DrumBeat: May 19, 2008
Posted by threadbot on May 19, 2008 - 9:15am
Bush to Arab Nations: You're Running Out of Oil
PRESIDENT George Bush yesterday told leaders of the oil-rich states of the Middle East that they must face up to a future without their precious hydrocarbons.
In a stark warning, he said their supplies were running out and urged them to reform and diversify their economies. The outgoing United States president told the World Economic Forum, meeting in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, that it was time to "prepare for the economic changes ahead".
UPDATE-Norway airport strike felt by oil industry
OSLO, May 19 (Reuters) - A ground workers' strike which
has shut six Norwegian airports, and may close a further six on
Tuesday, is affecting the North Sea oil and gas industry by hinderng
flights by helicopters to offshore platforms.
Oil prices steady; gas breaks $4 in 2 markets
The Saudi production increase was seen as minuscule, and
no one expected the suspension of shipments to America's Strategic
Petroleum Reserve to have much impact on supplies.
Goldman Sachs, one of the most influential investment banks,
underscored that sentiment Friday when it hiked its oil price forecast
for the second-half of the year to $141 a barrel, up from $107
previously. Analysts at the bank argue that the oil market is
undergoing a "structural repricing" that will continue to play out for
some time to come.
OIL GIANT SPLITS IN TWO
EnCana to focus on gas, new entity on oilsands
The move could spark a new trend in the oilpatch, kicking
off a round of breakups among companies that also have units that
could be carved out. That would be a new theme for the sector, which
has evolved through consolidation into an oligopoly of a handful of
very large players that are so unwieldy they are seen as too big to
swallow even by the world's largest oil companies.
Animated map brings global climate crisis to life
LONDON (Reuters) - A new animated map of the earth from
space illustrates the potential impact of climate change over the next
century and can be viewed on your computer.
Russia's
oil exports down 3.3% to 448 mln bbls in Jan-March
MOSCOW, May 19 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's crude exports
declined 3.3% year-on-year in the first quarter to 61.1 million metric
tons (448 million barrels), the country's top statistics body said on
Monday.
Oil Rises on Speculation Saudi Supply Increase Won't Cut Prices
Unions shut down six airports, including Bergen and
Kristiansund, the two biggest bases for helicopter transport to and
from oil platforms on the Norwegian continental shelf. The strike may
extend tomorrow to Stavanger's Sola airport amid a labor dispute with
Avinor AS, which operates 46 airports.ConocoPhillips said it may have to cut output from the Ekofisk field
if a strike spreads to Stavanger. Ekofisk pumps about 400,000 barrels
of oil a day.
Kashagan field oil production delayed
Kazakhstan’s Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources Sauat Mynbaev said foreign participants in the Agip KCO consortium have proposed postponing the beginning of commercial production for another couple of years in Kazakhstan’s Kashagan oil field. According to the minister, they talked about re-scheduling the “big Kashagan oil” from 2011 to 2012 or 2013. “The foreign participants of the consortium want to postpone. They have different scenarios - 2012 or 2013,” Mynbaev said. Such a position of the consortium shareholders puts an end to the plans of Kazakhstan to become one of the world’s 10 largest producers of “black gold,” or rather, it puts them off for another two years resulting in a total setback of seven to eight years, considering the original date of the first oil plan had been 2005.
When cars compete with people for food
Crude oil prices hit $120 a barrel this month, translating into gas pump prices above $4 a gallon in parts of the United States. As a result, the rallying cry of energy self-sufficiency is gaining strength, reinforcing the U.S. policy of promoting renewable fuels, particularly corn-based ethanol, to reduce dependence on imported oil.
But a different rallying cry - food self-sufficiency - is becoming louder in many developing countries where rice, wheat and other staples are in such short supply that food riots have erupted. China, India, Argentina and several other countries have raised export restrictions on key crops to ensure food supplies for their consumers. That move has further increased world prices.
Diesel Prices Soar Ahead of Olympics
The rise of diesel, and more broadly, the category of fuel
known as middle distillates, is driven by stockpiling in China ahead
of the Olympic Games in August and the prospect of even more fuel
needed to aid the rebuilding effort in Sichuan province after last
week's destructive earthquake.
Prices are also supported by abnormally low inventories in Europe. And
for the first time, the U.S. is playing a key role in supplying the
global market because its diesel now is more palatable to the rest of
the world.
Not Enough Oil Is Lament of BP, Exxon on Spending (Update1)
``The international oil companies cannot dictate the tempo
any more,'' said Fadel Gheit, an analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. in New
York. ``They can try projects that didn't work two years ago, but it's
not a question of money. They don't have access to resources.''
I asked Lisa Wright why Bartlett's office thinks the peak
oil issue has gotten so little traction in the media and with
politicians. Wright blamed a human psychological condition known as
cognitive dissonance, "the phenomenon that you only hear what you're
interested in hearing.""Hard truths are hard to talk about as well as hard to absorb," she
said. "It's much easier to believe people who say that if we just have
more American production then we wouldn't have to worry about foreign
imports, without explaining that we're already pumping our minute
portion of world reserves three or four times faster than the rest of
the world. But we can't drill our way to self-sufficiency because you
can't pump what's not there."
As these examples suggest, the reappearance of the same
new ideas over and over again has a troubling side. Many of those
ideas have been tried repeatedly in the past, and have worked very,
very poorly. Despite their appeal, there’s no good reason to think
that they’ll work any better in their latest incarnations. Thus it may
be worth looking into the immense failure of cultural memory that
stands in the way of tracing the histories of our own ideas.
But according to Professor Kjell Aleklett of Association
for the Study of Peak Oil&Gas (ASPO International) peak oil is going
to happen a lot sooner."We have a decline in production at today's oil fields of roughly 4
percent a year. At current production levels [82mb/d] that means we
are going to lose 30 million barrels a day over the next ten years,"
Aleklett told CNN.
Texas Sinkhole Puts Spotlight On Oil, Gas Drilling
A stadium-size sinkhole that formed in south Texas's oil
country this month is renewing questions about the effects of billions
of barrels of saltwater injected into the ground each year as a
byproduct of oil and gas drilling.
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.
Zero carbon house in Shetland
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/19/greenbuilding.windpower
The island house that powers itself - with a little help from 100mph gales | Environment | The Guardian
The nice thing about this is that the data from it is being extensively documented, so should be a fine resource for anyone looking to build something similar or evaluate possibilities.
Here is a direct link to the website:
http://www.zerocarbonhouse.com/Home.aspx
Zero Carbon House > Home
Wind resources in Shetland are a lot better than almost anywhere else, but solar resources are worse to the same degree, so overall it may be a wash.
Still too expensive for the common folks .... needs to be simpler and smaller
Nanostructures Will Raise Thin-Film Solar Cell Efficiency
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080515211449.htm
Nanostructures Will Raise Thin-Film Solar Cell Efficiency
still a theory and thus vapor ware.
Hmm, - the link I gave does not seem to point to anything now - here is the same technology in a different write-up.
http://www.physorg.com/news129983739.html
Kaiser, it is inaccurate to refer to it as just a theory, since devices have been built.
It is obviously still early days though, and the technology has it all to prove.
It was posted as such though, but it is perhaps indicative that increases in solar cell efficiency has a lot of headroom to continue growing.
There's a new report from NATURE regarding AGW and hurricanes.
Here's a story from the NYT today.
There is already a commentary on RealClimate about the paper.
Here's the link to RealClimate for those who may be interested.
E. Swanson
I'm not sure about most here, but after the weekend I've finally got a timeline for how things are going to go (I think).
The Saudis saying essentially the were pumping as fast as they were able, when coupled with the decline paths of the big boys, means I feel confident placing the peak of production between now and the end of 2010. With the state of the megaprojects list I can't see how it can be anything else.
At the same time all indicators point to somewhere around a 7 year timeframe till zero exports, or significant wars to force exports (which amounts to the same thing).
Before then there are rationland impacts and hoarding which cause civil turmoil and societal upset in the 2012-2015 timeframe (as someone comes last in the queue for oil).
So from here out is a five year plan to transition and gain position. No more long term planning, its medium term action now.
Has anyone else worked out a personal timeline in light of current knowledge? I know some will say they have been preparing for years, but I'd be interested if anyone else has made the transition from "its coming sometime" to "its coming soon".
I think a lot of people here have stepped up the pace of their planning in the past year as we have all watched what has happened with oil/gas prices, the global food crisis, worsening signs of climate change, financial implosion and the housing meltdown, etc.
The events of the past year have certainly changed our thinking about where to live and what kind of place to get.
We were planning to buy a place in LA last year but decided to rent for awhile as the market crashed. Now that prices are dropping through the floor we're looking at the possibility of being able to get a much better house with a large yard/trees around it within the next year or so and being able to grow a lot of our own food right here in Los Angeles. We can probably find a place like this within walking distance of public transit (in the Valley most likely), I plan on keeping my job for awhile so I want to be able to reach the office by bike/bus/train in no more than 30-40 minutes or so. Also I figure that the areas that are well-served by our current substandard transit system will hold their value best and become more desirable as gas prices continue to rise. We don't have a lot of subway lines here, but the few areas that are well-served by the subway like Hollywood and downtown will continue to become more economically important in future I expect.
We'll eventually want to convert as much as we can to solar power if possible, but I think it's likely that this will become much cheaper and convenient in a few years due to the technological advances we're seeing from some of the Silicon Valley solar companies like Nanosolar, eSolar and so on.
Meanwhile I am learning organic gardening with my veggie/herb garden at our rental house in the middle of Hollywood. Fortunately my new father-in-law is a Master Gardener in New York state so I am planning to ask him for expert advice when I run into trouble.
In the long term I will retreat to the family farm in Nebraska if things gets really bad, but I don't want to leave California unless it looks hopeless, this is my home and I love it. We will certainly suffer disproportionately here in SoCal in the near term from high gas prices but in the medium term I think Cali will be one of the places that will react fastest to changing circumstances and start to invest heavily in renewable energy/water, electrified transit and transit-oriented development, etc. We are seeing all these trends happening now but they will certainly accelerate massively in the next few years.
On another note, I went out to see a local dub jazz band here last Friday (might be doing some gigs with them soon) and heard a jazz version of an old Police song that fits well with our discussions here and made me feel a bit more optimistic this weekend because of its cheerful attitude to apocalypticism:
When The World Is Running Down, You Make The Best Of What's Still Around
(This YouTube link shows a video clip of a kung fu movie synced with the Police song, not sure how that got connected...)
It Is Time For Doing...The Time For Planning Is Essentially Over
The whole "planning" mantra drives me nuts. At this point, it is time to put "the plan" into practice. I've listened to people talk about what they "plan" to do for 30+years. 99% of them never actually do squat.
By this time people should be well on their way to:
Developing necessary skill sets
Acquiring necessary tools and equipment
Installing or ready to install necessary systems
Built a hard copy library of necessary information
Worked to establish relationships with others sharing the same concerns
And so on.
Let me use food production to illustrate what I mean:
Lots of people talk about growing some or all of their food. Do they take the time to test varieties? Just because it sounds good in a catalog doesn't mean it'll be good for you. For example, I have tested over 50 varieties of tomatoes over the years.
People talk about planting some fruit trees without seeming to understand that it will take 5-7 years to get a good crop. It won't be bare root planting time until spring of 2009. That pushes a first crop out to 2014 at the earliest. And, again, research has to be done to chose the correct ones. Of course, pruning is necessary. Know how?
Those who believe in various gardening systems need to take the time to observe how much and which elements need to be brought in from off the property.
Gardeners need to know about pest control without counting upon store-bought pesticides.
Then there is the question of water. Is there an assured personal source or are you dependent upon a public or private utility? Maybe a cistern should be installed.
My point to all this is that people lose sight of the scope and time required to actually put this stuff into practice. My best estimate is that it will hit the fan in 2-5 years. Good luck if you haven't already started.
Todd
Those of us who have been gardening most of our lives know that you never stop learning - but you sure learn a whole lot those first few years!
People definitely need to have already started on at least some of this stuff. Those who don't get ahead of the curve and do nothing until they absolutely have to will be in a world of hurt. I'm inclined to think/hope that this is going to be a slow motion catabolic collapse rather than a fast crash, so you'll probably have a few more years to get some of the last pieces in place
I don't know a single person in real life who shares these concerns. I get no traction in trying to talk with anyone about these issues, family included. When my predictions come true, I remain "the crazy gloomy" one, while others around me marvel at the craziness of gas nearing $4/gal. I told them 6 months ago it would happen, and I told them when it would happen (Memorial Day Weekend).
Being right earns me no points with anyone. In fact, it isolates me even more since no one likes to be wrong, and I am a reminder of how wrong they were.
I feel it might be an ironic truth that all the denialists will one day turn on a dime and then work together to get through it - they all being friends and liking others who can't quite believe what is happening (and blaming the government, environmentalists, arabs/muslims, all the while), while those planning ahead and isolating themselves from the bulk of society will find they have no support, and the whole self-sufficient fantasy gets revealed as a self-delusional dead-end while the deniers take what they need through strength of numbers.
good comment, speek.
there's a lot of truth in it. not only will people not thank you now for helping them, but they'll often resent you... while remembering that YOU have prepared, so they know who to come after later.
I realize this is at odds with the upbeat opinions of many here, but after feeling out my neighbors, I'm not involving them in my plans. If there's a chance for me to relocate to be among more-prepped folks I may, but otherwise I may just opt to be "normal and reasonably popular" and to outward appearances ape what they're doing. Mob psych being what it is, I don't want to be known as an environmentalist, an oil trader, an oil scientist, an atheist, or about any of the other things I really am. That's what the internet is for, and why I campaign globally, not locally.
There is some truth in what you say. In another post of mine a day or two ago, I pointed out that it can be VERY DANGEROUS to become a target of envy and resentment. Better to lay low, and appear to be just another ordinary person struggling to cope as best as you can. You can't hope to be left very much better off than your neighbors, just content yourself with not ending up any worse off.
None of this means that you can't be friendly and helpful toward your neighbors. You would be foolish not to be, and nobody should hold that against you -- IF you keep your mouth shut about any ultimate motives.
Unless you are far enough above to dispense favours.
You would then become a kind of petty king, and in most very poor societies the king demonstrates his regal position by displays of wealth, from Saxon burial mounds to gangsta's bling.
It tends to be a short life, but so would everyone else's.
Yes, it is a short life, and you can have it. Lording it over other people is not for me.
I don't believe that I said that that would be my choice.
The point I am making is that a strategy in times of shortage of trying to keep your head low and hoping you won't be noticed is rarely successful, as it is seen as a sign of weakness.
Just as today in Africa, the elite do not impress and maintain their power in times of shortage by riding around on a bicycle like the masses, they get the biggest, baddest Hummer they can get hold of and flaunt it.
What you are I think of the morality of this is neither here nor there, this is human nature and the way those power systems work.
If you are not part of the elite, you will serve the elite and hold any property at their sufferance, so like it or not we will all be complicit or dead.
I think so. But lest I leave the wrong impression, I'm on good terms with all my neighbors, just as I am with the neighborhood dogs; there are just levels of complexity the conversations are limited from rising above; due to the dogs not understanding grammar & syntax and the humans not understanding math or thermodynamics. Delusion is less a problem with the dogs, they tend to be better-grounded and have fewer invisible friends.
Not only is it good manners and pragmatic, but it may help the transition to cannibalism to be an early adopter, and I hate to be obvious about it.
ymmv
Friendliness & helpfulness toward one's neighbors does not require that they be convinced right now about the impending implications of Peak Oil. A better approach is to talk about ways to improve the neighborhood. That is something that most people would respond to positively, because they can all see that there is something in it for them: a better neighborhood means a better place for them to live, and maybe better property values.
RE: "better neighborhood"... My neighbors mostly seem to think my fetish for food trees is a bit of a blight on the neighborhood, and drop hints that I really need to take them out and put in a nice grass lawn like they have.
IME, ordinary Americans hate fruit trees. They're messy.
They actually breed trees so that they don't produce fruit. We have a bunch of "ornamental" cherry and pear trees around here that produce gorgeous blossoms in the spring time...but no fruit.
The government feels the same way. They are reluctant to plant fruit trees in parks and along highways. It's messy, and kids throw the fruit at cars, creating a safety hazard.
Reasons to not tell people: (a) you will be very unpopular and can lead to isolation (b) if they do take you seriously, you may feel responsible for crippling them psychologically (c) you put yourself at risk, post-peak, of being raided by the hungry hordes (read "Lucifer's Hammer").
Most Americans have been frantically running in the rat race for a long time now. They are already overwhelmed by childcare payments, house payments, unhealthy marriages, miserable work environments, long commutes, and general stress. The unfortunate fact is that the vast majority will continue running in this race until Peak Oil catches up with them and slices their hamstrings.
When individuals can no longer afford to drive to work, or when they become an unemployment statistic... that is the time to unload your knowledge.
There are exceptions, but for me at least, they tend to be few and far between.
The fact that I have lived where I am for a very long time in a rural area, perhaps, colors my views. There are only three other families within a mile and a half drive. We are all aware. We also plan to work together as necessary to survive.
There are also others in the surrounding area (about 600 square miles) who share similar concerns. For example, I have known Wharf Rat, who posts on TOD, for 25+ years. What we do is offer each other information that might be useful.
Further, most of us have been at this long enough to have the essentials in place so it isn't like we have to envy someone else's set-up.
Todd
And here I was, about to mention that all those people weren't in Rat's Race, or they would be doing something to get ready.
But then, that is coming from somebody who has already spent a year trying to get my hospital to at least make an effort to turn off lights in linen closets. Arrrgggghhhh!!!
I'm a professional biologist who has been gardening all my life. I have raised dairy goats and rabbits, possess veterinary skills, burn wood for home heating & cooking, own my own property with both fruit & fuelwood trees. I have all the necessary tools & skills. I currently work in agricultural research and am aware of soil chemistry & horticultural practice. I'm a military veteran who owns firearms...
Yet who am I trying to fool? I can't grow sufficient food to feed my family without a tractor & commercial fertilizer. I can't cut enuf wood to heat my home without a chainsaw. I can't provide sufficient organic supplements to the soil without a truck to haul raw materials in. I can't defend what I own against armed hordes of desperately hungry people.
Given societal collapse of the magnitude people on TOD routinely discuss and expect, I'll die. And so will most if not all of you who post on here, despite how well prepared you are. Is it that you're afraid to face the reality of what we're up against? Do you think that by "planning ahead" you are going to avert your doom? What's with the weird psychology of denial at play here?
I guess you're probably familiar with Stephen Jay Gould's ideas about evolution? Contrary to the traditional evolution model, he was big on the idea that mass extinctions don't eliminate the less well-equipped or less efficient organisms, he seemed to think it was dumb luck or random chance that determined which organisms survive and which don't. I think if TSHTF then it will be similar in that it's hard to predict exactly how things will play out and if you can't predict it, you can't prepare for it. I think the things you listed and what other people do here might increase your chances though. I wish I could say the same for myself, but I'm stuck in the middle of a major metropolitan area for at least the next few years.
*P.S.* I do walk to work though and there's several grocery stores that are in walking distance, that'll help me before TSHTF because I don't spend as much money on gas. Also I'm trying to grow more fruits and vegetables on my porch and in the "lawn" around our condo. building but not near enough to feed myself.
For years I read Steve Gould's column "This View of Life" monthly in Natural History Magazine, and tended to agree with everything he had to say. Then I read Richard Dawkin's "Selfish Gene," which led me to George William's "Evolution and Natural Selection," and I ended up feeling as tho Gould had betrayed me. I felt like punching Steve Gould in the nose! I already had a BS in Zoology and had read Darwin. Reading Williams inspired me to go back to grad school & study Evolution & Ecology, in a program that held Williams & E. O. Wilson in much higher regard than it held Gould & Lewontin. Of course, graduate study made me realize that the complexities are much more subtle than the media hyped Gould vs Dawkins conflict would have us believe. Having waded thru Gould's magnum opus "Structure of Evolutionary Theory," Steve is largely redeemed in my estimation. He was actually more mainstream in his views than he wanted to be regarded as being by the general public (controversy sells books). In any case, we miss his advocacy for rationality & for science in the courts.
I hate to say that some organisms are "preadapted" to surviving episodes of mass extinction, since it seems to imply that selection somehow anticipated the mass extinction event. Only in hindsight can we say that organisms possessed the "preadaptations" that promoted or allowed their survival. Better to say that they fortuitously possessed the adaptations that just happened to foster their survival. In this sense, you're correct to say that it was "dumb luck or random chance that determined which organisms survive and which don't." About the only rule of thumb in predicting which organisms will survive and which won't is that large body size is highly correlated with extinction during a mass extinction event. However, it's quite probable that all previous mass extinctions were caused by an extraterrestrial bolide impact. The currently ongoing anthropogenic event may be totally unique, in which case all bets on which taxa will survive & which perish are off. OTOH, it's still a safe bet to expect that the larger crits will go first.
In a post-peak oil / climate dysregulated world my bet on who will survive would be non-acculturated tribal gatherer/scavenger peoples, if anyone. Since these peoples are few in numbers and their environments are heavily degraded, they could very well be lost thru mere demographic & genetic stochasticity. The possibility of human extinction during the lifetimes of those already born looms large.
A good adaption strategy may be to join the military, on the grounds that it is more blessed to nuke than be nuked, and the strong shall inherit whatever oil is left.
A couple years ago when my youngest son graduated from high school, the Marine recruiter called him on the phone. I only heard my son's side of the convo but it ended with my son telling the recruiter to "go to hell." I was proud of him at the time but now I'm beginning to wonder if the marksmanship and "survival, escape & evasion" training I received in the Army wouldn't serve him well in the all too near future.
Then teach him these skills yourself. Far better to learn skills mixed with values from his father than to learn them from the army, or marines.
I agree with dunewalker.
I lived a while in a small town near a military base in Canada. Lots of young men were attracted by the "career opportunities". Many have undergone significant (and in my opinion negative) personality changes during basic training or their first posting overseas. One got blown up in Afghanistan.
IMO Sure, the military teaches usefull skills. But it also spends a lot of time training things like obedience in a rigid hierarchy, desensitization to violence etc.
IMHO, a good strategy is to choose a place that has lots of agriculture, a good climate, rain, fertile soil. Small towns in Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, Oregon, N. Cal. etc (in the case of US) or Ontario, Vancouver (in the case of Canada) would make the cut. (There are many more places, of course, my list is not exhaustive.) Once you are living in this town, you choose a job that fits your skills. Because food production is a primary economic activity there, there will be people there, money there, jobs to do. If you're good at cutting hair, you can work as barber, for example. I recently read that Iowa grain farmers are now trying to put mini hog farms on their land in order to get the manure, since chemical fertilizer is expensive. Well, they need manpower to help them with that, more and more people will be needed as FF inputs become more and more expensive, then they'll need more animals, more people to help, more acreage put into prod., more people to help, etc. So it's important to go to places that grow food, then let your skills amd the available jobs guide you.
Musicians, mechanics, teachers, managers, doctors, vet technicians. clothes-makers, metal-workers, shoemakers, preachers, actors (for entertainment)....the list of what will be needed is really long and varied. (My list is only partial!)
I think that worrying about the "starving hordes" and choosing an outpost in the middle of nowhere to stake a claim might hinder someone from acurately assessing how their skills might fit into another strategy, which might be to use their job skills in a small town that has been reactivated simply because that is where the food is.
Because people don't JUST need food! Food is the most BASIC thing they need, but it is far from enough. Maybe after food and water, clothes, shelter needs have been met, people go for music and entertainment (plays, movies, etc.) It's strange but music and drama seem to be INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT for us as a species. If you have talent in these directions, probably you can always make money, the important thing is to find a place where people have a little extra money, beyond what they need for food, to pay you.
So don't panic and go into "doomer" mode too soon.
I think the biggest thing is community. If you have that the rest tend to follow. I'd certainly pay attention to physical defensibility so for me at least I'm still not convinced a isolated farm house is a good idea.
I'm not saying don't buy farmland but at least a village lifestyle seems pretty smart. We don't have to degrade to horrible levels before we are dealing with random banditry in the country. If you do go for the farm house clear line of site to the approaches an a hidden secure room and of course enough people so you can work and have a lookout makes prudent sense. And this means more than a husband and wife you need at least a teenage son/daughter thats a good shot. (Even warning shots should be well placed)
And you have to consider if one or more of you may have to travel into town to work for cash money. So your really talking about 4-5 adults if possible. Its not wonder 4-6 children where common in farming families with a extended family your talking about 4-5 working age adults 13-60 around.
Its also important when dealing with the various accidents that can happen doing farm work. A lot of people don't realize how dangerous farm work is.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/Summaries/AIB739.htm
A lot of people don't think about the ramifications of their own death via accident if they commit to being a farmer. With a larger group its possible to overcome the loss with a small family its a complete disaster.
I'm not saying farming is not a bad idea but the risks are pretty high for say a family of 4 with young children. If your not doing it with a extended family or at least a few willing teenagers good luck.
"it's quite probable that all previous mass extinctions were caused by an extraterrestrial bolide impact."
you can't be serious.
I think you have Gould a little wrong. His theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium" describes periods of relatively calm, when slower evolutionary factors worked, but then there would be large-scale chance events that would wipe out parts of populations, leaving open niches to be filled. The time after these events would lead to rapid and larger jumps in evolutionary change.
Hello Darwinsdog,
I post on the belief that our grassroots efforts, plus the other websites, books, and orgs constitute the greatest charity the planet has ever seen.
If our Peak Outreach exertions can help Optimize the Overshoot decline through the Bottleneck so that it merely helps save one million lives plus 10,000 other species--IMO, that will be a roaring success. It will be a huge multi-generational effort, but the future belongs to the young: always has, always will.
As for all of us individually--prepare for the worst, hope for the best, but keep spreading the Peak Outreach.
Well, it all depends on how things play out, and nobody really knows the future, do they? You are right, worst case, we're all probably dead, probably sooner rather than later. I can't help thinking that the worst case -- and all scenarios -- are contingent, though, and not yet set in stone. There are lots of possible scenarios that are just bad but not deadly, at least over the course of what I might reasonably expect as a remaining life span even under ideal circumstances.
Our situation is a little bit like a ship that has just entered a zone that has been mined. It is too late to reverse or alter corse, and the probability that our ship will hit a mine is very high - not certain, but highly probable. If we are very lucky, we might just hit a small mine; the ship will stay afloat, but life abord will become very uncomfortable - no heat in the cabins, reduced food, etc. If we are not so lucky, we might hit a big mine; the ship may eventually sink, and we'll have to head to the lifeboats (of which there may not be enough for everyone). (Of course, maybe one's lifeboat will hit a mine as well, but on the other hand, it is also easier for a small lifeboat to evade some mines that the big ship can't.) If we are really unlucky, we hit a nuclear mine, and that's the end for everyone. What is the rational course of action? I'd suggest that one stop hoping for the highly improbable passage through the minefield without incident, for it is a vain hope. I'd also suggest not expending much energy worrying about hitting the nuclear mine, because there is nothing you can do about it that will make any difference whatsoever; if it happens, it happens. Your best bet is to be prepared for the next worst case (abandon ship, find a lifeboat), because that is the one case where good preparation and timely action can make a big difference in one's personal outcome. Being prepared to go to the lifeboats won't really cause any big negatives if it turns out the ship can survive, with or without damage.
Thus, I believe that it is indeed rational to try to prepare as best as one can for the scenarios that fall just short of total, catastrophic collapse and dieoff. It is no guarantee that one will survive, because such guarantees simply don't exist, and never have.
Good post WNC Observer, and I tend to agree with you.
The thing is, tho, that human population has so grossly exceeded the carrying capacity of the biosphere, gratis fossil fuels, that a massive dieoff is inevitable once fossil fuel inputs become severely curtailed. And furthermore, during the overshoot ecosystems worldwide have become so degraded that carrying capacity itself has been greatly reduced. Not only have homeorrhetic climate feedbacks become dysregulated, but so have the biogeochemical cycling dynamics of C, N, S and the other elements necessary for life. The scariest thing I've ever read is the final chapter of William Schlesinger's widely adopted "Biogeochemistry" textbook, in which he sums the situation up. The changes we have wrought to the vital planetary processes that sustain diversity are so profound that we are in effect conducting an uncontrolled experiment on interference with the conditions that support life. You are correct that we can't accurately predict the consequences but they are likely to be dire. Nature wasn't broken and didn't need fixed. By interfering with processes that are the products of 4 bys of fine tuning by selection, we set ourselves and millions of other species up for extinction.
I'd say that a substantial decline in global populations is inevitable, but that there are many scenarios whereby that might happen. Everyone will die, the question is just when. A reduction in global population requires that death rates exceed birth rates for a period of time. By how much and for how long are variables.
One can easily construct scenarios in which there is not one mass "die off", but rather a series of smaller events that happen from time to time over the course of several decades, each one causing global population to sawtooth down a bit. This could continue over the better part of the century until global populations are down to sustainable levels. I am inclined to think that something along these lines might actually be the more likely scenario.
That's pretty much how I see it. After Greer wrote that post about how farms near cities were likely a better plan than a farm in the sticks (because he expects the collapse to be very gradual), someone wrote a response saying that he thought a "Black Swan" event might make the collapse sudden.
However, he also thought that assuming a gradual collapse was a good thing, because it's basically impossible to prepare for a sudden, total collapse. So he agreed with Greer's ideas for what proper preparations should be, even though he disagreed on the likelihood of a fast crash.
That may sound a bit like the drunk looking under the lightpost for his keys because that's where the light is, but hey, why not? If you don't know where you lost the keys, looking under the lightpost is as good a place as any...especially if there's no chance of finding the keys without light.
I completely agree, Todd. Knowing what varieties work, how to grow them, how to protect them from pests is a long learning curve. Speaking of learning as we go.... It was over 100F on the Northern California Coast Last week. I've lived here for 32 years and that has never happened before. I came home in between giving final exams to water starts outside and flats in the greenhouse but a significant number of plants were fried. :( Such is the life of a part time farmer.
Also here in Humboldt County, Regular gas hit $4.19 today.
Yes. It's time to judge the moment to jump. Your example from gardening is very apropos. The planning and prep time is over; we are in production mode.
cfm in Gray, ME
Hi Garyp,
yes I have a timeline for you!
Linky
[Full: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2126/2504887199_0751ae798a_o.jpg ]
-It splits things up into:
Energy
Transport
Food
Commodities
Financial and
Societal
This is an update from the one posted at the end of my "Peak Oil Joining The Dots" document:
http://www.megatrends2020.com/Peak_Oil__Joining_The_Dots.doc
Regards, Nick.
I'd agree with some of these, but I think your net oil decline is too slow. I'd put the zero net export point before 2017, for a number of reasons. Thus I put societal breakdown earlier as well.
My thinking isn't far off from yours. As a practical matter, as far as any oil or oil products from overseas going to the US domestic economy or consumers, imports will definitely have ended by 2020 +/- 2 years or so. It is possible that a little bit of oil might trickle into the US for a couple of years past that, but the US government and (especially) the military will get all of that. It is also possible that a few tankers of oil will be sailing even after that, as I suspect that the last ones will be going to China or Europe rather than to the USA.
Societal breakdown is the wildcard. My guess is that it will be more spotty and uneven, and more slow-motion, than most doomers anticipate. Some regions will manage to hold together pretty well, others will become war zones.
WNC Observer,
You do realize the US is still the third largest producer of Oil in the world, right?
Your message makes it sound as if once the imports stop, that's it, we're out...
Sure, we are close to 40 years from our domestic peak, but there are still untapped areas (ANWR, Florida Coast) that can be exploited, not to mention I expect we will be "negotiating" via force for our rights to drill in the Arctic.
I do not wish to minimize the impact of a 2/3rds reduction in our fuel supply, but it's a far cry from the spigot running dry.
Garth
Of course I know that. But I also know that the FedGov, and especially the military, will get first call on that domestic production when (and even before) the imports are gone. Second priority will have to go to first responders and other important state and local governmental users, hospitals, agriculture, freight transport, critical industries, etc. Ordinary people will be the lowest priority. Our domestic production will not leave very much available for the general public once the higher priority needs have been supplied. Besides, TPTB might even start thinking that slowing down the rate of extraction and depletion a bit might actually be a good long term strategy for the US. It will be the lowest priority users - we ordinary people - who would be the first to be curtailed if that is the case.
Very good, except that I would see US$ hyperinflation starting and ending sooner than your chart anticipates.
Hyper Inflation: Possibly -but will the US Government figures show it up? ;o)
ELM: my understanding is that the '7 year to zero' net export scenario is only valid for countries that are consuming half their output at time of peak (Westexes uses Indonesia and UK as examples). I think even Khebab and Jeff see some output in the 20s. Now consider if the US 'rushes' small-scale reactors and Hybrids to the Exporters in order to cut down on their internal usage -might stretch it out a bit more... Failing that some more forced invasions should cut internal demand ala Iraq.
I'm still a bit unclear on how the whole National and personal debt thing will resolve. I am negotiating a fixed mortgage at the moment because I feel that Inflation is likely to be an issue. However I can see a major recession/depression in the offing in the medium/long term... Mmmm, tricky. I guess the major difference to the 30s is that they can print money. As long as you can 'stay ahead of the curve' debt should decrease as money devalues. Interest rates may rise but thats what the fix is for -from what I can tell we currently have historically low interest rates...
Nick.
Funny you should mention that, given that exports are about 35-40 Mbpd out of 85Mbpd total.
I shorten the timescales since once peak is seen in the rearview mirror there will be a rush to conserve national reserves. Even more so since I'll bet a war or two cuts supply (re Iraq production post war). Even more than that as chemical industries move to the middle east.
I doubt very much that real 'exports' will survive to 2020
Would the relocation of industries like chemicals and plastics to the mid east/KSA matter? Because the same amount of oil has to be used either way, so if these industries do go to the ME that will reduce the need/demand outside the ME/KSA by that amount. The oil would essentially still be exported albeit as finished products.
However as sovereign wealth funds purchase these industries and move them to their countries they will realize the added value profits that will accrue when the petro is turned into finished products. Furthering the transfer of wealth to them.
If we are having serious balance of payments of problems, with the value of the dollar dropping and possible hyperinflation, we won't be buying much of anything from overseas - oil, plastics, chemicals, fertilizer, or needed parts for machinery. We will have what we can make ourselves. If we do trade for things, it will be only if we have something of real value (food?) that we can trade in return.
The US FeadGov will undoubtedly lie and obfuscate all the way to the end. However, it is one thing to try and fool people into thinking that inflation is only running 3-4% when it is actually 8-10%. It is quite another thing to try to fool people into thinking that double digit inflation isn't really serious inflation; the price increases that they experience on a weekly or monthly basis become really noticeable then. At triple digit inflation, it really doesn't matter how accurate the official rate is, people shift into an entirely different mode of operating under what has become, by then, the early stages of a terminal hyperinflation.
See my comments above about global exports. I doubt that the US FedGov is going to find itself able to engage in many more foreign adventures. We are very rapidly nearing the point when it will dawn on to military brass and civilian decision makers that the US economy will no longer be capable of replacing military hardware lost in battle. At that point, conservation of assets kicks in as the primary policy directive, and the US empire starts pulling back to more defensible positions; eventually, they'll have no choice but to pull all the way back to North America and its approaches. Iraq may very well be the last US foreign adventure. I doubt that we'll ever get all that much out of Iraq. For that matter, I doubt that the Iraqis will ever get all that much out of Iraq. Maybe we will actually manage to leave a little bit in the ground for folks in the 23rd or 24th centuries after all!
As I've said elsewhere, what we are facing is a one-two punch: first hyperinflation, then deflation. Unless you are in the top 10% (or maybe even higher) in income distribution, don't assume that your income is going to keep up with inflation. If your income doesn't keep up, forget about inflation eating away at your debt -- you are the one that will get eaten up first. Thus, the first priority is to liquidate debt. The second priority is to inflation-proof your savings as much as possible, and minimize your risk exposures. The third priority is to position yourself to shift whatever you've managed to preserve through the hyperinflation episode into a position that can ride out the long term deflation. I'm still wondering about that last one.
Just what we need. All those troops coming home to practice their skills on the "homeland". What are the FEMA and state-equivalent plans for various levels of disasters and pandemics? Martial law and lock-down along the lines of Petraeus' gated communities in Baghdad. The explosion of the security state and the ways that technologies like RealID are already turning US society into a checkpoint society - try getting a cashier's check from bank and watch them run you and the payee through all the databases - right in front of you around here. WTF are you doing I asked, checking that you aren't on these lists they told me.
Why anyone thinks the empire is going to make sensible (from the POV of a rational human being) decisions is beyond me. Look at what the Fed is doing right now, what the administration is doing with the likes of Fannie and Freddie - it's out and out looting. Small consolation thinking that anything that smacks of increased hierarchy and complexity [the matrix] is going to crash rapidly and unpredictably. There are going to be lots of people thrown out of helicopters when that happens.
cfm in Gray, ME
Yes, the politicians running the civilian government can be counted upon to do totally stupid, irrational things. The Generals and Admirals running the military are a little more rational, as long as they are not being asked to actually fight a war, and as long as they don't try their hand at running the civilian economy. That's why I think that when the supply chain for their toys starts to fail, they will assert themselves and insist that they not be put in a position where they might lose their toys. If the civilian leadership disagrees, we might end up with a puppet civilian leadership and with the generals as the puppetmasters.
Hello,
I am interested in why you think we are headed into inflation.
I define inflation as:
Yearly increase in money supply / yearly increase in added value (or GNP) = number > 1
Deflation:
Yearly increase in money supply / yearly increase in added value (or GNP) = number < 1
Money supply includes credit.
Do we agree on those definitions?
If so, in a credit crunch such as now, we are seeing a massive decrease in the money supply. That means deflation, not inflation.
I think people are looking at prices and confusing price increases with inflation. Nominal price increases are possible in a deflationary environment.
The distinction is important because whether we are hit first by inflation or deflation is critically important in setting up our strategies.
Ciao,
FB
You are not the only person on the Net talking about a massive decrease in the money supply-the only problem is that it simply hasn't happened.
Hello,
You say it is not happening?
What about the drop in home values? In subprime derivitives. The bank losses.
What about the deleveraging taking place? What is that if not a rapid decrease in the money supply?
What about the difficulty in obtaining a mortgage? The refusal of banks to lend to each other.
These are all part of a credit crunch which by definition means the destruction of a part of the money supply.
Could you tell me why you think the decrease in the money supply is not taking place?
FB
A new economic term may be needed. Hyper Stagflation.
What is about to take place is unprecedented.
How about conflation?
Conflation = higher prices + receding money supply.
Yes that's very probable.
As the economy is slowly being throttled, it'll kick and thrash, the tongue will turn blue and the eyes will bug.
It won't go down without a fight, that's for sure.
In the USA, M2 is up about 7% YOY, M3 17%. How much higher would you like it? We are at the point where anything under 10% growth in money supply YOY is considered "deflation" by some.
Surely there has only been [or will be] a large decrease in the "potential" money supply, not actual money.
If a house went up 500% in value and you did not sell it at peak and live in a tent, then there never was an increase in your money. The same with all these other asset market values. Unless you sold those assets at peak and bought "always useful barter stuff" then you didn't have more. The HELOC argument is just a stretching of transient conditions. People weren't 'given' more money - they were allowed to go deeper in debt to buy crap.
No, by inflation and deflation I am mainly just referring to an increase or a decrease in the money supply itself. Price levels in general usually follow these, but should not be confused with the change in money supply itself. Money itself is a commodity with its own supply and demand curves. An increase in the supply of money shifts the money supply curve, and thus reduces its value (given an unchanged demand curve). Similarly, a decrease in the supply of money increases its value.
I am not at all sure that I accept the idea that every strange credit instrument that some financial institution has created is equivalent to money. If it isn't something that can be accepted in intermediation of an exchange of goods or services between two disinterested parties, then it probably doesn't deserve to be called money. That means something more than M1 perhaps, but probably not much more than M2, and certainly no more than M3. This is not to say that the creation or distruction of credit instruments can't have a big impact on the money supply, only that they are not themselves constitutents of the money supply.
The credit crunch could very well result in a decrease of the money supply, if things were left to run their own course. However, that is exactly what the Fed is not doing - they are actively intervening to inflate the money supply.
Further confusing the matter, we are seeing price increases in some things (energy, food) and price decreases in others (housing, most discretionary items, maybe labor). This by itself need not be either inflationary or deflationary. The shift in the energy supply curve due to peak oil inevitably results in price increases. These flow through to other essential goods with high energy inputs, like food. Given the relatively inelastic demand curves for food and energy, this means that consumers have less money left to spend on everything else, which means that the demand curves shift for everything else, driving down their prices. TPTB don't want ordinary people to notice that their wages are falling though, and want to obfuscate what is really happening. Goosing the money supply to drive prices in general upwards is a time tested way to make this happen - for a while, anyway. It is a time tested practice, SOP really for most governments.
They can't keep the game going forever, of course. Eventually, they have to goose the money supply more and more, hyperinflation ensues, and the whole house of cards comes crashing down at the end.
It is then that deflation typically asserts itself forcefully. Some people argue that we must undergo a deflation, and long term they are absolutely right. But I am sure that we will have to go through a hyperinflation first.
Both inflation and deflation will likely be tried in different places.
On current policies the US looks likely to inflate, the EU deflate.
At some point deflation has to be the end-game because money is just an agreement among people and thus is backed by the trust that there is an economy in which to use it. However, as the recognition spreads that the debt on the books will never be repaid (it can't, less oil == contracting economy == impossible to make a profit and pay back the debts), the agreement that money is "worth" something will evaporate.
The period between hyperinflation and and rapid deflation, we may discover, will be very short. Any way I look at it, I can't see anything other than full scale monetary collapse.
Thus, I recommend to people to trade their money for "things" while there are still people who will accept it.
-Andre'
What if "the economy" is contracting faster than the "money supply"? That would be inflation too.
Furthermore, as an individual I don't care about the "money supply", I care about the affordability of what I, personally, actually need to buy (food and fuel in particular!) as compared with expected changes in my income and savings. If prices grow faster than my income that's a problem that may be referred to as inflation, although you can call it something else if you'd rather. As far as how to handle savings, what to invest in, the consequences are the same as "true" inflation: the purchasing power of "money in the bank" is declining. Better to invest in papers that are linked to inflation (to the extent that the linkage is honest and the promising party stable...), or in actual things, if you are sure they'll be needed or tradable.
A fixed-rate mortgage may "shrink" on its own (only if your income, in nomimal dollars, rises, or your savings are gaining nominally), while an adjustable-rate mortgage is terrible - assuming interest rates will go up. That latter assumption may be controversial, but they can't go down a lot further, and they will go up if TPTB decide they are seeing "inflation".
I got a kick out of your anticipation that "The Good Life" (a.k.a. "Good Neighbors" here in the USA) would become the most popular commedy show in the UK again. We've got the DVD set and watch it often, it is one of our favorite programmes.
I don't know how reliable or useful Tom & Barbara Good's experiences would be for most people facing what we're facing, though.
Nice timeline. However, I feel oil will reach $200 in 2009, not 2012 as indicated.
well while I was visiting family I am gone 1 day and people go super doomer. Its incredible but I bet 220$ by end of year sadly. I said my peace to family that owns gas guzzler SUV hopefuly they heed the advice :(
good post nick,
the artical in drumbeat about the Middle East diversifying its oil reserves is flat wrong. The U.S does not produce 2.5% of the world's oil. it produces about 6% and U.S consumption is droping. We currently consume less than 20% of the world's oil.
I expect U.S production to be mostly flat in the coming years and demand to drop off heavily. Misrepresentation and false figures are all over the place in Oil reporting, it seems no one knows how to report the facts anymore.
Very impressive Nick. I have a similar timeline that I made up but it's not as detailed and a little more pessimistic than yours. The thing that worries me is that everything is tied together, one collapse leads to a domino effect. That being said I enjoyed reading your timeline, great work. :)
I've long felt that 2012-13 was likely to be the next substantial discontinuity from BAU (2007-8 was the first one, with the run-up of oil & motor fuel prices, foreclosures & market turmoil, etc.) If we get rationing, I expect this is the earliest that we will see it. I am expecting that we will see motor fuel rationing then, mainly because that will be the best way for the government and military to assure their own suppies at a somewhat affordable price (although that is unlikely to be the officially stated reason). Rationing of all energy resources, and maybe certain foodstuffs, might follow soon thereafter. The trickle of job losses becomes a flood soon thereafter. I also expect inflation to ramp up into hyperinflation around that time, as TPTB make one last gasp effort to stave off the inevitable. I don't expect to see any really serious investments made in renewables and in energy efficiency (especially electrified rail transport) until then, by which time it will most definitely be too little, too late. Nevertheless, a belated effort will be made, and significant government intervention in financial markets along with some scheme to generate some forced savings in the economy might be necessary to raise the capital to proceed.
These will be the "Terrible Tens". I expect a second discontinuity to follow somewhere around 2020, +/- a couple of years. This is when oil exports/imports discontinue altogether. I don't expect ANY motor fuel to be available to ordinary people at an affordable price, or maybe just not being allowed any rations at all. The US$ will have been hyperinflated away into worthlessness by then, and the long-term deflation will commence, along with the long-term decline of the economy as a whole. The impacts of AGW really start making themselves felt then as well. This won't just be another Great Depression, this will be The Great Decline, because there will be no recovery from this one, just an inexorable economic decline down to a much lower, sustainable level. Most large scale institutions & systems, including the federal government, the US military, and major corporations, won't survive for very long in the Great Decline, because there just won't be the resources available to sustain them. This is when the localization agenda gets going in earnest. If we're lucky, at least certain regions of North America and around the world might be able to avoid the doomer fast crash and die out scenario - but just barely. It will be a close-run thing over much of the rest of the century.
Personal Planning Implications:
You are right, time to focus on the next 4-5 years. Try to get personal debts liquidated. Yes, those debts may inflate away, but only if your income inflates too; that hasn't seemed to be happening for those of us in the bottom 90% of the economy, and is unlikely to change soon enough. More likely, your costs for food, energy, and all other necessities will go up faster than your income, leaving you with LESS money for debt service.
Work on reducing your vulnerabilities and dependence upon food and energy supplies. Ramp up your own food production capacity - garden, fruit trees, bees, small scale livestock. Make your home as energy-efficient as you can, and invest in solar water and space heating and a wood stove if possible. Invest in clotheslines and solar ovens. Make sure that you can get to work even if you can no longer get motor fuel to drive there; if you need to relocate or change jobs, do it now! Start taking mass transit or get a bicycle or walk to work. Make sure your employment is relatively secure, too, which means work in the non-discretionary sectors of the economy; take a pay cut if necessary to get into a more secure job.
As far as the longer-term strategy for The Great Decline, I'm still working that one out. Assuming that you have reasonably secure work in the non-discretionary sector, you should have a few years after 2012 to still work on getting a home mortgage paid off, if you haven't already; you definitely DON'T want to still be carrying ANY debts whatsoever after 2020, the deflation will just kill you. Assume that even a lot of those relatively secure, non-discretionary jobs might go away in the 2020s and 2030s, so be thinking in terms of some type of skilled trade or craft or other venture that you can fall back on. I don't see how our society can possibly maintain the health care system at current levels for very long into the Great Decline; assume that there are going to be drastic cut backs in the type of medical care that is available, and that society as a whole will be unable to afford to pick up the tab for much more than basic public health & immunizations. Work on shedding any excess weight, get fit, and get healthy. Pick up manuals like "Where There Is No Doctor", stock up on first aid supplies, learn herbal medicine, and take care to avoid getting injuries or infections.
As for investments, the combination of medium term hyperinflation and long term deflation will be a challenge. For most ordinary people (without huge amounts of investment funds), their risk premiums SHOULD already be too high to continue allocating much of anything to stocks. The risk of a stock market crash over the next few years is just to high, and the long term outlook as we shift from a growth economy to a declining economy is dismal. Precious metals would seem to be a good bet for the hyperinflation phase, but not for the long term deflation that follows; you might have a tough time calling the peak of the hyperinflation and unloading them once the hyperinflation is over. Housing & land that are well located (i.e., NOT suburban McMansions surrounded by foreclosures) should actually hold their value pretty well through the hyperinflation. During the Great Decline, the investment of choice will of course be whatever is serving as cash or a close cash equivalent by then. This in turn suggests that what one wants to do is to invest in something for the Terrible Tens that will retain its value through the hyperinflation, but that will be in high demand as the Great Decline sets in. Ideas, anyone?
Land is one of those things that only has the value that people will pay for it. In the event of general economic collapse that value goes, so land has the value of what you can do with it.
I'd suggest woodland is the best property you can buy. Its cheap today, and it has real value on it for the future.
Interesting. I think we do need to concentrate a little more on the PROBABLE practicalities for ordinary people and less on the alien-invasion-burning-dung-in-a-cave stuff.
I would be interested to know how the middle and upper middle classes came through the Weimar inflation in the 1920s. How did they store and spend wealth ? How did they feed themselves ?
Given that Germany was the most powerful country again in Europe within 15 years of the peak of the hyperinflation and the class structure remained intact how did this happen ? Did they bury gold in the garden ? Use their connections to get food and protection ?
Of course, we know where this all led a decade later, after civil society had been thoroughly poisoned.
I think we are headed for deflation. Comparisons with the Weimar inflation miss a basic difference. From the description above, there was still stuff to buy with the inflated paper money. The same sort of thing happened in Argentina, as I recall. Prices in the stores went up every day, thus there was a great incentive for the consumer to spend those chits as soon as they reached the hand.
This time around, there won't be enough energy to keep the production of stuff going. There won't be jobs as industrial plants shut down, one after another. People will go bankrupt and lose their houses and cars, etc. There's always "depreciation" going on, as the basic bits and pieces of life deteriorate and are junked. All that means that there will be less real wealth as each sale of a house is for less than the previous amount. Wealth will simply evaporate, just as cars eventually return to rust.
Should a government try to keep things going by printing money, there would be no way to get that money into the hands of the FWO, except by massive welfare and make work schemes. But, there won't be enough energy to allow the make work schemes actually function. No concrete means no new bridges or new high rise buildings. No fuel means no new cars, except, possibly, for electric ones. No electricity means no night life or entertainment after dark. Maybe TV will be the last to go, as we all sit before the glowing images of our giant flat panel screens and watch the flames growing ever closer to our little lives until it's our turn to be engulfed by the conflagration.
No, this time, it will be different. Perhaps it will be more like the end of WW II for the Germans and the Japanese as their fuel supplies were cut off. Some countries will hold out longer than others, but there will be (are now) many losers that will cease to exist. There will be no rescue possible...
E. Swanson
but that will be in high demand as the Great Decline sets in. Ideas, anyone?
1) Any tech that has existed before the mass acceptance of Oil - shipbuilding, coal plants, horse hitches, rail
I think most of the company's that can do this are not yet in existence
2) Handcraft skills - not the items them selfs but the skills - sewing, small scale construction ect
any others ?
I do not see such a quick collapse, if nothing is done and soon I see a Byzantine empire style slow disintegration. The country and the economy will decline in steps each one taking us further down, (this has been happening since nafta and before) Like the frog who jumps out if dropped in a pot of boiling water but will stay in a pot as the temperature is turned up to boiling, we will adapt to each step downward till we wake up in a third world country. However, that being said, you are totally right that one should be prepared for the scenario you lay out and there is nothing wrong with eliminating debt, knowing first aid, being energy efficient et cet.
I think that the military will to some extent be the last man standing, they may not have a million in uniform and certainly will not be spread all over the world, but they have the equipment and organization to continue as well as the access to oil via the spr to be effective.
If the shtf within 5 or even 10 years then I doubt that there will be enough time for any one to do any much than covering their own tokus'. Such a quick decline would take the vast majority of the populace by complete surprise, and that matters because if it came to that point it would be very prudent to get out of dodge and the time window to do so would be very small. Also even if you know that where you are is going to be dodgey few would have a place to go even as they see the cities coming unglued in front of their eyes. (That is a reason that the wealthy buy multi million dollar "vacation homes" in the middle of nowhere, that they rarely visit. So they have a place to get too when they get out of dodge.)
I would also suggest that as regards to the decline in health care, everyone should do a health care audit, If as you say we are on the brink of collapse, and I agree it is possible, everyone should do some simple things to prepare health wise, make sure that you have had all of your inoculations, i.e. both series of hep shots, tetanus, typhoid. MMR etc, do not put off dental work get good cleanings every 6 months, get a paramedic style medical kit not the $5 one at cvs.
As for investments have some ready cash on hand in a undisclosed secure location, not in a safety deposit box, they would be hard to access in a bank run or closure and the government could seize their contents. Pay off as much debt as possible.
If you live on a piece of land you plan on staying in perhaps set up a jug pump in the back yard and put a garden shed around it, so it is not too exposed to the weather, or to prying eyes or hands. If your soil is deficient get it in shape with topsoil and manure, keep a few bags of each om hand if possible, if there is a collapse a $1.25 bag of manure will be more valuable than a stock certificate (which will end up being used to remove humanure). In addition to buying garden tools have a ready supply of seeds for planting, and remember that they are perishable so rotate them out each year and if possible buy heritage seeds that are hardier and do not need commercial fertilizer. You could also stock up on Montey's joy juice and Miracle Grow, a case of each in storage would last quite a while and make good trade material.
I see a tension between paying off debt and securing the products one wants to prepare while they are still available and one has the cash with which to buy them. Right now I think it's best to get the products you want first, then pay off debt.
Thoughts?
-Andre'
I'm struggling with that too. I'm resisting the temptation to go into panic mode, and am hoping that we actually have another few years or so before things become more than just moderately worse. What I'm doing then is thus a balanced plan, paying off debts on a reasonably fast schedule but leaving myself a little bit to invest in energy conservation, renewable energy, and food production.
Like the frog who jumps out if dropped in a pot of boiling water but will stay in a pot as the temperature is turned up to boiling,
http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp
I've worked out a personal timeline... June 2008, my house-mates assume my half of my current home mortgage, and thus am freed from a mortgage on a suburban home. I close on 20 acres of land, 10 acres of which is suitable for farming on.
July 2008, I go to Japan, as it's likely the first/last time I'll ever be able to afford it. :)
Late July 2008, I build my home on the 20 acres of land I purchased. I am going purely solar and wind power with this home, with the exception of having grid power for the first few months as I get my renewable system hooked up. After that, I'm disconnected from the grid.
2009- I add water collection and 10,000 gal sistern to my home as alternative water supply, in case of county water supply failing due to power failures, etc. I add additional power generation capacity as well. 2009 is also going to be my first planting of vegetables, and the aquisition of chickens and goats. (Easily slaughterable meat & manageable source of milk.) Completion of my electric car conversion to enable me to have a range of 50 miles without gasoline usage, recharged with my own power production.
2010- Mortgage for land will be paid off by or before this time. I will have ZERO debt. Addition of greenhouse to lengthen growing season of vegetables. Get good at growing food, and developing tradeable post-peak skills.
2012- Make preparations for family members who thought I was crazy for moving out to nowhere to grow food and such to finally break down and beg me to let them move in. In my zeal to warn family to make preparations, I expect them to expect me to be fully prepared... Sadly, 20 acres can only support a certain number of people...
Good for you and more power to you. Some of us are not as well endowed financially as you apparently are, unfortunately. Each of us needs to do what we can.
I'd suggest getting fruit trees, berry bushes & vines, & asparagus planted this fall if you can. These need several years before they will start bearing, the more of a head start you can give them, the better.
I'd also suggest adding beekeeping to your plans. You'll need them for polenation of your fruit crops, and you can use the honey.
My Dad got a plum tree from a nursery and planted in his yard. The tree was producing numerous plums within four years. Some trees were self pollinating. Some varieties of apples were self pollinating in certain areas. Peaches, nectarines, cherries, and plums were self pollinating. Nut trees were also food providers.
Selection of fruit trees depends a lot on your climate, and even on the microclimate around your property. Self-pollenation is good for things that you are not likely to need very much of (plums, maybe), but hopefully you'll have enough space to plant quite a few trees. Even self-pollenating trees do a little better with other varieties of the same species nearby. Keeping bees definitely helps too.
Be careful with apricots -- they bloom VERY early, and even in zones 6 or 7 they may get hit with a late frost that kills off the fruit. I love apricots, but am dispairing of being able to successfully grow them.
Nut trees: If you've got squirrels, nut trees make for great squirrel food. Maybe if you are lucky you'll get a few nuts for yourself. If you've got a shotgun and are a good shot, more likely you'll have a good start toward many a good meal of Brunswick Stew.
If you live in a heavilly forested area, like I do, a better strategy is to forage for nuts in the woods.
And by 2013, the corrupt criminal government will have seized your property and forced you into the tent city.
Everyone assumes the unravelling to go like sh*t through a gander and it's not going to be that smooth IMO.
You have 10 to 20 years of trying every boondoggle under the sun while people complain bitterly about the cost of gas. (BTW this is like junkies blaming their addiciton on the pusher.) All will go nowhere as we try and conserve/wind/solar/nuclear/bio-fuel our way to a happier sustainable (LOL) world! The elephant in the room however is exponential population growth.
Here's the equation:
Population oveshoot + Climate Change + Peak Oil = Four Horseman of the Apocolypse
China at 1.2% growth still creates a population equal to Great Britain every year. Bob Malthus is finally right...200 years later.
In America we are stuck on the Disney Fun Ride "It's a small world after all" and it's going faster and faster and faster.....
May I suggest that if you want to take a peek at what the future might look like in a carbon restrained world you can check out:
http://www.energyshortage.org/
Solaris gave me the idea for this blog and called these countries "Canaries in the coal mine."
As such, while there are no societies or economies that replicate the US exactly, of course, there are some industrial societies that are having energy problems now. In particular Argentina and South Africa.
I have been following these stories for about a year, and while tempers flare in these countries, I don't think we could consider them as examples of societal breakdown. It gets pretty bad too, with strikes, rationing, blackouts, etc. However, it's not Mad Max (my operational definition of societal breakdown) and people cope.
My example countries suffer energy issues primarily because of so called "above ground factors", but I imagine the impact on citizens would be same in a post peak oil world.
I would like to think that Americans would be able to cope too.
I'll take a look thanks!
joemichaels, you only mention three horsemen ...
May I suggest a fourth ? Denial of thermodynamics
Not to refute what you say, Paal, because I agree such denial - or ignorance - is a keystone of our problem, but let me offer an alternative 4th - mass extinction. For we are also oblivious to the degree to which we depend upon a healthy, functioning ecosystem, to say nothing of the morality of taking out millions of other lifeforms in our wanton folly. In fact, the three offered above and extinction are precisely the 4 subjects tackled in the documenatary What a Way to Go: Life at the End of Empire, which I highly recommend.
garyp: In a nutshell, yes, the timeline has moved up. Although 2010 might be a target year for absolute peak, my personal view is peak (crude) production initiated a rocky plateau in 05, and since then supply has steadily been reduced in relation to demand, causing the price of oil to rise to its current level. Other forms of oil, tar sands, ethanol, bio-diesel etc. are extending the point of absolute peak.
My view is we are currently riding a plateau of increasing prices that will dampen economic expansion, causing recession in counries without large oil exportation (which obviously includes the U.S.), and just past absolute peak as descent becomes obvious to one and all, exportation will quickly slow or stop for most exporters, and the panic that follows will take different directions depending on the state of each country.
Countries with a lot of oil will simply pull in their wings, moving towards self-sufficiancy, and those without enough oil will either grow crops for ethanol, or go to war to get more. But the scenario chosen will also have to do with who is the leader at the time, i.e. pro-war or anti-war.
We will have reached a new phase when oil prices stabilise.
At that point it will have simply become unaffordable to most.
This is going to be accompanied by severe recession in much of the world, and, whether masked by inflation or not, huge demand destruction - IOW it will not be possible to buy as many goods as previously in the nominal currency.
This in turn will further affect the ability to pay the current stabilised price for oil, and it will sink.
It will still remain high relative to people's ability to pay for it, and also demand destruction will now be occurring in the exporting countries, meaning that however much they might want to conserve they will in practise pump for all they are worth, and ever more countries will stop being exporters as supplies diminish.
This in turn will impact one of the few remaining buoyant export markets, further destroying demand in both the countries which had sent people to work in oil exporting countries and traditional exporters to them.
This cycle of demand destruction will be very difficult to stop.
South Africa: Summit Agrees to Hike Electricity Prices Over Five Years
Not really the subject of the article, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a guess that "energy apartheid" is going to be even more the story of Africa in the 21st century than in any case it already was in the 20th.
Krugman: "Stranded in Suburbia"
Again folks, please do not cut and paste the entire article--only a couple of paragraphs, and only post the title with an a href link. Let the reader decide if they want to go there or not. (Sorry to pick on you Dick, I've had to fix others already this morning.)
Here you go:
< a href = "http://xxx.yyy" >Krugman: I am your conscience< /a >
< blockquote > La la la < /blockquote >
take out the spaces before and after the "carrots" and the equals sign...this is just for illustration...and you get:
Krugman: I am your conscience
Would be great if placing html code into posts could be automated, as is nigh-unto standard at phpbb sites - but I assume we'd have done that by now if it were possible - some limitation of Drupal, I suppose.
In the meantime things like the Firefox extension CoLT save me hours of time. I'll demonstrate: Born Geek » Copy Link Text ( CoLT ). That required a Google search and a right click, instead of all that copying of URLs and headlines etc.
Another must have is Cooliris Previews. I can highlight a headline in a story, a popup window comes up with the Google search for that text, the story is there in the first few hits, I use CoLT to code the headline in HTML, paste into post.
I like the BBCodeXtra add-on for Firefox. Makes simple HTML a breeze.
However, if you can't do HTML, just post the URL. It will be made clickable automatically.
Europe is not entirely heavenly.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7408399.stm
Neapolitons burning thousands of tonnes of uncollected garbage left rotting in the streets.
Little anecdote from the weekend: went out bicycling with my girlfriend on Saturday and left our bikes locked in a busy shopping area here in Berlin. When we returned one of her bike tyres was flat - someone has stolen the valve. Rolled the bike to the next bikeshop where the mechanic informed us that this has been happening regularly for a few months now - every few days someone walks in his shop with a missing valve.
Agreed, that was just an anecdote.
someone has stolen the valve.
Why? What possible reason can there be other than 'hey I'm an asshole'? What is hording valves gonna do ya?
Peak Valves?!?!?!
No, I think it was the "hey, I'm an asshole" thing. Probably a disillusioned Hummer owner.
Do valves have any salvage value?
Brass. Not a lot.
Perhaps Stainless steel in the springs.
Flodesign’s jet engine shaped wind turbine is designed to be an amazingly 3 to 4 times more efficient than standard wind turbines.
http://got2begreen.com/jet-wind-turbine-4-times-more-efficient/
Looks to me as though they have added so much weight and cost with all the cowlings and so on that any gains would be marginal - you might as well build a bigger conventional windturbine.
What do the engineer-types around here think?
Interesting,
Seems a plan could be hatched out of recycling jet engines from a failing airline industry,hmm.
And for another positive thought
We created the military industrial complex in ww2 by mandating the automotive industry shift into the production of death machines. The same mandate could (and will, if we are to survive as a country/species) be made tomorrow that the arms industry build stuff like this, they're tooled up and have the skills.
Too bad, as I don't see it happening
DaveMart -
You are quite correct about the added weight for this type of wind turbine.
When renewed interest in wind power emerged during the late 1970s and early 1980s, all manner of wind turbine configurations were being studies, including the cowl type you refer to.
What generated quite a bit of interest at the time was the 'Darius' (?) verticle shaft turbine with three vertical curved blades attached to the shaft at both top and bottom and somewhat resembling an old fashion eggbeater. The supposed advantage was that it could take wind from any direction and did not have to be steered into the wind. For various reasons (I think mostly structural drawbacks), it never really caught on for large applications.
As it turned out, large wind turbine design has largely converged on the almost standard type of horizontal-shaft, steerable, thin, three-bladed turbine that we see today. It is relatively light in relation to the amount of power produced and hence highly optimized for extracting the most amount of power per unit of capital cost, i.e., rated kilowatts per $1,000.
This claim of 3 to 4 times the efficiency is a bit misleading, as it is no doubt the efficiency in terms of the amount of power extracted per unit of turbine blade swept area. However, if the cost in terms of the amount of power per unit of capital costs is several times higher than a conventional wind turbine, then that higher 'efficiency' doesn't buy you much and is not necessarily a desirable thing. This tendency to confuse physical efficiency with cost effectiveness is a trap that engineers fall into quite often.
The other consideration is robustness and survivability during severe storm conditions. The very fact that a conventional wind turbine has thin blades that can be turned sideways to the wind during a hurricane is an asset that helps ensure survivability. I would hate to think of what would happen to a large cowl-shaped object during a 120 mile-per-hour hurricane.
Incidentally, it is interesting how the convergence of design as a technology matures happens in almost all fields. In the early days of aviation there was a bewildering variety of all sorts of bizarre designs. Now, about a hundred years later, one jet airliner looks more or less like most other jet airliners and one jet fighter looks more or less like most other jet fighters. Ditto for warships, automobiles oil refineries...you name it.
This design may have one advantage over conventional turbine designs, reduced harmonics into the grid. With conventional turbines you get a momentary ~10% drop in power as the blade moves in front of the support pillar. This causes undesireable power fluctuations in the power sent to grid. I believe large numbers of turbines mostly even out this effect though so I'm not sure how valuble this would be.
The "Danish Model" wind turbine (3 blade up wind) won out over all other alternatives based upon real world experience.
It is unlikely that a dramatically different technology will challenge it without some revolution in materials or unique application (low but very turbulent wind regime perhaps).
I am extremely doubtful that high altitude wind will work. What to do when the wind dies down ? What do do when a 100+ tons gets loose and comes crashing down ?
In any case, the time required to debug such an extreme technology and then build in quantity is in the distant future.
For the UK, on-shore wind is your best solution (that and conservation and build as many nukes as you can as quickly as you can i.e. a handful in a dozen years).
You point to peat bogs as a hindrance and I think that is a quite unrealistic concern. Not all of the UK is covered in peat bogs, and for the few % of land covered by peat bogs, peat bogs tend to collect at the bottom of hills and wind turbines prefer hill tops.
Best Hopes for UK NIMBYs realizing the error of their ways as they shiver in the dark,
Alan
AlfromBigEasy -
Peat bogs???
Your post appears to be a reply to mine above, and nowhere in it did I make the slightest mention of peat bogs in the UK. (?????)
Anyway, I would agree that further advances in wind turbine design are apt to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
It was in fact a reply to me, as I had previously mentioned peat bogs as a concern in building a lot of wind turbine power in the UK.
Alan, you continually seek to denigrate any opposition to your preferred solutions as NIMBTism, with some implied critique that concern for your local environment is not valid - presumably you did not engage in any NIMBYism when proposals were put forward to build more highways through you New Orleans local environment.
As for your other remarks, it is apparent that you know nothing of the geography of the UK, as many so-called mountains here are in fact peat-covered highlands, and in any case such as are not are largely surrounded by peat bogs, which would need access roads built through them.
As indicated in the links I gave, destruction of peat bogs would lead to more CO2 emissions, not less.
Where those issues are indeed not relevant, I would indeed support land based wind power.
Alan, you continually seek to denigrate any opposition to your preferred solutions as NIMBTism,
You were not around when Alan called for all efforts to be made to save New Orleans, San Fanscisco and New York. Yup, all other places were to work to keep those 3 cities going, no matter the cost.
(the reality with global warming and the energy crunch - the pumps that keep New Your tunnels not flooded and parts of New Orleans not flooded will be shut off and the water will find its own level. After that, when the storm surge hits, the water damaged will be salvage/scrap and not rebuilt. Eventually to be abandoned.)
Peatlands cover approximately 14% of Scotland
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/00489697/2002/00000294/0000000...
I tried to find the % for England in peatland but could not, but did find that you have destroyed 90% of the historic peat lands. Blackpool was once peatland.
Since Scotland still burns peat to make electricity, thsi raises a question, which destroys more peat, peat fired power stations or wind turbines in peat land ?
My money would be on the peat fired power stations.
I would suspect that one could install quite a few GW of WTs on non-peatland in the UK.
Best Hopes,
Alan
It's where the peat is that is the problem,Alan, as I can assure you from having been there that it tends to be around the best areas for wind harvesting.
To answer your question: yes, wind turbines would do more damage than burning peat, as the land will still retain it's ability to form new peat and sequester CO2, whereas building on it destroys that ability.
Plenty of GW's of wind power could be built on farmland and non-peat hills, but most of the best wind resources in this country are in areas where it is a problem, and capacity factors are critical for wind - the resources in areas where this is less of a problem tend to be a lot poorer.
I would certainly support wind turbines in suitable areas, but short of building off shore no-one should confuse our resources in any way with the vast resources available in the States, where space is plentiful and resources superb.
To answer your question: yes, wind turbines would do more damage than burning peat, as the land will still retain it's ability to form new peat and sequester CO2, whereas building on it destroys that ability.
And that ability will still exist as rainfall patterns change? How about as it warms? Or Sea Water rises?
I've no idea Eric.
Perhaps you would care to research your interesting questions.
You are the one making the CO2 change claim. Should you not have evidence to your claim?
The design is what is called a "ducted fan" turbine. They work, but there is a large up front cost for all the extra materials which go into building the shroud. The efficiency is limited to 59% by the basics of fluid dynamics and present turbines can capture around 80% (from memory) of that limit. The notion that these can provide 3 or 4 times the efficiency of a well designed 3 blade turbine is pure hype, IMHO.
E. Swanson
Thanks for link Dave, interesting.
My take is that it will eventually boil down to (provided energy) : (cost /op cost) or (energy:monies) if you will. I see 2 completely different products here, so maybe they will have their separate markets.
Flodesign’s WT came across to me as much smaller, thus you will need several of those to even out one conventional WT (3 blade) , IMO. Obviously the cost of one Flodesign-WT will be much higher as compared to one conventional WT - given the same diameter.
I am not convinced at all , especially the very concept of efficiency I’m starting to question more and more by the day - because it is ADDING enormous extra costs to designs…… is it worth it in the end? (it’s an EROEI issue)
Thanks for the comments, guys - you have confirmed my suspicions.
The only non-conventional design I have seen which has impressed me recently is this:
http://www.aerotecture.com/index.html
Aeroteture International - Home
This is a bit unusual for me, as I Have been pretty much against urban wind power on cost grounds, but this site impressed me, as much as anything because they actually specify output under different conditions, and list where they will not perform satisfactorily! -Hardly normal practise for some of the con-men out there:
They still sound expensive, but I am fairly impressed, not least because they do not subject buildings to the same stresses as conventional roof-mounted turbines.
One of the first places I look in claims like this is the datasheet;
http://www.aerotecture.com/510VSpec-Sheet2.pdf
The power curve is almost parabolic up to the rated speed, which means unless one has steady winds of 28-32 mph, they will see little output from this wind turbine. Granted, most wind turbines do not have a linear power curve, but this one is almost a caricature. And the cost is rather steep for the rated output, so these would end up being green architectural decorations in most populated areas.
From their FAQ this had my eyes swirling
1kW in 32 mph winds …. I mean this is gale-force winds, which company tries this to haul customers based on this sort of info? I reckon those fancy-generators will be short lived, only being able to run a couple of light balls on an ordinary day. Remember the energy increases at a factor of 3 to the wind speed.
According to their datasheet (cut in speed) it would be a complete waste of monies in my neck of the woods .... this product is just silly IMO
So this is daft too!
It was their provision of data sheets that is unusual in this sort of set-up, but they have evidently just shown how impractical this is - precisely why they are usually not provided!
Yes, I'm afraid it is just another shot in the darkness … and at which price!?
See joules timely response just under your post of origin, he is pointing out that various technologies are finding their cost/yield –shape during trial n’ error over time. And I agree with him, the 3blade WT is such a creation … (at least for now)
**) EDIT LLOL
Comparsion
A large WT (nameplate 2 MW) will deliver nominal power at 6,7 mph (15 m/s), give or take a little . At this wind speed that very WT will deliver 2MWh steady to the grid, until the wind drops…
This “Aeroteture-thing” will not even have started at this speed , the incredibly stupid thing will need 12 mph to run a tiny light-bulb , see that ironic power-table for another LOL.
I tried to run the cost comparison between these systems, but my calculator denied me ... only showing “mirrored” E’s :-)
15 m/s is about 34 mph, not 7.
vtpeaknik, blush and thanks.
I knew it, I knew I must have done something very wrong here, b/c when I ran the numbers for the wind-machine in question I got some seriously bad numbers. I googled the mph to m/s and used my number at the "wrong side" of the equation.
So, with this new and correct input the “Aeroteture-thing” may find some sort of market after all.... probably best done on top of private houses adding around 0.5-1 kwhs, so it may/will easily compete with PVs at windy locations .IMO
But when that honor is now returned to Aeroteture.Inc(Flowers underway), I still believe that a small conventional WT in the 1-2 KW range will turn out cheaper and easier to maintain. My few cents.
Thanks, guys - that is why I did not try to tackle working out it's effectiveness myself - not being an engineer it would be too easy to screw up the terms, as even for the knowledgeable it is easy to make a miscalculation, so your efforts are not in vain, Paal.
Actually, it just bears out that they are being pretty honest and up-front, which is why I though it worthwhile to bring to the site's attention, as opposed to the flodesigns' concept, which I thought probably needed debunking.
As a further demonstration of their rectitude, they are actually being more conservative than you, Paal, in their siting recommendations, and are advising placements on top of apartment and office blocks, which are likely to be pretty high up and with good wind conditions.
They specifically advise against residential private housing use, save in unusually favourable circumstances:
Eric,
This design is very low vibration, so should not be a problem in that respect - that is a major problem with conventional turbines attached to houses.
Thanks Dave for understanding and cheering words on mistakes and such ...
Now this time around I had a correct google and came across this.
http://www.micropower.co.uk/about/turbines.html
If I remember the cost of the Aeroteture correctly at $15 000/ 1kw ...... there is always the above linked conventional WT at approximately $ 3000/ 1kw. They are ready for roof mounting.
I hereby issue a gracefull "rest in peace" for them fancy-machines.
It's eco-bling at the moment at those prices, but in Europe at least a lot of buildings are having to meet mandated targets, ad if you look at the projects it has been installed in you will see that it has sometimes been part of back-up systems.
They say that costs should drop a lot as production picks up, and production is likely to go up by quite a lot as for a sort of decorative effect on office blocks which also helps meet mandated standards and looks cool it is pretty cheap.
Cost will have to drop a hell of a way though before it is useful for much save to allow the eco-nuts to say: 'see, we can produce all power with renewables!'
What’s common for the Aeroteture-grinder vs. a conventional 3blade WT is “free wind” and that they both generate power. The wind-industry has for this/that reason landed at the 3bade WT during trial ‘n error.
From the numbers in my previous reply we see that money-wise we will get 5 times more energy coming from the running WT-technology, which in turn I believe will settle the issue.
OTOH if Aeroteture believe in their own technology/assessments … telling it will become cheaper in time – they should from day One sell it at “future costs” today. In doing so, they would be able to create their market and test it for confidence. If they go on demanding their stiff price of $ 15 000/ KW I spot trouble…. The future is not about fancy buildings as I see it – It is about the “cheapest possible power” available.(but it will not be cheap, not at all)
They would certainly not be able to afford to sell at a loss, being a start-up.
They also have no need to, as the market for mandated or prestige zero-carbon buildings is large enough that they can expand very greatly within that cost-insensitive environment.
Whilst I have no reason to doubt that larger volumes will reduce cost, just looking at the bulk and complexity of the thing compared to a conventional turbine perhaps indicates that they are unlikely to approach conventional costs.
I think your analysis is correct.
I still believe that a small conventional WT in the 1-2 KW range will turn out cheaper and easier to maintain.
The biggest expense tends to be getting you wind machine up into the air. A small turbine can use guy wires and a prop-up tilt style to be cheap.
But once you have trees all over, you are stuck with a high free standing tower.
Don't forget that you are now adding a source of vibration to the structure. Most buildings don't "like" vibration.
Nor do the people inside.
from Drudge
PRESIDENT George Bush yesterday told leaders of the oil-rich states of the Middle East that they must face up to a future without their precious hydrocarbons.
What on earth is wrong with that man ?
And I who thougth he was down in the ME to ask for more of that juicy stuff.
He is asking the energy-masters of this world to rethink stuff for a certain reason, but home in the US HE IS DOING NOTHING to mitigate for the same!
I think good-old Saddam would have done a much better job in the White House - man
The positive side to this stupidity afterall, is that the reality of the squeeze will resonate wider.
He Is doing everything in his power. Everything that he has proposed to date has been shot down. Drilling ANWR would NOT have had any impact on todays pump prices but it would have lowered the slope of the slide in a year or 2. Same with shelf drilling. All the other "alternatives" except EVs and PHEVs are nothing more than sad jokes at this point (and those are too little too late). Algae *may* at some point become remotely useful, but it's a long ways out.
At this point, I am inclined to think that the best thing he could do would be to take production *off* line while drilling for 10 year out production maintainers. We *may* be able to maintain a 70 mb/d bumpy plateau for 15-20 years. Precipitating the crisis now at a time when we may be able to maintain a lower plateau for a longer period over which to deploy alternatives (if any) rapidly. It would be horribly unpopular and catastrophic for much of the world, but sometimes the best way to avoid certain death by going over the cliff is to accept some pain and hit a tree.
GWB has done everything in his power
To frustrate any preparation for post-Peak Oil !
He could have dramatically increased CAFE in 2001 by executive order. And ruled that SUVs were cars.
He could have promoted instead of slowing down the building on non-oil transportation.
GWB outlawed drilling off Florida to help brother Jeb.
Unlike everywhere else, if we do not drill there soon, the Chinese (drilling in Cuban waters) can take some of that oil under the "Law of Capture) from USA rocks.
My rule of thumb for OKing the drilling in ANWR (8 to 12 year lead time from OK to production) is when I have not seen a Hummer, Armada, Expedition, Excursion, Navigator, etc. for 6 months. I saw one of these last week, so 25 more weeks to go :-)
EVs and PHEVs are sad jokes too. 100,000 GM Volts in 2010 (or 2011 or ...)
A real solution
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2007-04a.htm
http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=168&It...
We could have been throwing dirt on a 20,000 to 25,000 b/day oil saving project (and stimulating the economy while doing so) if not for GWBs last second blind side.
Best Hopes for Electrified Rail,
Alan
What Alan said, plus;
- At the behest of the automakers, Bush killed the Partnership for a New Generation Vehicle (PNGV), started in 1993, which was a public-private partnership with the Big 3 to bring to market 80 mpg family cars. GM created the 80 mpg Precept, Ford the 72 mpg Prodigy, and Chrysler the 72 mpg ESX-3. He attempted to cover the termination of an extremely successful energy efficiency program by replacing it with a fig leaf; the Freedom Car program, guaranteeing the Big 3 they could continue to make limitless 4x4 SUVs/pickups for at least two more decades until another Republican could be elected to kill that program and replace it with another unreachable carrot.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2002/01/49834
http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/gmprecept.html
GM Precept
Ford Prodigy
Chrysler ESX-3
Meanwhile, I've started walking to work. Unlike any of the above, I'm actually saving energy NOW, and getting myself to work NOW, and will continue doing so regardless of how high oil and motor fuel prices go.
Thanks for nothing, GWB & Big3! My "Freedom From Car" program definitely beats your worthless "Freedom Car" program.
It appears that you have not taken on board links that you were provided regarding the possibility of charging EV's off peak and this not increasing load on the grid.
Your argument was that it would not be effective to alter the price by the time of day and that demand would not be affected.
In case you missed it, here is actual data on Time of Use charging, with just feedback provided to customers and nothing fancy like V2G metering to contribute to the grid:
http://www.knowledgeproblem.com/archives/001247.html
METERING AND PRICING ACTIVATE ELECTRICITY DEMAND IN CALIFORNIA - Knowledge Problem
http://www.energy.ca.gov/demandresponse/documents/group3_final_reports/2...
2005-03-24_SPP_FINAL_REP.PDF
It is therefore apparent that, contrary to your arguments, it is rather easy by differential pricing to balance use.
Consequently even a relatively small number of electric vehicles if they were enabled to feed power back in the grid could provide valuable balancing functions.
The volt is hardly the only game in town in supplying electric vehicles.
With current oil prices players like Mitsubishi and Renault/Nissan will certainly be expediting their plans.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/03/20080305.html
"Overall, over the past seven years -- or since I've been the President, the federal government spent more than $12 billion to research, develop and promote alternative energy sources."
"I laid out a goal for the United States to reduce gasoline consumption by 20 percent over the next 10 years -- that's called 20-10 [sic]. By the way, that's in the face of a growing economy -- to reduce gasoline usage by 20 percent over 10 years."
"This legislation specifies a national mandatory fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, which will save billions of gallons of gasoline."
"Secondly, the legislation requires fuel producers to supply at least 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel in the year 2022. "
"Another way to reduce our dependence on oil is promote hybrid vehicles. We're providing tax incentives to people to buy these fuel-efficient vehicles."
"We're also investing in plug-in hybrids. We want our city people driving not on gasoline but on electricity."
"One, I strongly believe the United States must promote nuclear power here in the United States." And on this one, I will note that the first nuc plants in over 30 years started the process under his administration.
On top of that, he DID try for the drilling, It got shot down but it shoulda been done. 10 years after peak is entirely too late to see that production coming online.
Any idiot can make a list of things that anyone DIDN'T do, and it'll be true, but looking at what he DID do, I am not displeased given the climate. The climate BTW makes it utterly impossible to adequately address peak oil. Zoning laws alone basically prohibit adequate public transport, high efficiency development and urbanization. Urban sprawl is mandated. Not just mandated at the federal level, but mandated in each municipality.
Straight from a Whitehouse PR.
His "20-10" goal was about as realistic as his "man on Mars in 20xx" (forgot the year). No policy and no funding and no coherent strategy. We call this a "sound bite".
He could have raised CAFE in 2001 and it would actually have had an effect on average fleet mileage today. He didn't.
The climate BTW makes it utterly impossible to adequately address peak oil
He had a R majority for most of his term, and after 9-11 he could have gotten ANYTHING he wanted. And he did get what he wanted, the "Patriot Act" and an OK to invade Iraq. But not reduced oil use or building a non-oil transportation system.
He could have said that we need to stop funding both sides on the War on Terror. Here is a gas tax to pay for Afghanistan & the War on Terror. Here is 90% federal funding for Urban Rail *BUT* you must OK zoning changes within 0.3 miles of every station, here are incentives to expand and electrify America's railroads.
the federal government spent more than $12 billion to research, develop and promote alternative energy sources
Hydrogen and switchgrass. See what he promoted each year in his State of the Union message (except his last one, where he just skipped energy entirely. Not important I guess).
he DID try for the drilling
Yes, off the coast of Florida :-P
Quite frankly, I cannot see how he could have done worse !
Alan
Of course it's straight from white house PR, it's a "whitehouse" URL!
Reallistically, he *couldn't* have gotten anything in particular done about this issue post-9-11. It was a flag waving time, but the only types of measures that were going to get support were military ones, and even that was halfhearted at best. Remember, it took more than a year to drum up enough support to go into iraq.
I agree that raising the cafe standards and killing the SUVs would have been nice, but I seriously doubt that the SUV lovers would have approved and they DID represent the vast majority of the populace. We live in a republic, and that means that measures taken must be measures that are generally supported by the populace. The populace was and remains totally unwilling to hear that suburbia is a dead issue.
Like I said, we can sit back and armchair about coulda-woulda-shoulda, but it just isn't the case. He noticeably, clearly and distinctly DID try to mitigate and delay peak oil. The measures you say he "should" have taken wouldn't have had any greater success than the florida drilling/anwr drilling propositions. The anti-bush coalition has had it's ducks very very solidly in a row since well before the election and were unlikely to fall in line behind him on any measure. It doesn't help that the bulk of the R constituency are PO deniers, so proposing the measures you are suggesting would have cost him politically within his own party and done nothing to gain favor from his opposition.
He noticeably, clearly and distinctly DID try to mitigate and delay peak oil
UTTER AND COMPLETE BS !!
BTW, GWB was the one who outlawed drilling off the Florida coast.
So he GAVE back the oil companies their money for drilling leases off Florida. I believe that these were leases issued under his father (before his son became Gov.).
Alan
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0422-06.htm
Was the kool-aid you imbibed grape or cherry? I wish I could get some of it, it would make my life much less stressful...
So post 9/11, when nearly the entire country fell in line because of patriotism, it would have been impossible to ask Americans to sacrifice a little. Here's what I would have said, "My fellow Americans, the dollars we spend to purchase oil are being used to arm and train radicals in the middle east. If you want to support the country and the war on terror, please do what you can to conserve your usage of fuel."
During WWII, (which conservatives love to compare the war on terror/Iraq) the top tax rate was over 90%. Non-military vehicle production ceased. People saved bacon grease so it could be used to make glycerol for bombs! What sacrifice did GWB ask for from the American people, "Go shopping!"
GWB did a pathetic job of drumming up support for invading Iraq because the entire premise for invading Iraq was based on the lie that Saddam had WMD. Lewis Black sums up my position exactly.
Ah well, once again, bashing bush substitutes for intelligence.
Bash for what he didn't do and ignore what he did and tried to do, makes no difference when the day is done. No, the america people today are not the same people that gave up so much for ww2, they are far far more pathetic, weak and dependent on BAU. Bush inherited an economy rotten to the core, it wouldn't have survived a concerted effort at conservation any more than it is going to survive PO. Lest we forget, he inheritted it in the middle of the dot-com bubble burst.
I don't support the guy really, he has failed abjectly at everything he has attempted to do, but that is as much the fault of bashers like you as it is his own. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. The leftist habit of standing directly in the way of any plan not their own must stop.
He never even asked the American people to make any economic sacrifice - instead, he gave the rich tax breaks. He immediately demanded that they sacrifice the Constitution. His administration worked for years to manufacture false justifications for a war of aggression on a country that had vast oil reserves. His vice president had for years worked his wicked little pacemaker off conspiring to conquer Iraq and Iran for their strategic value, via the Project for A New American Century that called for America to destroy any country that challenges its global domination. They carried out a campaign of abduction, torture, and transfer of suspects to states that practice torture while working every step of the way to incorporate these acts into normal American life - meaning that monsters like John Woo were preparing the arguments to imprison all forms of political opposition. Economic statistics were further deformed, and media outlets were consolidated under corporations that had a stake in war, in exchange for using the Administration's stable of "unbiased" analysts.
I think it's all very consistent. Cheney knew the world was running short; he intended to control the last major reserves and hold them hostage for obedience; the obedience would consist of the loans needed to keep Americans living in McMansions and asset bubbles, for which Americans would gladly hand over their liberties while the media reported fabrications.
What do you think Cheney meant when he said "The American way of life is non-negotiable"? That they had a "God-given" right to drive SUVs? Why did Bush tell the Americans to keep shopping or "the terrorists have won"? It was an imperial coup, defeated by a few thousand Iraqi insurgents at the strategic lynchpin of the entire plan.
What a delightful delusional conspiracy theory you have there! Wish I couls join you under the tinfoil hat, but unfortunately the real world beckons.
The "Real World" with Iraqi WMDs and no "Blood for Oil" ?
Alan
The real world where blood for oil is sometimes a fair price.
The real world where actions taken and moneys committed count for more than actions not taken, there will always be infinite actions not taken, and only a few actions taken.
The real world where the american public refuse to accept any sacrifice whatsoever.
The real world where even windfarms meet severe resistance from "environmentalists".
The real world where the best hope of seeing us through this crisis (nuclear power) was stopped 30 years ago and is only now being reintroduced 15 years too late to help.
The real world where opposing person X is more important than having a plan that may work (be-it Gore or shrub).
The real world where any change to the cafe standards takes 20 years to replace the vehicle fleet and thus has a maximum oil reduction rate of 500,000 b/d/year (granted with a 1 mb/d first year front-load) and that's if you're "changing" the cafe standards to zero oil consumption (not currently even possible).
The real world where the only "solutions" that are acceptable politically do not work (PV, switchgrass, EVs).
The real world where people DO do things for religious reasons (unfortunately).
The real world where NIMBYism trumps every possible engineering reason for locating thing X in location Y.
The real world where economies behave as the science of economics dictates they must, rather than as we may wish them to.
The real world where blood for oil is sometimes a fair price
You must be a neo-con, one that avoided serving in Viet Nam like our chicken-hawk POTUS & VP.
We have a PROFOUND difference here, and a difference whereI do NOT respect your position !
The real world where the best hope of seeing us through this crisis (nuclear power) was stopped
First, the nuclear power building industry committed hari kari. Zimmer, and not Three Mile Island killed new nukes. See WHOOPS and TVA. If you do not know off the top of your head what I am talking about, you do not understand nuclear power.
I am in favor of building as many new nukes as we can (8 in the next decade per Dept of Energy study is the max possible). But how does more nukes solve our liquid fuels crisis ?
If you want something that DOES work, check out one of my early works.
http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=168&It...
Best Hopes for No Blood for Oil !!
Alan
I am not happy about spending blood for oil, but necessity trumps morality. I hope it isn't needed, but if it is, I am unlikely to feel particularly bad about spending it.
As for nuclear, Zimmer was bad, but I usually pin the death of nuclear power on Seabrook and the clamshell alliance. First because the political opposition to seabrook cost more money than the total zimmer debacle, second because it happened after zimmer and lastly because it was abundantly clear that anti-nuclear litigation was going to do the same to any proposed new reactors.
It is also pretty clear that the nuclear building industry DIDN'T die, only in the US where there were NIMBY idiots with little education and entirely too many opinions can cost millions of dollars and decades of delay to a project did the nuclear industry die.
As for how nukes would help solve our liquid fuels crisis. First by freeing up coal and NG for CTL, NGPL, tar sand extraction and oil shale extraction. Next by providing a cheap alternative to fossil fuels for residential heating and process heat needs. Next by providing cheap energy for any desired form of EV transportation including EV trolleys, EV trains and (at some point) EV cars. It's tetchy I'll grant you, but it's where hope woulda lived had we done it. We didn't, so there is none. That's why you'll be seeing oceans of blood for oil in the near future. Either that or oceans of blood for lack of oil, or more likely both.
As for your plan... well, it's a delightful little utopian fantasy, but it has no chance whatsoever of implementation and even if it were, it would really do very little to mitigate the problem. The problem being one of deployment rates. The measures you propose would have worked well if they were crash implemented starting in around 1998, Now, they would do very little, not even offsetting demand growth from the developing world, let alone the production dropoffs that are projected in the next few years. The vast majority of long-haul bulk transport is already rail based and based on the efficiency of the diesel engines the savings by switching them to electric do not offset the costs in the near-term anyway.
BTW, I was born after vietnam ended and was rebuffed on my attempt to enlist for the iraq war (combat engineer has SUCH a nice ring to it!) on account of asthma. Yes, I am a hawk, force may not decide who is right, but it does decide who wins the issue. I don't really respect your opinion here either. I can live with that.
No it doesn't. I'd rather do without Iraqi oil - or if nobody will sell it to us, even no imported oil - rather than be complicit in what can only be described as a war of aggression, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. And by the way, I walk to work, so I'm putting my money where my mouth is. There is, just barely, enough oil for the time being in the US to supply our essential NEED (but not our GREED), if only our political and corporate leaders would actually LEAD.
Nukes: More nukes would have helped, but if they only brought the Jeavons Paradox into play and caused us to ramp up our energy consumption even more, then maybe not. In any case, poor corporate and governmental management (is the US doomed to replay this meme over and over again?) and a dysfunctional political system that seems unable to to produce rational public choices all contributed to it. I see little signs of any real change in any of that, which is why I am rather sceptical about any grand plans for massive, large-scale technical solutions. They might look fine on the drawing board, but we are not the sort of country where those types of things can be made to happen any more.
Alan's EOT plan: And that is why, much as I like and support Alan's plan, I find my hope diminishing and my dispair growing by the day. We probably will be able to implement some of it, in spite of ourselves, but it will be much too little, much too late.
Except that an economy that is going to be in serious decline is not going to be one that can replace military hardware. The Brass are very quickly going to realize that they had better protect their toys or before long they won't have any. I thus suspect that Iraq may be the last foreign adventure that the US ever undertakes. Within the next few years, we are going to have no choice but to begin the long withdrawal back to North America and its approaches. There may be oceans of blook for oil, but that won't be American blood much longer.
As for blood for lack of oil, we'll have to see. If the military can successfully pull back with most of its weapons, then it should be possible to maintain some level of order in the US for quite a while. Coping with a relatively quick decline to less than 1/3 of our present oil consumption will be hugely difficult, and our political and corporate leaders will undoubtedly do a horrible job of managing it. Whether people will behave in a constructive or destructive manner is the great unknown.
WNC - I cannot go into details, but there has been surprising forward movement on one of my proposals. IMO, a major step forward if built (and consultants, et al are working on parts of it). Do not COMPLETELY despair quite yet.
My eMail link is connected to my name.
Best Hopes,
Alan
I agree that this will probably be the USs last "foreign adventure". However, a) the US is not the only nation on the planet wiling to spend blood for oil, and b) regardless of what is done militarily, blood for the lack of oil is writ large in the near term future. c) When blood for lack of oil is being spent, blood for oil is a whole lot more palatable. I suspect that in many cases, the blood for oil that will be spent in the mid-term future is for consumption privileges, not for production mandates. For example, I can see 2 importing nations warring to eliminate competition for the declining flow in a pipeline.
Myself I am in the middle of making hard landing preparations (planting fruit trees, learning post-oil skills, etc), but when I was still in suburbia working, I commuted on a scooter. It doesn't work for everyone, for example one of my friends lives in a minimalist apartment building and commutes OUT 20 miles to her job, you can't walk that, you can't scooter that, and there are simply no apartments available out where her job is (or not within any sort of reasonable price level). Like so many, her skills are specialized so changing jobs is a complicated procedure. It is really inappropriate to look at what "I" do and to say "if everyone did it", because it neglects each persons situation. One interesting example of this would be the family SUV, The only SUV driver I know is the breadwinner for an extended family with 7 kids, they are relatively poor and have only 1 vehicle, thus the SUV, it is a genuinely needed device. They need all the house they have, heat with wood, and conserve wherever possible, however, his job is 25 miles from home and he lacks the resources to either move or run a second more economical vehicle for the commute alone.
I hear ya about your desire to not shed blood for material things, but like I said, in the real world it doesn't work that way. If imported oil were to take a hard drop one day, then the blood for lack of oil that would take place worldwide and the human misery thus caused would be on a similar scale to the blood that we have spent abroad. It's never really the choice you're looking at, where the options are "walk to work" or "kill people", it's always blood on one side or blood on the other, the only question is how much and where.
In point of fact, the iraq misadventure is precisely the reason that I do not believe that the american people are capable of making this changeover voluntarily (or most likely at all). The fact that we the people are unwilling to accept the frankly rather minimal sacrifices involved in fighting that war. If we are unwilling to accept even these small sacrifices, what chance that we'd have been willing to give up our entire lifestyle?
I am not happy about spending blood for oil, but necessity trumps morality. I hope it isn't needed, but if it is, I am unlikely to feel particularly bad about spending it....force may not decide who is right, but it does decide who wins the issue
*SO* *SO* *SO* WRONG !
History has shown time and again that force alone is inadequate, that it is simply not enduring and simply not enough.
Our current "Blood for Oil" in Iraq is another unfolding example.
China has learned from the USA and is trying VERY hard to be the "good guys". 700,000 Chinese in Angola building highways, hospitals, airports, schools, etc.
Meanwhile the USA has caused ALL of our allies to distance themselves (I have been told by a former MP that the UK will never again be as staunch an ally as it has been. More like Canada in the future).
Your words could have been spoken by a Nazi in 1938. And the road that leads to is common to all those that place force above all else, including morality.
Best Hopes for a Failed and Crushed America if we resort to force to grab what we want, for we will have deserved it ! And it can be expected as an almost certain outcome.
Alan
So speaketh the dove position.
China, yeah, they're great guys, ask the Tibetans or the Tianamen square protectors.
History has in fact proven time and again that force is sometimes the only thing that produces lasting and enduring results. The fact that *recent* history has also shown that force is useless if you apologize for applying it is a separate issue. For it to be successfully applied, it it must be applied in a rather more liberal fashion than in any particularly recent wars. We will note that Nazi Germany does NOT rule the world, that is a result of force. We will note that Rome was a great empire that endured for millenia, that was entirely the result of force, and only ended due to their turning their forces to internal ends. Talked to any celts lately? How is the cherokee nation doing? Think that's just the US, how about the Australian aborigines? Met any Saxons in england lately? How's the king of France? Is the US still a British colony? What has Qaddafi been up to since Reagan bombed his house? Has Hussein killed any Kurds in the last year or 2? For that matter, what is going to stop the us from achieving its goals in iraq?
At this particular point in history, the application of force has become effectively impossible for western powers, so as it stands you are right, the application of too little force is utterly pointless.
Best odds of a failed and crushed world whether the US continues to try to remove genocidal dictatorial monsters from control of vital resources or not.
I am not happy about spending blood for oil, but necessity trumps morality. I hope it isn't needed, but if it is, I am unlikely to feel particularly bad about spending it.
So where are the links to scans of the letters *YOU* wrote to your congress-people asking for taxes to be raised to cover the expense and the response from the reps?
(your lack of copies will just further show how you are all talk, no action)
The taxes are plenty high. Simply cutting down on any of 50 unconstitutional government programs would have provided more than adequate funding for that particular little expenditure. Or alternatively, pulling our military assets out of europe where they are clearly not needed or wanted.
Given you make claims like 'money is energy' and 'economics is a science' - you will have to PROVE your claims if you want them to be believed.
Otherwise - I note how you are unwilling to open up YOUR wallet to pay for the military conflict you are backing. It is rather easy to make claims - it is another thing to actually spend *YOUR* money.
a) I don't particularly support the war. I just refuse to condemn it as a knee-jerk reaction. It turns out that it wasn't a particularly good idea and the implementation is terrible, but morally it's a highly debatable point and had things gone just slightly different on the ground, things mighta been different.
b) I AM paying for it.
c) Department of education, Department of health and human services, department of agriculture. Not one shred of constitutional authority exists for any of them, just scale them back by a few percent and you'd have the funding to remove that particular genocidal monster from control of that particular vital resource. Or, like I said, we could pull out of Europe, that would work too.
d) I really don't care in the slightest little bit whether you believe me or not, I find real debate, such as Will occasionally provides interesting and fun. Your personal habit of ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, telling the big lie, setting up strawmen and like that is a deal less fun. But I like you, you make me laugh.
a) I don't particularly support the war.
A backpeddling from the past statement. Expected behaviour what with your unsupportable "money is energy" and "economics is a science" positions.
b) I AM paying for it.
Hrmmm, who should the readers believe?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0116/p01s01-usfp.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR200803...
c) Department of education, Department of health and human services, department of agriculture. Not one shred of constitutional authority exists for any of them
I see. So....sue and take it to the supreme court. If you have the courage of your convictions, that should not be so hard.
d) I really don't care in the slightest little bit whether you believe me or not,
I do not post to try and change YOUR point of view, I'm just making sure that your lies do not go unchallenged, less someone else sees you as credible.
We all have our axes to grind.
You choose to interpret a lack of condemnation as support, I can live with that since I don't care about you or your opinions.
Paying for the war, when you buy something on credit, did you not pay for it? I am 33, I am going to be paying taxes for a good long time, some very very small fraction of those will go to pay for the iraq war.
As for the unconstitutional departments, a) I have little to no confidence in the court system, and b) I do not have a stray 3 million dollars for the litigation.
And no, you don't post to change my view. You just use delightful rhetorical techniques to pretend that your position is correct. It was annoying at first, now it's just funny. When you have a real point to make, feel free to bring it.
In the meantime, money and energy remain fungible and therefore equivalent for all practical purposes (although with varying exchange rates). Economics remains a science (a social one I will grant). I will look forward to your next rhetorical flourish in my direction.
Paying for the war, when you buy something on credit, did you not pay for it?
If you have to ask the question - this shows you do not know.
But go ahead - Prove your claim.
some very very small fraction of those will go to pay for the iraq war.
Really? Prove this.
Economics remains a science
Once again, a claim *YOU* are making. Provide proof.
The real world where economies behave as the science of economics dictates they must, rather than as we may wish them to.
You use the word 'science' to describe 'economics' yet again.
And yet, you've not bothered to prove your claim that 'economics is a science' in the past.
Hard to prove a lie as true however.
I don't support the guy really, he has failed abjectly at everything he has attempted to do, but that is as much the fault of bashers like you as it is his own.
Do you get paid for each bullshit statement you make, or is it a hobby?
Was the kool-aid you imbibed grape or cherry?
Considering the poster fordperfect thinks that "Money is energy" and "Economics is a science" - I'm going with a brain tumor like Ted.
Just exactly who is running out of oil? There won't be much use for U.S. troops in the Middle East if the oil runs out and the project to "Bring Democracy to the Middle East" runs out of steam. Guess the U.S. government will have to find another reason -- perhaps an Iranian "Nucular" Threat -- to justify continuing deployment of troops and arms to to continue the enrichment of the Defense Teat Suckers.
And we can all rest easy when the "libs" are defeated in the next election and McCain unleashes a torrent of cheap oil: (from one of the posts above) http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/You39re-running-out-of-oil.40...
Good God. I'll always remember a remark someone made here that Congress's actions to deal with high oil prices suggest that they have on average a third grade education; someone reposted that this was an insult to third graders...
NYT: Oil Pushes Past $127 After OPEC Remarks
(Reporting by Jane Merriman in London and Fayen Wong in Perth)
FOLKS, Please only paste in the first couple of paragraphs with a link with the title at the top. We do not linkjack here at TOD.
Otherwise, thanks for your assistance. :)
"Linkjack"? Sounds akin to pigs in a blanket!
Folks, just a reminder or two...
1. TOD is on twitter now with our RSS feed: http://twitter.com/theoildrum . If you are on there, give us a follow.
2. If you have a blog, or are a member of a messageboard, or play at a link farm like metafilter, the more you plant links to our stuff, the more eyes it gets...it's that simple. Every little bit helps.
We're all doing this for free, but we really do need your support. That and "doing good" is what keeps us all going.
Thanks...
"PRESIDENT George Bush yesterday told leaders of the oil-rich states of the Middle East that they must face up to a future without their precious hydrocarbons."
This makes no sense. Bush is warning them!!!! It should be the other way around. The Middle Eastern countries are so small that an adjustment for them will seem child's play compared to what the developed countries of the West will need to do.
Is George W. Bush going to be the global idiot savant?
George W. Bush will try to leave office like Ike did warning the people of the dangers of the growing military industrial complex (in his case the perils of fossil fuel dependency). Is it any surprise that he waits until the twilight of his career? But like most 12 steppers he is already planning for his relapse.
Whenever I see this conversation about "who" or "what" is responsible for energy shortages and/or high prices, I'm reminded of the following:
Saudi oil executive Sadad Al-Husseini, June 2007: "There has been a paradigm shift in the energy world whereby oil producers are no longer inclined to rapidly exhaust their resource for the sake of accelerating the misuse of a precious and finite commodity. This sentiment prevails inside and outside of OPEC countries, but has yet to be appreciated among the major energy-consuming countries of the world." ..
So. We have been warned.
And now comes this?
"President George Bush told leaders of the oil-rich states of the Middle East that they must face up to a future without their precious hydrocarbons".
What a joke. GWB's head is up where the sun don't shine.
If you read the article, Bush says seems to be saying to the ME countries that oil is a finite resource, but he's also trying to sell them the idea that their precious oil won't be useful anymore because at the current price of oil, OPEC is forcing the "West" to develop viable alternatives.
The way I read it, Bush is saying OPEC had better produce more oil to lower the price, otherwise the West will develop alternative fuel sources and make oil obsolete.
The logic he's using doesn't make sense. Oil is finite. Pump it faster so we can use it up quicker, because if you don't pump it faster we'll just use technology to create energy which will make oil obsolete.
At least that's how I read the article.
Tom A-B
ahemm... maybe Mr. B is getting tired of asking politely.
Attached is the link for the latest installment of the Anarchist Video Site called: "It's The End Of The World As You Know It (and I feel fine)".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaiCZvbuXOs&feature=related
If you have a dainty aversion to profanity you may want to skip this. The site takes a young, politically active persons point of view and it is angry. It deals with the issues of peak oil and BTW Howard Kunstler is a regular on it.
This week at the beginning there is a movie clip of Cliff Robertson in his role as CIA Heavy J. Higgins in the 1975 movie "Three Days of The Condor", delivering a masterful monologue about the government response to peak oil:
"When people who have never known hunger grow hungry what do you think they'll want us to do then?"
Interesting thing is I was in college when that line was first uttered and now in my later life I will get to find out the answer to that vital question.
I'm placing my bet that when we poll the wisdom of "We The People" they will vote in overwhelming numbers to: "F**k the Chinese, the Indians, and the Rain Forests...get that drive-in utopia going again!"
Now, imagine for a moment that instead of sitting in the US (or Australia or Europe for our friends across the pond(s)) you are a government in the middle east. You have a large and growing young population (the average age of many middle eastern countries is less than 20), many of whom are experiencing the first taste of the middle class
in generationsEVER, and Peak Oil hits. You have 2 options:1) Ship out oil to the rest of the world, make billions, and return to a state with a small wealthy class and huge poor class- which, by the way, may result in your government being overthrown;
2) Keep your domestic oil within your country to lower prices, which keeps your citizens happy (and within the middle class) and continue to support business as usual, keeping your government from being overthrown, and exporting only what is absolutely necessary to sustain your way of life. (In other words, saying "F**k the Europeans, the Americans, and Global Warming... get that cell phone toting, internet blogging and car driving utopia going again!")
Gee, which would YOU choose?
Yeah, Exportland seems to be a BIG factor coming up... And who will *not* be getting that oil? Yeah, I'd bet it'll be most of the folks reading this post in Europe, America, Australia...
Geckolizard,
Your scenario 1) results in immediate economic hardship for the populace while the oil wealth, at least in principle, can be invested for their future benefit. In a culture where people have as many children as they can afford and the median woman is 20, this prevents population doubling within a decade.
In your scenario 2) there is no investment, population doubles, and they are far worse off than they would have been, with no provision for the future.
The middle eastern leaders are probably far more aware of their situation than you think, and know how short the fuse of the population bomb really is. As for being overthrown, the oil customers are undoubtedly assuring them that that they won't let that happen.
Good point. I remember reading somewhere a few years ago that an overthrow of the Saud family would push oil over $200/barrel (probably over $300 now), which is NOT in the best interests of anyone...
So, whatcha do if your a Middle Eastern country...? You gotta export (per blockquoted text) to make your 'buddies' (i.e. the US) happy, but you have to keep some (per scenario 2) to keep your subjects happy... And as for overthrowing: we had something like this happen about 30 years ago in Iran... When we backed the Shah and the population was unhappy, (albeit for other reasons than Peak Oil) he was ousted...
I guess it may be like balancing on a knife's edge for oil exporters during the days post-peak...
The Arab elites have been on a knife's edge ever since the British Army arrived long ago. The problem they have always faced is that to modernize is to commit suicide, for their legitimacy is based on ancient norms. Their solution has been to find industrialized partners who will tolerate their sovereignity; while the British were repeatedly invading Iraq from 1918 to 1932 to keep its monarch obedient, the obscure Saud family to the south found an American partner to ensure its survival. America could be that way because it had no strategic agenda, just a commercial one. Now we have become the British Empire, and we are in its trap: to rule the world with so few troops we must rely on fear, subversion, even racial self-hatred, and any movement of resistance in any province is a threat to topple the whole house of cards. The Sauds' legitimacy relies on their claim to be the Defenders of Mecca; meaning they must stand up to America; but their strategic survival relies on not showing up America and destroying the house of cards.
Which reminds me, did you just hear that Saudi Arabia gave China $50 million in earthquake relief while Bush gave half a million? Sounds like the Sauds are lining up that next industrialized patron.
Not only that, but once they stop exporting, let alone pumping, and nobody is able to extort the oil out of them, where do they get food for all these 20 somethings? I think all the big players are gambling in the Tainter Hotel and Casino...the house wins. KSA will have to get cozy with someone, no? You wanna eat, gimme my oil. I can grow my own food, and you can eat your sand, no tickee, no shirtee.
Jeff
Fadel Gheit, an analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. in New
York, from uptop:
As I have noted several times, the Texas and North Sea case histories--developed by private companies, using best available technology, with virtually no restrictions on drilling--directly contradict this assertion.
I have previously suggested the "Major Oil Company Alternative History Explanation," to-wit, in Texas in 1972, a group of Midland, Texas based communists took over the state, and the party hacks that were put in charge of production have so mishandled things that production has fallen at about -4%/year, since the Midland Communists took over. In the North Sea, a group of radical Vegan environmentalists took over the production in 1999, causing a -4.5%/year decline in production.
Of course there is the alternative theory that we tend to find the big fields first, and when a region peaks, we can't offset the declines from the old, larger oil fields.
TO ARMS! TO ARMS!, The Vegans are coming!!!
You bet, they taste like chicken! Stock up your freeser now!
It is a beautiful, warm, and clear day in my Asphalt Wonderland--the nearest golf course is quite busy, even for a Monday. My guess is the Yerginites are exchanging their 'Party-On Tax Rebates' for the latest clubs. No sign yet from Tiger Woods & the PGA leading the Master Gardener charge to start plowing Augusta National under. Such is life.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Jeffrey,
I can buy (barely) such previous claims of elves, unicorns, fairies and so forth.
But you have now gone beyond the outer limits of my credulity !
Midland Texas Communists !
NO SUCH CREATURE EXISTS !!
Too much Italian wine ?
Best Hopes for Sobriety !
Alan
You've just bought into the cover story. Actually, the Midland Petroleum Club is where the West Texas based Politburo meets.
Social climate deteriorating in France after last week strikes in Greece, again leaded by fishermen who block an oil port, fuel depots, some roads and so on. Will this conflict spill over to the rest of Europe ? Or to other professions ?
Has anyone put together a timeline for future refinery builds/expansions? Possibly incorporating how much upcoming production will be in heavy/sour grades. If production is going to increase we'll need a way to process the new additions, after all.
Seems like some graphs detailing the quality of new production would be a nice addition to the Wiki, as well. Another feature I'd like very much for the Wiki would be separate pages for each producer, to get an idea of what they'll be contributing.
The USA will be cutting up refineries for scrap metal in a couple of years.
Only possible new refinery investment may be to replace cat crackers with hydro crackers in a few selected refineries so we can get more diesel and less gasoline. Diesel performs high value applications like farming, distribution and military. Gasoline just gets Suburbanites to work, food, soccer practice and vacation.
Alan
Wasn't primarily interested in the situation in the US. And can't see your scenario coming to pass, either. What vehicle do you envision causing a sudden total market loss in domestic refining? A massive upswing in imports of gasoline? Your massive MT buildup won't happen until we have drastic shortages in the US, and what would cause that in the next five years - possibly an Iran '79 situation in KSA? Don't know why higher crude prices would foster rebellion, quite the contrary really.
There is a surplus in USA refining today.
World net oil exports are falling today.
Oil exporters are building refineries (KSA just signed a deal for a new 400,000 b/day refinery last week, China cut a deal with Venezuela for a specialty refinery to take 400,000 b/day of Orinoco tar) so that they will export a lower % of crude and a higher % (of a falling total) in products.
US refiners owned, or half owned by oil exporters should still get something to refine for a number of years. The remainder will have to play musicial chairs for what crude they can buy (domestic production plus very limited "free market" imports).
Some, but not all in the near term, of those US refineries will be scrapped because they have nothing to refine, and no future prospects, in a couple of years.
Read about the Export Land Model to understand why we will have to reduce US consumption dramatically, and in less than 5 years.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Many should be scrapped, as they are 30 years over their intended lifespan.
See Alan's explanation: for "refineries" he was thinking "some", your were thinking "all". The idea that some might be decommissioned and scrapped is not all that extreme and radical; after all, look what has happened to so many other industries in the US.
Oh for sure they will run short of feedstock. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_Land_Model
And too many 'vital' products all coming from the same area of the fractioning tower.
Tractors=diesel=food
Household heating many places=heating oil=warmth
Transport=diesel & heavy oil=needed goods
M1 Abrams & Fighters=multi-diesel kerosine jet fuel=military capability.
Methinks some meager rations of gasoline may be around for some time. Diesel may just keep being a bugger. ($5. US diesel coming to a pump near you soon)
I know what the ELM is. EIA data only goes up to 2006 but shows no effect on net exports from increased consumption. The other ref is the study by CIBC which makes the claim that 40% of KSA exports will be offset by rising internal consumption; has anyone actually seen this report? It doesn't seem to be available at their site. And I've yet to see any examination of whether these countries have ceilings to their domestic demand. I am familiar with the experiences of the UK/Indonesia etc.
I'm primarily interested in the nuts and bolts aspect of refining I originally posted about.
The refineries to be scrapped will be older/less efficient ones not owned by an oil exporter and that process light sweet crude.
A couple of US refineries will be rebuilt with hydrocrackers to maximize middle distalliate/diesel yield at the expense of less gasoline yield.
Alan
I'm under the impression that Altius Minerals is planning to build a new refinery in Newfoundland. This seems odd when refinery utilization seems to be low, but part of the plan is that the new refinery would do a better job of processing heavy sour crude. Are older refineries severely limited in their ability to process heavy sour crude, or is this project a bad idea?
Not only has GWB told the arabs they're running out of oil, he also signed some agreements about better safeguard the kingdom's vast oil reserves and its pipeline distribution system.
"[..] including in its details the distribution of American experts in broad areas of the kingdom to construct a network of missile bases, information-gathering, intelligence and surveillance, and it will all be directed against Iran, because the Americans see no threat to regional oil, or to Saudi oil in particular, except from Iran, which has threatened to strike oil and non-oil assets of countries in the region if it is attacked by America or by Israel."
Russian energy chief urges gas export rethink
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c16e0bb2-253b-11dd-a14a-000077b07658.html?ncli...
Well, these comments certainly play nicely into Westexas/Khebab's ELM model.
The Iranian gas situation this past winter was interesting. Faced with a shortfall of gas exports from Turkmenistan (which I thought odd in the first place, that Iran was importing natural gas) and high demand due to a cold winter, Iran cut off gas exports to Turkey. Turkey cut off gas exports to Greece.
So, we had a supply disruption, but it was not a case of scarce supplies going to the high bidder, and it was not a case of countries joining hands, singing Kumbaya and offering to share, it was a case of exporters delivering a middle finger salute to the export market.
We are seeing the same situation regarding rice exports.
IMO, food & fuel prices are being set at the margin as importers bid for the volume of food & fuel that "escape" into the export market.
If you look carefully at my PO Timeline above you will see "2013: European and US Gas Crisis"...
This little Doozy comes about a year after the blow of a transport fuels crisis hits ~2012...
I tell you, its gonna feel like a very big stick to some people...
Nick.
The thing that is really amazing is that so many exporting countries are being so open and up front about this. One would expect a lot more plausible denial and obfuscation surrounding this sort of thing.
Hello MYXOMOP,
Yep, if I was the Russian topdog and I knew my FFs were going to plummet: I would be stockpiling I-NPK bigtime to help the multi-decadal transition to relocalized permaculture, crop rotation, and O-NPK recycling.
Of course, the skyrocketing price to the ELM-constrained importers of Russian energy and I-NPK will send a price signal that they need to ramp their paradigm shift even faster. Hope everyone is buying a bicycle & wheelbarrow!
On another note: are the Barbary Coast P-irates making a move?
http://www.map.ma/eng/sections/box1/king_chairs_signing_3/view
-------------------------
King chairs signing ceremony of USD 1Bn MoU to build phosphate-related plants
Fertilizer production in this complex will stand at 10Mn tons in 2015 as compared with 2.5 million tons currently.
------------------------
Sounds good if there is plenty of energy to power the mining equipment and factories. If the energy is not there due to ELM or worse: how many people will be required to pick and shovel in the sun?
Recall my earlier weblink on phosphate mining in Florida: a dragline would mine 15 acres in a month--humans would take a year for 15 acres--12 fold difference in supply.
Have you hugged your bag of NPK today?
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
You/we may have to do without mined and synthetic NPK.
It is possible although yields will be different .... but it was done in the past.
Hello Jmygann,
Thxs for responding. Rough approximation: one ton of O-NPK = 100 lbs of I-NPK, thus there is a tremendous 20:1 incentive to power, as long as possible, the P & K mines and Haber-Bosch natgas N.
"Make us your slaves...just feed us!"
Paraphrased: Jay Hanson has suggested the postPeak worldwide poor [thats 99% of us] non-violently surrender to TPTB so that the Peak Outreach & Paradigm Shift can rapidly occur. This is better than endless machete' moshpits among the poor for the entertainment of the topdogs [see Italy & South Africa for recent news].
Positive ERoEI O-NPK transport is severely distance limited--thus my postings on the need for SpiderWebRiding and tall Clipperships to help keep I-NPK moving globally as we gradually adapt to O-NPK recycling.
Eventually, millions of human energy-slaves in the phosphate & potash mines will continue to help provide the 20:1 transport efficiency to leverage the 20:1 photosynthesis harvest yields above Liebig Minimums. Unpleasant, but there you go. Once the Overshoot can't sustain even this due to the depletion of P & K [see Asimov's Life's Bottleneck and Bart's Peak Phosphorus], then we better have full and successful, sustainable reliance on O-NPK recycling. Time will tell.
Just a rough sketch of the long and complex agro-supply chain flowrate 'Death Valley Theory' that roughly parallels Dr. Duncan's electrical Olduvai Gorge Theory. Recall that we are evolved to enjoy the nightly darkness, but nobody enjoys starvation. The Thermo/Gene Collision is a biatch!
I have not used any synthetic N or mined PK for over 30 years and although my production is lower than commercial farmers it has stayed the same
Bush freezes nation's emergency oil supply
"PRESIDENT George Bush yesterday told leaders of the oil-rich states of the Middle East that they must face up to a future without their precious hydrocarbons."
It's funny that he says this to KSA, but doesn't bother talking to his own people about the same problem. I mean, maybe he thinks he does, by saying 'Drill More'.. but nothing like "Prepare to live WITHOUT these PRECIOUS HYDROCARBONS"
I am no fan of Bush and his cronies, but I do find the latest moves intriguing. What got me thinking is the photo op with the Saudis in which they rebuffed his request to produce more oil. No president, even one that has demonstrated that he isn't the sharpest tack in the box, shows up in front of all the flashing cameras only to be rebuffed. Maybe this was just a stunt to make some bucks for his friends. But what if there is a sub-plot that we are not quite seeing? Does anyone get what is happening?
The funny thing is that politicians and lawyers have a saying: Never ask a question unless you already know the answer. It's not good politics to appear as if you don't know what you're doing. Even if you don't you still make sure you can save face. There was absolutely no face saving here and no way Bush could spin it to look like 'he meant to do that.'
Are we at peak politics?
Jon.
But what if there is a sub-plot that we are not quite seeing? Does anyone get what is happening?
It validates the Iraq occupation.
So does today mark Peak SPR? Will we ever be able to resume additions, or is it all downhill from here?
He hasn't signed the bill yet. When he does, check for the signing statement. I'll bet he adds one with something about interpreting the bill in the context of his responsibilities as unitary executive. What this means is that he will be able to add oil to the strategic reserve, so long as he thinks it is a national security issue.
In any case, what makes anything think Bush is going to start obeying the law now?
As posted before: I hope if we ever have to tap the SPR, it is only because we have finally reached the point that we can't make bicycle & wheelbarrow tires any other way. Recall the secret weapons of the Chinese posting [I sure wish they had not taken down the photo of the 50,000 Chinese with wheelbarrows].
Certainly not. The bill permits resumption within the 6 mo. when oil falls below $75. (the fact that US leadership still believes this is possible and that only 1 Senator opposed passage not a good sign)
Spain as the canary in the mine?
I wonder if those knowledgeable about southern Europe could comment on the situation in some of the southern members, I am thinking particularly of Spain, but Greece and others may also be important.
Recently house prices have crashed by around 30% in Spain, and I am interested in information as to how this has impacted the credit market, and if this is leading to a general crash.
Price falls of this order may be on the cards in the US and UK to name just two examples, and so it is important that events in Spain are studied carefully.
The southern fringe of Europe should also provide a lot of information on the impact of high oil prices on kerosene, and hence air travel and the tourist industry, with knock on effects on the economies of which tourism plays so large a part.
I would like to see regular updates on those especially vulnerable counties.
Perhaps Hawaii might provide similar functions for the US
I just came back from Spain again (I'm living there about 4 months per year on my finca in the Extremadura). I totally disagree with your doomsday scenario. Real estate crash of 30%??? No way.
Spains real estate market is divided into 2 fields:
- domestic market
- tourist (expat) market on the coasts.
Demand for domestic housing is strong, albeit less (fortunately) than it used. House prices are generally slightly declining, maybe around 3% p.a.
Demand for expat housing is still strong, but slightly declining. Main reason: The Brits disappeared from the market. But new buyers are emerging: the Russians.
I'm sorry, but Spain cannot be included into the current Anglo Saxon economic woes.
I am pleased to hear that the information I have may be in error, as it gave me no joy.
I based it upon articles like this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7399812.stm
http://www.homemove.co.uk/news/03-04-2008/spanish-property-price-slump-c...
http://yannicklaclau.com/2008/03/31/are-house-prices-in-barcelona-fallin...
A recent article on Italy here on TOD also indicated that the budget deficit in some countries in Europe is very large indeed, and Spain was one of the countries mentioned.
I agree with your basic point, which is that in the UK and US we hear very little about events in Spain and other southern European countries, and indeed that is the point of my post, to see if some of that lack of information can be addressed.
What I forgot to mention:
The 1st quarter 08 showed an "unexpected" increase in the service and construction sector.
To me it was not "unexpected". Spain is still resp. increasingly attractive for expats. Low taxes, low costs of living and a very high quality of living. No nanny state there. This makes this country a real island of good living in Europe.
eek! yes, it probably will. (again, I'm on Oahu).
Of course, Hawaii's economy is mostly based on air tourism, so I think technically it's an athsmatic canary in a coalmine. Basically oahu is a city surrounded by ocean.
Definite famine trap potential. However, short of that, I guess the main problem would be sewage. it rains enough - and there are enough swimming pools - that water shortage shouldn't be a problem as long as chlorine is available. Climate won't kill anyone - though this last week has seemed a bit jurassic, with vog haze and south winds from the tropics.
Hopefully, Hawaii will crash soon enough that we'll get emergency remediation from the US govt to build sustainable energy, though having it done intelligently is a long shot. Still, it's a good place for feel-good demo projects.
gotta get back to burying barrels of spam now...
Please supply us with a current assessment from your viewpoint of the current VOG on Oahu . I understand that it is caused by a new volcanic vent on the Big Island. How toxic ( athsmatic ) can this be 100 miles away?
We have heard absolutely nothing about this in the MSM .
Sounds like serious trouble in paradise.
Actually, though it's a bit airless and muggy today, the volcanic schmutz seems to slowly be thinning out due to the slow easterly semi-trade winds today. Maybe back to crystal clarity in another day? Hope so. This last week it has been impressive.
It doesn't seem as though it would be concentrated enough to do any harm, but people cough a lot more (including me) and people with breathing problems wind up at the ER's in greater numbers. It's rather like bad smog; you can't smell it but you can kinda feel it. And you can certainly see it - the mountains have been so hazed-out that you only see their silhouettes.
The big isle volcanoes have always put out a fair bit of effluent, it's just that usually the trade winds blow it away. It seems like the trades are a lot less reliable than they used to be, and weather events which bring polluted & muggy air up from the south are more common these days.
I still own a couple pieces of cheap property just a few miles from the vent. Nobody's dropping dead over there or anything, but it IS a huge active volcano after all.... and there have been some localized evacuations. Ironic that this state isn't heavily using geothermal power, since it wouldn't add to the pollution. But no, the electricity I'm using to send this is created by burning tanked-in oil from Indonesia. What's wrong with this picture?
I think the failure of geothermal in Hawaii shows just how difficult it is for renewables to compete with fossil fuels. Even in a place that is ideal for geothermal, and where supplying oil is difficult, dangerous, and expensive...oil wins.
(There is a geothermal plant on the Big Island, and there were originally plans for more. But the first one was so difficult and expensive that it basically killed the plans for the rest.)
I wonder what the differences are from Iceland, where it works a treat?
I attended a presentation at WIREC by the owners of the Big Island geothermal plant and they have wanted to expand for over a decade. NIMBYism (like UK) including "Pele worshippers" (unlike UK) is what is halting expansion on the Big Island. HV DC links to other islands have been considered.
No technical issues after first 9 months shake-out.
Best Hopes for Geothermal Power,
Alan
Another 32,000 scientists sign the AGW denier petition.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/17/32...
Good news!! A Federal Government scientist now admits that he was wrong and that global warming will not increase hurricanes based on a new study that he did.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9YzbkbPjYwP_3-9wZhTNbMcZSAQD90OGDV80
Oh, and this one study does *NOT* conclusively prove anything. Read here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/climate-change-and...
Notice that there are a number of issues with this research. Notice that both of the authors are publishing and not just pontificators.
Sigh. National Post with the misinformation campaign in high gear again. What a surprise.
So first let's filter out all the scientists who have not published a peer-reviewed paper on climate science, ok? I mean, that would be a reasonable thing to do, right? Or do you think biologists should be given equal weight to theoretical astrophysicists when it comes to assessing the validity of string theory?
The only reason the NP get away with this kind of nonsense is that most people don't understand the way science works. Feeding on ignorance and taking advantage of misconceptions is the deniers modus operandi.
It is not the only one!
Quite recently a German study has been published, where the bottom line is: Global warming is postponed. It's going to be colder for the next 10 years. The study has been made by the same guys, who told us quite the contrary 4 months ago.
But they also say, that after those 10 to 15 years of cooler climate, the global warming episode will resume. So, all will be the same.
Whoa, that's completely different. The article you are referring to is presumably this one which is peer reviewed and published in a very reputable journal. Nothing like that National Post drivel, please don't put them in the same category. However note that it is a single paper. Science advances by slow and steady accumulation of small pieces of evidence. This one article presents preliminary results, as the authors themselves state. It has been widely misreported, as stated here:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/2/115552/7430
By itself it is not conclusive - the authors themselves would be the first to admit this although I'm sure some deniers are all over it as if it is the final word on the subject. This point needs to be made over and over - a single result, a single temperature, a single year's measurement by itself is not definitive. It is the accumulated results of many such measurements, experiments and analyses, independent experiments and theoretical approaches that confirm each others results that matters.
But even if it turns out to be accurate, note that the authors are only indicating there is variation on a timescale of decades that modulates the longer term warming trend. There is no statement at all from their research that the longer term warming is not still happening, in fact quite the opposite. In their paper they show temperatures will still reach the same levels as forecast by existing warming models by 2025 or so.
Climate change skeptics: You cannot imagine how ridiculous you seem to others. Read the following in order.
Global Cooling-Wanna Bet?
What the IPCC models really say
The Global Cooling Bet - Part 2
If after reading these you science-challenged dittoheads still don't understand natural variability and how it fits in with AGW, you've got issues.
Cheers
Great jbunt
You solved AGW through sheer will.
Now can you please focus on;
Ocean Acidification
Desertification
Species extinction
Artic melt
Methane release
Deforestation
Ocean warming
Mercury in environment
Fisheries’ collapse
There are plenty more symptoms of heavy FF use to list but I will just give you these to start with.
I thank you, the Earth thanks you in advance.
In case you are really interested in knowing about said research, here is the NOAA lead scientist's own (professional) home page:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/
He has a page dedicated to hurricanes and global warming:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html
where you will find a history of some of these issues. In other words, the idea that global warming would reduced the frequency of Atlantic basin hurricanes is not new. Also along with that idea is the one that projects and increase in hurricane strength. (see fig. 1 on the above linked page.)
The question for you - are you going to spend your entire life built around short AP headlines, or are you willing to delve into the topic and understand it?
If AGW theory gets one person to buy a Prius instead of a Sequoia, I'm all for it.
Crap, they named an SUV after a tree!?! There oughta be a law against that.
Automakers should be forced to name their products from the extinct species list: Dodo bird, passenger pigeon,... then?.... Swordfish, Gorilla, Tiger, Sparrow, Cattle, Lizard, Tomato, Carrot, Corn
You mean like all those economists, TV Weathermen and Geologists that signed the last petition?
If they have any research & findings that dispute the concensus then all power to them. Oh, and non-peer reviewed outlets like the Wall Street Journal oped pages don't count.
Those "professores" are getting cold feed!!??
Are afraid of there subsidies!!
Sounds like Bush (in his latest speech) was extremely frustrated with his failed attempts to raise oil production out of the Middle East, and in particular Saudia Arabia. Makes one wonder if he's catching up to the massive overinflation of M.E. oil reserve estimates.
It seems to me that the best explanation for Bush's changing stance is that the information he has been getting from his advisers has changed.
Although most of us here feel that peak oil has been apparent for some time, we have to recognise that that has not been the median position of analysts, and hence likely not representative of the feedback he has been getting.
At the present time he is in receipt of much more information than the Presidential candidates, who in any case are not in position to spend too much time looking beyond the consensus, with the possible exception of John McCain.
Under those circumstances it appears likely that Bush tried to use both pressure and appeal to influence the release of more oil, but against the background of steadily worsening average appraisals on the likelihood of there being much to be had.
His latest comments on supply difficulties and oil-producing nations having to live without oil in fact reflect the rapidly shifting consensus view of oil producing capabilities and futures.
In that respect it seems that sites like TOD are now nearing victory, and that the consensus has now altered to mirror their views.
It will take longer for the implications to become clear to most who have just adopted that position.
It is perhaps doubtful that Bush is even instigating study groups to work them out, since his successor is likely to throw anything he has done out and want to start afresh.
My guess is that the incoming President will have some pretty dire briefings, and that most of it will come as news to him or her.
I agree that the next president will probably get briefed on the dire situation of peak oil - will definitely be an eye opener. I wonder if he will then 2nd guess his previous zeal for the position.
Did anyone see the article in the Washington Post on Saturday, called "On Climate, Symbols Can Overshadow Substance" ? Here are a few interesting paragraphs:
"There is a real problem in teaching people not to do something that appears to work, but that actually works," said Severin Borenstein, director of the University of California's Energy Institute, which studies ways to save energy and address climate change. Borenstein said it is hard to persuade people to do things that yield the biggest energy savings, and not necessarily the biggest returns in self-satisfaction.
"It is very difficult to get people to invest in home insulation and energy efficiency, which are much more effective than putting solar panels on your roof," he said. "Solar panels are popular because you can see you are doing something -- and your neighbors can see it, too."
And here:
While the idea that people who are emotionally committed can change their behavior in ways that help the planet seems appealing, a growing body of research suggests that this is not the way large-scale changes in behavior occur. The behavior of individuals, companies and nations is largely determined by structural factors, not personal choices.
Once a person buys a house in the exurbs, for example (or once officials approve such a subdivision), asking people to think about the environmental costs of commuting isn't very effective, because they are already locked into lengthy commutes. In the same way, installing motion sensors that automatically turn lights off at night produces far larger energy savings than depending on people to switch them off.
"Depending on people to make a hard choice every day -- don't turn on the lights so much -- is a less-promising solution than getting people to make a hard choice once," by paying more for a high-efficiency bulb, "and thereafter having the 'save energy' decision be automatic," said Travis Reynolds, a graduate student at the University of Washington in Seattle who studies how societies save energy.
So, I just read The Long Emergency this weekend. A couple of thoughts:
1. The chapter on renewables/replacements was severly lacking. In the solar section he didn't even mention solar thermal.
2. He seems to think that future schooling will be vocational and not teach Literature, Law etc. This doesn't make much sense. They were teaching all these things at high schools and colleges in the 18th and 19th centuries (and even before that).
3. Other than that, I thought it was a good, interesting read.
California Gasoline Consumption to Lowest Level since 2001.
According to the State Department of Finance 1,234,472,901 Gallons of gasoline were sold in California in January of 2008. This is 4.5% less gas than was sold the previous January and the least gasoline sold since January of 2001. 2007 as a whole had the lowest Gasoline consumption in California since 2003.
My weekday commute takes me right past downtown LA - its been a lot less traffic over the last couple months.
I'm pretty optimistic about most California city's abilities to deal with higher energy prices because they're fairly dense by U.S. standards and most have significant transit systems so that when gas prices get high enough lots of people can switch to transit. This appears to be happening in Sacramento.
From a press release by Sacramento RT:
Yes, you read that right 43.3% with no major service changes.
Hmmm - If you spend any time in a cafe watching traffic on Sunset blvd east of Hollywood you can see outside of weekday rush hour the bus lines are, I dunno - 1/5 full?
If I have business in Downtown then I take the subway - usually always crowded.
I have been taking the bus on weekends more and more.
Now if we can only get some Fed money for the Monorail to the sea....
Elasticity of Supply
Light Rail ridership +43.3% y-o-y growth
Bus ridership +2.5% y-o-y growth
This is the elasticity of supply that I have talked about before. Urban Rail can increase transportation supply at low marginal cost and lower the average cost as volumes increase (the exact opposite for roads and highways).
One little known "secret" that enabled Sacramento to expand light rail ridership by 43.3% is that they bought 20 mid-life light rail cars from San Jose in 2004 as cheap spares. (Salt Lake City bought the other 29). And a reason that I have advocated a "Strategic Rail Reserve"
This extra rolling stock has certainly helped !
It is an example of the "Strategic Rail Reserve" I would like this country to develop.
Step #5
http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=168&It...
Best Hopes for Urban Rail and Elasticity of Supply,
Alan
The VTA light rail cars required modification for use by RT and have been in storage pending modifications. They will go into service in 2009. Sacramento purchased VTA's light rail vehicles in lieu of extending their contract with CAF to build additional cars for their system, but hasn't needed the extra capacity. When comparing Sacramento's bus system to its light rail system, one thing to keep in mind is that to enable RT to build its light rail it had to scrap nearly all of its express bus service which is now provided by other agencies. (YoloBus to the west and Elk Grove's bus system to the south). These express bus lines have also shown similar ridership growth to light rail. Most of the remaining bus service in Sacramento is set up to provide access to people who are unable to drive for whatever reason rather than to try to offer competition to driving.
Alan I just wrote to our State Dem Chair a longer letter with this as the conclusion. He just came out for Obama and will be an elector in Denver.
Integration of good public transportation that encourages biking, carpooling and connections to rail systems are the key. A national push at the presidential level ,as Barrack has advocated, are the way to go. I encourage you to look at the crude oil Export Land Model projections http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_Land_Model or visit The OIl Drum http://www.theoildrum.com/ for more information. The industry experts, acedemics, and enthusiasts there have sucessfully predicted the crisis as it is currently unfolding well in advance. Insiders like Matt Simmons http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/ and Jeffery Brown have shown why we will never see inexpensive oil again and how it will ultimately cripple the US economy if we do not act now. I encourage you to visit http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2006-05a.htm for a great overview of lightrail projects that ,with needed funding, will help us keep America functional. Thanks for your time.
Among other points it raised the difficulty for any near term President from PO and lost revenue with sector collapse, wage gridlock, social upheaval as foreseeable results. The urgency with which we need to address lightrail projects as future lifeblood and alternative to mass unemployment. I stressed Urban Rail projects be prioritized over highway construction and bailing out airlines. Tried to send them to your site, we'll see.
Oil price defies swelling supplies
i agree with this article. i'm as ardent of a peak oiler as any but $127 oil currently has no fundamental support. The world's largest consumer is consuming less (demand down 2.4%). this is so unsustainable. and my fear is that when panic selling is triggered and prices drop $40, it will divert attention from real supply problems. we peak-oilers lose street cred.
Did you read the article about Russian oil supply dropping over 3% year over year. That combined with Mexico's drop in production, unrest in Nigeria and my belief that Saudi Arabia is at or within a year of peak and the fact that India and China are growing like gangbusters makes me feel that the price of oil is not only sustainable but that it is cheap right now.
This article speaks of specific country gains and assumes there is a net global "swell" in supplies based on "expected growth". So, if increases outpace declines they might have it right. Just another article taking thier aim at the crap shoot.
Billy: I wouldn't lose any sleep-IMO if the price drops $40, OPEC will implement substantial cutbacks. They don't need to sell anymore for $85 and IMO they won't.
China chuckles at your 2.4% decrease in demand and raises you a 5%-7.5% increase.
I see that some reuters tards wrote this tripe. I can see the ships going around and around in circles because no one will buy their oil, huh? LOL
Hello TODers,
Are First World farmers and gardeners now pricing out the poor Third World subsistence farmer?
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/05/19/news/Kenya-Food-Production-Pai...
---------------------
Kenya farmers don't see profit in high food prices
---------------------
I bet they would welcome SpiderWebRiding and wheelbarrows to move O-NPK.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Higher and higher. I can see $130/bbl by Friday. It's interesting that Bush said that the middle east is running out of oil, it makes me wonder what King Abdullah has told Bush that he's not telling the world. As far as the survivalist comments, I have started a garden and a compost pile but I know that I won't be able to support myself during the food emergency that is coming around the bend because I don't have enough arable land, so I'm not really sure what to do down the road. I guess the cities will fill up again quickly. Luckily I live in a semi rural part of Virginia, near Lynchburg which was founded in the 1700s so the systems for a post oil world can be brought back online from the pre oil world. I guess that I'm still holding out hope for a green future, but it's probably just a fools hope.
Hello TODers,
Fascinating assessment of Nauru and extension to a larger sphere:
http://www.saipantribune.com/newsstory.aspx?newsID=80078&cat=3
--------------------------
Win or lose by how we choose
...But we should read closely what the Nauruans did to their country and to themselves through greed and lack of planning. Perhaps we can find a lesson for ourselves...
--------------------------
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Ethanol production is supposed to rise from 4.7 billion gallons in 2007 to 9 billion gallons in 2008. Acres of corn planted in 2008 was estimated to be 7% less than corn planted in 2007 due to a preference resulting in the planting of more soybeans. Corn plantings this year may be later in some areas. Statistical models have shown that late corn plantings result in fewer bushels per acre harvested.
http://in.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idINN1933861020080519
With ethanol and biodiesel mandates in countries across the world, food problems may continue for some time into the future. The spike in food prices that began after the 2005 & 2007 United States Energy Bills requireing 36 billion gallons of ethanol to be produced by 2022 and a cap of 15 billion gallons of grain ethanol in 2015 are likely to change the food markets for some time to come. The changes will not be to the average family's benefit.
http://www.russiatoday.ru/business/news/24963
---------------------------
Russia must grow its own food - Putin
Vladimir Putin says Russia needs to cut its dependence on food imports in order to protect the population from sharp price rises.
--------------------------------
Has she 'bought the farm' for $35/year?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121055696814984165.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
-----------------------
In Ukraine, Mavericks Gamble On Scarce Land
...In the end, she agreed to Landkom's offer. "I'm an old woman," says the 70-year-old Ms. Petryshyn. "I do not have a tractor or combines, and my hands are worn out." Her $35 annual payment from Landkom supplements her $100 monthly pension. Many of Ms. Petryshyn's neighbors, lured by the promise of working their own land for Landkom for an additional fee, also went along.
...With land and labor so cheap....Mr. Spinks estimates he will see a 60% profit margin.
--------------------
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Foreigners have been buying more wheat from low United States stockpiles and arid conditions returned to parts of Australia:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aHbMsDkVnyfc&refer=a...
May 19, 2008
The theory of monetary depriciation is such that oil and food prices could not expand as much as they did without there having been some expansion in the money supply.
Interest rates were cut to 2% and this resulted in a desire to put more money in circulation after there were not enough investors to buy public debt. As long as you have a constant supply of borrowers you might expand debt and pay interest by selling new debt. When a ponzi pyramid collapses it is a devastating scenario.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JE20Dj06.html
Investors exagerrated the amount of inflation occurring when they over-bought real estate. We are in the midst of a continuing housing price deflation to correct the false assumption that real estate prices would always go up.
As when natural gas went from about $15.00 to about $6.00 in a short time, the energy markets are not protected from periodic down-trends. Some lost billions betting energy prices would not go down.
First Iraq, then Iran, then KSA. Kinda makes one wonder what is happenin??? Is there a pattern, or something in common here???
Yes actually there is a pattern ; they all wear green suede shoes and blue knickers.
Car companies sure move fast, when they want to. Has anyone else noticed the new ads for hybrids and hydrogen vehicles suddenly appearing everywhere, it seems that nothing was stopping these corporations from making these vehicles except for greed.
AFGHANISTAN: “I sold my daughter to feed the rest of my family”
http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?ReportID=78276
From: http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp05152008.shtml
Hello TODers,
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=525595
------------------------------
CANPOTEX PLANS FOR EXPANSION
Up to US$500M to enlarge potash terminal
With fertilizer prices soaring worldwide, Canada's potash giants are considering a massive US$300-million to US$500-million expansion that would almost double shipping capacity at key West Coast ports to booming markets in Asia.
---------------------------------
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=a.4.9Kc49Vu4&refer=c...
-----------------------------------
Uralkali May Buy Canada Potash Producers, Chief Says (Update1)
OAO Uralkali, Russia's second-largest potash producer, may acquire Canadian competitors to raise output after the price of the soil nutrient more than quadrupled in 18 months.
---------------------------------
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
and on the O-NPK fertilizer front:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90590308
-----------------------------
The Hot New Trend: Manure
...Some farmers are finding they can make more profit using their beef cattle to produce manure than they'd make on their meat...
Meanwhile, the growing ranks of organic produce farmers are suddenly finding that their manure suppliers will no longer supply them.
----------------------------
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Hello TODers,
Latest USGS update on Sulfur [PDF Warning]:
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/sulfur/mis-200802-sulfu...
---------------
The most significant development in the sulfur industry in 2008 is increased prices. As a result of tight supplies domestically and globally, sulfur prices have skyrocketed.
In February 2007, the average value of sulfur imported into the
United States was about $17 per ton. One year later, the average
value was $168 per ton, with the expectation that prices will
continue to rise.
Several factors have contributed to this increase, including high global demand resulting from significantly increased production of phosphate fertilizer, decreased supplies due to lower than expected sulfur content of crude petroleum processed in domestic refineries, and more inelasticity of supply due to delays in completion of projects that would increase sulfur production.
------------------------------
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
One for Westexas, Kazakhstan is going to halt exports of oil products. The reason given is to stabilise fuel prices in the country, especially for agriculture, which is being disrupted due to the high costs. ELM in action.
As noted elsewhere, IMO the price of food & fuel is being set at the margin as importers bid for the volume of food & fuel that "escapes" into the export market.
MASSIVE PEAK OIL COVERAGE ON CNBC!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Flicked over at 11pm local time (650am EST Tuesday) and THERE IT WAS! Robert Hirsch got interviewed and what he had to say wasn't pretty and they were all saying "Peak Oil" multiple times and they showed graphs of all these countries production histories, showing their peaks inc. USA norway, mexico and more.........My jaw hit the floor!!!!! I only caught the tail end of it. It was Squawk Box. The guy anchor was as 'lets stop talking about this already' as ever.
Peak Oil is MAINSTREAM
Peak Oil is MAINSTREAM
Peak Oil is MAINSTREAM
Peak Oil is MAINSTREAM
Peak Oil is MAINSTREAM
Peak Oil is MAINSTREAM
Peak Oil is MAINSTREAM
Peak Oil is MAINSTREAM
Peak Oil is MAINSTREAM
Peak Oil is MAINSTREAM
Peak Oil is MAINSTREAM
Peak Oil is MAINSTREAM
Peak Oil is MAINSTREAM
Peak Oil is MAINSTREAM
Peak Oil is MAINSTREAM
Peak Oil is MAINSTREAM
Peak Oil is MAINSTREAM
Peak Oil is MAINSTREAM
Peak Oil is MAINSTREAM
Peak Oil is MAINSTREAM
Here's the video
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=747947551&play=1
Pickens on CNBC Europe
85 million barrels/day is as much as we will get.
Bush has wasted his time going to KSA they can't pump any more.
None of the Presidential candidates are even addressing the $600bn the US is paying for oil - in ten years we will be broke - and that is at $100/barrel - but oil will hit $150 this year.
Reducing taxes on petrol is no plan at all.
Energy will be a huge issue before November - but no candidate has impressed so far.
Ethanol is a joke.
Natural gas is the only fuel which can substitute for oil - and wind will free it so it can be so used. - the second thing we can do is use solar to free up the gas.
Clean coal is a play too.
He is long on NG too - no bubble in NG prices.
This continues after the break - if he stays off American football I will post
cont
Demand is 87million barrels supply is 85, around 400,00 barrels have been taken out of US demand by price - inventories are being drawn down at the moment to make up for the difference.
No slowdown in China until after the Olympics, a world recession is the only thing that will halt the rise in prices and that will come.
NG in the US could replace 40% of oil within 10 years.
Oil sands will be a big play, difficulties include a lack of welders and personnel.
Here's the video
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=747990771&play=1
I can't get it to work.
Some of the American sites block access from Europe, I believe.
I'm in the UK (Virgin Broadband - former telewest) and it works fine for me. Maybe a transient problem.
Edit: Part 2 of the interview is now up
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=747998490&play=1
WTI now well over $129