 | How to Drive your Elephant - Dealing with Complex Problems | The Oil Drum: Europe | Renewables out of the bottle |  |
The dark side of coal - some historical insights on energy and the economy
Posted by Ugo Bardi on April 12, 2010 - 10:41am in The Oil Drum: Europe
Detail of Telemaco Signorini's masterpiece "The Riverbank" ("L'alzaia"), painted in 1864. It shows the hard work of five men pulling a heavy barge against the current along the Arno river, near Florence, in Italy. Most likely the barge was loaded with coal. In this post, I start from this image to tell the story of coal in Italy and how the fortunes of the country went in parallel with those of coal well until mid 20th century. (Click on the image for the full painting.)
"The Riverbank" is correctly considered a masterpiece; just look at it and you'll see that it is truly exceptional. Not only the composition of the figures is original; think of the contemporary French impressionists. None of them, great masters as they were, ever painted anything like that. They never seemed to be worried about the social problems of their time as, instead, Signorini was. So, he shows us the tremendous effort of these five men pulling something unseen, but that can only be a heavy barge. Almost certainly that barge was loaded with coal. It was coal from England that had been unloaded in the port city of Livorno and that was slowly making its way up to Florence.
When "The Riverbank" was painted, in 1864, the age of coal was in full swing. Already in medieval times people had started using coal as fuel but the 19th century saw an enormous expansion of production. It was in 1866 that William Stanley Jevons said in his "The Coal Question" that, "Coal in truth stands not beside but entirely above all other commodities. It is the material energy of the country — the universal aid — the factor in everything we do. With coal almost any feat is possible or easy; without it we are thrown back into the laborious poverty of early times."
But coal had a problem: it was not easy to transport. Coal is heavy; it is unthinkable to cart it for long distances on roads. For this reason, the first railroads were developed in early 19th century expressly to transport coal. But rails were expensive, prone to failure, and the first steam engines were so inefficient that they would use up most of the coal transported unless the distance covered was really short. These early railroads could be used only to move coal from mines to river ports, where coal was loaded on sailing ships called "colliers." Only using waterways it was possible to transport coal over long distances. Gradually, railroads and steam engines became more efficient, but wherever sea and canal transportation was available, it remained always the cheapest way of transporting coal.
In the early times of the coal age, the cost of transportation set a limit to coal diffusion. Only those mines which were near waterways could produce coal and only those areas which were accessible by waterways could use coal. That condition held in most of Northern Europe and it was there that the use of coal grew most rapidly, fueling what we call the industrial revolution. More coal extracted meant more industries, and more industries meant more coal extracted. More coal meant also more steel, and more steel meant larger and more efficient armies. Coal was the origin and the fuel of the British Empire, but Britain's production was so large that there was coal available for export. With British coal, and later German coal, the industrial revolution spred all over Europe, even to countries which had no coal mines. With imported coal, waterways were the necessary and sufficient condition for having industries. But most of Southern Europe and North Africa were cut off from the coal revolution: too dry or too mountainous for waterways.
The southernmost limit of waterways in Europe in 19th century was Tuscany, where the River Arno connected the main city, Florence, to the port city of Livorno. Already in the 18th century, the Arno River had been artificially transformed into a waterway. With this vital line, Tuscany could import coal in large amounts from England and start her own industrial revolution. It was a small revolution compared to that of the Northern European countries, but manpower in Tuscany was cheap, and it attracted capital from the rest of Europe. Just as today manufacturing is exported in the poorest areas of the world, by mid 19th century, Tuscany had become a manufacturing center--with industries mostly created and managed by Northern European businessmen.
The Grand-Duke of Tuscany of that time, Leopoldo the 2nd, was praised by everyone as a good man. He was also a politician and, as such, he tended to promise gifts to his constituency. One of these gifts was the public lighting of Florence. Already in 18th century, a public lighting system based on oil lamps had been installed, but it was dim, limited to a few places, and the lamps ran out of fuel by midnight. In 1845, things changed with the first gas lamps. Those lamps were fueled by a "gasometre", a giant tank where coal reacted with steam to form "town gas" that then was piped all the way to each street lamp (that old gasometre still stands, nearly forgotten, in a public garden in Florence). It was bright light that lasted all night; a revolution. So, thanks to coal, Florence was beautifully lighted at night. But coal had also a dark side: those people whom Telemaco Signorini shows to us laboriously pulling a heavy coal-loaded barge upstream. With time, barges were gradually superseded by the railroad. It is likely that, by the first decades of the 20th century, very few people were still pulling heavy loads upstream. But the nature of the problem had changed: coal was not infinite.
In the 19th century, coal for Italy came mainly from Britain and the commerce of coal was a strong link that connected the two countries. The Italian state had been created in 1861, uniting the statelets which had been ruling the Italian peninsula. It had been, in part, the result of the work of British diplomacy. There were evident advantages for Britain in having a strong Italy as counterweight to the French ambitions of expansion in North Africa. But the creation of Italy had not been just a cold political calculation. There was a genuine liking of the British for Italy and for Italian traditions. In some ways, Italy was a daughter country to Britain. Over the years, the British flocked to Italy; they loved the climate, the people and the relative freedom of the place. Some Italians also moved to foggy Britain, although not as tourists. The invention of fish and chips is claimed sometimes by Italians from the Tuscan town of Barga, who had emigrated to the British islands.
But the relationship of Italy and England went sour with peak coal in England, in the early 1920s. After the first world war, Italy desperately needed coal to rebuild her industries. But Britain could no longer provide coal as liberally as before. Italy started importing coal from Germany, but that was not sufficient: coal consumption in Italy stayed flat between the two world wars. Italy's economy was also dragged down by war debt, and it never really recovered after the trauma of the first world war. All that had political consequences. The sympathy for England and for everything English evaporated in Italy and the Italian press started vituperating Britain and complaining about "the coal issue". D.H. Lawrence, in his "Sea and Sardinia" (1921) tells us that the coal problem was one of the main subjects of conversation among Italians. In 1922, Mussolini and the Fascist party took power, in large part also exploiting the resentment of the population for the bad economic situation.
It is said that Mussolini made the trains run on time. Perhaps it is true, but he could do nothing to create coal that wasn't there. The crisis of 1929 was a bad hit on the Italian economy and - perhaps as a reaction - the government tried to vent the nation's frustration by invading Ethiopia in 1935. There were several official justifications for the invasion - the most common one was that Italy needed "a place in the sun" - a curious justification from a country which has plenty of sun anyway. But, clearly, the invasion was meant to be a slap in the face for Britain. It was a way to tell to the British that the Italians could have their empire, too, that they could do that alone, and that they didn't need no damned British coal for that.
It was a mistake; a colossal mistake. Mussolini hadn't understood that it was coal that made empires, not the reverse. No coal, no empire; it was as simple as that. Conquering Ethiopia, Italy had dissipated immense human and material resources and had gained a bad reputation as the rogue country of the time. All that for a piece of a dry land and the dubious honor for the King of Italy of taking the title of "Emperor of Ethiopia." That land was also strategically impossible to defend, as it would be seen just a few years later.
Britain reacted to the invasion of Ethiopia by stopping the exports of coal to Italy. That, and other international economic sanctions, pushed the already crippled Italian economy on the brink of collapse. The government reacted furiously, pushing a series of measures called "autarchy," the use of national resources only. It was mainly propaganda and some ideas that never worked, such as trying to make shoes out of cardboard and clothes out of fiberglass. The attempt to develop new coal mines could not work as a substitute for imports. The Sulcis mine in Sardinia was the main national source of coal, but it could never produce much more than 10% of of Italy's consumption between the two wars. The lack of coal and the strain of the Ethiopian war weighted on Italy's economy with almost 25% of the state budget dedicated to supporting the costs of the military occupation of the overseas colonies.
Given the situation, events played out as if following a prophecy written down long before. Italy had to rely more and more on German coal and that had political consequences. You can read the story in these paragraphs written in 1940 by Ridolfo Mazzucconi, a popular Italian journalist and writer of the time. Mazzucconi, among other things, had popularized in Italy the concept of "perfidious Albion," that had originated in France at the time of the French revolution. ( from the ASPOItalia blog.)
England ordered, with a repentine action, the suspension of the shipping of German coal directed to Italy from Rotterdam. As a compensation, England offered to replace Germany in coal shipping. But this service was subordinate to conditions such that accepting them would be to be tied to the British political interests and grievously damage our war preparations. The Fascist government responded with suitable roughness; and German coal, which couldn't come any more by sea, found its most comfortable and short road via the Brennero pass.You can read the same story as it was seen from the other side of the Atlantic in this article in Time magazine titled, "Hot Coal". It shows, among other things, how the Allies had completely misunderstood the Italian situation of the time.Ths matter of coal was a healty and clarifying crisis of the political horizon. On March 9 and 10 (1940) Ribbentrop was in Rome and the visit gave rise to a clear and precise statement. The axis was intact. The alliance of Germany and Italy was continuing. A few days later, on the 18th, Mussolini and Hitler met for the first time at the Brennero pass and then even the blind were forced to see and the dim witted to understand.
It is a tradition of fuel producers to use embargoes to try to gain political power over fuel importers but, usually, it doesn't work. In this case, Britain had tried to bully Italy into submission using the coal weapon. It was another colossal mistake that forced Italy to rely fully on German coal. It also fueled even more the resentment of Italians against Britain and that gave to Mussolini sufficient political leverage to push Italy into the war as an ally of Germany.
What followed was, perhaps, unavoidable, but it didn't have to be. It would have been enough to glance at the coal statistics for "the blind to see and the dim witted to understand" as Mazzucconi tells us. At that time, the size of a nation's economy could only be proportional to the amount of coal consumed and, by this measure, Italy couldn't even remotely match Britain. In 1940, despite having passed the peak, Britain still produced more than 200 million tons of coal per year and used most of it for its national economy and for that of the British Empire. Italy, instead, consumed just a little more than ten million tons of coal per year. The British economy was twenty times larger than the Italian one. The "blind and the dim witted" ones were all in the Italian government who grossly overestimated the military potential of the country. They were still thinking that a war was fought by peasants armed with bayonets. They had completely missed the dark side of coal.
It is said that history repeats itself; the first time it is a tragedy, the second is a farce. After the tragedy of the first world war, the second had some elements of farce. Mussolini often looked like a clown during the war and Italy took some truly farcical decisions, such as that of sending a small force of bombers and fighters to join Germany during the Battle of Britain. The absurdity of the idea wasn't so much in seeing outdated Italian biplane fighters desperately trying to battle Spitfires and Hurricanes, but in the very concept that Italy was trying to bomb a country that had been her traditional ally: Britain. There is a tradition for fuel importing countries to bomb exporting ones, but even Mazzucconi himself, with all his rethoric about the "Perfidious Albion" seems to be perplexed about this idea when he tells us of the bella fratellanza "good fellowship" between Italy and Britain. In the end, it didn't matter how clownish Mussolini looked and how stupid his military decisions were--there was nothing farcical in an unprepared army sent to its destruction and in a whole country destroyed and humiliated. It was the dark side of coal, again.
Time has passed; coal is not "king" any more. The countries destroyed during the second world war have rebuilt their economies using crude oil and natural gas. The dark side of coal, today, seems to play out more in terms of environmental damage: coal is the fuel that generates the most greenhouse gases for the same energy generated. Coal mining has also become a hugely destructive activity with "mountaintop removal" becoming a commonplace method to get at the coal seams. But coal is not any more a global commodity that leads to wars, as it was until mid 20th century. That role has been taken over by crude oil. The descendants of those men who pulled coal-loaded barges upstream in 19th century now drive shiny cars powered by oil and work in front of computer screens. But the problem of oil is the same as it was for coal: it is not infinite and there is not enough of it for everyone. It is now crude oil that makes and destroys empires. History repeats itself again and it will do that until we have fossil fuels to burn.
There are a lot of references that I used to compose this text. I'll give you here some extra data.
I published another paper on the subject of coal in Europe on the "ASPO neesletter" n. 73 of january 2007. You can find it here: http://www.energiekrise.de/e/aspo_news/aspo/newsletter073.pdf A figure taken from this paper shows the British coal production, here:
A quantitative figure showing how coal imports to Italy varied over time can be seen here, taken from a paper by Walter H. Voskuil "Coal and Political Power in Europe" published in Economic Geography, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Jul., 1942), pp. 247-258
A post in Italian that I wrote on this subject can be found at http://aspoitalia.blogspot.com/2007/01/davvero-viviamo-in-tempi-oscuri.html . It is a discussion of the role of coal in Italy between the two wars. If you can't read Italian, you may find it interesting for the illustrations.
You can find data about coal production in the Sardinian Sulcis mines at this reference (In Italian). The fact that Italy spent 25% of its budget in maintaining her overseas colonies can be found at this reference
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2010 (3)
- October 2010 (6)
- September 2010 (4)
- August 2010 (7)
- July 2010 (6)
- June 2010 (7)
- May 2010 (2)
- April 2010 (8)
- March 2010 (4)
- February 2010 (6)
- January 2010 (3)
- December 2009 (5)
- November 2009 (8)
- October 2009 (12)
- September 2009 (6)
- August 2009 (5)
- July 2009 (11)
- June 2009 (8)
- May 2009 (16)
- April 2009 (10)
- March 2009 (7)
- February 2009 (10)
- January 2009 (15)
- December 2008 (9)
- November 2008 (9)
- October 2008 (9)
- September 2008 (13)
- August 2008 (10)
- July 2008 (14)
- June 2008 (23)
- May 2008 (16)
- April 2008 (12)
- March 2008 (16)
- February 2008 (9)
- January 2008 (13)
- December 2007 (13)
- November 2007 (16)
- October 2007 (22)
- September 2007 (8)
- August 2007 (9)
- July 2007 (16)
- June 2007 (8)
- May 2007 (7)
- April 2007 (7)
- March 2007 (10)
- February 2007 (10)
- January 2007 (12)
- December 2006 (9)
- November 2006 (15)
- October 2006 (4)
- September 2006 (5)
- August 2006 (5)
- July 2006 (9)
- June 2006 (5)
- May 2006 (10)
- April 2006 (9)
- March 2006 (13)
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
I myself have sometimes wondered if it is justifiable, and if so to what extent, to ascribe the crisis of 1914-45 to the economic ramifications of "peak coal" in Western Europe (oil only began to expand in a big way from the 1950's).
PS. There is a famous Russian painting of the "Burlaki", or barge-pullers, by Ilya Repin from 1870-73*. However, AFAIK most of their cargoes were grain. Still, yet another illustration of the importance of physical work in a world without fossil fuels.
* I wonder if Repin's painting was influenced by Telemaco Signorini's.
Thank you, Last Historian. Very beautiful painting, this one. I don't know whether it may be related to Signorini's one. After having been made, Signorini's painting was kept by a workers' association; then it disappeared for a long period. It has resurfaced only a few years ago. So, it is difficult to say whether Repin could have seen it - probably not; the composition is completely different. But there was a line of thought that pervaded Europe at that time that saw the worker's plight as something to be remarked and shown. A rare period. Today, you never see the poor in art - they have become invisible again, as they were in the paintings of Middle Ages.
As someone who had the privilege to work, albeit briefly, as a truck driving art handler, in New York City back in the 90's, serving the major art museums, art galleries and the studios of many famous and not so famous contemporary artists, I don't believe that statement is quite accurate...I think you need to look a little harder.
Here is a start
The Chicana/Chicano Biennial of 2009
Well, all right. That comment of mine wasn't though very hard, indeed. But I think I still stand by what I say - in a general way. You are right that even in modern art there are images of workers on strike and things like that. But I am a modest esteemer of impressionst art. And the Italian impressionist art is full of images of workers and peasants - much more than anything I see now. But I have no statistics, of course.
Caro Ugo,
I have been to Italy and have a deep appreciation for the great Italian artists, impressionist and other schools as well. I have held in my own hands sketches by da Vinci and contemplated Michael Angelo's sculptures.
Please don't misunderstand. My point was only to underscore the fact that all art needs to be taken in the context of its environment and the time at which it is done. There is still great art being done today and the human condition with all its blemishes is still a very relevant topic to this day and it continues to be explored. BTW the link I give up top will take you on quite a journey should you choose to explore it!
Thanks for the link, Magyar, I'll see to follow it. I didn't mean to quarrel on this point; "art" is a very complex and varied subject. Perhaps I haven't noticed the section of it that deals with human suffering - perhaps there is someone who paints 3rd world peasants. I had theorized, however, that the flash of socially oriented art that appeared in 19th century had to do with the evidently improving economic conditions of the working class and the peasants. Somehow, people thought that these people had a role in the future and they were interested in them - so, artists started portraiting them. In our world, it may be that the situation is the opposite, there is a feeling that economic conditions are worsening and that the poor don't have much of a role to play in the future; possibly not even the "middle class". Then, interest is waning in examining (and portraiting) the life of people who are going to fade out. But it is just an idea that I have - I realize that I tend to exaggerate in theorizing things.
I think the whole topic of art, particularly painting, has been permanently altered by the developments in photography. It's likely that the equivalent today of this painting is the National Geographic cover picture of the young Afgan girl Sharbat Gula (Pashto: شربت ګله, literally "Rose Sherbet") looking into the camera for a future. Afgan Girl with green eyes
http://www.photosfan.com/images/afghan-girl-national-geographic-photos-t...
Thank you, Last Historian. Very beautiful painting, this one. I don't know whether it may be related to Signorini's one. After having been made, Signorini's painting was kept by a workers' association; then it disappeared for a long period. It has resurfaced only a few years ago. So, it is difficult to say whether Repin could have seen it - probably not; the composition is completely different. But there was a line of thought that pervaded Europe at that time that saw the worker's plight as something to be remarked and shown. A rare period. Today, you never see the poor in art - they have become invisible again, as they were in the paintings of Middle Ages.
The Repin painting was given credit for being a large influence in intellectual circles leading up to the Russian uprisings. One detail in the background is a steam tugboat chugging along behind. It could easily have pulled the barge, but feudal human labour was cheaper.
By the way, I found that the "1851" date for Signorini's painting is probably wrong. A more likely date is 1864 or 1865. I made a small modification to the text, accordingly
Churchill's decision to switch the Royal Navy over from coal to oil on the eve of WWI must go down as one of the most astute strategic moves ever made.
Churchill bought the Anglo Iranian oil company well before the first world war. What did you expect him to do, with twice the energy density of coal his dreadnoughts could go twice as far or go the same distance and be better armoured. It was a no brainer. If he hadn't have done it the German's would.
I find the article alongside the artwork HIGHLY MISLEADING.
Around the distinct error of confusing 'Peak production' with peak supply, by possibly yourself and some of your viewers.
Firstly the drive and demand'coal for steam' was an actual factor pre the 20th century,e.g'Stephenson's Rocket'(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephenson's_Rocket),increased coal demand for the basic movement of cotton to the mills of manchester,from the docks of liverpool (u.k)as the barge's took over a week for a 36 mile journey by shire horses along the 'tow paths'.(over a month to birmingham 80 miles)
Also coal & steel where a major factors needed in the building and industry,once the nation was built,demand somewhat decreased.
After 1920 automobile's improved (http://www.ausbcomp.com/~bbott/cars/carhist.htm) and became far more widely used, for transportation of goods,tourism,and person journeys.Thus decreasing the demand for coal in the switch of mechanism drivers.
Only' 30 odd years later 'All change again'ATOMIC ENERGY ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield )
23 yrs later started the virtual total end to WELSH & ENGLISH coal production, until nothing was left apart from'token production'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners'_strike_(1984%E2%80%931985)
The demise of production is clearly pointed out:
"The UK Miners' Strike was a major industrial action affecting the British coal industry. It was a defining moment in British industrial relations, and its defeat significantly weakened the British trades union movement. It was also seen as a major political and ideological victory for Margaret Thatcher and the Conservative Party.
The strike became a symbolic struggle, since the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) was if not the strongest then one of the strongest in the country, viewed by many, including Conservatives in power, as having brought down the Heath government in its 1974 strike. The strike ended with the miners' defeat and the Thatcher government able to consolidate its free market programme. The political power of the NUM was broken permanently. The dispute exposed deep divisions in British society and caused considerable bitterness, especially in Northern England and in South Wales. Ten deaths resulted from events around the strike: six pickets, three teenagers searching for coal, and a taxi driver taking a non-striking miner to work."
Nothing what so ever to do with peak supply.
PLEASE CLARIFY YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THE DEMAND DECREASE' FACTORS as put forward.
Stop shouting and don't be so silly.
Everything Ugo mentioned above is easily looked up; coal production peaked and declined in both the UK and Italy, which had political ramifications in the latter's choice of allies in WWII.
If you know where there is a tremendous amount of extractable coal in the UK, then enlighten us all.
@ Will Stewart.
Firstly' May i suggest if your hear SHOUTING' when you 'SEE' upper case 'SEEK HELP'.
Secondly' if this is addressed to myself, may I suggest rather than a re-thought Sycophantic defence ,worded to realign with my basic point, coal supplies have not peaked, coal consumption has! ( I ADDED INFO LINKS for reasoning the decline opposed to the suggesting the peaking of supply)
Ugo suggests in the latter day accompanying text:
"But the problem of oil is the same as it was for coal: it is not infinite and there is not enough of it for everyone. It is now crude oil that makes and destroys empires. History repeats itself again and it will do that until we have fossil fuels to burn."
I simply point out the fact, the end of coal production in the u.k was political, not due to supplies peaking. We still have plenty of coal,The 'privatised' company where not that 'stupid' as to sell the land,plenty of pits still 'just sit there'.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4419125.stm
http://www.ukcoal.com/dm-daw-mill pits still in production.
rebuttal over supply:
Here is a little fact, mankind as a whole,achieved over a time span of 32yrs, it deepest drilled hole of ever, 7 miles total depth. (a brisk walk to, from, and around the shops in an afternoon!7 miles)
if you take this 7 miles measurement, away from the width of the world, you'll see the figure left proves we're only just scratching the surface of this planet, to presume to know its contents is for fools.
Here's another aspect of coal and its real value in relation to fear mongering.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101031013-493241,00.html
I found it in this:
" Here is another tax credit for you. By the way, I am a CPA with 16 years of tax experience. Coal companies form separate businesses, usually an LLC partnership form. These businesses exist only on paper. They put a building next to the mine and run a conveyor belt through it. The conveyor transports coal through this building and diesel fuel is sprayed on it. Under the tax law, the spaying of diesel fuel chemically alters the coal into an alternative fuel that generates more BTUs. Duhhh. It's diesel. Of course it causes the coal to generate more BTUs This gives the coal company a few hundred million dollars each year in alternative fuel income tax credits. How's that for a global warming solution? Your tax dollars at work. Read it in TIME http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101031013-493241,00.html
Now, I am confused about someone's comments that dismisses the high probability that Gore. Soros and other wealthy "noble" men are just lying to us to make money. Liberals seem to always presumed that if it is a conservative agenda, the rich involved are nasty greedy people, yet if it is a liberal agenda, their rich are squeaky clean do-gooders who magically got rich honestly - just like Bruce Wayne. In one of my past careers, I was a a CFE (Certified Fraud Auditor). The golden rule in fraud is follow the money. When money is involved, there is no limit on what people will do to get it and keep it. They will lie, bribe and kill even their own family. Are you really so naive as to think that the leaders in the U.N. give a rats ass about global warming? It's about creating a fictitious commodity that would become a market regulated by big international brokerage firms that trade derivatives. You know. The financial giants that gave us credit default swaps. Do you honestly want to put that much more power in their hands? Who do you think is funding and backing this global warming scam. Do you honestly believe that the massive amount of money that went into university grants, the media, the lobbying firms and the political think tanks came from average joe citizen? Do you think that these scientists are like starving artists who work only for the good of mother earth and shun the wealth of lucrative grants and tenure? Do you really believe that the funds behind global warming did not come from big corporations? Have you ever noticed that universities have buildings with people's names on them and that those people represent owners of big businesses that donated the grant funds and the buildings? Do you really believe that climatologists at these universities who push global warming do it without a severe biased towards their benefactors?
Big money is political party neutral. They hedge their political capital and game the system either way just like the coal plants I mentioned above. They are not going to clean up their act. If they are on the clean fuel side, they will get credits and subsidies and publicity just like those Ethanol producers who consume more fossil fuel energy than what is produced by the Ethanol they manufacture. If they are on the dirty side, they will get big tax credits and continue to bribe Congress and the EPA to look the other way. The enormous cost of cap and trade is going to be passed on to you and me and not damn thing will be done to actually reduce carbon or any other pollution.
I am not arguing whether global warming exists or does not exist because I'd be wasting my breath. Through a study of history and common sense, I do know that the powers pushing this agenda are not interested in reducing carbon, and will not reduce carbon. They are only interested in power and profits. Don't delude yourself into thinking that the Democrats are any different than the Republicans. Politicians are all the same."
just a quote.
Common netiquette is that upper case is considered shouting. You may not have come across this yet.
See the following page for specifics:
http://www.kassj.com/netiquette/netiquette.html
Here is an excerpt:
@Analqe:
"Caps may be used sparingly to emphasize a word'or' phrase."
DO'you hear something I can not see?
Thanks but I feel your post proves the need for my polite HIGHLIGHTING of the specific points and Key worded factors.
I do apologise if your brain has problems reading BIG letters, presumptions' a killer though! Did the letters affect you? Is 'Case RAGE'an issue of the viewer, more than the HIGHLIGHTER sometimes?causing them to loose all track of 'Topics' or 'Key points' forcing them in turn to CASE ATTACK focusing only on a blinkered text opinions? Must be hell for typists and admin clerks.
(unless GOVERN MENTAL, they prefer triplicate,BLOCK CAPITALS only ,using black ink.:)
'Third stage user Rage' psychiatry practitioners must have loads of business!
seen this:(Below the comment box)
Allowed HTML tags:
THANK god' for xhtml!
Sorry you lost your empire John, if coal makes a comback we have plenty to ship from up this way, so you probably won't get your empire back. It would help if you could warm it up a little faster so the sea lanes would stay ice free more of the year. It would make for a much shorter shipping route over the pole to your former customers. I hear tell some of our seams are over fifty feet thick. I'm with you on the Peak Coal Demand/not Peak Coal, we can hope demand doesn't peak again because for all your tirade against fraud and power the ice is getting a lot thinner for a lot more of the year up here. It would be better for all concerned if changes to the warmer went at a rather leisurely pace if at all possible. Some convoluted system might actually push us toward some sort of cleaner power mix, even if a bunch of rich get richer in the process, they will do that one way or the other anyway.
@luke: EmpirE lol,is a 'MASTER' thing,and it hasn't changed bloodlines much since its conception.One things for certain its never belonged to the citizens,they only get the 'pride' before the fall!
Happy to 'agree'on the Peak Coal Demand/not Peak Coal indeed!Facts count. (nothing on 7 miles & contents?)
I dont feel coal as coal will ever return to the menu, synthetic fuel is far to prosperous & the decline in the domestic housing market of the 'chimney shack' has limited the options & obviously the 'see it, burn it' policy adopted by georgian smog emitters of yesteryear.Imagine living around the open fire 24/7 ,All that cleaner city air today!
Good news on the ice front,it seems records of newer bigger ice sheets forming at a time when they have always decreased sounds quite promising if you keep up globally 'opposed to locally'
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
'The man of La Mancha concept'mixed energy sound far to retro' but its a good sales pitch to those concerned with the tale of Don Quixote!
John, had to put the empire thing in considering your handle ?- )
The trend is unmistakable (from page you linked)
I check that site several times a month and sometimes more often spring and fall (my local weather feels fairly immediate effects from the ice sheet extent) and have been reading the monthly summaries for a while. We are really hoping the weather patterns allow some of the crunched up rotten new ice that had been thought to be multi year old ice to get a chance to hang around a few years, but it is way too early even to say the ice is shrinking at a slower rate much less to hope that is might be returning. Freeze up has been averaging three days later EVERY YEAR for some time--that was in an NSIDC summary a couple months back. Even if we completely lose the summer ice cap winter freeze up will still occur so eventually that freeze up will have to quit getting later every year. No one is betting on that happening this decade.
The seven mile depth thing is more of a barrier than you let on. Costs and temperatures soar that deep. The 50 foot coal seams I spoke of are apparently visible in the Cook Inlet basin's Beluga River area.
(editor: sorry this picture is so large it was either this size or a thumbnail)
The biggest part of Alaska's coal is north of the Brooks Range, a tough place to get resources to market from...for now, and its pretty wet coal by and large. We won't even talk about the mess getting it out would make.
Don't remember the La Mancha concept and my copies of Cervantes seem to have evaporated, could you elaborate?
Luke,
Where did you get that picture?
Wouldn't you agree that we'll dig that up before we let the lights go out? In other words, alt energy like wind and solar are needed not to prevent the lights going out, but to prevent our using coal to bake the planet.
I ask because I'd like to get everyone to agree that we're not facing 1 problem of peak energy, we're facing 2: peak oil and climate change.
Nick,
The photo was on this page
http://www.dog.dnr.state.ak.us/oil/products/photographs/photographs.htm
I doubt getting everyone to agree is ever feasible ?- )
I personally see using all the coal we can as quick as we can as a very poor path choice if we would like our civilization to carry on into the future. We are now using all the oil we can as quick as we can and before that we were using all the coal we could as quick as we could. It looks that there may be a short interim step in this sequence before we revert back to maximum coal use. We might use all the natural gas that we can as quick as we can while at the same time we use all the oil we can afford. If we don't really move away from the fossil fuels during the gas step??? I don't think that is a pretty picture.
I agree.
Fortunately, we are moving towards wind and solar, with some nuclear.
Not as quickly as we need to in order to deal with climate change, but more than quickly enough to ensure that we have enough electricity.
Firstly' May i suggest if your hear SHOUTING' when you 'SEE' upper case 'SEEK HELP'.
Welcome to your second day on the Internet.
As you are new to the Internet - the common interpertation of all caps is that you are shouting.
You might want to spend some time with your grandkids and have them explain it to you. If you have no grandkids, the ones you shout "get off my lawn" at may also be able to help.
I simply point out the fact, the end of coal production in the u.k was political, not due to supplies peaking.
And this changes the fact that the supply of coal is limited exactly how?
Now, I am confused about someone's comments that dismisses the high probability that Gore. Soros and other wealthy "noble" men are just lying to us to make money.
I can see where you might get confused.
But go ahead - explain why for every unit of money spent on Carbon control a unit of money goes into the banking businesses.
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/12/08/uk-report-just-30-of-carbo...
@ Eric.
"Welcome to your second day on the Internet."
Personally I designed and installed my first chemical 'plant' control panel in 1974, my first chemical 'plant' computerised control suite in 1980, for europe's largest chemical site.
UPPER CASE was quite useful then, As in sub routines it proved as useful ,as it did when dividing first and second stage net users (network installers/ testers,and software programmers)from third stage net users,pre fibre,cat6,rj45's, and multiplexors!
As with the tale of pied piper,it only takes one rodent to hear the tune, and over the cliff they all shall follow. presumptions a killer!
"And this changes the fact that the supply of coal is limited exactly how?"
7 miles total depth?presuming contents? luke H , "I hear tell some of our seams are over fifty feet thick. I'm with you on the Peak Coal Demand/not Peak Coal" did you miss any facts?
"I can see where you might get confused."
others presumptions whilst ignoring facts confuse me,your right! chinese whispers used to be a game, not a political agenda.
"But go ahead - explain why for every unit of money spent on Carbon control a unit of money goes into the banking businesses".
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/12/08/uk-report-just-30-of-carbo...
You did a fine job of explaining yourself sir,but i'd add
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/unlimited_power_is_apt_to_corrupt_the_mi...
or even
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/288200.html
I simply point out the fact, the end of coal production in the u.k was political, not due to supplies peaking.
Spot on many of the pit shaft were capped while others were filled in, capped pits are easier to reopen which is what they are doing at a couple of capped pits in Yorkshire at the moment.
@ yorkshire Miner:
That's my exact point with chinese whisper's, a brazilian told me he heard of a columbian,that a mexican saw an Italian,American,& canadian discussing BRITISH COAL on the internet 'so' it must be true! They even posted a graph!
Ignore the actual citizens & workers opinions who lived in the areas and saw the events unfold. Ignore the old rule of ROME'S EmpirE, e.g The victor's re-write history!
(The freedom of information acts released 'thatchers' plans! )
Ye Olde English Northern saying, "I wouldn't touch that with a barge pole" Apt.
Anyone who lived alongside an English canal understood the need of 'The pole' and 'board walking' under the many bridges and over paths.The barge hands also needed a member to tend the horses, for no logical or practical reason do I imagine or recall any mention of deck hands slowing the barges momentum or trying to 'flip' tow ropes under bridge's ect for men to tug the weight (LOCKS EXCLUDED).So the Artworks accompanying text adaptation to suit the modern global coal debate ,in any British context,I find the sub-text falls short of its writers interpretations on several points.
Im finding it increasingly difficult to find an image of the actual barge and its coal,attached to the rope the men are pulling. (I'd prefer to see the full story! before assuming judgements.)
To me its seems the old normal procedure for a crew pulling an unladed vessel on a shallow bank.But the Truth behind artists and critique's embellishing and garnishing, for re-sale purposes to suit the current climate,Never surprises me! $£$£$£$
I find the article alongside the artwork HIGHLY MISLEADING.
Around the distinct error of confusing 'Peak production' with peak supply, by possibly yourself and some of your viewers.
Firstly the drive and demand'coal for steam' was an actual factor pre the 20th century,e.g'Stephenson's Rocket'(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephenson's_Rocket),increased coal demand for the basic movement of cotton to the mills of manchester,from the docks of liverpool (u.k)as the barge's took over a week for a 36 mile journey by shire horses along the 'tow paths'.(over a month to birmingham 80 miles)
Also coal & steel where a major factors needed in the building and industry,once the nation was built,demand somewhat decreased.
After 1920 automobile's improved (http://www.ausbcomp.com/~bbott/cars/carhist.htm) and became far more widely used, for transportation of goods,tourism,and person journeys.Thus decreasing the demand for coal in the switch of mechanism drivers.
Only' 30 odd years later 'All change again'ATOMIC ENERGY ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield )
23 yrs later started the virtual total end to WELSH & ENGLISH coal production, until nothing was left apart from'token production'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners'_strike_(1984%E2%80%931985)
The demise of production is clearly pointed out:
"The UK Miners' Strike was a major industrial action affecting the British coal industry. It was a defining moment in British industrial relations, and its defeat significantly weakened the British trades union movement. It was also seen as a major political and ideological victory for Margaret Thatcher and the Conservative Party.
The strike became a symbolic struggle, since the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) was if not the strongest then one of the strongest in the country, viewed by many, including Conservatives in power, as having brought down the Heath government in its 1974 strike. The strike ended with the miners' defeat and the Thatcher government able to consolidate its free market programme. The political power of the NUM was broken permanently. The dispute exposed deep divisions in British society and caused considerable bitterness, especially in Northern England and in South Wales. Ten deaths resulted from events around the strike: six pickets, three teenagers searching for coal, and a taxi driver taking a non-striking miner to work."
Nothing what so ever to do with peak supply.
Great post, Ugo! Thanks! And that painting is awesome (I love wide aspect ratio compositions) - I initially thought it was a Hopper and was surprised it was from 1851. Energy and resources always lurk in the background of why wars are fought. And your observation about embargoes was spot on - our embargo of oil for Japan in June 1941 led to Pearl Harbor and a miserable island campaign of attrition.
I second that bigdoug. Great post Ugo, and a magnificent piece of artwork, the original must truly cast a spell. Thanks.
Bigdoug, I will agree that the 1941 embargo certainly pushed things along but Japan's invasion of China had soured relations with Britain, the US and Netherlands long before that and its incursion into Indochina was not a pill the west was ready to swallow. The embargo may well have pushed Japan's naval ministry to yield to Yamamoto and give the go ahead to his gambler's play at Pearl (strategies were not supposed to originate in operations). The official Japanese naval strategy had always been to fall back and nibble at the approaching US fleet and then fight the grand naval battle and sink it close to Japan where the supply lines would be stretched for the US and short for Japan--that strategy assumed the US would play along exactly as Japan planned. With oil supplies dwindling quickly after June all time tables had to be accelerated and Yamamoto promised he could give the army six months without US fleet harassment of the Japanese southern conquest if his fleet hit Pearl by surprise at the outset of the war.
All that said Japan was going to conquer its greater influence sphere and that included the Philippines, which had US commonwealth status and substantial US military presence. The build up for that big push was underway and the Japanese army had control of national policy way before June of 1941. War was going to happen. The embargo and Pearl just constricted the timetable. It may have been a much longer war if Japan had a couple more years to entrench itself in the lands from which it had pushed the British and Dutch. That is something we will never know.
You are mistaken on several accounts.
Yamamoto was not pushing war with the US, in fact he said, that it cannot be won. He also said that Japan can only have success against the US in the first 6 months.
Relations were soured with Japan's China invasion, but Japan was not pushing into Indochina at the time.
The embargo was a calculated move by the US, they wanted a war with Japan. From then on, there was no turning back.
Bl4ckVoid -
Ah, you beat me to it ..... I was going to say much the same thing.
Yamamoto had spent a considerable amount of time in the US during the 1920s and 1930s and had a keen appreciation for the industrial might of the US. He indeed felt that war with the US was futile, but that if a decision was made to go to war, then a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor would buy Japan some time to consolidate its conquests.
I am in totally agreement that FDR wanted war with Japan so as to provide a justification for going to war against Germany to safe Great Britain.
On thing that had always puzzled me was why MacArthur wasn't sacked for his totally inept defense of the Philippines. Then after looking at a map of the Pacific and the location of the Philippines in relation to Japan, it occurred to me that perhaps FDR and the US high command fully realized that it would be impossible to hold onto the Philippines over the long haul if Japan was intent on taking it. So, I have come to the conclusion that the defense of the Philippines was largely a sham.
A part of it, too, was that people in the US - even in the upper echelons - tended to underestimate and discount the capabilities of the Japanese. The Japanese really did have a much better Navy and Army in 1941 than most people in the West realized.
WNC Observer -
Well that part is certainly true, particularly in our estimation of Japanese air power.
Some pre-war assessments of Japanese air power are quite hilarious and downright racists, e.g., the Japanese can't be good fliers because, i) they lack imagination, ii) have poor eyesight, and iii) have bad balance.
I happen to have a book written in late 1939 called 'Sea Power and Today's War' by Fletcher Pratt. It contains the following gems:
- " In short Hawaii controls the Pacific approaches to the United States so completely, it is so strong a fortress, so good a base for a fleet, that there is no possibility of Japan bringing war to our Pacific shores while American ships float in Pearl Harbor."
- "Japan dares provoke or enter no war in which the United States fleet will be engaged on the opposite side."
And this guy was supposedly one of the most respected naval authorities of his day. The book is a good reminder about the value of the opinions of 'experts'.
Obviously the Japanese felt the same and did something about it. I just worked my way through Prange's 'At Dawn We Slept.' It is about as balanced an account as you will find. After the war he collected an incredible amount of information (publications, interviews, and much more) while serving as the chief historian on MacArthurs staff, but he barely mentions MacArthur in the book.
I've never had the impression that US higherups ever made a decision that war with Japan was desirable. I think it was more a matter of collosal naivette, that we could back them into a corner, and they would see the wisdom and back down. It was only because of Hitler's ego, declaring war on us, as a sop to the treaty with Japan, that brought us into the war. Had, Hitler not done that, it would have been pretty tough to propose to take on a new enemy/front, while engaged against the Japanese.
The Philippines were seen as undefensible...until the development of the B-17 then the mindset changed, though the reality didn't. Undefensible or not the US had no intention of letting Japan keep them if she took them. That was happening embargo or not. Like I said in my first post, the embargo merely accelerated things. I agree with you about Yamamoto 100% as I mention in an earlier reply. The whole MacArthur thing is a bit of mystery to me and I have no intetion of ever looking into it.
World War II really started on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918. Pieces just kept falling the perfect wrong way to make sure it happened.
The US was not at all ready to fight Japan after it embargoed it. We didn't have the fleet strength to fight a two ocean war and didn't expect to have that for a few years. Ships were pulled from Pacific to Atlantic all through 1941. But at the same time we wanted to make sure Japan fired the first shot in any confrontation. It was kind of a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it to.
That's why the "advance knowledge" debate is so interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_debate
[BACKGROUND: Sound of can opener opening can of worms.]
Actually Prange dedicates hundreds of pages to this subject, which include a great many of the original memorandums. Its worth reading. The ball was definitely dropped a few times. Japanese documents intercepted with 'purple' weren't translated to English for sometimes weeks. Turf disputes between intelligence departments (navy, army, FBI, State Dept) kept information fragmented (sound familiar). Mindsets of essentially peacetime commanders affected whole ranges of things. The testimony of Short and Kimmel about their response to the 'War Warning' message is quite enlightening. What Washington thought it had sent and the way it was interpreted in Hawaii sheds immense light on the state of mind of those in command positions at the time. It is an oddly worded message, but it appears that Washington really didn't have a well defined attack alert in place that all parties on each end of the wire would understand as such. The commanders in the field were going to go on full alert as soon as they knew an attack was on its way, but just about everyone else in the know expected Japan to make its first strike without warning--that was how they had started every campaign. The whole thing reads like a tragic comedy of errors.
I came to agree with the author that much of the 'advance knowledge' thing was essentially the product of the Republican campaign using it as the only weapon they could come up with to discredit FDR when the war was going well on both fronts in 1944. Prange's tone when dealing with FDR everywhere in the book makes it obvious he was not a particular admirer of the man but bore no grudge against him either, so I tend to trust the selection of materials that were incorporated the work. Of course if some stuff is classified there is room for doubt...and Obama's real foreign birth certificate may be in some deep Hawaiian vault too ?- )
I never said Yamamoto was pushing for the war, he made one statement early on to the effect that Japan would have do more than defeat the navy or even occupy California to beat the US. They would haver to march all the way to DC. This statement was edited out of context and published by the Japanese version of Fox News in its day. By the time Yamamoto saw how badly he was misquoted it was too late for him to say anything so he let it be.
Japan had every intention of occuppying all British and Dutch holding as part of its greater east asia co-prosperity sphere, and all of its negotiaions with the US were to get the US to agree to do nothing about that when the Japanese made their move. That was not going to happen.
The Indochina move came at about the same time as Yamamoto was given the go ahead on Pearl. Pearl originated with Yamamoto at fleet had to be approved by the naval ministry, and they recognized it for the gamble it was. Prange's 'At Dawn We Slept' covers the Japanese side of Pearl very thoroughly, you might find it instructive. Pearl had been in the works at Yamamoto's end since early 1940. He may not have wanted war but he made his living running a war machine and he would run it to the best of his ability. Of course the main objective at Pearl was the carriers but they were gone during the hit, one in repair on the west coast, one had just delivered extra planes to Midway and the other was cruising about on manuvers I believe. I had found it very suspicious that those carriers were absent during the attack but after reading Prange's account (25 years in the making) I really don't think that was anything but dumb luck for the US. A lot of nasty rumors on this subject got started in the 1944 Presidential campaign and were very Palinesque in nature.
All through 1941 naval power was being moved from the Pacific fleet to the Atlantic. Admriral Kimmel was afraid his Pacific fleet was going to be stripped bare. Obviously the US wasn't pushing for an immediate war with Japan with the embargo if it was pulling its ships out of the Pacific and sending them east. So many of Japan's invasion plans were so far along by the time the oil embargo came that all it did was force them to constrict their timetable so they could get the job done before they ran out of oil. Japan had never even considered the accepting the conditions tied to ending the oil embargo. Like I said that war was coming embargo or not.
One of the great counterfactuals I keep mulling about in my own mind:
The Anglo-Japanese alliance lapsed in 1923. By the mid-1930s, with the rise of Nazi Germany, the British suddenly became very anxious and tried to renew the alliance. I keep wondering: What if the Japanese had agreed?
Especially, with the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact, the Japanese might have seen the Soviets as their main threat, and the British as potential co-belligerents and useful allies anyway. The treaty would have secured oil supplies from British possessions and interests (in Iran, for example), and the Brits would likely have been able to bring the Dutch and the French on board as well, securing resources from French Indo-China and the Dutch E. Indies, as well fro Australia. In other words, a "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" far more extensive, far better, far more secure and enduring, and far less costly than what they got for themselves at their peak in 1942.
It is especially interesting to consider how very differently things might have played out on the world stage. While FDR's sympathies were with Britain, they were also with China, and such a move would have caused him to become deeply conflicted. One wonders if the US would have been quite so forthcoming with aid like Lend-Lease if the British were on the Japanese side against the Chinese? On the other hand, a renewed Anglo-Japanese alliance would have probably driven China firmly into Stalin's embrace. The USSR would have been the only country left that was in a position to offer China any real assistance, and with Japan being at least a potential adversary (and with the memory of having already been defeated by them early in the century still fresh in their minds), a Soviet-Chinese alliance would have made a good deal of sense to both of them. This in turn makes one wonder if the US would have remained quite as sympathetic toward a China that was making common cause with Soviet and (by implication, at least) Nazi dictators? Most likely, these geopolitical maneuvers would have strengthened the hands of the "America First" isolationists even more, making it just about impossible for FDR to do anything at all to assist the British or anyone else. It also might have led the US to be less interventionist in non-military ways - by not imposing embargoes, for example.
Of course, I think it likely that even under this alternative scenario, "Operation Barbarosa" would have still gone forward. The conquest and elimination of the USSR was one of Hitler's prime objectives, the non-aggression pact being only a temporary expedient that he undoubtely always had every intention of eventually breaching. That event would in turn have created quite a quandry. The UK and USSR would then have become at least co-belligerents, if not outright allies. Yet, Japan and China would be at war - British and Soviet allies respectively. Clearly, neither the British nor the Soviets would have cared that much about China or Japan - defeating Germany was their top priority. Both would have been anxious to see what had become a sideshow in E. Asia wind down and not become a distraction, cause of division, or - even worse - open up a 2nd front for either of them. Thus, it is likely that the UK and USSR would have made a considerable joint diplomatic effort to settle the Sino-Japanese war. This probably would have been good news for Japan, for they would have certainly held on to not only Manchuria, but large swaths of coastal China as well.
In such a scenario, it is likely that Japan, not the USA, would have then emerged as the main supplier of armaments to Britain and the USSR. They would have had the shipyards and factories and access to resources. The USA would have been sitting it out on the sidelines, still recovering from the depression, and just producing enough armaments to assure its own defense. The war in Europe would have eventually ended, but it might have taken a year or two longer, and the Red Army would have ended up occupying most of continental Europe. The world would largely be carved up amongst three massive empires: the British (largely bankrupt but still intact, and maybe less inclined toward liberal attitudes about its possessions), the Soviet, and the Japanese. The USA would continue being what it had been for the past half century - a regional power, isolated and isolationist, propserous but not counting for much in world affairs. How very different our world would be today if that had happened.
Quite the potential book you have there. Too bad the audience for it is getting on the grey side ?- )
Of course we look at those events through lenses that are used to filtering massive amounts of information on world events. Even those in the hubs didn't have near the information flow we take for granted these days. A Russo-Chinese pact has always made every bit as much sense as a US-Canada one from a geographical point of view (though the former is a bit more cumbersome space to deal with) but the cultural/language barrier has made the former bonds as weak as the common language makes the latter strong. It takes a great leap to believe the Russo-Chinese alliance would have been strong enough in those trying times to have forced on it that sort of settlement with Japan, who in spite of any treaty with Britain still had its eyes having its own flag fly over the oil fields of the Dutch East Indies. The alliances probably wouldn't have been that strong, not in the fairly far flung world of the day. But still very interesting to contemplate, on the odd chance that those three powers could have seen the big picture and the fact that any other path would lead to a much stronger US, something none of them wanted.
But done is done. A more recent and somewhat minor event showed me how powers might stack up if things got ugly. Can you remember who backed Britain in the Falkland War? An even more recent event made me somewhat more concerned about the world situation. Its just a little thing and was hardly noticed. In Vancouver at the closing ceremony all the athletes remained grouped together by nation...first time I remember seeing that at an Olympic closing ceremony in quite some time.
Luke:
Thanks. I suppose one could also speculate that with Britain just about bankrupt and with the US isolated and neutral and not a source of favorable financing, they may have had no choice but to sell off or lease some of their SE Asian and Pacific possessions to the Japanese, who would have been willing and eager buyers (or maybe as an exchange for armaments). The Dutch and French governments might have been pressured to do a deal, too. Especially if the end of the war saw the entire continent - including France and the Netherlands - occupied by the Red Army and firmly in the Soviet sphere, the British would have probably preferred to see Indochina and the East Indies in Japanese rather than Soviet hands.
That does start getting into the speculative realm, starting to look like the endgame of a 'Risk' board ?- ) A couple things are certain: one, that the US came out of WWII in about as strong a position as can be imagined possible, that didn't have to happen; and two, that Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt were successful in achieving there overarching goal as they divided the world at the war's end. There hasn't been a war squaring off two or more major powers directly in nearly 65 years. The big three were aiming for fifty. Lets hope this one full lifetime break in the cycle works out to be a good thing for the planet.
Ugo - That was an exciting read. I think you should expand that essay to a book. One line that stood out for me:
In America today we have the beginnings of a very bad economic situation. There is a mistaken notion that things will turn around. Most people who read TOD are aware that that is false. We're seeing our national debt rise at an hysterical rate in order to perpetuate American hegemony and an affluent lifestyle. Last week President Obama signed an historic nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia and created a conservative backlash accusing the President of surrendering America's exceptionalism in world affairs. How can that happen?
Easy: The De-Facto leadership in America are celebrities. The most popular News outlet in America is FOX News that is so ridiculous and slanted in it's news coverage that Paddy Chayefsky, the screenwriter of NetWork, would be incredulous if he were still alive to witness it. Glenn Beck, a conservative messiah, with a diagnosis of severe ADD, is making over 35 million per year ranting on TV and Radio and publishing book after book that are all immediate bestsellers even though he admits that he could give a damn about the political process. (BTW it is reported that he has a full time staff of 29 persons who do nothing but follow him around and write down his ideas and inspirations as they arrive in his head and then turn them into reality. Once in a fit of pique he fired an assistant who gave him a pen he didn't like at an autograph signing event.) He reminds me of Lonesome Rhodes, the character in Elia Kazan's film Face In The Crowd.
As Peak Oil plays out in the next 10 to 20 years I think the world should be on the lookout for the rise of American Fascism.
Joe
From outside the US, it looks like you're about 25 years too late.
Post WWII the Cold War with the USSR gave the U.S. a colossal foe to focus U.S. attention on. I remember in civics classes during the 60's we were obliged to watch Civil Defense films showing The Red Menace that a lot of us would sit in the back of the room and scorn. It was cheap propaganda. With the dramatic collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 the U.S. found a massive military industrial complex in place with no sizable foes to fight. Nine eleven gave us a new enemy: terrorism. The beauty of this new enemy is it can never be defeated and will always morph into some new threat on the horizon. It's a gift really. The election of a black President and the appointment of a female Puerto Rican Supreme Court Justice in the last two years has given the conservative base in America a uniting purpose. Today there is a new and virulent form of racism taking shape.
As they say, "You ain't seen nothin' yet!".
Joe
It seems the tea is starting to simmer in a lot of places...
http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=216&sid=308044
Puerto Rican isn't a race - Sotomayor is Caucasian. Of course there will be in group/out group responses in a world of declining resources. At the core it probably is biological, less pie to go around - need to make sure your progeny survive. You'll see it in Europe with the likes of the BNP, Jobbik, and other parties. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, there's no need to turn France into a caliphate simply because you can - that will only cause unneeded tension if history is any guide.
Bingo!
And we all know how well right wing populism has worked out in the 20th Century.
The teaparty people are looking for a simple story to make sense in a frightening world, and it is probably not a nice story.
American Fascism has been around a long time, at least from the beginning of W's term and arguably much further back than that. It is just the nature of that fascism that is changing as a matter of degree. W was dumb. Palin is dumber. And maybe the next cornpone leader will be even dumber.
While I share your fears (in fact they are my single greatest concern about the future), I don't think Fox is that popular. Regular listenership is supposedly only a couple of million -far less than the main stream media (which is nearly as compromised withrespect to truth telling). But you are right that these overthetop personalities make outrageous sums. With that sort of money at stake, it is hard to imagine they could afford to back down.
Don't delude yourself. Fox IS that popular. There is only one right-leaning station so they of course stake out a spot to maximize that viewership. The left-leaning has to split between CNN, CNBC, and the networks. Usually Fox has about as many viewers as CNN and CNBC combined.
Half the country thinks more like Fox than CNBC, and the average poster here should realize they're a fringe element and not the gold-standard norm (and that's OK!). Open your eyes and embrace reality!
The dark side of coal is uppermost in the Australian public's mind at the moment with the airing of a documentary tonight
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2010/s2867659.htm
As we speak a Chinese coal ship is wedged on the Great Barrier Reef. Wealthy thoroughbred horse breeders are finding coal dust interferes with their stud farms. In today's Drumbeat the Indian steel industry admits it relies on Australian coking coal and I think they will be a major sponsor of the London Olympics. Prime farmland on the NSW-Qld border has been made accessible to Chinese and Australian coal developers. It appears coal may be more important than food. In other farming areas drilling for coal seam gas brings to the surface large volumes of brine that cannot be used for irrigation. In the US there has been a tragic mining accident in the last few days while elsewhere mountaintop removal continues.
I think it's time we moved on from coal because it repeatedly invokes scenes you'd expect in a Dickens novel. I'm particularly irked by Australia's support for coal exports when the PM made a grand speech at the Copenhagen climate conference urging emissions reductions. What a hypocrite. I half suspect they will dynamite a channel through the coral reef so the coal ships can get out quicker.
China is due to peak in coal production this decade. I expect they will turn to Australia for imports to make up the shortfalls.
If I recall Australia's coal exports in 2008 were 262 million tonnes split I think about 60/40 between thermal and coking coal. China was a minor customer but now seems desperate for increased imports. I've seen figures of both 2.5 and 3.1 billion tonnes for annual domestic coal consumption in China i.e. ten times Australia's exports. It does look as though the low hanging fruit has been picked in terms of shallow high grade coal deposits near the coast.
I think this could be major development; global Peak Oil and China Peak Coal coinciding in the next few years.
Boof says,
"I think this could be major development; global Peak Oil and China Peak Coal coinciding in the next few years."
I think that could be correct (I cannot know) but either way, let us assume it is true.
This would indicate that coal would get more expensive. The EROEI for coal would decline (Boof says "It does look as though the low hanging fruit has been picked in terms of shallow high grade coal deposits near the coast.") just as the EROEI for more efficient solar continues to improve. Sooner or later (probably much sooner than most folks imagine) the descending EROEI line for coal would cross the increasing EROEI line for solar.
We have thought these issues to death, we have played out every possible outcome, we have Excel graphed the issues every which way until it becomes an exercise in futility...we are now arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, all in our absolutely futile effort to avoid the one thing we must do: LOOK UP.
Why is the very idea of looking upward to the sun for power considered so odious? Australia, China's Gobi desert, Africa, the desert southwest of the U.S., South America sit in a bath of billions of kilowatts of sun pouring down upon them every day. Even the more temperate regions of Europe, the United States and Japan receive more sun than we can use if we are efficient. The argument for coal should be over: Coal cannot be a sustainable fuel source, just as oil and finally natural gas cannot be. Yet we refuse to accept the option of looking up. It is so astounding to me that it surpasses understanding.
RC
Looking up will certainly help when it comes to electrical production, but that may force a need for more not less coking coal. Coal isn't ready to bow out of the game just yet.
The obvious point is that we're not doing solar now because it doesn't pay NOW. That's the whole point of a system that very efficiently maximizes profit with a sharp time-discount rate.
But of course that's why we're going to hit the wall. A wise society would choose to NOT maximally utilize resources so as to shepherd the utility for centuries, and use that cheap energy to produce renewable sources to further extend the life of fossil fuels. That same wise society would reduce population, and work proactively to level resources so that everyone could have a decent and productive life.
But of course we're not that society. The best you can do on a personal level is make some of those choices, and strive to make the world a better place in your sphere of influence.
A somewhat interesting related debate going on now at EnergyPulse - How Concentrated Solar Power Can Meet India's Future Power Needs. Easy to see (from this and many other previous articles that site) that the industry insiders are adamantly, I would say often irrationally, opposed to solar generation. For their take on peak oil, see the comments on the excellent overview provided at EnergyPulse - More About Oil: A Preview of the New Decade - Ferdinand E. Banks, Professor
Not very promising for the future.
I think the question with these high cost sources of energy (solar PV and offshore wind, in particular) is whether they ever pay. One issue is being able to get a wide enough boundary in the calculation. The EROI calculations are based on a very narrow boundary, and don't take into account timing differences (which can result in large near-term outflows, offset by more speculative long term gains).
If we could set up a system powered strictly by solar PV and offshore wind, and if it could be self-sustaining, plus put off a good sized outflow for other power needs, then we would have a wonderful situation. For example, if we could set up a system in which offshore wind and solar PV were manufactured, transported and installed, solely through the use of offshore wind and solar PV, and if in addition to this, we could also use excess power generated by offshore wind and solar PV to run basic agriculture and manufacturing, then they would clearly have a positive payback. But we can't do this--both of these are really fossil fuel extenders, rather than true renewables.
I am sure some people will differ with me, but to me, if an energy source is high cost, it is a tip off that it is likely very low EROI, if wide enough boundaries are included. Society has limited funds for investment. In fact, Dennis Meadows (of "Limits to Growth" fame) says that capital is the limiting resource, and is likely to determine the time/trajectory of decline or collapse. If we put huge amount of capital in low return, and equally important, slow return, energy investments, it will leave our society starved for the energy return it needs on a year to year basis, and exacerbate any tendency toward collapse due to inadequate current energy.
Well, Executive Summary: Assessment of Parabolic Trough and Power Tower Solar Technology Cost and Performance Forecasts - Sargent & Lundy LLC Consulting Group Chicago, Illinois says that in good locations presently, solar thermal can generate electricity at 12.5 cents / kwh, and simply by bringing volume installation up to between 2 and 8 GW by 2020, that price can drop to "3.5 cents / kwh (Sunlab / NREL lowbound) to 6.2 cents per kwh (S&L highbound)"
These figures are accurate, current, and reviewed by S&L engineering firm and NREL. Providing 83% availability using sand and gravel thermal storage (Dessertec) or gas-fired auxiliary energy will actually reduce the cost / kwh because it increases kwh output by 2.5 times using no additional turbine / generator installations. Add another 2 cents / kwh for transmission and for cooling water pumping from the ocean, the cost is still within the range where the electricity produced could easily support construction of replacement installations (3 months energy production into construction material and resources) plus provide a practically unlimited source of energy.
The only REAL problem is that the systems have no supporters. Incumbent energy producers MUST still build coal or gas as long as those provide utility at even SLIGHTLY lower cost, else their shareholders will turf management, and most eco-activists are mired in a doomer scenario with a sole goal of energy descent. No constituency.
I'll assume from reading your posts that you accept the fact that the EROI of fossil fuels is already on a permanently declining slope. That being the case, why is that you seem either unwilling or perhaps unable to accept the fact our current society is already unsustainable and will definitely end up starved for the energy return it needs on a year to year basis if we do not invest our diminishing resources in something?
I'm not completely convinced that we can't. Though probably not under our current capitalist system, especially with every one pushing ever harder in the wrong direction.
The current BAU paradigm is certainly a Dodo. While I'm not sure if any new paradigm will ever rise from its ashes, insisting that we will never be able to have any system that is based on sustainable renewable energy doesn't strike me as very useful.
I've tried to come up with an analogy to our predicament.
We are living in this plush oasis resort in the middle of the desert.
We have fountains and swimming pools and spas that we all enjoy.
Unfortunately we are now aware that the water that allows us these luxuries is being used up at a much faster rate than it can be replenished. There is no denying this fact. We have a technology on the drawing board that might allow us to survive in a very different kind of world. Perhaps even in reasonable comfort but nothing like we what have been accustomed to...
We have enough water left that we could by severely rationing it for drinking purposes only, survive to build, at huge cost, a completely new technological society that would allow us to sustainably distill a very limited amount of water for irrigation and drinking purposes from the desert air. It will not allow us to maintain our luxurious fountains and pools. However it would allow us to live.
So because we know we can't use this technology to maintain our fountains and pool style of water wasting life, we are not going to pursue that technology preferring instead to use up all our current water supply and die of thirst when it is gone.
Your choice...
FMagyar I realize that you live in the UK but I would be surprised if you haven't visited Las Vegas, NV. I grew up the Vegas during the 60's and 70's. During that time we pumped the local aquifer dry. Then we started pumping water out of the Colorado River via Lake Mead. The flow of the Colorado River is 40% below the flow when it was subdivided in the 20's and 30's which were wet years. Lake Mead might be dry before the end of this decade. Las Vegas now has close to two million residents (when I was a kid there were less than 100,000) and all of the states (Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada and California) are now demanding their fair share and there isn't nearly enough to go around. No one is taking any actions that might solve this problem long term. But this evening the Bellagio Hotel will have the show of fountains every hour on the hour and farmers in the Imperial Valley (one of the driest places on earth) will irrigate fields of honeydew melons, broccoli and alfalfa for industrial feedlots with water from that scrawny river the Colorado.
This phenomena of denial concerning water crisis in the U.S. desert southwest (yes it is a desert) is worth watching because it gives a sneak preview of how the world at large will deal with resource scarcity in the future.
Joe
LOL! No, I actually live in South Florida and while I have had ample opportunity to go to Las Vegas I have studiously and deliberately managed to avoid all opportunities to do so.
Having said that and while I am of course quite aware of the water issues in that city my fictional account of a plush desert resort civilization was more an analogy for BAU and how we need to come up with a new paradigm and that knocking alternative ways to get there isn't necessarily useful.
I do agree with your point...
I'm watching. Cheers!
Last night I woke at around 3 AM and couldn't get back to sleep so turned on the radio... CBC replays international broadcasts from Germany, Australia, GB, Sweden, etc.in those early hours. Last night there was a BBC documentary about the Siwa oasis in Egypt. Interesting that they now have 5 or 6 water bottling plants using the deep aquifers shipping out tens of thousands of bottles per day and want to increase production without any study of the quantity of sustainable supply. The bottlers were touting the increased jobs in an area that really doesn't need employment.
This presumably is the source for the radio doc:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8289532.stm
Yeah, the local farmers drawing water from shallow wells are also not acting as wise stewards by salification of the soil.
Egypt as a whole is desalinating it's farmland. Several million tonnes/year negative balance on salt. Which does not preclude local problems, such as in an oasis.
Alan
Fred, actually Las Vegas is quite the sight to see because of how over-the-top it is. You won't miss not seeing it but I'm glad I got to visit it in its heyday.
Hey aangel, I guess I know that. I can be a rather strange dude even to myself sometimes ;-)
As an example when I lived in Rio de Janeiro I decided that I just would never go up to see the view from the top of The Sugar Loaf Mountain, I lived practically in its shadow...I choose to see lots of other things though and got to spend a few nights up in the shanty towns, great barbecue and beer, not a bad view and not many outsiders get to do that.
Yet when I lived in New York City I was always going up to the top of the Empire State Building, go figure...
Cheers!
I disagree on several points, but this time I will mention capital.
Just reduce consumption by several %, reduce the historic investment in sprawl, and we will have MORE than enough capital invest in renewables.
The key is shifting GDP from consumption to investment. That's all, it is that simple.
From memory, direct consumption was recently 67% of GDP.
Best Hopes for Realism,
Alan
PS: Easiest way to reduce consumption is to tax it. But there are other and perhaps better ways.
And while we are it, cut the defense budget in half at least. Protecting those shipping lanes and oil production areas will become increasingly irrelevant. Nobody ever talks about cutting the defense budget but we are all up in arms about spending any money preparing for future energy shortages and carbon dioxide surpluses.
But the iron triangle or quadrangle or whatever is in charge and must be overthrown first.
Or should we fight horrendous wars about the few barrels that are left?
Gail -
You have repeatedly been saying (to paraphrase) that the EROI boundaries are not wide enough when dealing with solar or wind power and that if they were made sufficiently wide, both would prove to be losing propositions.
Though I cannot rigorously prove it, I would like to pose a conjecture for us to consider:
[After one has accounted for all of the direct energy inputs (which I will refer to as 'First Order Inputs'), then each succeeding level of indirect energy inputs will become a smaller and smaller fraction of the First Order Input.]
To clarify.
Taking the example of a wind turbine, the First Order Inputs would include the following: i) energy content of all the steel, concrete, fiberglass, etc, ii) energy required for transport and construction, and iii) energy directly expended on maintenance activities. Second Order inputs might include things like the energy that went into constructing the turbine factory, the construction and maintenance vessels, etc. Third Order inputs would get more nebulous (and in cases a bit silly) and might include things like the fuel the workers use in going to and from work, maintenance on the highway they drive on, the food they eat, etc.
If my conjecture is correct, and if we assign unity to the First Order Inputs, then the Second Order Inputs will be some fraction of the First Order Inputs, and the Third Order Inputs will be some fraction of the Second Order Inputs, etc, in an ever decreasing spiral.
I hope you see where I'm going with this: the total energy inputs do not expand infinitely as the EROI boundaries get wider, but rather converge to some definite limit.
So, for the purpose of illustration I will arbitrarily select a factor of 0.5 as we descend down the orders, if the First Order Input = 1.00, the Second Order Input = 0.50, and the Third Order Input = 0.25, etc., it becomes clear that the limit of the sum of all the inputs four levels down is something less than 2.00. (1.0 + 0.50 + 0.25 + 0.125 = 1.875).
As such, I don't think one would be too far from capturing the total energy input merely by doubling or tripling the value of the First Order Input. I contend it becomes an exercise in diminishing returns to go much beyond the Second Order Inputs.
And if let us say that a solar PV system or wind turbine pays back its total energy input within several years, then from that point on, one is in the 'net energy' zone, and I see no reason why a relatively small fraction of that energy cannot be allocated to producing more PV or wind turbines.
Everyone: fire away!
Completely agree, except that solar thermal generation has a far lower relative input ratio than PV presently.
And further, efficiency of both PV and wind continue to increase. If we know what the upper limit of efficiency is likely to be, perhaps the analysis should be based upon that. And even further, the EROEI of fossil fuels continue to decrease. Part of the analysis, of course, will include the durability of those components required for both a PV and wind energy system. There may be a good energy return on additional energy spend on increasing life spans. Consider that too.
Anyway, neither Gail nor anyone else knows where this is really going to end up. We don't have the time to wait until the perfect EROEI analysis before we move forward. If we are wrong is making that investment, future generations can sue us. But they will piss on our graves for sure in the event of a fried planet with insufficient energy.
We also may discover that regardless of what we do, we will be lucky to have a sustainable economy at half the level that we have now. Well, if that is the case, let's plan for that too. Start by taxing and then investing some of the billions that the bankers are squirrelling away in funny money. Or can we not affort to inconvenience them?
Upper technical limit for (PV / direct conversion of light energy to electricity) efficiency is above 90%, research already well under way at the government lab level and a small company names ITN, until Bushco trashed it. Optical Rectenna. It amounts to receiving light-frequency photons as if they were radio waves on an antenna, then converting the AC current induced into DC with an attached miniature diode.
Here's state-of-art as of 2002, haven't heard much since. NREL - Photovoltaic Technologies
Beyond the Horizon: Optical Rectenna Solar Cell
"Efficiency measurements of a 10 GHz rectenna array with Schottky diodes wirebonded at the feedpoints of the antenna. Efficiencies > 50 % are demonstrated for relatively large-area arrays (~ 20 cm) and are limited only by saturation of the diodes. Efficiencies approaching 90% are likely with better-quality diodes."
"an adequately designed antenna array can efficiently absorb the entire solar spectrum, with nearly 100% efficiency theoretically possible (efficiencies greater than 96% have been predicted for realistic systems with ITN’s models)."
Difficulties are fabrication feature sizes, especially of the Shottky diodes. The high frequency of sunlight means the antennae need to be fabricated in the range of "0.3 to 2 μm about" for near 100% potential efficiency, or "0.4 μm to 1.6 μm" for 85% efficiency, and the diodes need to match in scale. Present semiconductor fabs are working in the range of 22 nm, about 2,200 times too large. I personally thing that they could be overcome with carbon nanotube antennae with small beads of metal on one end with the junction between the nanotube and the metal acting as the diode. Should work, but needs a LOT of primary research first, research which is too far over the horizon for any private investor to rationally contemplate. Needs government funding, though miniscule amounts compared to eg. 1 year of US "defense" budget.
ITRS 2009 is worrying about successfully fabricating silicon chips with 22 nm features due to defects in the 5.7 nm size range. (1 nm = 1000 μm) International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors - 9th edition 2009
The path forward is clear, but will likely require developing entirely different techniques than are presently used in semiconductor fabrication.
At the outcome however, we could have 80% efficient solar cells placed on transparent flexible sheets using only a few grams of carbon and a few milligrams of a metal per square meter (kw rating).
For wind and PV it makes no sense to me to exclude the energy costs of energy storage. If the only storage is 'the grid' then a portion of the base load necessary to maintain intermittent inputs like wind and PV, must be counted as a necessary energy expenditure to make these systems viable.
That's easily dealt with. Grid-wise PHEV autos and smart grid, eg. electricity marketing which changes the price continuously according to supply and demand, and local charge controlling which matches the auto charging to the grid price.
I'm with you, Gail.
Firstly, I take George Mobus on his word when he writes that we really know very little about the EROEIs of wind and solar (words to that effect here).
But we can get some ballpark estimates by using proxies; monetary cost is one.
Barry Brook recently suggested another, namely using Life Cycle Assesments of the various technologies. His estimates: Nuclear LWR = [900/5] to [900/80] = 180 to 11 EROEI; Wind = ~30, Solar Thermal = ~11, Solar PV = ~6,
Mobus also observes that Our civilization was built on EROEIs of perhaps 50:1 or greater. To maintain it may actually require similar EROEIs, I think correctly. Why I think he is correct is a bit invoved to lay out in detail here and now, but it has to do with capital... which is not only physical but also social and intellectual. I have a hard time seeing that "reducing consumption" in any meaningful (that is, big) way won't also erode intellectual capital.
So my current opinion is: Wind may be adequate; solar don't look so hot to me
The EROEI for fossil fuels is not beginning to look so hot either. So what would you suggest? Suck it up and die?
tstreet, are you suggesting that if we would just assert that the ERoEI's are better than they are we could live long and prosper.
We have not choice. We will die regardless since we are mortal. How long we live may be related to the poor ERoEI's of our remaining choices. Or climate, or chance, or disease or nuclear war. But no matter how much anyone wants the good life to go on the ERoEI's are what they are and will affect our lives. Heck people suck it up and die by their own hand in India because the wells are drying out and they are too broke to buy seed. Let's not waste any tears on the declining lifestyle of the first world - we had it pretty good for quite some time.
Well, IIRC coal is still at an EROEI of 80:1 or thereabouts...
As our friend Gregor points out, we are seeing a Transition Back to Coal. And we are turning into a Coal World. From the latter:
No, I do not relish this development (and saying that's an understatement is an... understatement).
<sarc>
To paraphrase Beck, "I'm a doomer baby, so why don't you kill me?"
</sarc>
Either I haven't been consuming enough or I must have spent all my intellectual capital on superfluous knowledge because I haven't the beginning of a clue as to what it is you are implying?!
If you are saying that the intellectual capital needed for the engineering and marketing of tons of useless crap is going to be forever lost once we stop consuming it, then I say, great!
Waiting with bated breath to hear your explanation.
An explanation in full would take me at least several days worth of work (an effort I intend to make at some point but not now) and would be too long for this forum, but here are some of my starting pts:
-- A recent discussion I skimmed, and I believe it was on TOD, kept coming back to "you can't trust government-paid researchers because they're just parasites on society that will say whatever keeps them in their position". Now I do NOT agree with this view; I think governmental institutions of "learning" are very, very valuable to society, because even if their output of Widgets® is nil, they are at the very least maintaining intellectual capital. However it does illustrate very well how difficult it will be to keep funding of those institutions and people in the face of chronic and deepening depression.
-- And chronic and deepening depression is what reduction of consumption will look like to our capitalistic societies, where a job is what entitles a person to a piece of the collective pie of goods. And many, if not most, jobs in the advanced economies produce things that a frugal society would deem waste. Jobs are the consumption that will be reduced.
-- R&D is very expensive, and, unless supported by very liberal governmental grants, probably requires a high level of "waste" to keep up at anything like today pace. Example the battery revolution that has made EVs practical: It was fuelled by the mobile phone/laptop boom. I contend that battery tech would'nt be where it is today if millions of people hadn't "wastefully" changed their phone every 18 months. (For the record, my phone is a battered old Siemens, the first one I actually bought - all my previous ones were layaways given to me by people that "upgraded"). So it's not so much waste as "research subsidy".
-- Demand for people to assist in the R&D industries is one of the most important justifications for keeping learning institutions funded.
Just watched that documentary which chronicles Cavendish and Einstien's relationship. Item which most stood out for me was how Einstein was lured back to an Austrian / German university by Plank to continue his research circa WW1. The university appeared largely funded by German industry, with Plank representing the interface. Einstein was shocked to meet Haber, who was in process of erasing his Jewish heritage and developing poisonous gases. If Plank had successfully captured Einstein into this system and made him a convert like Haber or Bosch, the Nazi's would probably have started out in 1939 with working atomic weapons. We clearly need to remain constantly vigilant against excessive control of our research capabilities by industrialists.
Well, Einstein's attitude was clearly unpatriotic and un-germanic ;-)
(I think misplaced/excessive "patriotism" is the greater danger).
Don't you know?! Because it doesn't support people's ideas of BAU! [/snark]
Ironically I literally just received my emailed copy of Energy Matters news@energymatters.com.au
Disclaimer I have my own business and work with PV in South Florida
Actually I understand! It has to do with leverage points and paradigm change...
Cheers Mate!
I am curious as to why Italy did not develop it's hydroelectric potential (for many tasks a good substitute for coal, such as electrified railroads). By the mid-1920s, Switzerland was well on the way with this strategy.
Perhaps hydroelectric power would have limited influence south of Florence due to transmission technology then, but 50 TWh (today's Italian hydroelectric production) could power a major 1920s industrial economy.
Alan
There is a lot of hydroelectric potential in the Italian Alps, in Northern Italy and that was developed starting with late 19th century. Something was done also in Tuscany, especially with the "Serchio" river, but the Tuscan climate and orography is not so good for hydroelectric power. In the 1930s, in Italy there was already a hydroelectric power capability similar to the present one. It probably could be shared over the national grid, but clearly it wasn't enough if Italy still had to import 10 million tons of coal per year.
I would think the narrow long shape with all the hydro at the top makes distribution hard.
Was that coal really used simply for its energy content? If Italy had good hydroelectric, I would still think that there would have been some demand for coal. You can't make town-gas with hydro. You can't smelt iron with hydro. And you can't power old fashioned steam locomotives with hydro. So even if Italy had been bursting at the seems with cheap hydro there still would have been some demand for coal (just not as a stationary source of power).
Using humans as draft animals does strike me as over the top. I could see a human leading a team of horses/oxen for the same task. Unless the labourers were effectively a chain gang (prison labour).
All right: two questions. Coal was used in part for electric power generation, but Italy had also good hydroelectric power. But transportation was based on steam trains and you needed coal for smelting steel; in addition most homes were heated with coal well until the 1960s. (I remember my childhood, we had a coal fired stove). So, when Britain embargoed Italy in 1940, there was a moment of panic, with trains being stopped, people demonstrating in the streets. Nobody said "well, who cares? We have hydroelectric power".
About using humans for pulling the barge, instead of horses or mules, it is a good question; I have wondered about that, too. That must have been common, otherwise Signorini wouldn't have thought of it as worth showing in a picture that - evidently - was thought as having a social meaning (see also the Russian painting at the beginning of the comments queue). And I don't think it was prison labour; don't forget that the picture was hanged for decades in the offices of a workers' cooperative - they wouldn't have wanted a painting showing prisoners there. So, the only thing I can say is that if humans were used for the task it must be because in that specific situation humans were cheaper than mules and horses. Humans, after all, have a lot of stamina in comparison to mules; so they may be especially good for pulling barges. Maybe we'll rediscover that if we go back to the really bad times!
All right: two questions. Coal was used in part for electric power generation, but Italy had also good hydroelectric power. But transportation was based on steam trains and you needed coal for smelting steel; in addition most homes were heated with coal well until the 1960s. (I remember my childhood, we had a coal fired stove). So, when Britain embargoed Italy in 1940, there was a moment of panic, with trains being stopped, people demonstrating in the streets. Nobody said "well, who cares? We have hydroelectric power".
About using humans for pulling the barge, instead of horses or mules, it is a good question; I have wondered about that, too. That must have been common, otherwise Signorini wouldn't have thought of it as worth showing in a picture that - evidently - was thought as having a social meaning (see also the Russian painting at the beginning of the comments queue). And I don't think it was prison labour; don't forget that the picture was hanged for decades in the offices of a workers' cooperative - they wouldn't have wanted a painting showing prisoners there. So, the only thing I can say is that if humans were used for the task it must be because in that specific situation humans were cheaper than mules and horses. Humans, after all, have a lot of stamina in comparison to mules; so they may be especially good for pulling barges. Maybe we'll rediscover that if we go back to the really bad times!
Railroad (vs. tram) electrification started in 1895. Swiss rail electrification was far enough along by the 1920s that a New York Times article of the time mentioned that after a certain line was electrified (over half of all trains would then be electrified) that the Swiss would slow down future electrification until they had retired/worn out some of their surplus of steam locomotives.
This Swiss tourist rail line has been electrified for 85 years.
http://europeforvisitors.com/switzaustria/articles/jungfraujoch_railway.htm
This 1920 paper studied the "state of the art" of railroad electrification and mentioned that 2,000 miles of railroads world wide had already been electrified.
http://www.archive.org/stream/possibilitiesofs00simlrich/possibilitiesof...
My conclusion is that by 1930, Italian railroads at least as far south as Florence, could have been electrified. Improvements in transmission in the 1930s could have extended that much further south.
Just as the USA does not see rail electrification as the solution that it is today, perhaps the Italians of the day did not either.
Best Hopes for Vision,
Alan
A 1910 NYT article about the potential for railroad electrification
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9505E4DA153FE633A25750C1A...
Some railroads were electrified, mainly in the north. But the bulk of the railroad system in Italy remained steam powered well into the 2nd world war and afterwards. Right now, I don't have statistics, but in the "Time Magazine" article that I cite, there is a sentence that I think is revealing
"In sudden panic, the Ministry of Corporations in Rome removed 84 trains from service, limited industries to 80% of the coal they used last year, provided coal coupons for individuals but permitted hotels with foreign tourists to burn slightly above the ration."
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,763640,00.html#ixzz0kzX...
Actually the Swiss did just that - they were short of coal as well as oil in WWII and although the main rail network was electrified the shunting yards / locomotives weren't. As you might expect as an energy storage method resistance heat to open cycle reciprocating steam was not very successful and the locomotives were conversions so did not work very well even ignoring the very poor efficiency.
Then they should have used a locomotive like this;
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dazon_blue/4396400649/
There were (purpose built) fireless steam locomotives built even before that time, designed specifically for use as switchers. It is not effecient, but then neither is a coal/steam locomotive anyway!
You know life is rough when the wages for a barge puller are worth less than oxen.
Great article Ugo! Very educational and I agree that the painting is quite outstanding. Where is it currently hung? The Uffizi?
Just one small correction.
The battle is actually known as 'The Battle of Britain'
How about "Battaglia d'Inghilterra", or even better "Luftschlacht um England". Which side names the battle?
The victor names the battle and we won so it is called 'The Battle of Britain' ! ;)
Whooopssss...... I was thinking in Italian, and I translated "Battaglia di Inghilterra" into "Battle of England". Of course, the winners deserve their due. I modified the text. Thanks for the correction!
It is interesting the extent to which coal was used for city lighting in Europe. Here in Vienna, we still have preserved the old gasometers, recycled as a sort of urban villages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vena_38.jpg
Thanks for the link to that picture...I don't think I had the vaguest clue what a gasometer looked like.
There are four in that picture, now being used as office buildings?
Nice article, and I love that painting. (That's how I feel sometimes.)
There's only one minor point I would quibble about, and that is the statement that 'coal is heavy'. Compared to wood, the fuel that coal mostly competed with, coal is actually quite a bit lighter than wood in terms of energy content ( typically 14,000 Btu/lb versus approx 9,000 Btu/lb for wood).
Thus, to get the same amount of heat from a ton of coal, one would need roughly 1.5 tons of wood. Coal is also about twice as dense as wood, which makes it a far more concentrated source of energy on a volumetric basis.
Sure, in the early 19th century the overland transport of coal was difficult, but that was also true for just about any bulk substance, including firewood. I should also point out that the manual gathering, cutting, and splitting of firewood, while not as unpleasant or dangerous as the mining of coal, was no picnic either.
Here in Canada in those times we often found it much easier to transport wood than coal, as wood will float down rivers from spring to fall, and in booms along coastlines all year.
lengould -
Yeah, I forgot about floating logs down rivers. But that's surely not something you can do everywhere.
It also helped that Canada had few people and one hell of a lot of trees.
Yes, you're certainly correct, not a representative example. These days its not even done in Canada, except for small amounts along the west coast. The practice has been essentially barred from inland rivers due to a) environmental concerns of bark and deadhead logs sinking to the river and lake bottoms and b) the low cost of diesel truck and rail transport. Wonder if there's any change on the horizon there?
Interesting point Len. I spend a bit of time thinking about a wood powered economy for BC, since we have (thanks to the Pine beetle), trees to burn.
Rather than floating logs down, you could do onsite torrefaction of the wood, either as log pieces or press into briquettes. Torrefied wood will float, and does not absorb water. The wood could be bound into bundles/bags containers and floated downstream, as that is where the major energy users are - a gravity fed energy distribution system! If a bundle burst, then you have some wood flotsam floating in the river, like that doesn;t happen already!
Fraser river and tributaries being the ideal candidate here, as it originates in beetle kill tree country around Prince George an runs, dam free to Vancouver. Wouldn't work on the Kootenay River as that flows into the US before coming back to Canada, by which time the wood would have "dissappeared", and for the Columbia, all those dams get in the way.
I expect that as wood to energy makes a comeback we'll see more activity on the coast - lots of driftwood washing up everywhere to provide fuel.
You can't float logs down rivers everywhere but its downright amazing how many logs where floated down mere gutters that pass for rivers in the few days after spring break up that those gutters had enough water to float the logs. I used to live the other side of Lake Superior from Canada and the pictures of the huge bunks of logs poised to avalanche into the river as soon as some brave and skilled and maybe crazy souls knocked the chucks out is amazing. It didn't always go off without a hitch but people moved the biggest part of the big pine out of there (Michigan's UP) in a few short decades cutting and bucking the trees by hand, and floating all the bulk they could. Sustainability wasn't even a thought.
As a coal related aside. Around 1902 my Pennsylvania coal miner great grandfather was out on strike most of two years. Once during that time he road a boxcar to Canada with a trainload of other unemployed miners to man up a logging operation. The logging work and huge but seemingly endless forest was so foreign to him (he had mined coal in Hungary before he migrated to the US) that he jumped on the first train he could take back to his beloved coal mines. They paid him back for his devotion by eventually killing him with black lung.
Likewise in Scandinavia and Finland, with a whole profession of log-on-water transporters who, interestingly enough, where also often portrayed in art, here one famous painting from Pekka Halonen (1925)
In fact, there was so much wood that also industries often used wood-coal instead of coal.
Also, the amount of transports on water is gaining again in Eastern Finland, with the 2009 numbers 1,5 times the 2008 numbers:
RE Coal is heavy
One of the few factoids that sticks in my mind from 5th grade geography lessons was the reason that steel mills were built close to the coal mines rather than close to the iron ore mines. Coal is heavier than iron ore (possibly somewhat dependent on grade). Hence the steel mills of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania rather than the steel mills of Mesabi Range Minnesota.
I, for one, am glad we weaned off of wood, but we may still end up deforesting the entire planet on the downside of the fossil fuel curve.
"I, for one, am glad we weaned off of wood, but we may still end up deforesting the entire planet on the downside of the fossil fuel curve."
That's a given, I'm afraid, ET. The good news for the forests is that most will recover rather quickly once the loggers have passed on.
Great article, Ugo! I agree that you have the basis for a nice book here. I have been alerting my colleagues to this article. Many of the comments are fine, as well. It's also a bonus to introduce art into the mix. I think viewing fine art triggers portions of the viewer's brain that might not otherwise be activated, at least in those right-hemisphere dominated ones.
The history of coal certainly fascinating, and transporting it really is the most important factor. The Australian coal mines are so competitive largely because they are relatively close to coastal ports: Moura to Gladstone is a much shorter haul than Gillette, Wyoming to any sea or river port.
Coal was mined in Greenland at Qullissat on the east coast of Disko from 1924 to 1972. I visited Qullissat in the summer of 1972, when the mine had closed and the town almost completely evacuated. I was told that at that time it was cheaper to import coal from Britain and continue to pay the miners their full wages after they had been resettled in less difficult locations than to keep the mine open.
The coal transport there was peculiarly difficult. Because sea ice scoured the beach during the winter, and there was no natural harbor, a real port was not practical. Instead, barges were beached at high tide, and loaded with coal at low tide with relatively small front-end loaders. On the next high tide, the barges were pushed into the sea and towed by a very small tug (it had to be beached above ice level over the winter) to a waiting freighter. The freighter had to have loading gear to transfer the coal to its hold. Of course, this could only be done from about June to August. During the other nine months, coal was mined and stockpiled.
Interestingly, this is approximately where Captain M'Clintock stopped in the "Fox" to replenish his coal supply in the summer of 1858, after having wintered trapped in sea ice in Baffin Bay. He then headed north again in his search for Franklin before returning to Britain with definitive answers in 1859.
For people interested, I found this link about the auction this painting was sold:
http://www.sothebys.com/app/live/lot/LotDetail.jsp?lot_id=44DTL
Apparently, it is now owned by an English or American amateur.
Wow. £2.8M = c. $4.3M = €3.1M = a lot of money!
Yes, more than ten times the (quite low) estimate!
In the art world that's pocket change. When I worked as an art handler in New York I had access to a storage vault that contained three original Van Goghs aproximate value at the time over 50 million dollars. There were a lot of vaults there...
Yes,coal does have an interesting history,and a very deadly one.Think of all the deadly mine accidents,the miners whose lives were shortened by black lung,the people who have either died in short order or became disabled by the pollution resulting from burning coal,the people who have died or been poisoned because of the collapse of spoil dumps,the severe environmental damage caused by open pit mining --- and so on ad nauseum.
And still we talk about continuing the coal industry for 50 years more.Penny Wong,Australia's Minister for Climate Change has just stated at a conference of industry bigwigs that coal is here to stay.CCS is the thing.Australia will continue to export coal.Nuclear is a no goer.
The hypocrisy from this particular person is breathtaking.The fact that she is Chinese goes someway to explaining that,I guess,but the rest of the government (and opposition) are no better.
Meanwhile,we have a proven technology which can replace coal for electricity generation in less than 20 years if a sufficient effort is put into it.That technology is called nuclear - shock/horror. Clearly nuclear is a MUCH worse proposition than coal.
History damns coal.The prognosis for the future damns coal.There is a total disconnect from reality in so many.The prognosis is not good there either.
So what's the death number of evil nuclear vs ubiquitous coal, again?
Before or after climate change?
Can't help thinking back to Heading Out's last item on coal mining. Coal dust is still a serious danger of explosions in the mines, and according to HO, robotic mining is still infeasible due to machinery malfunctions, so how are they protecting the workers' lungs? 10 hour shifts including lunch breaks and travel wearing dust masks? Bet that's hard to enforce.
The ABC 'Dirty Business' program on Australian TV last night focussed on childhood illnesses and adult cancers in the vicinity of open cut coal mines. It was sad to see pretty scenery like dairy farms rendered unviable by encroaching mines. One farm had been with the same family for 150 years. The New South Wales state government refuse to acknowledge the health issues so a local doctor conducted a damning survey of 900 schoolkids, many with reduced lung function. Another doctor was leaving town to prevent his own kids becoming sick.
Nary a mention of greenhouse issues or the commitment to reduce emissions under the Kyoto agreement. People's health and livelihoods are visibly disintegrating all for the sake of cheap energy and exports. Clearly we are in denial about the real costs of coal.
Thank you Ugo. It is a piece of Italian history that I knew only partially, and it is reminiscent of the stories my granparents told me when I was a child in Italy. Now that I live and work in Moscow this story brings back a lot of nostalgia! Thanks again. Dean
Frederick Soddy wrote in his classic "Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt" (1926)
"In the eight years that have elapsed since Peace (ie WWI), the clouds of darkness have again descended, and already people know in their hearts that it is only a matter of time before another war will come, greater and more terrible than the last in proportion it is delayed. Not an iota of the fundamental economic causes which produced the last has been altered. The vast potential productivity of the industrialised world, particularly in the engineering and chemical industries, must find an outlet. If that outlet is by financial folly denied it in the building-up of the home-life of nations, it remains as a direct and powerful incentive to the fomenting of war." (Page 303)
This is another tragedy of oil and coal.
At the highest levels, the levels of royalty, there was no misunderstanding. Just like US and Britain built up Germany so she could wage a "proper war" (and thus a proper cleansing of the proles), so too did they provide Italy with coal. They knew damn well that Germany was sending coal by rail. If they didnt then they would have supplied Italy with even more coal.
Ugo,
I have to question your assumption that the UK peak in coal production was due to a shortage of supply. Are you simply assuming that? It looks to me like that peak was due primarily to declining consumption in the UK, and that declining Italian imports after WWI were due to other things, such as the war debt's effect on the overall economy.
Do you have any sources for that assumption?