DrumBeat: September 23, 2006
Posted by threadbot on September 23, 2006 - 9:14am
Experts look for the floor on oil prices
An oil economist who accurately predicted two years ago that oil would reach $70 a barrel has reversed course, saying recent steep declines could foreshadow a sell-off to $20 or less."Nobody in the government sector who thinks about policy thinks it can happen. That's the greatest danger," said Philip Verleger, an independent economist who heads PK Verleger in Aspen, Colo.
Get ready for oil supplies to dwindle, experts warn
Some observers predict a social and economic meltdown as severe as the Great Depression
Clinton raises billions for world issues
A conference hosted by Bill Clinton on world problems ended Friday with the former president announcing a total of $7.3 billion in pledges to help reduce global warming and fight Third World poverty, disease and ethnic strife.
The State Department yesterday sharply criticized a recent move by the Russian government to curb a major Western oil-and-gas-investment project in Siberia, saying it put in doubt Moscow's willingness to honor major energy deals with foreign investors.
A Gusher For Big Oil Is Drying Up
Western giants used to have easy pickings in Russia. Now Moscow is taking a harder line.
Jan Lundberg: (How can we already be) looking at the end of the age of oil and abundant energy
James Howard Kunstler on relocalization and peak oil: transcript, video, and audio.
Put crudely, petrol panic runs out of puff
The doomsday scenarios of Peak Oil theory - that we have already found most of the oil available and are rapidly running out - gained fevered currency. That interest has since subsided and the theory itself has been dismissed by oil companies. "Peak oil predictions are not new," ExxonMobil Australia chairman Mark Nolan said at the Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference last week. "They have been occurring, particularly at times of high prices, regularly since the 1920s."
Nigeria to Pull Shell Ogoni License
Alberta Expects $111M Extra from Cancelling Royalty Tax Credit Program
Alberta expects to gain a further $111 million by ending a 32-year-old royalty tax credit program to energy companies.Energy Minister Greg Melchin says it's time for the program to go because oil and natural gas prices are trading at much higher prices than historical averages.
Silicon Valley explores solar technology
Engineers and entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley are taking advantage of their expertise in computer chips to design and manufacture electricity-generating solar cells that they hope will be increasingly competitive with traditional energy sources such as coal and natural gas. Most solar cells and chips are made from the same raw material from which the valley gets its name.
Japanese makers give ethanol a gander
While Detroit ballyhoos ethanol, Japanese automakers are quietly positioning themselves in case the gasoline alternative becomes more popular.
I recently attended a task force meeting by our mayor on energy and efficiencies and afterwards mentioned peak oil to several people. They all acknowledged they were familiar with peak oil but then every one of them pointed the news they heard about the discovery in the gulf.. I pointed out that the discovery would in no way change the course of peakk oil worldwide but they seemed reserved in their opinions..
I believe the MSM story put any worry the people had about peak oil behind them.. It no longer on their radar..
=
=
=
=
=
=
==It's all about population!
What part of the elephant are you fondling???
Feed the Homo Saps their usual diet of sound bites all day long and see how quietly they sleep...:
"Houston-based oil consultant Dan Lippe of Petral Worldwide said that with worldwide supplies growing, he wouldn't be surprised to see oil back below $50 a barrel, and perhaps as low as $40, within a few years -- if not sooner."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/oil_prices;_ylt=Atiq40jhT7EJJg40U0dsDT6AsnsA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwM lJVRPUCUl
Same with poliTICS too - just "trust us" says the UN and Coffin Anan... (and the gullible in Israel say let Iran have the bomb... ):
"Nasrallah said his guerrillas have replenished their arsenal and have more than 20,000 rockets which they will never give up unless a stronger Lebanese government takes over.
The Iranian-backed leader's tough stance was aimed at demonstrating that Hezbollah was not weakened by U.N. peacekeepers..."
And where are those Israeli Soldiers again... ???
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060922/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast
Planet Earth is currently experiencing a Wiley Coyote Moment. Festivities will resume again shortly. Energy is Non-negotable and the Oil Dealers in the middle east are barely sane so it is not a good idea to take poliTICS too seriously when dealing witht them.
"I don't want to harp on this, but when you have a lot of Americans thinking, really, that God is going to come down and save them... you know, I joke about it and you smile, but when they get up in the morning they just know, that's reality for them! "
http://transitionculture.org/?p=457
I think the same applies to all of godz childrens.
Perceptions and "simple" godz-fearing/hearing folk do not mix well in a Peak Oil world. Whether it's The Second Helping of Christ or the 12th Imam, whatever, it doesn't look good for the Sap team.
Its not warfare its ensuring demand destruction occurs outside the US to protect our way of life.
Their going to die soon anyway right ?
But if you look at the way it was announced at the time, all North Sea concerns were over.
"The Jack discovery on Walker Ridge block 759 was drilled in 2004. The discovery well encountered more than 350 net feet of pay. The Jack #2 well was drilled to delineate the discovery. (...) Four Lower Tertiary Discoveries
Jack is one of four discoveries by Devon in the lower Tertiary trend of the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. The others are St. Malo drilled in 2003, Cascade drilled in 2002 and the 2006 Kaskida discovery." http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/09-05-2006/0004426162& ;EDATE=
Jack2 will be followed by another production test next year. The Jack2 production test took place in the spring of this year.
"The test was conducted during the second quarter of 2006 and was designed to evaluate a portion of the total pay interval. During the test, the well sustained a flow rate of more that 6,000 barrels of crude oil per day with the test representing approximately 40 percent of the total net pay measured in the Jack #2 well. Chevron and its co-owners plan to drill an additional appraisal well in 2007." http://www.chevron.com/news/press/2006/2006-09-05.asp
Note that the test results were announced after the Labour Day long-weekend. One might speculate that the delay in the announcement may have been because of bureaucratic inefficiency.
Chevron-Texaco's geologists have been speculating on a possible 3 to 15 billion barrel recovery from the Lower Tertiary Wilcox trend in the deep waters of the Gulf of M. since at least the spring of 2005. The nine discoveries to date offer potential recoveries from 30 to 400 million barrels of oil each. Chevron's geologists had this to say in 2005:
"Key technical challenges for trend commerciality are: 1) reservoir quality and flow capability; 2) drilling and completion technology; and 3) development of infrastructure. Continued discoveries in the trend and successful flow tests planned in early 2006 could very well transform the Lower Tertiary Wilcox into a world-class petroleum system in the deepwater GoM." http://www.worldoil.com/magazine/MAGAZINE_DETAIL.asp?ART_ID=2596&MONTH_YEAR=May-2005
The Jack2 production test last spring was one in series of events in a long term process, which began in the 1990's, to determine the amount of recoverable oil in the deepwater GoM and the technical feasibility of recovering oil in the conditions present there.
An additional concern affecting the feasability of transforming the Tertiary into a "world-class" petroleum system relates to Hurricane activity.
Why did the media turn a minor springtime step in a long march, that may be leading nowhere, into a major September event and evidence of the wrongness of the Peak Oil 'theory'?
Disclosure: The millions Chevron-Texaco gives to Republicans and a few oil industry friendly Democrats exceeds even Exxon-Mobil's 'generosity' in Washington. http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/taxonomy/term/219
Is there anyone out there who knows the normal time between production test and announcement of same?
I recognize that I'm suggesting that the timing of the announcement was delayed in order to maximixe the political impact. This may not have been the case. Either way, the facts of the so-called 'discovery' this year belie the claimed significance of the find.
A real problem lies with lazy journalism and concentration of media ownership.
Most Americans are totally unaware of the enormous scale of deepwater 'desperation exploration' ongoing throughout the world.
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=36156
Did the conversions: 2,400 meters of seawater = 7,874 feet, 7200 meters of drill depth = 23,622 ft or 4.47 miles. The hopeful potential of 6-8 billion barrels is approx 1/2 of the optimistic potential of the 15 billion barrels of Jack. Ideal working conditions in the GoM vs the cold, wet weather off Newfoundland. My guess is that if icebergs come down this far: tugboats will have to lasso them, then drag them away to prevent a berg from hitting any platforms.
Consider the Hibernia platform:
---------------------------
The Hibernia platform is located off Canada's east coast, on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. Hibernia is recognized as one of the most significant artic offshore developments. It serves as a study in oil exploration and production under extreme conditions. Hibernia is the only platform in the world designed to withstand the direct impact from an iceberg.
-----------------------
Famous last words? Consider this really close call:
-----------------------
But one day in the 1980s, a complacent observer on a now-defunct floating rig somehow let an iceberg get to within five or six miles of the rig. Typically, bergs move at a clip of about one knot.
There was a mad scramble, Baker says. The weather was too rough to tow the iceberg. Three of the deckhands on one boat and two on another were washed around the deck and got hurt. The only option left was to try to pull the rig's eight massive anchors up and move the rig out of danger. But one of the anchor chains on the rig got tangled; there was no question of breaking free. It was far too late to deploy helicopters or use rig-to-ship baskets to evacuate the crew on the rig.
The guys on the rig were watching to see which way the berg was going, Baker says. At the last minute, the supply boats managed to pull the rig 100 meters sideways. The berg came straight over the wellhead where the rig had just been. That was the closest call. In times like those, says Baker, your heart rate starts going up and you hit maximum blood pressure. There are so many things that can go wrong.
---------------------------------
Consider the ERoEI of this Hibernia project with cool photos: PDF warning.
If the MSM actually reported on the many deepwater efforts it would scare the people. Most sheeple act & think like all that is required is to just poke a hole in the ground safely onshore with a dinky rig and then petroleum products ready to use come gushing out of the ground.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
http://www.corrosionsource.com/CS2000/session04/paper0402/paper0402.htm
But basically, money cures all problems. If you have enough money, then you can do most anything until the value of the resource falls to: at, near or below the value of the money you wish to invest / risk.
I understand that Thunderhorse is subject to some corrosion problems as we speak.
Deep sea (High pressure solubility) corrosion should not really come as a surprise. The Titanic and the Bismark are disolving, the passengers and crew that made it to the bottom have already disolved. Ceramics do quite well though.
As with all things, Thunderhorse, Jack, etc. They are affected by the theory of diminishing returns. Some call it a law. Once you get beyond peak, you spend more and more money* chasing less and less value. It doesnt have to be oil. It could be a copper or gold mine; it could be the North Atlantic Sperm Whale population, it could be the Cod population in the North Sea or Grand Banks.
*Money is just another way of representing energy.
I am using Future in a larger sense, as in "Do electric cars have the ability to displace the internal combustion engine? Or will they be instrumental in crashing the electric grid, becoming far more despised than the SUV?"
In a smaller sense I hope electric cars have a future, if for no other reason that I would like to have one and hook it up to our off-grid, solar-electric system. But in the larger sense, they are extremely problematic.
Electric vehicles have a fatal flaw vis a vis scaling. Once enough people convert to them, the overstretched electric grid crashes and not only does transport suffer, but the entire electric based system crashes as well. To prevent this would require an enormous investment to upgrade the grid.
But even if the investment capital were there, it is not at all clear that the energy to create additional electricity is available.
Coal provides 51% of electricity generated; nuclear 20%; natural gas 17%; hydro 7%, petroleum 3%, biomass, geothermal, wind and solar 2%.
Hydro and petrol are static sources, natural gas is set to decline in the near term, and, unless more nukes are put online, the decommissioning of the old ones will cause an additional decline. Wind and solar (1%) will have to grow exponentially even to be relevant.
Which means coal will have to expand to cover these other declines, as well as covering new demand -- or there will be shortages and rolling blackouts. So if large numbers of households switch from internal combustion engines to electric cars, thus doubling or tripling their electricity usage, they will place a burden on the grid which will at some point cause it to crash. This will not only stall a lot of transportation, but will also crash the infrastructure and damage the economy. If the blackouts persist, everything comes to a standstill; you won't even be able to buy groceries with cash, since the cash registers are electric.
If rolling blackouts become routine, and are blamed on proliferating electric cars, you can bet the backlash against these vehicles will be fierce.
It seems premature to worry about an impact that would not kick in until we converted more than 20% of the current fleet. Convert 90% of the rest of the fleet to hybrid or other vehicles that got 50 mpg per gallon and one has reduced oil consumption by over 60%. Impose severe restrictions on the use of vehicles that get less than 50mpg. In other words, restrict the use of big trucks to uses that actually require the hauling capacity of those trucks. My personal observation is that the vast majority of trucks are driven around and to the city with one passenger and empty beds. Not to mention that the vast majority of 4 wheel drive vehicles are never driven off road.
The above doesn't even take into account additional savings that could be garnered by more compact cities, bicyling,walking, and more mass transit, including light rail.
We should be so lucky as to be in a position to actually have to worry about PHEV or BEVs exceeding 20%. And besides, it can still make a valuable contribution without being the entire solution.
The above is a pipedream, of course, but the problem is technically solvable without having a major impact on the grid.
This is all theoretical, of course, given our current leadership who think that 10 year $3 billion technology programs are actually going to address peak energy and global warming.
It's all way too little, way too late. I am sorry but I fear we just have to prepare for the deluge. Read today that European forces will start to emit large quanities of nitrous oxide which will exponentially impact global warming. It's been a good ride, but I think we may have to bid the planet adieu.
Back of the envelope numbers, current consumption figures from the EIA:
Annual US energy consumption is 100 quads (quadrillion BTUs). Of that, 40 quads goes into generating electricity and 28 quads goes into transportation. The transportation quads are, for this purpose, all petroleum. On an end-to-end basis, electric vehicles are about twice as efficient as petroleum-powered ICEs at converting raw BTUs into miles traveled. There are a variety of factors, but the end-to-end calculation is dominated by ICE efficiency at about 20% and current average generating efficiency at about 40%. Given that 2:1 advantage, if the transport fleet were converted to electricity, it would require additional generating capacity equivalent to about 14 quads, about a 35% increase over the current level. Today's generating capacity is 35% greater than it was in 1989, suggesting that such an increase could almost certainly be accommodated over a period of 20 years. Coincidentally, 20 years is about the time that it normally takes to turn over the transportation fleet.
New generating sources could easily be more efficient than the current average. Integrated-cycle gas-fired plants are about 60% efficient; coal-fired plants that use gasification should be about 60% efficient; and plants based on direct-carbon fuel cells should approach 70% efficiency. If you assume 60% generating efficiency rather than 40% -- and that's not really a fair comparison, since it will be a long time before the grid average reaches that point -- then the all-electric path would have roughly a 3:1 advantage over ICEs and the generating capacity measured in terms of BTUs of fuel would have to increase by a little less than 25%. And of course, some of that increase might not need to occur if electricity use in other sectors (eg, residential lighting) was decreased through improved efficiency.
IMO, though, the real reason to convert to electric transport is because that's the form of energy that is most likely to be readily available in the future. The easiest way to convert wind and solar to useful forms is to use them to generate electricity; the same for advanced nuclear, if you like that; and biomass run through a direct-carbon fuel cell to power an electric vehicle is going to be much more efficient than converting it to ethanol or butanol to power an ICE.
This is a clumsy way to do it. More elegant fixes are possible. But you are creating a fake issue.
It is abundantly clear that the proponents of EV's are not looking at a future with as many cars/trucks using the highways as we have today. They are also the ones advocating Carpooling, Biking and Walking, more Trains or Buses, redesigning our cities and towns to require less transportation. Your argument is hyperbolic, taking the point to the far extreme.
The suggestion of using generators at home was, similarly, not asked to be extrapolated into the norm for this future, but he said clearly that there were many, more elegant ways that people would be able to adapt for charging EV's, that would be unapproachable with ICE's.. with the possible exception of BioDiesel.
Somewhat impractical but more reasonable than throwing in the towel in advance.
Very slowly now. You buy an EV. You retire the old ICE. No gas being purchased to power ICE. Maybe the grid is challnged to charge the EV, maybe not. The gas is still on the market. Go buy the gas and use it to power a charging system that is fundamentally more efficient than a variable speed variable load travelling ICE bolted into a car frame. Why is this so hard?
- If all households switched 100% of transport-energy consumption from gasoline @ 126000 BTU/gallon (140 billion gallons/year) and 14.6% tank-to-wheels efficiency to 70% generator-to-wheels efficiency, the additional electric consumption would come to about 1080 billion kWh/year. This is about 21% of current US consumption.
- This additional demand could be met by burning the equivalent of 53 billion gallons of gasoline in combined-cycle powerplants at 55% efficiency. Such plants are cheap and quick to build, allowing rapid response to increased demand.
- Wind power could displace at least 35% of the oil required by the CC plants, perhaps more.
- DSM could increase the displacement further, but by a quantity I can't calculate at the moment and won't speculate on.
So, a complete switch could (assuming about 120 GW of new wind power on-line) eliminate 140 billion gallons/year of gasoline consumption and replace it with the aforementioned wind plus about 35 billion gallons-equivalent of petroleum. Even before calculating the savings from reduced refining losses (not having to meet octane, aromatic or vapor-pressure requirements for motor fuel) that's 75% less. The additional electric supply could easily be built out as fast as the vehicles hit the roads.I don't give your collapse scenario much credibility.
The formatting on this looks somewhat screwy in preview, but I'm hoping it'll look right after posting.
<li>Maybe from the reduction in vehicle size and recycling of uneconomic SUV's?</li></ol><blockquote><i><br>
There are big issues with placing any turbines in the US. It's nice that there are bigger ones, but in these numbers that is a problem in itself. They are physically bigger as well. People don't want them. Offshore perhaps, but that brings its own set of problems. Location is a big headache. Anywhere the wind blows is no solution. Not all locations are even fit for 1MW turbines, and you'll need all locations you can get. 1 MW looks reasonable as an average.
But OK, let's say, at 1.5 MW, you need 160.000 turbines. A windpark of 80 turbines is really big, certainly onshore. Hence, you're looking at 2000 windparks. That is an awful lot of locations. It will take many years of political struggle to find them, if at all. And then you get the point that they don't produce 24/7, so you would need spare capacity.
If Boeing stops making planes, you <b>may</b> have a shot at facility. If not, you have to build. And recycling ain't likely to get you the required steel, it's probably cheaper still to mine. But demand for steel will soar if more countries want lots of wind.
All I'm trying to do is say that in theory and on paper, it all looks feasible, but in practice, it's a different story.
Germany has a third of all windpower in the world (some 20 GW of 60 GW), and it's taken them years to build that.
If steel were short then cars would suddenly get smaller and lighter which would solve a lot of problems by itself.
On the other hand, if the electric car switch had to be quick (in response to a geopolitical catastrophe) small electrics like the GEM would need that much less electricty to fuel them.
As I pointed out above, natural gas and nuclear constitute 37% of our electric capacity, and these are set to decline over the coming few years. Let's say over the coming decade we have to replace 10% with "other" sources.
If we couple this with, say, 2% increase in electricity demand, that would add another 22%. We add those together, that's 32% of total electricity increase.
In 2004, the US used 1,974 B KWh. 32% of that is 631 B KWh.
This past 12 months, wind has contributed 17 B KWh.
Does anyone really believe wind power will increase by a factor of 37 over the coming decade?
Also, is there anyone reading this who seriously thinks the grid, as is, is robust?
Let us remember that, by this back of the envelope guesstimate, we might have to replace/add a third to our elecric generation over the coming decade. (And if we judge by what is going on right now, it is primarily coal driven).
What I am suggesting is the grid is in danger, even without the addition of a large number of electic vehicles.
I am really curious. Do TOD readers really think this is a non-issue?
It is an issue. What we can't fix it? Much of the endangering has happened since it was "privatized". How about a few re-regulations then?
The problems you are fixated on are social, not technical. If we were really to get serious about energy conservation, if we addressed global warming, if engineers were told that efficiency was #1 and marketing assholes were told to sit in the corner, all these "problems" would disappear.
For the life of me I can't see why it's necessary to convince a 120# woman transporting herself and her 6 pound Yorkie that she is not safe unless driving a 5000# Explorer or larger. I would like to know why the lightest vehicle I can purchase new is well over 2000# and precious few are available under 3000#. We are talking about social problems with social solutions, there is no technical problem. Engineers can easily give us 1000# vehicles that are safe, convenient, roomy, and give 100mpg. And we could socially engineer a large reduction in vehicle miles travelled. And so on. Do we want to?
It's that acceleration is directly tied to horsepower on a pure ICE car, everyone wants good acceleration, and fuel efficiency is directly tied to horsepower. If you're gonna sell a gas guzzler high performance car, you brag about top speed and horsepower and valves.
With batteries, capacitors, and electric motors, however, you can get a shitload of torque from the second you press the gas pedal, and can temporarily deplete the charge of your caps/batteries on acceleration, and later make up for it while rolling when the engine is practically idling.
Top speeds beyond about 90 are totally unnecessary on a conventional car, but they're a direct indication of highly valued acceleration. On a hybrid, however, you can run a very low horsepower gas-sipping engine if you pick up some high wattage motors purely for acceleration.
Man, that thing's so ugly it would sell like hotcakes!
Does that mean depletion will be cancelled out by conservation? ;-)
I know you think the die is cast, but I still see it as a horserace (or a chariot race for a more dangerous image?), between adaption and depletion.
The masses do not want to socially engineer a large reduction in vehicle miles travelled until it will be far too late. I suggest having a scooter or street-legal ATV, and a sturdy bicycle with baskets to be prepared for the crunch. The best way to increase MPG is to slow down and VASTLY SHRINK the vehicle weight/person weight ratio to even more than your suggested 1,000 lb vehicle. People will have to get over the idea of being in a sheltered cocoon when warm clothing and/or a raincoat is much, much cheaper.
For those who can't ride two wheels: A Honda Sport ATV weighs 360 lbs--this will get much lighter when designed for street only use -- they are currently ruggedized for hard off-road use and air-borne jumping. Or check out the 3-wheel trike from Piaggio called the MP3, only 200 kg or 440 lbs.
America unfortunately will forced to have lots of big delivery trucks running around our cities until relocalization and TOD is completed [Go AlanfromBigEasy!], but during the interim, if lots of people car-pool, bicycle, bus, or ride these vehicles linked above, our roads will become much less congested. We are probably already close to the point where no more freeways will be built because of the costs and nimbyism, but if most people are forced by fuel prices to dinky rides: a four lane freeway automatically becomes an eight-lane freeway. It will be no problem passing these big-rigs when lane-splitting becomes legal nationwide.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Did a quick google of gasoline prices of Phx vs Las Vegas: roughly $2.20 compared to $2.50 per gallon -- about 30 cents a gallon different! Recall my earlier postings on how Vegas has only one pipeline, running at near max transfer capacity, coming from California, but Phx is supplied by CA & TX. I wonder if this price differential is to keep gas prices in Vegas high enough to limit demand so they don't have massive shortages. Who knows? Maybe Vegas is destined to become the scooter capital of the US first. There were/are various proposals to build another pipeline to Vegas, but maybe the ERoEI will preclude building it. In the meantime, that is very profitable fuel/gal going to Vegas. Wish I had a piece of that action.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
1000# was just a round number. Early Mini Minors aka Mini Coopers were 1100 to 1200, worked fine. I have been in a heavily modified Mini that weighed 900 and had air conditioning. Any modern production engineering could bring that down. Persons too big or insufficiently flexible to get into a mini can be issued electric wheelchairs and sedatives.
You're right that the masses will not go towards the obvious until it's much too late. In the meantime I don't understand why the TOD group accepts the status quo of monster trucks as personal transport. All these threads devoted to coming up with enough juice to duplicate the status quo post peak are inane. America drives monster trucks because we were sold monster trucks, there is no natural urge or genetic code that impels anyone to purchase an Escalade. Social engineering by those who want to sell oil, sell steel, sell rubber, sell asphalt. Talking about an energy future that maintains existing fashions with less FF input is just endorsing the crap that Detroit and Madison Avenue have saddled us with.
Around here your favored transport - what I call a 4-wheel motorcycle - is not so practical. A roof and a heater are pretty much required. Cars that weigh no more than current motorcycles are perfectly possible - you just can't buy them. Current lightweight vehicles made abroad are mostly aimed at the absolute bottom of the market, low quality, cheap materials, obsolete engineering.
The other part of the obvious is go slower. I have been drriving about 8000 miles a year with some consistency for some time now. My work won't let me go much lower than that and I do have to carry the heavy and the bulky. Everyone else thinks I need a fullsize van to do what I do out of a Civic. I figure I sit behind the wheel 800 to 1000 hours a year. How fast am I going?
Thxs for responding. Maybe we will have super-efficient cars, maybe not--detritus entropy will determine our future lifestyles if we don't have sufficient biosolar powerup.
Snowmobilers ride in snowsuits quite comfortably, no reason someone on an ATV couldn't do the same on their work commute. I think employees, to save their jobs, will gladly accept seasonal temperature swings versus unemployment. Construction workers do this now. We could see office employees warmly dressed when the only building heat is what comes off their computers and lighting. Wearing longjohns beats unemployment by a long shot.
Years ago in Phx, I had a retail furniture warehouse job-- the salesfloor was the only part of the building that had A/C. The warehouse section did not even have swamp-cooling. The warehouse ceiling was uninsulated tin-roofing about 40 feet above the floor, and the furniture storage racks went all the way up. The forklifts took the driver all the way up as required to hand-lift the furniture to the platform, and believe me: I could feel the temperature rise the higher I went--near 125 F or more near the roof! Soaked with sweat in the summer, but the winters were nice here in Phx. Eventually energy will get so expensive in Phx that outside workers and inside workers will almost sweat equally. No A/C, and/or just minimal heat will be gladly accepted vs starvation and freezing to death from unemployment. Virtually all natgas will be going to make fertilizers and other essentials.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
I know you love two wheeled things, but there's a practical limit to the fuel economy they can achieve because of their aerodynamics. Motorcycles and ATV's are damn near like parachutes going through the air, it's the nature of the beast and they're only as efficienct as they are because they're magnitudes lighter than cars. Most motorcycles will get around 50mpg, most scooters around 80mpg. A 1989 Honda Civic hatchback which can take 4 passengers in climate controlled comfort and still have room to carry stuff gets about 40 mpg. This thing that someone just pointed out (http://www.worldcarfans.com/news.cfm?newsid=2050607.004/country/gcf) will carry 4 people and get 84mpg. The Loremo (http://www.loremo.com/daten_en.php) will carry 2+2 (i.e. two adults plus two children or one cramped and contorted adult) again in climate controlled comfort and get 160mpg. In order to control the air about a vehicle, you really need to have an enclosed shell. Else you'll run into some seriously hard limits. Why ride a scooter which tops out at 25 mph getting 80mpg when you can ride in a car at 55mph with three of your friends getting 86mpg? Or in the Loremo with one (or two) other people at 55mph getting 160mpg? Where's the benefit in being exposed to the elements with no crash protection at a lower speed and getting half the fuel economy?
Along those lines, these guys always trip me out: http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/racing2006/MaplePark/JohnFrasierTT.htm
A lot of these guys that race low racers and faired recumbents go around slaughtering guys half their age on upright bicycles (because of superior physics!).
Then there's the world speed record streamliners:
http://www.recumbents.com/WISIL/whpsc2006/speedchallenge-2006.htm
Current WHPSC Records:
In 2002, Sam Whittingham broke the world speed record for the third year in a row by going 81.00 MPH!
In 2005, Damjan Zabovnik broke the European speed record by going 72.9 MPH facing backwards!
In 2005, Lisa Vetterlein set a new Women's world speed record, with a speed of 66.58 MPH.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_resistance
And because you never can tell...
http://www.ecomobile.com/Super-Eco%20specification.htm
5.05 l/100km ~46mpg
No disagreement from me--wind resistance is a real physical bitch always blocking movement down the road. I just think most people will do nothing until it is too late, then only the fairly rich will have access to to advanced high-tech cars. The rest of us will be scrambling for the bus while waiting for TOD to be finally built, or buying what is available on the new and used market now.
Carpooling is great for those that can organize it, but many people have erratic work schedules forcing them to single transport or mass-trans. Consider the current prevalence of scooters, motorcycles, and bicycles elsewhere around the world as the best indicator of our future 4wheel-2wheel ratio.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
The biggest problem is Houston, with several transmission corridors "at capacity". No more wires can be added. But not critical (San Francico & NYC are critical for electrical transmission in).
Even ERCOT could be "better", but is has a reasonable level of redundancy in all critical areas, including trnamsission capacity when large electrical plants drop out. IMO.
Best Hopes,
Alan
From memory, Houston has the only ERCOT interconnect with the rest of the world, a 600 MW HV DC connection to Beaumont.
Reducing Houston air conditioning demand would be a better method :-)
"What I am suggesting is the grid is in danger, even without the addition of a large number of electic vehicles.
I am really curious. Do TOD readers really think this is a non-issue? "
I firmly believe that Dr. Duncan had it right.
Especially after listening to Electric Veh.discussion about plugging in a few million cars for charging.
I believe that the grid's fate will be closely like Duncan's Figure #4 in this paper. I think he now says we will start having problems in 2008.
Take another Look at one of the most copied and referenced Peak Oil Graphs on the internet. Simmons even had it in one of his presentations.
Figure #4 and it's ledgend.
THE PEAK OF WORLD OIL PRODUCTION AND THE ROAD TO THE OLDUVAI GORGE
http://www.dieoff.com/page224.htm
That link is good, but now dated. Here is the link to the updated version [it brings further badnews]:
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/pdf/sixteen-two/xvi-2-93.pdf
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
"When the electricity goes out, you are back in the Dark Age. And the Stone Age is just around the corner."
http://www.dieoff.com/page224.htm
However, by the above calculations, we need over 600 billion to account for declines in natural gas and nukes, as well as 2% growth per year.
THEN we have to start counting the additions for electric vehicles (and judging from the evolution of hybrids, people will "demand" something that will protect them when hit by a mack truck, thus being larger and require more energy to move).
225 b WHh/year of wind energy is a 13 fold increase over today's capacity. If we were doubling capacity each year, that would start to get somewhere; it is tragic and incredibly shortsighted that NIMBY's are beginning to block progress on the wind front.
By the way, the American Wind Energy Association is predicting the addition of "at least 5,000 megawatts of wind capacity in the US over the next five years."
We have a very long way to go.
You now, it still seems to me that we are holding too much a vision of "our world" in this future, beyond the "end of the world as we know it."
Surely, if the US got hit with a big enough energy hammer to force a march to 100% electric vehicles, that hammer might also force: reduced car ownership, reduced distances travelled, and reduced vehicle size.
FWIW, I think "if" we had to do it, we'd find a way. Even if that meant GEMs for 30% of all drivers.
What if governments at all levels just quit repairing roads (or reduced repairs to a select few routes)? Make driving miserable enough and see how much fuel we can save. "Small government" is a political buzzword, this should fit under that umbrella, and it would be cheap too.
In the future, I hope we can get to something a little more like a NEV designed by Burt Rutan. Low, aero, long-distance.
http://www.censolar.es/solarcar.htm
I think this is likely to happen anyway. The roads are maintained by gas taxes, so if we do cut back, it will reduce the money available for highway maintenance.
This is why I think the car is doomed. Even the wealthy can't afford to build their own highway system. And a car is of limited use without roads.
Ultimately it will come down to what the cost-per mile is for these post oil autos, and whether a per-mile maintenance fee is too burdensome on top of that.
Since we don't know, we don't know.
I'm sure folks can add a lot to this.
My primary concern is that a switch from IC engines to electric batteries is, in reality, a switch from oil to coal, with all the attendent problems (strip mining, mountaintop removal, Greenhouse gasses....)
But it's not all bad news. Compared to CTL, it would be several times as efficient. If you compare the carbon emissions per mile, electric would cut emissions by 32% on today's grid. Contrast this to roughly doubling emissions with coal-to-liquids.
Last, an EV or high-capacity PHEV improves its emissions roughly as much as the grid improves. If coal was replaced with wind, nuclear and biomass, the whole fleet would improve with it - not just the new production.
Don't worry, plans are rapidly moving into place to suck the energy waste out of the system by ERoEI monopoly control of the oil distribution spiderweb [See my post upthread on how Vegas is currently getting screwed to the tune of 30 cents a gallon]. When postPeak prices rise high enough in Phx so pipeline volume really drops off: I predict the TX pipeline leg to my city will be shutoff forever, leaving only the CA pipeline to supply us. When this happens, the Asphalt Wonderland will then be screwed by CA pricing-volume limitations like Vegas is now. Just as OPEC is sucking the wealth out of America, we can expect Southern CA to start sucking the wealth out of Phx unless we become very energy efficient early--not likely.
How many TODers have investigated their neighborhoods for Westexas's Exportland Model? This applies everywhere, not just between countries on an international basis.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
The Dakotas, Texas and Kansas have the top wind resources, however with declining wind potentials that still leaves 46 states to go.
A steel structure isn't the only way to protect against collisions.
His group's site is Team Fate
http://www.team-fate.net/
On a cursory search, this document may contain that analysis:
COMPARING THE BENEFITS AND IMPACTS OF HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLE OPTIONS
http://www.epriweb.com/public/000000000001000349.pdf
Another PHEV site with a lot of info is CalCars
http://www.calcars.org/vehicles.html
Many oil companies in the past year have started investing heavily in deeper, harder to get to, heavier oil - all on the back of the high oil prices. Oil price plummiting to such low levels as $20 would pull the carpet from underneath theri feed which they would not allow to happen
Any idea of SUSTAINED oil prices below $60 is wishful thinking. Nothing has changed the fundamentals of supply and demand right now.
Even OPEC have hinted at pinching supply!
Marco
Actually forcing the situation so that OPEC is the bad guy may actually be occurring. OPEC could even be playing along with the game at least KSA this way they can hide depletion behind announcing cuts to support prices for quite some time.
Now that peak oil has finally made it out into the public and seeing the backlash against the concept I'm becoming more convinced that the powers that be are reacting as a herd and in collusion to prevent the public from becoming peak oil aware. I'm not saying there is a grand conspiracy but it the effort is concerted caused by similar opinions and some cooperation to prevent peak oil from becoming another global warming debate.
As some point the continuous and increasingly more outrageous KSA spin stories point to a high probability of serious problems with production inside the Kingdom.
Sort of like Bush's WM's.
instead of
"We can't supply any more"!
I stand by my prediction that--absent a severe recession--we will see a bidding war for oil exports in the fourth quarter. BTW, insofar as I know, previous voluntary reductions in production followed sustained low oil prices.
In the first half of 2006 we saw a falloff in world oil production following a sustained increase in oil prices. Isn't this very strong evidence that, at least at the present time, there is no excess productive capacity, or at least no excess light, sweet productive capacity?
IMO, production is falling because of depletion, and not because of a voluntary reduction. I submit the following article for your consideration. Note that Petrologistics was right about the previous falloff in Saudi production. You do recall Richard Heinberg's report on Ghawa.
"It's over now, the lifestyle we once knew. . . "
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/markets.aspx?ID=BD4A277349
Posted to the web on: 22 September 2006
Oil edges higher near $62 after six-week slide
I would be very interested to see how July, 2006 Russian oil exports compared to December, 2005 oil exports, but note that July, 2006 oil exports were down 11.5% year on year.
When I posted my first comments on net oil exports (based on Khebab's excellent graphs), in January, 2006, both Saudi Arabia and Russia were producing at (recent) record high levels. I predicted production declines for both Russia and Saudi Arabia, and I predicted that net oil exports would fall more sharply than overall production did.
Since then the production data speaks for itself. Russia is reporting a rebound in production, but I predict that it will be short-lived as the declines in the older fields overwhelm the new production. I also continue to have doubts about the accuracy of reported Russian production data, given the Russian government's--and presumably Russian officials'--financial interest in seeing the Rosneft IPO (or perhaps more accurately the Rosneft "Pump and Dump") succeed. I would think that it is easier to fake production reports than to fake export data.
http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/26.html?menu=2&id_issue=11592686
Russian oil exports down 1.7% in Jan-July- Statistics Agency
Excerpt:
For more info on the above OPEC cutbacks from Dow Jones:
http://www.easybourse.com/Website/dynamic/News.php?NewsID=61051&lang=fra&NewsRubrique=2
http://www.easybourse.com/Website/dynamic/News.php?NewsID=61068&lang=fra&NewsRubrique=2
Interesting that they say it is going into storage. In your article. We speculated in the past that a lot of this years production could have well be storage draw downs and this leads me to believe both KSA and the US are playing games with their storage capacity to try and level supply.
I really wonder if the Strategic Reserve is not being tapped or filled more often then is reported. I know they report draws and fills but as far as I know the US government is not obligated to disclose the state of the strategic reserve. Especially if for example draws are being made to supply military interests. I suspect if we get a democratic president after Bush he will find the Strategic Reserve close to empty on taking office.
The game continues.
Mike
Is it a draw if I sell it on the market, but intend to buy it back in, oh 30-40 days or something???
I think they take it out, put it back when ever they want to. I think they are playing craps with it, and using it as their bank....
Yes they have hinted at it but most of the hints come from Iran and Venezuela, who cannot meet their current quota.
Iranian oil production is about to hit the skids. And so is that of Kuwait. The Kuwaiti folks are now in Canada trying to figure out how they can pump CO2 into their heavy oil reservoirs to coax more of it out.
And even that is wrong. Kuwait produces about 2.5 million barrels per day which means that if Burgan is producing 1.7 of that then it is producing over two thirds of all Kuwait's oil. And can anyone in their right mind believe that an "exhausted" field has 55 billion barrels of reserves still left in it? If there are 55 billion barrels left in Burgan then it is far, far from exhausted. That much oil left would mean Burgan would be in the very young prime of life.
Ron Patterson
For a sense of scale, and remember they want to quintuple the size of the operations:
"Syncrude's dam, which holds back nearly three decades of [highly toxic] waste water, is the second-largest on Earth after the Three Gorges Dam in China."
The total new revenue of $111 million likely indicates that oil companies still 'get away with murder': total oilsands revenue in 2004 was $14.9 billion, in 2006 it must be $25 billion or more (higher production, higher prices), so the new spoils are less than 0.5%. Looks like the laws are built by stacking one loophole on top on the next.
The Globe and Mail said this earlier this year (now paywall):
A barrel of bitumen that sells for $54.23 brings the Alberta government only 25 cents.
It won't be long (2-4 decades, maybe sooner) before Alberta is looking as dry and poor as it did before the Leduc discovery in 1947. The tar pits will always remain an economically marginal operation incapable, no matter the price of oil, to pay much into the treasury to support the provincial infrastructure.
Its being reported that our area just experienced a 100 year flood. Currently many crops in lower areas appear to be damaged , not certain how much until they are surveyed. Impossible to gain access to some areas.
Trees were blown down all over and people were trapped by rising water last night as our 9/11 and emergency services were pushed to the extreme.
Milo and soybeans will likely be very much affected.
All of this appears to be very bad news for farmers.
Assessment is just beginning. It might take boats to even access some areas of croplands.
What was starting to look like a very good crop season might now have to be revised.
The Mississippi, the Ohio ,Tennessee and the Cumberland. The last two were dammed by the TVA and Corp of Engineers and provide some hydroelectric.
The current flooding appears to reach as far as Louisville and to the west into the bootheel of Missouri. The rain is still falling and likely has now exceeded 10 inches in less than two days.
I had a empty 5 gallon plastic bucket sitting on my back porch. This morning it was overflowing.
Crops surveyed look damaged , those that can be observed without boats. Prognosis is unknown at this time.
The bootheel of Missouri is a huge delta that produces an enormous amount of grain. Its so flat that if the levee that protects it were to break it would flood 30 miles inland(perhaps further) towards the west. There is no danger of that but it was very likely some years back..This just gives you an idea of just how flat the land is.
This flooding comes right in the middle of the fall harvest.
Post up on the weather, just south of Louisville KY in Hardin County KY (Elizabethtown, Radcliff, Fort Knox) After raining hard early in the day on Saturday, the sky went clear at sunset and regional radar shows no more out behind us clear beyond MO and the plains....The most flooding in Central KY since 1997, with the bridge at Otter Creek being shut for only the second since 1997 when I started working in Hardin County due to flooding, and I-64 and I-65 both being closed due to flooding for last night and most of the day today.
As far as crops, we have had a great year for both corn and soybeans, with rain falling in most places at just the right intervals.
Despite a "hot" summer for a few weeks, not out of the historical norm here, and much better than the absolute cookers of the 1970's...
In other words, Kentucky has felt like Kentucky...:-), and gasoline prices of $2.14 in most of the area.
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
I measured close to 15 inches but average was more like 10" with 11" and more on farm rain guages.
Folks here who have been farming all their lives never seen this type of water right in the middle of harvest.
It was not related to river flooding but creek bottoms getting out. Houses that had never been flooded had 3 feet of standing water in them.
The crop damage is unaccessed as of now. Looks like it might not be as bad as could be. Where washing occoured though and the current was strong on field crops? They are gone. In the mud.
So its varied but mostly unknown as yet.
S.E. Missouri got pounded severely I am hearing.
Expect price increases at the store this fall and winter.
The flooding is the worst I have ever seen in my immediate area over the last 50 years(and like I said...a 100 year local flood plan event). All firedepts are called out from all nearby towns, all the Diaster Emergency and Rescue Services are called out. The 9/11 dispatcher has not ceased traffic in over 24 hrs.
I installed the first 9/11 system in my county(wrote the code and installed the hdwe) so I keep close track via my scanner of what is transpiring.
Some houses are flooded and boats are being used to reach the people inside.
The rains have ceased for now but the water is still causing havoc.I have a feeling our existing unharvested crops are in a lot of trouble.
This is perhaps just the early edge of what can happen due to Global Warming ,abrupt weather changes and what the effects can be upon agriculture.
Next two weeks at the grain elevators it will become evident as to how widespread this event was and its effects. Combines will not roll for at least another week until this ground dries out,if we aren't hit again. .
America needs more wakeup calls before its way way too late.
I offer these small observations in the rural farming areas so that others here can get a glimpse of how this all works.
For myself I am worried. Nature maybe just flexing its muscles and getting ready for some big events.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/rfcshare/precip_analysis_new.php
(Though anything that reduces use of bottled water is probably not that bad a thing.)
- more here
Highly efficient overhead trolley freight using "existing" infrastructure off peak hours.
Standard containers can fit in most cases on a light rail chassis.
Which german cities? I don't know just one. I read that Amsterdam is preparing such modes of freight transport in the inner city.
freight.
Several Japanese trolley lines still have freight among them Joshin Electric railway running 33 km from Takasaki to Shimonita.
AND the Chicago South Shore to South Bend runs passengers on electric and frieght on diesel on the same tracks.
Karlsruhr and Long Island Railroad (NYC) have combined pax & freight service on the same tracks.
from others.
Alan
www.proaktiva.ch/tram/zurich/cargotram.html
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CarGoTram
www.railfaneurope.net/pix/de/trams/Dresden/CarGoTram/pix.html
from others when I asked
Alan
Here is the link (in Dutch ..) to that Amsterdam light rail thing (news report):
http://www.parool.nl/nieuws/2005/NOV/23/ams1.html
The text says they plan to build 200 new street cars, and - perhaps - ban all trucks from down town Amsterdam once the system works. And the Dresden street car to the VW factory is also mentioned there.
Best,
uli
Wires worked a century ago. They still work. Why change?
A good while back, I wrote a post endorsing this idea, and saying that the issue for long range transport was money, not oil, and if the interstate transport of goods and people stopped, it would be becuase as a culture we no longer liked it happening, but not because we were short of energy.
Needless to say, the folks in the peanut gallery were ENRAGED! What I was suggesting is that CARS could survive!! It was so astonishing as to be beyond words!!
But, the TECHNICAL as opposed to socio-philosophical-aesthetic fact is that the automobile could easily be propelled by electric lines embedded in the interstate, and then move to U.S. and state highways, with a small battery pack to operate at ranges under 10 miles in the neigborhoods, and transportation, variety and freedom (as human as opposable thumbs, despite how it is hated) could be done on a hint of the energy currently used. At the pace solar cells are increasing n efficiency, sunlight and modern wind could supply most of the power. With any development in battery efficiency and cycle life over the next decade, we are MUCH closer to this than people think.
This is the fear of the OPEC gang, not peak oil (that's why they keep repeating over and over, hoping you will buy in, that "oil will be the principle fuel that drives the world over the next 50 years."
The END OF THE AGE OF OIL is at hand.....but as the man said, it may end not with a bang, but with a whimper, by the choice of an advanced nation with good designers and engineers.
Will that nation be America? It depends on whether we want it to be and prepare it to be.
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
Would someone with knowledge of the oil market be willing to explain the commodities market in detail and the oil markets in particular. I've seen several posts explaining how the commodities markets work but its been piecemeal at best. I think I have several misconceptions about the market.
From there a lot of us don't even understand how the crude moves into production for say gasoline and the pricing decisions.
We have no or little knowledge on how refineries operate why they shutdown for maintenance how often etc.
There have been great posts on these topics but no compilation of the information.
Finally it would be great for the people that understand these detail to tell us what they think will happen post peak as supply does not meet demand.
How will refiners react ?
How will OPEC react ?
How will the population in exporters react ?
How will Russia react ?
How will the EU react to Russia ?
Japan will have to become aggressive again ?
China ?
The US/Canada/Mexico ?
South America ?
India ?
Poor Africa ?
World markets ?
Also I've noticed that a lot of oil producing nations
don't have enough refinery capacity to support the internal usage leading to external imports of refined products.
Nigeria,Iran,Iraq etc. Other poor countries have subsidized oil products. These subsidies are becoming ruinous. This is a problem that's not really been explored as the price of oil and finished products increases. The export land model has not addressed this and its important.
If we start theorizing on these issues I think we will find
that early indicators exist which can be watched to see if the hypothesis are correct.
My opinion is they will become far more concerned about ensuring supply of oil not its price thus the spot market will change dramatically and become more a market for real oil supplies for a extended period of time.
I just don't see how you can have a sport market like it works now under shortage conditions.
When I read about how people manage to survive under war conditions we see that in general someone corners and hoards the limited supply and its sold at very high prices on the black market and next bartered for protection support or other non monetary returns between powerful players. So you have a cartel effect.
It is really hard to find information on economics in shortage conditions mainly it seems war follows so quickly
on top of resource shortages that it becomes the distorted economics of wartime production. In the past their was always some or some place where you could take what you needed.
They can't have him die yet(again), so they will deny it until the ycan 'confirm' it.
A population in a state of fear is a population that can easily be controlled and manipulated.
As the old saying goes, "Watch what you wish for."
I just ran across this at the Energy Blog:
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/
This is only a blog, being from the BBC this might matter more:
Biofuels: Green energy or grim reaper?
It appears balanced at first glance but this seems only a trick to sell GMO by pretending to "rescue" biofuels deficiencies.
Yes, ethanol from corn will make us slightly less dependent on foreign oil, but by the same token, it will make us more dependent upon increasingly tight supplies of natural gas and coal. And of course he doesn't mention the very real possibility that the increased demand for corn is likely to increase the cost of food. As ethanol gets more and more embedded in our fuel mix, this conflict between fuel and food can only get worse.
So, the general public is going to get hit with a double whammy: increased taxes to pay for the ethanol subsidy, plus increased food costs due to increased demand for corn. The only parties to benefit from this are Big Agribusiness and ethanol producers, such as Mr. Khosla.
This guy is one smooth operator, and he sure knows how to work the system. It is but another very good example of how Big Business and politics are hopelessly intertwined, in a very chummy one-hand-washes-the-other relationship. In the US we have neither a free market system nor a representative political system.
Check out this one bit: "The president loves biomass, the farmers love biomass, even evangelicals love biomass" because it decreases the county's reliance on the Middle East, he said. "As investors we should make this happen because its good for the country."
Hey... the president, yo mamma, and jesus loves it...why don't you love it? Are you a freedom hatin', jesus despising, terrorist?
Then there's this: "...increasing corn-derived ethanol in gasoline from 10 to 15 percent, a move he said was supported by some in the agriculture industry."
Which, unless I'm having a bad moment is NOT GOOD. Because in older vehicles, and newer vehicles not set up with flex fuel in mind, once you start going above 10% you start degrading fuel system components.
Here's him with Gore, who convinced him that global warming was real
Now we just need him to make good on what he said two years ago(mov) - only $1 billion is devoted to for-profit alternative energy research, rather than GW mitigation.
There's two layers of distraction to get past - the primary focus of the program is on global warming instead of alternative energy, and the media is ignoring even the primary focus to take bullshit potshots as election-year tithe.
That would probably mean 500,000 people in the medical/insurance field losing their job. The system is set up to waste money, not save money.
Everybody talks about saving money on health care in the United States. Everybody ignores the fact that that is the only field of employment that is growing. We start saving money on health care, and this country is even more screwed than it already is.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1879589,00.html