President Obama's Blueprint for Energy, the world situation and the current TWIP
Posted by Heading Out on April 6, 2011 - 10:45am
On Wednesday March 30, President Obama used a visit to Georgetown University to draw attention to a new Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future. The document provides that path through three mechanisms:
a) To develop and Secure America’s Energy Supplies by:
Expanding Safe and Responsible Domestic Oil and Gas Development and Production
Leading the World Toward Safer, Cleaner, and More Secure Energy Supplies
b) To Provide Consumers with Choices to Reduce Costs and Save Energy by:
Reducing Consumer Costs at the Pump with More Efficient Cars and Trucks
Cutting Energy Bills with More Efficient Homes and Buildings
c) Innovating Our Way to a Clean Energy Future by:
Harnessing America’s Clean Energy Potential
Winning the future through Clean Energy Research and Development
Leading by Example
The Federal Government and Clean Energy
The problem that I have had with the Administration’s Energy Policy since it first came to power is that it lacks an understanding of the time element in proposing answers. And let me put up a graph from the latest This Week in Petroleum to explain why I feel that this concern is now strengthened.
As I mentioned in my comment on Dr Saleri’s remarks that oil production bounced back after the revolution in Iraq,yet the TWIP has put up a plot showing how neither Iran, Iraq, nor Venezuela have recovered the levels of oil production that existed in country before they had problems. Only Kuwait, after two years, was able to bounce back.
In all cases the flow of oil was disrupted for more than a year. Consider the current situation where, with supply and demand more closely now in balance, we have the risk of more than 2 mbd of oil disappearing from the world market for a couple of years. With a concomitant rise in demand of 1.4 mbd this year, that means we need to find ways of addressing the coming shortfall NOW – not in 2020, but in 2011.
In that regard, how does the President’s new Blueprint stack up? Let’s go through the three different parts that I outlined above, in turn.
a) Developing and Securing America’s Energy Supplies
The first part of this deals with increasing domestic oil and gas production, and the blueprint notes that the United States was importing 11 mbd when the Administration took office. In introducing the plan, President Obama pledged that this volume will be cut be a third by 2020. One of the ways of doing this is to increase domestic production, and the blueprint contains this plot:
It looks a little more impressive than it is because of the vertical scale, which in total is less than 1 mbd, and this makes the recovery of about 0.56 mbd look more significant than it is. Remember that the promise is that imports will fall by around 3.7 mbd and the gain in domestic production is tapering off in the plot above.
The most likely production gains will be achieved from the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). This is recognized in the document, which notes that while on-shore production from public lands increased from 109 million barrels in 2009 to 114 million barrels in 2010, that from the Outer Continental Shelf went from 446 million barrels to 600 million barrels. Yet with the problems that the industry has seen with the Deepwater Horizon disaster last year, the reduced production over that anticipated from the Thunder Horse platform and the slowed permitting and likely new drilling schedules it will be difficult to see how industry can maintain current production, let alone much increase it. However the Administration is currently developing a longer-term plan:
the Administration is developing a 5-year (2012-2017) comprehensive plan for offshore oil and gas exploration and production, which will ensure that areas with active leases, including the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska, are considered for further leasing and development. The strategy also calls for conducting studies to assess the potential oil and gas resources available in the Mid - and South Atlantic.
Sadly, plans in and of themselves will not produce any additional oil. The President spoke of the importance of imports from Mexico and Canada. Unfortunately Mexican production continues to decline, and imports from there were down to 1.2 mbd in February. It would be helpful if resolutions in the American House of Representatives led to increased Canadian production but with Canada now heading for new elections that isn’t likely to happen in the short-term either. And Exxon Mobil, inter alia, has already responded to explain why there may a considerable gap between the President’s implication of vast untapped leases waiting to be made productive if industry would only get busy, and reality.
The Blueprint rightly draws attention to the “vast reserves of natural gas” and the potential that they hold, but much of the rhetoric in the blueprint is directed at the investigation of hydrofracking and ensuring that it is carried out “in a safe and responsible manner,” as though the thousands of wells that have used this technique already were not. The meetings and studies proposed will not, in reality, contribute much in the way of new gas to the nation's need. Production is likely to be more tied to the price that can be obtained for the gas delivered to a pipeline, in contrast with the price for LNG delivered to the same pipeline from foreign sources. And at the moment, with the world having a surplus of NG, and more countries seeking to get onto this bandwagon, it is unlikely that the shale gas operators will be able to recover the full price of production in the next year or so from sufficient new production to have that much impact.
And so we turn toward the plan for the USA to lead the world towards safer and more secure energy supplies. Part of that answer seems to be based on persuading the BRICS nations not to grow their demand for oil so fast. It is also encouraging them, where possible, to switch from burning oil for power generation to using natural gas. (As though the price differential in itself won’t be a more powerful argument). The Administration is, however, encouraging the collection and use of methane from agriculture, landfills and wastewater, as well as the more usual sources.
The Blueprint notes that the United States would work as an energy partner to safely develop the oil and gas reserves in the pre-salt prospects off Brazil, though I suspect that US participation is not going to change the current progress and production in those parts. Further, in working to make bio-energy sustainable:
The Global Bioenergy Partnership will soon be launching a capacity-building initiative in West Africa to encourage the transition away from the traditional use of biomass through effective forest management to improve agricultural production, and to help countries capture the benefits that sustainable modern bioenergy can provide for energy access and food security.
While more energy for Africa is certainly needed, I am not, myself, convinced that those nations will not, instead, get the majority of their new energy from the indigenous coal supplies that seem to be plentiful. (In light of current developments in Japan, the encouragement of nuclear power was more euphemistic than usual). But while the blueprint also talks of transitioning fleets to natural gas and hybrid-diesel – though the EU is less than enthused about diesel emissions – none of this is going to have much impact other than to hope that by persuading other folk to buy less, the price won’t be as high as it otherwise might be.
b) To Provide Consumers with Choices to Reduce Costs and Save Energy
So how is the consumer to be helped? Well, both by making more efficient vehicles available, and by producing more biofuel production. The goal remains one of getting a million “advanced technology” vehicles by 2015 and of increasing biofuel production. There is a slight snag, hidden in the report, however.
In 2009, the U.S. had only two factories manufacturing advanced vehicle batteries that power advanced technology vehicles and produced less than two percent of the world’s advanced batteries. But over the next few years, the United States will be able to produce enough batteries and components to support 500,000 plug-in and hybrid vehicles and will have the capacity to produce 40 percent of the world’s advanced batteries (2015). In part because of these strategic Recovery Act investments, battery costs are expected to drop by half (2009-2013).
The rest of the world had better not want too many of those advanced vehicles, since there will only be a few more than a million batteries produced by 2015. The Federal Government will begin buying plug-in hybrids this year, although only a hundred at first, and this will be one place where growth may reduce oil demand, although it is questionable whether the number on the road will be sufficient to perceptibly change the gasoline demand from the nation in the next nine years. But while the volume of fluid might increase, by increasing the percentage of ethanol in the mix to 15% (now allowed) some reduction in oil volumes might be achieved. However the source of the additional volumes is left as:
DOE and USDA have provided grants, loans and loan guarantees to spur American ingenuity for the next generation of biofuels.
Unfortunately as the experience with Range Fuels has shown, such hopes are no promise of success, and without an almost immediate success it is difficult to get to sufficient production by 2020 to have any significant impact on American supply. There is little evidence that the cellulosic ethanol process can be brought up to the needed level by then, and there are few alternative processes that can promise a significant contribution. Yet the government remains optimistic that
the Administration has set a goal of breaking ground on at least four commercial-scale cellulosic or advanced bio-refineries over the next two years. In addition, the President has challenged his Secretaries of Agriculture, Energy and the Navy to investigate how they can work together to speed the development of “drop-in” biofuel substitutes for diesel and jet fuel.
One of the more promising sources is camelina but it has a limited growing range in the United States, and is not proving popular on the US farm, though it is now to be test grown by Airbus in Romania. (I am precluded from talking about algae).
In addition there are optimistic discussions about changing the way in which people travel, and the introduction of high-speed rail. Unfortunately the willingness of Republican governors to shoot these plans down, no matter how well intentioned, makes much progress in this area unlikely.
The Blueprint goes on to talk about improving energy efficiency in buildings and through use of renewable energy. However, the major fuel sources for electric power are coal and natural gas, so that changes here will likely have little impact on the amount of oil imported. Thus, even though the projections for the near term look promising for renewables, their overall effects on American consumption is likely to have little significance for some considerable time.
c) Innovating Our Way to a Clean Energy Future
The President proposes to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, taking that money to help fund more research into developing clean energy innovation. Beyond that, the clean energy future is concerned more with finding ways of saving energy, and particularly electrical energy than it is on reducing the need by the United States to import oil.
Given that we are likely to need as much fossil fuel as we can get over the next three or four years, as conventional supply tightens under the problems of MENA popular protest and government change, I continue to believe that the Administration, at the top, does not understand the problem.
We do not have the decades that Secretary Chu’s favored bugs will need to produce enough jet fuel at scale to meet a significant part of demand. I agree that we have to press forward to find long-term solutions to the coming shortages of oil, and then natural gas – but ignoring the reality of the precariousness of the current balance between supply and demand is becoming increasingly worrisome.
In short the Blueprint has really shown nothing new or much learned from the experiences of the past year, which is sad, given that time is starting to run out rather fast.
President Obama's Blueprint for Energy, the world situation and the current TWIP
PDF version
182 comments
President Obama's Blueprint for Energy, the world situation and the current TWIP
PDF version
182 comments
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Ugh. Worthless... and most of these suggestions will be chucked as soon as oil drops in price again anyway.
There is still total obsession with fuels and cars. Only now this imaginary fuel will be coming from places closer to the US rather than magical faraway places that cost so much more to bomb.
In regards to your last line. It is already too late. Even if you don't think the moment has arrived personally, momentum will overpower any sane attempt to stop the inevitable now.
Tapis oil spot price $128.91
http://www.upstreamonline.com/marketdata/markets_crude.htm
Far, far too late.
Where will the next bubble burst?
Probably before $147... It wasn't that long ago so I would expect speculation to dampen before then. I expect $120 or so to then be the new normal for at least a while after that.
I do expect a lot of politicians imitating headless chickens though. So at least the spectacle should be entertaining for a few days.
Now let's see how good my predictions are!
I don't think there is any clear "top" for oil barring government intervention (which may come in if it gets near that $147 level it hit last time). I wouldn't be surprised if due to the adaptations that have occured in the last few years since the last time this happened (by adaptations I mean the cutting of a part of the population out of the economy), that oil can go higher as the people and businesses that remain have more ability to survive higher prices. In which case the mythical $200 oil may become a reality.
From projections based on what has happened after other price spikes (reset to a higher baseline), a semi-stable $120 level seems reasonable though.
I expect that it will be more than just politicians running around like headless chickens - just wait for the news stories of people turning in their trucks for compacts to start. Sadly people seem not to be able to make the connection between not having mass transit within and between cities and oil use, so they keep voting in republican governors who oppose rail with something approaching supersitious emotion. Sadly, it's already 10 years to late, and even in places with a democratic bent the opposition to good mass transit and particularly rail is amazing - here in Hawaii it seems the majority is very against rail, despite a very democratic population. Though rail is only a partial solution, it sure would soften the blow.
I think in America everyone will blame themselves for being too poor to drive when the time comes that they can no longer.
I would be a stronger supporter of rail in Hawaii (Oahu) if it were not also intended to use taxpayer money to further enrich the Campbell Estate elites and their bought politicans like the former governor Cayatano to develop Kapolei as a "second city", thereby making all the Estate's next-to-worthless ranch land into valuable real estate. Ever see the movie "Chinatown"? Why is the rail going to Kapolei when the commuters all live up in Mililani?
That's island politics in a nutshell - since it's up close we get to see who's scratching who's back.
I agree that the current rail plan is half baked in pretty much every way, from using a monorail over more standard rail (surely this will cost more) to not reaching several places where it would do a great deal of good (I think the Wai'anae coast probably has a lot of people who would be well served by a better transit option to Honolulu as well, but just going to Kapolei isn't going to do them much good; and of course stopping at Ala Moana instead of University seems silly too - so Mililani isn't the only place that could use it). Perhaps the scariest thing in my eyes is having the same people that run TheBus control the rail - I remember commuting in the early morning rush hour a few years ago, and they run buses butt to butt so that one will be overflowing and the other empty... Stupidity at work.
That said, I almost think any rail would be an improvement over no rail, and the tendency in Hawaii is to pick apart things with small complaints due to the number of groups hoping to benefit. Ultimately, no matter what the plan, not everyone on the island would benefit.
Funny thing, I think the the Campbell Estate people who are hoping for some future vision of growth are going to be disappointed whether the rail goes to Kapolei or not. The higher gas prices are the more precarious Hawaii's position, even despite the tourist industry that is badly skewed toward luxury travel.
How do you figure that?
My understanding has been that monorail costs less to build and operate per mile than heavy rail (which is what municipal-scale rail like MARTA and BART are) and that the reason you see heavy rail instead of monorail is precisely because heavy rail is more expensive. That's counterintuitive, I know, but it makes sense when you look at it like this: with heavy rail, more corporations make more money. That has far more to do with what actually comes to pass than benefit to the public or cost-effectiveness.
And even if monorail cost as much as or a little more than heavy rail, consider the benefit of being able to totally eliminate grade crossings, cross territory without interfering significantly with land use, and being able to thread through existing urban infrastructure. Power delivery is integrated into the rail structure - no overhead wiring as needed with pantograph trains. Granted, the *size* (internal width) of monorail trains isn't the same as what you can have with heavy rail but the passenger capacity of a monorail train isn't as pressing an issue when you can have systems with more stations that are better distributed - specifically, distributed where people actually live.
One of the best and most visible monorail systems in the world is open to view at Walt Disney World in Orlando. There is a closed loop that services three resort hotels, the Magic Kingdom, and the Transportation and Ticket Center (TTC) and another that makes the five-mile run from the TTC to Epcot Center. The resort hotel line passes through the atrium of the Contemporary Resort Hotel and does so so quietly that you can't really hear it from inside the rooms (you can hear the door latches release).
To truly facilitate replacing automobiles in people's lives, you've got to have mass transit with access points that are near where they live and where they are trying to go. The failure of the MARTA system in Atlanta is that it does neither of those things and what little coverage it has was VERY compromised by longstanding prior land use and infrastructure (resorting to tunneling where those things made passage impossible for heavy rail); monorail's adaptability makes overlaying monorail systems on top of urban, suburban, exurban, and rural areas vasty preferable.
My eyes roll at high-speed rail talk (even when Barack Obama speaks it) because aircraft make distance so much easier, safer, and faster. HSR systems won't solve the fundamental problem of automobile-less livability.
An alternative scenario is that outlying suburban and exurban areas will be largely abandoned. Some of my thoughts on maintaining and replacing infrastructure in a Post-Peak Oil world:
http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-04-04/commentary-will-we-be-a...
Commentary: Will we be able to maintain & replace our energy & transportation infrastructure in a post-peak oil world?
The other solution is people just won't travel as much. I read something recently talking about how corporate culture is finally starting to accept the reality of telecommuting in what is largely a service-based economy. The gas saved in suburbanites no longer community would go a long way to keeping the bare essentials flowing to them by truck. So the inevitability of a mass exodus out of the suburbs is not as rock solid as suburb-haters think.
Yes indeed, telecommuting will become more and more acceptable as time goes by. The main reason it hasn't really taken off as quickly as it could is managment inertia, the fear in managers that they will "lose" the staff under them as they no longer have the level of control you get in an office environment. Another downside is staff isolation, all telecommuters need to visit the office at least a couple of times a month to avoid the feeling of exclusion.
In the future telecommuting could be very positive for people as their quality of life improves without having a couple of hours each day travelling and all the hastle involved, but they need a proper "home office" to work from, a place they can leave at the end of the working day to go "home" from.
One downside I forsee is the risk that teleworkers may find that employers start to reduce their pay relative to commuting staff as they can live cheaper. Without the expence of commuting, they "earn" more. This could bring the danger that telecomuters could end up "trapped" in the burbs, as when fuel does get really expensive, they'll never be able to afford it to commute again. By this time I expect most people to have moved close to work or have local jobs.
The average US light vehicle costs about $28k, and gets 23MPG.
A Prius costs less, and gets twice the MPG.
Why won't people just move to a hybrid or EV, rather than abandoning suburbia???
Another big issue with MARTA was that (Republican stronghold) Cobb County (incl. Newt's former district) opted out from the beginning. Their answer was to pave, baby, pave and to add 6 more lanes to I-75. While the financials were touted, an underlying reason was that the largely upper mid-class whites in the area didn't want easy access to their enclaves from the inner-city. Many took their tax and transportation dollars there for this reason, pricing the 'undesirables' out. Gwinnett County eventually faced the same issue to some extent.
One wonders how much race/class/income level influence has hampered mass transit development in these cities.
Absolutely racism has had a major impact on deliberately cutting off
public transit from inner cities to suburbs.In particular this was a theme of an excellent NPR piece on the deliberate restriction of public transit access to predominately white communities which persists and is still being fought today.
Europe never had the same amount of "White Flight" as the USA and maintained affluent city dwellers and viable public transit to their cities which was a major difference why they have public transit and many US cities do not.
When I visited my brother and his in-laws in Spain who were from professional backgrounds their family had a very elegant apartment in downtown Madrid consisting of almost the entire floor of a multi-story Apt building. The Metro and buses made it very easy to visit.
On the other side of the coin, "Urban Renewal" frequently meant tearing down what had been viable but less affluent inner city communities to build massive highways to allow whites to access the cultural amenities downtown.
An excellent case study of such community destruction is East Orange, New Jersey which got split in two and lost 10% of its land and taxbase to Interstate 280 to Newark. Ironically now the vintage homes of East Orange are coming back with gentrification although the community itself remains split in two by I-280 with the only non-auto transit a narrow sidewalk on the side of a few overpasses.
The inner city strikes back. The new Ghettos are the burbs. LMAO
More people on food stamps in the burbs than the cities after that little 2008 oil spike.
My understanding has been that monorail costs less to build and operate per mile than heavy rail
The problem with both monorail and heavy rail is that they MUST be grade-separated from automobile and pedestrian traffic, which is very expensive. Typically this is about four times the cost of at-grade systems. The real problem with monorails is that they MUST be elevated, even when there is no practical need to do so, and when it might be more convenient to have street-level or underground service.
There are very few places in the US that do not already have rapid transit service which have the population density to support either monorail or heavy rail. A better choice in most places would be light rail, which has more than adequate capacity for most medium-sized cities, but does not have the heavy construction costs of MR or HR.
Light rail can run at street level in downtown cores, loading from sidewalks or stations which are not much more than elevated sidewalks, but outside of the downtown area can be put into existing railroad rights-of-way, or the medians of freeways, for a considerable saving in cost but still operating at the high speeds of MR or HR. If necessary, LR can be run in elevated structures or underground tunnels, but it normally runs at-grade to save valuable taxpayer money.
Typically LR has about 1/4 of the construction costs of MR or HR, although designers have to avoid the urge to "gold-plate" the system with extensive elevated or underground sections to achieve those savings.
Monorails are more suitable for a theme-park environment, where the view is part of the experience. In normal urban commuting environments they are extremely less useful.
Heavy rail need not be grade separated from auto and pedestrian traffic. NJ Transit, the LIRR and MTA North are not, except in high density areas. Light rail, such as the Hudson Bergen line are good, but for longer, higher traffic routes, you need the higher performance and capacities of systems like the PATH or NY Subway.
Monorails, such as Detroit's People Mover, tend to be short, expensive, slow and low capacity. Same for monorails in airports, such as at DFW and EWR.
Maybe it need not be separated, but in metro Chicago it seems like a car, truck, or very occasionally a bus, gets nailed about once or twice a week, causing, at a minimum, delays and adverse publicity. So in the absence of a workable and politically viable way to get idiots off the roads...
In NJ they have crossing gates almost everywhere, so I think it is less frequent. Of course there are cases of pedestrians who either inadvertently or deliberately go onto the tracks, causing the delay for "police investigation". So grade separation would be very desirable.
Maybe I overstated the case. Heavy rail does not HAVE to be grade separated from pedestrians and cars, but it SHOULD be separated to keep the death toll down.
I was thinking in terms of electric heavy rail systems with a third, "hot" rail. I've seen cases in Europe where these were not grade separated, but apparently European mothers were very good at teaching their children not to touch the hot rail while crossing the tracks. For people who could read, there was a sign saying, "750 Volts, DANGER DE MORT!," and a graphic of someone being electrocuted. It probably worked for everyone except drunks.
Light rail systems are somewhat more benign since they usually keep the speeds low when operating at grade, and put the electric wires about 5 metres (16 feet) above the tracks. Passenger capacity is only half that of heavy rail systems, but that's more than enough for most US cities.
LIRR and Metro North are third rail systems. Besides safety, the problem with third rail is the low voltage, low power, need for frequent substations, and poorer reliability in snow and ice conditions. It also is incompatible with double-stack container well cars, which are wide and low. Not that the LIRR doesn't also have height clearance and weight restrictions that make it an obsolete system for freight. There are no freight rail tunnels or bridges across the Hudson River south of Selkirk, NY just south of Albany, so rail freight to Long Island and Westchester is by barge float. NYC, Long Island, and southwestern New England are supplied by water or by truck from New Jersey.
Do you have any links for monorail being less expensive than heavy rail? I always thought the Disney monorails were extremely expensive. This link http://www.lightrailnow.org/myths/m_monorail001.htm indicates that monorails are are about 5 time the capital costs of light rail.
For low capital cost there are buses, especially if you do not build bus stations.
Pittsburgh to be a hub for Megabus
In a supposed free country Govt. intervention is limited to tapping the reserves, or instituting rationing. After all, unless the State owns all facets of oil production, and domestically produces all that is needed, intervention is not possible. Just as capital flows to greatest return, so does oil. Plus, it should be noted that US Govt. is pretty much the whore of business and multi-nationals with the concern of citizens somewhere below friends and family of the influential class.
I apologize for this cynicism, but I don't see anything positive to dissuade me from this belief that the majority of US citizens are now an inconvenience and source of duped votes. After listening to the Republican scenario for future budget cuts, one realizes that the sick and old are valuable only as sources to enrich private insurers. Even veterans, and my parents were both vets, get the shaft upon return from their required participation in politically inspired wars.
Over the last few years the word 'entitlements' has slowly crept into the lexicon to where it now stands that Social Security is a dirty word, as is every other form of benefit that people once paid into without choice, but with hope that 'oh well, when I retire there will at least be'..... and now that is up for discussion with the money pissed away overseas.
What will it take to wake people up? Walmart going out of business? The topsoil all blowing away? Another 'accident' that taxpayers have to pay for and fix?
Obama has been a great disappointment because he was actually thought to be different. I see no option for Americans but to spoil your ballots and then.....
What a damn mess that is unfolding. Oh well, off to work and thankful I have a job.
Paulo
Actually support for Green public transit is another place where the politicians supported by the existing powers that be for highway repaving,autos and sprawl Real Estate, lag behind the public.
See:
http://t4america.org/resources/2010survey/
The problem is that unless public transit is frequent, fast and
reasonably priced it cannot replace a car as a reasonable alternative.
With bus schedules notoriously unreliable and train schedules which leave
3 1/2 hour gaps how can people rely on it?
Exactly, this is really, really bad news. It hardly mentions any research *at all*. Where's the innovation ? I'm looking for battery research and prizes, new materials research by the DoE, new nuclear power research (like thorium reactors), and perhaps a dollup of fusion ?
This is the first presidential plan in ... well ... history of America that does not include significant research into new energy sources.
This plan is nothing more than "we surrender to gaia". Perhaps Obama should take a few history books in hand and look up exactly what gaia worship involved exactly, the cruel sacrifices, and the total failure of the religion. Obviously mother nature failed to comply : she generously dispensed disasters whether or not anyone worshipped or "respected" her.
oelewapperke ,
Let me guess, you don't live in the US, right?
Here's an excerpt from a F.A.R.E. email I got yesterday and it underscores the lack of vision and how beholden we are to special interests and corporate fascists in the so called Land of the Free.
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/utilities-overpower-the-littl...
A Times Editorial
Utilities overpower the little guy.
I Can't wait for the new nuclear power plant that FPL plans to build at consumer expense in my area. A Cat 5 hurricane won't have any effect on it I'm sure...
Nor will rising sea levels...are they building inland ?
Could US Nuclear plants withstand a tsunami?
Effect of Sea Level Rise on Japan (1996)
Edit : Here's a more recent article relating to the nine nuclear plants on the coast of the US, including Turkey Point in Florida :-
http://www.onearth.org/article/sea-level-rise-brings-added-risks-to-coas...
You are a couple years behind the times. The Stimulus Package was filled with money that was used for EV component research, battery research, smart grid research, etc. A123, Enerdel, and several other Li-Ion makers got money.
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22188/?a=f
Now wasn't that pretty cool . . . and administration that addressed a big problem a couple years before it became a big problem? Obama and Dr. Chu saw the problem coming and moved on it years ago.
Rush Limbaugh? Is that you?
http://mediamatters.org/research/201103160032
Research is not going to result in any implementation for at least 10 to 20 years; but we need action NOW! Conservation is the best bet now.
HO,
Thank you for raising a timely topic.
It seems that every new President trudges out the same old and tired speech about how
"We are addicted to oil and by golly, this time we are mad as he77 and we are finally going to do something real about our addiction problem!"
President Obama seems no different than any of his predecessors (except for Jimmy).
Worse yet, Obama talks a good game about "out-innovating" the rest of the world when he stands on the front porch of his house.
However, the backdoor reality of the walk he walks instead of the talk he talks is that he is continuing the dismantling of the US patent system much inline with what GW Bush was doing during his tenure. Both administrations have been trying hard to "deform" the patent system so that it discourages today's inventors from following their dreams and so that it keeps in power the current ones of TPTB's.
_______________________
For more info, see for example here: The Economist Weights In on Patent Deform (2011)
See also: Patent reform is a fraud on America
--to quote one comment on Stuart's blog re the 3/30/2011 speech
Carter was not serious about energy or conservation. He played the concerned part better than others, but take a look at what he actually proposed. It was standard magical thinking/avoidance.
http://www.deathbycar.info/2010/07/solar-gesture/
I recall him being a wee bit more concerned than the others. Not quite sure of the purpose of the attack. To militantly go where no man has gone before would guarantee not being elected. My recollection of those years were adjusting of thermostats, wearing sweaters and driving fuel efficient cars at reasonable speeds. Solar panels were a nice touch.
He lasted one term for various reasons. His replacemnt convinced us that saving fuel was silly, that we have a god given right to take what we want and use it however we wished and that ketchup is a vegetable.
Anyone can want to do more, but there are entrenched interests who very effectively prevent positive change.
Slinging mud backwards into history (the blame game) doesn't help us now.
For better or worse, Reagan did what he did. Carter, Clinton, Bush also did what they did. It is what it is.
Now we have Obama and his obligatory "addicted to oil" speech.
The sound of this clinking-in-the-pocket loose "change" appears no different than that of Obama's predecessors.
Kunstler hit it on the mark this past Monday with his bit about Chu playing the role of closet energy Geek for Obama:
Maybe there will be a new movie soon: "Blame it on the Geek"?
________
p.s. This Kunstler commentator: "map it baby map it" was funny as all get out and gone re the drill baby drill crowd.
You've got to be kidding. Kunstler missed the mark by a country mile. Kunstler knows little to nothing about science & engineering whereas Chu is a Nobel prize winning physicist. Kunstler is just being the blow-hard that he always is. He whines about Chu & Obama and then says:
No Sh!t, Sherlock! That is what Obama is saying when he says we only have 2% of the world's reserves! Why is Kunstler trying to link the Obama administration with fantasies in right-wing chain emails? I guess it is easier to build up a strawman than to address the actual proposals.
The thing about Obama's speeches --if you listen carefully-- is that he panders to both sides of the aisle:
You can find in his words anything that you wish to find there.
You can selectively filter out anything that rubs the other way.
Here's how the Archdruid sees it:
More precisely, Obama’s speech outlined an energy nonpolicy. He seems to have had his speechwriters scrape up every cliché from every speech on energy policy made by every other resident of the White House since Richard Nixon, and the result was very nearly a nonspeech about his nonpolicy: a sort of verbal pantomime, in which Obama pretended to be doing something about energy in much the same way a mime pretends to be trapped inside a phone booth. He proposed, in effect, that the energy policy of the United States should include all the same things it’s included for the last thirty years, under the pretense that this is something new, and in the serene conviction that the same policy choices that backed us into our present corner will somehow succeed in getting us out of it. --source
"You can find in his words anything that you wish to find there."
And we do.
Flip back 2 yrs, Inauguration. What had everyone pinned on this guy? Here was the REAL rainbow candidate elected, the stuff of Jackson's dream, minus the placeholder. No one wanted that start--horrendous, unpopular war, biggest financial melt since the thirties, debt on debt on top of debt, and the foreseeable end of FF with climate change acknowledged.
He followed the only course available, the one set. The same foxes that burnt the financial chickenhouse would rebuild it, they could keep the chickens; the war and debt would continue, even expand. The course set is the one maintained, and we can project whatever interpretation we desire.
So, you're claiming that Obama and Chu have something serious to say about energy? Name it, please. It certainly isn't contained in this speech, which is indeed green smoke, as Kunstler says.
But the substance of what he said and proposed was 100 percent conventional/meaningless.
As for getting re-elected, if a person is truly convinced and concerned, damn the torpedoes and name the names.
But our system weeds such people out when they cry or yelp or say something "irresponsible."
Remember the reporter who asked Barry Commoner if he was a serious candidate, or merely trying to talk about the issues?
I'm not trying to rehash the past, but I also don't see how over-rating Carter helps anybody. We need to be honest and refrain from peddling fake history and too-easy answers.
"there are entrenched interests who very effectively prevent positive change."
Yeah, namely THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
You don't remember the 55 mph speed limit? Can you imagine any modern politician since Carter doing that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law
Actually, I have a new hypothesis to fit the facts that Obama has failed so spectacularly on the whole hope and change thing.
He's a zombie controlled by Dick Cheney.
That energy speech amounted to agreement that "The American way of life is not negotiable."
His budget is agreement to "Deficits don't matter."
The other alternative is that Obama read the report from the energy conference in the early days of the Bush administration, turned pale, and lost his nerve.
Those alternatives aren't mutually exclusive...
I was hoping to like the plan, but it does seem mostly like a lot of hopeful rhetoric. Perhaps that is all we can expect any more from any politician?
Nicely laid out discussion. Just a couple nit-pics for now:
Under a) at the end of the second sentence "be cut be a third" needs to be changed to "be cut by a third."
More substantially, in the last chart, it was my impression that the level of new wind production had actually (and rather shockingly) dropped last year. I realize your chart must be total wind production, but it might bear mentioning that recent events in that sector don't seem to bode well for a picture of ever increasing wind production.
I am thinking in particular about this Staniford article: http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2011/03/us-wind-energy-installations-colla...
But perhaps this data is faulty or has been updated? Or it is a temporary glitch?
On the main point--stagnant domestic oil production--it would be nice to see a more properly scaled graph that would more clearly show the insignificance of the recent bump up in oil production, perhaps overlaid by the amount needed to make up the 3.7 mbd required by the President's plan. (Sorry, I'd do it, but my graphing skills are nil.)
Surely the main thing we should be doing is taxing the heck out of gasoline (and other ff), giving a big chunk of the tax back to lowest income earners, and using the rest for mass transit, carpool coordination, battery purchase and research, home insulation...
But instead the emphasis is on bringing DOWN prices. This is the only message he can send, politically, no doubt. Especially with the horde of ravening nits in congress and on radio ready to savage any one who whispers the word "tax."
Truth, of course, is generally not a political win in any situation.
Firefox 4.0 has not been kind to my XP machine.
It crashes when trying to open up PDF files.
For others who have a similar problem, here is a non-PDF link to the President's energy speech:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/03/30/obamas_speech_on_am...
The renewables problem is no doubt being compounded by the troubles in Japan now.
I'm not aware of any problem with renewables in Japan at the present time, care to elaborate?
Electronic components from Japan have gone up in price, especially in China. They also export a lot of solar cells from what I remember so that will have an effect on price too. Tight margins and all that.
The point of renewables is that everyone is waiting for them to become "cheaper" than oil. If they (rather obviously if you think about it) rise with oil, and/or because of Japan, then renewables still won't gain any more traction in the market regardless of the situation.
Ironically high oil prices will probably kill any renewables initiative.
The point of renewables is that everyone is waiting for them to become "cheaper" than oil
The cost of driving a Chevy Volt on wind power electricity (10KWh/50miles) is about one dollar(10cents/kWh) compared with $4 driving this vehicle on gasoline using about one gallon to cover 50miles. So wind power is already only one quarter the cost of oil.
Ironically high oil prices will probably kill any renewables initiative.
Renewables are not competing with oil on price, but with coal-fired and nuclear powered electricity production. Very little oil is used to build, erect or maintain wind power in comparison to wind energy output
Don't forget that the cost of driving a chevy volt must first include the cost of buying one and the electronic components (including battery) that it contains, which can only come from a handful of manufacturers. "Cheaper" is in scare quotes for a reason.
I see many disappointments in your future.
Nuclear is cheap as well if you ignore the cost of the plant, the accidents, storage of waste products, etc.
And the evacuations, and the shooting of the waste to the moon (as has been suggested here), and the decommissioning, and the treatments for cancers caused...
Yawn. Glad you are "concerned". What else are you concerned about? LMAO
Why not let the science play itself out?
So much wishful thinking, so little time. Perhaps we can petition the Lord with prayer? We're apparently praying for Mexico to come to our rescue.
I thought the US Blueprint was military intervention in the MENA. Maybe that's too obvious for POTUS to discuss, or too embarassing.
If we had this blueprint in 1981, we wouldn't be in the dire situation we are now....wait, we did have such a plan, and it was shelved by incoming President Reagan.
?? Removing fossil fuel subsidies should have happened decades ago, and is one of the reasons we have the problems we have. The sooner we wean off of them, the better. Why emphasize 'business as usual', when we are headed for the cliff?
This article is full of such vague, hand-waving remarks that have little to no substance behind them.
I've yet to see any convincing argument that fossil fuels are subsidized any more than a lot of other industries (such as agribusiness or banks or lawyers or General Electric, for example). That said, I think fossil fuels should be heavily taxed: call it a carbon tax, call it a fuel tax, whatever you want to call it. It is obvious that the world possesses seriously limited fossil fuel resources, and it amounts to child abuse to consume them at the rate we are currently using them, especially when much of this use is waste.
A substantial tax on all fossil fuels at a rate equivalent to at least a couple of dollars per gallon of gasoline or diesel would convince many people to conserve and do wonders for the Federal deficit. The time to institute this would have been early 2009 when prices were falling, but I suppose that would have been politically unthinkable. Maybe when the deficit gets so bad that China stops buying U.S. bonds people will realize something has to be done.
The whole system is a subsidy to fossils. What planet are you on?
The ethanol blending credit to big oil. The ability to pollute endlessly is a giant subsidy. Most military funding to fight wars and hold down MENA is a subsidy. The roads, bridges, land leases --- all of it is a subsidy. And Exxon pays zero income taxes.
Your false "concern" about debt is priceless. Ronald Reagan created mountains of debt and so did Bush II and no one cared. LOL.
I know it's been posted here before but...
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-16-2010/an-energy-independent...
solution is to build more reactors.Convert more cars and trucks to electric power. You cannot produce the terra watts of energy needed to replace oil by any other means.
Care to define 'NEEDED'! And, WHY, it is 'NEEDED'? While you're at it also tell us by 'WHOM' it is 'NEEDED'. This particular canard, is really getting old fast...
I suppose that one is free to assert that 'NEEDED' correctly describes only the barest elements of mere impoverished bestial survival. However, words tend to mean what people use them to mean - the days of prescriptive dictionaries are largely gone. Most people use 'NEEDED' rather more broadly, to mean adequate food supply, medical care, transportation, etc.; and whatever they may mean by 'adequate', it goes well beyond what was available to some prehistoric hunter-gather tribe in some wholly imaginary Arcadia.
Still, the real question keeps going unasked. When did the current population sign up in significant - or even noticeable - numbers for induction into a religion of asceticism?
In other words, how much is too much? And who gets to force their fantastic notions about the matter upon everyone else? Do the new, wonderful, canard-free sumptuary laws prohibit Hummers (well, OK, those are now a dead issue)? Mid-sized sedans? Priusus? Motor scooters? Trains? Push-bikes? Boots? Shoes? Sandals?
And yet, he didn't say 'Impoverished, Bestial Asceticism Distributed by Force', did he?
No, that's what you have to invoke in order to protect your other points.. because the prospect of ACTUALLY looking at how you might yourself be using too much energy and other materials would be an unforgivable intrusion on your freedom.. even if you imposed this analysis of your own free will.
Obey your thirst. The customer is always right.
You overestimate (most) humans, I'm afraid.
Well, whatever, but you're insistently ducking the question - where, along or beyond or outside the rather broad range that I suggested, would you like to impose the line? Clearly, on a strict enough definition of NEED, even sandals are not NEEDED in some climates. OTOH, on a broad enough definition, maybe the entire range or more could be included. (Oh, and of course, you can shout about not using force, but the intensity of both the original post and your post suggests otherwise. After all, volunteer agencies rarely attempt to recruit people by berating them.)
N.B. since I haven't subscribed to a religion of asceticism at this time, I don't feel any great "moral" obligation to address the "issue", so I'm satisfied for now to address it mainly on other grounds, and to ask questions.
The point is, when Fred suggests that we are stubbornly refusing to take a good look at what we actually NEED.. (and yes, he was yelling it a bit.. but that's not exactly putting a gun to your head or establishing a Big Brother Edict..) you immediately go into these Caricatures of EXTREME DEPRIVATION. "Sandals aren't really needed.. you can survive with bare feet"
Well, sure. This is just how scared people are when confronted with questioning our excesses. It 'sounds' to them like they're about to be subjected instead to starvation and stalag conditions. Unsurprising, I have to say. But do you think that maybe there are positions in between the extremes?
Bingo! You win today's prize. That, even if it's a bit exaggerated, is precisely why the Obama speech wasn't overly substantive.
Here's the problem, and it's very simple. There's a very old saying, "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile." Once you start down the road that winds its way from the Hummer to the bare feet, there's no particular logical stopping point "between the extremes" (nor, indeed, have you yet suggested one.) That's characteristic of a continuum after all. No bright fiery lights will ever come on in the sky to say that, here and now, you've pushed as far as it is appropriate to go. Moreover, remember, as per a thread from Monday, that once you get government involved (and the original shouting surely suggested that voluntarism might be expected to fail to cut the mustard, else why shout), Kafkaesque regulation just metastasizes without limit.
So how can one possibly inject some sort of stopping-point into a continuum in a manner that would be credible to most people? Sure, there are positions between the extremes, but how do you select a particular one, get enough agreement on it to matter, and make the agreement stable enough to satisfy most people that it's not merely a slippery slope, or the thin edge of a wedge? I just dunno; maybe the social-science guys have some ideas.
In the meantime, why would anyone feel any assurance that it would stop short of wherever on the continuum they figure they can live with? Lacking any assurance whatsoever, why would anyone ever agree (voluntarily) even to start down such a road, knowing that nowhere is there any identifiable stopping-point? And to get directly back at the keypost topic... after pondering those two questions, why on earth would anyone have expected the Obama speech to contain much in the way of substance?
Hope springs eternal?
Why?
Because he promised change "WE" (the TOD readers) can believe in.
Nobody voted for Obama thinking he would be Richard Heinberg.
I thought most people voted for Obama because his opponent was a deranged old man being followed around by a woman so spectacularly thick that I have difficulty comprehending how she managed to breathe and walk at the same time.
Unfortunately, for a long time in the U.S. we have been going along the direction towards bigger and bigger cars so we ended up with the Hummer. So, because you fear we will go far to the point where we are all walking around in bare feet, you propose we do nothing. I will take my chances going in the other direction. You apparently fear any movement away from the maximalist energy consuming position. That is a recipe for disaster and I doubt if anyone else buys your argument that somehow we slip to some sort of extreme ascetic position.
Why would anyone think that a movement towards a less energy intense transportation system would result in us all walking around on bare feet? This would only occur if there were actually forces or people with power trying to move us to that position. It is not a physical or social law but just a product of your imagination. Your argument is just absurd.
Some of us would like to see cities change to the point where the use of the auto was minimized and people could easily avail themselves of alternatives like bicycling,walking, and reliable transit. The fact that you imagine such a state as some kind of dystopian stalingrad is your problem. I have lived in places where I could easily go wherever I need to go, including work through bicycling,walking, and transit. These weren't some future utopia. These places happened because people made choices. Automobiles weren't restricted but it was obvious to most people that they did not make sense in terms of convenience and expense.
Our dependency didn't happen by magic or because of some sort of natural force but because the powers that be had a vision years ago to make autos the best alternative. Unfortunately, for most people, it has become the only alternative.
"Why would anyone think that a movement towards a less energy intense transportation system would result in us all walking around on bare feet?"
You obviously don't listen to Fox or talk radio...
These are practically manic ravings, Paul.. really. Who is going to 'Take this mile' from you and me?
The people who suggest any of these challenges to excess here on this site, (I'd offer Ghung, since he presented an open example in the last day, if I might) don't seem to have decided they should give up Everything because they gave up Some things. They've never told you to give up everything down to your bare feet.
Maybe you're resting your case on some magical 'They'.. but these boogeymen are all in your head.
That's risible.
Actually, I and others here, have, many many times, but you much prefer to demolish straw carts than actually discuss reality.
Paul, I posted this, from Orlov, on yesterday' Drumbeat:
Someone posted a link to Lester Brown's 'Plan B' video. He discusses the need for dramatic and immediate change, and uses WWII US as an example of how these shifts in priorities are possible. I have some problems with his example in these respects:
1942 USA was a country at war. While I agree that we humans need to change how we live here on the planet, I reitterate; there is no we, globally, and effective mitigation of our various predicaments will require a global response.
1942 USA had been attacked and our closest allies were being overrun. Folks came together with a sense of purpose prompted by fear and genuine patriotism. Winning the war and preserving western democracy became the predominant religion. Folks had been tempered to austerity by the great depression and were ready to be given a sense of purpose by the government. I see no such unifying force, no single enemy to combat (for the enemy this time is us). What we have now is division and blame, greed at the top and folks determined to hold on to what they have.
The required changes
can'twon't be legislated for these reasons. Collective consent has been disabled by distraction and disinformation. Austerity and change will be forced by circumstances until conditions get to a point where they become the defacto-official reality. My fear is that these forced changes will not result in a sense of unity, that 'we the people' will turn on ourselves. The signs are here, now. 'Love of Country' and 'Patriotism' have become corrupted catchphrases. I pray I'm wrong.I had a small hope once, that an Obama figure could pull off something like FDR did in 1942, communicate the severity of our collective situation, perhaps in a series of fireside-chatlike sessions; break down the various issues and connect the dots. If enough folks could be convinced that "Voluntary poverty is a hell of a lot easier than involuntary poverty", then meaningful change could be implemented. Rather than the inevitable crash, the ship of state would be intentionally beached, so to speak, until repairs could be made. Alas, it was a naive hope.
The more global my thinking, the more local my response.
BTW, Brown's video is well worth the time.
But there are lessons which can be gleaned from the experience of Americans and other industrial humans to collective deprivation during the 1930s Depression and WWII. I think these can be useful for fashioning new stories not premised on growth and progress. "We did it before, we can do it again."
Maybe all that new waste can then go into storage in the Fukushima prefecture of Japan, the heretofore proud Dairy and Beef farms there apparently have a lot of empty stalls now, and that part of the island is likely to be quiet and peaceful for some time now.
Nuclear is the solution.. the final solution.
Time to oil up our bikes again.
Better off, just accepting that there will be less energy and adjusting yout lifestyle & expectations accordingly. Simply having smaller cars and reducing unnecessary driving would go a long way down the road of reducing consumption. It's not that difficult!
Go ahead a live in la la land if you want. People will demand more energy when their bellies get empty. When they have to walk to work. I am all for using energy more wisely but there will be a limit to such measures.
They are not going to shut down the reactors that are now built regardless of what has happened in Japan. More likely they will double down. I know China and India will. The billions living there cannot do otherwise. More and more the French and the Chinese will be the leaders in this field. We all know how well the Chinese handle consumer safety. Better for us to lead because of the anti-nuclear forces we have a safer system of regulation.
Germany has already shut down 9 reactors in response to Japan's accident.
Their remaining nuclear reactors are now facing closure within the next decade (again). It will be interesting to see if this decision is overturned (again).
Germany has already shut down 9 reactors in response to Japan's accident.
And the alternative is - "Burn more coal, baby, burn more coal".
Forget wind power or solar. The default option is to reactivate their old fossil fuel plants and burn more coal. Goodbye greenhouse gas reductions.
It's not what the plan is, it's what happens when you act without having a plan.
Ironic that you say that which such absolute certainty do you have a link or are you just making assumptions based on your own personal expectations? I have family in Germany and have been there a few times. You can accuse the Germans of many things but they are a pretty pragmatic and down to earth people. Yes, Angela Merckle saw the political writing on the wall re nuclear and acted accordingly. The Greens have the political upper hand for the moment in this regard.
However, what you neglect to mention is that the average German on the street actually has a clue and is willing to do something about it. They understand that Climate Change is not a hoax, they are constantly working on energy conservation. They know about resource depletion. Heck, The Bundeswehr Report on Peak Oil was published in Der Spiegel, a pretty mainstream publication. They most definitely have not forgotten about solar and wind or biomass hydro etc.. I visited quite a few facilities myself and saw how they are slowly but surely integrating many different kinds of renewables, I visited their farms and saw how they husband their forests and rivers. I don't buy your blanket prediction at all!
I took this picture last summer of a train station with a banner proclaiming 'Climate Change Heroes' over the bicycle parking lot in Karlsruhe Germany.
http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll225/Fmagyar/Germany%20Solar%20and%2...
I could give a thousand other examples of what is happening in Germany and why I think you are wrong in the long run. Even if they do burn a little more coal in the short term, I very much doubt that it is their long term plan or that they don't have any other plan in the works.
These pictures are from my trip as well:
http://s289.photobucket.com/albums/ll225/Fmagyar/Germany%20Solar%20and%2...
I could give a thousand other examples of what is happening in Germany and why I think you are wrong in the long run. Even if they do burn a little more coal in the short term, I very much doubt that it is their long term plan or that they don't have any other plan in the works.
I think there is a fundamental reality gap between what they say they are going to do and what they will physically be able to do. The power generation numbers just don't add up. I'm also watching the markets, and it's obvious they are not burning a little more coal, they are burning a lot more coal.
German nuclear U-turn links power with coal prices
Germany net energy importer after nuclear closure
This wouldn't be the first time I have seen a government go into a state of total delusion when their collective objectives turn out to be impossible. The behavior of the US government since US oil production peaked and started to decline 40 years ago leaps to mind. Every single President in the last 40 years has had energy self-sufficiency as his stated goal, and every single one has failed. Obama is no different. Failure is always an option - even for Germans.
While that is certainly true, I think the difference is that Fritz six pack, is educated enough to know that he may have to sacrifice and do with less and is more often than not more than willing to do so for the common good. Unlike our own J6Pkers. Selling conservation in Germany is easier since you have a populace who has experienced first hand the ravages of war and deprivation. As have most Europeans.
Western Europe hasn't had any major wars since World War II, and no major deprivation since about a decade or so after that--what percentage of the people remember those times?
My mother is still alive and she certainly does and has made very clear to me and my siblings what that was like.
I'm sure there might be at least a few other Europeans in the same boat.
FMagyar, the Second World War ended 66 years ago. Most of the younger people in Europe have never experienced real deprivation. They've been born with a silver spoon in their mouth, and they assume the State will always be able to provide for them, from the cradle to the grave.
That's not necessarily true. The State could always mess it up. They could find themselves freezing in the dark with no fuel for their BMW's.
Don't get me wrong, it's not that I think the Germans can't possibly fail or that they have all the answers, it's just that they have a very different culture and are ahead of the curve in having their population be aware of the problems we face. Perhaps that still won't be enough. And perhaps comparing the US to Germany is like apples to oranges but I think the US population is much less pyschologically prepared for change than most Europeans. I could easily see Europeans conserving more and riding their bicycles to the train, I find, imagining Americans doing the same, a lot harder.
For the world - yes, you're right, for Germany - no, you're not.
Germany has the advantage of a fast collapsing population in the near-term future in combination with an inevitable de-industrialization (lack of skilled engineers, lack of size, lack of resources). So we will get green, but in a very different way most people still think here (Germany).
Interesting link - power generation in Germany from photovoltaics only. You can also looke at the generation of previous days till 2009. Peak total power in Germany is about 90 GW.
http://www.sma.de/en/news-information/pv-electricity-produced-in-germany...
Just a thought experiment - assume we had 10x as many reactors (we have a bit over 400 now). Worldwide we'd need that just to start really eating into coal's share. Now assume we have the same saftey record as so far - 2 major accidents for ~400 sites (actually it's worse, because Fukushima has 4 reactors in dire straights, but we'll be gentle in this hypothetical). So, we could expect 20 major nuclear accidents... Surely at least one of these would majorly impact a large city (Fukushima's impact on Tokyo has been minor due to sheer luck in the form of favorable winds).
Can the world afford more of these? I think if nuclear was used on anywhere near the scale of coal it would very quickly catch and surpass coal's nasty record. There are something like 50,000 coal plants. If there were even 5,000 nuclear plants the waste, incidental contamination, and occasional disaster related destruction would get very out of hand.
I am pretty certain there are ways for everyone to live without being hungrier than they are now, yet use much, much less energy. Yup, they might have to walk to work, or bicycle. Maybe they'd have to live closer to work.
I am quite certain that if we China and India build lots of new reactors they are going to discover lots of new ways that can go wrong. In which case, they can keep 'em, I sure don't want them anywhere near me.
My own thoughts about this are since a long time that the world will get another TMI every one or two generations since one accident frightens everybody and after a generation will the impression fade and someone somewere will start to be lax and cut courners and thus increase the risk for an accident. I expect this to work out with the same regularity even if the number of reactors increase a lot since one major capital loss (TMI) or worse frighetens everybody.
These risks has to be compared with the risks following electricity shortages or the ones from using fossil fuels. Electricity shortages during the post peak oil era is an economical disaster that is followed by a humanitarian disaster when people can no longer sustain themselves and then an environmental disaster when resources realy starts to be razed to cover the immediate year or months. The damages and risks from using fossil fuels are well known.
Not being able to use all "EROEI" positive solutions that can be implemented in parallell with our current manufacturing infrastructure gets us globally closer to the solution of getting rid of competing consumers before a natural population crash or by a natural population crash and that kind of solution is what is making me rely frightened. (This is of corse not a good worry, it eats up my time. )
Besides the enormous costs, problems with waste for hundreds of years,
safety concerns and the fact that any nuclear power represents a precursor
to nuclear weapons and "dirty bombs" people on this Site should
know there is also the problem of "Peak Uranium" - even if we built all
these nuclear plants at enormous cost and danger they will probably only
provide power for 50-100 years before Uranium runs out for exactly
the same reasons as oil. Even if there is more uranium available underground or in the oceans that does not mean it will be feasible in EROEI terms to
obtain it.
See the following on this Website:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4558
We need to REDUCE our energy usage, first and foremost to save oil by
transitioning to Green transit - rail, light rail, buses, shuttles, walking and biking.
When transportation represents 70% of US oil usage there is no way to
reduce our oil usage without promoting Green transit which is really
public transit, walking and biking.
Yet not only are Republican governors gutting high-speed rail, streetcars
in Cincinnati and other transit initiatives but even NYC has been axing
public transit.
Again Transportation for America has mapped out over 150 cities which
have CUT public transit after 2008:
http://t4america.org/resources/transitfundingcrisis/
What needs to be done to SOLVE the problem is reduce the global population to 1/7th of its current size over the next five to ten years. That is the only real solution to the problems that the world populations are going to face in the near term future.
Lots of luck figuring out how to accomplish that - Or even having a rational discussion on the subject!
Yet not only are Republican governors gutting high-speed rail, streetcars in Cincinnati and other transit initiatives but even NYC has been axing public transit.
Stranded at the Station: Mapping the Transit Funding Crisis
Yes, it's the old, "Let them eat cake!" solution to the problem. The unwashed huddled masses can't afford to buy gasoline any more, so let them buy $41,000 Chevy Volts.
It will probably work as well for US politicians as it did for the French monarchy. Start warming up those guillotines!
The trouble is, if they can't even afford that stuff, can they really afford subway cars at two or three million a pop, especially in places that don't now have them because there aren't tens of thousands of people per square mile? If we had a forest of money trees, would the price of the EVs even be an issue?
can they really afford subway cars at two or three million a pop?
Well, just as an exercise, let's do the economics on this. A subway car costs $2-3 million, but lasts 30 years or more, so it costs $100,000 per year or less. You can pack 200 people into a subway car during rush hour, so it costs each of them about $500 per year or about $2.50 per workday to buy their share of the car.
Since the subway car is going to make multiple runs per day, the per-passenger cost will be less than that, but you would have to determine how many runs it made and how full it was on each run to figure out how much less.
However, running at less than full capacity wrecks the economics of the system, so cutting service is the absolute LAST thing a transit system should do to reduce costs.
My favorite system was the Calgary light rail system. Despite the fact that Calgary is a sprawling Western city, as of 2000 the total capital cost of the system (tracks, stations, vehicles, signalling and maintenance facilities) was $2,400 per weekday passenger. Operating costs were 27 cents per ride.
You could try buying a used car for $2,400 and running it for 27 cents per trip (including fuel, maintenance, insurance, and parking) but I don't think you'd be very successful.
Second cheapest LRT in North America was Edmonton at $8,900 per weekday passenger, but Edmonton built its system underground (and realized afterward that building a subway was a waste of money). Canadian cities have an advantage in that they have much more transit ridership than US ones.
Rocky - Thanks for the numbers. Road the rail years ago when the AAPG met there. Granted the economics work but I keep wondering about the absolute cost (and the source of that capex) if rail were to be applied in a meaningful manner.
The Clagary may be a great benefit to the locals but doesn't help me at all in Houston. For that matter the Houston light rail doesn't benefit the great majority here. Again, that's not to say it isn't beneficial to the city and those that use it. But is there the capex available to expnad such systems to hundreds of US towns in a timely manner that would lesson the worst of PO. NYC has a great public transit but it wasn't built in 10 to 15 years. the ole chicken and egg problem: as the economy takes a continuos hit from PO how can it afford such fixes.
And even in NYC, which is about 80 years and still counting to get the Second Avenue Subway built, that "great public transit" is best used to go into and out of Manhattan or downtown Brooklyn, period. For those unfortunates who need to make any other trip, it's often one of the levels of hell. So it just seems ridiculous to picture such things serving a meaningfully larger proportion (i.e. enough to make a noticeable difference in overall fuel consumption, CO2 emissions, etc.) of the total US population than they do now, within any time frame anyone posting here really needs to worry about. Not when they don't even serve the wall-to-wall population of Queens all that well. If there's a big fast drop in consumption, etc., it'll have to come mainly from people staying home.
Adjust your dosage, Paul.
"One of the levels of hell".. Good God, find a hobby already.
I lived in Queens, Brooklyn, Westchester and Manhattan, and was able to find multiple ways to use mass transit to get all over the Metro area, out to Long-Island, NJ, Staten Isl, Upper Westchester and Rockland counties, Connecticut.
I took buses, subways, Metro-North, LIRR, PATH, Amtrak ...
Trying to get off the Deegan onto the Cross-Bronx, and parking in Greenwich Village or anywhere near midtown could be described as two of the inner Gates of Hell, however.. but I even learned how to do that! (it was really nothing though, since some of the Guys around me were doing the same thing backwards and in high-heels!)
Really, it's simply DISHONEST, Paul. Sorry you had a bad experience in NY, but for those who haven't been to the city, you create a very imbalanced view of what that place is like.
Rockman, the thing about the Calgary LRT system is that it was built to solve a specific set of transportation problems. Calgary has rather narrow streets - mainly because the old city councils were a cheap bunch of penny-pinchers and never expected the city to get as big as it has - and it has enough office space for a city four times its size. It's a major head office and financial center.
A little history: After WW2, the drillbit hit the reef (the Leduc Reef), and the city started growing like Topsy as oil men flocked in. It was politically and economically infeasible to build a downtown freeway in Calgary (No automobile lobby and no federal or state money for it), so they built an LRT system instead. The first line went into operation in 1981. City councils still being a cheap bunch of penny-pinchers, they did it on the cheap, but it worked. The initial system cost was about 1/100 of the Houston freeway system, but it turned out to have enough capacity to handle most of the downtown commuters - equivalent to a 16-lane freeway running right through the middle of the downtown core.
Now that the system has been running for 30 years, and the city is twice the size, LRT has become THE way to commute to work. The downtown street are still too narrow, new skyscrapers have eaten up most of the parking lots, and it's a major struggle to drive to work downtown, nevermind find parking. However, the head offices don't care because their employees can all get there regardless, so they're just keep building taller and taller buildings in the core.
As you could see, Calgary has evolved quite differently from Houston, which has spent more money on its freeway system than it cost to send a man to the moon, and sprawls over an area bigger than New Jersey as a result. The LRT system grew as Calgary grew, and has to a large extent dictated the form of the city, with a small, very dense core of skyscrapers, and suburbs sprawling out radially in all directions, but at a relatively high density and with adequate bus service.
As I say, the LRT system was built relatively cheaply, compared to freeways, and now that the expensive core of the system has been built, and tracks run out in several directions, it has become something of a vote-getter for city politicians to add a new station or two at the end of the lines every year or so. It's relatively cheap and really scores points on the eco-friendly scale.
On the other hand, the road system is something of a disaster, and getting worse. People like to drive, but unlike Houston, nobody is going to give Calgary enough money to fix the road problems. Canadian governments just don't give money away in those large quantities.
Rocky - Sorry for all the misspellings. Been sitting on location since 2 am trying to log a well. You know how fuzzy headed you get after a while. Too much diesel fumes. LOL.
Rockman - Your spelling is no worse than usual. Maybe the diesel fumes are good for you. LOL.
Speaking of fuzzy headed, I can remember sitting at my desk at 8:00 AM one morning, after having been working since 8:00 AM the previous morning, when my boss came in and said, "Where is all the work for the clients we were supposed to have ready this morning?" and I looked at him through the fog and said, "Clients? What clients?"
After a short period of extreme panic, the support staff looked around my desk and found all the completed work, bundled it up and shipped it off to the clients, but I was no help in the process. I could remember my own name, barely, but that was about it.
Hey at least you weren't trying to land a plane!
Work for clients, missing, worth millions of billable hours, look on boss' face, PRICELESS!
I think I might have been willing to pay big money to have seen the expression on your boss' face after hearing that remark... LOL!
Cutting service can also be very self defeating. For example, one of the early casualties is often late services that are not heavily used. Unfortunately many of the people who do use them would be on the return journey. If they can't get back on public transport then public transport will also lose the outward journey as the users switch to their cars.
I couldn't get a bus back home from the station if I didn't get home early enough (I had to race to catch the first train after finishing work and it helped to sneak out a little early). Because there was no bus I needed my car so I had to take that with me in the morning hence the bus company lost my morning fare too despite the morning service being ok.
NAOM
Cutting service can also be very self defeating. For example, one of the early casualties is often late services that are not heavily used. Unfortunately many of the people who do use them would be on the return journey.
This is one advantage that the Calgary LRT system has - it costs very little to run it in the off hours. Operating the whole system requires only 2 guys in the control room and 1 driver per train, and only a small number of trains because they are relatively fast.
I just pulled up their schedule, and it looks like the first train of the day leaves the southernmost station at 3:28 AM, and the last train of the day gets back at 2:35 AM. So, there is less than 1 hour a day when the system is not running. They probably only have that gap so they can do routine maintenance on the track.
At the northwest end of the city, the first train arrives at 4:20 AM, and the last one leaves at 1:43 AM. So, there's a bit over a 2 1/2 hour gap in service at that end.
Service is every 15 minutes late at night. A little quick arithmetic indicates that trains take 1 hour to go from the extreme south to the extreme northwest of the city, and 2 hours round trip, so they need 8 trains with 8 drivers to provide 15 minute service. There's a second line, but that's shorter so it probably takes fewer drivers. All in all, the cost of providing nearly 24 hour service on the system is not going to break the budget.
Buses, though, are a much bigger problem since they aren't nearly as cheap to run with low passenger loads.
That sort of service is what is needed. Here and in other Latin American countries we have, as well as buses, colectivos. These are anything from a small SUV to a microbus that fill in on lightly used routes and can also provide some flexibility. Depending where they are they may only have semi fixed routes and may divert to drop people off or vary the route completely.
NAOM
I've ridden the colectivos in Latin America, and it's a highly interesting way to travel since you get to meet to local people and interact with them, find out what they are thinking and how their lives are going. Many of them are quite cheerful people and highly interesting to converse with (my wife and many of the people we travel with speak Spanish, and I know enough Spanish to listen in the language).
But for first-world countries, it's not a good model. The people running the colectivos are willing to work for very little by first-world standards (although it's a good living by their standards). For first-world transit systems, labor costs are by far their largest expense, so they need to keep the passenger volumes up and the number of employees down. This means running everything as automated as possible.
The Vancouver SkyTrain is the ultimate in that model since it runs fully automated trains with no drivers. Unfortunately, it isn't any more efficient than the Calgary system because they need to have people on standby in case the trains malfunction. If you need to have people around to keep an eye on the trains, they may as well drive them while they are there. So, the staffing levels on Vancouver vs. Calgary are about the same, but the capital costs in Vancouver were much higher.
RockyMtGuy,
What percentage of all trip in Calgary does that system actually serve? Seems like cherry picking a route to me. Please send a reference for the Calgary numbers, it is part of the code of conduct for the oil drum readers.
I've looked at every light rail system in the US National Transit Database.
The average capital cost ranges from $50-$250m per mile. Operating costs range from range from $0.32 per pax mile to $6.60 per pax mile. The average for the whole US is $1.45 per pax mile. In the US, fares typically cover 25-50% of the operating cost. Capital cost is NEVER recovered.
I find it hard to square your numbers with US National Transit Database published by the US DOT/FTA.
In Denver, adding only 122 miles of light rail will cost $7B or $57m per mile. Will taxpayers fund it? How much will fares cover the cost of operations?
Most of the data I used comes out of this particular document: Calgary’s CTrain – Effective Capital Utilization, published by Calgary Transit.
A key point made in this document is:
What percentage of all trip in Calgary does that system actually serve? Seems like cherry picking a route to me.
Well, according to the Statistics Canada Employed labour force by mode of transportation to work (2006 Census) data, Calgary commuters are split:
Automobile 77%
Public Transit 16%
Walking 5%
Bicycling 1%
Other 1%
The Public Transit numbers are split about 50/50 between LRT and bus.
But, while we're talking about cherry-picking, it is important to know that the Calgary LRT system was built INSTEAD of a downtown freeway. The voters rejected the freeway, killed it dead, and buried its body before it started to stink. The city was then stuck with the problem of how to get commuters downtown in the absence of roads.
So, from CALGARY’S CTRAIN Evolution & Lessons Learned this is the rational behind it.
I've looked at every light rail system in the US National Transit Database. The average capital cost ranges from $50-$250m per mile. Operating costs range from range from $0.32 per pax mile to $6.60 per pax mile.
Calgary's original capital costs were $24.5 million per mile. However, you have to realize that it was a much smaller city when they started, and since it was a "starter" system, they built it on the cheap. Newer lines are likely going to be more expensive since they've decide to throw more money at it. However, a lot of it is built INSTEAD of building freeways, so there is a net saving in capital costs.
Capital cost is NEVER recovered.
Well, the cost of freeways is NEVER recovered, is it? If they built a 20-lane downtown freeway at a cost of billions, would they charge tolls on it to pay for building it? Not in North American, they wouldn't.
I find it hard to square your numbers with US National Transit Database published by the US DOT/FTA.
You have to realize that Calgary is not in the United States. Transit ridership levels in Canadian cities are 2-3 times as high as in US cities, and Calgary is no exception. Canadian senior governments subsidize neither freeways nor public transit to the same extent as in the US, so Canadian cities build far fewer freeways, and collect much more of transit costs out of the farebox, than US cities.
In addition, unlike the US, almost every major Canadian city has had a freeway revolt at one time or another. Voters have shown themselves capable of killing a freeway before or after it gets started. I have some pictures from Toronto of some overpass pillars preserved in a theme park as a memorial for a freeway that got killed in mid-air.
The unwashed huddled masses can't afford to buy gasoline any more, so let them buy $41,000 Chevy Volts.
Not everyone buys new vehicles, fuel efficient older vehicles are available now,and in time second Volts will be on the market.
I find it amazing that people think that $4 or even $10 gasoline prices are the end of the world. Fore most doubling fuel economy by switching vehicles is not a big problem.
You want to tell us how you came up with:
Emphasis added.
Todd,
More than half of the vehicles in US are SUVs and other low mileage vehicles(15-25mpg). A range of new and second hand high mileage vehicles are available now giving 35-50mpg.
People choose to buy and drive low mpg vehicles because even at $4/gallon gasoline is very inexpensive so much so that people generally will not walk even small distances for example picking up bread or milk, or dropping off children to schools 1-2km from home.
When fuel prices really become an important economic issue, many lower fuel use options are available, and are usually a lot less expensive than high fuel use lifestyles.
People choose to buy and drive low mpg vehicles because even at $4/gallon gasoline is very inexpensive so much so that people generally will not walk even small distances for example picking up bread or milk, or dropping off children to schools 1-2km from home.
Yes, but at say for instance, $10/gallon, what is it going to look like? Most Americans (not to mention their governments) are very heavily indebted, and if their costs skyrocket they have no financial resources to fall back on.
Most people seem to resist adapting to changing conditions until the Sheriff comes and nails a big "FORECLOSURE" notice to their front door, and by that time, it's too late. Their lifestyle is going to be living in a cardboard box and pushing a shopping cart from dumpster to dumpster. Welfare can look after the kids.
From memory the average US vehicle travels 12,000 miles/year, and gets 25mpg, so uses 480gallonsper year. So if gasoline goes from $3 to $10 /gallon, this will cost $4800, an extra $2800/year. If however this vehicle is replaced by a second hand Prius getting 50mpg, the cost of fuel would be $2400/year about $1000/year extra.I dont think this is going to force many families to abandon their homes. Other options would be to reduce non-essential driving, car pool for work travel or use mass-transit if available.
People can adapt to higher prices given time, and I am sure most in the US will do so, even to $10 or $20/gallon prices.
The problem is not the financially prudent urban family with only ONE 25 mpg car, it is the marginal over-extended suburban family, which bought a house in the far-flung suburbs, and own TWO 15 mpg gas guzzlers, BOTH of which are going 12,000 miles per year, because both parents have to work to pay the bills.
They bought all their stuff because they thought that gas was going to stay below $2 per gallon. At 15 mpg, EACH of their urban assault vehicles would consume 800 gallons of gas a year, and at $2/gallon that would cost them a total of $3,200 a year. It probably seemed reasonable at the time.
When gasoline went up to $4/gallon, their fuel costs doubled to $6,400/year, which probably started to hurt, considering that they had little or nothing left over after their mortgage payments, and food went up as well.
If gas goes up to $10 per gallon, they will be paying a total $16,000 per year for gasoline. Most families with children don't have an extra $12,800 a year in spare cash, so it is quite possible they will go bankrupt. Their house will probably be worth less than they owe on the mortgage, their gas guzzlers will be unsalable and they won't be able to replace them with economy cars, so they have no way out.
In the economic climate of the 2008 price runup, even the increase to $4/gallon was enough to put many suburban family budgets underwater. An increase to $10/gallon would put an awful lot more into financial ruin.
The urban families with a single economy car and jobs within walking distance are relatively immune to high gas prices, but not everyone is in that situation. In fact, very few Americans are. Most of them are over-housed, over-indebted, and too far from work.
They will, but will they get it, Chances are, petrol rationing will be brought in before the message sinks in!
Most everyone is defining the solution as maintaining or incrasing our existing car and truck usage. In the mean time, places like Copenhagen are increasingly "dependent" upon bicycles and are focusing on that rather than just encouraging the absurdity of ubiquitous auto dependency. We will not have the future resources to maintain our heroin like dependency.
Best hopes for kindler and gentler solutions to our transportation problems. And you really think we are going to build more nuclear in the U.S. Ain't gonna happen.
I was using my bike to goto work 40 years ago during the Carter administration. Too bad hardly anyone else did that then or is doing that now in the fatass U.S.A.
Non auto solutions are outside Obama's frame of reference and comfort zone.
Sure, but do Copenhagen (or Amsterdam) really scale up? Flat as a pancake, for the most part. Puny maritime winters. Dangerous levels of summer heat exceedingly rare.
Here in the Berkeley of the Midwest, we have real winter, we have hills (though not mountains), and we sometimes have real summer. So if you visit, you can have the cycle paths and lanes almost entirely to yourself (maybe a couple of folks per five miles) in December, January, and February, and largely to yourself (many more folks but nothing at all that could be called traffic) in November and April. That suggests something to me about real-world scalability.
I know full well that we can handwave loudly about those few folks, and accompany that liberally with oughts and shoulds (or OUGHTs and SHOULDs) - but my question is not about anecdotes but about the realities of scaling up enough to make a significant difference.
You apparently haven't seen all the videos and pictures of people bicyling in Copenhagen and the snow including the snow plows used to plow the bike paths. Copenhagen became bicycle dependent because of conscious policy decision to change. The same thing could be done in cities in the United States. Things scale up if people want them to.
So what is the alternative to scaling up bicyling, walking and scaling down the use of the ICE? We can choose the path of EVs but that doesn't scale up very well either and will probably making us even more dependent upon coal fired plants.
It took decades for Copenhagen to scale up but someone had to plant the seed.
Well, yes, one typically sees a nearly empty expanse of bike lane or path with one or two bicyclists, so there are more than in the upper Midwest, but the facility is obviously woefully underutilized. And that's with just a centimeter or so of wet slush, with the temperature near 0C, and a grand total of maybe 2cm of snow on nearby surfaces (terraces, etc.) not cleared of snow - which, with an average high temperature of 1C even at the very coldest time of year, usually melts off quickly. Looks like rather modest scalability to me, which is probably why the typical promotional blog-post will show a picture of the lane or path crowded on a nice summer day, and will entirely duck or handwave away the question of winter.
But that's just a bagatelle. What I'd call real winter means -10C, -20C, or even an occasional -30C, with 5cm of rutted ice adhered to walks, streets, and paths just waiting to tramline unwary or even wary cyclists; half a meter or even a meter of snow on nearby uncleared surfaces; and 5cm or 10cm of snow (that may well not melt off much until mid-March) two or three times a week with bigger storms from time to time. Which is why, as I said, we have only a negligible level of scalability, even in a place with tens of thousands of often-foolhardy university students, a good many of whom want it to be otherwise, and may even bruise themselves up a good bit before giving it up.
Of course, as I've said before, I suppose we could try to cram the US population into a sort of mega-Tokyo on the Pacific coastal shelf, much of which has a benign year-round climate. OTOH there would be the earthquake (and in some places tsunami) risk. Or we could simply recognize that the world is too diverse for one-size-fits-all prescriptions and move on from there.
According to copenhagenize.com 80 percent of Copenhageners who bicycle do it through the winter. Anyway, it is not all about where you live and there are tons of places where we can begin a transition to bicycles. In the mean time, winter will probably be more amenable to bicycling where you are as global warming really gets going.
There are already plenty of people on both coasts so we can focus on that and some other places and then let the midwest catch up later, I guess.
Just because it might not work all that well anywhere doesn't mean we cannot make a big dent in other places.
Maybe. Or maybe it'll increase winter snow and ice in many places more than it increases melting. Some folks up at the U seem to think that the ice ages have been triggered (in part, not wholly, obviously) by an open (ice-free) Arctic Ocean. Those things seem to be complicated, so the upper midwest may need to catch up very much later indeed.
As to bicycling through the winter, the rather empty paths and lanes in most of the videos/pix beg the question, 80% of what, 'cos they sure are a lot more crowded in the summer. If you commute a mile or three nearly every day in the summer, but only nip a few blocks to a nearby grocery store about once every week or two in the winter, are you still counted among that 80%?
Strange dialect of which you speak. It sounds like you equate biking to a Shakespearean tragedy in the making.
I suppose we could try to cram the US population into a sort of mega-Tokyo on the Pacific coastal shelf, much of which has a benign year-round climate.
Actually, you've already done that. Well, maybe not a mega-Tokyo, but the population density of coastal California is already at European levels.
In fact, the overall population density of California is the same as Spain (91/km2), and there are ten states with a higher population density than California - New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, New York, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
The first eight of these states have a higher population density than France, the first four have a higher population density than Germany or Britain, and the first two (NJ and RI) are more densely populated than Japan.
In reality, European-style transportation systems would work in any of these states. What is missing in the US is the political will to make it happen.
As noted up the thread, I think that the US is ultimately going to be forced to abandon a good deal of outlying suburban and exurban infrastructure.
Even under a volcano, there are those who choose to ride it out until they are swamped by lava.
As it seems clear we are getting nowhere waiting for the Leadership to take leadership down in the end of their blind alley there, (insert picture of Brass Band led down Alley from ANIMAL HOUSE) so maybe we could have a campfire that has TOD posters/editors writing their own draft Energy Policies.
Is there a useful Survey tool that can let us write up various 'planks' for such a platform, and then have a survey to see how they rank up in the TOD readership? (Be great to see how the editors voted as a group as well, if you dare!)
Bob
Our energy policy in a nutshell, IMHO :-(
'Geothermal for cooler heads?'
My energy policy today is to take some donations over to the Habitat Restore and shop for lumber to make my tenants a Proper (finally!) 8-Bike Shed and Fencing to protect the Yard from 'Borrowers' and Unleashed Puppies.
(Part of the Security Regime will be to have a Solar MotionSensor light trigger when the yard is entered.)
+1000
One picture is worth a thousand barrels of oil tarred (and feathered) laughs
I thought about westexas and the ELM when I read this. How close will we come to "fulfilling" Mr. Obama's pledge regardless of federal programs or policies?
Energy Export Databrowser isn't working (only 'World' comes up) for me just now, or I'd post a link, but when working it shows that we are already down from our import peak during Bush II of about 12.5 mbd to about 9.5mbd last year. So I'm with you, the one third reduction seems not so much a goal as an inevitability.
And I concur with many posters above that this initiative is little more than lip service - far too little, far too late.
If we extrapolate the 2005 to 2009 rate of decline in the US oil consumption to production ratio, the US would arrive at zero net oil imports around 2024.
Coincidentally, if we extrapolate the 2005 to 2009 rate of increase in Chindia's combined net oil imports, as a percentage of global net oil exports, Chindia would would be consuming 100% of global net oil exports around 2025.
As they say somethings gotta give, but It will at least be an "interesting" 15 years or so. To put 15 years in perspective, in 1995, Bill Clinton was in his third year in office as President of the United States. Seem like yesterday.
And according to the "land export model" there will be zero export oil in 2031. So I guess the writing is on the wall.
Sam Foucher's modeling suggests that the (2005) top five net oil exporters will collectively approach zero net oil exports some time around the 2031 time frame. Regarding total global net oil exports, we did some "What If" calculations in the following article, which suggested that global net oil exports might approach zero some time around 2055:
http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-02-21/egypt-classic-case-rapi...
But as noted up the thread, the immediate problem is the rapid rate of increase in Chindia's combined net oil imports.
President Obama did not address the elephant in the room during his speech - a cap & trade system or carbon tax that would be an efficient market-driven way to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels, as well as a method of reducing our federal budget deficit.
http://www.winningprogressive.org/president-obama%e2%80%99s-energy-speec...
That won't fly because in all probability they want the appearances of doing something without stepping on any corporate interests. A carbon tax would never fly politically, even though it would work the best to drive market-based solutions to fossil-fuel dependency, IMHO. Such a tax could be arranged in conjunction with programs or tax cuts elsewhere to be net neutral to the poor and middle classes. WON'T HAPPEN!
The whole purpose of the speech seems to have been to persuade voters that Obama has a plan that will REDUCE prices at the pump.
So proposing a tax that would INCREASE said prices would have gone exactly counter to the main point of giving the speech.
Of course, what we really needed was a speech that really put us on something a bit stronger than a WWII footing--rationing, gov redirecting businesses to serve the long term national interest, curtailment of all non-essential use of ff...
But, as others have pointed out, it is very hard to get the nation on such a footing short of a Pearl Harbor. And it is hard to know what kind of event would be equivalent today, since, as the saying goes, the enemy is us.
The real Elephant in the Room is overpopulation - And no politician in office that I know of has ever talked about the real Elephant in the Room.
Just checking in again from Argentina, the usual two cents worth. Thanks always to WT for the most insightful comments.
I feel compelled once again to remind everyone, as Jon Kutz has above, that the real underlying problem is overpopulation. We are stuck in this biologically compelling problem that, until it is resolved, there is no hope. We are going to reproduce like yeast until we are dead. All the rest of this conversation in superfluous. Oil? Energy?
Hey, where's the old poster guy from Arizona who always concluded, "Are Humans Smarter than yeast?" Yo, pienso que no.
There are simply are no technological solutions for living on a finite planet other than living in balance. So begin to live small, enjoy the simple things, and be who you really are, my fellow man.
¿Como No?
basta, el señor
Cap & trade is politically dead. We have a congress run by a bunch of creationists that think god will save us from climate change because of what god promised Noah after the flood. So you have to pick your battles and they have (quite logically) decided that is not something where they can get anything done.
Cap & trade is politically dead.
As well it should be. Perhaps it would have lived if only 20% was overhead.
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/12/08/uk-report-just-30-of-carbo...
How does one distinguish between imported and domestic oil without a tariff? It seems to me that the big assumption that the President is making is that the new domestic production of oil will always be cheaper than imported oil. If imported oil is cheaper than domestic production then you can have all the domestic production capacity in the world but the amount of imported oil will not decrease.
It seems to me that the President is deeply confused about what he is concerned about- price or security?
As some others have touched upon above, it has been clear for some time that (in the US) the political system is incompatible with change on any meaningful level. It goes to risk aversion; politicians won't risk re-election or their post-political careers by pushing pain or sacrifice, no matter how neccesary. Therefore they bargain and the herd follows. This will continue until the pain is dispersed by circumstance because, as they say, it's easier to beg forgiveness than to get permission.
The PTB are aware of how short the collective memory is; in coming years when the pain really sets in, these 'leaders' will be off the hook, safely ensconced in their elder statesmen status. If it comes up they'll say that they proposed this or tried that but "couldn't gain popular support". So it goes....this too will not change. Half measures and handwaving until it's someone elses problem; the American way.
The US political system, and its handmaiden the main stream media, can only talk about one really bad thing at a time.
Currently, that is the projected calamitous fiscal deficit.
I'm slowly coming to another view. Reelection, risk aversion are just too easy, convenient to pigeonhole them.
The majority want to change the system, to their view, but are up against reality. It's not so much reelection as the inability to proceed in the direction they'd prefer. With the president, it has to include the weight of being wrong, that above all else, they cannot wreck this massive ship of state, corporate steerage included. Bush II came as close as anyone in recent history, and I think that hangs heavy on both him and the incumbent. I'm no fan of the incumbent either. Combined with obligatory broken campaign promises, the problem may also be that the electorate projects their interpretation on the candidate, when the actual position is nowhere near that.
A real test is coming with the new Tea Party pols. They are very ideologically driven, and don't seem to consider reelection as a personal issue. Will they hold to their guns and go down in flames if that is the path of their position?
"Half measures and handwaving until it's someone elses problem; the American way."
Hand waving may be the most we can hope for.
MSM news has been reporting that a Presidential run for 2012 will require about $1 billion, including primary expenditures. Who's boat do you rock when that level of fund raising is involved?
I think we both agree on my main point; current conditions make large-scale course changes unlikely if not impossible. Multiple icebergs, dead ahead. Too much inertia and the steering mechanisms are hopelessly jambed.
that works out to be about $15/person who voted for Obama or about 3 lattes at Starbucks. Not much when you think about. Perhaps the real story is not how much we spend but how little when you consider what is at stake. The alternative explanation is that we spend so little because there really is not much at stake because the two political parties are indistinguishable.
"the two political parties are indistinguishable."
So the democrats don't believe in climate change and want to gut the EPA?
mos - As I recall when the Democrat party had complete control of both houses of Congress and the White house they did absolutely nothing of substance to deal with AGW. Sounds rather Republican to me. IOW talking abou a problem does nothing about fixing it. It's been my experience that fixing something that's broken is the only way to solve a problem.
I'm sure that potential candidates are well vetted before getting too far along by corporate and elite interests. "Loose cannons" are systematically demonized, like Ross Perot or on the other end, Howard Dean. My comment above said steerage, what I meant was steering, not accommodations for the masses. It is obvious we will tow the center, that is where the money and power lie. If a politician pushes to far left or right, there are multiple ways to counter that. That is the inability I refer to. That, and the weight of office, (yes, to me it sounds awful school boyish also) and what we project on a politician, or how the media labels them, is not who they are. And I'm just getting fed up with constant referencing of re-electability and such. I think we're missing alot by such a simplification.
Yes, we agree on your main point, "current conditions make large-scale course changes unlikely if not impossible" If you dwell on it, there's no rational solution, and that's not even considering political problems. The Titanic is full steam ahead, multiple icebergs, and quoting from the film of the only sane folks aboard, the musicians, "Gentlemen, it's been a pleasure playing with you."
Or to say this in another way - too many of us often assume (wish) that adult long term leadership behavior can come from the political class. Reality has proven over and over that this is simply not true.
People with that type of ability are not attracted to political life. The political class always transitions quickly to a mode of behavior that is entirely focused on the next election and that represents the beliefs of the average of the electorate.
Plato warned of this when he discussed the fundamental weaknesses of true democracies.
Could it be that we the people are ultimately ungovernable on any scale, and that the anarchists are right?
"You can
foolrule some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you can't rule all of the people all of the time."....sounds about right.
This could be fixed by, for example, having one fourth of the legislature be elected every two years for one and only one 8-year term. The intent in a representative democracy should be to elect legislators who will effectively discharge the responsibility of caring for the commonwealth, not to advantage this or that group while being second-guessed by the electorate.
We often complain that others are in denial (about Peak Oil).
All too often however, we TODders are in denial about the limited capabilities of the human brain.
Your average engineer stuffs his (or her) brain with all sorts of equations concerning physics (thermodynamics), chemistry, electronics, etc.
But he/she can't normally seem to include ideas about manipulating fellow human beings within his/her knowledge base.
"Politicians" do the opposite. They become highly skilled in manipulating the social discourse, but alas their craniums are finite and can't manage to include that engineer's "reality" stuff.
Finite? Can't have it all? Sound familiar?
Bueller? Anybody? Bueller?
Don't we TODders chide others for not comprehending the finiteness of the planetary globe?
And yet we ourselves can't fathom the finiteness of the cranial globe.
We are no different than "them".
+1. Or more, much more.
There is a talk by astrophysicist Niel deGrasse Tyson that explains it better.
Check out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-uZZ7RdL5E
Because we have Government Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%
James Kunstler hit a homerun with his blog commentary this week on
Obama's Energy Speech:
http://kunstler.com/blog/2011/04/blowing-green-smoke.html
Here's a couple ideas off the top of my head:
How many U.S. office workers turn off their home computers in the morning, drive 25 miles to a cubicle and work 8 hours in front of a computer, and then drive 25 miles home? Sure, it's a management problem -- one with readily available technological solutions -- but a tax incentive for telecommuting jobs would be a quick turn-around gas saver.
(I think of that one every time I visit a friend in Jersey and see all those single-occupant cars backed up every day on the Garden State Parkway.)
Why is it that my mortgage rate is the same whether I have a $100 power bill or pay $1,000 every month for the same size home? It certainly is reflective of the mortgage risk and my ability to pay. I had an architect friend who designed and built a super-insulated tract home in the 1970s that could be heated and cooled with pocket change. Construction cost was about 10 percent higher but its life-cycle cost was much lower. He couldn't sell many of them because of that 10 percent up-front burden. Why aren't life-cycle costs even considered in home financing?
Work 8 hours? I don't think so, be employed 8 hours, compute for 8 hours, think for 8 hours maybe. But not WORK. Work involves physical effort.
And sitting computing for 8 hours produces no lasting physical product.
I have no problem with people that can have a job sitting at a computer all day, except when they call it work. Go out on the factory floor and build something all day long, go out and bale and stack hay all day long, go put up steel on the 40th floor of a building all day - That is WORK. We should not demean those who really do WORK for a living by equating them with those who sit in a cubicle computing all day. It isn't the same.
I had an architect friend who designed and built a super-insulated tract home in the 1970s that could be heated and cooled with pocket change. Construction cost was about 10 percent higher but its life-cycle cost was much lower. He couldn't sell many of them because of that 10 percent up-front burden. Why aren't life-cycle costs even considered in home financing?
It's not the money. It is a question of "style" and "value," 70's homes were
at least 10% larger than 50's homes, but people preferred a larger home rather than an efficient home.
"Why aren't life-cycle costs even considered in home financing?"
Because on average people are only in a given house for 7 years. So the payback time is never there. What is there is 'curb appeal' so you can unload the McMansion quickly when you move to the next job or the next house.
I've been in this house for 8 years now, the longest I've been anywhere since the Nixon years.
One could ask parallel questions about education.
I think this was his best clusterf**k post ever. Obama has become the jokester in chief. Chu must be really gritting his teeth.
Chu is a technofixer. Why do people keep making assumptions that certain people at the top really "get" limits to growth? They don't.
Everything is based upon some form of our current BAU or BAU Lite or Green BAU. No one seems to be willing to come to grips with the probable reality that any form of BAU is dead meat.
Take the arguments for public transportation: The underlying assumption is that these millions of non-productive people will have jobs to go to. Sure, let's spend billions of dollars for these systems. About the time they are completed I'm willing to bet that society finds it can no longer afford people who do not produce. And, by "produce" I mean exactly that - "stuff" whether it is new practical ideas or physical things.
Further, all of this leads to what shape education should take because it is trapped in the same BAU mind-set as energy. If it isn't changed now, we are going to end up with another generation of useless people who have skill-sets that are no longer appropriate.
Argh! I'll shut up because it's not worth the effort to posit a paradigm shift these days.
Todd
Isn’t that the basic difference between the Sustainability folks and the Transition folks? It seems to me that the Sustainability folks are still in the bargaining stage, and hoping that plug-in hybrids, thorium reactors, etc. will arrive soon enough to save BAU, while the transition folks have already accepted that big lifestyle changes are coming, and are ready to start these lifestyle changes now, while they still have a little choice in which ones to do first, and maybe even have a little fun along the way.
Very appropriate post. I thoroughly concur with your comments.
I think we should give the plan some props for this sentence on page 5:
"But a major cause of the recent price rise is the concern that global oil demand will outpace supply over the next few years. The dependence of the global vehicle fleet on oil makes this problem especially acute."
This is the clearest admission of peak oil, or at least bumpy plateau oil, that we have ever seen, no? Shouldn't the Oil Drum be trumpeting this as the President's agreement with our case for a supply side problem?
We've moved on now. Most people are at the anger or in Obama's case the bargaining phase. We are at either acceptance or beyond. His opinions are irrelevant.
Also frankly he can notice what he wants. It isn't important because the time for his "proposals" is pretty much past. He is making pretty speeches on how best to close the gate after the horse has bolted.
I agree that it's too late. If Bush had given this speech in 2000 it would have been a big deal, but now it's too little too late.
I was dismayed by the recent Energy Policy Speech by Pres. Obama.
I am currently ghost writing a response to Obama, Sec. Chu (and who else, any suggestions ?) from a "major environmental group".
A national HQ staff member has agreed to take what I write and place it on the head person's desk and argue for it. Still sweating over the letter.
Such a letter MIGHT carry enough weight, if the logic and facts are self-evidently correct, to sway public policy going forward.
Basically, this is a "swing for the fences" approach through a narrow aperture.
OT- Heading Out, is the .edu address still good ? If not, please send me a good eMail address.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Alan:
It still works
Dave
Consider what demand is driving oil price shocks. Is it demand for gasoline, diesel or some other petroleum product?
In the first graph the average retail price of U.S. diesel #2 rose above the price of gasoline in 2004 coincident with world crude oil production entering a plateau. When the ratio is greater than 1, diesel is more expensive than gasoline.
The second graph compares the production of U.S. distillate fuel oil to the production of gasoline. Ethanol is included in the gasoline production since about 2005, and imports and exports are not included. The average production of distillate fuel oil relative to gasoline was at an historical high during the oil price shock of 2008 and would have been higher if ethanol was subtracted from the gasoline. The graph suggests the trend is currently repeating. If it is true that light sweet crude oil allows for a higher yield of distillate fuel relative to gasoline and light sweet crude oil is becoming scarcer faster then heavy crude oil, then the supply of diesel will be constrained first. More attention needs to be given to reducing the consumption of diesel than gasoline.
If demand for diesel is driving oil price shocks, then your proposal for electrifying long distance freight rail and shifting long distance freight transportation from fuel inefficient semitrailer trucks to trains, is the best idea for reducing the demand for diesel, minimizing oil price shocks and keeping the system running.
You've heard it from me before - 179 deductions (or perhaps even a new class of deduction that would be like a 179) for Solar and perhaps small wind.
As regards the promise of Wind Power...were not doing too well !!!!!
"Whoa, windfarms in UK operate well below advertised efficiency.....
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/06/whoa-windfarms-in-uk-operate-well-...
Our politics never produced the bold action that most here call for.
Even our best presidents proceeded timidly.
(And our worst ones like Bush and Nixon proceeded with lies-
Iraq and Cambodia)
Roosevelt who knew what Hitler was before he was elected couldn't
take the country to war, and Lincoln only gingerly approached the war and emancipation (the 1863 proclamation didn't even emancipate slaves in the North until the 13th amendment in 1866).
Roosevelt ran into intense industry blowback with the innocuous TVA, which was the prototype for the massive hydroelectric projects around the world.
Obama is right that the US is 'buying time' to a considerable extent with new oil and natural gas production.
Given our ponderous and ridiculous politicking we'll need all the extra time we can get.
The conversion from an energy inefficient to a super efficient society will take a lot of time as we are comfortable with cheap energy and the technology is evolving much slower than we need it to.
Also capital which is needed for transitioning took a huge hit 2-1/2 years ago and money has dried up. Consumers are financially in no position to upgrade the homes or buy $40k plug-in EVs.
Converting mass transit buses and school buses to natural gas
is being subsidized (only 0.75% of transportation energy) but
a cost effective portion of a mass transit solution. Trains represent only 2.2% of US transport energy, heavy trucks are 18%,
air travel is 8%(high speed trains would reduce need for air flights), marine is 4%.
The elephant is cars and light trucks driving on the highway at 57% of transport energy.
http://www.mitenergyclub.org/assets/2008/11/15/TransportationUS.pdf
The obvious solution is to phase out oil burning cars but it is totally unrealistic so the government puts its hopes on technology. Unfortunately, the Republican Party is decidedly anti-science what with restoring incandescent lighting
and styrofoam to Congress.
The big disappointment is on CC legislation.
Until TPTB sign on, it's going to be slow going, so get used to it.
I think if gas prices remain high then consumers will flock to higher mileage cars when they purchase a new vehicle. Imagine if the average of all cars sold this year were to be 27 mpg (20% above the 2008 average 22.6 mpg). If these cars drove 5% of all the miles driven by cars, in just one year this would result in a reduction of approximately 1% over what the total usage would have been. One percent may not seem like much, but the reduction could be cumulative each and every year under this scenario.
Imagine if on Sep 12, 2001 (the day after 9/11) the United States had increased the federal gasoline tax by 15 cents per gallon. I suggest this amount as it is what was recommended by the deficit reduction committee in 2010. The present federal gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon and has not increased since 1993. The suggested tax increase would have increased development of more fuel efficient vehicles.
I can not understand why congress is spending time on trying to repeal the law that requires a simple 25% increase in lighting efficiency. The halogen incandescent light bulbs meet the law's requirement and will still be available for those who desire incandescent lights.
"Until TPTB sign on, it's going to be slow going, so get used to it."
Who do you think elects TPTB? The voting public has to sign on too.
You do realize that the Obama administration does not have control over oil production in Iran, Iraq, and Venezuela, right?
I see a lot of whining in this post but you don't present any proposals at all. What do you propose? Dr. Chu can't just pee out barrels of oil you know. I'll take their proposals over whining with no proposals any day of the week.