 | The National Aviation Policy: Flight Path to the Future? | The Oil Drum | Gas Crisis Raised in UK Parliament |  |
Drumbeat: March 16, 2009
Posted by Gail the Actuary on March 16, 2009 - 8:59am
US to caution OPEC on price volatility
Daniel Yergin, the chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, said a meeting of the G20 finance ministers this weekend was equally important for the oil price outcome.
“GDP is going to determine the [oil] price,” he told Bloomberg. “We’re now in the Great Recession, and that’s what the price reflects. Oil is not only the world’s most important commodity, it’s a barometer of the global economy. It’s telling us the global economy is sick.”
Hot Docs: Clean Coal Program Shift 'Not Well Considered
Clean Coal Program Shift Flawed: A Department of Energy decision to alter course on a program to develop a clean coal power plant potentially involving some $1.3 billion in federal funding was "not well considered." That is the conclusion of a Government Accountability Office study entitled "Clean Coal: DOE's Decision to Restructure FutureGen Should Be Based on a Comprehensive Analysis of Costs, Benefits, and Risks." The Energy Department's FutureGen program was originally unveiled in 2003. In partnership with the electric power industry and later with the coal industry, it set as its goal the designing and building of the "world's first coal-fired, zero-emissions power plant." The report finds that the decision to shift from what was originally a research and development project to a commercial demonstration project was not based on a "comprehensive analysis of factors, such as the associated costs, benefits, and risks." The GAO called on DOE to re-examine its decision based on those factors.
Machine makes wood chips a coal substitute
North Carolina State University scientists say they've created a machine that turns wood chips into a coal substitute by using a process called torrefaction.
Environmentalists have long been concerned about the environmental impact of burning of fossil fuels -- especially coal. The combustion of coal contributes to acid rain and air pollution and has been connected with global warming.
During torrefaction, wood chips go through a machine that removes moisture and toasts the biomass. The machine, called a torrefier, uses heat in a low-oxygen environment to make the wood chips both drier and easier to crush.
Australian uranium output could jump 20% by 2012
Australia's uranium industry could lift output by about 20 percent in three years, government and industry officials said on Monday, as the nation gears up for its first major expansion of uranium mining in a decade.
Australia's uranium industry has been hamstrung since the early 1980s by political hostility to the nuclear fuel, but long-standing bans on new mines by various state governments are gradually being lifted in the face of economic crisis.
A state-government minister and an industry executive told a conference that Australia could boost annual output of uranium oxide to 12,460 tonnes by 2012 from new mines in South Australia and Western Australia and from expansion of existing mines.
Natural gas needs to build local markets
The price of natural gas is critically low for producers in the Barnett, Haynesville, Marcellus, and Fayetteville Shales. Recent reports indicate drilling activity in these newly discovered domestic gas plays has seen huge declines in recent months. Wells in the Barnett Shale, Haynesville Shale, Marcellus Shale, and Fayetteville Shale will may not be able to sustain production at prices below breakeven for long. Community tax bases will suffer. Resources and personnel could be forced to move on to other locations, domestic and international. Royalty owners will lose income. Exploration, drilling and production will quickly dry up. Production costs in most of these plays exceed the current $4/MMBtu market price. Most operators require at least $5-$6/MMBtu as a minimum to maintain profitable production. Unconventional gas plays in shale require special expertise, equipment and additional completion techniques that simply cost more cash to economically recover the resource. A $7-$10/MMBtu price should be a policy objective that keeps the domestic industry healthy and contributes to further exploration and US energy independence. The US economy and security may depend on bringing these clean burning gas discoveries in the Barnett Shale, Haynesville Shale, Marcellus Shale, and Fayetteville Shale to market profitably. With price a function of supply and demand, we are seeing a greater supply than demand. That has to change.
The real problem may be marketing. Natural gas producers will need to team up with utilities and product manufacturers to aggressively market their products in metro markets close to these plays. Communities and utilities that benefit should contribute to the effort with incentives and education programs. The quickest solution may be to build stronger local markets for natural gas. Products have to be developed, converted and heavily marketed. In homes, gas heating, cooking, water heating, refrigerators, grills, fireplaces and even backup generators need to regain market share.
Shocking Demographics of The Oil Drum Revealed (Sharon Astyk)
Now don’t get me wrong, I actually think that TOD is one of the best sites on the net. I don’t write for a lot of other sites - I don’t have time and energy for it. I have written for TOD, because I think what they do is truly important. I am enormously grateful to those guys with graphs and penises for the work they do in sorting through an enormous amount of difficult data.
That said, however, I think that while there are an enormous number of talented women now writing and working on Peak Oil and Depletion issues in one form or another, with a few exceptions (thanks to Leanan, Gail the Actuary and TOD alum Stoneleigh) they simply aren’t doing their work over at TOD.
Laying Down Tools(ASPO-USA)
Regardless of how we as individuals in the oil and gas industry cope with this downturn, all of us, as well as our society, will in time face the consequences of having lost this rig and the hundreds more now lying in the grass. I believe that within 2 to 4 years we will be facing a serious shortage of natural gas and the roughnecks will be asked to “come back, please!” Some will walk away and never look back. As for me, I hope that finally the United States is serious about alternative energy, because our very survival is at stake.
Forecasts (Tom Whipple)
The three major oil forecasting organizations, the US’s EIA, the OECD’s IEA and OPEC, also issued increasing pessimistic numbers during the week. The EIA now foresees a 0.8 percent reduction in the world GDP during 2009 with a 2.6 percent rebound in 2010. Average annual world oil consumption is seen as shrinking by 1.4 million barrels in 2009. This is 3 million b/d lower than the forecast six months ago.
The IEA now foresees global demand for oil in 2009 shrinking by 1.2 million b/d to 84.4 million b/d, a drop of 270,000 b/d since last month. The agency sees non-OPEC supply as stagnant at 50.6 million b/d during 2009. Problems in Azerbaijan and the major drop in Mexican production are seen as offsetting increases elsewhere. Despite the economic problems, the IEA still foresees Chinese demand increasing by 0.6 percent during 2009.
The IEA continues to warn that the OPEC production cut of 4.2 million b/d, which they seem likely to accomplish, will continue for several months and that there is no growth in non-OPEC production, so world stockpiles will drop swiftly unless, of course, demand falls more than the 1.2 -1.4 million b/d currently forecast. The heart of the issue remains the course of the global economy and the success of the many stimulus initiatives currently underway.
We must make a lot of mistakes quickly (Kurt Cobb)
We often think of progress these days as coming from carefully planned research conducted by government- or corporate-funded laboratories with large staffs of scientists and technicians. As it turns out, many of the key innovations in history have arrived serendipitously or resulted from trial and error. . .
It should come as no surprise then that efforts to create a sustainable society will require a lot of trial and error. This is true in part because we are still only starting to understand what practices in areas such as building, farming, transportation and energy production might be sustainable in the long run. (It is also true because people differ on what they mean by "sustainable" though that deserves a discussion all its own.)
Oil futures fall after OPEC keeps output unchanged
"Prices are sharply lower, as some participants are understandably disappointed that OPEC did not close the meeting with another cut under its belt," said Edward Meir, an analyst at MF Global in a research note.
"We suspect that this downward move will linger for most of the week, as the markets will surely conclude that there is now less `insurance' in the system should demand take a turn for the [worse], or alternatively, if cartel members step up their cheating, which thus far has been kept to a respectable minimum," Meir said.
But the subsidies keep growing and growing . . .
Americans are unlikely to use enough gas next year to absorb the 13 billion gallons of ethanol that Congress mandated, because current regulations limit the ethanol content in each gallon of gas at 10%. The industry is asking that this cap be lifted to 15% or even 20%. That way, more ethanol can be mixed with less gas, and producers won't end up with a glut that the government does not require anyone to buy.
The ethanol boosters aren't troubled that only a fraction of the 240 million cars and trucks on the road today can run with ethanol blends higher than 10%. It can damage engines and corrode automotive pipes, as well as impair some safety features, especially in older vehicles. It can also overwhelm pollution control systems like catalytic converters. The malfunctions multiply in other products that use gas, such as boats, snowmobiles, lawnmowers, chainsaws, etc.
That possible policy train wreck is uniting almost every other Washington lobby -- and talk about strange bedfellows. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the Motorcycle Industry Council and the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, among others, are opposed, since raising the blend limit will ruin their products. The left-leaning American Lung Association and the Union of Concerned Scientists are opposed too, since it will increase auto emissions. The Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club agree, on top of growing scientific evidence that corn ethanol provides little or no net reduction in CO2 over the gasoline it displaces.
The U.K.'s Double Whammy: Banks and Oil
Already reeling from the banking crisis, the U.K. faces another hit from declining oil revenues.
Tax from North Sea oil and the dividends from U.K.-listed energy giants BP and Royal Dutch Shell are among the few solid revenue streams for both the U.K. Treasury and private pension funds. Yet they are under pressure.
North Sea oil and gas producers are expected to pay 27% of combined U.K. corporation and petroleum tax this fiscal year and 20% in 2010, according to the Treasury. Total corporate-tax receipts in January fell 20% from a year earlier, while the government's liabilities have soared.
U! S! A! We're Number .... 15?
A new report shows that in terms of aggregate health, education, purchasing power, security and general well-being, the U.S. has been in decline.
The first bit of bad news is that America was slipping well before our most recent downturn. Whereas during the 1980s we were consistently No. 2 in the world (Switzerland occupied the top slot in 1980, while Canada did from 1985 to 1990), by the mid-1990s we had slipped to six. And by 2006 (the most recent year available), we had even fallen out of the Top 10 (to slot 15). Income clearly doesn't capture every dimension, since the United States still holds the No. 2 position in terms of income per capita. Rather, other aspects of American society make it less "developed" than it should be, given the resources available here.
This decline proceeded apace through the Reagan and first Bush administrations, during the go-go Clinton '90s, and through the regime of George W. Bush. We have slipped in periods of budget deficits and during the largest surplus in US history. So something deeper about the structure of American society is probably responsible.
Oil drops 4 percent after OPEC keeps output steady
Oil slumped 4 percent to $44 a barrel on Monday as traders questioned whether OPEC's decision to enforce better compliance with previous curbs rather than make new production cuts was enough to offset eroding global demand.
While top producer Saudi Arabia had signaled a week ago that it wanted stricter adherence to the cartel's previous 4.2 million barrel per day (bpd) cuts rather than additional formal restraints, other members had campaigned for explicit action now to avert a further rise in already swollen oil inventories.
Swire Shipping Denies It Lied Over Queensland Oil Spill Volume
Swire Shipping, operator of a ship that last week leaked fuel oil, coating beaches in Australia’s Queensland, denied media reports it lied about the amount of fuel lost, which is about 10 times more than initially believed.
The container ship’s officers and the authorities were initially unaware that a second fuel tank had been punctured in the accident, Swire said in an e-mailed statement. The captain of the MV Pacific Adventurer yesterday surrendered his passport to the authorities, Queensland Deputy Premier Paul Lucas said.
The Queensland government yesterday said about 250 metric tons of heavy fuel oil may have been spilled by the ship in a storm, up from initial estimates of between 20 and 30 tons. More than half of the oil-affected areas on two islands and parts of the Sunshine Coast tourist area have been cleaned, Lucas said yesterday.
Iraq tenders for Halfaya oil production facility
Iraq has issued a tender for international oil companies to build a 50,000 barrel-per-day production facility on an untapped southern oilfield whose reserves are estimated at about 5 billion barrels.
A statement posted on state Maysan Oil Company's website invited bidders to build the facility and install dehydration and desalination units for processing the crude. The tender closes on March 25.
Natural gas pipeline battles may resume
Legislative opponents of Gov. Sarah Palin's natural gas pipeline plan are asking the Legislature to reconsider the endorsement it gave Trans-Canada Corp.'s plan just months ago.
"All Alaskans want a gas pipeline. But we need to temper that with the reality of the U.S. and world markets today," said Rep. Craig Johnson, R-Anchorage, co-chair of the House Resources Committee.
Gas bullet line depends on answers to questions
"Bullet line" is the euphemism for a 20-inch or 24-inch pipeline that would carry natural gas from the North Slope to Southcentral Alaska. Our gas fields in the region are being depleted and there are worries we may run short. That's not good, because we depend on gas for space-heating and power generation. Without gas, we'd be back to fuel oil, coal, or even wood.
There is a plan to get North Slope gas from a spur line off the big gas pipeline planned to be built through Interior Alaska to the Lower 48. That, however, is dependent on the success of the larger project, and now there are worries that the big pipe may get delayed if the world economy stays sour.
Even in the best of worlds, if this goes forward, it won't be in operation until 2018 or 2020. Enstar Natural Gas, our regional utility, says we could run out of gas long before that, by 2015 or so.
IRAN: Despite sanctions, business as usual
South Korea's GS Engineering & Construction Co., the country's No. 2 builder, said Sunday it had finished the plant in Assaluyeh, in southern Iran, according to South Korea's official Yonhap news agency.
The company began construction of the plant in 2003. It will be able to produce 19 million tons of natural gas a year.
The announcement comes a day after Iran announced it had signed a $3.2-billion deal with China for exploitation of the gigantic South Pars natural-gas field in the Persian Gulf.
Obama administration may revive carbon-capture project
As a candidate, President Barack Obama promised that his Department of Energy would work on a way for the United States to continue to get power from coal without dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
The work is already under way, and has been boosted with $3.4 billion in the stimulus plan. The DOE is expected to announce soon whether it will use $1 billion of that money to revive FutureGen, a planned coal-fired power plant in rural Illinois that would be the first in the world to capture its carbon dioxide emissions and bury them deep underground.
The Quarrel Over Coal Ash Waste
The Natural Resources Defense Council on Thursday released a list of what it called the top 15 “filthy” states where plans to build new coal-fired power plants will lead to the production of 14 million additional tons of coal ash waste each year.
The analysis comes in response to the Environmental Protection Agency’s promise last week to begin regulating the solid waste produced by coal-fired power plants in the wake of December’s massive coal ash spill in Harriman, Tennessee.
Maldives vows to be first carbon-neutral nation
The Maldives will shift entirely to renewable energy over the next decade to become the first carbon-neutral nation and fight climate change that threatens the low-lying archipelago's existence, the president said on Sunday.
President Mohamed Nasheed said the Indian Ocean islands would swap fossil fuels for wind and solar power, and buy and destroy EU carbon credits to offset emissions from tourists flying to visit its luxury vacation resorts.
Uni's solar panel captures more light
NEW technology that was developed in Sydney and allows solar panels to capture more sunshine is expected to influence panel production around the world. . .
The pilot program at the university will demonstrate new production techniques that allow traditional panels to catch more light from the blue end of the spectrum, the short wavelengths.
The problem with many existing solar cells is that the shorter wavelengths of light are reflected back by a layer of phosphate ducting within the panel. The new technique allows the phosphate ducts to be better aligned, so more light can be absorbed without adding to production costs.
Thin-Film Solar Cells Get a Boost From Nanotechnology
While current photovoltaic cells have an energy conversion efficiency rate around 18% (Mitsubishi holds the world record at 18.9%), this efficiency is set back by the extremely costly nature of producing such cells. Thin-film solar cells are expected to dominate the future market due to their low production cost and versatile nature. The goal of the EU-funded research is to boost the efficiency of thin-film cells (currently around 10%) by implementing silicon nano-rods.
The ROD-SOL project hopes to develop and optimize the synthesis of silicon nano-rods onto either metal foils or glass. Researchers propose that the tiny structures are perfect for trapping light energy in a way that it can be transformed into electricity.
Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack says farmers face several challenges
Let's take it to 2009: Almost all the commodities across the board have seen a decline in pricing, some more severe and more dramatic than others.
We're dealing with issues in dairy, pork, walnuts; there are invasive species issues in citrus that are impacting, potentially, yields, and there is drought in California and Texas. … There is also concern in the renewable fuel industry, because ethanol production facilities, biofuel facilities are operating on relatively slim margins, if they have any margins at all.
The one saving grace, to the extent that there is a saving grace in these difficult economic times, is that the farm community, generally speaking, is far less leveraged than the general population or other businesses and industries. … For every dollar in debt, farmers and ranchers have $9 of equity or assets. That's (substantially better) than in the last farm crisis in the '80s, when we lost a lot of farms.
So it seems matters are coming to a head in Pakistan. Today, anti-government protests in Lahore were confronted by riot police. After violent confrontations, something truly surprising happened: the police broke. They started to defy orders at every level, from the city magistrate on down. The demonstrators are now filling Lahore, and the head of the opposition, Nawaz Sharif, is leading a convoy on to Islamabad to confront President Zardari. Sharif described it as "a prelude to a revolution".
There is a real chance the Pakistani government might not survive the next few days. Probably not a large chance, but a definitely non-zero chance their government will fall. I have to think that this is the "crisis" that will "test" Obama that Biden was talking about.
California utility prepares for surge in plug-in electric cars
While the electric car revolution could provide a way to make better use of renewable energy sources, it also presents some big challenges. If lots of electric cars are being charged at the same time in a small community, they could overwhelm the system. For instance, more powerful transformers might be needed, Kjaer says.
Plugging in an electric car can be the equivalent of running up to six plasma television sets at once — a big energy drain.
The key appears to be the strategy of adjusting rates to encourage charging at off-peak times.
Electricity grid gets boost from Congress
The stimulus bill signed by President Obama in mid-February includes $11 billion for improvements to the grid — an investment many policymakers label as an essential component of increasing green energy and efficiency. This includes everything from installing transmission lines to employing new technologies to streamline the flow of energy. . .
Altogether, transmission costs are responsible for one-third of the wind energy price, which recently reached 8 cents per kilowatt-hour in the Austin program, as opposed to 3.65 cents for fossil-fuel-based electricity.
The amount of money Congress plans to spend on the grid may be insufficient, Mr. Clark said. Texas projects that it will spend about $5 billion to update its transmission capabilities.
"So $11 billion from the feds — well, you know," Mr. Clark said.
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.
Pursuant to Nate's request, some ELP discussion. I have frequently told the story of how I proposed a 50% pay cut, in exchange for an equity interest in oil and gas prospects, in order to avoid being laid off in the late Eighties.
On Good Morning America this morning, a job counselor was asked about when to propose cutting your own salary. She advised not waiting, be proactive.
My thoughts from two years ago:
http://graphoilogy.blogspot.com/2007/04/elp-plan-economize-localize-prod...
April, 2007
By: Jeffrey J. Brown
westtexas It's really difficult to get a perspective on this "recession" when you watch the Fed Chairman on 60 minutes last night talk his new hobby: Printing Money.
When they show you robots moving around pallets of money worth tens of millions each, the international monetary system (that we are all engaged with whether you agree with it or not) seems bizarre and unreal.
Joe
We seem to live in very doctrinaire times.
For instance, Bernanke is an acolyte of the school that holds that big banks are sacred, are to be held up as objects of worship and adulation, are the givers of all wealth and prosperity, and are to be saved at any and all costs.
His doctrine seems to collide head on with the dogma we hear uttered frequently here on TOD--the unwavering faith that "it has to be deflation"--despite the commitment voiced by Bernanke and other powers-that-be that they will take whatever steps are necessary to insure that deflation never happens.
I wonder if we don't do ourselves a diservice by committing ourselves to the old method of forecasting, when the methods of scenario analysis, as advocated by those like Kees van der Heijden, might be more appropriate.
As van der Heijden observed:
Scenario analysis, unlike forecasting, does not fixate upon one predicted or desired outcome, but instead posits various possible outcomes, and plans for how to cope with each of them.
As van der Heijden concludes, scenario analysis "is one approach that can enable us to deal more flexibly with uncertaintaines" and has proven itself superior to the traditional "predict-and-control approach."
Interesting.
How would Kees prepare for Resilience over Growth?
Yeah, I think there has been an overemphasis on deflation also. Real enough in many areas, asset prices certainly, but not everywhere, not food, and going down the road a bit I think energy will come roaring back. Local taxes are under tremendous upward pressure. My son tells me the MTA in NY is about to raise fairs and cut service.
Again, it's true that printing and pouring money into insolvent financial institutions does not immediately lead to an expansion of credit. But the money "leaks out" of these institutions, even though the institutions themselves may or may not survive, and can begin chasing goods. But more fundamentally, unlike the 30s when there was an enormous latent productive capacity that was asleep, waiting to be roused from its slumber, today there is no such thing. Attempts at rousing it are like rousing an 90 year old to do a 1000 meter sprint.
What we face ultimately is the destruction of the currency. Taxes should be raised steeply and progressively -- the first 30-40k should be untaxed, and after that should it should start a relentless climb. Same with estate taxes, and even asset taxes should be considered. The justification for great wealth and extreme incomes is totally gone -- they worked for it??!!
The gov't should funnel the money to projects that allow us to consume less, much less, and still be comfortable -- relocalization, densifiying small towns and suburbs, reviving local agriculture, de-carring, etc.
There are going to be (are already!) millions with no jobs, no hope of returning to jobs in the regular economy. A relocalized dense agriculture-based economy will be much more labor-intensive. But the labor can be healthy and all-sided if done cooperatively. People will thereby have a chance to re-make their own futures.
Of course it's important to make sure people don't starve in the meantime -- so there needs to be a net. But to hold out the promise to people that the McMansions with 2 cars and a garage full of junk is ever coming back is no less criminal than Madoff's schemes.
Yeah, I know - SOR (same old rant).
PS -- They don't call him helicopter Ben for nothing.
Changing Maps: the best book to come out of Canada in the latter half of the 20th century! (so I wrote in the Globe and Mail about 10 years ago)
Better than helicopters... Or, maybe not.
So outrageous, yet so true...
Problem with that imagery is it implies that Ben's money might fall on just anyone, rather than only on the most wealthy (and deserving?).
Good point.
It's still like the helicopter drop, but the drop zone was fenced off and did not include the public. Oh, and there was the little matter of CEOs getting some money... What a shame.
UPDATE: Apparently Big O is pretty p*ssed at AIG about their use of bailout funds...
Obama blasts AIG 'outrage,' will try to block bonuses
Simple: They are pigs at a trough, and you brought food, Big O.
He has no moral standing on this: he voted for the bailout. Time for putting conditions on the money was _before_ authorizing it.
Here's how they did the 'Unwinding' of money printing in Weimar Germany:
-Kept 'em warm at least...
Nick.
And do you remember who did that 'unwinding' in Germany?
Hint: His initials are A.H.
I'd be curious how many dictators come to power after major economic collapses. Without the depression, there would be no Hitler.
The hyperinflation in Germany was from 1920 to 1923, a decade before the Great Depression and Hitler's rise to power. One of the main causes of hyperinflation was the war reparations that Germany had to pay back for WW1.
The Nazis were mostly a fringe group with very little electoral success until the 1930s.
Printing money is no good if the velocity of money cannot be increased. A couple of things are hampering velocity. No confidence. Limitations on how TARP funds can be used. Changes by the FASB to mark to market rules make confidence decline, not improve. Citizens of the world have recently lost a huge amount of their net worth.
In addition, printing money brings into focus for the average individual just what they put their faith in...the dollar...and how simply it can be debased.
Money is being destroyed by deflation far faster than new money is finding it's way into the real economy. Untill this changes, and the velocity of money increases, deflation will be the order of the day. Regardless of what Bernanke says.
Bravo correct !
With one caveat if oil and food prices start increasing then the velocity will start increasing but
we can continue to have debt deflation i.e falling home prices.
Nothing prevents simultaneous real inflation in commodity prices from scarce supply coupled
with persistent otherwise low money velocity because most of the previous velocity was debt
based and we have persistent debt deflation.
My prediction is we will see exactly this a return of massive "inflation" in food and commodity
prices and deflation in any assets that are purchased with debt or not essential.
Basically this means that the feds printing presses will result in all fiat currencies falling
in value vs valuable goods with commodities being at the top of the list.
Basically anything with real intrinsic usable worth that can be purchased easily with cash will increase in value.
Its hard to come up with stuff outside commodities that fits this profile. But maybe for example mobile phone
price won't drop that rapidly because of demand while network charges will fall off.
Motorcycle prices for used bikes may remain strong and even cheaper new bikes remain strong along with
fuel efficient cars for example.
Some critical drugs like insulin will retain their price for example.
So basically a basket of needed goods and services and those that can be purchased with just a few paychecks
saved up that are useful or wanted. Think basically anything under 100 dollars that has some real utility
and it probably will do ok.
Cheap clothes from Wall Mart for example ?
Its a good time to think about opening a dollar theater business will probably boom as people give up on cable.
Who knows maybe the cable companies will cave in and drop rates across the board.
A key way to Economize is to Localize.
And I want to emphasize that I fully support WT's ELP efforts. I really think he has had a positive influence there. In this country, far too many people live beyond their means, and it has resulted in us consuming resources much too quickly. Personally, my immediate family and I have always lived on less than half of my paycheck (except when I was a starving graduate student eating grits 3 nights a week. Then we lived within our means, but we just did without things).
On the other hand, I have an in-law who can't pay their mortgage, and yet they just went and bought a new truck. (Luckily for them, the mortgage was financed by another family member, so they aren't going to be evicted even though they stopped paying their mortgage more than a year ago). This is the entitlement mentality that has caused so many problems.
If people lived within their means, growth would have been slower. Thus, we wouldn't have overshot so quickly and gotten into such a mess. Eventually? Maybe it was inevitable, especially if the rest of the world tries to emulate our debt-fueled growth model. But I am a fan of buying as much time as we have, and I think economizing is something 90% of the population should learn to get better at.
As for producing, I don't have time to discuss it. I need to go work in my garden. :-)
http://r2gardening.blogspot.com/
RR
This statement reeks of the same "logic" that argues that "blacks have always sat in the back of the bus, so they should continue to do so."
So the recipients of AIG's latest round of bonuses at taxpayer expense, are they "living within their means" when they go out and spend their bonus checks? Surely these, exemplars of "the best and the brightest," are deserving of their "means" for everything they've done for us, no?
This statement reeks of the same "logic" that argues that "blacks have always sat in the back of the bus, so they should continue to do so."
Wow. So arguing that people should live within their means - which is a component of what WT is advocating - is like suggesting blacks should sit at that back of the bus? That is one of the most bizarre pieces of logic I have ever seen anyone put together. It's like I said "The weather looks nice today" and someone responded "So you support the atrocities in Darfur!"
These are the sorts of comments that generally keep me (and Nate, Kyle, and most staff) out of the Drumbeats. I was offering up support for WT, but should have known that someone would find something to complain about. It really grows tiresome. So mea culpa: If more people lived outside their means (the opposite of my argument), things would be great.
I really should have skipped this and just stayed in my garden. Enjoy your day.
The problem with your statement is that it is devoid of any questioning or introspection as to our current allocation of resources--"means" in your vernacular--or how that distribution might be modified in the future to reflect a fairer and more just distribution.
Instead what we get is this cavalier "one should live within their means." In other words, just go sit at the back of the bus and don't question the existing social or economic order.
The problem with your statement is that it is devoid of any questioning or introspection as to our current allocation of resources--or "means" in your vernacular--or how that distribution might be modified in the future to reflect a fairer and more just distribution.
And I note that you didn't mention that you are against what's happening in Darfur, therefore I conclude that you support genocide.
Shall we look for more things that are wrong? My post didn't discuss current ethanol policy. Nor did it discuss climate change. Therefore, feel free to jump to conclusions on those topics as well.
Wait a second! Maybe you are my in-law who stopped paying their mortgage and bought the new truck? If so, then the direction you are taking starts to make more sense.
But it was you who layed much of our current dilema at the doorstep of "the entitlement mentality that has caused so many problems."
But facts don't seem to argue in favor of your assesment. As Jacob S. Hacker exhaustively documents in The Great Risk Shift: The New Economic Insecurity and the Decline of the American Dream, entitlements--including fixed-benefit retirement plans, health care, employment security--have progressively been put out of reach of rank and file Americans over the past 30 years.
So was it an "entitlement mentality" that brought us to our current state, as you assert, or was it the excesses of a small minority composed of the "masters of the universe" who, by incessant propaganda, were able to recast greed and selfishness as societal and economic virtues?
But it was you who layed much of our current dilema at the doorstep of "the entitlement mentality that has caused so many problems."
Perhaps it might help if you are able to recognize that a post isn't a thesis. Too much consumer debt has been a big source of problems, and in a post discussing "economizing", debt is the relevant topic. If you deny that, I don't know what to say. Nobody suggested that it is the only source of problems, just that we wouldn't have so many troubles had people not over-leveraged and gotten themselves into trouble.
Perhaps if you phrased your post as a question around this area instead of jumping to immediate conclusions, you might have gotten some clarification that you still apparently need. Should I be outraged that you still haven't commented on Darfur? Only if I somehow get it into my head that the discussion is about something that it really isn't.
Myself, I grew up in the south well below the poverty line. Lots of things were out of our reach, but we didn't belly-ache and borrow money so we could live like everyone else. We sucked it up and did without. We lived in an old house (which has since fallen down), drove vehicles that were 20 years old, wore our clothes until they were transparent, and took one vacation during my 18 years at home. I am more equipped to deal with hardship as a result. I have friends and family who don't think they should have to do without, so they borrow money they have little hope of paying back.
While I still think your complaints are completely in left field given the subject (they are relevant in a context, just not to what I wrote), at this point we can just agree to disagree. Last post from me.
You seem to be grounded in some ideology that harkens back to 18th-century economic classism, a time when there was not only, as Jean Simonde de Sismondi put it, "poverty in the midst of plenty," but that was believed to be "as it should be."
Robert Heilbroner explains:
Think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute have trundled out these same old bankrupt philosophies over the past 30 years, giving them a new leash on life. I would argue that it is the promotion and acceptance of these philosophies, and not any "entitlement mentality," that we have to blame for our current predicament.
I would also like to point out that it was "against the law" for Rosa Parks to sit in the front of the bus, and that she was arrested for disobeying "the law" by not surrendering her seat to a white man.
You seem to be grounded in some ideology that harkens back to 18th-century economic classism, a time when there was not only, as Jean Simonde de Sismondi put it, "poverty in the midst of plenty," but that was believed to be "as it should be."
Again, if you jump to conclusions, there isn't much I can do to help you except point out that you are whacking away at a straw man. Including me, 3 people have already tried to point this out to you without success. Separately I have received an e-mail (from TOD Staff) that said that my comments were completely fair, and that I should let it go because your problem is obviously with me personally.
I don't know that the last part is accurate, but who knows. I am sure that you have helped reaffirm for some people why getting involved in Drumbeat discussions is so often a waste of time. So far this morning I have probably wasted an hour on an issue that stems from your misunderstanding.
I know I said "Last post", but I mean it this time. You have erected a straw man, and you just aren't listening to anyone.
Downsouth's got it right. Things in the US are FAR too much biased to favour the wealthy. We in more civilized societies have long gotten dead sick of your ambasadors etc. threatening "severe repercussions" if we continue to implement socialist policies like universal single-payer health insurance, employment insurance which actually tries to cover (and count) most unemployed, etc. etc. US needs some reaction against the reactionaries, a re-balancing. Now is th time. Leave it uch later, it will be done voilently with dire consequences to the cohesion of your federation.
Thank you for your words of encouragement, lengould.
The search for scapegoats has apparently become so acute that kicking those down-on-their-luck must be taken to new levels. It's not uncommon to hear the financial crisis being blamed on those who can't make their mortgage payments, but never have I heard such an outrageous claim as this:
If things go badly, projections are that maybe 12 million households will end up losing their homes to foreclosure during this crisis. That's 12 million out of 116 million, or about 10%. And so now those 10% are not only to assume full blame for the financial crisis, but for our natural resource problems as well?
I suppose the other 90% of us who "live within our means" had nothing to do with it, huh?
The search for scapegoats has apparently become so acute that kicking those down-on-their-luck must be taken to new levels.
You are still too self-centered to recognize that this was an interpretation constructed entirely in your own head. Despite me explaining it, and multiple other people explaining it, you were so sure that you - and only you - had the correct interpretation. It's as if I said "I support cancer research", and you conclude 1). I therefore don't support research into heart disease; 2). I am suggesting that people who get heart disease deserve it. It was a very bizarre direction you went based on what I wrote. You jumped to grossly unwarranted conclusions.
When I say "living beyond their means", what I have in mind is the debt-fueled society that leads my neighbors to build big houses and buy big cars, which then need big energy to keep it all going. You heard "It's those darn minorities taking out mortgages they couldn't afford." It was a stretch on your part, completely unsupported by what I wrote, but as others noted you were obviously itching for a fight and wouldn't listen to anyone suggest that your interpretation of what I said could possibly be off base.
never have I heard such an outrageous claim as this:
Really? Never? Given to hyperbole much? The fact is, the claim as I stated is correct. I am around a lot of people who consume a lot even for Americans. They - and the culture of keeping up with the Jones' - has spawned a tremendous waste of resources. So the 'outrageous claim' is simply a fact, despite whether it got muddled up inside your head.
I suppose the other 90% of us who "live within our means" had nothing to do with it, huh?
Again, more reaching on your part. Nobody said that 'live within our means' doesn't mean that everyone has not contributed. You assume that if I say "A", it means "Not B." That is a problem with the way you think, and if you don't do some self-reflection you will continue to make mistakes like this. I was stunned that when I said 90%, you thought I was exempting 10% because the rules didn't apply. It emphasized just how clueless you were with your interpretation.
Now, as I said, I am glad it happened. You just reiterated for me what a waste of time this all is. You always have some person ready to fight over anything you say, and there isn't enough time in the day for it. So while I do enjoy the occasional enlightening discourse, people like you make this not worth it, and have driven a lot of good posters off of the board. This is the sort of thing that drove Stuart and Heading Out both away, which is a shame because you are but a very vocal minority among the posters. (Now, let me sit back and watch you pull the word 'minority' out of context, and lecture me on the civil rights movement).
Good day.
Good grief, man, haven't you ever heard of the saying "When you're in a whole, quit digging?"
Phrases like "entitlement mentality" don't just appear out of nowhere. Somebody has to think this stuff up. And in the case of the phrase "entitlement mentality," we're talking pure right-wing cant.
So taking it back to the top, when you said: "This is the entitlement mentality that has caused so many problems," that's far from being an unloaded statement.
Wikepedia has this to say about the culture of entitlement:
And if one does a Google search they will find litterally hundreds of articles dealing with entitlement. Like I said, it is well known, paradigmatic right-wing jargon that has been widely disseminated. Here's but one typical example from a right-wing columnist writing in the Yale Review. It talks of the concept of entitlement along with the competing concept preferred by right-wingers, ownership:
Face it man, what you did was to use Jeff's comment as a hook upon which to hang your own commentary, and with a hard turn to the right. And then when someone challenged you on it, you went ballistic.
You then fall back on your little boys' club here on TOD for comfort and support. You make the claim that "people like you...have driven a lot of good posters off of the board," when you are just as guilty as anyone of the arrogance, dishonesty, beligerence and puerile little locker room ploys that drive people away.
Not cool man, not cool at all.
Good grief, man, haven't you ever heard of the saying "When you're in a whole, quit digging?"
First off, it's 'hole.' Is English a 2nd language for you? If so that would make this whole thing a bit clearer to me. I had a suspicion of this earlier based on some things you wrote. This could explain why you have reacted as you have.
But, yes, I would think that after multiple people told you that the problem was your misinterpretation, you would realize your mistake and quit digging. I think you were embarrassed by the backlash, so now you are digging deeper to try to defend your silly interpretation. You have resorted to quoting long passages to try to justify your mistake. The problem is, all of those passages you keep quoting don't support your interpretation. You are so narrow-minded that you can't see that your interpretation isn't the only one. Quoting passages all day long doesn't change that. You are not the Oracle who decides the meaning of "Live within your means" and "Entitlement mentality".
I am around people all the time who feel they are entitled. They spend more than they have. They consume much more than they need. This was the gist of what Cheney said when he said "The American way of life is non-negotiable." He displayed an entitlement mentality. We Americans are entitled to consume more. But perhaps the real problem is that you are one of these people, and my comments hit too close to home? Do you by chance work for AIG?
And then when someone challenged you on it, you went ballistic.
No, when you showed a tremendous comprehension problem as you did, I pointed it out. When you continued to arrogantly insist that you knew what I meant, I continued to point it out. This is the reason people kept suggesting that you had a personal problem with me: Because your comments were so far out there they were nonsensical. I am not the one who has resorted to quoting long passages to try to back up my interpretation because I didn't need to. Others were clear on what I said; only you seem to have the comprehension problem. I have told you what my comments refer to. You have called me a liar, and insisted that it is you who will determine what it is that I meant. You are clearly a mind-reader with great skill.
Like I said, it is well known, paradigmatic right-wing jargon that has been widely disseminated.
Now you have me painted as a Conservative? LOL! You really lack any semblance of a clue.
You then fall back on your little boys' club here on TOD for comfort and support.
First of all, joule, one of the first people to correct you, and I do not have a good relationship. So he is hardly a member of a club who would support me (but perhaps you can join his club). He is just someone who saw you severely misinterpret something, jump up on a pedestal, and start preaching against what was a straw man of your own creation. Your arrogance still won't let you entertain the notion that maybe you overreacted, and that the 'little boy's club' are just posters trying to signal to you that you have made a mistake.
you are just as guilty as anyone of the arrogance, dishonesty,...
Don't say something hiding behind an anonymous moniker that you wouldn't say to my face. And if you accuse me of dishonesty again, I will see you banned. Say whatever you want about me, but I am honest to a fault. I can put up with a lot, but false accusations isn't something I take lightly. The other thing is, I don't post much here anymore, so I am certainly not setting the tone for what goes on here. I am not the one who picked a fight, you are.
Face it. You screwed up. You got called on it by several people. One of the editors e-mailed me and said your response was inappropriate and that people like you are ruining Drumbeat. If you want to continue to try to defend your interpretation, then you should do a little self-reflection to figure out what exactly your problem is. I don't think it's really what I said, which is the conclusion several others came to as well.
Keep going. Quote more passages, Sigmund, to show what I really meant. I don't lie down easily, especially when I am completely in the right (note that I didn't say "to the right").
Ah, so now we get down to the crux of it, don't we? Why does this authoritarian response loaded with pious, self-righteous indignation not surprise me?
Can an innocence to national political discourse justify your claim that you were not aware of the connotation that a phrase like "entitlement mentality" carries? I think this argument might carry more weight if you weren't a staffer here on TOD, or if you had not also invoked the image of your "in-law who can't pay their mortgage, and yet they just went and bought a new truck." For here again we see a rhetorical strategy being deployed that comes right out of the right-winger's playbook. Your in-law is a close cousin to the "welfare queens" conjured up by the likes of Ronald Reagan--a mother of six children with another on the way, loading the whole bunch up in a new Cadillac to head down to the grocery store with a purse crammed full of food stamps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen
I'm also taken aback by the thinness of your skin. I have seen other editors of TOD come under withering criticism, much more stident than what I've subjected you to, and they haven't resorted to the crutch of invoking the support of other commenters, nor of threats to "see you banned." They seem to be resigned to the fact that their ideas must stand alone.
I think if you will look back over the comments you will see several commenters who took my side. So even though TOD, as a recent reader survey indicated, is a bastion of white, affluent males--a demographic that tends to be conservative--there nevertheless appears to be some diversity of opinion amongst the commenters. There's not near the ideological purity that you imagine, nor seem to desire.
I've also discerned some diversity of TOD staffers, so it will be interesing to see if you can carry through on your threat to have me banned.
There's a link back up the thread to a post on Sharon Astyk's blog: "Shocking Demographics of The Oil Drum Revealed." If you read the post and the accompanying comments, there are quite a few criticisms leveled against TOD. Some don't like its overly technical nature. Others don't like the rough and tumble of its discussion boards. Personally, I like both these traits, I suppose that's because I'm an engineer, and I'm from Texas, where politics is pretty much a contact sport.
But I think TOD staffers need to give Sharon's post and comments some thoughtful consideration, for TOD at some point must decide what it wants to be. Does it want to become the onanistic domain of a bunch of Rush Limbaugh and Ayn Rand wannabes, sitting around thumping their chests, fantisizing about how wonderful they are and how terrible everyone else is? Or does it want to seek a broader and more diverse audience? And to be honest, I hope it choses the latter. It would be a great disappontment to see it take the Rush Limbaugh route.
Ah, so now we get down to the crux of it, don't we? Why does this authoritarian response loaded with pious, self-righteous indignation not surprise me?
The fact that you would think it is your position that would have me talking about banning is amusing. Get over yourself. You made a false accusation of dishonesty, which can get you banned. I take accusations of dishonesty very seriously, so I warned you. Now you know.
You represent what is wrong with TOD. You make personal attacks with no basis, refuse to give an inch when many people point out that you were out of line, and ultimately accuse me of dishonesty. When banning discussions have taken place, I vote no in almost every case. I am very tolerant. But what I will vote yes for are disruptive, personal attacks that have caused the tone here to take a dive. I think we need to adopt a policy, where after 3 personal attacks (which should be accompanied by 2 warnings) you are banned. We might end up banning 5% of the readership, but it would get rid of 95% of the nastiness.
I've also discerned some diversity of TOD staffers, so it will be interesing to see if you can carry through on your threat to have me banned.
It isn't a threat. I didn't say ban until you accused me of dishonesty. Anyway the discussions have been had. I said "You know, he was entirely out of line, but maybe English isn't his first language and that's the problem." But you are going to see increasingly less tolerance for these kinds of personal attacks. They are ruining the site. (And banning decisions are often unilateral anyway, although I have personally never done that).
You have misread me badly. Very badly. You have been wrong again and again with your accusations, but you are blind to the possibility that you might be wrong. You had me pegged as a conservative Limbaugh fan. Instead, I am the guy who watches The Daily Show every evening and volunteers regularly for Habitat for Humanity (something I don't think I have ever mentioned here before; that might be construed as self-righteous).
I think if you will look back over the comments you will see several commenters who took my side.
So says the hypocrite who complains that I have used "the crutch of invoking the support of other commenters." You are a piece of work. Your mistake is this: You can have a point, but that doesn't mean it is relevant to the point I made. You can randomly say "I think the situation in Darfur is atrocious." People may chime in and say "He has a point", but that doesn't support the insinuation that my post was about Darfur.
I'm also taken aback by the thinness of your skin.
So says the poster hurling insults behind an anonymous moniker. You have shown thin skin, and you are anonymous! Lecture me about thin skin when you put your name on something and have people go off on you with frequent personal attacks. When you do that, and continue to turn the other cheek, let's talk. Until then, spare me.
I have seen other editors of TOD come under withering criticism, much more stident than what I've subjected you to, and they haven't resorted to the crutch of invoking the support of other commenters, nor of threats to "see you banned."
Several editors and other staff have left the site because of this sort of 'withering' criticism. Is that what you had in mind? The rest spend very little time making comments because of the perpetual 'withering' criticism. The personal attacks take their toll. But how would you know? You hide behind an anonymous moniker, with nothing at stake.
Phrases like "entitlement mentality" don't just appear out of nowhere.
By the way, I presume that you saw Obama refer to the "attitude of entitlement" on Wall Street when he was on Leno? Shall we send him your links and explain that it is a loaded statement? Or maybe it's time for you to recognize it wasn't as loaded as you thought?
Perhaps if I had gone off on you the first time you said "blacks" you might have a better view of what I dealt with from you. After all, "blacks" can be a pretty loaded statement as well. I know that some absolutely do not like being referred to as "blacks"; they find it offensive. But instead of becoming indignant at the term and hopping up onto a soapbox, I recognized that you were not trying to be offensive. And it should have become crystal clear to you very early on that the same was the case for me.
RR, thanks for the post on "living within your means". Quite true; my wife and I have always lived on half of what we had - even when "half" was far below the official poverty level. This is still ridiculous opulence by historic standards, and promotes a life without financial angst.
Anyhow, good point.
Yeah Robert. Why are you forever taking up for the captains of industry, especially now that they have wrecked the world economy?
The TOD staff? lol. What do they know about economics?
Please, sir, take reflection on your example. Sister Parks had nothing to do with your "economic law" and you belittle her great injustice, by using it in your hostility towards others.
"On December 1, 1955 they encountered each other again when Blake ordered Rosa Parks and three other African Americans to move from the middle to the back of his Cleveland Avenue bus (number 2857) in order to make room for a European American passenger. By Parks' account, Blake said, "Y'all better make it light on yourselves and let me have those seats." When she refused, Blake contacted the police and signed the warrant for her arrest (Chapter 6, Section II of the city code gave drivers police powers to racially assign seats[3]). This arrest sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott and led to Browder v. Gayle, the 1956 court case on the basis of which the United States Supreme Court abolished segregation in transportation.
Commenting on the event afterwards, Blake stated, "I wasn't trying to do anything to that Parks woman except do my job. She was in violation of the city codes, so what was I supposed to do? That damn bus was full and she wouldn't move back. I had my orders."[4]
Blake continued working at the bus company for another 19 years. He died of a heart attack in his Montgomery home in 2002."
"entitlements--including fixed-benefit retirement plans, health care, employment security--have progressively been put out of reach of rank and file Americans"
Probably true since the back of the bus crowd has increased their entitlements by magnitudes - food stamps, rent subsidies, free medicaid, tax rebates when they pay no taxes, hundreds of state and federal agencies staffed to make sure that stand ready to meet their needs for assistance, couseling, etc., thousands of charities that the rank and file contribute to for their benefit, and on and on.
Sarcanol, right? Or would you like to try that welfare life with the myriad fringe benefits for a week?
DS and RR, that's a lot of fur flying this early in the morning. Have you heard of the ladder of inference? Surely there is a constructive way to marry what each of you is saying to design a way forward - doomed though we may be.
I am hearing RR saying that overspending is bad for our world, and that economizing a la WT may be a benefit to individual families in preparation for WTSHTF. He is also saying something about the joys and obvious advantage of gardening.
I am hearing DS saying that the average overspending American has been blamed entirely too much, and that given the fact that his purchasing power has been trimmed relentlessly by "the rich" as THEY get richer, focusing the solution on economizing by the average person is a cruel joke on them. More on that topic on Jon Stewart vs. Mad Money.
I am wondering, though, as there is a need to economize (if only to avoid the risk of large debt, decrease our consumption of natural resources, etc...) whether a 50% cutback on consumer spending (many of us could do several months of that without starving or losing our home) would effectively crash the system whereby the rich get richer, thus satisfying both RR and DS.
You can be very sure that such a move would have VERY dire economic consequences, and that "the rich" would make sure that it won't be they who suffer those consequences. The move needs to be far more thoughtfully planned and carried out than abruptly arbitrarily putting your neighbours (and likely yourselves) on the unemployment lists. Needs thoughtful and careful government moves to be safely accomplished.
When the divide between rich and poor becomes too great the system needs a crash and reset. That is capitalisim. The inefficient fat cats go and are replaced by hard workers with better ideas. If the gov would stop with the command economy the capitalist economy would recover in time...unlike the Japan scenario which has had lots of gov tinkering and time and has yet to recover.
We have seen just such a cutback on new car purchases, and the consequences for that industry are indeed dire. (Not undeserved, but dire none the less).
Our welfare state is a lot like our education and health-care -- we spend a lot on it to get something that nobody is very happy with.
Except that there are those who are completely happy with the status quo: those who siphon off the spigot -- the managing bureaucracy, the owners and operators of the primary servicing companies, the lobbyists with each such industry, and of course myriad small-time grafters.
A 50% cutback would leave many with money in the bank, which would come in handy after a crash, but lots of people would lose their jobs in the meantime. A better approach would be to spend judiciously only on those aspects of the economy that are beneficial. Skip the Super Bowl and buy a solar system instead.
It sounds like RR is recognizing entropy while DS is trying to repeal it.
I take it from your comments that you think it is the right thing to do, to take on a mortgage you have no hope of repaying, to buy your SUV on credit and then go down to the store to buy all your food on credit cards and default on the payments when your salary cannot pay the interest for all the loans.
Some people actually save to buy the extras, they do not want it all now and pay in 12 months (if at all).
Living within your means does not mean you stop questioning the existing social or economic order. It does mean not buying things with money you don't have.
I don't have a flat screen TV, so I guess I'll have to sit at the back of the bus.
You do realize that no matter what, the financially irresponsible folks (parasites) will be subsidized and supported by the financially responsible folks (hosts).
Seriously, it is a parasite-host relationship.
If I go save $100,000 and put it in the bank, the bank will take that money and loan it out (see fractional reserve banking) and banks then create a cool million out of it in new loans in my neighborhood... Maybe in the form of 5 new home loans worth $200,000 apiece.
So, what happens if things go south in my neighborhood?
What if loan #1 was made by a real estate investor?
#2 by someone with an ARM, which will reset to something they can't afford?
#3 and #4- people who are most likely to lose a job because they are at the bottom of the totem pole in their new job...
#5- by someone who soon after develops a life-threatening illness...
What happens when these people can't pay their loans back?
The bank either goes belly up, during which I can 'lose' my investment (or rather it gets covered by the FDIC), or gets a government bailout. So, I pay (AGAIN!) for my money any way you slice it:
I pay FDIC, through the bank in lower interest rates for loans/srvice fees, etc; OR
I pay higher taxes because of the bailout.
So... The ultimate effect of what happens is that the money I saved is taken by others (the bank), lost by still others (people who cannot make their loan payments) and finally repaid by myself through higher taxes and bank fees.
This is a gambling game where *someone* must pay for the losses, even when the primary players cannot.
The vast majority of organisms ARE parasites. Perhaps you can say that ALL organisms are energy parasites. When you realize that Darwinian fitness (differential reproductive success) is the only currency natural selection trades in, you tend to lose your chauvinistic disdain for parasites because whatever gets your genes into future generations is what the game of life truly is all about. And who can deny the tremendous fecundity and success of most parasites? All you high-minded humans, with your culturally inculcated esteem for some group selectionist fantasy about what's "good for" the species (or the "race"), seem to want to rain on what you consider to be "social parasitism" or "living beyond your means." But why not parasitize the social order for all it's worth? Does our government live within its means? Does our species live within the means of the biosphere? Why should WE be the ones to "set the example" by living within our means, by refraining from social parasitism? Attempts to live within one's means will not just be scorned, they will be exploited. The responsible among us will simply end up playing host, will end up footing the bill.
Plus one billion to you, DD.
I may be way off base here, but how many of the faithful here are actually are doing the things Jeffrey suggests? Have you economized? Have you done anything to localize? How about producing?
I will hopefully get a chance to speak at a Conference on Sustainability this coming Friday or Saturday, and also intend to pose that question there. About 400 or 500 folks will make the Oklahoma Sustainability Network 8th Annual Conference and many are hard-core about their dedication, yet I wonder how many have bothered to actually do the things which can really make a difference. OK, so we all did the CFL thing, except for a few who listened to the Rush Limberger program, but how many have disconnected the clothes dryer, or at least restricted its use? How many folks have actually modified their lives to eat healthier foods, look after their health and get ready for some serious changes?
I ask this question here as a person who has made the changes I can, do live close to my work, and have economized as much as possible, given the occasional disruption by the local SNS (Spousal Nesting Syndrome) reaction, with a tip of the hat to WT's wife.
In asking these questions, I am not pointing the hypocrite finger, but really want to see if other folks feel the personal responsibility to actually do the things we know we need to do. And, I will be interested to hear the answers, both here and this coming weekend.
I think I can say so, but not perfectly.
Last years goal was 3,000 kWh & 60 gallons of diesel. Actual 3,523 kWh and 74.x gallons.
More local food, but not all. (New Orleans cuisine is based on local food and what came in by sailing ships/down river by barges).
LOTS of carbon offsets in different areas (Icelandic forests to local conservation).
Best Hopes,
Alan
Thanks Alan. I don't think about the offsets in my own life, I guess since I have about 80 acres of undeveloped wooded land which I thin occasionally, and when I replenish it, it is with black walnuts. It would be with bur oaks, but I doubt I'd live to see the big acorns.
I wish I had heard more from others on the topic. As I replied below, I don't think folks are getting into action on this. We could make a hell of a difference if we did, and would be setting the example for others. I saw an article in the print edition of the Dallas Morning News a year or so back about a mother who was doing all of the right stuff, and people kept offering her rides, wondering about her hanging laundry, etc. Like all of that was so unusual. It should not be unusual, even in Dallas. GW is riding his bike in Dallas now, probably leading a train of cars filled with secret service guys (and gals).
I have heard many ways that the people here have developed their personal programs for applying this in the real world.
Your question sounds like you are inclined to guess that they are not.. but maybe that's just the distortion of my own ears, hearing so many dark assumptions recently that people have been making about each other.
With all the things I'm trying, it's still usually little steps, and the challenge of changing old habits.. and of doing things that others will watch and think you're strange. I know some say they don't care, but many do, and are very concerned that carrying the 'strange' label will cut us off socially (and Matrimonially!), which might be one of the most insecure situations we can imagine.
It just occurred to me tonight that one reason there might be so much doomerism at this site is from it's fundamental premise. It's based on proving the glass is half empty.
While I think that many here have developed their own personal programs, I would wager that most have not. And, I owuld also venture to say that while many have plans, most of those are waiting to be implemented.
I agree that it is the little things which can make the difference. The air drying of clothes is a good example. I have a small clothes line, and two small indoor drying racks. I also have an (unplugged) clothes dryer. I have not used it in the last three years +. Sometimes it is "inconvenient" to deal with my laundry, but that is true of everyone. If I used the dryer, I would have to sit around an wait for it to get done drying. And, I could go on ad nauseum. But, if we could get everyone's clothes back on the line, we could likely make about as much difference in the need for coal fired power generation as the Picken's Plan. (opinion, no cites)
I do not question the understanding which I think most of the folks on here have, I just don't think the urgency has sunk in even to the participants on this site, or not yet. The intellectual stimulation is a lot more fun than hanging out the laundry. (Incidentally, that clothes dryer is reportedly the second largest use of energy in the average home - only the fridge uses more per EPA.)
I also stopped using my clothes dryer a little over a year ago.
If I ran the clothes dryer my electric consumption was averaging 425 kWh per month. By using the clothes line, I dropped that to less than 250 kWh per month.
But my $ savings was actually greater than that. Here, if your usage exeeds a certain amount, you are charged a penalty rate, including taxes, of $4.2 pesos per kWh. But if my usage falls below the amount that triggers the penalty rate, I pay only about $1.9 pesos per kWh (for instance the last bill was $0.665 for the first 150 kWh, $1.093 for the next 100 kWh, and $2.31 for the next 228 Kwh, plus 23% taxes for the two-month billing period).
So my bill has dropped from about $1800 pesos per month to $450 pesos per month. I was paying close to $100 dollars U.S. just to use the electric clothes dryer.
I would be interested to know how that rate scheme compares to yours.
Well, DS, I can't really say, since I have not used the dryer, which is natural gas for the heat anyway. But, that wouldn't have made much difference $-wise, since I use unmarketable lease gas. The lease where I live does not make enough gas to sell, so I use the gas off of the one which makes the most for house gas. I plan to set up a larger shop than the 25 x 35 one I have right now and heat it with the gas off of the other 4 producing wells on the lease.
The $100 savings seems pretty large, but you are probably in a warmer climate than here in N. Oklahoma. It helps to have extra socks and drawers here, since the weather can reduce the opportunity to dry clothes on the clothes line, hence the two drying racks. They were cheap ones from WalMart at about the time I moved into this house, three + years ago. I have better clothes lines at the new abode, but weather is still weather. We have one other reason to not hang out our laundry on a seasonal basis, however. The ranchers around here who have pastures they can't brushhog burn them, as in the way a third world country would do. Agricultural burning is exempt from regulation in the US, and the OK DEQ won't do anything to monitor the poor air quality, so during the "burning season" it is best to watch what you hang out to dry very carefully. The smoke can get really thick, and it does not wash out / air out easily.
The reason it's large is because of the way the rate system here is structured.
If you're usage is under the amount required to trigger the penalty rate for an "exessive user," you pay according to the following schedule:
If you're usage exceeds the amount to trigger the penalty rate, then you pay according to the following schedule:
Both of these examples are for a 2-month period. Figures are in pesos, and the exchange rate is about 14 pesos per dollar.
Last year I used the clothes dryer about three times. If clothes are not close to dry after about 36 hours (see rainy days, New Orleans humidity) I put them in the clothes dryer to prevent mildew forming.
Quick drying in the clothes dryer since the wash is dryer after being out for a while, even if still damp.
Best Hopes for Solar Clothes Dryers,
Alan
That's how things work in a "pure free market" economy, eg US. In most civilized countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Canada) the people have better control over the politicians and their rule-making.
Your comment is truly outstanding. As soon as I read your comment I recognized it as something wonderful, true and profound. I have often tried to see our society as a more or less biological system (yeast, energy inputs and all that) but without good knowledge of biology I'm often stumped. I can see that you aren't. Thank you.
On a personal note, I am a parasite of sort (my job is far from necessary to society and includes only the manipulation of paper and various talking)...I think even parasites---especially parasites!!---- need the insight that you have imparted today. It is paradoxical and ironic, but somehow I'm sure I'll use this knowledge I've gained from you to further my parasitic career. I don't mean that I don't like my job, but it's better to be absolutely clear about things from the start.
+ 1,000,000,000 to your comment
+1 to someone who understands perfectly well my point.
+1 to both, Seriously I think some folks on this site are freaking nuts RR comments were spot on and not meant to engender some kind of put down. Just a reminder to delay the gratification or better yet find a more constructive way of expressing it.
i.e. My Bloomsdale long standing is freaking awesome this spring. I heading out to cut and water it now! Yes I'm certifiable (nuts) too! Might even hull some pecans later tonight.
All i am going to say on the matter is i could not value my motorbike in the way that i do now if i did not save my money and buy it that way rather then buy it with 'credit'.
Downsouth -
I think you are conflating the terms 'living within one's means' with the term 'knowing one's place'.
In common English usage, the term 'living within one's means' is largely politically neutral and generally conveys that the subject is frugal, sensible, and the opposite of being extravagant.
They we have the term 'knowing one's place', which is highly politically and socially charged: such as in the phrase, "Those blacks wanting to sit in the front of the bus don't know their place.'
I think I understand what you are getting at and largely agree with your inference regarding inequality of resources. In the most literal sense, The CEO of AIG buying a $30 million yacht is 'living within his means', whereas an impoverish ghetto dweller in some Third World hell-hole spending two weeks of his paltry income to buy his son a CD player for his birthday is not living within his means. The problem of course is in the disparity of the 'means'.
But I hardly think that's what Mr. Rapier had in mind, as he was apparently referring to typical Americans getting in over their head financially, a condition that hardly affect just the poor (while visiting family last year I accidently discovered that my retired yuppy-ish older cousin was carry an $11,700 balance on his AMEX card, which was but one of his many credit cards).
Robert can't get a break. He posted a completely innocuous comment and then he got caught up in another, and somewhat odd, debate. I was going to respond about our new Sunday night routine--when we make a stew or bean soup, that usually provides dinner for two or three nights.
Eating the same thing gets a little old, but the per meal cost is great, and I am reminded of a story my father often told. He knew an old rancher, living in some remote corner of West Texas, who lived on beans and corn tortillas three times a day. My father asked him if he ever got tired of beans, and rancher replied that "Yeah, I get tired of beans, but then I get hungry again."
BTW, I recommend the "Laying Down the Tools" article, uptop, at the following link:
http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2009/03/laying-down-tools/
A lot of Oil Patch types here, especially yours truly and Rockman, could have written something like this article, and a lot of my ELP recommendations are based on my 1986 and later Oil Patch experiences. BTW, this might be an idea for a "Campfire" article. Stories by the Oil Patch types about how they survived the Eighties & Nineties.
In any case, a lot of the ELP article can be summarized as:
"Cheap is the new chic"
and
"Cut thy spending and get thee to the non-discretionary side of the economy"
With warmest regards to Mr. Rapier, and Mr.Brown
I survived them by - drumroll please - living within my own damn means. I use to drop off my pumps at the supply store and pick them up when they were rebuilt, take them to the rig to be run in by the crew.
At $10.00 oil I learned to rebuild my own pumps and run my rig with pull lines by myself to lay down and pick up rods and tubing. If I didn't have the money to do this, I saved up till I did. No fun and not very fast, but it got the job done. I knew my place and it was getting the job done so my family had food, shelter, and clothing.
We are all going to get through this in some way. I think a positive attitude will help alot.
gig-em
I was kind of with you until the end of your post. I can't even bring myself to re-enter that part.
In 1985, I had a "field engineer" to, apparently, sit an watch people work. He got the axe, and I sat and watched people work for about 3 days. Then I joined in, usually replacing the lowest paid guy, but whoever did not show up. I learned a lot, and made it through that crunch. In the mid 90's, after having rebuilt my business - had something like 10 leases and 60 wells, I had to sell most when the price collapsed but kept the ones which were local and walked leases to pump them daily, and had a part time helper for the pulling. I sold a lot of the excess equipment I had built up and just pulled in my horns (Go Texas). At that time, I had a mortgage and gutted that out.
Through all of that, something like WT's stew, I developed a distinct liking for beans. I'd cook 90 cents of dried beans and they'd last me for seveeral days. I don't think I ever had them for breakfast, but I did eat a lot of them, sometimes cooked with just seasonings. I got pretty good at that, and they are now known as $ 8.00 beans. As things got better, I added a little onion, eventually some bacon, and finally a little ham - still mostly seassnings, but still just beans. I have gotten a lot of kicks about the $ 125 beans as well - Cook the beans as a side dish for steak, but I still don't eat much steak.
I got that mortgage paid off when I sold that house, and that was the last debt outside of credit cards I had. I carry a balance over one time a year, otherwise pay it all off every month. Oh yeah, bought a house which is paid off and a lot smaller than the one before, despite resistance. Just finished building another, smaller still (1700 ') but very energy efficient with all of the bells and whistles I thought I needed.
Class of '79 (H-2 Spartans in the Corps)
And Robert obtained his MS in that bastion of higher education in the Western Hemisphere, College Station, Texas.
Go Aggies!
One of the premier rotordynamics labs in the USA.
(Although I do have some good Longhorn friends.)
I could agree if it were not for the rhetorical strategy deployed to put a face on the "entitlement mentality." What we were offered as a prototype was a family member who couldn't pay their mortgage, and in spite of this recently went out and bought a new truck.
While the example cited is undoubtedly true, raises the specter of an extremely egregious case, and may apply to many who can't pay their mortgage, it nevertheless begs the question: "Is this depiction typical of the many millions of Americans who have had health problems or have lost their jobs and are struggling, daily doing their best to make their mortgage payments?" Quite the contrary, it struck me as being more in the spirit of a Roger Ailes, Lee Atwater or Carl Rove, using someone like Willie Horton to put a highly distorted and unidemsional face on a problem that is complex and multifaced.
And what about the statement "and I think economizing is something 90% of the population should learn to get better at."
Why 90%? Why should there be 10% that is exempt? And who are these exempt 10% to be?
Why 90%? Why should there be 10% that is exempt? And who are these exempt 10% to be?
Conclusion-jumping yet again? Keep going, I want to see how long you can keep arguing with a phantom.
Why 90%? Because I would guess that 10% of us are already doing it. If that possibility didn't enter your mind, then you and I are seriously on different planets.
Robert;
You are dogged, I'll give you that.. but yeah, cut bait, if you can stand it. Down South is clearly brewin' for a fight. He seems just insistent on MISunderstanding anything you try to say.
Bob
Thanks, Bob. In all honesty, it is good that it happened. Had I felt like there was productive conversation taking place, I would have been tempted to begin again spending time engaging in Drumbeat conversations. Now I remember that 80% of my time here is wasted, so this will save me a lot of time in the long run. But this is, in all seriousness, why you rarely see any of the staff in the Drumbeats. This is also the sort of behavior that has resulted in various people leaving TOD, and it is the reason that I find myself needing to take periodic breaks.
If we stuck to a couple of basic principles, I think we could cut down on most of the noise: 1). Never say something here that you wouldn't say to someone in person; 2). Don't jump to conclusions; if you think you may have misunderstood something, ask for clarification.
Cheers, RR
If I gave up jumping to conclusions I wouldn't get any exercise at all. :)
I know of a guy who couldn't afford to put new tires on his pickup truck, as he was unemployed. So, guess what he did? He sold the pickup truck (good move) and instead of buying a used vehicle and pocketing the difference, he used the majority of the cash as a down payment on a new Hummer H2.
But wait, there's more... A lady sells some land to me, blows the proceeds on miscellaneous crap instead of using it to get some other land back from the bank that she wanted to have. That's brilliant.
Coworker at an old employer was complaining about lack of money, and then a month later, her financial situation hadn't changed, but she buys a new Trailblazer. This was before the gas spikes, and of course after gasoline hits $3.50/gal, she's whining and complaining.
If I sat to think long enough, I'm sure I could give a few dozen examples of people not living within their means, myself included! (I've always managed to pay my bills on time, however, and the mortgage will be paid off in 4 years.)
Saying people should live within their means isn't about keeping the poor in that state... It's a matter of being fiscally responsible. You can't expect to move into a good neighborhood or send your kids to a good school if you squander your money on eating out and driving a Lexus... In this case, it also has nothing to do with race. There are plenty of poor white folk, and it doesn't mean that they're urban either..
DS you must live in a happy world where egregiously poor money management behavior by the relatives does not occur. Unfortunately my own family has an example that is very similar to RR's.
"Living within your means" is not in any way a suggestion that people should "know their place" and thus stay there. If I believed that were the case I would not have risen as far as I did in my professional life. And I lived within my means while I moved on to that new place.
Oh, puhleeze.
<rant> The very last thing to do is to question the existing order; the answers may prove even less politically-correct than that order itself. However much you may enjoy dumping on your "masters of the universe", they do seem indispensable. After all, let J&J6P know they have a few spare hours coming up, and in the blink of an eye they'll be digging up some of the grocery money, plus every penny they can extricate from the couch once they have heaved their own vast bulk out of it, with the intent of squandering it all on an interminable barrage of commercials punctuated by occasional fleeting episodes of ultra-rich folks playing some moronic game or other at some monstrously expensive taxpayer-funded 'sports' palace.
IOW: J&J, utterly bereft of the smarts to do otherwise, willingly outsource the living of their essentially nonexistent humdrum lives to ultra-rich folks - the richer the better if only as a matter of vicarious status-display. In turn, the 'system', such as it is, obliges them unstintingly and with great show. Amidst this fine merriment, ivory-tower philosophers enjoy themselves bleating about the iniquity and inequity of it all. So each participant comes away smiling and happy. Except for the taxpayer subsidy, what's not to like? Where, oh where, is the "injustice"?
Look, as long as no one flinches at paying an A-Roid a cool taxpayer-subsidized quarter billion part-time pay to stand around (and make his fair share of mistakes) in an incredibly dull stupid game, what point can there possibly be in getting our undies in a bundle over obscenely lavish full-time pay for people who actually run things (even if, yes, they too make their fair share of mistakes, such as failing utterly to understand correlation)? </rant>
So your solution is "we shoud just shoot ourselves"?
No, silly, shoot the other guy. Just like in war...
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." - General George Patton Jr
When war happens, if you happen to have a gun in your hand it's just as likely that you become a target as the killer. Modern warfare, as in, post U.S. War Between the States, tends toward large casualties on all sides. WW I and WW II were examples in which the side which could lose the most people and resources ended up the winners in wars of attrition. The next World War, if such does occur, could see many more millions of deaths. The old notions of courage and chivalry from past heroic excursions no longer apply. That there are still people who think in such terms in places of political control practically guarantees a repeat of the madness of kill-or-be-killed called WAR.
E. Swanson
Sorry, I was drunk on sarconal... Hic... :)
Spoken like a true sychophant.
Can we please ease up on the anger today. All of us are angry, no need to unload on ourselves.
Please chill out. Think how these attacks reflect upon yourself.
No anger on my part-just an observation. is this your audition for a position at Homeland Security?
I didn't actually aim that comment at you, but it must appear that way. However if the shoe fits..
I find it passing strange since I am the one normally being told to chill out. I also find the reference to Homeland Security most amusing. Judging by my reception at airport and nautical customs and Immi. officials, I am " a person of interest ". Perhaps all those interrogations were merely job interviews. I must give that some thought.
I do feel I am not alone in suggesting courtesy might be in short supply of late.
Angels fly because they take themselves lightly.
I was wondering why you thought I was angry-bummer about the customs treatment. Some guy was crossing into the States from Canada the other day and made the mistake of asking the USA customs agent to say "Please" before asking him to turn off the car engine-they grabbed him, cuffed him and held him for a few hours. You cannot dis those guys.
There are many reasons that customs will stop you. Frequent overseas travelers will often be targeted.
In any case, since you're up late, I will leave you with the last word.
Brian,
Namecalling is not an 'observation'. Resist the urge, really.
Maybe I'm missing something?
What exactly is cavalier about suggesting that we should all be living within our means?
I most definitely do not interpret this as being told to go sit at the back of the bus, as in being discriminated against and not being allowed to question the existing current economic order.
Quite the contrary if I do live within my means it gives me that much more leverage to argue that everyone else should as well. Especially if their not living within their means is a detriment to society, civilization and the entire resource base, due to the fact that they are damaging the commons and using more than their fair share.
This, in my opinion, empowers me to go sit in the front of the economic bus.
The closer to the front of the bus you sit, the closer to the crash you will be.
And, who do you think is driving the bus anyway?
You raise some excellent points. So let's take the issue of "means" and ask how that specfically relates to energy usage, from a national perspective, in an era of increasingly scarce global energy supplies.
I think there is little doubt that the United States, as a society, lives beyond its "means." It has run a trade deficit and a current account deficit for many years and most people recognize that this is not sustainable. It also runs an energy deficit, using much more energy than it produces, which is also unsustainable.
So what to do?
I suppose one solution is to use military force to go take energy away from somebody who has it, like Iraq.
To date, however, that solution doesn't seem to have worked out so well, so we have to start looking for ways to cut energy usage within the Cartesian confines of our nation. But that gets us into this sticky argument of who, within American society, is to be required to cut back. And this is where I found Robert's comment lacking.
Robert speaks of "means," by which I assume he refers to "money," as being the mechanism by which this allocation is to be acheived.
But is this the most workable mechanism? And by workable I wish to signal effectiveness in gaining moral acceptance--a policy that the most people will readily rally behind, feel good about and voluntarily support.
Advocates of the free market would of course argue that it is. I, on the other hand, have many doubts. I'd just like to throw out a couple of alternatives to free markets that have been used to curtail energy usage in the past or in other countries.
During World War II a system of gasoline rationing was instituted due to gasoline shortages. Eveybody, rich or poor, had to make do on the same allotment. The sacrifice was shared, and one's "means," unless he wanted to resort to the black market, didn't exempt one from the sacrfice.
Mexico uses an electricity pricing formula that, though less extreme than rationing, nevertheless takes market metholology and turns it on its head. The market would dictate that electricity be priced according to the cost to produce and deliver it--implying the more one uses the cheaper per KWh it is. But in Mexico it's just the opposite. One receives a "lifeline" allotment at a very low rate. There's an intermediate rate. And if you go over that, well, let's just say you'll wish that you didn't unless you've got money to burn.
These are just a couple of examples. But my point is that, in an era when curtailments in energy usage appear inevitable, I think issues of morality, fairness and justice will become more important, not less so. Free market formulations that ignore moral considerations will find themselves wanting, and if someone advocates energy conservation out of one side of their mouth and free markets out the other, they're going to find themselves compromised and ineffective.
Have we turned the clock back to an era when some will be allowed to freeze to death in the dark while others luxuriate in opulence?
Should people of "means" be exempted from doing their fair share to conserve energy?
My electricity bill is similar.
The first 200 kwh are cheap and flat rate. It works out to be about the cost of 4 coffees. The next Kwh are expensive. My household uses about 230 - 300 Kwh a month and the 30 - 70 Kwh over the minimum costs us more than the first 200.
There are months that I find myself being a crazy lady ranting about the cell phone chargers and how you can keep the bathroom light off if you leave the door a crack open. The thing is that the bill comes with a little bar chart that illustrates your monthly electricity use. They point out your "best month" in the last few months and how much money you would have saved if you had limited your self to that level of usage.
There is a paragraph on the back page of the bill explaining how reducing electricity use prevents blackouts and allows expansion of services to more neighborhoods. That part motivates me much less, although I think it is a much better reason to save electricity than mere penny pinching.
"...lived on less than half of my paycheck..."
But, I don't know what your paycheck is. If you make $10,000,000/year and you scrimp and save and manage to live on only $5,000,000 a year, then you are quite likely consuming far more resources than your family member who (for shame!) bought a truck while not being able to afford their mortgage. And, if your paycheck happens to be $0, then you should politely die and not have such an "entitlement mentality".
I think that's basically what DownSouth was taking issue with and getting at. I don't think it was that hard to understand, nor would it have been hard to respond to with respect.
But, I don't know what your paycheck is.
You miss the point. It has never mattered. My check has varied from working poor to doing pretty well (per my standards, which aren't investment banker standards.) I have never lived outside of my means. When I have taken out a mortgage, it was always for a fraction of the money that the bank was willing to lend me. If my 'means' happen to be low, then I do without things. And I say that as someone who has done without things. As a result, I believe I am much more equipped to deal with the challenges ahead, instead of those who continue to try to keep the debt-fueled culture going. These are people who need to learn that just because I might think I deserve to drive a Mercedes, doesn't mean I should.
...you are quite likely consuming far more resources than your family member who (for shame!) bought a truck while not being able to afford their mortgage.
You have to love the conclusion-jumping that seems to be all the rage. So, at the risk of starting a family feud for your benefit, let me fill in some gaps, just so you understand that I don't go off half-cocked. The family member I speak of owes this mortgage to another family member who is retired and is barely making ends meet. This family member has steadfastly refused to work all of their adult lives, despite being able-bodied. Meanwhile, they stopped paying their mortgage, and borrowed money to buy a (3rd) truck, (new instead of the 20-year old clunkers I always had to drive) for their son who has yet to reach legal driving age. You see, that family has an entitlement mentality where the world owes them something. They are a part of the 'keep up with the Jones' crowd' that has helped us over-consume our resources.
And, if your paycheck happens to be $0, then you should politely die and not have such an "entitlement mentality".
Given that this was in the 4th response - in which I had already explained multiple times that there was obviously a misunderstanding, I don't think this was the issue. Besides, it isn't remotely what I wrote. It is a conclusion that you have affixed to it.
I think that's basically what DownSouth was taking issue with and getting at.
I never misunderstood what he was getting it. It was just a straw man that had nothing to do with what I wrote.
We have each and every one of us lived outside our means. We have lived far beyond annual solar output processed by the cloroplast, by exploiting the sequestered organic detritus of the lithosphere. If we had not lived outside our means human population would not exceed the carrying capacity of the biosphere by a full order and a half of magnitude. This "greener than thou" or "more responsible than THOSE people" self-vindication is ridiculous. We're ALL culpable.
We have each and every one of us lived outside our means.
If you want to pick nits, I think some tribes in the Amazon would disagree. But I am not one for taking a sentence out of context and running with it.
So the issues I mention are but nits to be picked? I would contend that they cut to the essence of what TOD is all about: the over-exploitation of fossil fuels by Homo sapiens - each & every one of us - and the attendant environmental consequences of said over-exploitation. What IS the context, if not this?
So the issues I mention are but nits to be picked?
In the context of the point I was making, absolutely. We can go off on all sorts of tangents - that while important in context - become nits out of context. You picked a nit, and I turned around and picked one back. We were both technically accurate, but the picked nit was tangential to the immediate discussion. I assumed you would see the irony, but then my expectations around here seem to always be too high.
I know what you mean. I keep expecting people to seek the wider context, to see the bigger picture, to take the longer view. Seems like narrow fixation on whatever nit de jour has presented itself to be picked precludes such broader thinking by many of TOD regs.
We just reject absolutism without concern for systems and interactions and "details'. As you practice.
Alan
In other circumstances, I would have engaged you in a discussion about the creation of an ecosystem in a man made desert (where I have some, but quite minimal, impact on decisions regarding species introduction). But you fail to see any interactions or details in your tirades, so despite your "book knowledge" I have decided that you have nothing to contribute.
And here I thot that the creation of ecosystems was the task of natural selection, accomplished over evolutionary time scales. Go back to your God-like policy proclivities Alan. You lack even "book knowledge" of ecology.
a man made desert...natural selection, accomplished over evolutionary time scales.
And what do you mean, in years, is an evolutionary time scales.
The evolution of MSRA? That's under 100 years.
The evolution of the desert in Australia? http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/29201/story.htm Man made desert
http://www.wildflowers-and-weeds.com/sahara.htm
But hey - when one uses vague terms like "evolutionary time scale" - one can make any claim they like. VS pointing out that deserts like the Sahara is 6000 or less years "old".
Number of generations is the appropriate metric of evolutionary time, not years.
I can wreck an automobile in a much shorter period of time than it took to build it.
Similarly, humans can demolish ecosystems in much shorter time periods than selection took to establish them.
If you're going to post to me specifically, Eric, please do so intelligently. You're beginning to almost take on the aspect of a stalker.
Number of generations is the appropriate metric of evolutionary time, not years.
Generations of WHAT? and how many generations of the thing to measure?
I can wreck an automobile in a much shorter period of time than it took to build it.
And that has what to do with the topic of the thread? (be it deserts/removing deserts, gardens or living outside ones means)
Similarly, humans can demolish ecosystems in much shorter time periods than selection took to establish them.
The parent(s) of this thread are gardening, living outside your means, then deserts/de desertification that leads to evolutionary timeframes.
So if I understand your gripe with Alan - humans attempting to reclaim the deserts is bad, because of 'evolutionary time' to establish the deserts?
(yet human actions created the deserts, but human action to reverse the desertification of the past is bad?)
If you're going to post to me specifically, Eric, please do so intelligently.
So asking you to produce data to back up your claim about birds and bat deaths WRT wind turbines, you find is not "intelligent"?
You're beginning to almost take on the aspect of a stalker.
Very simple - you can produce data to back up your claims and I won't ask you for that data that you used to form your opinion.
Not in special, almost unique, circumstances.
Nature had a near monoculture, and man had destroyed that, leaving a desert. However, a variety of species can live there and a multi-century long effort is being made to create a viable diverse ecology, one step at a time.
Alan
I keep expecting people to seek the wider context, to see the bigger picture, to take the longer view.
It shouldn't take a genius to understand that someone can see, understand, and even seek to enlighten on the big picture, and yet not feel the need to make every conversation about the big picture. Somehow, I bet you manage to live your daily life without insisting that all conversations incorporate the big picture.
"You have to love the conclusion-jumping that seems to be all the rage."
Note the "if" in my post. Note that it creates a clearly untrue hypothetical in the hopes that you would thus be engaged in a discussion that goes beyond your personal life.
Robert - first off, read your blog regularly and really appreciate your data driven nature.
I think the issue of "living within your means" is kind of misunderstood. As a society/civilization/world economy, we cannot but live within our means.
On an individual level, it is a laudable goal, but then, where does this "surplus" get saved into? It goes into corporations or government at debt or equity, who are then living "beyond" their means.
It cannot help but be so.
For example; Japan had an extremely high savings rate on a personal level. Yet, it got misallocated to the corporate sector who lived beyond their means, especially in the late 80s.
In the US, the only difference is WHO is living beyond their means; in the US, it happens to be individuals.
I do not think that economic growth would be slower in a capital acquisition development model (instead of a consumer driven model) of economics. Japan, Taiwan, Korea (until about 1987), Germany, China in the past 20 years, arguably Victorian England, all had extremely high savings rates tied with extremely fast economic growth.
It is only post Keynesian economics that puts extraordinary emphasis on consumption and making the promotion of individual consumption government policy.
I think some japanese and europeans have found one good coping mechanism for the future:
School budgets in my area are being decimated. I hope educators at all levels (including Ivory Towers) consider this approach of work sharing (as opposed to strikes).
I wonder if this would be supported by politicians that want us to spend our way out of the depression?
I was under the impression that worksharing in Europe was not a question of 'slashing pay', instead it was a fairly common way to allow two or more people to undertake a single role within an organisation. Typically popular in administrative roles, work sharing allows (often) women who have child-care duties to factor in a reduced hour working week around school hours. Maybe it is now becoming a euphemism for a different set of requirements?
In the UK at least, there is a large divide in practice between full time and part time employees. Most part timers are not 'work sharing' with another employee, they are simply working the hours they can get, or can fit in around their other life commitments.
In practice, part timers have lower hourly pay rates, lower job benefits, and are the first out of the door when the company is short of cash.
Gossip and rumors from Hitachi, electronics and industrial vehicles maker.
My friend's husband is full-time there, a lifetime employee. They have totally implemented job-sharing now as markets for their products tank.
Here is what she told me last week, chillingly: "He's home a lot now as they're doing job sharing and every month it gets worse. Every month he works fewer days. Next month he'll work 5 days maybe."
Every month it gets worse. Every month there is less work to do.
Pretty typical pi, Walmart uses this method. Only they make it standard practice. The idea is, you convert the full timers, to part time, then when you lay them off, AKA no work, then the company has no liability for unemployment benefits. And once they've switched you to part time you no longer can collect unemployment benefits.
Walmart hires just mostly part timers, very few full time workers for just this reason.
Nice people.
Don in Maine
Wal-Mart is a Virus. It is not out there to help you, but to grow. At times you are helped, but that just sucks you into the Virus's mode of gaining more.
Have you seen where they are expanding into so many other countries? Buying out this or that store chain and just expanding again and again?
Such things happening can bode ill toward the future, and might have even happened in this last election. Big Money, Got Big Money's man into the White House. I know people said that about Bush, and it might have been true. But the money spent in this election was the most ever spent.
When will "Max Headroom, 20 minutes in the future" come to pass where Corprations Elected the next president, not the people.
Charles.
"And once they've switched you to part time you no longer can collect unemployment benefits."
that may be the case in some states, but as far as i know the only requirement for drawing unemployement is that you earn the minimum "credits" ($ earnings in the base period) to qualify. the weekly benifit amount is based on earnings in the base period.
There are a few problems in economizing by localizing. North Iowa farmers have been economizing on transportation costs by sending their corn to local ethanol plants and hog/chicken factories.
The rapid expansion of ethanol has drawn the ire of many critics who want it stopped or slowed. And the rapid increase of hog/chicken factories has put many small farmers out of business or under stress.
And the many animal factories make a lot of manure that has to be disposed of locally.
The resulting increase in local consumption of corn has helped increase corn prices which has lately put stress on dairy farmers. While we don't have many dairy farmers in Iowa anymore, my brother is one of them. The increased corn prices drive up land prices. Usually it is the smaller hard pressed or older farmers that sell often to the richer farmers who already have a lot of land. This drives people off the land and out of the local economy to some extent.
The small towns continue to shrink for lack of employment opportunities since for the most part ethanol plants and hog/chicken factories can't employ all the available work force. Locally Winnebago Industries is practically shut down but still alive even as its main competitor Fleetwood files for bankruptcy. And the local used goods stores where I shop have become very bare as donations have declined and more people shop there.
The problem that that I see in economizing by localizing is that it can be too successful. There is not an adequate local market to absorb all that is produced. Before when energy was wasted shipping corn half way around the world at least it got it out of the country and it became someone else's problem.
When it is produced/used locally, the demand is not there to support the production. So local supply must find new demand or replace demand formerly filled by someone else such and oil companies in the case of ethanol. Soon some big toes get stepped on and the moaning and groaning starts.
But X;
It sounds like the Local business you are pointing to illustrate one of the very NON-Local dependencies that has become Iowa's achilles' heel. I don't begrudge your state having it's export goods, but to make a "localised" setup work, you need to have a broad diversity of locally needed supplies. Winnebagos, Hogs and Corn are a pretty thin start... As you indicated, you seem to need more dairies, and as we were looking at the other day, these out-of-proportion feedlots are an unsupportable system.. just because they're nearby, doesn't mean they really are part of a 'Local Economy', when the noted inputs and outputs can't be balanced out by a long shot.
Apart from which is the question of who OWNS these industrial setups. Building up a localized economy depends on a substantial amount of local ownership, not just production and consumption.
Out of curiosity, how much of the other food-produce that Iowa families buy is from In-state growers? Maybe Winnebago can start coming up with a line of farming gear. A Recreational Vegetable!
Bob
ELM. ELP. We need an acronym page for TOD.
http://www.theoildrum.com/special/acronyms
Now, can someone add ELM and ELP to that list? :-)
Export Land Model
Economize, Localize, Produce.
Also please add:
AME: Anthropogenic Mass Extinction
Thanks.
How about "NPK"?
Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126981.900-jellyfish-sushi-seafo...
For anyone that’s ever gotten involved in habitat restoration you begin to understand the scope of the problem. Ecosystems are complex and restoring them in nigh on impossible once they’ve degraded beyond a certain point. The only thing you can do is give an area enough space and enough time and maybe it might come back in some stunted fashion.
The Oceans on the other hand are vast and the ecosystems so complex that they are impossible to model. But one thing is consistent with terrestrial systems. When you denude a significant area through pollution, overharvesting or habitat destruction, primary relationships between “k” type species are replaced with invasive “r” type species. (Weeds, crows and rodents).
Next time you hear someone claim “…there’s plenty of fish in the sea!” be sure and correct them.
Joe
"be sure and correct them."
What us Dirty Fuckin' Hippies have been doin'
since at least 1978.
We thought then that if we just found the answers to all those
"sticky" questions, we'd move onwards and upwards.
Like the Land Institute in Kansas and the "Master" in
Japan (One Straw Revolution, can't remember his name)
the answers were there.
Ridicule, contempt and threats were all we received.
And when finally applied were horribly twisted-
See Monsanto Glyphosate and No till combined with GM
for details.
Now the N Atlantic THC alters and everyone can just hang on
cause the roller coaster ride has just started.
With the TALF trying to get banks lending again and other various gov’t steps, the gov’t is trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together again, the Humpty Dumpty that borrowed too much, spent too much and didn’t save enough. On the ‘Stress Test’ that Ben talked about, WFC chairman called the plan “asinine.” Banks led Asian and European stocks higher."-The Big Picture-Ritholtz
"Pakistan reinstates judges." (defying US/UK).
"It took until the awful winter of 1932-'33 for the general depression to fully infect the banking system, and cause over 7,000 banks to fail. But Roosevelt's cure - deposit insurance and a temporary bank holiday to sort out good banks from bad - quickly got the financial system up and running again. Today, the banking mess is still dragging down the real economy, with no effective cure in sight."-Boston Globe
And I knew this was about oil and the Spratleys':
"
The Yuzheng 311, a converted naval rescue vessel, is the largest and most modern patrol ship in the Chinese Navy, the Beijing News said. It was due to arrive in the Paracel Islands yesterday to patrol China’s exclusive economic zone and to "strengthen fishery administration" in the South China Sea. It will patrol the waters around the Paracels and the Spratly Islands, protecting Chinese fishing boats and transport vessels.
The remote reefs and atolls that comprise the Spratly islands are claimed by China, Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, Brunei and Taiwan. The islands lie on major shipping routes for oil tankers travelling between the Middle East and Japan, South Korea and China. They may also be above undersea oil reserves.
Beijing was enraged by a law passed last week by the Philippines laying claim to the disputed islands, describing the action as illegal. "
Masanobu Fukuoka
Also invented seedballs, which I sometimes use for gardening and sometimes use for reclaiming drill pads in very arid areas.
If you liked The One Straw Revolution, you should read The Power of Duck.
Thank you.
That book literally changed my life.
Try to imagine the Arkansas Rice Industry adopting
that method, and you'll understand.
"That book literally changed my life."
And hopefully many others to come.
From the Wiki entry:
His later book, and I assume more comprehensive/advanced is The Natural Way of Farming. It can be obtained (I do not vouch for the legalities) at
http://www.soilandhealth.org/01aglibrary/01principles.html
From the intro:
Cheers
Thank you. I had forgotten the love
that he expresses for land.
James
Thank you. I had forgotten the love
that he expresses for land.
In June and July I leave the field unirrigated, and in August I run water through the drainage ditches once every week or ten days.
By the way, Fukuoka's other books including The Natural Way of Farming are now available from Amazon.com. The Natural Way of Farming is much more detailed and specific about his natural farming methods.
Just a couple years ago, the only English language versions came from a publisher in India. I had to special order it.
Wow, the author says that the World's people may have to turn largely to eating squid and jellyfish after the fish we know and love are decimated. Then, at the end of the article, he plays with the idea of eating plankton. Soylent Green was purported to be made of plankton...oh well, after we decimate that, we can go cannibal. Funny how the high-tech techno closed-loop cannibalism/recycling approach was also mooted in Logan's Run. Cut to scene showing scorched Statue of Liberty half-buried in the beach. There's too many people, Marty.
No, it was Soylent Red and Yellow that was made of plankton. "Soylent Green is people!" They started making Soylent Green when research indicated that the oceans were dying.
These stories always center on how humans will be affected by the mass extinction -- rarely do they consider how we're also causing charismatic megafauna to starve to death. Apparently, it's just too painful to discuss how we'll be seeing the last dolphins and whales washing up dead within the next 30 years.
To quote you from a few days ago:
Yes, that lecture changed my internal visualizaton of the Pefect Storm from a Katrina-sized to an off-the-charts, entire Gulf of Mexico-obscuring mega-monster. Cat 10?
If you're not a doomer of some stripe, you just haven't looked down yet.
Cheers
Ike pretty much did fill the entire Gulf, from the Mexican coast to the coast of Florida. It's internal kinetic energy (IKE, ironically) was some 40% greater than Katrina's, if memory serves. As sea levels rise and the density of warmed water decreases, storm surges will increase accordingly. I don't know about a cat 10 but cat 6 is coming. It's foolish for the taxpayers to subsidize the ill-considered decision of anyone to live near the coast in hurricane prone regions. Let those who make such a decision bear all of the attendant risk.
It was metaphorical, as per my blog title, "A Perfect Storm Cometh," not about actual hurricanes.
Cheers
If only. We're taking down the lissamphibia which have been around since the Devonian. Turtles, which evolved in the early Triassic, are probably doomed as well. Advocates of wind energy want to take out the Ornithurae, which dates back to the Jurassic. If only AME was limited to Cenozoic taxa.
-- No wonder no-one listened to Cassandra. Take a deep breath, man.
Advocates of wind energy want to take out the Ornithurae
And, once again, I ask darwinsdog http://www.theoildrum.com/user/darwinsdog to prove this with actual links and studies.
Barrett - Serious ecologists are no longer even talking about saving "charismatic" species. The practice is now triage ecology where you allow certain species to fade with dignity and instead focus attention on saving habitats in order to preserve the greatest number of viable species. The loss of whales and polar bears might be tragic but the loss of the small creatures that clean the air and water for free would be an unimaginable tragedy.
One of the most important but most often overlooked aspect to preserving biodiversity is that core habitat areas have to be large enough to be productive. Small areas might be fine for a neighborhood recreation park but it doesn't work for preserving healthy habitats. All you end up with is bottleneck events and additional extinctions.
I for one believe that humans might adjust to Peak Oil and even climate change but the collapse of biodiversity will be our undoing.
E.O. Wilson's simple equation paints a grim picture:
Joe
Another approach is creating a new habitat in a man made desert.'
Forestry in a Treeless Land
www.pelletime.fi/publications/material/Forestry_in_treeless_land_2009.pdf
I have had a number of long discussions with the author, and the choices that need to be made in creating biota. Viable forests can, and are slowly, being created from blowing sand/ash deserts.
Best hopes,
Alan
I'm confused. What is it that you think is going to lead to the collapse of biodiversity if not AGW and PO, which are interwoven with population.... etc?
Cheers
Anthropogenic mass extinction began far earlier than the exploitation of reduced carbon by humans and the consequent poisoning of the atmosphere & surface ocean with their oxidized wastes. The ongoing collapse of biodiversity is largely due to habitat fragmentation & outright loss. AGW & PO are only serving the coup de grace to an already gravely wounded biosphere. Humans are like a rampaging adolescent ape who trashes the home of the doting childless couple who adopted it as an infant.
I recently went to a talk about Climate Change impacts in Australia, and one interesting point was that corals in the Great Barrier Reef would probably all be bleached in a few years.
However, if you remove all the crap that is put in the water (mostly agricultural runoffs), most of the corals are able to cope with a few degrees of higher temperature.
On its own, global warming wouldn't affect biodiversity much, expect in marginal areas (isolated mountains where species can't move any higher, islands sinking...), climate has never been really stable, most species just change their ranges.
Sadly, global warming is only one of the problems, habitat destruction and fragmentation, over-hunting, pollution, invasive species, are much more destructive (especially in the short term).
I posted a link up top that talks, among other things, about electricity transmission costs:
In the US, the average sales price for electricity in the US is 9.73 cents per kilowatt hour (12 months ended 11/30/08), according to the EIA. This average includes electricity from all types of generation.
If transmission costs for wind reached 8 cents per kilowatt hour in Texas, that means that transmission costs alone bring the cost of wind electricity almost up to the national average. If these cost are equal to one-third of the wind energy price, this means that wind energy total cost is something like 24 cents per kilowatt hours. A bit high relative to the US average. I suppose that is before subsidies.
The quote also says transmission costs is 3.65 cents for fossil-fuel-based electricity. This would explain how the cost of electricity which is mostly fossil fuel based can average 9.73 cents per kilowatt hour.
It seems like if we were to go to wind generated electricity, we would more than double our cost of electricity. (9.73 cents to 24 cents per kilowatt hour)
What am I reading wrong?
I read it as saying that 1/3 of 8 cents (about 2.7 cents) is the cost of transmission.
But I could be wrong.
I don't think that that makes sense in context. The article is talking about why customers who signed up for wind transmission are paying more than fossil fuel customers, and one of the big differences being the cost of transmission, because of problems with transmission congestion.
I suppose it could mean that if electrical transmission were greatly improved, or if electrical storage were added, the transmission congestion would go away. But then there would be a different cost that would take its place, still leaving the wind transmission (or wind total costs) high. Electricity costs in Texas have tended to be high recently, because they use a lot of natural gas. Natural gas costs were high last year, but are quite low now.
The question in my mind is not 'is wind too expensive at [twice] the cost of FF electricity?' , but the question of likely future rates of both. Will the actual cost of producing windpower grow the way coal, NG or other electrical production stands to grow in a resource pinch?
As with almost every question I come across in this arena, from Electric Rail to Solar PV.. I end up concluding 'Apparently we can't afford to do it.. but can we afford not to?' .. and that's not meant to be just an implied answer, but truly a question. Which of these offer us a backup that will be reliable and not carry unmanagable downsides as they and we dive further down the slope? This is why the complexity of Nuclear power, before, during and after the fuel is consumed has me believe there will be too many potential bottlenecks in it.. while wind can be both simple and small, and much larger and only somewhat complex.
The serious development of balancing a grid with windpower on it is still a very young science, and there will be expensive SNAFUs and various experimentations with storage.. I don't think that we should forget that the economical viability of it is still being looked at with eyes that have been steeped in cheap energy for a century. What's the spread for likely electric rates in a decade?
I caught myself thinking that if during "good times" we'd built out wind, then during "bad times" we could have almost free energy -- investing in wind is a heavy one-time investment, but recurring costs are low, and during the worst of times some maintenance could probably be deferred at the expense of output. Of course good and bad times are relative, and even if now we're in a "bad" period, it still makes sense to build a lot of wind if things will be worse later.
Even without power storage and backstop energy, some electricity is better than none, and a 30% capacity factor for wind would generally be enough to keep freezers frozen and manufacturing going at some level (inefficiently, to be sure!).
What is the lifetime of a wind turbine? Surely the base and pole (along with other one-time costs for power wires and access roads and leasing) would last almost indefinitely? Replacing wear components in the gear box, rebuilding generator windings, and refurbishing blades would seem to be a reasonable cost to bear. The fixed cost number in the table I showed, 7.5c per kwh, is a massive amount of money for a 250mw farm -- $50M per year of continuing costs (to put this in context only about $500K of that would go to leasing rights). A maintenance staff of 50 @ $100K per year would be only $10M or so with some benefits. That would still leave the bulk of the money for repair parts -- and replacing 3 per year would keep a field of 100 30-year turbines going in perpetuity at a fraction of that cost.
Seems pretty reasonable to me....intermittency seems to be the biggest stumbling block, really.
Seems pretty reasonable to me....intermittency seems to be the biggest stumbling block, really.
I'd say the issue that Man is USED to power on demand, as much as can be paid for, is the stumbling block.
What is the lifetime of a wind turbine? Surely the base and pole (along with other one-time costs for power wires and access roads and leasing) would last almost indefinitely?
Not at all. Concrete fails over time. Now the steel of a tower *SHOULD* not see metal fatigue failure, but over a long period of time...rust never sleeps.
To get concrete that does not fail over time is hard work. Even Ma Nature's rocks don't last 'forever' - freeze/thaw and microbes as 2 attackers.
We should all watch the episode of "Dirty Jobs" for "Wind Farm Technician"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1225997/
Apparently, if you don't send a guy up into each turbine, regularly, to mop up the bugs and re-grease everything, the whole thing seizes up and needs to be rebuilt.
They also found a snake inside the turbine, hundreds of feet above the ground.
My time at a European turbine supplier the gantt chart on the wall looked like every 18 months a major overhaul was being done. And the local electrical power plant, the steam engine gets a 2 year rebuild.
Small wind like Bergey have annual inspection and every few years its bearing replacement time. Not at all shocking.
I agree that the issue is that man is accustomed to power on demand, instead of using power when it is available... For some odd reason, given that most of my power is solar based, and supplemented by wind, I do most of my internet surfing during the day! (Don't want to drain the batteries too much.)
Dispactable hydropower is the ideal offset to wind. It responds in seconds in an emergency and in a few minutes (10 or so) in normal operations (depends on length of head race, etc,)
The Pacific NW can accept a LOT of wind with existing hydropower. (New Zealand says they can operate at 50% hydro (existing), 40% wind and 10% geothermal).
Geothermal is now configured for base load (operate wells and equipment at 100% load factor). However, take a geothermal resource that can support, say, 100 MW @ 100% load factor, install 200 MW of wells and generation and operate at 40% load factor. Ramp up tends to be slow (inertia of steam underground) and varies with location, but it can help balance a geographically diverse wind and daily load following.
In USA, geothermal is 99+% west of Mississippi River.
Pumped storage is the "other hydro" and a near perfect match with wind.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Dams kill rivers and wind turbines kill birds and bats. Neither are viable or desirable alternatives for fossil fuels. Responsible people will do all in their power to discourage the buildout of hydro- and wind infrastructure. Ecosystem integrity and biodiversity are vastly more important than electric trains & can-openers.
Dams are already built. Done deal.
Why would turbines impact birds/bats anywhere but their locale? Surely farming has already vastly modified their ecosystem? Perhaps some selective sorting will favor birds and bats that fly less than 100' from the ground?
That's an ancient red herring regarding birds. Adds nothing to the conversation. Regardig Bats, according to this article http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/08/25/wind-turbine-bats.html the studying remains to be done, but at now there's NO indication that any level of wind power development we're likely to get to might threaten entire populations of bats with species extinction, as you claim. Do you refuse to travel in aircraft because some of them occasionally kill geese? Do you refuse to work in glass office towers or live in highrise apartment buildings because they kill many migratory songbirds? Do you propose reverting to cave dwelling?
BTW, I am a strong critic of wind generation myself, but strictly on rational grounds.
I haven't ridden in an aircraft in years and have no intention of doing so ever again in my life. I work on a farm and live in a single story house. So what's your point?
Regarding avian & chiropteran mortality due to wind turbines: There's no question but what the rotating blades kill birds and bats. Most studies have been commissioned by proponents of wind energy and as such have a bias towards minimizing mortality reports, yet none have claimed NO shredded birds/bats beneath the towers. Advocates & apologists for the wind energy industry invariably claim that such mortality is miniscule relative to other anthropogenic sources of bird/bat mortality, which I do not dispute. The point is that most avian & chiropteran populations are already so stressed that they absolutely do not need this additional source of mortality piled on top of all the other stressors they face. Perhaps mortality due to current capacity is acceptable but the intent of advocates/apologists is to greatly increase wind generation capacity. Along with this increase in capacity comes increased mortality of flying vertebrates. This is unacceptable and right-minded & good-hearted people will oppose it to the best of their ability.
I'll let you know when my wind turbine kills a bird or bat for the first time...
However, I've managed to kill a few birds in my car, driving around.
The point is that most avian & chiropteran populations are already so stressed that they absolutely do not need this additional source of mortality piled on top of all the other stressors they face.
So man up and get laws passed to stop the cat population from bird murdering.
This is unacceptable and right-minded & good-hearted people will oppose it to the best of their ability.
And yet, no rants from you about cats.
Responsible people will do all in their power to discourage the buildout of hydro- and wind infrastructure. Ecosystem integrity and biodiversity are vastly more important than electric trains & can-openers.
So what does that make you? You've been asked other times when you make the claim:
To actually show data. To date, I've not seen you do this here.
I just googled and found this,
http://www.fws.gov/birds/mortality-fact-sheet.pdf
It gives estimates for various causes of bird mortality and credits wind turbines for 33,000 deaths annually. Cars get credited for 60 million, in Winconsin alone domestic cats are credited with 39 million. Wide error bars on some of the datapoints, they credit collisions with buildings at 97 to 976 million.
Keep the turbines, ban the cats.
And thank you - but the person ( darwinsdog ) is not posting the data she is using to create her opinion that Wind Turbines should be opposed at all costs due to bird/bat deaths.
So while reasonable people can look at 33,000 deaths due to wind machines, then compare with cars/buildings/cats and say "gee, if we care about birds why not look at changing human control over cats" instead every time wind machines comes up darwinsdog http://www.theoildrum.com/user/darwinsdog posts how wind is bad due to bird/bat kill and then can not be bothered to show the data she used to get to where she is.
Dams change rivers, they do not kill them. Different ecosystem, but one that is often more diverse and "better" (by whatever criteria.
Wind turbines kill so few birds that it does not matter.
The alternatives to both are *FAR* FAR* worse !
BTW, most pumped storage plants have less impact than a WalMart parking lot.
Alan
Several reservoirs have become essential stopovers for migrating birds on flyways. thereby reducing bird mortality. Certainly enough to more than offset bird losses to wind turbines.
As someone who works on cold water anadromous fisheries issues, I find your post remarkably ill informed of the problems of dams. Dams have been one of the major factors of the crash in salmon and steelhead runs, and change eco systems on a mass level. That is why so many are on tap to be taken out.
I do appreciate your knowledge on light rail, but this is apparently not one of your expertise.
OTOH, the Halson dam in the Kárahnjúkar project has the potential to create a salmon run in a river, Jökulsá á Dal, that nature made sterile.
Yes, the Columbia River dams have severely impacted salmon runs. But dams on the Rio Grande river in Texas have created habitats on what would be almost sterile flats that would have been periodically inundated and then baked dry.
Dams change rivers, and the effects range from clearly good to clearly bad to very mixed bags.
Alan
Okay, I'm convinced. Dams and reservoirs - the bigger the better! - are a good idea after all. I propose damming the Mississippi and flooding its basin up to about, say, Dubuque. The dam will go just below New Orleans. Surely you will concur with the wisdom of this proposal. After all, we NEED all that hydropower for running our electric toothbrushes & trains. And, after all, NOLA is doomed to inundation in any case.
I say that due to AGW, that dam should be built in St. Louis... It might be the last thing the Mississippi touches before it hits the gulf...
100 m sea level rise... Might you have beachfront property in 50 years?
Aww, heck! gecko.. I was SO hoping the sea would at least take the upper watersheds of the Kaskaskia & Embrass Rivers, in east central Illinois, where I grew up. I hate that region. From your map, looks like it will only barely take Cairo. Oh well..
Nice graphic! Too bad it has nothing to do with what we will see in the next 50 years. Don't forget that the rise in sea level since the Last Glacial Maximum was about 125 m. The suggestion that SL will rise another 100 meters is bordering on ludicrous. Claiming that it might happen in 50 years is gross exaggeration. Your hyperbole only adds fuel to those who claim that the problem of Climate Change is overblown for political effect and exacerbates the public confusion about the problem.
E. Swanson
(I know it will be closer to a meter, but shhh... Don't tell the doomers that just yet. ;) )
100 m rise in sea level is in the ballpark of ALL glacial ice melting. You're correct that we won't see this in our lifetimes. But it's quite conceivable that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet could disintegrate, float free & melt, over the scale of years & decades. This eventuality wouldn't take the sea clear up to Cairo, Illinois, but it certainly would submerge the world's great coastal cities, not to mention the low-lying rice growing regions of south Asia, "bread"basket for hundreds of millions.
Boy, it sure would be cool to have a dial-a-disaster depth tool, to show the new boundaries with every meter of rise. I bet even the first few meters would make a significant difference.
Nice graphic except for some of it is wrong.
I have experince in Digital Mapping of the Planet Earth.
Even at 100 meters, which is way above what most people say the oceans could rise. More of Arkansas would be above water than the picture leads you to beleive. They had a poor database to form that chart.
Charles.
Okay, I'm convinced
To post actual studies to back up your claims on bird/bat kills? GREAT!
Oh, wait. You aren't convinced to do that. :-(
Why? Why not provide facts to back up your claims?
I think that pretty much implies that most new hydropower will be small head of run of river stuff. Which basically means you generate at no more than the rate that nature (or upstream dams) supply the water. In most places that is not bad for baseline power, but it won't cut for for supply management.
"Run-of-the-River" hydro can, in some cases, be designed with a small pond by the intake. Enough to hold a few hours worth of water at lower flows.
This allows the hydro plant to shut down for a few hours after midnight each night and save "maximum production" for peak. Example, 2 MW generators (say 2 x 1 MW), enough water for 1 MW generation. Shut down from 1 AM till 5 AM, fill pond. Generate at 1 MW from 5 AM till 3 PM (slightly higher head), 2 MW from 3 PM to 7 PM, 1 MW from 7 PM to 1 AM.
Add wind and planning becomes more complex but doable (with forecasting).
Best Hopes for Rub-of-the-River hydro,
Alan
I wonder how many existing hydro sites could be converted to support pumped hydro as well? They're already on the grid, and already have the bulk storage at the top. All that would be needed is a catch basin below, and a really big pump?
Using wind to pump water won't really improve the capacity factor though -- just flatten the load curve to match the intermittency at the expense of conversion losses. Using wind to offset existing hydro would not incur any efficiency costs though, and that would seem like a superb idea.
This graph illustrates US energy consumption by source:
It would seem that the lowest-hanging fruit would be to first increase wind name-plate generation to match hydro. After that, harder decisions come into play when each avoided fuel use carries an intermittency cost and decreases the cost efficiency of a less-utilized existing plant.
Matching consumption to wind might help a lot too, if energy used for heating, cooling, and vehicle charging could be offset to match intermittency. A large campus chiller plant could freeze extra water when the wind blew, and melt ice when it didn't, for example. The shape of the intermittency could really make a significant difference.
Paleocon -
Indeed, the intermittent nature of wind power and the frequent mismatch between power supply and demand is an inherent problem that can render a grid highly unreliable once the fraction of wind power's contribution to that grid get beyond some critical value ( my WAG is something on the order of 25%).
Yes, one could theoretically use wind power in conjunction with an existing hydro plant and use excess wind power to pump water back upstream. However, the hydro plant would have to be reasonably close to a favorably windy location, and then one has the problem of seasonality. By that, I mean that if at certain times of the year the hydro plant is running full blast it will typically dump some excess water that bypasses the water turbines. Thus, pumping water back upstream during such periods will not increase power production one iota. However, it would help during low-flow periods, but these are usually during the summer months when wind power is typically at a low.
Then there is the problem of the catch basin to collect downstream water to be pumped back up. Even for a relatively small system it would have to be huge. If you look at existing pumped storage systems, most are actually fairly large lakes rather than simple basins and are usually built where the natural topography is favorable thus reducing construction costs.
The feasibility of whole concept is extremely location-specific.
What is 'reasonably close', IYO?
I think wind pumped hydro has more going for it than early proponents thought. Essentially dams (some chronically low) are in valleys while the wind blows on nearby ridgetops. Use that to loop some of the water and the dam will smooth out the fluctuations. Transmission is already there.
Can you imagine a poor little salmon fishy coming down the Columbia only to get run through an electrical turbine and except for popped eardrums made it OK? Now the next second to get caught up with the wind powered screw and back up to the top. Damn Damn Dam And the next one is only twenty miles down the river dodging tug boat propellers and indians with nets.
That's why they have mesh guards over water intakes. You can even put them around boat props.
Boof:
The joke was "Damn Damn Dam"
Not a very good joke but the best I could come up with on short notice.
Yeah, it's just one Dam thing after another, isn't it?
I expect the market price of electricity will roughly track the price of Natural Gas. That's because NG is the fuel of the dispatchable electricity generation sector that is called upon to fill in the gap between the other sources and demand. This will stay the case for a long while yet.
So the short answer is: electricity rates in a decade will double, at the least. Get used to it. Plant deciduous trees on the South side of your house, since air conditioning will become too expensive for most of us.
Found this table here:
One-Time Cost Capacity Factor Fixed Cost Variable Cost Total Cost
Gas Turbine $439 15% 5.2¢ 8.7¢ 13.9¢
Coal $1,338 90% 2.7¢ 1.9¢ 4.5¢
Nuclear $2,180 90% 4.3¢ 0.3¢ 4.6¢
Wind $1,254 30% 7.5¢ 0.0¢ 7.5¢
Sorry for the poor format -- I gave up trying to format it nicely.
Anyway, the data doesn't include transmission cost, but 7.5c/kwh for wind here is pretty close to the 8c from the other article, as is the 4.5c to 3.85c numbers. Either the 1/3 number is off (as this would say it's closer to half), or there is other data missing.
In any case, it is obvious that the key for wind is reducing installation/purchase price (one-time costs) and decreasing fixed costs (which likely includes maintenance and location leases).
It also says that diverting gas use will save real money, but using gas to backstop wind will be an expensive proposition. I wonder what the numbers would look like if you generated some NH3 during peak wind periods, and used that vs gas for off periods?
The article you quote was last modified in 2007. I expect the prices they quote were 2006 prices for the fuels that were pretty well known. I am not sure about wind--there is likely less data, so these may be modeled costs. Also, I wonder whether the total prices include transmission costs. It seems to me that the "total costs" your table shows are likely to be costs before transmission costs.
The article I quote above is talking about wind now costing more than non-wind, although at one time wind was believed to be cheaper. Non-wind in Austin would be gas, so we can look at your table to get an idea as to costs.
The price of gas went up between 2006 and 2008 (although it is now lower again in 2009). For all of 2006, the price of gas paid by electric companies averaged 6.39, compared to 8.07 for 2008, based on this EIA chart. So we need to increase the variable cost for gas by (8.07/6.39 - 1), or 26%, giving us a total gas of 16.19 cents per kilowatt hour. If we add to it a transmission cost of 3.65 cents, based on the article, that gets us to a total cost of 19.84 cents per kilowatt hour.
The article now seems to imply that transmission costs for due to congestion (presumably caused by the variability of wind) are now 8 cents per kilowatt hour, and this is a third of total wind costs, which then becomes 24 cents per kilowatt hour. These two prices seem to make sense together.
Texas is a high cost state because of its dependence on gas, but even in a high cost state, wind seems to be even more high-cost. Apparently the high transmission cost is related to the transmission congestion the wind causes, reading the section in context. I doubt that would even be considered in initial models. The quote is from a spokesman for Austin Power. I would think they would have a handle on what the real costs are.
Good point on the date -- prices definitely fluctuate, and perhaps the future price of fuels is really the deciding factor in which bets (un, I mean investments) make fiscal sense.
Utilization level for gas is critical, too, in determining the construction and fixed costs allocation. There would be a difference in gas costs for 70% capacity versus 15% for sure....but then you have to compare it to coal coming down the other way too (from 90% to say 70% to backstop wind?). If we're not careful we may INCREASE gas utilization (while decreasing coal) -- not exactly the Pickens' Plan!
Seems to me that your numbers are high, but maybe that's the reality. I agree that utilities who are actually using a lot of wind should be the best sources for data -- do they supply a detailed view?
Your prices would seem to reflect the industry view that a few cents per kwh is enough to make the numbers work. Aren't subsidies more like 3c/kwh today?
I think the PTC subsidy is 1.8 cents/kwh, maybe a bit higher. It is in effect this year and next year (unless the stimulus package extended it by a year or two). Really the wind industry would be better off with a long-term PTC, like 10 years (or a feed-in tariff, better still). Next best would be no PTC at all. The yo-yo effect of the on again/off again PTC has been tough on the domestic industry.
Non-wind in Austin would be gas
from pdf describing 2006
www.austinenergy.com/About%20Us/Newsroom/Reports/annualReport.pdf
Austin Energy’s diverse generation mix of approximately one-third each of coal, nuclear and natural gas with 6% renewables
Austin owns 400 MW of STNP nuke (unless that plant has been uprated) and 598 MW of coal at Fayette power plant
http://www.lcra.org/energy/power/facilities/fayette.html
Also several MW of solar PV (small % of total).
Austin is also a leader in Negawatts (conservation). From slightly vague memory, about 20% of demand,
Alan
Cost values are always a moving target, of course, but these numbers seem a bit old. Going off of last year (when steel and advanced materials prices were going through the roof), I would say gas, coal and wind are 2x on the fixed costs, and nuke is 2.5x. Fuel looks ok, but I think nuke is 2x what is shown (often you see unenriched u3o8 used as a proxy, which understates price).
The current commodities crash might juggle these numbers yet again, but much less data is available since appetite to build new projects is down.
I concur on the basic point -- wind needs to get further cost reductions. If the PTC can be counted on, and if it can be made more reliable, wind will be at parity.
I tried to go back to the Austin Power financial statements (or other statements) to see if I could get some secondary confirmation of the numbers I am looking at, and I couldn't. That makes me quite uncertain about them.
It looks like Austin Power isn't really a separate company. The description makes them sound like they are just a part of the city government for the city of Austin. The web site doesn't have the kind of information I would expect of a public company, or even a private company.
It sounds like Austin Power is one of the chief sources of funding for the City of Austin (besides property tax and sales tax). I wonder who audits all of this.
That's right, Austin Power is a municipal utility so its financials get buried in the overall city budget. It complicates these types of cost comparisons, to say the least.
The proper name is Austin Energy, www.austinenergy.com .
It is a municipal utility. Lots of budget data seems to be online
to keep Gail happy.
Keep in mind that newspaper articles on electrical energy mess up
the presentation more often than they get it right, making it hard
to translate back to reality even if you know what you're doing.
The 3.65 cent/KWH for conventional power and 8 cents/KWH for wind
are "fuel" prices, i.e. basically what it costs the utility to generate power. The total price the customer pays is considerably higher. As I read it, 1/3 of the 8 cents is cost of transmission.
Austin has the largest green power program of any municipal utility.
They have recently announced a very large solar PV project, 30 MW.
My first question is, "Is the 7.5¢ quoted for wind based on there ALWAYS being a ready market availble for the wind genration wheever the wind is blowing?"
If so, then it must rise dramatically as soon as the percentage of wind generation connected exceeds the amount of spinning reserve connected to the grid. A really fair figure for cost of wind at a high level of penetration would be about 3x the actual full cost of generating and transmitting any individual wind kwh, eg. 22.5¢ At very high levels of penetration, that assumes a smart grid real-time market system where prices dramatically rise and fall on a 15 minute interval basis, and every customer's meter is connected realtime both to the market system in order to know what the availability / price is, and to the customer's apliances, so it can shed loads accordingly. Adds perhaps another 1.5¢ to the cost, but well worth it.
My unpublished work suggests that a North American grid could be built "at reasonable cost" (close to today's rates) that was 90+% non-GHG with
1) HV DC network, massive 30,000+ miles
2) Pumped Storage, large scale
3) Nuke 22% to 55% (policy choice)
4) Wind 20% to 50% (policy choice)
5) Geothermal designed to load follow/counteract wind supply with multi-hour response (west of Mississippi River)
6) Perhaps 4% solar PV (mainly in south)
7) Perhaps 3% solar thermal (desert SW only)
8) New hydro, mainly in Canada
Alan
4) Wind 20% to 50% (policy choice)
With information like this: http://xkcd.com/556/ It'll be a hard choice.
I agree with those numbers. To repeat, pumped storage is tricky due to the favorable geographical constraints. Canada has a significant potential to increase hydro and wind, but transmission is insufficient.
I've started lobbying local industry leaders and (soon) politicians for the vision 10 years out. I see HVDC transmission lines reaching down from Canada to the interconnection hubs of the US. There won't be enough capacity to accommodate all the US's electrical needs, but the sources won't be GHG contributors.
To make this work, we have to transform the analogue 60 Hz "grid" into a hybrid digital (HVDC)/analogue system that can better control power flows and provide VAR support, while reducing losses on long distance transmission. According to Astyk, we on TOD have a few shortcomings, but lack of vision is not one of them. (Sorry if this sounds male-centric, however I don't have any immediate graphs to support the position. I learned long ago not to apologize for being a man - get over it...).
I'm with Ignorant. The article indicates that 1/3 of 8 cents is due to transmission costs for wind, which seems about right. The cost due to transmission is much less for the 'fossil system.' The problem is that to build out the wind areas requires a lot of new transmission. By contrast, the transmission allocated back to the 'fossil system' is older and mostly depreciated. This accounts for a big differential in transmission attributed to wind vs. the rest of the system. Congestion differentials, while real, are comparatively small potatoes.
In building conventional private generation, interconnection costs and transmission upgrades often loom as a deal-breaker. In some cases, a project can piggyback on an upgrade that was needed to begin with, or win a demonstration that the interconnection creates side benefits in the dynamics of the AC system, reducing their contribution to construction costs. Wind projects rarely get these kinds of concessions since they are in remote areas not well traversed by existing transmission. The cost allocation to wind plants is something close to 'fully loaded cost.' This can be expected to improve with successive projects, but it will take time.
I read it that wind is 8c/kwh total, though it is clearly a poorly structured sentence.
Using wind close to home is obviously advantageous. Yesterday I drove I-70 past Salina, and viewed with interest the large (well over 100 turbines) wind farm just west of town. At 250MW name-plate output, this farm would go a long way toward supplying the energy needs for nearby Salina, a city of 50,000 or so.
Anybody who has driven I-70 can tell you that there could be a lot more wind generation, too -- you can drive for hours across prairie country, and there are few natural barriers, people, or landmarks to prevent wind deployments. The problem is users for the power and intermittency - once you exceed local usage, where will the power go, and if you bring in power users, then what will power them when the wind dies down?
I spoke with some locals further west, in East Colorado, about wind. There they are looking to build wind, with the obvious goal of supplying Denver once the local area is covered. The ranchers/farmers there are of two minds, which may well match the view of Kansans and other wind-belt residents: some like the idea of $5K per turbine mailbox money, and say it is cleaner than oil and hardly hinders their ranching/farming operations; others are "ranchers to the core" and want nobody on their land for any reason. Given that the position of the latter will hamper utilization of the former, this is likely to eventually become a nationwide eminent-domain issue. In this particular area, though, it wasn't seen as much of an issue, as apparently there were already power corridors reasonably available.
In the end, though, I think wind will be built in the region, with gas and coal as a backstop. Once fossil fuels become scare, the availability of reasonably cheap power will likely attract industry to the area, and they'll deal with intermittency if they have to.
Anecdotally, even with an influx of wind-farm employees, life in the rural towns will be hard post-peak. Today the inhabitants travel 60 miles for the nearest grocery store, and 100 for mall shopping. Only some convenience goods are available at the local store. There are still plenty of active trains, though the local depot may be gone (it's a museum in the town I visited, I think). Without oil life would slow down a bit, but with decent EVs and electric trains I think they would survive. Maybe better than most.
"RE:" Yesterdays DB article on feed-in tariffs.
What's key, is not the temporary incentive rate for Renewable Energy, IMO it's the fact that it cracks the door for distributed generation. Any person or small business that wants to stick their neck out and invest in RE can be a supplier as well as a customer. Can one even imagine a one way internet?
Below is a summary on North American activity on Feed-In Tariffs.
http://www.wind-works.org/FeedLaws/USA/USAList.html
10:20 AM Eastern, C-SPAN is talking about TOD.. ie, Transit Oriented Development, and the benefits of light rail..
Chris Dodd (D-CT) just flailed his hands to emphasize the energy benefits of transit, and the 'new-thinking' about property values when near to rail-lines.
.. a late start, but it's something..
Ok.. it's a replay from March 12th.. but it's better TV than most.
Re: Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack says farmers face several challenges in Gail's links above.
It sounds like the Ag Secretary's biggest worry is supporting the ethanol industry through these difficult times.
So maybe they should just fold the USDA into the DOE and be done with it?
Since the vast majority of USDA funding goes towards things like buying food and giving it away for free to poor people, I think it might better be rolled into HEW?
seems like a pretty good deal to me - considering how well-armed the people of the US are
ask the Romanovs about the alternatives...
Article mentioned above, U! S! A! We're number... 15? has missing href link.
Thanks! I fixed it. It was missing a ".
"Organics" Gem of the Day
Is "organics" going to help lead us out of the post-peak wilderness?
Not as it's currently practiced and preached it ain't.
"USDA makes no claims that organically
produced food is safer or more nutritious
than conventionally produced food.” *
Credibility means getting rid of the crap.
I guess everyone gets to have their crusade, but Mike, you're daily rant on this thing is becoming a noise to filter out, not useful information to have a discussion about.
Yes, the word 'Organic' has been inexpertly and offensively coopted by big business and big 'FDA' .. we know this. It would be perfect, but there's human beings involved.
You can take easy potshots at alternative medicine, like some alterego in 1940 would have been doing against psychotherapy, or a police-chief in 1900 against fingerprinting.. Many people are trying to clean up their food supply.. and I hope you realize that it needs cleaning up, right? And people are looking at a lot of medical science that isn't working that well, and going out to the fringes to see if something valuable hasn't been shoved to the sidelines.. Antibiotics can be lifesavers, but we are giving them to all the meat-animals in BigAg America, and now fish in the downstream water supplies (Check the LA basin) are getting born as Hermaphrodites. Even up here in pristine Maine, you're soaking in it.
EDIT: If you need to take issue with an inconsistency, or even a lot of them, it really doesn't help to start out with this quote 'Organics' thing, signalling that you're challenging the whole idea of getting the mass synthetics out of our soil and food.
Bob
It surely doesn't help fish stocks when they can't reproduce.
I am all for organic farming methods:
1. For recycling nutrients and building soils
2. For localization of sales and labor
3. For scaling back material and energy inputs
(A version of Westexas' ELP plan.)
But I will not defend the indefensible, and lies should NOT be swept under the rug.
If "organics" continues to pit itself against technology and science, it will soon be dead in the water. It needs massive reform--especially if people are to be persuaded that such methods can help in a post-peak world.
I'm on this "crusade," as you call it, because I care!
But "filter" away.
But I will not defend the indefensible, and lies should NOT be swept under the rug.
But you've demonstrated your willingness to twist words - like calling a diabetic a healthy person.
I'm on this "crusade," as you call it, because I care!
But care about what? Your own ego? Or something else?
For the rest of you I provide this link
http://journeytoforever.org/garden_organic.html
And read the part about BRIX. Then review the mikeB posts where he claims there is no difference and ask yourself "could I show a difference with a $40 BRIX refractometer?" (The BRIX I bought was $39.95 Now at $59.95 http://www.northernbrewer.com/hydrometers.html ) Prove to yourself if MikeB is right or not.
I know you care, Mike. But your tone has become petulant.. it doesn't lead to a useful discussion.
So when you write "Organics" in big quotes, but only mean those who are misusing the word, you have given the word to them.. and also denigrated the people who are using the word correctly, using it in ways that you would probably approve of.. they read this and think you have put your line in the sand, with them on the side of Whole Foods and Horizon Dairy..
I know you're mad about it, but don't just pee in the face of people who may just be allies in this fight. Not everyone in the organic farming community is in lockstep that chemicals and synthetics are simply all, pure evil, but you're painting it as if they did.
You're riled about this, and not writing very carefully. 'Indefensible'?! Why not just call it Sin? This is the kind of evangelical ranting that I have to comment on when Ron or Darwins Dog start in.. It's like writing for Angry Catharsis.. you guys are smart, but this fury does not help you to use your intelligence well on a keyboard. Count to ten or something, 'cause I do want to hear the topic.. but I can't hear what you're saying when you're screaming.
Respectfully, Bob
I propose that the word "organic" be dropped from the vocabulary. It has long outlived any usefulness as a descriptor. Originally it was used to distinguish a naturally occurring compound from a "man-made" one, then someone synthesized urea. Then it came to signify any carbon containing compound, with a few arbitrary exceptions. Why not have a unique term signifying content of each element, if we need one signifying carbon content? Now this carbon signifying function has become confounded with a particular marketing ploy for certain agricultural products, causing people to argue over proper usage of the term. Why not just dump it as an archaism?
What does it say about those of you who AREN'T infuriated over the devastation of the biosphere by one particularly nasty species of African ape?
It has gotten to the point that, when people ask us if our garden is "organic" (which, technically, it is), we respond, "Sure! It's carbon-based!"
From above:
Who's misusing it? There is simply no agreement about what the word even means.
And all quotations come from mainstream organics organizations, even founders, as with yesterday's statement from Lady Balfour.
By the way: I keep reiterating the USDA quote because I agree with it.
Who says we're NOT infuriated?
But we have to remember where to use it, and when to not let it drive us off the path.
You directed a fine dose of it at Alan and NOLA today.. what did that accomplish?
I'm frustrated about the new wave of promises were being fed about Nuclear Energy, and while Alan is more optimistic on that note, I'm not going to slam him over it.
I'm sure you've noticed that some of these Apes are more nasty than others, they're not homogenous, and some have found ways to fix their darker habits and emotions, and work to make things better.
Bob
Spot on, Mike -- anybody who comes out in favour of 'alternative medicine' et al, i.e. medicine that is not evidence-based but bullshit-based, really does put himself beyond the pale of reason.
Organic farmers really know how to shoot themselves in the foot. What a pity.
Precisely. A poster ridiculed me a few days ago for saying such stuff "broke my heart," but I want to see the movement have more credibility.
Something is either "medicine," or it isn't. Testing determines this. There is no "alternative" medicine. "Alternative," like "green" and "sustainable," is a meaningless buzzword.
in favour of 'alternative medicine' et al, i.e. medicine that is not evidence-based but bullshit-based
Would that be like vioxx?
http://cherryhill.injuryboard.com/defective-and-dangerous-products/new-y...
Would that be like the bullshit of Dr. Scott Reuben?
http://pharmagossip.blogspot.com/2009/03/when-academics-go-wild-scott-re...
Yes, yes it would.
Just because people and companies game the system to get it through doesn't make it useful medicine. The fact that the system can and does catch up with them as evidence to the contrary builds up is good, and is what is supposed to happen.
Mind you, it is supposed to happen before hundreds of thousands of people are put at risk, but anybody who genuinely expects perfection in anything is doomed to disappointment before they put their shoes on in the morning.
Just because people and companies game the system to get it through doesn't make it useful medicine.
Other arguments just like that one can be found in the books Toxic Sludge is Good For You. http://www.prwatch.org/tsigfy.html
The fact that the system can and does catch up with them as evidence to the contrary builds up is good, and is what is supposed to happen.
Just like the system has caught up with Bernie Madoff shows that the system works eh?
I'm sure others can think of better examples of the system at work, saving us all from the evil.
Anybody who expects perfection is doomed to disappointment.
Glad I'm not you.
Eric,
Sites you might like to consult:
http://www.quackwatch.com/
http://www.badscience.net/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine
Again, you simply discredit yourself. Alternative medicine belongs to the tinfoil hat end of the scientific spectrum. Flying saucers stuff. Grassy knoll. Holocaust Denial, etc.
Again, you simply discredit yourself.
Really? Why don't *YOU* take the list of "alternative medicine" items below and show how they are 'tinfoil'.
Alternative medicine belongs to the tinfoil hat end of the scientific spectrum.
I'll stick to 4 (because limiting the discussion is prob. good)
Garlic (Allicin)
Turmeric
Vitamin supplementation (Back when Mom was going thru the medical education system last century - she was told it just made your urine expensive)
Cranberry juice
Flying saucers stuff.
Do you mean UNIDENTIFIED flying objects?
Grassy knoll.
Knolls are a fictional race in AD&D.
Holocaust Denial
I believe the Turkish Government denies the Armenian Holocaust happened.
Quackwatch has a good article on organics claims that I've researched:
"Organic" Foods:
Certification Does Not Protect Consumers
Unfortuately, 'conventional' medicine is hardly science based either. It is 'free market' pharmacy and medical industry based to milk the 'patient' for as much as possible. Devil take the hindmost. Really, I think the conventional medical system is so broken that alternative medicine may not be much worse. At least a naturopath is likely to render much more personal attention and actually do a hands-on exam.
I could rant on, but I'm tired of being caught in between competing bad alternatives.... but then what else is new.
Not to mention the levels of 'is this bogus or not' can also depend on the person and their genetics/epigenetics. IE Some people can not eat allicin. Under the 'organic' label you have 'biodynamics' where people fill cow horns with cow dung and that is somehow magical. The same group claim electromagnetic defense can exist for crops. I'm willing to believe that, for some crops and some pests, there might just be an electromagnetic defense/"cloak". I'm rather sure its not Terracotta pots on pikes.
The 'Resource Curse' and Russia's Economic Crisis
This Chatham House doc says that declines in Rusia are due to lack of investment. The possibility of geological constraints or ERoEI issues are not directly considered.
April 15th meeting: How will a World Recession Affect Oil and Gas Investment, Supply and Demand?
Anyone going?
More on the breeding of MSRA in the piggies.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0004258
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/0313antibiotic.shtml
Do data and evidence convince anyone? I warned about the likely effects of disease in October, 2007.
"Disease is not likely to be an immediate killer. Disease, however, will take over as the number of unattended dead increase. It will be some kind of system slowdown, shutdown, or crash, caused by war, the economy, or food and water shortages that causes the death toll to rise.
"Afterward, you can expect disease to run rampant like wildfire, because the resources will be insufficient worldwide to stop the onslaught."
I should have kept warning about it.
Eric,
Clearly you only wear your tinfoil hat when discussing certain subjects -- no doubt we all have our weaknesses.
I think nobody disputes the fact that "Antibiotic Use in Agriculture is Helping Drive Antibiotic Resistance in Humans .."
Good stuff anyhow, thanks for the link. Pretty frightening, too.
My mother in law lived through the 1917-18 flu in a small East Texas town. She said the hearse wagon would come by every day and pick up bodies. About half the town died with the flu in a matter of a couple months. I asked how the remaining half lived on. She said every one in that town knew how to sew, to garden, to blacksmith, to farm cotton, to shoe a horse, etc so the remaining half just carried on.
In the event of a similar but resistant flu, the other half would die too because the Internet, Hubble telescope, and space station will not feed them.
Before you all turn on the flames, I am not against science, just the first useless things I could come up with to counter a flu disease.
My father was one of the soldiers. However he survived after spending two weeks on recovery. They either walked out of his tent or were littered out to the terminal tent. He said he recovered on ice creame.
He was part of the first wave of flu.
http://www2.okstate.edu/ww1hist/flu.html
no doubt we all have our weaknesses.
It strikes me that yours is having a mind that closes shut - like Ron's does as soon as the word 'conspiracy' is mentioned.
What would be interesting - for the future - is for you, Carolus Obscurus, to write down the 'conspiracies' that 'can't be true' so the list can be checked out in the future and see how many turned out to have data backing 'em.
(Take my buddy Joe - Joe has secret military clearance. I told him that the government had a plan back in the Kennedy years to fake an attack on US Civilians and blame Cuba. He swore I was just "being a conspiracy theorist" - yet the operation northwoods paperworks showed such a plan. Back during Nixon and Watergate, I remember the same kind of label "conspiracy theorist" was slapped on people about the break-in. And I'm sure that some things where the label of 'tin foil hat wearer' is slapped on by YOU Carolos will be show to be correct and you wrong. )
I think nobody disputes the fact that "Antibiotic Use in Agriculture is Helping Drive Antibiotic Resistance in Humans .."
Check in with the big ag/big pharma - I believe they claim the antibiotic use is OK. Absolutes are rarely correct.
On the sustainability topic:
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1146
Some interesting vehicle numbers. Anyone know how many cars are scrapped each year worldwide?
This website has annual passenger cars, commercial vehicles and total vehicle production by year, through 2007:
http://oica.net/category/production-statistics/2007-statistics/
It appears that total vehicle production increased from 58.4 million in 2000 to 73.2 million in 2007. Of course, in order to know the net increase in vehicles, we would need to know how many vehicles were scrapped.
The 10 year cumulative gross increase in vehicle production, ending in 2007, was about 615 million.
In any case, for the sake of argument, if we assume 70 million vehicle sales per year, the 10 year cumulative gross increase in vehicle production would be 700 million vehicles.
The more important question might be will cars powered by gasoline even be made in 10 years? Take this one of many advances in battery tech that was annouced this week:
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/031209-mit-breakthrough-promises-l...
MIT breakthrough promises lighter, fast-charging batteries