DrumBeat: March 24, 2008
Posted by threadbot on March 24, 2008 - 9:28am
Now for some wise words from the readers of The Oil Drum...
“It is only through labor and painful effort, by grim energy and resolute courage, that we move on to better things.”
—Theodore Roosevelt
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Good article on the front page of today's WSJ:
New Limits to Growth Revive Malthusian Fears
It must be snowing in hell today....
The WSJ is rapidly becoming my favorite doomer newspaper. Last week they ran an article about impending financial market meltdown and a situation potentially rivaling the Great Depression.
Well, actually it's snowing here and there's hailstones here. My life is hell....is that close enough?
it's snowing here and there's hailstones here. My life is hell
Most of the readers of this site should be thankful they are not in an active zone of conflict like Iraq. You might actually be in heck - ruled by the bringer of insufficenct light.
"There are two states of human existence. Misery and Horror. Therefore I'm grateful that I'm only miserable."
Woody Allen
Good article on the front page of today's WSJ:
Actually there's a sh@tload of good (i.e. interesting) articles in the WSJ today. Most days I skim thru it in 5 minutes. Today, I spent well over 1/2 hour and am still not done. Biofuels, Cuba, bamboo, idiotic lead editorial, plus much else.
MSNBC has a news story about rising food prices:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23781864/
It's gettin' scary!
The Malthusian component of our economy is our banking system, more specifically 'debt based leveraged banking' misnamed by the Banks as 'fractional reserve banking'.
Without geometric expansion of debt the whole system crashes as new money must be forever increased to pay the interest on the ever larger existing debt. It is leveraged debt on the way up and leveraged money destruction on the way down. A debt spiral up and down.
To monetize this ever increasing debt economies must forever expand using more and more natural resources. This is why growth is considered imperative, because our financial system collapses without ever more growth.
Is there a way out? Yes ... Public Central Banks that create their own money and act as a lender at interest to banks whose loans must be made on a one to one basis with private deposits and borrowed deposits from the Public Bank.This takes the leverage out of the system and empowers private deposits to capture a real rate of return. Frugality is rewarded instead of taxed by inflation. The Public Central Bank garners income from its lendings to Private Banks while shedding interest paid to the Federal Reserve. And really, why shouldn't the public garner income from its money, and indeed, Why the Hell should it pay interest on its' own money?
This simply isn't true. Our financial system undergoes recession without more growth.
Then resumes the debt accumulation through more growth consuming ever more resourses.
Sure, but the financial system doesn't 'collapse' without more growth. We've had years of no or negative growth without collapse.
Think Great Depression ... the most recent deflationary episode in history ...
Recessions are just mild stagnations, not deflations. Government now accounts for over 25 % of economic activity and this will go on. The markets that are now in trouble however are many multiples of the US GDP, even the world GDP ...
The derivatives market is now 500 trillion dollars and is essentially freezing up. The entire world GDP is around 50 trillion. The destruction of this amount of debt will overwhelm the entire world.
Then you will have a crash due to debt destruction.
All because of "debt based leverage banking' misnamed by the banks as 'fractional reserve banking'. Levarage up, leverage down ... Some of these banks used derivatives to leverage out 30 times or more, Citi for example. Now the underlying assets (loans) are bad the destruction of money is at 30 times.
There hasn't been a 'panic' or 'depression' in most Americans lifetimes so you don't have a frame of reference.
The WSJ has an article on Limits to Growth that is available through Google News. It talks about many types of resources, including fresh water and land, but doesn't say a whole lot about world oil specifically.
I find it interesting that they started off stating:
Why would they so talk about the fears, and even validate them throughout the story, but still deny the general idea flat out at the beginning? Thats the WSJ for you.
I read the article and it basically said nothing new. It looks like the writers read the Drum, but went out to get naysayers to give equal weight (Lomborg). In simple terms they talk about Energy Developments that occurred in the mid 1800s as an example of man's technology in reducing the price of whale oil. I will admit there are advances everyday in biological technology, but the WSJ seems to equate the development of Kerosene in the same reference point as today's technological advances. It does not compute, but maybe I am missing something.
The big LTG punchline did belong to Mr. Stiglitz who said that "people will have to change their behavior more than they did after the 1970's oil shock".
I am not seeing that level of anxiety in the public discourse.
The disconnect between man and the size of his aquarium is complete.
I read the article and it basically said nothing new.
It's not what they are saying is new -- it's that they are dealing with it that is new.
It is either ostensibly deal with it or look eminently stupid hiding what has become terribly and hideously obvious.
They have their crotch stuck in a cleft stick and it is publish or be pranged.
As shocking as the WSJ giving any credence to oil limits is what John Hofmeister, President of Shell, U.S. said last week on CNBC (video here at TOD). He said that Simmons was right on peaking oil given his narrow set of hypotheses i.e. conventional oil from traditional producers. So he indirectly admitted imminent conventional peak!
But then he said that Simmons and peak oil theorists don't take into account the vast new world of new liquids being added to the mix. Well excuse me, but we do consider them. We consider them a lot. He apparently doesn't read much at TOD.
There is indeed a vast new world of liquids being stacked upon the conventional oil curve, and they pretty much all have the same problem - EROI. As global peak is approached, you naturally have a declining EROI of conventional oil where you have an ever-increasing portion of oil being used to retrieve more oil. That process is being augmented by diversion of conventional oil to the manufacture of substitute liquids of dangerously low EROI.
Dangerous? How can EROI be dangerous? If you look at how EROI proceeds through the peaking process as shown by a chart Nate Hagens has shown here and compare that to what's going on with the new liquids, you see this:
The unconventional add-ons aren't exactly the "Y" in the first chart being that it isn't all EROI=1 where equal amounts of energy are used and created. But there is enough EROI drop across the divide between the crude of the past and that of the new liquids to create a similar effect.
Does dropping the EROI really warp the curves that much? Well, as Robert Rapier showed in his EROI Review of 3/18, when you go from an EROI of 20 (old fashion crude) to an EROI of 1.3 (corn ethanol) you wind up having to make over 60 times the volume of the lower EROI source to net the same energy as the higher source. That means that less than 1/60th of all that added production is actually contributing to the net energy curve! But not to worry; all of the ethanol contributes to food inflation.
The danger part about EROI is the cliff that is camouflaged and seemingly set as a snare for our time:
You get a similar warp, though not nearly as severe, going from say a 30 average EROI to the left of the peak to say a 5 average EROI for the composite of ethanol, NGL, deepwater, oil sands, and shale to the right of the peak. It makes a vast difference whether you go to an EROI of 5 or to an EROI of 2 or 1.3 from the traditional high net oil of the past as can be clearly seen on the cliff chart above. Since so much of the new alternative liquids being stuffed into that critical add-on region are thought to have EROI right around the super-critical 5 area, perched right on the edge of the cliff, it is imperative that we know accurately what the EROI is for our various options. Things like the deepwater oil, which has EROI by some estimates less than 5, could easily be nudged over the cliff to join corn ethanol as yet another costly boondoggle. EROI should be the number one subject of research and legislation in Congress instead of nonexistent in their discussion or understanding.
Wow, that's fascinating ( in the same way watching a car wreck is fascinating : (
Errol in Miami
Thank you for posting these. As I said on RR's post, and have tried to hammer home elsewhere, the EROEI cliff, well illustrated by these two graphs, should be as much front and center as the Hubbert curve itself. Taken together with a growing population, the bumping up against other limits (water, soil, NPK etc...), globalization increasing the efficiency with which Empire can turn everything into a consumer product, and the expectation that growth will always provide more of everything for all of us, declining EROEI is why I see a global trainwreck coming. Catton, Tainter, Albert Bartlett, each elucidate a key piece, as in another realm do Derrick Jensen, Jerry Mander, Chellis Glendinning, Daniel Quinn, Richard Manning and others. Perhaps Kunstler says it best, "We'll keep on doing what we're doing until we can't, and then we won't." Not long to wait, now.
Netfind
Standing, Clapping. That's one of the most impressive posts for the number of words and graph that I have seen on TOD.
Conclusion:
We've been had
Carter and his sweater speech will, I believe, mark the point of when things needed to be started in earnest.
Instead it was "Morning In America" and everything seemed seemed to go to warp speed as if the world was on acid.
Raygunomics was the worst thing to happen to this country.
Your EROI presentation is meaningless in the context of liquid fuels production, which are an energy source by accident; their value is in being an energy carrier. If coal, wind, or nuclear power are utilized in hydrogen production, the EROI is below one but civilization doesn't grind to a halt. Likewise if some lower value energy source is turned into higher value oil, it simply doesn't matter as long as there are lower cost energy sources for doing the oil production; There are and will be for as long as we care to plot into the future.
You're better off charting oil returned on oil invested than spending so much time in the academic rathole of weather liquid fuels are falling off the over unity energy production cliff. They will, and civilization will continue on simply because the alternatives are demonstrably productive for what may as well be forever.
Hello Dezakin,
I respectfully submit that I believe you are confused on this subject. I will give two energy sources, both with an ERoEI < 1.
1. A gallon of water with a hole in the bottom.
2. A bag of flour with a hole in the bottom.
Upon your request, I will gladly drive you far into our blazing summer desert so you can confidently demonstrate the flawless logic of your above posting. How about this July when it will be 115+ degrees Farenheit in the shade, and of course, much, much hotter in the full sunlight?
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
You're neither being respectful, nor are you submitting anything, nor are these even what would be classified as energy sources. You're just being an ass. How about actually adressing the argument.
Hello Dezakin,
Thxs for responding. Water & food are vital energy sources to me and all life, but please feel free to dispute this.
Oxygen, fuel, and a spark are vital to all ICE engines, but you may disagree. If you can't get fuel to the engine because the gas can has a whole in the bottom [again ERoEI <1]--the car is dead.
Electricity is a vital energy source for an electric-motor or to charge a battery. If the electric cord cannot reach far enough into the desert [again ERoEI <1] to recharge the PHEV-- the car is dead.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Water and food are products, not energy sources. Stop playing the game of metaphors.
If an energy source runs out, it runs out and your energy return is below 1. I'm not sure if thats what you're trying to get at with you're rather insulting attempt at wit, but the whole point is we aren't running out of energy.
You say I'm confused. Your meandering nonsense isn't exactly illumination, and it looks like you don't actually have any point. Stop being such a twit and adress my arguments if you have anything to say.
"Water and food are products, not energy sources."
try this experiment:
stop eating food and see how much energy you have.
The argument with EROEI for FFs is that you basically burn more gas in the engine of the bulldozer to dig it out of the ground than you actually get back for you efforts.
eg. You have to burn through a 20 gallon tank of deisel to run a drilling rig. Then you burn 1000 gallons to run the pump for a total of 1020 gallons spent. The oil you get out of the ground only gets you the equivalent of 1019 gallons of deisel. You've wasted your time, and a gallon of deisel. Of course the process is more complex than that.
However, if you built a windmill powered pump or some sort of solar powered rig, then maybe that would be competetive with energy carriers like hydrogen.
If you read what I wrote originally, thats my point. Liquid fuel is our product, and its value far exceeds the energy value alone.
You wrote:
Wow, where did you get those idiotic ideas? Sure, the Earth is about 72% covered with oceans full of water. Now, try drinking it. The clean water that land plants and animals (and people) require comes from solar energy, which causes the water to evaporate from the oceans and move over the land, falling as rain or snow. All of the "food" people consume is derived from plants, which are solar collectors, though inefficient ones. Thus, all civilization is solar powered.
I'm afraid you have gained a seriously flawed understanding of reality. One wonders where you found such a poor education.
E. Swanson
In discussing powering industrial civilization, we don't treat food as an energy source and often regard it as an energy sink, especially when delving into discussions over energy costs of fertilizer production, irrigation, and other mechanized farming methods. In our accounting we rarely use beasts of burden or slaves for direct energy inputs either. Water itself isn't an energy source at all, its simply a solvent.
We don't regard food as an energy source for the same reason we don't regard hydrogen as an energy source. Its at best a carrier, and its component as an energy carrier is a tiny percentage.
One wonders how so many can be so flippantly insulting and ironicly ignorant at the same time.
Gasoline and electricity are not energy sources either. But, food is stored solar energy, a fact that is not usually included in energy computations. Much of the discussion about energy only includes industrial scale concentrated energy, while ignoring the diffuse solar energy that is the foundation of everything which civilization does. People are solar powered. Don't you agree?
As for water, aren't you forgetting the fact that the water in a river which turns a turbine is there because of the solar energy which powers the hydrological cycle? And, the solvent properties of water depend on it's purity, also a function of the source of the water taken from the hydrological cycle.
E. Swanson
If you stopped playing semanting games you might realize you're arguments are orthoganal to the point I originally made.
But instead you can discuss the energy density of water when tumbled down an accresion disk of a black hole. Have fun with that.
I love it when a troll throws out a red herring, mentioning big words like "orthogonal".
The issue is not cost, it's energy. EROEI is not the same as ROI and using lower dollar cost energy to provide energy forms with higher value does not change the fact that once EROEI approaches 1.0, there is going to be some big changes. For one thing, the present dollar prices for the lower cost energy input is not fixed, but the result or previous market conditions. Those market conditions will change and the prices of all energy sources will rise, reflecting the overall shortage. Using relatively cheap natural gas to extract oil from Canadian tar sands is a prime example, as the price of natural gas climbs, so will the cost of the oil produced by that method.
But, the fact remains that solar energy is the ultimate primary energy source for life on earth and if we transform the limited land area available for food production into providing liquid fuels, we will all suffer.
E. Swanson
You're arguing past me.
We value oil products as an energy carrier first and as an energy source second. If it takes more energy to mine these oil products than is released in their combustion, that doesn't necissarily mean that the well is shut down as long as there is an external energy source (the sun, nuclear, coal, natural gas) to drive the mine.
As a note, I'd like to point out that Gasoline (and all petroleum fuels) are actually carriers for solar energy as well. They are Fossil Fuels, meaning they are made out of plants and animals who were solar powered, and all that solar energy got concentrated and stored in the ground over millions of years.
Wind is solar power, since the sun causes pressure gradients and thus air flows (wind). Hydro-electric is solar power because, as you point out, the sun powers the hydrologic cycle. The fact is, >99% of the energy that runs our society in some shape or form comes from the sun. The only exceptions are (that I can think of) are tidal (powered by the rotational energy of the Earth/Moon system), nuclear, and geothermal (which, according to some theories, may also be nuclear).
If you take those three sources out of the equation, and assume fossil fuels have run out, the maximum available energy on the surface of Earth is equal to the irradiance of the sun times half the surface area of the Earth (since the world is always about 50% day 50% night, it comes out to about 1.74x10^17 Watts). So food, wood for burning, falling water, electricity from PV cells, and wind are all just carriers for that solar energy.
Water and food are products, not energy sources.
Errr no.
Food (or ex food) has ALWAYS had the option of being an energy source. Grains that have been overridden with bugs that man is no longer willing to sort out the infected from the non infected has been subject to burning for heat or conversion into alcohol.
Water is a 'product'? Only in the sense the man is now used to buying water. Even buying water wrapped in oil - be the water flavored with sugar or the waste product of yeasts.
Now, if Man makes a Mr. Fusion (as per the movie back to the future) then, like the accreaction disk - water would be a power source.
Stop being such a twit and adress my arguments if you have anything to say.
I'll be sure to remember your post next time I respond to one of your pro-fission posts and you opt to not address the issue of the day. Or perhaps you normally respond like this an Leahan deletes them (per the comment about the civility level dropping).
Bob,
As becomes clear every time EROEI is discussed here (too infrequently, IMO) there are tremendous psychological barriers that prevent many folks from grokking this very simple concept, and its huge implications. Your valiant efforts are probably better spent elsewhere than trying to convince those who simply refuse to see, though I applaud your ability to approach the debate with humor, grace and civility. And thanks for keeping NPK issues on our collective radar as well.
Clifman
How is it possible that you don't understand the domain of importance of energy return? Its important in primary energy production. Centralized power plants can't compete with low energy returns because they're primary energy producers, but fuels can because they're energy carriers. What do you disagree with here?
Centralized power plants can't compete with low energy returns because they're primary energy producers, but fuels can because they're energy carriers.
So liquid fuels (which came into existance because of photons interacting with plants) is a 'energy carrier'.
So why then is a coal fired plant an 'energy producer' - as the main product used to create heat in the process of energy production is from photons interacting with plants?
http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1447/66/
Green Buildings Could Save More Energy than is Consumed by ALL Cars
Several years ago, I totally retrofitted a 1960s building in New Orleans and cut utilities by about 78%.
Revised lighting, some reflective film, fixed overlooked air gaps, and complete HVAC redesign.
Less than 3 year payback.
Alan
Just to clarify, this is a 5 story building, about 120' x 70' from memory. 100% occupied.
Alan
complete HVAC redesign
Did you do manual J/D calculations ?
Reason I ask is this is an area of future employment possibilities I am currently evaluating - I have a Wrighsoft product CD with demos I will be looking at this week.
You can email me if you like - (bio page).
I had a computer model do Manual J runs, but I also did them by hand/spreadsheet (I wanted to understand the assumptions, etc.)
Old HVAC - 2x 60 ton a/c and 100 ton gas boiler on the roof with two 40 hp electric motors for air circulation. Fixed make-up air added.
New HVAC - 15 residential a/c or heat pumps zoning building with some over lap, 22.5 tons on roof for hottest days, 10 ton condensing gas furnace on ground floor for bulk heat, another 10 tons on roof for coldest mornings. Make-up air triggered by CO2 sensor, run through dehumidifier, Two dehumidifiers in building.
Also used Metal Optics formed 96% reflectors to put light where needed. One low ballast factor T8 bulb with reflector in hallways vs. 4x T12 for example. Used high CRI bulbs for better light and more lumens (4% or so more).
Best Hopes,
Alan
"Less than 3 year payback."
try getting that in today's stock market and you are partially hedged against rising prices.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/03/merchandise-mart-goes-green.php
Hi john,
There are tremendous opportunities to reduce energy demand in existing buildings and innovative financing can help us tap into it. I'm working with an electrical utility that will pay, provided the programme is approved by the PUC, 75 per cent of the cost of various lighting upgrades and allow customers to repay the balance on their power bill over a five year period, interest free. State of the art products -- professionally installed at no risk and no out-of-pocket expense -- generating positive cash flows from day one. These individual customers get a very sweet deal and the utility and its ratepayers benefit as well because it's cheaper for the utility to invest in DSM than new plant additions [a small surcharge will help the utility recover a portion of its lost revenues].
Replace an old T12 fluorescent lighting system with advanced T8s, combined with daylight harvesting and/or occupancy sensors, and you can easily cut your lighting costs by more than half. Ditto swapping out a standard, probe-start HID fixture with a T5 or T8 high bay equivalent. Replace conventional halogen track lighting with the latest generation of halogen-IR or MR16 IRCs and you can trim demand by 35 to 40 per cent; better yet, replace these halogens with Philip MasterColour Elite CDM lamps that produce up to 100 lumens per Watt and you can slash demand by 80 to 90 per cent. Note too that for every kW of lighting savings you typically save another 0.30 to 0.35 kW in related air conditioning demand and that many commercial and retail spaces are air conditioned year-round. Basic thermal envelope upgrades; high efficiency boilers and chillers; ECM motors; heat and coolth recovery from exhaust ventilation; proper energy management practices... it's like owning a gold mine, except that you don't need a pick-axe or shovel to harvest the rewards, just the right economic incentives.
Cheers,
Paul
Two suggestions.
Use high reflective (96% ?) formed reflectors to put light where needed. I put a low ballast factor single T8 bulb with reflector in hallways to replace four T12s in a white pan. Meet Illuminating Engineers standards for hallways with "light to spare".
Use high CRI T8 bulbs. Better quality light and more of it (about 4% more from memory and old specs).
Best Hopes,
Alan
Thanks, Alan, for the tips. We have avoided the use of aluminized reflectors due to concerns related to their long-term performance. Where possible, we opt for a master-slave arrangement where two or more fixtures share the same ballast. We also specify high efficiency instant start or, where occupancy sensors will be used, program start ballasts, typically from Osram Sylvania.
Depending upon the required light levels, we use 25, 28 or 32 watt T8s from either Osram Sylvania or Philips with a CRI of 85 or better; generally speaking, we stick with a BF of 0.88 but will go up or down as may be required. A 32-watt FO32/841/XPS pumps out 3,100 lumens (our general preference is for 5,000K and in this case a FO32/850/XPS is rated at 3,000 lumens and 81 CRI). Personally, I like Philip's new Alto II lamps a lot: just 1.7 mg of Hg (the lowest in the industry), 3,100 initial lumens, 97% lumen maintenance, 85 CRI (82 @ 5,000K) and up to 36,000 hours service life. If you opt for their XLL version, initial lumens come in a little lower -- 2,950 -- but rated life can be as high as 46,000 hours and CRI is a flat 85 across all colour temperatures.
The problem you face is that when it comes time for replacement some dork in accounting will always specify the lowest-cost product that will ultimately compromise performance. Or the maintenance guys will slap in any old tube regardless of its colour temperature or CRI -- even T12s if they're still lying around. For this reason, we try to standardize on one ballast and one T8 for all fixtures and drill home the importance of sticking to this standard.
Cheers,
Paul
BTW, what happened to the old Motorola ballasts (my favorite) after Osram bought them ?
5000K is too white/blue/cold for most, IMVHO. No more than 4100K in my experience.
I may have a deal locally soon. I will ley you know.
Best Hopes for Efficient LIghting,
Alan
Dust can attach to reflectors, but no corrosion issues AFAIK (building got 5 feet of salt water in Katrina).
Alan
Hi Alan,
I don't know how much Motorola DNA can still be found in the Quicktronic product line; Motorola was a true pioneer and their quality was always top drawer and we've also had excellent results with its successor.
I use to think that until we did a side-by-side comparison in a large office space and asked staff what they thought. Everyone perceived the 5,000K area to be notably brighter and "cleaner"; by comparison, the 4,100K area looked a little dull and dingy even though the only difference was the colour temperatures of the lamp. We repeated this test a few more times and, again, 5,000K was the preferred choice. At some point I'd like to run this same test with 6,500K lamps or perhaps the new 8,000Ks and see the reaction.
In any event, due to their greater scotopic performance, we found we could often go with a 25 or 28-watt T8 instead of a 32-watt, and reduce lighting loads by another 5 to 10 per cent without any perceived drop in light levels.
Good to know. We found dust and grease to be an issue and weren't altogether happy with the change in fixture optics and room appearance.
I hope it comes through for you, and by all means please share the good news.
Cheers,
Paul
I do not like master-slave, exposed higher voltage bundle of thin wire seems asking for problems.
We retrofitted existing fixtures with a kit, only about 4% new fixtures.
We used 2 foot single tube outdoor fixture with low ballast factor ballast for stairwell lighting. Worked well.
Alan
Hi Alan,
Sorry, I should have made clear that these are tandem fixtures, so no exposed wiring.
We do the same unless there's a compelling reason to replace it. That said, some of the newer products offer much higher fixture efficiency (more than what can be achieved through a retrofit kit); better glare control and/or light distribution; or just a fresher, cleaner, more pleasant overall look.
E.g.: http://www.lithonia.com/Products/groups/Fluorescent/RT5/default.asp
For maximum energy savings in stairwells applications and still meet code, bi-level fixtures are another good choice -- full brightness when motion is detected and dimmed to 5 to 10 per cent when the space is unoccupied. Considering these spaces are illuminated 24x7, the savings quickly add up.
See: http://www.archenergy.com/lrp/products/brochures/deliverable_6.2.5_CaseS...
Cheers,
Paul
You have more tools in your kit today than I had a decade ago. All self taught at that time, which was an interesting life experience.
What would you recommend for a neighborhood grocery store with narrow aisles ? Double T12s exposed today.
Thanks,
Alan
Hi Alan,
For a general primer, see: http://www.designlights.org/downloads/retail_guide.pdf
This guide is a bit dated, but it might still be of some help: http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/DELTA/pdf/Vol-1-1-A&P.pdf
I might also recommend: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=grocery.sb_grocery
A couple questions if I may... Is this an upscale or discount retailer? Are the current fixtures F96T12 or F40T12? What is the ceiling height and is this a drywall surface or 2x2 or 2x4 acoustic tile? Is the primary motivator energy savings or does the retailer want to address certain deficiencies and/or change the overall look of the store?
Assuming energy savings are the primary/sole driver and your budget is tight, the simple, least-costly solution is to swap out the tubes and ballast and clean and reuse the existing hardware. A 59-watt Philips F96T8/TL841PLUS is rated at 5,900 lumens @ 0.88 BF, 30,000 hours service life @ 12hrs per start, 85 CRI and 95 per cent EOL lumen maintenance.
A two-tube F96T12 with a magnetic ballast might consume upwards of 181-watts; its replacement would come in at 110-watts, for a net savings of up to 71-watts per fixture -- a 40 per cent reduction. More light (107 lumens per watt), better light quality (85 versus 62 CRI), longer lamp life (30,000 versus 15,000 or 18,000 hours), modest lamp replacement costs, lower a/c loads, no flicker and no annoying ballast hum.
If this store has an an open truss steel canopy, depending upon the ceiling height, a 250, 320 or 400-watt HID fixture with an electronic ballast is another option. A good quality ceramic metal halide lamp can offer an eye-popping CRI of 92 and being a point source, it can add considerable punch and sparkle. Sobeys is a local based grocery chain and like many big box retailers, they've gone this route.
See: http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/education_resources/liter...
and
http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/education_resources/liter...
For end of isle displays or adjoining open spaces, I really like 100-watt PAR38 ceramic metal spots tucked up at the truss level (e.g., Halo L5038 or L5138 fixtures). Nice clean ceiling and dramatic punches of light for added visual interest. The trade-off is higher initial and ongoing operating costs.
With a better understanding of your client's needs, I'd be happy to delve into this in greater detail.
Regards,
Paul
It is my neighborhood grocery store, late 1800s with 1950 add-on, friendly 2nd generation. Cost savings are important.
I have seen aluminum reflectors in Austin grocery stores.
I shop there 3 to 5 days/week, but let me "double check" :-)
"Cozy" atmosphere with all classes buying there (beat-up bicycles to new Jaguars can be parked in front, many walk ups).
I would finance changeover myself to help.
Alan
Hi Alan,
It sounds like cost is going to be an important factor and maybe you'll need to roll this out in phases. Target the least efficient stuff first or what will generate the greatest ROI -- e.g., halogen or incandescent track lighting -- and use these savings to help finance the next series of upgrades. And don't overlook the used marketplace when sourcing parts and fixtures; store closing and renovations can be an excellent source of commercial grade lighting products. I've also picked up some terrific bargains on ebay, sometimes paying less than 1/10th of what I'd normally pay for the same product new. For example, I was paying a local distributor $300.00 for a 70-watt Halo L5300 CDM track head only to discover the same product selling on ebay for as little as $25.00. Likewise, a Philips 45-watt MR16 IRC that normally goes for $8.00 or $9.00 a pop can be bought on ebay for $1.65 ea.
See: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&i...
I suspect you know just as much about lighting as I do if not more, but if there's anything I can do to help, please don't hesitate to ask.
Regards,
Paul
I know in Finland we already put a lot of effort to making houses energy efficient, but the cost is still way too high for retrofitting old buildings. The improvement in efficiency isn't good enough and payback times go beyond 10 or 15 years. And I mean cost of labour, resulting from heavy taxation and costs of employing people. Electricity bills here are growing fast despite of record breaking warm winters.
I wonder how expensive it is to keep pumping hot air in whatever form of energy into these swiss-cheese buildings, especially considering our winter temperatures, and the continuing increase in energy price. It might come to a situation where its cheaper to knock them down and build modern ones, than keep heating magpies all through the winter for another 10 years.
PS: also from Finland
It makes sense if it anyway needs major renovation like a new roof, facade, windows or pipes.
The crazy thing is the values built into our system that will prevent us from doing the rational thing.
That sounds believable. In 1974 California adopted Title 24 which sets standards for insulation, roofing, windows, lighting, HVAC systems and so on that are vary depending on the climate of the house. Since the adoption of title 24, California's electricity use per capita stopped growing while the U.S. as a whole increased its per capita energy use by 50%. If the U.S. as a whole had adopted similar standards then our electricity use would be about 1/3 less than it is today, which corresponds to a total energy use of around 13% less than today which is equal to about half of what is used in transportation. Requiring retrofits to the latest energy efficiency standards could probably get you as big of a reduction as you suggest. One good time to require such retrofits would be whenever a house is sold. That way you avoid affecting current homeowners too much but get the retrofits done fairly quickly.
oops, the year title 24 went into effect was 1978, not 1974
WPI (the college I'm currently attending) is in the late stages of building a new dorm with a fairly "green," profile, including a green roof.
http://www.wpi.edu/About/NewResHall/facts.html
It's nice to see some of this stuff being done, but it still seems like a painfully gradual crossover.
Interesting.
Right in the middle of this picture:
http://maps.google.com/maps?client=firefox-a&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=30.421565,...
, there is a new office building going up. They have this thing that looks like an irregular-shaped swimming pool on the site, and now they've covered the top of it with a concrete lid. My guess is this cistern is there for heat-sink purposes. Average cave temp. around Austin is 70°F. I drive the length of that road every day going to work (~5.5 Mi).
But, will it be "greener" than the post oaks they bulldozed to build it?
When they finally tear down that dump Stoddard then I'll be impressed.
I think the word you're looking for is "explode."
Of course, most buildings don't use propane or fuel oil, so green buildings don't really affect that pesky oil peaking problem.
And since Dr. Hansen now points out that we need zero CO2 emissions, it looks like green buildings would be a good start, but not nearly enough.
Oh yeah, and now we have a credit crunch that's making it harder for everyone to pay for green buildings.
Green buildings is certainly another silver BB, but until we have all-electric cars and a solar PV grid, the "ALL Cars" bit is just annoying hype. The problems are much bigger than that.
"Of course, most buildings don't use propane or fuel oil, so green buildings don't really affect that pesky oil peaking problem."
A good portion of non base-load electrical generation comes from gas powered power plants, so decreasing utilities decreases gas/liquid fossil fuel usage, although admitidly it doesn't save much *oil*. Depending on building design heating could also be done by direct burning of FF also.
Whatta ya mean "solar PV grid" Its gotta be solar thermal. Much cheaper. I have also been playing around with a solar thermal flat panel that flops on your roof, boils a fluid and drives a little turbine- mini solar thermal. I think I can beat PV in $/watt with this primitive thing. Would be a laugh!
BTW, would somebody please tell ol' Al Gore to quit forcing his windmills to turn in the wrong direction up there to the left? Wastes huge amounts of energy right before our eyes- painful.
I went and signed onto his petition and also left a lengthy note about PO, with a paragraph specifically adressing his painfully backwards wind turbines. That was less than a week ago though.
Lets check out how the rest of the world beats on that drum...
China
Xinhua - China's largest oilfield gears up output target amid rising oil price
India
Mittal eyes Coal India's old mines
Russia
Mitvol's Agency to Probe TNK-BP
If you read the China story you find that 40 million tonnes is actually a decrease on current production. The "good news" is that they hope to slow the decline rate with enhanced techniques. Let's hope it doesn't fall off a cliff a couple of years later.
Right, but its a big increase on what they previously expect to get out of it. I think that does increase the danger of falling off a "production cliff" later on.
Here's a little American insight on the Chinese situation:
MSNBC China facing renewed fuel shortages
I believe that the Daqing Field has about a 90% water cut--As Matt Simmons put it, a lot of the world's oil fields are producing oil stained brine.
While China's oil production has been falling their consumption has continued to increase. How much will prices have to rise before many Chinese can no longer afford to drive or use oil for other reasons? How much higher must prices rise before their imports start to decline rather than rise month after month?
China Feb crude imports at peak, diesel imports surge
Ron Patterson
The question is, when do they stop bailing out the United States of America by purchasing tens of billions of dollars of our government debt every week?
Let's roughly say China's daily imported oil bill is about $300 million. China seems to be buying a couple of hundred billion in t-bills a year lately, or $600 million a day. Sounds like they could cut out one bad habit to keep financing another bad habit.
They can't STOP taking (buying) US Treasuries, the trade imbalance between the two nations is made up in US dollars.
What they can do is use those US dollars to buy tangible things eg. oil, copper, wheat Vs just holding on to those dollars.
If I run a trade surplus with you, then whatever my imbalance is I have to take in IOU's from you. When your IOU's become worthless it's game over, re-set the board and start again.
China may well be in a better position to import oil than the US in a few years, especially considering our lack of manufacturing exports and current costly engagement in Iraq. If we don't give something real (not just money, since that isn't a real commodity) to the oil producing nations, than they have no reason to give us oil.
China would become the leading consumer of oil. Now that is a dangerous situation.
China has it's own problems aplenty. Its export position weakens as the economy tanks here, just for starters. We're going down, but so are they. I don't think we are seeing a shifting balance of power between empires (as, I admit, has always happened before in history) -- rather I think we will see something new: a collapse of all the big empires.
That doesn't mean there won't be fireworks on the way down. It would be nice if the Soviet collapse were the model for the coming collapses. But I fear that's not a realistic hope.
Last I read China exports 15% of it's finished goods to US. A 50% reduction in salad shooters to US would hardly cripple China's economy.
'We're going down, but so are they.'
I'm afraid it is little consolation to me that China might join us in the bottom of the barrel.
'I think we might see something new: a collapse of all the big empires.'
How did you come to this conclusion?
World Sneezes, China's Just Fine
Economists say a global slowdown will largely spare a mainland economy still based on domestic consumption and cushioned by vast cash reserves http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/mar2008/gb20080318_747713....
So, maybe over the long run, a no-growth world will mean smaller effective political units, but we will probably suffer more in the short-term than China as they outbid us for oil and prices continue to rise.
Economists say a global ... The same economists who said things would never get to this point? It is not just the US economy that will contract. All of China's customers will eventually be affected. The Chinese stock market is (was?) down 40 pct. China has capitalism, just like we do. There is no automatic way of their domestic consumption taking up the slack. If there were, there would be no such thing as a recession or depression and capitalism wouldn't be capitalism.
I certainly share your disdain for economists, Dave. But China's people and government have built up tons of savings, unlike our people and government, who have built up tons of debt. That's why their domestic consumption can take up the slack. They have the bucks to buy energy, and they have the bucks to invest in energy efficient infrastructure to use that energy ever more productively to improve the lives of their people. They are in relatively great shape for what's coming, compared to other oil importers.
And you can't really use their stock market as a barometer of their economy. Their stock market is pretty much a casino, and not a modern corporate Vegas casino, but the old mob-run type of Vegas casino--a real bust-out joint.
Please, It will take one serious uprising for China too have a serious setback. For christ sake they can barely handle a a uprising from a bunch of monks! what happens when the real deal comes to town?
Please, It will take one serious uprising for China too have a serious setback.
And the US of A is somehow different?
For christ sake they can barely handle a a uprising from a bunch of monks!
How long did LA burn?
I think that's true, if and only if their government is willing to level with their population about the nature of the Peak Oil crisis. Even dictatorships have to manage expectations, but the leaders of China have let expectations run wild. Those leaders will not easily admit that they made a mistake betting on the US to properly use the lifeline of Chinese t-bill purchases to mend its ways.
For some time I've sensed that the peoples of the successful states in East Asia are becoming arrogant and overconfident like the Europeans of 1914. The upside of this is that those Europeans were surprisingly ready to make insane sacrifices for an absurd war, so getting Chinese to accept that they are in an economic struggle that requires sacrifices in comforts, not blood, should be feasible. The downsides are too many to mention.
We should recall that the Chinese government has been trying to engineer a stock market crash for several years now, for the spectre of inflation casts a long shadow there. That government, alone among the great powers of mankind (excepting perhaps Germany) recalled the old lesson that the sooner the crash came, the less bad it would be. The question is, was this one too late? Do the citizens have the toughness to rebuild their economy around conservation and, at least, less coal after their fantasies have been intentionally derailed?
How can the government level with their population about crude oil when the government is clueless about peak oil? The people keep electing politicians who promise them that they will "fix" the problem of high oil prices. They elect people who give rosy and optimistic outlooks. And the problem is, the politicians actually believe that, that is why they are so convincing.
The general public will likely be aware of peak oil long before their government officials are.
Ron Patterson
I disagree that the public will be aware of peak oil before the government.
At least so far, most people seem to assume GWB and/or the oil barons are conspiring the prices up as a rip off. That's part of what makes a change of political party so tempting nowadays... If all the problems are because of George and his oil buddies, things will definitly get better once the other party gets the White House
It's in the interest of the oil companies to keep this illusion going (bear with me here) because then it makes it seem as if they are still in control of the situation. It's more comfortable to think you're jsut being ripped off by Exxon than to think that Exxon really can't supply you with enough gas any more.
And people eat it up.
But that being said the internet and TOD is doing a good job. The real question is how to reach the masses with a message they don't want to hear (my bet is some type of movie, that seems to be a big thing lately).
There are a number out there, the two "Crudes", the two "Suburbias", and others. I'll put my two cents in for the broader scoped What A Way to Go: Life at the End of Empire. A middle class white guy comes to grips with Peak Oil, Climate Change, Species Extinction and Population Overshoot.
As Reagan said about the growing trade deficit,"We have the goods (real wealth) and they have dollars (artificial wealth)".
In the early 1990's the Japanese people had built up tons of savings, but that didn't save Japan from a prolonged downturn. Also I would be suprised if China has discovered the secret of perpetual recession free growth. Fast growing economies tend to have sharp downturns once in a while, like the US in the 19th century.
How did you come to this conclusion?
Short version: peak oil and peak everything else. Military and economic domination will cease to be feasible. The nations (and the world) will be obliged to turn their attentions to survival.
Military and economic domination will cease to be feasible.
Won't stop 'em from trying tho.
'. As Joseph Tainter argued in Collapse of Complex Societies, the competition between states in a peer polity system keeps any of them from truly collapsing on their own; today, the IMF, the World Bank, and various other forces (well-portrayed in the pharmaceutical and illegal arms trades by the 2005 movies The Constant Gardener and Lord of War, respectively) “prop up” collapsed states from the remaining pillars of complexity. This state of pseudo-collapse brings with it the worst of both worlds: the strife, poverty and violence of collapse, without the opening spaces and opportunities that a full collapse brings with it.'
http://anthropik.com/2007/06/living-in-collapse/
godesky agrees w/ dave. i'm still studying this.
we[global] did prop up ussr; specially w/ all those nucs.
'Peak oil and peak everything else. Military and economic domination will cease to be feasible. The nations (and the world) will be obliged to turn thier attentions to survival.'
It is true that the US cannot afford to wage the wars that are currently in progress. The US is dependent on dollars flowing back into the US from foreign shores to fight the wars and run the current domestic budget deficit. The current military, fiscal and monetary policies of the US are unsustainable.
However, China is not joined to the US at the hip. Once oil producing nations finally come to the conclusion that the US is willing to let the dollar, the world reserve currency, go in the toilet, they will come up with a new trading scheme leaving the dollar out in the cold. If this comes to pass, the US is through as a major player in world events. The US would not be able to afford oil in nearly the quantities that it now consumes.
If the US declines in importance, leaving a vacuum, the SCO countries would be left in the drivers seat. China, Russia, and Iran would form an ever stronger trading partnership and eventually other OPEC members would join this group. Since China's oil use per unit of GDP is far more efficient than any western country I don't see how they can lose the economic game in the long run.
Even in a world with declining oil production there will be economic winners and losers. The US, as it weakens economically, will not be able to sustain it's current military strength and posture. Without the military, what is the US? The US has placed all its eggs in the military basket. China is not strapped to a policy of vast military bases spread over the globe and unlimited military spending with the money of foreigners. All China has to do is beat the US at the economic game, and strengthen their military enough to prevent a US attack...and bide their time. China has a plan, China takes a long view of the future.
Our individual, and personal, feelings are not going to alter the outcome of the economic game that is playing out.
I bookmarked your post, one of only about 50 TOD bookmarks (articles or comments) that I have so noted in over 2 years.
Best Hopes for Clear Insightful Comments,
Alan
Why haven't the other oil producers followed the Kuwaiti example and stopped pegging their currencies to the doller? How long before they do?
"The US has placed all its eggs in the military basket."
All the more reason the Chimps doomsday scenario grows more likely, "we will not go quietly in the night".
no. 1 criteria for future US presidents ; won't pull the trigger.
Maybe the conditions for big empires to thrive are coming to an end. A poor country that becomes rich via conquest has the advantage of tough peasant troops and simple tribal loyalty. Rich countries trying to maintain domination, however, seem more and more pathetic, corrupt and incompetent. Now if all the existing rich countries face the loss of cheap energy that allows them to project power overseas, and equip their dwindling supply of loyal soldiers with force multipliers...
Fuel prices in China are subsidized. Back in 2005 there was an article about the Chinese gov't cracking down on people trafficing fuel from China to Hong Hong (not subsidized) and down south into Vietnam. I am pretty sure China is still subsidizing prices but the prices probably have risen since 2005. China also has high inflation. Wages are rising so that probably off setting some of the higher fuel prices. The biggest worry for China if exports to the US decline significantly. Their are a lot of factories producing goods that only westerners buy. With a slump in demand from the US, it would cause these factories to cut production or shutdown.
What Victory in Iraq will Look Like
Washington Post article on Police Chief in Fallujah. IMHO, this is a sample of what we are supporting in Iraq and what we hope will take control.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/23/AR200803...
This will be part of what will take over (including their oil) if things go as "we" hope.
Alan
The police chief, a former insurgent, says ...
'"We never tortured anybody," he said. "Sometimes we beat them during the first hours of capture."
His men, he added, abuse suspects because "they don't surrender easily. They don't confess. They say: 'I am innocent. I haven't done anything.' They start to defend themselves."'
The chief is, without doubt, winning lots of hearts and minds. If America ever pulls out of Iraq, I suspect the chief will be leaving...post haste.
Yup, all those lives, all that treasure, so that GWB could one up his pappy, so that the neo-cons could fuel their Empire, and so an impediment to Greater Israel could be removed. Now, the only way for the Empire and Israel to roll back the expanded regional influence of Iran, other than the murder of millions of Iranians, is to find another Sunni Saddam. Maybe they've got their man in Fallujah.
And now McCain is surrounded by neo-cons who want more of the same for the US and the world.
By the way, it seems that one of McCain's chief advisors is claiming that the financial industry meltdown in the US is the fault of local and state governments who placed restrictions on sub-urban sprawl.
" For example, last week one McCain economic adviser — Kevin Hassett, the co-author of “Dow 36,000” — insisted that everything would have been fine if state and local governments hadn’t tried to limit urban sprawl. Honest."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/opinion/24krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=sl...
I mean you really cannot make this stuff up. I mean I really want to hear the mental gymnastics on that premise. My response - Off with his head.
http://www.amazon.com/Dow-36-000-Strategy-Profiting/dp/0609806998
Seems the market doesn't value his opinions much!
On the contrary, I think it is grossly overpriced!
On the contrary of the contrary! Invest only $0.01 in a copy of the book, and have a full five minutes of book-burning warmth in five years when the power goes out. That's a huge appreciation of value in a short period of time!
You don't understand, when you agree to purchase the book, with your credit card, you agree to pay postage and handling. Postage and handling will run you $3.95. Media mail will cost them about $2.50 so they will be making about $1.45 on the deal. But you are out the full $3.96, postage, handling and the one cent price of the book.
Ron Patterson
It would still keep you warm longer than burning 4 $1 bills.
You see, this is why kindling prices are going up so much - those darned transportation expenses.
Funny about all these postings about the cost of Iraq. The US presence there is quite small, 125,000 men. What would a Vietnam scale commitment do to the economy?
You forget the "contractors" like Blackwater. Mercenaries are *NOT* cheap !
Alan
'Truckers ‘going broke’ and threatening to strike'...
Strike is set for April Fools Day, 1-4-08. Mish has comments about this proposed strike action at his site, below link...
Also a link to Quad City News via Prudent Bear, below link...
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2008/03/19/news/iowa/doc47e03e9ea03bd427...
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/
Some comments from a trucker...
'What started as a small, online grassroots effort now appears to have the potential for something bigger.
Dan Little, the owner/operator of a livestock hauling company in Carrollton, Mo., estimated Tuesday that at least 1,000 other truckers from across the United States have committed so far to joining him in a strike on April 1.
Although none of the truckers interviewed Tuesday at the Iowa 80 Truck Stop, Walcott, which is just off Interstate 80 west of Davenport, has heard of the intended strike, some said they would shut down, too.
Weldon Kinnison, a Virginia trucker who was hauling soft drink from Indiana to Denver, heard about the plans for a strike for the first time Tuesday while stopping at Walcott.
“I’m an owner/operator with the American Truckers Association,” he said. “I’d park my truck for a week with the cattle haulers.
“The fuel is too high, and there’s no reason for it. I don’t listen to the CB (radio) that much, but I guess I’ll start now.”'...snip...
FRom the truckers' debate on whether to strike April 1 or May 1
From old memory, the last time that there was a truckers strike, those that still worked had an occasional sniper to worry about.
Should be good news for the railroads,
Alan
Don't forget that intermodial rail depends on truckers to make the connections at the ends of the hauls...
E. Swanson
May Day is back! Truckers of the World Unite! You have nothing to lose but your unreasonable expectations for cheap diesel!
I guess those reactionary good ol' boys are what passes for a proletariat these days - not the makers of our goods, but the ones who haul them in from the Chinese container ships.
This could get ugly. Might be good to stock up now before the story hits MSM and people start panic buying...or will average joe's still expect BAU?
The Black Swan flies into sight?
BZ
Everything will be fine!!
"stashing away MRE's, loading up ammo and hording water"
From Fleetowner Magazine
Trucks at Work: Hunkering Down
Hopefully the strike is a scheme for long-haul truckers to drive each other out of business. Enough will drop out of the industry so that the ones left can enjoy a decent standard of living.
So a bull shipper in Missouri is calling for a strike on April Fool's Day. Sounds like something The Onion would print.
More trucker news (may have been posted yesterday):
Truckers slowing down due to diesel costs
Which leads to a product, IdleAire; basically, a docking station for big trucks. Provides air conditioning, internet, and cable to the semi. In a sense of malice, I wonder if a similar service could be provided to SUV owners that can't afford the commute home.
http://www.idleaire.com/
Loss of liquidity, not insolvency, caused credit crunch
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article3607495...
A new initiative is getting people out of their cars for a day a week in Bristol.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/19/chooseday
Carbon capture could revolutionise our energy industry
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/21/greentech.carbonemis...
The Long Emergency
What's going to happen as we start running out of cheap gas to guzzle?
JAMES HOWARD KUNSTLER
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7203633/the_long_emergency
Higher gas prices are on the horizon …
but NJ is well-positioned to weather storm
http://www.njfuture.org/index.cfm?ctn=9t45e1o30v9g&emn=5u92y86g2h42&fuse...
Biofuel boom threatens food supplies: Nestle
http://www.physorg.com/news125509418.html
At the risk of confusing the resident ethanol trolls/lobbyists with facts and informed analysis, here is a link to a report dealing with bio-energy in the context of effective strategies for greenhouse gas reduction. First a brief summary and then the link (PDF), followed by a second link to REAP-Canada's on-line library. Note the reference to using marginal farmland (and forested land) to source bio-energy crops:
"The report's major discovery, as highlighted by the tables above, is that government incentives applied to large scale solid biofuels would surpass even the most effective existing subsidies — those for wind power — at reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. If green heat programs and large scale power incentives were provided at a rate of $4.00/GJ for biomass pellets, CO2e offsets would be created at a cost of less than $50.00/tonne of CO2e abated when displacing coal. Solid biofuels also have the advantage over wind power in that they can be stored and used for base or peak load in power applications. Moreover, production and transportation of solid biofuels at the necessary scale would provide a major economic stimulation to the rural economy. Ultimately, a solid biofuel incentive would cost 1/2 as much per tonne of CO2e avoided as comparable biodiesel programs, and 1/8th as much as current ethanol programs.
The findings suggest that a solid biofuels policy would be an effective and sustainable means to develop the Ontario and Canadian economies. Such a program would support market opportunities for the forestry industry and for farmers with marginal farmlands. It would also reduce the need for coal imports into Ontario and proposed Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) fossil fuel imports into Canada, thus improving Ontario’s and Canada’s trade balances. Beyond the economic co-benefits, incentives for biomass pellets for green heat and electricity generation simply offer a cost-effective strategy for governments to reduce the amount of CO2e going into the atmosphere, while addressing other priorities."
http://www.reap-canada.com/library/Bioenergy/BIOCAP_REAP_bioenergy_polic...
http://www.reap-canada.com/library.htm
Truckers ‘going broke’ and threatening to strike
How do you talk to someone like this? Here is a guy whose livelihood depends on two things -- his rig and the fossil fuel that it burns -- and he hasn't the foggiest notion where that smelly brown liquid comes from.
So, who's going to tell him that it isn't big oil or the Ay-rabs who are to blame?
His livelihood depends on a third thing: heavily subsidized roadbed infrastructure. The bigger the rig, the more damage to the highway (I recall an Oregon State Transportation study in the '70s concluding that damage increases as the 3rd power of the weight). The fuel taxes they pay don't come close to covering their cost. Bring up that argument with a trucker and you will hear how your cheap food depends upon that subsidy. That is in fact true, and is proof of how far we are from a "market driven" economy. Subsidized interstate trucking and Federal water projects made it possible for suburbanites in Jersey to eat California/Florida/Texas tomatoes while Atlantic state truck farmers went belly up. High fuel costs might help reverse that trend.
Here's to a rational transportation system where interstate transport of essential goods is by rail and small trucks haul goods from railyards to local markets.
Utah,
Thanks for this. There is nothing wrong with higher fuel prices forcing us to move to a more efficient transportation system. I just wonder whether or not the rail system can handle the increased load.
"I just wonder whether or not the rail system can handle the increased load."
Ah yaww!
More rail use for the miles of car loads of bio-mass for every bio-fuel producer 24-7-365.
More rail for the miles of carloads of coal for all the new and existing coal fired and CTL plants. 24-7-365.
More rail for transportation of people and goods.
Is this possible?
Yes.
One secret is that the marginal cost for rubber tire capacity is typically higher/unit than the original or base cost.
OTOH, with rail the marginal cost for expanded capacity is typically lower than the base cost.
In simplest terms, add a second track to a formerly bi-directional single track (with minimal sidings) and capacity increases by almost x4 at less than double the original cost.
Other capacity increasing steps, such as better signals, better and faster track, more sidings, cost relatively little but expand capacity quite a bit.
I linked this article a few days ago,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1215/is_2_206/ai_n13455602
A few points are missed, but the best specifics I have seen.
Best Hopes for more Rail Investment,
Alan
I think that as the take of inflation adjusted gasoline taxes goes down, the interstate and state highway system will continue to get funds for maintenance. Truckers will therefore continue to destroy roadway.
Local roads will likely degrade - but local speeds can be slow if necessary and therefore it will be BAU.
The only way to stop it, is to lower weight limits on trucks - and that is not likely to take place.
Will we peak because of geology, or for other reasons?
Contrary to what a very few others are saying, geology will be the reason we peak. Not that other factors do not have an influence because they certainly do but the driving factor will be geology.
It is like this, geology is the set point but other factors can either hasten or delay the peak, but only slightly. Above ground factors like war can hasten the peak. Economical factors like bringing stripper wells on line that were uneconomical before prices rose can slightly delay the peak. Oil sands, because of their tiny overall contribution, will hardly be a factor at all.
I believe we are on the peak plateau right now. But it will not become obvious until we start we slide down from that plateau. When that happens, everyone from CERA to Mike Lynch to whomever, will find every excuse in the world to blame the slide on anything except geology. So peak oil folks should be getting their ducks in a row to counter that argument.
Not that that will make any difference whatsoever, but it sure will make for some interesting arguments.
Ron Patterson
Old Florida saying: When you'r up to you'r ass in alligators, it's hard to remember that you set out to drain the swamp'
Well, 'When your up to your ass in above ground factors, it's hard to remember that you set out to drain the oil well.'
Above ground factors cannot be over estimated. For one reason, we encounter new AG factors all the time. Governments and oil producers are hit by AG factors frenquently. Recently a confrontation between Venesuela and Columbia could have led to war, it didn't. Now there is a possibility that a war with Iran could begin. Only a handfull of people know if this war will start...or not. The possibility for black swans abound...unknown unknowns. Any war that effects output of a large oil producer will hit the world economy hard, and cause distortions in oil production stats.
PO could very easily be obscured by above ground factors. PO is always going to be determined by looking in the rear view mirror. It will definitely happen and probably soon, (or maybe already) but that does not mean we will be able to identify the moment that PO occurs, except in retrospect.
Actually, does it make a difference if we identify PO the moment that it happens or a couple of years after the fact? PO in the middle of an economic meltdown might have a different feel than PO in a BAU situation. If workers are already using alternate transportation to commute they will not be as aware of PO untill it drives their utility and living costs higher. In a BAU situation commuters notice fuel prices every time they move up a few cents.
OK, Ron, I have given you a lot of set-ups, have at them. :)
Why? I cannot see that you disagreed with anything I wrote.
Ron
A peak in US (or any country) oil consumption could occur because of ELM, war, or other constraints. Suppose that the oil producers decided that they no longer wanted dollars? Suppose that oil producers decided that they wanted to bring in more industry and produce finished products for export (added value) and sell far less oil? Suppose that oil producers decided that oil was worth more than any fiat currency?
There are lots of reasons that a peak in oil consumption could occur (in any country) without PO world wide actually happening. For the citizens of the country without oil it would look like PO had arrived, and would be PO, for them.
Technically, PO would not have arrived world wide. But, for a country without oil PO would be reality right now. If one were to ask a Zimbabwean today if PO has arrived, that person would probably say 'yes'...even though citizens of most first world countries would say 'no' to the same question. Does anyone think that the technicality of PO not having arrived world wide would make the impacts of PO in countries without oil less painfull and real?
Point is, when a country can no longer obtain oil, no matter the reason, that country has reached PO. Since Zimbabwe can no longer afford oil for those that need it to produce, they are almost out of the world economy. How would a former 'bread basket' country, like Zimbabwe, re-start their agricultural system without oil? If they go the ELP route they will (probably) survive as individuals...but, will they have ag produce to export for the imports that they need? Not likely.
"Suppose that oil producers won't accept dollars" Yes oil producers want to cut demand for their product by 25%. So much sarcanol, so little time.
I never understood the desire to separate the geologic peak from "above ground factors". The geologic peak is just a theoretical upper limit. In the real world, you cannot push a system to its maximum capacity indefinitely. The above ground factors are just the manifestation of this, and they will not go away.
Those who would wait for a "real" geologic peak before they will accept that the peak is here are fooling themselves waiting for some theoretical ideal construct to show up. The real peak in rate of production will always be lower.
I agree.
So do I. That was my point exactly. Above ground factors may sway the peak a year or so in either direction. The Iranian-Iraqi and OPEC events that began in 1979 probably pushed the peak out 10 years by dropping extraction and consumption dramatically, but when it finally arrives it will be geology that dominates. It is geology that is the 900 pound gorilla in the room. Right now we are at the peak plateau. Above ground factors are causing both price and production to bounce around a bit but it is geology that ultimately has control over everything.
Ron Patterson
I agree with that too.
I live in a 'net importing' country, so for me peaking 'net exports' are the important thing.
In ten years or so almost all the energy used in my country will be imported - how will we pay for it? - a sobering thought.
Another sobering thought is that post peak for any particular country the down-slope production, if potential demand is above the maximum producers can manage, will imply recession and high prices, since we will be constantly trying to destroy excess demand - stagflation!
If however demand isn't at maximum supply we will have much less demand than implied by a simple recession - but at least the prices will be more stable since we will be trying to destroy less demand (if any at all) - depression?
Who knows what the future will bring? - but I don't think it will be endless growth.
The problem is Ron by saying "it's geology" you play into their hands. They will say there are trillions of barrels left, which is true. We are not running out of oil. You can't make the peak argument on those grounds. Joe Public will not care how the oil is produced, only that there is oil out there (or some stuff that can be made into oil).
The way I explain it to friends is by saying most of the stuff that's left is very hard to pump.
Bob, we are not talking about arguments, we are talking about that black slimy goo called crude oil. When the world's supply of that goo starts to decline, year after year, what will be the cause. True, there will be arguments on both sides but what will be the real cause? Geology of course!
Ron Patterson
Recycling uranium and plutonium: where's it heading?
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=147&storyCode=2049163
The only good result I can see from upping the consumption of nuclear fuel is that it might encourage countries to reduce their nuclear arsenals in exchange for reactor fuel.
As I understand it, basically what they are suggesting is to use fast breeder reactors to recycle the plutonium. Fine, except I can't help but wonder if it wouldn't make more sense just to use liquid metal fast breeder reactors by themselves and dispense with the need to recycle fuel from conventional light water reactors. As I understand it, LMFBRs use abundant U238 rather than scarce U235 as fuel, and convert the U238 into plutonium which is then consumed, eliminated all high-level waste.
I'm not a nuclear engineer, and if I'm talking out of my ass, someone please correct me. The point is, the big argument used against LMFBRs is that they make it easy to obtain plutonium which can be used for nuclear weapons. Now we are talking about recycling plutonium waste by building just this type of reactors.
Or is there something in this arguement that I'm missing?
Fast neutron reactors are MUCH more "touchy". There is no reason to assume that they would be as safe as existing designs.
Alan
Fast neutron reactors are inherantly less safe than thermal neutron reactors for the simple reason that the delayed neutron component is much smaller. Reactivity swings are on the order of miliseconds instead of seconds, faster than any criticality excursion can be scrammed. They can be safer than existing designs with more passive safety techniques (doppler broadening, negative temperature and void coefficients, etc) but these can also be applied to new thermal reactor designs. There are ways to completely eliminate the risk of criticality excursions by utilizing external neutron pumps (accelerator driven systems) but these are rather interesting only from a technical perspective; They're a plausible way of producing very expensive energy unless as far as I can see.
But breeder designs (thorium fuels) can be entirely thermal and much safer than existing designs or potential fast neutron setups, and plutonium from LWR fuel can be entirely incinerated in some thermal reactor regimes... just not solid fuel regimes.
Not exactly, the U238 is converted into Pu-239. FBR's are fueled with fuel enriched with about 20% of Pu-239 as a fuel source. The Fast neutrons produced during fission are absorbed by U-238.
However this does not get arround fuel reprocessing. As the PU-239 is consumed it generates fission products that are reactor poisons ( They absorb neutrons and remain as unfissible isotopes). At some point the fuel rods have to be reprocessed to remove the buildup of fission products. Not all of the U-238 is converted into PU-239, you need to seperate non-transmuted U-238 from the PU-239. This is done by a chemical process to remove fission poisons as well as increase the concentration of PU-239 required to operate in a FBR (Fast Breeder Reactor). Breeders produce more fuel than the consume, but they do not escape reprocessing. Some breeder designs using molten salts have built in fuel repocesing to remove reactor poison, but they also have lower breeding rates (some barely producing more fuel than they consume), and its more difficult to extract surplus fuel from MSR's (molten Salt Reactors) than with LM FBRs.
Another issue is the short fission delay of Pu-239. When a neutron is absorbed by a Pu-239 atom it almost immediately splits. U-235 fission can be delayed for minutes before it splits. Its very easy for a reactor FBR to flash over causing a major catastrophe. With U-235 fueled reactors, the operators have considerbly more time to scram the reactor before a catastrophe happens. FBRs have a very short fuse leading to a critical situation.
Another issue with Liquid metal and molten salt breeders is that its difficult to inspect the reactor since you can't see through the coolant. with LWR and HWR, water is transparent. Liquid metal reactors use liquid sodium, which reacts when exposed to air, moisture or water. Using LM FBRs to produce steam to turn turbines would be a bad idea. While other working fluids could replace water, it wouldn't be cheap. Molten salts are corrosive, and over time cake on reactor surfaces. These can break lose, causing a clot in the coolant system. Salt caking on coolant pipes can restrict coolant flow.
Not all of the fast neutrons are captured by U-238. The high flux of fast neutrons, trasmute all of the metal surfaces of the reactors causing the metal to become very brittle over time. By the end of the reactors life, the reactors metal components remain highly radioactive for hundred or thousand of years. This makes dismanting a decommissioned breeder hazardous, and the scrapped reactor metal must be stored indefinately like spent fuel rods.
Its extremely unlikely that FBR's will play any significant role in future energy production. The costs and risks are very high.
I would take that 'hundred-fold' extension with a considerable grain of salt. The nuclear industry has a life-long history of promising things they can't deliver. The nuclear industry also has a considerable history of lying and cheating and 200-300% cost overruns.
Fast breeder reactors have been tried by the US, Europe, Russia and Japan. None of them could make it work. The only working breeding reactor is now in Russia, except it doesn't breed but only burns nuclear fuel, just like all other nuclear reactors around the world. The Japanese finally put it very nicely:
To have a working breeder reactor it needs to do three things:
-it has to breed
-it has to be safe
-it has to be cost effective (i.e. make a profit, or at least not burn money faster than it breeds)
Although almost everybody got two of the three things working, nobody ever got a breeder reactor that did all three things at the same time. Usually safety goes out the window first.
Now the nuclear industry has started talking out of it's ass again, because nothing has changed really with these fundamental problems. Sounds like they just want more taxpayers money. If they were really serious about nuclear energy's profitability they would put THEIR money in it. Instead they are bribing and cajoling politicians to put OUR money in it. Sounds like a big-time scam to me. Notice how I'm not bothered by the waste problem. That's a red herring. The real issue with nuclear energy is that it's extremely expensive; it's by FAR the most expensive form of energy.
Huh? Check out the article comparing costs in nuclear France to Fossil fuel Italy - electricity is around half as dear in France.
And that is against fossil fuels - most renewables in most places are a lot worse. The recent estimates for off-shore for the UK run at around £2million per MW - at an over-generous 33% capacity that is £6million per actual MW of power delivered per hour on average, and that does not include connection costs -it works out to about 3 times the cost of an equivalent nuclear build, using costs from the actual construction of the Finnish reactor, which is a one-off first of a kind, being re-designed as they build and using an inexperienced workforce.
And all that is without considering that coal just throws it's wastes around the landscape, and both it and gas emit huge amounts of CO2.
And all that is without considering that coal just throws it's wastes around the landscape,
Shocked that you did not go for the radiation emitted by coal plants.
Too busy tossing ppl off of roofs to claim that Chernyobol is safe?
BMW drives for the electric car
And, from the same link:
Mercedes is confident of a production-ready and realistically-priced zero-emissions fuel-cell car for 2015
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/article36015...
UKP14,000 TH!NK city electric car ready for showrooms
http://www.gizmag.com/ukp14000-thnk-city-electric-car-ready-for-showroom...
More capacity to lithium phosphate energy storage systems
http://nytechnology.net/archives/43-More-capacity-to-lithium-phosphate-e...
Duke Researchers Develop Ceramic Membrane that Permits Fuel Cells to Operate at Low Humidity and Higher Temperatures
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2008/03/duke-researcher.html
Most GM Vehicles will be Hybrids by 2020
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2008/03/general-motors.html
Pemex misses deadline.They were scheduled to report Feb/08 operating stats on Mar 19.They have their schedule going out to Dec/08.I am sure they take into account holidays.I will give them 1 more day.Unexplained delays in release of info get my mind exersised about potential bad news.
This page has PEMEX figures through February 2008:
http://www.pemex.com/files/dcpe/petro/eprohidro_esp.pdf
February 2008 production of total crude was 2.929 million barrels, down from 2.957 in January and down from 3.148 a year before. Just eyeballing their figures, it looks like a continuing decline rate of about 6% over the last two years.
Right, crude was down 28 kb/d while all liquids were down 25 kb/d. However if you go to the full version you will get "Volume of Crude Oil Exports". Exports were down only 5 kb/d in February from last month to 1,429 kb/d. However that is 257,000 barrels per day below the 2007 average! Exports from Mexico, so far this year, have dropped over one quarter of a million barrels per day from the 2007 average. Exports in 2007 averaged 1,686 kb/d.
http://www.pemex.com/files/dcpe/petro/indicador_ingles.pdf
Ron Patterson
And I think their product imports were up quite a bit in 2007. I expect Mexico to approach zero net oil exports around 2014.
Russian Newspapers See Conspiracy Behind Raids On BP
"Record High Gasoline Never a Better Buy..."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aphFGtB3_O1U&refer=home
I think crack spreads will get back to normal but it may take another year. So, for people who don't want to do active trading, but who want to invest in energy prices, DBE is probably a good buy now while the commodity crash scare is still out there, even though the price of gasoline futures (and DBE) went up today as a result of this article.
If you don't want to have to sit and read the tape all day, or if you have money in an IRA or 401k you need to put somewhere, I like DBO and DBE a lot better than ETFs like USO or UNG. They don't track the underlying prices of the commodities as well as USO and UNG over the short term, partly because they're less liquid and partly because they roll over contracts differently, but they've been doing better overall: http://seekingalpha.com/article/67280-based-on-total-returns-dbo-beats-o...
I still really like the price action in oil futures right now. Fridays tend to be up days (traders don't like to stay short over the weekend), and Mondays and Tuesdays tend to be down days (traders getting out before the inventory report), so I wouldn't be surprised if we see a dip lower tomorrow to a price below today's low. If that happens, we are likely getting set up for another high-edge buy signal. Just be prepared for the price to dither around down here for a little while, because the market has to shake out all the little weenies who think there's plenty of oil, and China may need to see longer lines at its filling stations before they cave in and buy what they need.
Also, you guys may want to check out the energy stocks on this page: http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-mfgppl-moneyflow.html?mod=t...
These stocks had large inflows of smart money as the markets were blindly crashing.
Moe,
I would like to thank you for your trading commentary and some of the ideas you bring out here such as DBO and DBE.
After retiring from the alternative energy business, I am getting inspired to dust off my futures trading desk. Back in the 1960's, I designed one of the early cyclic trading systems.
There were some wild times on the Chicago Merc before the CFTC came into existence. I have been on the side lines for some time.
One of my old trading mentors drilled into my head to never trade something you don't completely understand. The derivatives of the past decade were pretty complex for someone who learned to update his charts every night with a slide rule.
People here should note some of the of time-proven trading axioms that you mention above, such as closing positions before a major report. It only takes getting locked into limit moves for a few days in the wrong direction to make one understand the wisdom of a simple rule.
Going forward, I don't think "investments" will cut it with the inflation/deflation scenarios we are facing.
As you said previously, there is nothing mystical about futures trading.
Its a learned skill IMO.
Black carbon pollution emerges as major player in global warming
http://www.physorg.com/news125500721.html
This could be an important one, as it is relatively easy to mitigate.
There was also this, which perhaps alters previous understandings of climate interactions:
Stinking seas not to blame for 'mother of all mass extinctions'
http://www.physorg.com/news125509388.html
Anyone have a link to the study? I can't find it. From reading the linked article, seems like they have hardly "ruled it out":
According to their calculations, the lower levels of the atmosphere in the tropics would have acted as an oxidising buffer, preventing the hydrogen sulphide from seriously damaging the ozone layer.
"These gases seem unlikely to be the cause of coincident terrestrial biotic extinctions," the paper says.
I'd love for it to be ruled out, because it scares me sh*tless. But the theory of anoxic oceans itself seems pretty robust; nor is H2S damage to the ozone layer the only or biggest problem. Seems like maybe the article should have said that some researchers came up with a computer model whose results don't conform to that theory.
On the extinction event non-cause:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo154.html
On the black carbon pollution:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo156.html
Thanks for the link. As a "by the way" thought.... isn't it interesting that current mammals (and presumably other critters) seem to have a genetically strongly-conserved ability to go into a kind of suspended animation triggered by H2S?
I guess televisions isn't quite so evil after all.
Human Footprint -National Geogrpahic
The program airs in on Sunday, April 13. It's nice that it highlights resource use and not just carbon emissions (they are both important factors). I wonder if its possible to calculate the total barrels of oil consumed by each person and what products that oil goes into.
From Krugman--
"And when Mr. McCain’s economic advisers do speak up about the economy’s problems, they don’t inspire confidence. For example, last week one McCain economic adviser — Kevin Hassett, the co-author of “Dow 36,000” — insisted that everything would have been fine if state and local governments hadn’t tried to limit urban sprawl. Honest."
Great comment. Reminds me of this essay:
Economics -- and Life -- In a Post-Fact World
I have a lot to thank Mr. Hassett for. It was his Dow 36,000 book that provided me with my "sell signal", thus enabling me to preserve most of my retirement investments.
Following with this logic, I take this as strong confirmation that the credit crunch would have been MUCH WORSE if state and local governments had not tried to limit urban sprawl even to the very limited extend that they did. We clearly already have an oversupply of housing, especially suburban cookie-cutter housing, and we can thus be thankful that SOME brakes, however feeble and ineffectual, were applied to prevent even more housing being bought with sub-prime mortgages. On the other hand, we can also conclude that we could have saved ourselves a world of hurt by restricting sprawl much sooner and much more agressively than we did (as Kunstler has already told us).
Finally, I think that this tells us everything we need to know about the competence of Senator McWarmonger and his team of advisors when it comes to the economy.
Which reminds me that the chief economic advisor to George Bush was one Ben Bernanke. This is not something that inspires confidence. Based on nothing more than that, I would expect a Bernanke Fed to be far more interested in helping enrich wealthy political contributors than in actually helping the economy.
Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs
McCain is clearly senile IMO. Doesn't mean he won't be the next President though.
Why we should fear a McCain presidency
The 'hopeful' case would be Nixon and how his proclimations while drunk were handled by his staff.
Dick Cheney
I was fumbling around, but could not find this link in response to a post the other day.
Sorry that it is not directly related to PO. Whack it if you must.
pt;
Thanks for posting this. I'm sure it has everything to do with 'Official US Energy Policy', and I still very much admire Mike Moore. The conformity police on both sides would like to keep him sidelined.
Bob
The 5th anniversary of the War,
The 3rd anniversary of The Oil Drum.
Not a coincidence at all. More like causality.
Congratulations to TOD on your three year anniversary!
I'm a three year TOD reader and first time poster and I want to compliment all those whose hard work, passion and dedication have made this my favorite website.
No other site provides the sheer volume of useful content and the thoughtful, clever and informed contributors that post daily on TOD.
A topic that I have rarely seen addressed are the social implications of the recognition of Peak Oil by the US population at large.
I live in a Northern Michigan resort town located on Lake Michigan. Two summers ago we were visited by a ship so large that it looked like a floating city block. The ship had traveled from the Cayman Islands with the two elderly owners, their Captain and a crew of about 15.
Upon departing our harbor, a group of about 100 locals gathered to pay homage to the massive boat and marvel at the $12,000 charge for diesel fueling. As my friends commented "Wow, look at that thing, $12,000 bucks to fill it!", I thought to myself, what a complete waste of resources: building materials and fuel. That lead to the realization and subsequent anger that these people were wasting my 3 year old sons oil.
Reading a book about Duesenberg automobiles of the 1920's and 1930's, I was surprised to learn that the Depression per se was not the car's demise. The Duesenberg as a symbol of wealth compelled the poor to throw rocks at passing Duesies. Suddenly, with so many poor and hungry people, it was best to conceal one's affluence and settle for personal transportation more PC.
Once the average American understands that oil is truly finite and is paying $5+ per gallon at the pump and struggling to pay for more expensive food, heat, etc. what will the public's reaction be to overt, excessive energy consumption?
Interesting. So what are the "rock targets" going to be this time around?
Cadilacs, for sure.
Chrysler Imperials & Lincoln Town Cars
Rolls Royces & Land Rovers
Lexuses & Infinitis
BMWs, Mercedes, Audis, Porsches
Hummers (except for the type with mounted machine guns)
Corvettes
Others?
Mercedes
Hopefully, 1982 diesel Mercedes will be exempt !
:-)
Alan
'86 300 SDLs too please! :-)
If you never wash it (and indeed, wipe some mud on after each rain), hammer in a lot of dents and dings, and put some duct tape across a window or two (to make it appear that you are covering a crack and holding the window together), then they just might leave yours alone.
Please, not the Corvette, I'm too poor to drive a car, tho I have one ('89 Shadow), and I would never through a rock at a 'vette, all the others listed, yes indeed. Starting my pile now.
Jeff
Haiku by Tim
Hulking black Hummer
Purchased in rank atonement
small peckered driver
There have been several reports of H2 Hummers being routinely vandalized at DFW Airport.
Say it loud, say it proud:
http://www.fuh2.com/
I've done them one better; I removed all the badges from the trunk of my 4-cylinder car and stencilled an abridged quote from a mom who's son was killed in Iraq:
REAL SOLDIERS DIE IN THEIR "HUMMERS" SO SUBURBANITES CAN MAKE-BELIEVE IN THEIRS!
Ocassionally I have a hummer stopped behind me at a light; at the next light they're 5 car-lengths back ( like I'm garlic and they're a vampire.... : )
Errol in Miami
These are quite good:
http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/triplex.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/waroil.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/carclub.jpg
They come from this brilliant site:
http://homepage.mac.com/i/hpti/1/wimg/Shared/SlideShow/SlideShow.html?la...
Have fun
Kudos, Errol.
Chinese fuel shortages spreading to big cities
China is so schizo. They set price caps, then refuse to buy enough at market prices to meet the consequent demand. Then all of a sudden they flood the market with orders, because all of their gas stations are closed and the populace is getting steamy. This is like the third time round in this cycle within the last year.
I'll bet they'll be making sure they have plenty of supply on hand for the Olympics.
PetroSun Algae-to-Biofuels Facility to Begin Operations 1 April
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/03/petrosun-algae.html
removed.
I hope they can make this work but some have doubts.
Will Petrosun's Algae Biodiesel Grow on Investors?
"I detect the whiff of snake oil salesmen"
Apparently there's a new perfume on the market which attempts to disguise these whiffs. It's sold under the brand name 'Antidoomer'.
"What about Petrosun?"
that "forward looking statement" is like a free pass to tell whatever lie they want. it may seem to some that it is for the benifit of "investors", but really it is for the benifit of the snake oil salesmen.
The big problem, which was found by DOE research, is here:
Looks like High Grade Texas Snake Oil for sure...
E. Swanson
Do you have link back to the source?
Yes, it's in a report from the NREL
I think this is the link:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/biodiesel_from_algae.pdf
E. Swanson
I read that report and found it persuasive, but others contend that the technology has moved on considerably since that period.
Here are a couple of discussions on the subject, - check out in particular the comments by JoSmith, who seems well informed on the subject:
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2008/01/30-mgy-biodiese.html#c...
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/12/noted-in-pass-4.html#c...
It seems there are more than one way to skin a cat - I am agnostic, personally.
http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=381
Nuclear Energy breakthrough--from Atomic Waste to Recycled Inert Material
Forgive me if I'm not excited; "EER can take low-radioactive, medical, and municipal waste...".
In other words, it gassifies municipal and medical waste and encapsulates low-level radioactive waste in clinker. Our local trash-to-electricity plant also burns medical and municipal waste to produce electicity, but doesn't use 70% of the electricity generated to vitrify low-level waste.
I'm pretty sure that if one factors in plant decomissioning and long-term high-level waste management, nuclear power is a malinvestment in complexity.
Errol in Miami
Not that nuclear power or high level waste has anything to do with this technology, but why would you be pretty sure of something you're obviously ignorant of. I'm not sure weather solar will eventually outcompete nuclear on cost somehow so I'm not going to make any silly statement that solar will allways be a malinvestment on cost. But I do know that nuclear waste management cost is tiny compared to the revenue generated from power production.
There isn't any complexity involved in storing 200 tons per GW year in a dry storage cask. Oh if you want to actually do chemical processing to strip out the actinides and uranium for fuel, that can be a bit of a chore, but theres no need to bother with that at all.
When you figure the cost of nucler power are you adding in teh cost of financing the debt given that all nuclear power in the US, and apparently the world, is actually publicly funded? I.e, not one power plant has been built via private funding. Not one.
See: Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute.
Cheers
You could make the same argument about hydropower, wind, or indeed coal.
If you want to bring up Lovins arguments specifically, we can readress them here. Again.
If they've been addressed, I've not seen it, so feel free to enlighten me. The cost per kw is not the only consideration, but also *who* is doing the paying. It is one thing for a company to invest then earn profit, it is another entirely for the public to pay for the company *and* the product.
Subsidies = me paying for the plant.
Cheers
There have been a number of privately built hydropower plants, without subsidies (other than permits). Kemano is the largest one that comes to mind (0.9 GW).
Alan
When is Leanan expected to return to TOD?
at last check, she was coming back Friday-ish...
This is wild--from Drudge:
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_032408_news_craigslist_hoax.1f...
Oregon man's property ransacked after Craigslist hoax
God help the people who did the breaking into that house. They will be made example of by law enforcement to prevent such idiocy in the future.
'Meanwhile, Salisbury could not even relax on his porch swing.
Someone took it.'
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23414957-2,00.html
I was thinking about a long post, but now that is a sign of mental illness. (Wonder how long the paper and research is on this matter)
Most of us are mentally ill, just in different ways. However, if you pursue your folly, you will become wise. Or so I read on the internet.
In any event, I think shopping,for example, is a much bigger and more dangerous mental illness.
More China Data
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/24/business/chioil.php
China continues to play games with the import volumes, Can't tell for sure if they are trying to play the market, time the market, or buy whats available. Didn't see a mention on additions to their SPR. looks like they are really struggling to keep up availability.
Very helpful, KC. Thank you for this data.
China seems to think it's trying to time the market, but they seem to be the worst traders in the world. They wait too long, then flood the market with orders.
It appears that some gasoline demand destruction might be going on...and from an unexpected quarter...
'Car title lenders driving up Americans' debt
Borrowers pay dearly as firms go unregulated
By DENA POTTER
Associated Pre
'MONTVALE, VA. — The Dodge pickup has rust on the tailgate and a Harley-Davidson sticker on its back windshield. Beside it sits a Honda Accord with a big, white butterfly on the windshield and American flag butterflies on each side of the trunk.
There's the minivan sporting a tattoo parlor bumper sticker, and a miniature San Francisco football jersey suctioned to a window of a red Cougar with a scuffed-up driver's side.
They all have one thing in common: Their owners didn't pay off a car title loan, and now they're getting ready for auction.'...snip...
the payback for a hybrid taxi is enormous.
The funniest thing I read today.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080324/BIZ/803240326
take that doomers!
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/06/more_hybrid_tax.php
"Permits have been sold for a total of 281 hybrids taxis"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_New_York_City#Taxis
"There are 13,087 taxis operating in New York City"
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5657
"China's auto industry has expanded at double-digit annual growth rates in recent years, thanks in part to cheap fuel prices that remain under tight government control. Against this background, SUVs fared particularly well in 2007. According to the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers, more than 370,000 of the vehicles were sold in China last year, a 58 percent increase over 2006."
You're kidding aren't you?
NO. we're making changes slowly but surely. that's how it starts of course the chinese are adding SUVs. that's causing us to take them off the road. that's why we have hybrids. eventually they'll have hybrids too.
why are you suddenly changing this to China? hasn't it always been about the US? how our car dependent society will never abandon their SUVs and how it will collapse the US economy? now suddenly we're making adjustments we start talking about china?
put his in perspective, china uses a lot less oil per capita than we do.
I'm not sure if I should take you seriously or not. But for politeness's sake, I'll do that.
Yes we are making changes. No "doomer" has ever denied that. The point I was trying to make was how small and insignifigant these changes are.
Even if I wave a magic wand and NYC changed out all 13k taxis for hybrids today, its just a tiny drop in a much larger ocean. The China example was just for scale. Last year alone China added 370k SUVs (just SUVs, not cars, motorcycles, scooters, or Tata Nanos etc etc). Puts some hypothetical future taxi in perspective doesn't it?
You keep posting these minor announcements (with asinine comments like "take that doomers") without any perception of the scales involved.
Try to understand that most "doomers" are well aware of hybrids and EVs. But most "doomers" have come to the conclusion that, yes they will make a small difference, but in the overall scheme of things they are insignifigant. The phrase "pissing in the ocean" comes to mind.
Please stop deluding yourself these minor developments are game changing, earth shaking events. They are not.
NO. we're making changes slowly
Agreed.
US gasoline consumption (last weeks IEA report) down -0.1% y-o-y.
Alan
This is pushing on strings. How much is China's and India's consumption up Y-o-Y? Whatever demand destruction that occurs in the US will be immediately consumed in China and India. Oil demand will remain above global production indefinately, barring a major global pandemic.
You missed the whiff of sarconol in my comment :-)
Alan
John15 likes picking cherries. What can you do?
;)
Cheers
From CNN.com:
'You're working for gas now': http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/24/news/economy/camden_alabama/index.htm?cn...
CAMDEN, Ala. (CNNMoney.com) -- Corey Carter spends a quarter of his paycheck on gas.
The 30-year old Carter, who earns $7 an hour making car parts for a Hyundai factory near Montgomery, Ala., spends $65 a week on gas, double what it cost just a few years ago.
Paying $30 more for gas out of a $240 paycheck makes a big difference.
"Going out to eat, going to the movies, you can't do stuff like that," says Carter, filling up his Firebird at a BP station in Camden, a quiet southern town 80 miles southwest of Montgomery. "You're working for gas now."
Which is why slowly but surely, Corey Carter and other workers will move closer to the Hyundai factory, until a entire walkable village surrounds the factory. Presto Chango high gas prices mitigated. :)
Sadly for them, no jobs either - as none of them need the cars they make any more if everybody is walking!
It's just as well they won't have to pay for the gasoline any more!
Don't forget using less of anything is a recession, not the ~2% BAU growth your country must have to maintain your current lifestyles.
At $7 per hour, how do you do "stuff like that", anyway. He must live at home with his parents.
no he lives in Montgomery Alabama. Not exactly the most expensive place in the world to live.
Corey should look on the bright side. He'll get a raise in July, 2009, when the minimum wages rises above his current hourly rate. Of course, that assumes he still has a job then. But being unemployed would certainly solve his commuting problem.
Aren't Firebirds gas-guzzlers?
At $7 an hour he can't afford to buy a used Hyundai. People are grabbing those off the lots.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/17451.shtml
Gets 28 mpg highway.
The guy makes 7 bucks an hour. What do you expect him to drive?
Food prices soaring worldwide
"consumers worldwide face rising food prices in what analysts call a perfect storm of conditions. Freak weather is a factor. But so are dramatic changes in the global economy, including higher oil prices, lower food reserves and growing consumer demand in China and India.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080324/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/fighting_for_food;...
We know weather and climate are NOT the same, but Global Climate Change (Global Warming) can result in "freak weather" - which will come to be the norm and then no longer freak?!
From Climate Code Red:
This comment in the context of an average 2C rise in temp (we are at .8C with .6 already in the pipeline for 1.4C). 2C+ to 3C is being considered by PAU.
Pete
If the wealthy nations are quietly planning to ride out an average temperature increase of 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit while the 3rd World dies, they are absolutely, utterly insane. Who is going to manufacture their consumer goods during what will be a multi-generational crisis? Any plant with an American corporate logo on it anywhere outside of the US is headed for arson. I guess the Halliburton camps would have made sense if they had been located in shuttered factories in the Rust Belt.
Right. Problem taking quotes from Climate Code Red (or anywhere) too much out of context.
The PAU is "leaning" towards +3C prior to the industrial revolution.
According to James Hansen (and others), we are at +.8C with a least another +.6C in the pipeline unless we start to actively cool the Earth (above and beyond zero C02). Plus this estimate does not include the the albido effect of Arctic summer sea ice loss and other short term and long term postive feedbacks not yet understood.
Hansen thinks +2C is going to be too much (we are comitted to +1.4C at least) - no one is gonna ride this one out.
Pete
From BBC website:
Mysterious death of the petrol station http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7306967.stm
By Andrew Sully
BBC News
It's a hub of the community under threat in harsh economic climate. Along with the post office and the local shop, petrol stations are disappearing. Fuel prices are high, so why are so many closing?
The fuel gauge reads empty and the warning light is on. Ahead looms a petrol station sign.
But the forecourt is dark and fenced off, weeds crack the concrete and the pumps are long gone. Perhaps there is a sign announcing that the site will soon be luxury flats.
If the above scenario sounds familiar, it's not surprising. Since 2002, petrol stations have been shutting at an average rate of 600 a year.
Signs of Catabolic Collapse of the Stock Market?
I know the stock market at times - maybe always - defies any rational/logical explanation (that's not to say money cannot be made). Nor do I think the Stock Market is the baromter of the exconomy - as many do. Anyway...
This comment at The Archdruid Report
Its called the LONG RECESSION
I wonder how many folks realize that we may not recover from this recession ??
Funny, I was just thinking that....
Hello TODers,
http://business.smh.com.au/opportunity-knocks-in-fertiliser-boom/2008032...
-----------------------------
Opportunity knocks in fertiliser boom
PHOSPHATE may not be as glamorous as diamonds and gold, but the fertiliser ingredient has attracted the attention of the Melbourne mining identity "Diamond Joe" Gutnick and high-profile backers such as the tennis legend Ken Rosewall.
..The price for phosphate rock has risen from $US50 a tonne at the start of last year to $US350 to $US400 a tonne last week due to supply shortages and increasing global demand for fertilisers.
...He said there was so much demand from the Chinese market that he had received a number of approaches about expanding Incitec's ability to export fertiliser or raw materials.
-----------------------------------------
It appears that I-NPK is still rising faster than FFs. How long will this trend continue until O-NPK recycling kicks in everywhere to try and reduce this I-NPK rate of increase?
IMO, it is gratifying to see BigBuck$ operators beginning to realize that NPK is more valuable than any other resource [besides seeds & water] precisely because it is future-oriented, biosolar mission-critical to the postPeak Era.
As posted before: topsoil without NPK is like an SUV without gasoline.
Picture water as the SUV's oxygen, the seeds as the sparkplugs, and the NPK as the fuel to make it go.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Cheney says Saudis kept promise on oil production
Happy Birthday, TOD!
Longtime (almost daily) reader, occasional commentator (in an earlier life as Vermont Agatha Zoe). Have learned and continue to learn a lot from TOD. Although I've been Peak Oil aware since 2005 and even taught (with a much more knowledgeable colleague) an introductory college course on PO in the spring of 2006, I haven't felt I had much to contribute to the TOD discussions.
What I most appreciate about TOD, apart from the technical expertise of the various contributors, is the self-correcting character of the principled and respectful dialogue at the site. Congratulations and thank you!
I might add that, although I am by profession an historian of philosophy and early modern science, not a scientist per se, I feel a special kin with many folks at TOD; because my father was a petroleum engineer, working for ARAMCO just after WW II, then Socony Vacuum in Nigeria and Angola. I remember living in Nigeria and Angola (which I left for good in 1953!), but not Egypt, where I was born. My father is no longer alive, but I do wonder what he would have made of Peak Oil.
Anyway, thanks again for all the hard work you do and all the valuable, fascinating, and often chilling conversations that result.
One little clue about my inclinations: as a gift of appreciation,I gave the colleague with whom I team-taught the freshman-seminar-like course on Peak Oil a little enamel refrigerator magnet of Cicero's remark, "Dum spiro spero" ("While I breathe, I hope!").
All the best,
beingtime
Changing subjects for a moment: I saw a news report saying Cheney had convinced the Saudi's to raise oil production to support worldwide economic expansion. I wonder if someone on TOD will be presenting an article to address that intention, with information regarding increase number of barrels per day production, and the implications for depletion as a result of that increase. Any takers at TOD?
The report that I saw had Cheney congratulation KSA for having already increased capacity to 12 mbpd. Of course they are not producing that supposed capacity and actually are producing less than before they added this supposed capacity.
This is why many of us think the 12 mbpd "capacity" of Saudi Arabia is a joke, and a very bad joke at that.
You did not read the whole story it will be ready by 2009 when Mr. Cheney is gone.
So its just not ready yet but they are working on it and will get back with you.
The US is "probably declining" said an official on condition of anonymity... At this rate they'll admit the world is "probably declining" about 2045.
Friday October 20th, 2006 there was an article about OPEC cutting oil production 1.2 million barrels a day. In February 2007 there was to be another 500,000 barrel a day cut. Saudi Arabia was reported to have cut more than their quota in what proved to be an effort to try to raise oil prices to record levels
Did Saudi Arabia reassure Cheney they were going to add more production, or did they merely promise more production capacity?
Once it gets thru Sen.Grassleys head that diesel(not ethanol)is the #1 priority, and it quits getting exported for euros? Maybe then the avalanche will slow?
Excuse me ,
What the hell is a salad shooter?
A very aggressive cucumber?
Seriously can't you google?
Unfortunately google doesn't always give the best results on slang.
What's happened to the daily compilation of news articles on TOD? Has the birthday temporarily suspended this function?
Leanan is on vacation, until Friday or so. Links to news articles are being posted by readers. It's just not as complete and well organized as Leanan's.
Great to know it's only temporary. My mornings are organized around that news feed. Many thanks to Leanan for doing that work.
I could,
but i couldn't be arsed.