cost of producing oil ($2/barrel IIRC), so it could make decent profits even at $10/bbl. Not so with war-laden and much more populous Iraq.

There is not a reason both theories to be true.

The population of Turkey was a lot more pro-American until we invaded Iraq. But historically, Turkey has been a lot more stable than Iraq, because Great Britain has attacked Iraq in 1914, 1920, 1941, I think 1968, 1991 and 2003.

I guess this proves Turkey was better off without coveted oil fields.

The us government giving the green light for the invasion of Kuwait? this is conspiricy theory gone mad. Turkey has always leaned westwards. Iraq an expansionist dictatorship which leaned towards the Soviets and Arab radicalism. Turkey is seeking membership of the EU (dopes). A much safer place for a major part of the West's oil supplies.

this is conspiricy theory gone mad.

Interesting claim. Do you have proof? Or is this just a claim you are making?

Here's the well-known story:


Saddam Hussein was not prepared to invade Kuwait without either the approval or indifference of the United States. Saddam Hussein met with the American ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie on July 25, 1990, to seek out the U. S. position on an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The following is part of the transcript of the conversation:

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie-I have direct instruction from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We can see that you have employed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business but when this happens in the context of your threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received instructions to ask you, in the spirit of friendship, not confrontation-regarding your intentions. Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's border?

Saddam Hussein-As you know, for years I have made every effort to reach a settlement in our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days. I am prepared to give negotiations this one more brief chance. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it would be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie-What solutions would be acceptable?

Saddam Hussein-(A list of conditions). What is the United States opinion on this?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie-We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary of State James Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.

http://www.whatreallyhappened. com/ARTICLES/APRIL.html)


I don't think Glaspie understood herself to be green-lighting an invasion. But then that's just incompetence, and the Bush Administration was never held responsible for the screwup of its designated agent in Baghdad. (Sound familiar?) As soon as Baker saw the transcript he should have hit the panic button. "It would be natural that Iraq will not accept death" is the sort of statement that Japan was making about the US embargo in December 1941.
Hussein was saying that his country would rather go to war than pay off its war debt to the sheikhs it saved from evil Iranian imperialism - very ironic in the current context. The US could have helped out as an expression of its own gratitude for his weakening of Iran.

So did we let the invasion go ahead intending to betray a Hussein who had deluded himself into thinking he had approval?

I don't think Glaspie understood herself to be green-lighting an invasion. But then that's just incompetence, and the Bush Administration was never held responsible for the screwup of its designated agent in Baghdad. (Sound familiar?) As soon as Baker saw the transcript he should have hit the panic button.

My understanding of the events (and how international relations work at this level) is the nations go back and forth asking for conformation of statements. My memory of the incident had a claim that Iraq asked for and got conformation that the statement as issued was what was ment to be said.

Weatherman has said: "The us government giving the green light for the invasion of Kuwait? this is conspiricy theory gone mad." So it is up to Weatherman to provide proof. Policy and process manuals, documentation of the steps of how Ms. Glaspie got her orders et la would provide data to back up the weatherman's position.

Yet, this is not forthcomming from Weatherman.

And then there is this from Wiki...


...snip...'Inspired by 18th century French Enlightenment, the motto of the Party is "Unity, Freedom, Socialism" (in Arabic wahda, hurriya, ishtirakiya). "Unity" refers to Arab unity, "freedom" emphasizes freedom from foreign control and interference in particular, and "socialism" refers to what has been termed Arab Socialism rather than to Marxism'...snip...

River, the Turks [in Turkey anyway] speak Turkish, not Arabic.

And then there is this from Pew Research...Note that only the people of Jordan at 11% have a lower opinion of the US than the people of Turkey at 12%...BTW, Turkey has all but given up on EU membership. Of course, Iraq is not included in the survey...Pew probably didnt want any zero %s in their survey...Or maybe they didnt want their canvassers to get shot?


This would make Turkey a westward leaning country?

For any fans of the BugE who are depressed because it only comes in kit form, there appears to be a fellow building and selling them completed: http://www.harveyev.com/BugE/

Seems to be building not only the original plans version but working on a hopped up version which should, I imagine, be capable of short hops on the highway.

With regards to "Warming and the Right" posted above,

The position of belatedly acknowledging that climate change is indeed happening but then digging in to block any measure to effectively address it is bocoming more and more common. Homer-Dixon refers to these positions as existential denial (there is no climate change happening) and consequential denial (it is happening but its no big deal). Its a step up but just as effective in blocking a sufficient policy response to even begin to address the problem.

Bill McKibben critiques a similar response from Bjorn Lomborg in his review of Lomberg's "Cool It"

It is interesting to note that the IPCC has, as part of its brief presumably, worked out what strategies for reducing carbon emissions would be economically feasible. Does "economically feasible" take into account the effects of PO (or peak anything else) - developing superpowers burning more coal just to survive and ignoring protocols, the high probability of intensified resource wars and possible breakdown of unified efforts, etc?

I'm sure there is plenty of good science going on, but one has to wonder what predictive power they have on our lives when other things are considered...

Here is a nice animated GIF national map of wind capacity from 1999 - 2007.


I found this by following links on http://ea2020.org - the Energize America 2020 initiative. This is what they had to say about themselves ...

Energize America is a comprehensive and compelling 20-point plan developed by informed citizen activists to wean the U.S. from its fossil fuel addiction and provide the U.S. with Energy Security by 2020, and Energy Freedom by 2040.

Car prototype generates electricity and cash:


I'm still not sure about V2G. What happens when you're set to go, but get in your car to find the utility has drained your juice.

Do you know of any of the big bucks-university or companies-that are designing/producing cars with solar panels on board, ala John Howe in Maine?

Re the article about British wind turbines. I suppose when polititans promise more wind this is one time we can be sure they deliver.

we have the best politicians in the world when it comes to wind and hot air generation. They are pretty good at jacking off as well: just think of the reciprocal stroke energy...if only it could be harnessed for the greater good...

The move will put the country well on the way to achieving a tough EU target of providing 20 per cent of the country's energy from renewable sources by 2020.

Now that's what I call optimism!

Actually, in order to reach the required 80% CO2 reduction from 1990 levels by 2050 at the latest, the UK will need to do much better than 20% of primary energy from alternates by 2020.

The 'talks about talks' in Bali are about an interim mandatory reduction of CO2 emissions of 20% to 40% from 1990 levels by 2020 - the longer the delay in implementation the bigger the reduction will have to be.

To meet the middle of the range by 2020, and since the UK will have little nuclear left, the savings will have to be equivalent to ~30% of oil, ~30% of natural gas used for fuel but not used for electricity, and ~50% of electricity.

Since there are no good alternates for oil over that timescale and proposed alternates all produce electricty it looks like way more than 50% of electricty must come from the alternates, as well as us all driving less and heating our houses less.

Or, we could just live in houseboats as the seas rise?

Deep joy!

It's high time we all stop paying attention to this kind of "plans", whether in the UK, US or elsewhere. Monbiot below explains why, quite accurately.

This stuff is fed us by delusional politicians, journalists and professors. Britain will never build enough wind turbines for its energy demands. Not even for its energy needs.

What Is Progress?

The government proposes to cut the UK’s carbon emissions by 60% by 2050. This target is based on a report published in 2000(3). That report was based on an assessment published in 1995, which drew on scientific papers published a few years earlier. The UK’s policy, in other words, is based on papers some 15 years old. Our target, which is one of the toughest on earth, bears no relation to current science.

Over the past fortnight, both Gordon Brown and his adviser Sir Nicholas Stern have proposed raising the cut to 80%(4,5). Where did this figure come from? The last G8 summit adopted the aim of a global cut of 50% by 2050, which means that 80% would be roughly the UK’s fair share. But the G8’s target isn’t based on current science either.

In the new summary published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), you will find a table which links different cuts to likely temperatures(6). To prevent global warming from eventually exceeding 2°, it suggests, by 2050 the world needs to cut its emissions to roughly 15% of the volume in 2000.

I looked up the global figures for carbon dioxide production in 2000(7) and divided it by the current population(8). This gives a baseline figure of 3.58 tonnes of CO2 per person. An 85% cut means that (if the population remains constant) the global output per head should be reduced to 0.537t by 2050.

The UK currently produces 9.6 tonnes per head and the US 23.6t(9,10). Reducing these figures to 0.537t means a 94.4% cut in the UK and a 97.7% cut in the US. But the world population will rise in the same period. If we assume a population of 9bn in 2050(11), the cuts rise to 95.9% in the UK and 98.3% in the US.

The IPCC figures might also be out of date. In a footnote beneath the table, the panel admits that “emission reductions … might be underestimated due to missing carbon cycle feedbacks”. What this means is that the impact of the biosphere’s response to global warming has not been fully considered. As seawater warms, for example, it releases carbon dioxide. As soil bacteria heat up, they respire more, generating more CO2.

As temperatures rise, tropical forests die back, releasing the carbon they contain. These are examples of positive feedbacks. A recent paper (all the references are on my website) estimates that feedbacks account for about 18% of global warming(12). They are likely to intensify.

I seem to remember seeing something recently that said 20% of generating capacity in the UK would be de-commissioned by 2015 (I think that's correct).

With production unable to meet demand in coming years, oil prices will rise dramatically and gasoline shortages will develop, panelists contended.

The oil drum and peak oil have convinced us.

We've even become activistists!

While pursuing essential non-gas-wasting activites, of course

best from senior citizen

Especially Persian browsers!

Let's do it to THEM legally.

"The board of Swiss bank UBS AG is holding an unscheduled meeting this weekend, and could announce more sizable write downs on its sub prime mortgage exposure as early as Monday, reports Swiss weekly Sonntagszeitung."


Hey Leanan, isn't this the bank that took over your account, when your old one failed.

I haven't seen mention of the short column in "Parade" today. Parade is a small magazine inserted into the Sunday Los Angeles Times, and probably other newspapers.

In a recent issue we asked: "Should America Invest More in Trains" 97% said YES, 3% said NO

Of course, this may not have been an unbiased group of responders, but I hope that Alan from Big Easy is pleased. I am.

One of the quotes included... "Trains are a public necessity, and investing in them benefits our country in many ways. They're better for our society, environment and economy".

Ya...saw that too. Not too long ago they had a full length story about the US train situation and how it should get built back up. They've also run some articles on locally-grown food that were pretty good. Someone is definitely thinking ahead at Parade.

Interesting news about Iran's Yadavaran (old name Kushk-Hosseinieh) project.

OPEC said Yadavaran would have the ability to produce 300 kbd, startup in 2011.


Now that the development contract has been signed with Sinopec, the field will only produce 85 kbd starting in four years, followed by a second phase, over three years, to add another 100 kbd for a total of 185 kbd.


Great...and so it goes. An overall loss of 115 kbpd of production, and a delay in the arrival of the balance.

Doesn't help.


A reminder...

Lately, we've had a lot of people post some really, really long comments. Please don't do that. One, people tend not to read really huge blocks of text. Two, it's the equivalent of hogging the conversation at a party. Let people get a word in edgewise.

Often, the length comes from excessive quoting. There's no need to do that. Just post a link and a brief summary. For the vast majority of posts, that's all that's needed. For example: "The US ambassador to Iraq gave Saddam permission to invade Kuwait" is fine. No need to reproduce the whole damned transcript. People can follow the link and read it if they want to. If it's not worth taking the time to write a short summary, then it's probably not worth posting here.

If you have a long, original work that you want to share, don't post it in the comments. The comment section is not the place to post War and Peace. Instead, post it at your blog, then post a link and a brief summary to it here. You can get a free blog at Blogger.com, LiveJournal.com, and many other sites.

Hello Leanan,

I understand the points you are trying to make, but I wish you had not deleted my posting--it represented over 8 hours of hunt and peck, googling, and editing for conciseness, yet still builds on my many integrated themes to achieve a desired conclusion. I purposely added it to the Drumbeat ending near the end of the day so that anybody not interested could scroll thru.

Worst of all, I had not yet retained a copy for my own files from the TOD software editor--I essentially would have to try and replicate it again from scratch. =(

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

Sorry, Bob, but you are a repeat offender. Heck, PG deleted one of your mega-long posts shortly after you got here, and it's been a problem ever since. It's not like you weren't warned.

The place to "build on your many integrated themes to achieve a desired conclusion" is your own blog. That way, you can easily link to your previous posts, without having to repeat everything. And people can find them, without searching through hundreds of DrumBeat comments.

OK, Leanan...Got the message, I will try to resist, but at times it is difficult to resist posting several links along with some quotes, in order to refute blank statements, without links, that one considers flat wrong, and are seemingly posted as misleading political statements in attempts at revisionist history...trolls, in other words. I have noticed that the trolls, when confronted with evidence, usually do not respond.

Thanks again for all that you do to keep TOD a great site!

Hi Bob,

Just a note (late in the DB read) to lend some support - this sounds like it was a major project. (Ouch!)

And, to also say - of course, you know you have many fans here.

Does the "blog" suggestion hold any promise?

In regards to Tom Whipple's story in "The Day", it looks like the editor missed/messed up some of the story. To paraphrase, the story says that King Hubbert predicted that the lower 48 would *RUN OUT* of oil sometime in 1970. I believe that Tom meant that the story should read that Hubbert predicted that the lower 48 would *PEAK IN PRODUCTION* of oil sometime in 1970. I think the distinction is critical especially for those who are new to the concepts.

Recommendation for next DrumBeat -
Tom Knudsen's Grabbing for oil in the Sacramento Bee today, on the environmental damage being wrought by exploiting Canada's tar sands.
("fleets of dinosaur-sized trucks and shovels larger than two-car garages are tearing apart a rich mosaic of woods and wetlands to extract some of the dirtiest fossil fuel on the planet... 'Why should we destroy our environment for a thousand years for people who are on a binge?'")

(there's also a quote from Matt Simmons)